The URL can be used to link to this page

05-364Council File # D✓� �� Resolution # Green Sheet # �JD 1 RESOLUTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 Presented By Referred To Preliminary and Final Plat Approval for Great Northem Business Center 2nd Addition WHEREAS, Great Northern Business Center 2nd Addition, 05-056-318 has submitted for City Council approval the attached preliminary and final plat for subdivision of properry bounded by Minnehaha, Dale, Arundel and the Soo Line property to the north to create 4 Industrial Parcels (1 new, 3 remnants); and WHEREAS, the appropriate City departments have reviewed the plat and found, subject to the recommended conditions, that it meets the requirements of Chapter 69 of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was duly published in the official newspaper of the City and notices were mailed to each owner of affected property inciuding ali property situated within 350 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed plat on April 6, 2005 where ail interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and the Council considered ail the facts and recommendations concerning the plat; NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, that the City Council accepts and approves the attached preliminary and final plat for Great Northern Business Center 2nd Addition at the Area bounded by Dale, Minnehaha, Arundel, and Soo Line property to the north subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall file a copy of the Council Resolution approving the plat with the Ramsey County Recorder's Office. 2. Dedication ofi 83.00 feet from the west line of the SW 1/4 of Section 25, T.29,R23 to be dedicated to Dale Street. , 3. Dedication of a 10' X 10' triangle at the corner of Arundel and Minnehaha. 4. Dedication of an additional 2' along Arundel, north of Minnehaha for a total of 68' and dedication of a 10' X 10' triangle at the northwest corner of Arundel and Minnehaha. 5. Dedication of an additional 14' on the north side of Minnehaha from Dale Street to a point 300' east of Dale, for a total of 47'. 6. Dedication of an additional 8' from the point 300' east of Dale Street to Arundel Street for a total of 41'. CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 1 9 oS -3�� i:.1S SS r:12 Si�; 3?'.L:L2 :J3:.2 L.^..� v?"°°: S1°2L 302ci2S :n2arriaiizing 3C�10I1 Cd,'{2.T'i �f tr� City Cot:r:cil to acc��t ard a��roae an attacned �reli;�inary and fi:�ai �Iat ior tne Gr2aL Jicr[iiern riusiness C2nt°r, 2nd Aocition• Yeas Nays sent Requested by Department of: Benanav � Bostrom ;l Plannia & ECOnomiC DeVela m nt Harris � o� ,, xe2gren ✓ B : Lantry ,/' Montgomery ,/ Approved by Financial Sesvices Thune ;/ By: Adopted by Council: Date Y7 � o� c�� Adoption Certif By: Approved by May By: Form Approved by City Attorney �� " ,3(i' T � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � i PE 'Plannmg&EconomicDevelopment Conqd Persan & Phone: Aflen La�ejay 26G-6576 Must Be on Council Ageni ContractType: RE-RESOLUTION _�F�! � .�cnon rtequesiea: Adopt resolurion memorializing action taken by City Council on April 6, 2005. Planning Commission CIB Committee CiHI Sennce Gommission Date Initia�� ISAPR-05 �-, Number Por Routing Order 7otal # of Signature Pages _(Clip PSI Locat+ons for Signature) rersona� sernce contrects must Mswer tne Following Questions: 1. Has this persoNfirtn ever wo`ICed under a cwrtract for this departmert? Yes No 2. Has this persoNfirtn eeer been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach W green sheet DisadvanWges IfAparoved: None Initiating Problem, lssues, OppoRuniiy (Who, What, When, Where, Applicarion for Combined Plat approval of the Port Authority Green Sheet NO: 3026129 0 � 1 ine&Econ ' D 1 I A]LO ' v 1 1 filan ine & Econo ' Dev 1 D rtm t Di ec[ � 2 iCitvAttom I C'roAtto ev 3 ia or's Ofiice I Mavor/Assistsnt � 4 'C cil C'N C cit 5 'ri Clerk I Ciro Cle k 6 1 ive & Ec omi De eI � Ai Lo e' v I Why): of the Great Northern Business, Center, 2nd Addition. AdvanWges HApproved: Port Authority may proceed with industrial redevelopment. DisadvanWges If Not Approved: Industria] development will not go fonvard. Total Amovnt of Transadion: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) April 95, 2005 12:40 PM CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Num6er. Page 1 �� ' i APR �_ �' �� , Y��?��Y I I Go�a�:� ��.-;, �.��,_ - , ,� - — APR 2 � 2a� � ` / os - 3 �y . � � i€ d3 . x !c .€:Si : �i i�° is:`-.�� :e +: }�q 3�?ai� r� EE aa 3+TF=E �a aF �� .te.e� s� ei. ;;sca, '-_ - S3i � �ia ai � � ' - F 5z` a� :£�3a'� :23 ._ e � �.�f� � si _ s �g?y��i y�s � i�s' ?_c� ; -ie - . '^:°; =;a"ii 3cc �'€ �• s:82�.. Ss -• '•'° a s ��J •_ e =Fi° # - sPS ;:� R : ^' _sss �iz�'ss: gSa da°s[ i : _.._: ddd,:�e ?a. $�s 4 �l�s '�3 '�� Sgl sj�� sg a 8 ,"� iSa ' %� - _ - s�5'_ �q s �S �tfs$ � Y$i ig� � j�: [v�( � 4 `z�F ?�:x I B°S °�;; � ^ • I �E_ eg • �f '� � ; - ^ s s s' , '_"s $�' 1 s \ Y : ?�� !a3eT I i �.. .. 1 i .� =s' : °'� � s 35� � 3 3 � � f �� g' F� s � ` � � �i 1 {{ 5 6 8 .'. � sn :a: 4 Sgs ° £ ° 53� j � �ta 6 } g § €si ? € Is ; :� ?; i ` �; � e i: a°� � ��-' �' g € �a g � e s jY �s= y + s � a i } 7Y F:s ;e� � 8: ;s� 4, : � ° 3 �' - 3 _ F ' s i �iF 3 �` !�� " � ' � i v - .a �:� : a , fi ; a �¢ $" �S a�� '�'v Ss#R $ '- � � � � sE i� Aj i�� k � ' ^ _ s$ F � 0 .- Fci' �`§ S�e� ' i�. ; s§ q� yl�� e�� "' � Y i� a#= f 3 �'3;�;�:',�� .-__�:�`: � & vs i= e g ��;�;� ;°,• : , � �€ ��vaa� a S•s , es€€�e&• j� � ` e�E � f n b!'�'� g�' a � : �_� s s i� _ � � E`�� 3 �S 3 cgs� "a S � i � £ : ° 2 � 4 � & $ F ° € �� S '� � s i §� e % �. § � 6i . id - s8 G° 'g9 '=S 5 � _ x � §� _� p� p. E e� �; l �• _ .�_ � �i � � Q€ � �� ; � �� i � � � 1 � � i t� a a � I i o a a=aj; ` '�3s I � ;� N 1 : i � �PI � �''� _PXrm SS � �>.�, < '� I '•, IG f . � I�° � ♦L 9 1( ,� i , i� ,~`r°J . � � E � V. � � �,� � � 1 ' � O � �� i S o S i,� � � � �' �� ,E � a � � � - 1 ,��• �' •a � y � � , � �� P I " `. a ti "Fi � � `+,4 '; "4 `i '!� > Y. ' � *s � e� ,, 'S �' i i f: - Z, '; 2��!q Y 1 ,'u > i 'v j � �� .f �i a� � p �� ,r qj +�s� i 91# � >71 Y ' � '�, i . 1 j •J�� '.IJ. DEPARTMENTOFPLANNING & ECDNOMIC DbVELOPMENT Manhn G. Fuller, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Ranciy C. Ke(ly. Mayor March 22, 2005 Ms. Mary Erickson City Gouncil Research Qffice Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: 2i West Fourth Street Sain[ Paul, MN 55lQ2 r'`.+^�;.;?c`�-ii ` ^.,,rn'r? : �« _. ., .. �, I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, April 6, 2005, for the folfowing zoning case. Re: Zoning File Number: 05-056-318 Applicant: Saint Paul Port Authority Address: Area bounded by Dale, Minnehaha, Arundel and Soo Line property to the north Purpose: Combined plat to create 4 industrial parcels: 1 new and 3 remnants Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for March 30, 2005 City Council meeting and that you witl publish notice ofi the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6576 if you have any questions. S'ncerely, , Allen Lovejoy f City Planner cc: File # 05-056-318 Chuck Derscheid, St. Paul Port Authority Paul Dubruiel Wendy Lane Carol Martineau Allan Torstenson �� l i�C��v� ��r�� -/-�"� AA-ADA-EEO Employer � � �� Telephone: 65l-?66-6626 Facsimile: 651-228-3341 ��;�il � � Ldi� NOTICE OF P[IBLIC HEAR7NG The Saint Paul CitY �� con- duct a publie hearing on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 at 5:30 p.m- in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall, to eonsider the application of the Saint Paul Port Authority for' a com- b:ned plat to create four (4) industrial parcels, 1 new and 3 remnants, in +.he azea bounded by Dale 5treet, Minne- haha Avenue, Aruadel Street and Soo Line property to the north- (Zoning File 05-056-318). Dated: Mareh 22, 2005 MAR.Y ERICKSON Assistant City Council Secretar9 (Mareh 24) � ---ST.YADLLEGALionraeu - 2aosa�so DEPARTMENT OF PLANA'ING & ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMENT Manhtt G. Fuller, Dzrector CITY OF SAINT PALJL Randy C. Kelly, Mayor March 22, 2�05 Ms. Mary Erickson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: � � 25 Wut Fourth Stree! Sain: P¢u[, MN.i5102 P`..„.Ni�,: :� :r,^!", E`n:`4si �iL_, . . � ,.�. � I would Iike to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, April 6, 2005, for the following zoning case. Re: Zoning File Number: 05-056-318 Applicant: Saint Paul Port Authority Address: Area bounded by Dale, Minnehaha, Arundel and Soo Line property to the north Purpose: Combined plat to create 4 industrial parcels: 1 new and 3 remnants Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for March 30, 2005 City Council meeYing and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Lega1 Ledger. Please cafl me at 266-6576 if you have any questions. S'ncerely, . Allen Lovejoy � City Planner cc: File # 05-056-318 Chuck Derscheid, St. Paul Port Authority Paul Dubruiel Wendy Lane Carol Martineau Allan Torstenson AA-ADA-EEO Employer Z�5 -3�y � Telephone: 65l-26b6626 Facsimi[e: 651-128-3341 �3�te'e �+ ,p L36�tl � __ . _, ,.�_. _ i�itJTICE UF PUBLIC HEARINCr� `.,:. ' Tiie'S`aint Paul `' ity Cnune� will cqu- `,. ducL�a;public:hearing;�,on- Apxii 8, 2005 5-30 p.m�in the Qity Conncil Chambers, Third F`lqor �City - Hall, torconsideF�?�+e .applieation of tlze Saint Paul Port AuthoriLy for' a com- b:ned -to-ci'eate four (� industria3 .par.cels, 1`�newa"nd.3°`remn�ants; in the area bounded by Dale S£reet,, Nfinne- , haha Avenue, Arundel 3£seet and Soa_` Line property to the�aqrth. (Zoning �1e 05-066-318). - - � =- � _ � : _ - Dated= Mareh 22, 2005, _� - . - � - _ . ' - �- � � B3AR3 �ERICKSON Assistant City Council Secretary- it�'�,247= - - _ _ — ST. YAt17.IRG1\L I.EDGliR - ° zzos4�so _ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Susnn Kimberly, Director �� -�� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Rand7� G Kelly. Mayor March 22, 2005 Ms. Mary Erickson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hali Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 ?5 Wut Foualn Street Telephone: 651-265-6700 SRIRIPR)tI,MNJJIOZ Fnrsimile:651-2?8-32?0 Re: Zoning File #: 05-056-318 Applicant: Saint Paul Port Authority Address: Area bounded by Dale, Minnehaha, Arundel and Soo Line property to the north Purpose: Combined Plat to create 4 industrial parcels: 1 new and 3 remnants City Council Hearing: Staff Recommendation � Staff Assigned: April 6, 2005, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Approval Allen Lovejoy, 6-6576 cc: Chuck Derscheid, St Paul Port Authority City Council Members Thomas-DalelDistrict 7 Planning Council Wendy Lane Larry Soderholm Allan Torstenson Peter Warner C � AA-ADA-EEO Empioyer iAlIXT ?AUL � AAAA . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Martha G. F¢[ler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kel1y, Mayor March 22, 2005 Ms. Mary Esickson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: 25 West Founh Sbeet SaEni P¢u1, MN 55102 05-3� y � Telephone: 6i1-266-6626 FncsimiZe: 651-?28-334! I would fike to confirm that a public hearing befo�e the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, April 6, 2005, for the following zoning case. Re: Zoning File Number: 05-056-318 Applicant: Saint Paul Port Authority Address: Area bounded by Dale, Minnehaha, Arundel and Soo Line property to the north Purpose: Combined plat to c�eate 4 industrial parcels: 1 new and 3 remnants Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for March 30, 2005 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6576 if you have any questions. S'ncerely, . Allen Lovejoy � City Planner cc: File # 05-056-318 Chuck Derscheid, St. Paul Port Authority Paul Dubruiei Wendy lane Carol Mafineau Allan Torstenson • AA-ADA-EEO Employer AS-�6�f SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT � F1LE #05-056-318 1. APPLICANT: St. Paul Port Authority HEARING DATE: April 6, 2005 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Combined Plat 3. LOCATtON: Area bounded by Dale, Minnehaha, Arundef and Soo Line property 4. PI(J AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See pages 3 and 4 below. 5. PLANNING DISTRICT: District 7 � 6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §69.301; §69.406 7. STAFF REPORT DATE: March 21, 2005 8. DATE RECEIVED: January 25, 2005 PRESENT ZONING: I-1 BY: Allen Lovejoy DEADLINE FOR ACTION: May 25, 2005 A. PURPOSE: Combined Piat to create 4 industriai parcels; 1 new and 3 remnants C. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant industriai property D. SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Soo Line industrial land used for parking semi trailers East: Industrial South: Predominantly residential with commerciai near the western edge of the property West: Commercial use E. ZONING CODE CITATION: §69.301 states that piatting is required when a subdivision (1) creates five or more lots or parcels each of which is 2�/2 acres or less in size, or (2) requires paved streets, alleys and other public improvements, or (3) is previousiy unplatted land. §69.304 lists conditions for lot splits and adjustments of common boundaries. §69.406 provides criteria for review of subdivision applications. These criteria are covered below under "Required Findings." F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: In 1940, and again in 1941, the Nelson Oil & Bulk Company applied for, and was approved for, construction of a"drive-in filling station" which was never constructed G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: None received H. REQUIRED FINDINGS: § 69.406 of the Zoning Code requires that all of the following findings shall be made prior to approval of a subdivision: 2. 3. • All the applicable provisions of the Legislafive Code are complied with. This condition is met. City staff have reviewed the proposed plat and have determined that all applicable provisions of city codes are met. The proposed subdivision will not be detrimental to the present and potential surrounding land uses. The proposed plat is consistent with the surrounding land uses, and will not be detrimental to present and future use of surrounding Iand. Currently, the land is an unsightly parcel across from residentiai on the south side of Minnehaha. With proper landscaping and modern industrial development, use will be a betterment for the community. The area surrounding the subdivision can be planned and developed in coordinafion and compatibility with the proposed subdivision. This condition is met. However, there are two current land-Iocked parcels that will not be changed by the plat, and one land- locked parcel that will be created by the plat. The parcels north of the subject parcel are all owned by the Soo Line Railroad. Currently, the Railroad is using their property 05- �6� Zoning File #OS-056-318 March 21, 2005 Page 2 of 4 for parking of semi trailers. The Soo Line Railroad should be advised to recombine lots for future disposition. 4. The subdivision is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The subdivision is in conformance with the Land Use chapter of the comprehensive plan, which calis for the area to be redeveloped as industrial (Figure S, page 44). 5. The subdivision preserves and incorporates the sRe's imporfant existing natura! features whenever possible. The site is in a fully-developed part of St. Paul with r:o remaining natural feaYures. 6. All land intended for building sftes can be used safely withouf endangering residents by peri( from floods, erosion, continuousiy high water table, severe soi! conditions or other menace. The site is a flat, with some problematic soils on the western end. The developer is weil aware of the soils issues and is planning specia! stabilization techniques. 7he construction techniques will have no impact off of the site. 7. The subdivrsron can be economically served with public facilities and services. The subdivision can be economicaliy served with public facilities and services from surrounding streets. However, there are considerations as part of the plat approval: a. Sufficient dedication on the westem portion of the site to allow for Dale Street widening (Specificaiiy, 83.00 feef from the west line of the SW 1/4 of Section 25, T.29,R23 to be dedicated to Dale Street); • b. Dedication of Kent Street right-of-way north of Minnehaha Avenue, 68' wide and � centered on Kent Street south of Minnehaha Avenue, and a 10' X 10' triangle at the corners of Arundel and Minnehaha to allow for larger turning radii for truck traffic; c. Dedication of an additional 2' along Arundel, north of Minnehaha for a total of 63' and dedication of a 10' X 10' triangle at the nor.thwest comer of Arundel and Minnehaha to allow for larger turning radius for t�uck tra�c ; and d. Dedication of an additional 14' on the north side of Minnehaha from Dale Street to a point 300' east of Dale, for a total of 47' (This wili allow for two bike lanes, iwo through lanes and west bound left and right turn lanes at Dale Street.) e. Dedication of an additional 8' from the point 300' east of Dale Street to Arundel Street for a total of 41' (This wiil ailow parking along the south side, two bike lanes, two through lanes and left turn lanes where necessary.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on required findings 1 through 7, staff recommends approval of the final plat of the area bounded by Dale, Minnehaha, Arundel and Soo Line property subject to the following condition: 1. The applicaRt shall file a copy of the Council Resolution approving the plat with the Ramsey County Recorder's O�ce. 2. Dedication of 83.00 feet from the west line of the SW 1/4 of Secfion 25, T.29,R23 to be dedicated to Dale Street. 3. Dedication of Kent Street right-of-way north of Minnehaha Avenue, 68' wide ancl centered on Kent Street south of Minnehaha Avenue, and a 10' X 10' triangle at the corners of Arundel and Minnehaha. 4. Dedication of an additional 2' along Arundel, north of Minnehaha for a total of 68' • and dedication of a 10' X 10' triangle at the northwest corner of Arundel and Minnehaha. os �� Zoning File #OS-056-318 • March 21, 2005 Page 3 of 4 5. Dedication of an additional 14' on the north side of Minnehaha from Dale Street to a point 300' east of Dale, for a total of 47'. 6. Dedication of an additional 8' from the point 300' easf of Dale Street to Arundel Street for a totat of 41'. LEGAL DESCRIPT{ON That part of the South 333 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 29 North, Range 23 West of the 4th Principal IvIeridian, Ramsey County, Minnesota, embraced within the following described property: Beginning at the intersection of the North right-of-way line of Minnehaha Street in the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, and a line drawn parallel with and distant 12.0 feet Easterly of, as measured at right angles to, the East line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 25; thence Westerly along said North right-of-way line of Minnehaha Street to a point distant 283.0 feet Easterly of the West line of said Section 25, as measured along said North right-of-way line; thence Northerly at right angles to Burlington Northern Railroad Company's {formerly Great Northern Railway Company's) Eastbound Passenger Track centerline, as originally located and conshucted, a distance of 590.0 feet; thence Northerly at right angles to said Railroad Company's most Southerly Spur track centerline, as � now located and constructed, to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 8.5 feet Southerly of, as measured at right angles to, said Railroad Company's most Southerly Spur track centerline; thence Easierly parallel with said Spur track centerline a distance of 500.0 feet; thence Southerly at rigl�t angles to said Spur track centerline a distance of 415.0 feet; thence Easteriy at right angles to the last described course to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 75.0 feet Westerly of, as measured at right angles to, said East line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Southerly parallel with said East line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 40.0 feet Northerly of, as measured at right angles to, said North right-of-way line of Minnehahah Street; thence Easterly parallel with said North right-of-way line a distance of 87.0 feet; thence Southerly parallel with said East line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to the Point of Beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Abstract Property � That part of the South 333 feet of the West 3/4 of the South 1/2 of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 29 North, Range 23 West, which lies Easterly of a line described as follows: � Beginning at a point 728.73 feet North of and para11e1 to the South line of said Section 25 and 105.00 feet East of the West line of said Section 25; thence Southerly to a point 66.O�J feet East of the West 65�� Zoning File #OS-056-318 March 21, 2005 Page 4 of 4 line of said Section 25 and 137.00 feet North of the Sonth line of said Section 25; thence Southerly to a point on a line 33 feet North of and parallel to the South line of said Section 25, 83 feet Easterly of the West line of said Section 25; thence South to a point on the South line of said Secrion 25, 83 feet Easterly of the West line of said Section 25 and said line there terminating. EXCEPT That portion of the South 1/2 of the Southwest Qnarter of SecYion 25, Township 29 North, Range 23 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Ramsey County, Minnesota, embraced within the following described property: � Beginning at the intersection of the North right-of-way line of Minnehaha Street in the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, and a line drawn pazallel with and distant 12.0 feet Easterly of, as measured at right angles to, the East line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 25; thence Westerly along said North right-of-way line of Minnehaha Street to a point distant 283.0 feet Easterly of the West line of said Section 25, as measured along said North right-of-way line; thence Northerly at right angles to Burlington Northern RaiIroad Company's (formerIy Great Northem Raiiway Company`s) Eastbound Passenger Track centerline, as originally located and constructed, a distance of 590.0 feet; thence Northerly at right angles to said Railroad Company's most Southerly Spur track centerline, as now located and constructed, to the point of intersection with a line drawn pazallel with and distant 8.5 feet Southerly of, as measured at right angles to, said Railroad Company's most Southerly Spur track � centerline; thence Easterly pazallel with said Spur track centerline a distance of 500.0 feet; thence Southerly at right angles to said Spur track centerline a distance of 415.0 feet; thence Easterly at ri�ht angles to the last described course to the point of intersection with a line drawn pazailel with and distant 75A feet Westerly of, as measured at right angIes to, said East Iine of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Southerly parallel with said East line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 40.0 feet Northerly of, as measured at right angles to, said North right-of-way line of Minnehahah Street; thence Easterly parallel with said North right-of-way line a distance of 87.0 feet; thence Southerly pazallel with said East line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to the Point of $egianing. Absh Property Attachments: Application Preiiminary Plat Final Plat (reduction) Site Location Maps �`_,� �I d5-3�`f SUBDIVISION REVIEW APPLICATION Depa�tment of Planning and Economzc Development Zoning Section 1400 City Hai1 Annex 25 West Fourth Street SaintPaul, MN 55102-1634 (651) 266-6589 APPLICANT PROPEFtTX LOCATION p � p pls canYs Signature_ Zoning ofCce use opiy Fte # d -f} /o'3f 8 Fee SO.a� Tenta#ive Hearing Date: /�r�s�t�Ltels{Y�t'l� ��"' Name Saint Paul Port Authoritv Address 345 St. Peter Street, Suite 190Q City St. PAUL St. Y�4I• Zp 55102 Daytime Phone Name of Owner (if different) Contact Person (if different) Chuck Derscheid Phone 651/224-5686 Acldress/Location NE quadrant of intersection at atP and Minnahaha Legal Description Current Zoning I-1 (attach additional sheet if necessary) . :. ,•, � ❑ i.ot spBif ❑ L.o4 sQlit wiith ilariaince � PeeBieniroary Pl�t � F6rsaB Plat �❑ � Combined Plat � C77S 3 �e �f t (I�TTlI : F � 's- Fs s° S� 3E �a6 2 � ; #;s> s e '� �'F.ez : x ng a�� .�st.= s� �� F 3•a 3'g€'9 �� 51 5 � ::ses? -S e� � = _ �;. v . a ax� " '^ T %.� .4 �` l �� T � ��" aE Eg z �'` 8?. 3- 5 `-€a°` -^i '$ � E E` i Zi ,'�e�6 i£gs-f5 9 %� :5j a�a s;ii.� .[ SEa ' f`.="3s� 3s'. ;'� -'- _ •_:i�a :s � g €s _ e s ^� � i 5�� 5e £ ; 5 s s<sez se3 '..^.: sa3 c�s s !F� F 3 s£p � 4 ' b� 4 f = f- 5� q a £ 5 4 ! � � �� a � � 1� f45 � S {C8 6�3 Z p Zj�� 65 d� Y C F �e 5 R 3J �; €S� b i 3�_ � � �° :3 k§a t : '�a � ?� :$ ., � s:; p a �€� � g ( i� •' �� 8 � . � 2 S{ o 58$ 5 62 :gS =� � f t �'3 5§ gT � F � _a � .,`.§ i i : � " �i € y i ' -' �?�a b i g �• � y �`3e � .§ f 5- � 9 i � - `� = s �F Sjp� r€'+ 9s:: _ie � e p = it t"ss f,`• •�� e $i aS�� °°s � ` 2 � �: °: 'E �e��'� g � Tsi g�� ; � � � � � 's B '� �E S� 4`,% s�` 5�p� ag• ; Y 4' Y i"� s� •.�7 ic.t S g sp a' �C#��6..:s� :i€i�-i=: P Ei :! ¢6p4 Ss'LBFa .: a€S_:€ � �ef��?�� - s e�£?seBZ• °s�1°c :_;6 �. ; ' ` � 4 �gF` b S 1 � "s° i �3 � � � ` � s :�ec a 5 : r �-� -p ,�;) - ' E � — � I�, j *. 3 ` Id i _ � : l�� 4 ' E� 9 % "'n. � �� 4 i s � . T° _—_—_ e £ " _. _g �o g's s , g � B F s 'F � e nr SE _ � — _ $ as�a a_�e a�° z s gf� ;a� s s �e-`.,�' ��' � Ey ��4s - F ' � g �y "' s�a sia8 -a= Fk� .-: --€_ \ q E¢ � si!� -€ `,-e u c'E:•^^• �„{�'§ z � SV�� 5' 4 ib' #°� : [sE �A�Ff � ' ? �r'�: rs�e � 1 � c4 i _ �i i � �_ ,� �� 1 �. � � � 3e s � � � F � L ,* � l �11 "'.. l � � L y i e�o �� ' ti y 1 a J ... o i : � "q� ; _ � ' ! �`. � '�. e I � ! i o 0 1" �� ' N � J $� i �+g I '� • � i `� �.y ��0 I� .* ii � ;� .. � i' �`� •,� I i �� .,! � � , n � . �` I€� $ � � � � . � � �4 3 � I� ' y �. - ' � � '-. :L w �a I I • F � "' a ` @� � i e:> jj ,i '�' 'l \, •� '�yP .�s ,y� � M i a IT � , �� 3 ' � i '4' I �� 'Y 1 c�'.``.. ' "� 0. "t 'y 'R �� j �+ . <, � ,' � � {.�' � $�� la/ y� �� `\ ;�a a � i� ��{ � � __� � ,'__' 1!. _ ' „ - . ;� � J �� ,- - - — �� ` s� �, �� i�N �- E. .1,"t y{d'a`.'§; k � 'k�� ! . t _ L l� ` � '—£� � L � � �'t s«� � o� �� 5`�`� L _J • = a �; .__ .� ; . v � � � �S-�Co� � � � � . • � �� - � : � U � a5 3��I C`� 5�� t l__J � 05 �6� � � � � � �- ; , ,, . , ,_.: r._ r-. �;L::' - - I.-.9-;:_ -�_L�_Lt�.(_ � �� __V�J ... � T 1 I ._�� _ � ` � � �� . . _-�,:, - .:�, 4'� .��2G � ,� - ,'�. . . ._�. _..-. , \. � ��. � {- 2.f V' �- -- . , 1 ' �` . '� f � _�.�;- N' ,. :,' ; t _ _ :.:... . :,�..: ; j � , =``" . , _ ;;k:�.; I' � c:�i - — ��::: � � =`°:� ; ��=� � ' f� i� I � � l � rf � ❑ � ! 1 � �' -------s. -._- � `�% i£ i` f i� i� tf �� G 1.�rl�v�1 , 1T °�POSE — - °�rJG. GIST— � � �� _ �' �6 � - J - ,;z-�a� � � , ; , ��•r.� C•� elsjc:f=v � , k ; V� ��;�; ` '�'� 1 �� Z tEG�NO � zoning disfricl tuund�ry �°��/�� i7TlTl�a, sub�ed ptoper�y D�'�TE " P�IA° 'o � — � on? {Z�'Ttily �, ¢ C.�:o Iamiiy �� c • �.¢ Q I1UIti?I? fdm�ly . ,_ . . . . . , , i . � . 3 . i 4 :' _ i : _ i � . i , ; e 0 �t�coo � iV;� 1 � �. � t nGo�� i • x ^ comm=:ciz' ¢ ,m.o indus��a' V v2.C2�: �.... .�.. o-.� �n{ ��6y THOMAS-pALE �ISTRIC� 7 � :�,E . , . �• ° � C� � � :� r � � J �� . - � CSTIZEN PARtiC??AT?�ON D?S�R?C?S CITIZEM PARTICIPATi�N PLANNING OiSTRICTS � 1.SUNRAY=6A7TLECR�EK-HICzNW00D 2.6REATER EAST S.IDE' ' 3.WE5T SIDE � 4.DAYTON'S BLUFF S.PAYNE-PiiALEN_ - NORTH c��D ' 7. OMAS-DALE .SUMM?T-UNIVERSITY °.WESI ScV�NTH �a. eo�a 11. HAML i N E-MI G41AY 12. ST. ANTH04'f 13.MERRFAM PK.-LEkING70N HAMLINE t4.�R�VEIRiVC-MACALESTER - 75.HIGHLAN� 96:SUMMIT HILL � 17.GOWNTOWN � � �.�.�5�'6�- .� Z75 3�� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy G Ke[[y, Mayor Apri14 2005 Council President Kathy Lantry 320C City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55101 OFFICE OF T'I� CiT'y ATTORNEY Manuel J. Cervantes, Ciry Artomey Civi[ Divirion 400 City H¢i[ IS {Vesr Ke[[ogg Blvd Saint Pan{ Minnes0[a 55102 Tekpl�o�:e: 651 26b-8770 Facsintile: 651293-5619 Re: Permits for Mazches at Planned Parenthood on Mazch 25, 2005. Dear Council President Lantry: On March 24, 2005, you sent an e-mail message asking for certain information concerning perxnits for marches scheduled at Planned Parenthood for 1Vlarch 2�, 2005. This letter is in response to your request for a written response To be shazed with each councii member prior to the April 6 council meeting. In your e-mail message, you asked for an explanation of the events sunounding the issuance of these permits. You stated, Between the article in the paper, the on-line forums, and the general word of mouth around here I am finding it difficult to understand what went wrong where. Could you please do me a favor and write down what sequence of events lead up to the pernut being issued and then changed and whether or not it has anything to do with the ordinance changes that are before the council at this time. The on-line forum to which you refer appears to be a forum found at stpaui C�mnforum o� , and specifically to a March 24 posting there by Jane Prince, legislative aide to Councilmember Benanav. In that posting Ms. Prince stated: Acting unilaterally, without City Council concurrence or even notification, Mayor Kelly's office and the City Attorney have interpreted recent caselaw: 1) to force Planned Parenthood to share its permit with Prolife Action Ministries on Good Friday; and 2) to introduce amendments to city ordinances to conform to their interpretation of caselaw. AA-ADA-E£O Employer �5-3to�-1 Council President Kathy Lantry Apri14, 2005 Page 2 On Tuesday, ihe City Attorney led our office to believe that the decision regarding the Good Friday demonstration was the result of a court order. It was only when Jay and I read Ingrassia's article this moming that we learned this decision was made entirely by the Mayor and his City Attorney. That City Council offices and the public would be misled by our mayor is bad enough, but that we can't rely on accurate information from the City Attomey is a disgrace indeed. No matter which side of the abortion issue you are on, this is NOT the way city govemment is supposed to work. I urge anyone concerned about this to call Deputy Mayor Dennis Flaherty, 266-8519, and City Attorney Manuel Cervantes, 266-&710. The facts asserted in her posting are entirely wrong, as the remainder of the letter will explain in detail. Ms. Prince was either confused, or may have purposefully mis-represented the facts. In any event, she attacked the Office of the City Attorney in an attemQt to undermine its ability to represent the City Council and to damage its reputation in the community. In the process she caused confusion on the Council. As a City employee, her actions are itresponsible and inexcusable. Background Facts. As you know, the Planned Parenthood facility in Saint Paul has been a focus of controversy. Fot many years, opponents of Planned Parenthood have held a demonstration on the public sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood on Good Priday. Aespite the concems legitimately raised due to violence in other parts of the country, there has been no violence in the past at [hese marches. Certainly a major factor for the lack of violence is the successful crowd control by the Police Department. The permit process gives Police the opportunity to assess the situation and to make appropriate plans for public safety. In 2004, for the first time, supporters of Planned Parenthood applied for a permit. At that time, the Police granted the pernut and allocated the sidewalk in front of the facility to Planned Parenthood. This resulted in the opponents of the facility using the sidewalk across the street. Assistant City Attomey Reyne Rofuth, who advises the Police Department, went to the scene in 2004 with Assistant Chief Tom Redding to observe and to provide advice as necessary. The two marches which occurred simultaneously were without incident. At the scene last year Ms. Rofuth discussed wi[h Assistant Chief Redding and �vith Commander Mike Morehead the situation between the two opposing groups and their access to the sidewalk in front of the facility. At that time, and during various discussions with police administration throughout the year, Ms. Rofuth correctly noted that the law requires content-neutral, equal AA-ADA-EEO Emp]oyer OS-3� � Council President Kathy L.antry April 4, 2405 Page 3 access to the public sidewalk for marches. Placing one group across the s[reet could only be }ustified if Yhere was no other altemative consisten[ with public safety. Assistant Chief Reddin�, and later Assistant Chief Dennis 7ensen, believed that with proper crowd control measures separating the two groups, both could safely be present on the sidewalk in front of the Planned Parenthood facility; one group with the East half of the sidewalk, the other with [he West. Ms. Rofuth, since last year's demonstration, has continued to advise the Police to follow that course in the future as it was the approach that best satisfied the content-neutral, equal access requirements of the law. Please note that neither the Mayor, nor anyone on his staff, nor any Council member was involved in this discussion or decision. The Office of the City Attorney advised, and the Police acted, without political input whatsoever. The decision was based solely on legal and public safety considerations. The 2005 Permits Both Planned Parenthood and Pro-Life Action Ministries 2005 applied for permits to demonstrate on March 25, 2005, on the public sidewalk in front of the Planned Parenthood facility at 1965 Ford Parkway. Police granted the Planned Parenthood permit in February or early March. The permit limited the demonstration to "either the East or West side of 1965 Ford Parkway," consistent with our advice that each group be granted one half of the sidewalk. On Mazch 21, when Ms Rofuth reviewed this permit, she advised the Police that the Police, not the applicants, should decide which group got which half of the sidewalk, so as to avoid a dispute between the two groups. The Police literally flipped a coin and Planned Parenthood was given the west half. Note, this is probably more favorable to Planned Parenthood as it includes their parking lot and side door, which they use rather than the front door during mazches. Consequently on March 21, the Police clarified Planned Parenthood's pernut by specifying the "West side of 1965 Pord Pazkway" On the same day Pro-Life Action Ministries 2005 was given a permit for the East side. Let me repeat: the Mayor's Office had no discussions with Ms. Rofuth conceming these permits. Her advice was based solely upon the legal requirement that in the event of counter-marches, the City must remain neutral and provide equal access to the sidewalk. Amendments to Legislative Code Chapters 366 and 366A. The Council currently has before it a proposed ordinance amending Legislative Code Chapters 366 and 366A dealing with permits for marches, demonstrations, and public gatherings. The AA-ADA-EEO Employer �� Councii President Kathy Lantry Apri14, 2005 Page 4 genesis of this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the permits issued to Planned Parenthood or Pro-Life Action Ministries for marches on Good Friday_ Rather, on August 5, 2002, Sally Kolb and Bonnie Holliday were on the public sidewalk In front of the Planned Parenthood facility. They carried signs opposing the ac[ivities at the facility. They were alone and not engaaed in any illegal activity, and they did not have any sort of City- issued permit. In response to a complaint, the Police ordered them to leave because they were in violation of Legislative Code 366A for having a public gathering without a permit. They left peaceably. Later, the two women brought suit against the Ci[y, Chief Finney, and City Attomey Cervantes alleging that their First Amendment free speech rights had been violated. Assistant City Attomey Peter Mikhail defended the case. His review of Chapter 366A, and the relevant case law led him to the conclusion that this chapter had constitutional infirmities. This lead to a settlement whereby the City agreed not to enforce the "demonstratioa" and "public gatherittg" provisions of the Chapter 366A and pay $3500.00 in attorney's fees. Also, the City Attorney agreed to review this chapter and recommend amendments to the Council to cure the constitutional problems. The settlement expressly allows the Ci[y to continue to require permits for marches. The City Council adopted a resolution approving this settlement on November 6, 2002, on a 6-1 vote, Councilmember Biakey voting no. It was approved by the Mayor on November 13, 2002. The settlement was thereafter also approved by an Order of the federal district court. In compliance with this City Councii-approved settiement, Mr. Mikhail and Assistant Chief Redding began work on drafting proposed amendments. Progress slowed when Mr, Mikhail, and later Assistant Chief Redding, left City employment. Also, as the matter was not time sensitive, both the Police and our office gave the matter a lower priority than other more significant and more time sensitive matters. As a result, the proposed amendments were just recently introduced. The Mayor's Office had nothing whatsoever to do with the timing of the introductiQn. Clarifying the Confusion Caused by Ms. Prince. Ms. Prince's web posting states that after granting a pemut to Planned Parenthood, "Mayor Kelly's office and the City Attomey have interpreted recent caselaw: 1) to force Planned Parenthood to shaze its permit with Frolife Action Ministries on Good Friday." This is absolu[ely untrue for severa] reasons. I was not personally involved in any way. Ms. Rofuth's interpretation of case law pre-dated the granting of any permits, as evidenced by the fact that from the very beginning, Planned Parenthood's permit was only for one half of the sidewa]k. The Mayor's Office had no involvement in the advice or decision at all. I never told Ms. Prince AA-ADq-EEO Employer C�5 -��y Councii President Kathy L,antry Apri14,2065 Page 5 that I personally or the Mayor's Office were involved and I am aware of no facts that could reasonably lead her to believe otherwise. Ms. Prince's web posting states that after granting a permit to Planned Parenthood, "Acting unilaterally, without City Councii concurrence or even notification, Mayor Kelly's office and the City Attorney have interpreted recent caselaw: '�` '�` * 2) to introduce amendments to city ordinances to conform to their interpretation of caselaw." This, too, is absolutely untrue. The City Council by written resolution approved a settlement that required the City Attorney to propose amendments to L,egisiative Code Chapter 366A. By a 6-1 vote, the Council concurred in this and had actual notice that it would be done. Other than approving the settlement resolution, just like the Council, the Mayor's Office had nothing to do with the proposed amendments. Ms. Prince's web posting states "On Tuesday, the City Attomey led our office to believe that the decision regazding the Good Friday demonstration was the result of a court order." This is absolutely untrue. I was on vacation on Tuesday, March 22, and had no discussions with Ms. Prince or Councilmember Benanav. Ms. Rofuth at no time told Ms. Prittce or Councilmember Benanav that the Good Friday decision was the result of a court order. Ms. Prince sent to Ms. Rofuth a copy of a March 22, 20Q5, e-mail message from Ms. Prince to VJillis Stoesz which states: On my return to City Hall from lunch just now, I ran into Asst. Police Chief Dennis 7ensen. I asked him about the pazade pernut for Planned Parenthood. He told me that this resulted for { sic} a lawsuit, which led to a court order, that the City is required to accommodate the anti-abortion protesters in front of the building. In addition, the city pazade pernut ordinance is in the process of being redrafted to conform to the court order. (Emphasis added) Thus some time between Tuesday Mazch 22, when this e-mail was sent, and March 24, when Ms. Prince made the posting on the web forum, her story changed from Assistant Chief Jensen tellin� her that the Good Friday decision was based upon a court order to the City Attomey telling her this. It appears that Ms. Prince had difficulty keeping straight who told her what. Parentheticaliy, it is my understanding [hat Assistant Chief Jensen denies telling Ms. Prince that the Good Friday decision was based upon a court order. He understands that the Good Friday decision and the ordinance amendments aze two different matters. I can understand how a lay person, even a law student such as Ms. Prince, may confuse settlement approved by the court with a court order. For all practical purposes in this case the AA-ADA-EEO Employet �. . Council President Kathy Lantry Apri14, 2005 Page 6 difference is mere semantics. On the other hand, to say the City Attomey purposely misled her when clearly neither I, nor anyone else in this office even talked to her on this point, is iiresponsible and inexcusable. I think every attorney in the Office of City Attorney understands that from time to time he or she may be subject to public criticism, whether fairly or unfairly, but Ms. Prince's actions goes way beyond that. Her web posting attacks the City Attomey's integrity and attempts to undermine my ability to represent the Council by alleging that I and my staff, in a political conspiracy with the Mayor, disgracefully misled the Council. This unjust and untrue ailegation is backed not by an honest recitation of the facts, but by patently untrue factual statements. Ms. Rofuth and I deserve better. Conclusion. Now that the true facts have been presented, I hope, and exgect, that Ms. Prince will retract her mis-statements. Ms. Rofuth gave correct and sound legal advice, as evidenced by the fact that neither side of the Planned Parenthood controversy went to court to challenge it. The Police did a good job as evidenced by the fact that, as in other years, Good Friday came and went without problems. I ask that the Council recoa ize and commend the good work by my office and by the Police, rather than succumb to the mis-statement sown by Ms. Prince. Ms. Prince, on the other hand, not only attempted to besmirch me and Ms. Rofuth, but she heightened the tension and created confusion that affected the Council itself by promoting untruths. This confusion, unfortunately, could affect the Councii's consideration of ordinance amendments necessary to bring our code into compliance with the U.S. Constitution. I hope that this letter clarifies things so that the proposed amendment may be considered on its merits. Sincerely i�el J. Cervantes Attomey cc: Council Members and their aides Randy Kelly, Mayor AA-qDq-EEO Employer