05-38...,�
�
\`��.\
4 l
Council File # � J� 3 O
GreenSheet# 3024792
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
S
Presented By
Refened To
Cammittee: Date
2 WHEREAS, pursuant to Leg. Code § 69306, the Plaruung Administratar, on June 28,
3 2004, in Zoning File No. 04-081-837, approved a subdivision application from Wellington
4 Management to split a 285,258 sq. ft. parcel of land generally described as the Southwest comer
5 of University Avenue and Lexington Parkway in order to divide the said parcel into three
6 separate parcels; and
7
8 WHEREAS, pursuant to I,eg. Code § 61.701(c) the Lexington-Hasnline Community
9 Council and others, on June 28, 2004, filed an appeal from the Planning Administrator's decision
10 under Zoning File No. 04-127-011 and requested a public hearing far the pmposes of reviewing
11 the Planning Administrator's decision in this matter; and
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 19, 2004, the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee, after
having provided notice to affected property owners, conducted a public hearing on the appeal and
submitted a recommendarion to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission decided to deny the appeal based upon the
following findings and conclusions as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-82,
dated August 27, 2004:
The Wellington Management lot split application went through the standard City
inteYdepartmental review pYOCess to be scr-eened against all of tke City's regulations.
On May 3, 200a, Wellington Management submitted an application to
split the former shopping center at University and Lexington into three lots
with one lot facing University Avenue, another facing Lexington
nnmediately south of the White Cas�third L-sh� let fwi�tr ����
frontages on Lexington and o�aggs treet. Following standar �
operating procedures, PED zoning sta istributed the lot split application
to reviewers in other City depariment for comments. Based on the City
surveyor's comments, the legal descriptions were revised. The other
comments were that obsolete sewers would need to be stubbed at the
property lines, and that a new property line could not be drawn through the
middle of the old shopping center building. Either the building would
have to tom down or a party wall would haue to be built on the new
property line. Wellington Management assured planning staff that they
intended to tear the building down.
D�� 3 $
2 2. The WeZlington Management lot split application met aZ1 of the standards in the code to
3 qualify for administvative action by the Planning Administrator.
4
5 The City's subdivision regulations distinguish between lot splits, which
6 can be approved administratively (Section 69304), versus plats, which go
7 to the City Councii. A lot split creates no more than four lots. Section
8 69304 gives conditions £or the approval of lot splits. The Wellington
9 Management proposal met all of the conditions: frontage on unproved
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
51
52
streets; the land was previously platted; lots met azea and width standards;
no residual parcels were substandard; no split-zoned parcels; no
nonconfomiiug uses or buildings would result; and the lots were not too
steep for buildings.
3.
The YYellington Management lot split application met all of the general subdivision
standards in the code that apply to both plats and lot splits.
The standazds for approving any plat or lot split are listed in Section
69.406(a). The Wellington Management lot split readily complied with
six of the seven standards: met all applicable provisions of the Legislative
Code; would not be detrimental to surrounding land uses; surrounding
land could be compatibly planned and used; preserved important natural
features (none to preserve); could safely be developed; and could be
economically served with public facilities and services. The only one of
the seven standards that required deeper investigation was whether the lot
split was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
During the City's review period, staff from PED and LIEP met twice to
discuss whether the proposed lot split was consistent with the University
Avenue Transit-Oriented Development Framework. Staff concluded that
it was consistent because of the Framework's emphases on removing
blight, getting redevelopment soon, and accommodating market demand.
As the staff reads the TOD Framework, it is not absolute about TOD; it
recognizes market forces. In a nutshell, the TOD Framework establishes
as policy that the City should push redevelopment to be as pedestrian-
friendly, as dense, and as urban village-like as the market will bear.
Moreover, the three-lot configuration would not preciude transit-oriented
development (see finding 5 below).
Staff also reviewed the lot spiit in relationship to the Lexington-Hamline
Small Area Plan, as well as the Plan Suminary and General Policies and
the Land Use chapters of the citywide Comprehensive Plan. All of the
plans put their primary emphasis on support for redevelopment of the
shopping center site.
4. On June 28, 2004, the Planning Administrator sent Wellington Management a Zetter
approving the Zot split to ct�eate three Zots, subject to two canditions: (a) Either demolish
the building that straddles a properry line or build a party wall and (b) Cut off and plug
obsolete sewers.
The letter went on to encourage Wellington Management to continue
warking with community groups and City staff on their development plans
D V r k�/u
to reach a solution that "will ultimately meet the objectives of transit-oriented
development"
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
51
52
5. On July 28, 2004, the Lexington-Hamline Community Council and Ilniversity United
jointly submitted an appeal of the Planning Administrator's decision. The appeal raises
five objections to the approval of the lot split. They are shown below in italics and
followed by the PZanning Commission's responses:
(a) Because the site represents one of the more signifzcant redevelopment
opportunitzes in the city, the City government should first approve an overall plan
for the whole redevelopment site before approving any lots.
The Ciry's zoning and subdivision regulations contain no provision
requiring an overall development plan except in the Planned Development
(PD) zone and the large Traditional Neighborhood zone (T'N3). The
Umversity-Lexington site is not in either of these zones. A private
property owner has the right to divide his land in any way that meets the
standards in the code. Having a master plan is not one of the standards.
(Note: Often the HRA can do something through negotiation that the City
can't impose through regulation. The HRA Board can negotiate to include
a master plan condition in whatever development agreement it makes with
Wellington Management.)
Wellington Management has also responded to this complaint in the
appeal. They say that they need to sell the ALDI's parcel first to off-set
their front-end carrying costs as master planning with community
participation moves forward for the rest of the site. The developer has a
preliminary mixed use development concept for the whole site, but they
realize that it raises several questions that deserve further exploration: Can
the Lexington side be improved to haue real parkway character? Is the
level of public subsidy required reasonable? Can residential units be given
proper residential settings? To work collaboratively on the overall plan
for the site, City Councilmember Debbie Montgomery and PED have
invited a community-based design advisory committee to begin meeting
with Wellington Management at the end of August.
(b) The creation of these three lots ". .. severely diminishes the opportunity for a
comprehensive, Zarge- scale, urban village type of development that has been
envisioned by the community for a number ofyears. "
The University Avenue Transit-Oriented Development Framework has a
concise defmition. "Transit-oriented development (TOD) encourages
compact, pedestrian-friendly development with a high density of
employment and housing within walking distance of a major public
transpoft stop." The ALDI's grocery store has proposed a site plan that is
pedestrian friendly; it has a pedestrian plaza that connects the University
Avenue sidewalk, the bus stop, the store entrance and the parking lot
together. The store is up along University Avenue with the parking
behind. The grocery store will serve the surrounding neighborhoods.
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
51
52
The I,exington parcel has not been sold yet. Last March, before
coxnmunity discussion focused on the site, the HRA Board approved a
memorandum of understanding with Weliington Management that
supported the creation of a fast food pad. A freestanding fast food
restaurant would not be consistent with TOD principles. The
representative for Wellington Management told staff that they have already
turned away several profitable purchase offers from fast food chains. They
will hold out as long as they can to seek businesses that would fit into the
TOD concept. They are willing to discuss this parcel with the community-
based design advisory committee that will start meeting at the end of
August.
(c) "The proposed lot split does not meet the guidelines of TOD or the spirit of the
TOD Framework. "
The basic premise of TOD is to get residents and employees located within
a quarter of a mile of a good transit line. The whole site is within that
distance. Wellington Management has shown good faith in agreeing to
work toward a feasible redevelopment proj ect with the community-based
a oup. Whether the density goals of the TOD Framework can be achieved,
will depend on mazket demand and the level of public subsidies committed
to the proj ect.
The main TOD principle that is jeopardized by the lot split, particularly the
L,exington lot, is the ability to create smaller blocks by extending Aurora
Street through to Dunlap. While this is illustrated in the long version of
the TOD Framewark, it is not in the plan summary adopted as part of the
Comprehensive Plan. The written proposal, found in both the long version
and the plan suminary, says "Create smaller blocks consistent with TOD
principles, if the market supports this type of development. " [Emphasis
added.]
(d) "About half the parking [spacesJ proposed for the ALDI's store are Zocated
outside the ALDPs lot (Parcel A), in the largest of the three lots (Parcel C). This
seems to indicate that the Zot being created for the ALDPs store is not large
enough to accommodate the planned development. "
The Wellington Management representative told staff that ALDPs is
willing to enter into shared parking agreements with cross easements to
haue some of their parking on the adjoining parcels. When the full
development is completed, this will result in maximizing the use of
parking spaces and thus reducing the totai amount of asphalt needed. In
other words, the ALDI"s parking arrangement is supportive of TOD
principles.
(e) "The ALDI's site plan shows a temporary (stormwaterJ retention area ..
south of the ALDI's Zot, but provides no explanation for what happens to the
stoyrnwater once the "temporary" arrangement is removed. "
oS`-3$
3
4
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
The Wellington representafive says that when the development is
complete, all or most of the stormwater retenrion will be in underground
tanks; there won't be anywhere else for it.
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2004, the I,exington-Hamline Community Council and
others, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(a), duly filed an appeal from the Planuiug Commission's
decision and requested a hearing befare the City Council for the purpose of considering the
action taken in the matter by the said Commission; and
WIIEREAS, acting pursuant to Leg. Code §§ 61.702 and 704 and upon notice to affected
parties, the City Council duly conducted a public hearing on October 6, 2004, where all
interested parties were given an opporiunity to be heazd; and
WfIEREAS, 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 Planning Commission in this 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 by the Planning Administratar's approval of the subject lot split
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 Planning Commission's findings
as its own; and be it
b'INALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this Resolution to the
appellants Lexington-Hamline Community Council and University United, the Zoning
Administrator and the Planning Commission.
Requested by Department of:
� '�� �����/
.�
AdoF
AdoF
By:
Apps
By:
Mayor for
/-7-0
o�� 3S�
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
DepartmenUoffice%ouncil: I Dafe Initiated:
PE — P1a�ninS&EconomicDevelopment � 30.DEC-04 Green Sheet NO: 3024792
Contact Person 8 Phone:
Larry Soderholm
266-6575
Must Be on Councii Agenda by
19-JAN-05
Total # of Signature Pages
� i ueoartmen� �ent � o rerson mma u e
0 '� lanoine & Economic Develoo I I �1
Assign 1 � lan ' & Eco omic Develo �� De ent Dir�tor /
Number 2 . 'tv Attomev � { '7 —' `�
For
Routing 3 avor's O�ce I Mavor/Assisqnt i
Order 4 oun il 1
5 Citv Clerk I Ciri Clerk I
(Clip AII Locations for Signature)
Appcove resolution memorializing City Council acrion denying Univetsity United's appeal (Zoning FIle # 04-142-367) of the Planuiug
Commission's denial of their appeal of a Planning Admivistrator's approval of a subdivision (lot split #14-081-837) at S.W. corner
Lexington and University. Public hearing held October � 2004.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R):
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
Personal Service Contraets Must Answer
1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this departrnent?
Yes No
2. Has this person/firtn ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normafly possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet antl attach to green sheet
I�itiating Pro6lem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
University United appealed to the City Council the Planning Comtnision's denial of their appeal of a Plaimiug Admivistrator's approval
of a subdivision (lot split #04-081-837) at A 17 Lexington Pkwy N., 415 Lexington PkwyN., 445 Lexington PkwyN., 0 Dunlap St. N., 451
Lexington Pkwy N., University Ave N.
Advantaaes IfApprovetl:
City Council intent is finalized.
DisadvanWpes If Approved:
None
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
City Council action will not be completed.
�otal Amount of
Transaction:
Fundin9 Source:
Financiat Information:
(Explain)
����v ��
��,�� ��������
CosURevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
V U_1➢5.A'i S�±°�ne?9Cnr+.��Srv&!_1?
JA� � 6 2���
DEPARTMENTOFPLANNING
& ECONOMlC DEVELOPMENT
Susan Kimberly, Director
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Kelly, Mayar
September 15, 2004
25 FYes[ Founh Street
S¢int Paul, MN SSIQ2
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Research Offce
Room 31Q City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
SEP 15 2�04
1 would fike to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, October
6, 2004, for the following zoning case.
Zoning File Number: Q4-142-367
Appellant: �exinton Hamline Community Council and University United
Address: 417 Lexington Pkwy N., 415 Lexingtnn Pkwy N., 445 Lexington Pkwy N., 0
Dunlap St. N., 451 Lexington Pkwy N., University Ave N., Area 0ounded by
Dunlap, University, Lexington and the South line of the North 111.6� ft. of
lot 36
Purpose: Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of an appeal of a Planning
Administrator's approval of a subdivision (lot split # 14081-837)
Previous Action:
Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denia! of appeal, 5- 0 August 19, 2004
Planning Commissio� Recommendatio�: Denial of appeal, unanimous (1 abstention, Mardel!), August 27,
2004
I have confirmed this day with Gouncilmember Montgomery's o�ce. My understanding is that this public
heari�g request will appear on the agenda for the September 22, 2004, City Council meeting and that you
will publish notice of the hearing in the Sai�t Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6575 if you have
any questions.
Sincerely, v ��
�--^`.�"'".��
Larry So e olm
Planning Administrator
cc: File #: 04-142-367
Appellant: University United, Brian Mc Mahon
Lexington-Hamline Community Gouncil, Jessica Treat
Wellington Management, lnc., Tanya Bell
Paul Dubruiel
Wendy Lane
Carol Martineau
Allan Torstenson
Tom Beach
OS- 3g
�
Telephone: 657-266-6700
Facsimile: 651-2Z8-3220
�^,�#°� �.o`4mrr)] ��^
�L.:
NOTICE OF P[7BLIC HEARINC:
The Saint Paul City Council will con-
duct a publie hearing on Wednesda}S Oc-
tober 6, 2004, at 5:30 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers,l'l�ird Floor, CiEy3Ia11,
W consider the appeal of Leadngton Ham-
line Community Conncil and L3niversity
United 417 S.e�ngton Pazkwag N., 415
Leffington Parkway N., 445 Lexington
Pazkway N., 0 Dunlap Street N., 451 Lea-
ington Pazkway N., UniversityAvenue N,
(area bounded bY Dualap, LSniversity, I�-
ington and the south line of the north
111.60 ft. of Lot 36) to a decision of the
Pl nnnin� Commission denying an appeal
of a Planning Arim;»; �},�s approval of a
subdivision (lot split #14A81-837).
Dated: September 16, 2004
MARY ERICKSON, - -
Aseistan�t Cily Council SecreCary -
(September 20}
-' —= 8a: Paxn, LEGnL *-"-^-"=° _�__
- 22086011 � .
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
IJ5
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �
SusmeKimberZy, Director e. A
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Kelty, Mayor
September 29, 2004
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minuesota 55102
25WestFmolhStreet Telephorre:651-266-6626
SaintPmr�MIv55102 Facs"vrsi1e:651-228-3341
Re: Zoning File #: 04-142-367
Appellant: University United and L�ington-flamline Community Council
Address: 417 Le�ngton Pkwy N, 415 L,exington Pkwy N., 445 Lc�ington Pkwy N., 0
Dunlap St. N., 451 Leatington Pkwy N., Universiry Ave N., Area bounded by
Dunlap, University, L,exington and the South line of the North 111.60 ft. of lot
36
PurQose: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of appeat of a Planning Administrator's
approval of a subdivision (lot split # 04-081-837) (Zoning File # 04-127-011)
��
City Council Hearing: October 6, 2004, 530 p.m, City Council Chatnbers
Staff Recommendarion:
District Council:
Zoning Committee Recommendation:
Support:
Opposition:
Planning Commission Recommendation:
deny appeal
is co-appellant
Denial of appeal, vote: 5- 0
9 people spoke, 0 letkers were received
6 people spoke, 0 letters were received
Denial of appeal, vote: unanimous (1 abstention, Mardell)
Staff Assigaed: Pahicia Jaznes, 266-6634
or Lany Soderh� 266-6575 (on vacation on the public
heazing date)
Attachments: Planning Commission resolution
Planning Commission minutes, August 27, 20Q4
Zoning Committee minutes, August 19, 2004
Conespondence received
Staff Report packet
�
cc: Appellants: University United and Le�ngton-Hamline Communiry Council
Tanya Bell, Wellington Management, Inc.
City Council Members
Adjoining District Councils: 7, 8, and 11
Patricia 7ames
Larry Soderholm
Allan Torstenson
Tom Beach
Wendy Lane
Peter Wazner
L.V+aundalZOVng�PWocs�CCdocs\O4-]42-367oa-0604cec1wpd AA-ADA-EEOF,mPloya
�5 �3�
SwINT
PAO L
�A �'
APPLICATION FOR APpEAL
DQP�e++t of P7annrrcg ¢nd Sconomic Deveiopment
Zoning Sectinn
Z40D City Hall Annex
25 tiVest Fourth Street
SaintPau� MNSSZ02-Z634
(65I) 266-6589
4PPLICANT
�ROPERTY
.00ATION
City
Address / L
Zoning File
�Zi¢ �5?Z7 Dayfime
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the:
� Board of Zoning Appeals �ity Council
Under the provision of Chapter 64, Section Paragreph of the Zoning Code, to appea( a
�cision made by the
20 . File Number•
(daie of decision)
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expfain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision
or refusal made by an administrative atficial, or an error in fact, procedure or
tinding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
� �-����
�� �1 � 3
��S
��3���
�ch additional sheet if necessaty)
ppiicant's
Date � City Agent � � �
.. ,; . . ,._ ..
. ....:._ . _y.:;�:. .._....._...-. .. �... . . �i_. . ...
�J
Attachment
Agpeal of Wellington( Lexington Project
05-3�
We are appeating to the City Council the actions of the City Planning Commission
approving a site plan for an Aldi's grocery store, and a lot split which would result in the
creation of t7uee separate land parcels at University Avenue and Lexington Parkway.
Because these two actions are so interiwined, our azguments apply insepazably to both.
VJe believe there should be an appraved master plan for the entire 8.3 acre site before any
individual pieces of the pro,}ect aze reviewed, approved or implemented. We do not
accept the azgument that because there is no specific ciry support requested for the Aldi's
project, or the lot split, that the City has no basis for involvement. The Memorandum of
Understanding recognizes Iikely be need for public assistance in the form
_. � � �,. .. �� _
of TIF �a �aeea a TIF District encompassing the entire deveIopment area has already
been created. The City has i� several of its official aetic3ns �Iready Fecognized this as oue
development project and will likely be considering a request for financial assistance in
the neaz 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 this proposed development in light of the recently amended Comprehensive
Plan which incorporates Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) principles. The Aldi's site
plan falls far short of ineeting the key criteria of TOD. It has a very low Floor Area Ratio
— worse than the nearby Midway Shopping Centers. Its,}ob creation of 12 to 20 positions
is well below the recommended density of appro�snately 100 jobs per acre at a key
transit stop. It does not meet the recommended level of 40% transparency as it has no
izanspazent windows or doors directly facing on Universiry Avenue. Finally, as a one
story single use building, it is not in keeping with the vision far a mixed-use urban
village.
�
The proposed Iot split would create a sepazate retail pad for Aldi's on Umversity Avenue,
and a second retaiU commercial pad on Le�ngton Pazkway. This action, when taken in
conteat of the project description in the MdU calling for ":-.. at least one pad for a
restaurant that sells fast food..." , sets up a proposed land use which is the antithesis of
the TOD envisioned in the City Comprehensive Plan. The mere sale of a lot(s) wluch by
virtue of its unique size and configuration wi11 lead to a land use that is inappropriate,
should be prohibited. We also have a general concem that the breakup and sale of the
most valuable portions of this 83 acre site would gready increase the level of subsidy
needed to support positive development on the remainder of the site. In addition, we thiuk.
tt�at l inina the perimeter of the site with singTe-story auto-oriented retail projects seriously
diminishes the attractiveness of the remainder of the site, and therefore its market
feasibility.
05��8
We also have technical conoems about fhe Aldi's site plan. The property lines created in
the lot §plit do not align with ttie proposed site plan. Parl�ng requirea for the Aldi's
pmject spills over to a separate site to ttee south. The Wellington proposal by bundting the
parking piece onto another sepazate site bas essentiatly predetermined the land use of a
firture pmject If a housing developer wished to build a pmject yp to the Aldi's groperry
line he would be prohibited because of the pre-existing pazking lot approvats.
In addition to the above specific concerns, we have an overarchiag general concem. Over
the past three years, �ndreds of people in this community have beea iuvolved in shaPing
a vision and a ptan for tfie LTniversity Avenue comdor. This proposed WellingtonZ'roject,
and the previous CVS project at Snelling at University aze not maeting the community's
desire for 7ugh quality TOD. If this devetopment at Le�dngton Pazkway is allowed to
stand in its present form, it wouid be a significant rebuff to those who have worked so
hard to bring about quaiity development that will enable the corrrdor to fulfilt its
historical potential. This becomes all the mare critical as the Gity is promoting the
prospects of Iight rail along fhe Avenue.
Finally, becasase t�e Aick's site p2an and the Lot Split are technicaIly two separate city
actions, we haue been charged the cost of two separate appeals. We have always
maintained that this project should be reviewed as part of one comprehensive City action,
aa@ therefore request ti�at the second appeat fee be waived and refunded.
Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely,
�
i �� l � � , Yi
� � . . j _ ._r' �\
�• •� .�� �- .���� � . �
� �
Brian McMahon
University IJNITED
r�
L_J
�
//�-r /e_
i
�
DEPAR1MbNT OF PLANNING
& ECOl30MIC DEVELOPMENT
Susan XimberTy, Directar
CSSy
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Rm�dy C. Ke1Ty, Mayor �
August 27, 2004
University United
Brian McMahon
1954 University Ave. Suite 9
S� Paul, MN 55104
Lexiugton-Hamline Community Councii
7essica Treat
1221 Marshall Ave.
St. Pau1, NiN 55104
RE: Zoning File # 04-127-011
Deaz Mr. IvIcMahon and Ms. Treat:
25P/estFou�rhSa�eet ?elephone:6Si-2666700
Sairt! Par�l, MN55101 facsimite: 651-228-322D
Lexington Hamline/University Linited Appeal
• On 7uly 28, 2904, you appealed a Planning Admnustrator's approval of a subdivision (lot split # 14-081-
837) at 417, 415, 4�15, and 451 Lexington Pkwy N., 0 Dunlap St 1V., and 0 University Ave N. After a
public heating by the Saint Paul Planning Commission's Zoning Com�nittee on August 19, 2004, the
Commission voted to deny your appeal and uphold the Pianning Adminisirator's approval on August 27,
2004. Enciosed is the Planning Commission's resolution stating its findings and decision.
The Planning Corsunission's decision may be appealed to the City Councfl by filing an appeal and fee
($415) within ten days of the date this Ietter is mailed. Appeals ue filed at the Zoning Counter, 1400
City Hall Annex. The appeal should be based on what you believe to be an error of fact, finding, or
procedure of the Planning Commission. Enclosed is an appeal applicafion.
Please call me at 651-266-6575 if you have questions.
fi � 'rif��� �
�..- .. .
Bnclosures:
Resolution
Application for Appeal
cc: File # 04-127-01 l
� Zoning Administrator
License Enspector
Disfrictl3L Communiiy Council
Mail Aate: August 27, 2004
M-ADA-EFA Employa
05-��
ci�y of saint paul
•planni�g commission resolution
file number o�-82
date Au�St 2�, 200�
WHEREAS, the Lexingfon-Hamline Commanity Counci( and Universify llnifed, Zoning Fiie
# 0?-?27-011, have appeaied the PlanniRg Admir�istrafoPs decision, under the provisions of
§61.701(c) of the Legis(ative Code, fo approve a fot spiit for the property af fhe southwest
corri=r of University Avenue and Lexington Parkway fhaf was formeriy occupied by the
Lexiny�on-University Shopping Center,.comprised oi six parcels of record wifh sequenYiaf PiNs
342923410002 through -07, for which fhe legai descripfions are on fife in the PED zoning
sact�on; a� �d
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Pianning Commission, on August 19, 2004, he{d a
public hearing at which ali persons present were given an opporfunity fo be heard on the appeai
in accordance with the requirements of §6'(.303 of the Saint Paui Legisfative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Pfanning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its
Zoning Commiftee at the public hearing as substanfially reflected in the minctfes, made tt�e
folfowing findings of fact:
?, The.lVeliington Managerr�ent lot splif appiicaiion went through tne sfandard City
� interdepartmentai review process to be screened against all of fhe Gity's regulations.
On May 3, 2004, We((ington Management submittad an application to split the farmer
shopping center at University and Lexington into three lots with one lot facing University
Avenue, another facing Lexington immediately soufh of the White Castle, and a third L-
shaped Iof with fronfages on lexington and on Griggs St. {See attached drawtng.)
�ollowing standard operating procedures, PED zoning staff distributed the lot split .
application to reviewers 'sn other City departments for commenis. Based on the �ity
surveyor's comments, the fegal descriptions were revised. The ofher comments were
t�12. D. S9.":8(5 V✓OUiC'�+ i'lE$u�iv . Siuuuc� ai iii8 at0
pe,iy tines, a�a tnat a new
�f0�87(J ii.*lc COL'i� !?Oi �J° drg;{,*; ��r0!.'��'1 :'h° ST3:L' o# #he o!e S^Qne:. �C� C°!;i°� uUlt'��^y.
Either the building woufd have to be torn down or a party waii would have to be builf on
the new property line. Wef4ington Management assured planning staff that they intend
to tear the buifding down.
2. The Weliington Management fot spiif applicafion met al4 of fhe standards in the code to
qua(ify for administrative acfion by the P.Ianning Administraioc
The City's subdivision regulations distinguish.between lot splits, which can be approved
adm7nistratively.(Section 69.304), versus piats, which go to the City.Councii. A iot spi'rt
m oved by Morton
seconded by
�n favor �� ,with 1 abstenfion (Mardell)
against __
OS-�'�
Zoning File #04-'l27-011
Plartning Commission Reso(ution
Page 2 of 4
creafes no mor= fhan four lots. Section 69.304 gives conditions for the approvai of !ot
sptifs. The Wellington Management proposal mct al! of the conditions: frontage on
improved streefs; the land was previousty platted; {ofs met area and width sfandards; no
residual parcels wer2 substandard; no split-zoned parcels; no nonconforming uses or
huifdings wou(d resuft; and fhe lots were not too sfeep for tauitdings.
3• The Wellington Managemenf lot sptit app(icafion met a11 o`the generai subd"+vision
stan8ards_in the code that app(y to bofh piats and lot splifs.
7he standarr3s for approving any plat or lat spfit are Ii i s , fed in S 69.406(a). The
YY't�i �iuiy^ivii 1 v�ia'i�'ay^��$i , i i^vi Sv� i i2cuiij/ COiiiuiicG u SiiS yl JjZ jGVG(i SLCI UQt�lJ. �Zl
all applicabie provisions of the Legislative Code; woukd not be detrimen{at to surrounding
tand uses; surrounding land couid be compatibiy planned and used; preserved important
natural features (none to preserve}; coutdsafe(y be devefoped; and could be
ecoitomicaity served with pub(ic faci[ities and services. The onfy. one af fhe severt
s:andards frat requi; ed deeper inves�gation vdas vuhe�her Lhe tot �g;i� v�;as in
conformance with the Comprehensive Piart.
�
LJ
Duririg the City's review period, sfaff from PED and L1EP met twice to discuss whether
the proposed lof sp(it was consisfent with the UniversityAvenue Transrt-Orienfed
e�evefopment �ram,cpvo;k Sta;i cortGJded that it was consisfent because of the .
Framework's emphases on remaving b(ight, gefting redevelopinent soon, and �
accommodating market demand. As the stafF reads the TOD Frainework, it is not
absolute about TOD; R recognizes market forces. In a nutsf�ell, the TOD Framework
estabfishes as policy Yhat the City shoufd push redevefopment to be as pedestrian-
friendly, as dense, and as urban viI(age-(ike as the markef wil{ bear. Moreover, the
three-lot configurafion wouid not preciude trensiY-oriented development (see finding 5
below}.
Staff also reviewed fhe lot sptit in re(ationship to the Lexington-Hamline Sma!lArea Plan,
as �,vel( as th� P/3n Cllmf»?r f an�f (.`.cncr?� Pnl�C�� y^� �FE �2^C.� �.:52 C�ifljyi@f$ Gi �ilc
Cls`;�4VIu@ C'vii7pfcil'c13iV2 �IBit. .Fv'i Oi u pia^P.S �i�# t ie'Si P�Y=ry' � iT1,Oh2SlS Oi i SUY(70ii i0�
redeveiopment of fhe shopping center site.
4. On June 28, 20d4, the Planning Administrafor sent Wel�ingtori Martagement a letter
approving the lot split to creaYe three lots, subject to two condifions: (a) Eifher demolish
the building fhat straddfes a_property tine or buitd a party waft; and (b) Cuf off and plug
obsolete sewers. .
The letter wenf an to encourage Wellington Management fo confinue working with
communify groups and City staff on fheir deve(opment pians to reach a soluiion That "wiif
ultimately meet the otijectives of transit-oriented devefopment.'
�• On July 28, 2004, the Lezington-HamGne Community Council and University United
jointly submifted an appea! of the Ptanning Administrator's decision. The appea! raises' .
fve objections to the approvaf of the lot split. are shown below in itafics and �
fo1(owed 6yfhe_Pfanning Commission's responses: �
OS- 3 S
Zoning File #04127-011
P(anning Commission Resoiufion
�Page 3 of 4
(a) Becavse the s�te reprssents one of the more.significanz �edevelopment opportunities
in the city, the City goverament shoutd itrsf approve an overal! p/an for the who/e -
redevelopmenf siie be,ore-approving anylots.
Tf�e Ci"ry's zoning.attd subdivision reguiations contain no �rovisian requiring an overall
dev=lopmenf plan except in the Pianned Deve4opmenf (Pfl) zone and the large
Traditionaf Neigfiborhood zone (TN3). The Universify-Lexington site is not in either of
these zones. A privafe property owner has the right to diuide his Sand in any way that
mee:s the standards in the code. Having a masier pian is not one of the standards.
(Note: Often the HRA can do something through negofiation that the City can't impose
at.�......L �......S..a1 TL... A J-�..� a" a t L�I '
in�vuyu icyuiauGii. ! i!v }'�Rn BG'aiu �,au l'c�c�ii2i0 �O ii!Ciu�E 8 tila3i?i p:an CO?IO`IfVOiI SS1
whatever development agreement if makes with Wef(ingtorrManagement.)
Weliington Management has also responded fo this compfaint in the appeal. They say
thaf fhey need to se11 the ALDi`s parcei first to off-set fheir frorrt-end carrying costs as
Ri3Sic� �7� ar�;,ing va;th corr�mun;#y par�icp�t'san moves ;orward far the rest of t�e site. i'ne
developer has a preliminary mixed use developmenf concept for the whole site, buf they
realize that it raises several quesfions fhat deserve further expioration: Can the
Lexingfon side be improyed fo have real parkway character? ls the level of public
subsidy required reasonable? Can residenfiaf units be given proper residential ssttings?
To.work cofiaboratively on the overall pian for the si#e, City Counciimember Debbie
� Montgomery and PED have inv'sted a community-based design advisory committee to
begin meeting with Weltington Managemenf at fhe end af Augusf:
(b) The creation of these three lots '...severely diminishes the opportun(fy for a
comprehensive, large-scale, urban vil/aga type of development that has been envisioned
by the communify for a number of years."
The UniversityAvenue Transit-Oriented Development Framework has a concise
definition. "Transit-oriented development (TOQ) encourages compact, pedestrian-
fnonwS� �o� `r"i7i�i`7 8}i!y^�'1 "�iEa.^Si vr B�TiNivyiTicili ai�u f lv'ti.�i'ii'itJ VVili HiHiiCl�y '
�stance o; a rna;�r pub:ic tra,^.s��rt s:er." The A_Di's groc�r� s±o:e has pro::cs=_d a site
pfan that is pedestrian friendiy; it has a pedesfrian ptaza that connects the Universify
Ave, sidewalk, the bus stop, the store entrance and tfie parking lot together. The store
is up a}ong University Ave. with the parking behind. "Fhe grocesy store wit( serve the
surrounding neighborhoods. �
.
The Lexington parcel has not been soid yet. Last Nlarch, befiore community discussion
focused on fhe site, the HRA Board approved a meinorandum of undesstandsng with
Welfingtnn Management �liat�s.upported.fhe creation of.a.fast food pad. .A freestanding ,
fast food restauraM would not be consistent with TOD Qrinciples. The. repsesentafsve for
Wellington Management told staff that they have a(ready turned away several profitable
purchase offers from fast food chains. They wil! hold out.as lossg as they csn ta seek
businesses that woWd fit'snfo the-TOD concept. They are wiiling discuss this parcel with
the community-based design advisory commitfee that wil( start meeting at the end of
Augus#.
05-3�
zoning File #04-'127-a� 1
Piartning Commission Resolution
Page 4 of 4
(c) °The proposed lot sp(if does not meef the guidetines of TOD or the spirit of the TOD
Framesvork." _
The basic premise of TOD is to get residenfs and employees located within a quarter of
a mile of a good transit iine. The whole sife is within that distance. Wetlington
Management has shown good faith in agreeing to work foward a feasible redevelopment
projeet with fhe community-based group. Whefher the density goaEs of the TdD .
Framework car� be achieved will depend on markef demand and fhe Ieve! of public .
subsidies committed fo the project. -
The main TOD prinoiple that is jeopardized by the iot spift, par�icutar(y tfie Lexington lot,
is the abiEity to create smailer b(ocks by extending Aurora Street through to Dun(ap.
Whiie this is iliustrated in the long version of the TOD Framework it is not in the pian.
summary_ adopted as part of the Coinprehensive Plan. The written proposai; found in
notr? fae iong ve!�sion. anc+ th= p?an sum;r,ary, . says,_`Crea:e smalle; i.ICCiC$ CAT}SiStc+li
with TOD princip(es, if fhe market suppo�ts th7s type of development." [Emphasis
adcied.] .
(d) About half the parking (spacesJ proposed for the ALDI�s store are located outside
ih� A�i's loi.(Par�2; A) irt t,`;2 largest of the t'r�, ee tofs (t�a.%ce! CJ. ; l�is sear.�s fo
indicafe that the lot being created for the ALD!'s store is notlarge enough to
accommodate the_planned development."
The Weilingtort Management representafive fold sfaff that ALDI's is wiiling to enter into
shared parking agreements with cross easements to have soine ofi fheir parking on the
adjoining. parcels. When the fu((.development is complefed, fhis wiit result in msximizing
the use of parking spaces and thus reducing the Eatal amount of aspha(t needed, ln
oiher words, fne ALt�t's parking arrangement is suppoRive of TOD principies.
(e) "The ALDI site Dlan shows a temp�rar� jstam,s �� •��o;;�;� �; ea..,scutf C
ALD;'s ;ot, b✓t pron;c,+es no e�p;a^,atbn fcr vr,�at fra{iper,s to the s:omwa:ar cnce tl�e
`femporary' arrangemenf is removed.°
The Wef(ingfon representative says fhat when the development is complefe, a(t or mosf
of the storrrtwater retention will be in underground tanks; there won't be anywhere etse
for if. � �
NOW, THEREFORE, BE }T RESOE.VED, that fhe Saint Paui Planning Commission hereby
DENf�S the appeal by fhe.Lexington-Hamiine Community Counci! and lJniversity United
(Zoning File # 64-'127-013) and uphoids the Pianning Adminisfrafor's decision to approve a 1ot
split (ZQning File # 04-Q81-837) for tt�e creation of three lots on ffie property, at the southwesf
comsr of University Avenue and Lexington ParEcway thaf was formerly occupied by the
LexingfornUniversity Shopping Center, .compr�sed of six {�arcets of reeord with sequenfiat P(Ns
342923490002 through -07:'. - : � -
�
�
�
05- � �
� Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
IS Kellogg Bonlevard West
Minutes of Augasf 2�, 2Q04
: gP��
�
A meeting of the Planning Commission of fhe City of Saint Paui was held Friday, August 27, 2004,
af 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Zimmer I,onetti, Lu, McCall, and Morton; and
Present: Messzs. Alexander, Alton, Anfang, Coletta, Fotsch,Gordon, Johnson, ICranaer,
Mardell, and Mejia.
Commissioners Mmes. *Faricy, *Porter, and *Trevino; and Messrs. *Dandrea, *Kogg, and *Scott.
Absent:
*Excused .
�
•
Also Present: Larty Soderholm, Planning Adminislrator; 21 ilen Lovejoy, Donna Drummond,
Pahicia 7ames, and Mary Bruton, Department of Planning and Economic
DevelopmenE staff; Tom Beach, LIEP.
I. Approval of minutes of July 16, 2004
!!�
11
MOTION: Commissioner Anfang moved approvul of the minutes of July I6, 2004.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motiox. The motion carried unanimou§ly on a voice vote.
Chair's Amiolmcements
Chair Jobnson announced that there will be a joint C7B Committee and Planning Commission
picnic September 13`� , at Lake Phalen Park, and fie eucouraged the Commissioners to attend.
Because of the proliferation of important items on the river comdor, Chair 7ohnson has asked
Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen to take on the River Corridor issue as a standing part of the
Comprehensive Pla.nning Committee in the future.
Planning Administrator's Anttouncements
I.arry Soderholm gave the Planning Administrator's report.
Mr..S�derholm announced that a cruise for the Planning Commission, together wiih many other
groups, and the Pazks and Recreafion Commission wlll be held on the Padteford River Boat on
September 8�' , at 5:00 p.m. �
He stated there aze many river development issues going on with a proposal for zoning action at
Island Station, proposed zoning action for new housing to be built right across the Wabasha
05-3 g
Bridge from Downtown, and a proposal to build housing aT the foimer jail site on tlus side of the �
Wabastta Bridge, Bridges are being proposed on both sides of Robert �treet. Mr. Soderholm
reported a River Comdor Overlay Critical Area Task Force that Comnxissioner Anfang is
serving on that has had 2 meetings.
Ax the last Planning Commission meeting Mz. Soderholm announced the City Council's
� esolution of Yhe University of St. Thomas issue. At that meeting Comaussioner Anfang asked
whether it would be a problem that the University is voluntarily giving money aanually to the
two commuaity conncils in ttiat azea, would it comptomise them. Note of fact, &om the City
Attorney saying that the district councils ue not subjeet to the conflict of interest ru2es of the
City of Saint Paut, it not a legai issae.
Commissioner Anfang questioned if ffiis wiit become a typical funding praetice for district
councils and questioned what that really does for the iategrity of the community input process,
and without expressing any opinion one way or another on that question, that was the basis of it.
Ciry Council business for 7/25/04
- Council decided to refund mone� to District 6 Plannmg Council for an appeal at 1070
$urgess. . . . - _ —
- Liquor monitoring system set up around the IInivetsities of St. Thomas and Hamline.
- Effiendi carriage house on Portland Avenue was referred back to the BZA and now has been
extended to October 6, 2004.
Other Meetings Coming up: �
- Metropolitan Council's Transporraiion Plan on Wednesday, September 22�,
- Red Rock Corridor infoimational meetings on September 8"' and 9�'.
IV. Zoning CommiEYee
Commissioner Morton gave the Zoaing Cotnmittee report.
#04-115-278 Twin Cities Habitat for Hnmanitv- Rezoning from RZ Single-family Residentiat to
RMI Mu[tiple-family Residential, i526 Ames A,venue, SW comer at Hazelwood. (.4ZIan
Torstenson;-65�/266-6579) --- --
Commissioner Morton stated District 2 recommends approval. No one spoke in support; no one
spoke in opposition. 3'he public hearing was closed. The Zoniug Committee recommends
approval with conditions .on a vote of 5-0.
MOfiION: Cotnmissioxer Nlorton moved the Zoning Committee's recomsnendation fo apprave
die rezoning. The motiox carrzed uxanimousZy ox a voice vote
_.. #04125-675 Janet 7ackson- Rezoning from Bl Local Business to R4 One-famit� �es±d�.t;ai.
1160 Montreal, SE comer at T' Street W. {Allan Torstenson, 651/266-6579)
Commissioner Morton stated that due to a family emergency the app&cant was not present at the '
pubfic hsazing and the case was laid over to the Zoning Committee meefing oa $eptember 2, 2004.
�
05-38
� #04069-407 Nen¢ Sfiao Yantr _ Fstablishment of legal nonconforming use sfatvs as a duplex.
441 Van Buren, NW corner at Anmdel. (AZlan Torstenson, 651/266-6579)
Commissioner Morton stated District 7 recommends denial. No one spoke in support. One
person spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recommends
denial on a vote of 5-0.
Commissioner Morton stated the app&cant never received notification of the pnblic hearing due
to an address error, and stated that the Zoning Committee will re-open the public hearing to heaz
from the applicaut. .
Referred back to Zoning Committee for Seprember 2, 2004, meeting.
#04123-903 David Vik - Establishment of legal nonconforming use status as a duplex. 2417
Commonwealth, between Gordon and Hillside. (Allen Lovejoy, 6�1/266-6576)
Commissioner 1Vlorton stated Disfrict 12 recommends deniai. No one spoke in snpport, no one
spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recomviends denial
on a of vote 5-0.
MOTION: Commissioner Mortosz moved the Zonixg Cammittee's recotnmendation to deny
the establishment of legal noncortforming use.
� Commissioner Morton stated that in 1989, the Planning Commission denied the establishment of a
nonconforming use permit and there have been no less than 4 enforcemenh notices to the owner
about noncompliance of the duplex. The last one was this yeaz in April.. She stated the applicant
does not meet the hazdship tequirement or the duplex guidelines regazding the surrounding azea,
which is all single family homes.
The moHon carried ununimously on a voice vote.
#04-127-01 l Lexineton Hamline/University - Appeal of a Planning Adminisizator's Approval of
a Subdivision (lot split #04081-83�) of the vacant shopping center site at the southwest corner of
Unaversity Avenue and Lexington Pazkway (Lmzy Soderholm, 651/266-6575)
Commissioner Mortan stated the Lexington Hamline Community Council is the appellant. Nine
people spoke in support. Six people spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. T'he
Zoning Committee recAmmends denial of the appeal on a vote of 5-0.
MQTTON: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Committee's recommendatipn to deny the
appeaT of the Planning Administrator's approval of a subdivision. Tke motion carried on a
voice vote of I4-0, with I abstention (Mardell).
#04113-527 ALDI Crrocerv Store - Site Plan Review for ALpi Grocery Store. 451 Le�ngton
Pazkway N., NE corner of University Avenue W. and Duniap_ (Tom Beach, 6511266-9086)
Commissioner Morton stated the Zoning Committee recommends approval with conditions on a
� � 3
OS
vote of S-0. �
MOTION: Commissioner Morton mov¢d the Znaing Comtreittee's reeornmer�d¢tion to approve
the siYe plan review witlz conditioycr. Th¢ motion carried on a voice vote of Z4-p, with I
absteation (Mardell).
Coznmissioner Morton affiounced the agenda for the Zoning Committee meeting on
September 2a .
Old Business
#04-069-907 NenQ Shao Yang - Estabiisfiment of Iegal nonconfozming use status as a duplex.
441 Van Buren, NW corner at Arundel.- (Allan Torstenson, 65I/266-6579)
1�04-125-675 Janet Iackson - Rezoning from Bl Local Bnsiness to R4 Oae-family Residenfiat.
1160 Montreal, SE comer at '7"' Street W. (�211an Torterrson, 651/266-6579J
#04-100-259 Hoc N�uyen and Mmh Ng,uven - Review of Conditional Use Pertnit for
compliance with required conditions and decision on ienewal of the permit. 380 Maryland,
SW comer at Westem. (Patricia James, b51/266-6639)
New Busmess
#04-134-556 People Incoroorated - Change of Nonconforming Use from Human Services �
Comtnunity ResidentiaI FaciIity to Departmem of Health Community Residential Facitity for
individuals with mental illness. 700 East 8"' Street, between North and Maxia. (Patricia James,
651/266-6639)
#04-134-859 Eisabeth Sereke - Establishment of Legal Nonconforming Use status as a duplex.
1080 W. 7'" Street, betcveen Armstrong & 7uno. (Patrieia James, 651/266-6639J
#04-i34-572 Teri Colas - Establishment of Legal Nonconforming Use siah�s as a triplex.
1511 English, between Hoyt and NebLaska. (patrici¢Tames, 65I/266-6639)
V. Comprehensive Planaing Comtmiftee
Commissioner ponnelly-Cofien reported the meeting scheduled for Augusc 31n , but due to some
confTicts thax meeting has been changed to September 7"` . River Comdor issues will be on the
agenda.
VI. Neighborfiood and Curreat Planauig Commiitee
Commissioner McCaII reported the last meeting was held on August 25 , where they has an
update on the Kocfi Mobi1 Site and a presentation from LanderSherman on a housing project
down by Harriet Island. She stated no other meeting has been scheduled at this time,
4 •
05
�
r
�J
•
Recorded and prepazed by
Mazy Bnrton, Planning Commission Secretary
Planning and Economic Development Department,
City of Saint Paul
Respectfully submitted,
� � >/1' i
. �. .,
.�� �• .�� � ,. .
PED1BnrtonlMmntes�Aug�yst 27, 2004
Approved
(Date)
Sue McCall
Secretary of the Planning Commission
os -�g
�
L�
Zoning Committee Minutes for 8/19/04
On August 19, 2004, there was a long public
hearing on the Universiry-Lexington lot split
appeal at the Zoning Comxnittee. The hearing
was recorded on tape, but it has not yet been
transcribed into minutes because of staff
shortages at PED.
LS
9/29l04
��
c�5-3�
ZONING COMMIl�'EE STAFF REPORT
� FILE # 04-127-011
1. APPLICANT: Lexington-Hamline Community Councii HEARiNG DATE: 8i19/04
and University United
2. 7'YPE OF APPLICATION: Administrative appeal of Pianning Administrator's decision to approve
a lot spiif (Z.F. # 04081-837)
3. LOCATION: Except for the White Castte parcel, the property at the southwest comer of
University Ave. and Lexington Pkwy. that was formerly occupied by the Lexington-University
Shopping Center
4. PIN 8� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Six PINS in sequence 34292341Q002 through -07; see file for
legal descriptions of the six parcels that comprise the site.
5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 13 Lex-Ham
6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: § 61.701(c); 69.304; 69.406(a)
7. STAFF REPORT DATE: 8l12/04
PRESENT ZQN(NG: B3
BY: Larry Soderholm
8. DATE RECEIVED: 7/28/04 pEADLINE FOR ACTIOW: 8l31/04
[Deadline assuming that MN Statutes 462.358(3)(b), wfiich aliows 120 days for preliminary
subdivision approval, is interpreted Fhe same as Section15.99 for zoning cases.]
A. PURPOSE: Administrative appeal of the decision by the Planning Administratar to approve a lot
spiit application by Weltington Management to divide the property into three parcels
� B. PARCEL SIZE: 285,258 square feet
C. EXiSTiNG LAND USE: Vacant strip-style shopping center with large parking lot
D. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
�
North: Commercial in B3
East: Commercial in B3
South: Office, industrial, and two houses in 63, then houses in RM2 on Central Ave.
West: Commercial in B3
E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 61.701(c) provides for administrative appeals to the
Pianning Commission. Section 69.306 provides for the approva( of tot splits by the Plan�ing
Administrator. Section 69.304, which is described in finding 2 below, gives conditions for the
approva{ of lot spiits without platting, Section 69.406(a), whicfi is covered in finding 3 below, lists
standards for approval that appiy to both iot splits and plats.
F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: The site was the home of the old Lexington Ball Park until it was tom
down and rep{aced by the currenf shopping center in fhe early 1960s. 1n recsnt years the
shopping center has been underutilized and deteriorating. The center has been closed for the
past few months in preparation_for redevelopment of the site.
Wellington Management proposes to sei! the new Universify Avenue !ot of 1.2 acres to ALDI Inc.
for a grocery store. The Zoning Committee held a public hearing on the ALDI site pian on 8/5/04
and is recommending thaf the Pianning Commission approve the site pian on 8/13/04.
G. DISTR(CT GOUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The Lexington-Hamiine Community Councii is a co-
appellant. At a July 28 community meeting, the co-appetlants and the Thomas-Da4e Ptanning
Council passed out a fetter saying that the devetopment should be transit-oriented and consistent
with community-based planning.
05 -3 8
Zoning Fiie # 04127-011
Zoning Committee Staff Report
Page 2
H. FINDINGS:
1. The Wellington Management lot split applicafion went through the standard Cify
interdepartmental review process to be screened against all of the City's regulations.
On 5/3/04, Weltfngfon Management submitted an application to spiit the former shopping
center at University and Lexington into three lots with one lot facing University Ave�ue,
another facing Lexington immediately south of the White Castle, and a third L-shaped lot with
frorttage on Lexington. (See Attachments.) Fotfowing standard operating procedures, PED
zoning sfaff distribufed the lot split appiication to reviewers in other Cify departments for
comments. Based on the City surveyor's comments, the legal descriptions were revised. The
other comments were that obsolete seuvers woutd need to be stubbed at the property lines,
and that a new property tine could not be drawn through fhe middle of fhe o(d shopping cenfer
building. Either the buiiding would have to be tom down or a party wall wouid have to be built
on the new property line. Wellington Management assured planning staff that they intend to
tear the building down.
2. The Weilington Management lot split application met all of the standards in the code to qualify
for administrative action by Yhe Planning Administrator.
, 1
��
The City's subdivision reguiations distinguish between Iot splits, which can be approved
adminisVatively (Section 69.304), versus piats, which go to the City Council. A lot split
creates no more than four lots. Section 69.304 gives conditions for the approval of lot splits.
The Wellington Management proposat met alt of the conditions: fronfage on improved streets;
the (and was previous(y platted; lots met area and width standards; no residual parcels were
substandard; no split-zoned parcels; no nonconforming uses or buildings would result; and the �
lots were not too steep for buiidings.
3. The Wellington Management lot split application met all of the general subdivision standards
in the code that apply to boYh plats and lot splits.
The standards for approving any plat or lot split are listed in Section 69.406(a). The
Wellington Management Iot split readily complied with six of the seven standards: met alI
applicable provisions of the Legislative Code; woutd not be detrimental to surrounding land .
uses; surrounding land couid be compatibly planned and used; preserved important natural
feafures (none to preserve); could safely be developed; and couid be economically served
with public facilities and services. The only one of the seven standards that required deeper
investigation was whether the loY spiit was in conformartce with the Comprehensive Plan.
During the City's review period, staff from PED and UEP met twice to discuss whether the
proposed lot split was consisfenf with the Universify Avenue Transit-Oriented Development
Framework. Staff cortcluded that it was oonsistent because of the Frameworic's empfiases on
removing btight, gefting redevelopment soon, and accommodating market demand. As the
staff reads the TOD Framework, it is not absolute about TOD; it recognizes market forces. !n
a nutshell, the TOD Framework esYablishes as policy that the City should push redevelopmertt
to be as pedestrian-friendly, as dertse, and as urban viitage-like as the market wi(I bear.
Moreover, the three-lot configuration would not prec(ude transit-oriented development (see
finding 5 below).
Staff also reviewed the lot split in relafionship fo the Lexington-Hamiine Plan and fhe Plan
Summary and Genera( Po(icies chapter and the Land Use chapter of the citywide
Comprehensive Plan. All of the plans put their primary emphasis on support for
redevelopment of the shopping center sife. The l.exington-htamline Small Area Plan (2009 ) �
policy statements are attached.
05-3 b'
Zoning File # 04-127-Q1 i
� Zoning Commiftee Staff Report
Page 3
4. On June 28, 2004, the PVanning Administrator sent Wetiington Management a letter approving
the lot split to create three lots, subject to two conditions: (a) Either demolish fhe building fhat
straddles a property line or build a party wall; and (b) Cut off and plug obsolete sewers.
The letter went on to encourage Wellington Management fo continue working wfth community
groups and City staff on tfieir deveiopment pians to reach a sofution that "will ultimately meet
the objectives of transit-orienfed deveiopment.°
5. On Juty 28, 2004, the Lexington-Hamline Community Council and Universify United jointly
submitted an appeal of the Planning Administrator's decision. The appeal raises five
objections to the approval of the fot split. They are shown below in italics and followed by the
staff responses:
(a) Because fhe site represenfs one of the more significanf redeve%pment opportunities in the
city, the City govemment should first approve an overalt ptan for the whole redevelopment site
before approving any iots.
The City's zoning and subdivision regulations contain no provision requiring an overall
development plan except in the Planned Development (PD) zone and the farge Traditional
Neighborhood zone (TN3). The University-Lexington siie is not in either of fhese zones. A
private property owner has the right to divide his land in any way that meets the standards in
the code. Having a master pian is not one of the standards.
(Note: Often the tiRA can do something through negotiation that the City can't impose
through regulation. The HRA Board can negotiate to include a master pian condition in
whatever development agreement it makes with Wellington Management.)
� Weliington Management has also responde.d to this complaint in the appeat. They say that
they need to self the ALDI's parcel first to off-set their Front-end carrying costs as master
planning with community participaiion moves forward for the rest of the site. The developer
has a preliminary mixed use development concept for the whole site, but they realize that it
raises severai Guestions that deserve further exploration: Can the Lexington side be
improved to have reat parkway character? Is the level of public subsidy required reasonable?
Can residentiai units be given proper residential settings? To work coltaboratively on the
overalf plan for the site, City Councilmember Debbie Montgomery and PED have invited a
community-based design committee to begin meeting with Wellington Management at the end
of August.
(b) The creafion of fhese fhree lots "...severely diminishes the oppo�tunity for a
comprehensive, large-scale, urban viilage fype of development that has been envisioned by
the community for a number of years. °
The University Avenue Transit-Oriented Development Framework has a concise definition.
"Transit-oriented development (TOD) encourages compact, pedestrian-friendly development
with a high density of employment and housing within walking distance of a major public
transport stop." The ALDI's grocery store has proposed a site plan that is pedestrian friendly;
it has a pedestrian plaza that connects the University Ave. sidewalk, the 6us stop, the sfore
entrance and the parking lot. The store is up along University Ave. with the parking behind.
The grocery store will serve the surraunding neighborfioods.
The Lexington parcel has not been sold yet. Last March, before community discussion
focused on the sife, the HRA Board approved a memorandum of understanding with
We!lington Management that supported the creation of a fast food pad. A freestanding fast
� food restaurant would not be consisfent witfi TOD principles. The representative for
Weffington Management told staff that they have aiready tumed away several profiitable
o�-� g
Zoning Fite # 04-127-Oi 1
Zoning Commiffee Staff Report
Page 4
purchase offers from fast food chains. They wili hold out as long as they can to seek
businesses fhat wotald fit into the TOD concept. They are willing discuss this parcet with the
community-based design committee that wi{I start meeting af the end of August.
(c) "The proposed lot split does not meef the guidelines of TOD or the spirit of fhe TOD
Framework °
The basic premise of TOD is to get residents and employees located within a quarter of a mile
of a good transit tine. The whole siYe is within that disYance. Wellington Management has
shown good faith in agreeing to work toward a feasible redevetopment project with the
community-based group. Wtiether fhe density goafs of the TOD Framework can be achieved
wili depend primarily on market demand and the level of public subsidies committed to the
project.
The main TOD principle that is jeopardized by the lot spiit, particularly the Lexington lot, is the
ability to create smaller blocks by extending Aurora Street through to Dunlap. While this is
illustrated in the long version of the TOD Framework, it is not in the plan summary adopted as
part of the Comprehens+ve Plan. The written proposat, found in both the long version and the
plan summary, says, "Create smatler biocks consistent wiffi TOD principles, if the market
supports this fype of developmenf." [Emphasis added.j
(d) "Abouf half the parking jspacesj proposed for the ALDI's store are located outsrde the
ALD!'s lot (Parce! A), in fi�e largest of fhe ff�ree lots (Parcel C). This seems #o indicate that
the lot being creafed for fhe ALD/'s sfore is not large enough to accommodate the planned
development."
i
The Wellingfon Management representative told staff that ALDI's is witiing to enter into shared �
parking agreements with cross easements to have some of their parking on the adjoining
parcels. When the ful! development is completed, this will result in maximizing the use of
parkittg spaces and thus reducing the totat amount of asphait needed. In other words, the
ALDi's parking arrangement is supportive of TOD princip[es.
(e) "The ALDI's site plan shows a temporary jstormwaterJ retention area...south of the ALD!'s
lot, but provides no explanation for what happens fo the stormwafer once the Yemporary'
arrangement is removed. °
The Wellington representative says that when the development is complete, all or most of the
stormwater retention wiii be in underground tanks; there won't be anywhere else for it,
I. STAFF REGOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 5 above, sYaff recammends that the
appea! by the Lexington-Hamlirte Community Counal and University Unifed be denied, and that
the tot split creating tfiree iots af the former Lexingfon-University shopping center site be upheld.
Attachrr�ents
A. Appeal filed by the Lexington-Hamline Community Council and University United with their
attachments (p. 1-5)
B. Drawing of the approved (ot sp(it (p. 6)
C. Planning Administrator's letter approving the lot split (p.7-8)
D. Excerpts from the University Ave�ue Transit-Oriented Development Framework {p. 9-15)
E. Excerpts from the Lexington-Hamiine Smail Area Plan (p. 16-18)
F. ALDI's site plan (p. 19)
G. Pre(iminary masfer plan for fhe site (6/4/04) (p.20) •
H. Photos and maps (p. 29-27)
JUL-2B-2904 09�58 PED ���� �
A?PLICATION FOR APPEAL
Deparlmenz af P7annittg and Ecauoraic Developmeru
Zartir� Sactio�
1400 CiLy Hatt Annax
1a West h'oarih Street .
"�" Saint Pant, MN SSI62•2634
jb5f) 265-b5&9
��,Zip
t�
APPLICANT
PRORERTY
LOCA7tON
�� ��
Zoning File
Address/L
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiiestion Es hereby made tor an appeai to the:
❑ Board of Zonln9 Appeals
6512283261 P,02i02
05` 3�'
Zo�ir,�g oitfce wse oafy
Eile # .
Ee'e:�•j S <-°"r
"Geiitativ8. Hearirig. Bafe:
::� :�-o�.
l%�vv� hhiSSt�Yt
�CityCouncti '�p1�'���'`�
Under the provision of Ghapter 64, SecYion Paragreph of the Zaning Code, to appeat a
decision made by the
20 . File Number:
ot decisfan)
GRQUNOS FOR APPEAL: F�cp{a�n wlty you feel there has been an grror in any reqc�irement, permii, decislan
or refusaS made by an admtaistraffve offioial, or an error in fact, pracedure or
flnding made by the Board of 2ontng Appeals or the Planning Commtsslon.
r '
, , ,
.
f
r ��,.
{atfsch atid'rtionai sheet ]f necessary}
� �r� r- � - -
Z ° 4' �
Rpp[icaaYS Signatur� i Da;e 7�` � City Agent ��' '•
TOTf�L P.02
05-3�
�
Date: 7uly 2&, 2004
To: Larry Soderholm, Pianning Administrator
From: 7essica Treat, Le�ngton Hamline Community Council
Brian McMahon, Uniyersity UD1IT'ED
Re: Appeal of Decision to Approve Lot-Split at Lea�ington-University
Our two organizarions would like to appeal your decision to approve the lot-split for the
oid shopping center site on the southwest corner of University and Lexington. Our main
concern is that this site represents one of the more significant redevelopment
oppor.�iYies i*� the City of St. Pau1, aad is 3ne o; tue r�ost visible locations in t�e �^,ity.
Tbe Ciiy of St. Paul should not permit the splitting up of a large pazcel such as this
without first approving the overall development plan for the entire site. Splitting the lot
before plans for the entire site aze finalized severely diminishes the opporiuniry for a
comprehensive, lazge-scale, urban village type of development that has been envisioned
by the coznmunity for a number of yeazs. We feel particulazly strong about this in light of
the great deal of community-based plamuug and visioning which has occurred over the
� last few years with regard to this site.
As you know, our two organizations and many of our community partners recently
participated in an extensive PED Transit-Oriented Aevelopment Planning Study that
included the Le�cington and University site. The Snelling/Lexingkon TOD Framework
that resulted from that study, approved by City Council earlier this year, clearly calls foz
a TOD development on that comer, including scenarios that run the gamut from all
housing to all commercial. The proposed Iot-split is for a development that does not meet
the guidelines of TOD or the spnit of the adopted TOD Framework. While the site
technically falis within the Lex-Ham Community Councii boundaries, there is broad
support for TOD development at that site from, District 8, District 7, Hamline-Midway,
and the Aurora St. Anthony NDC, the adjacent district councils.
The lot split, as it relates to the recently submitted site plan for the Aldi's grocery store,
has technical problems as well. About half of the pazking stalls proposed for the Aldi's
store aze located outside the Aldi's lot (Parcel A), in the ]azgesf of the three lots (Pazcel
C). This seems to indicate that the lot being creaYed for the Aldi's store, is noT large
enough to accommodate the planned development. A second issue is stormwater
drainage. The Aldi's site plan shows a temporary retention area for the Aldi's site south
of the Aldi's lot, but provides no e�lanaiion for what happens to the stormwater once
this "temporary" arrangement is removed.
u
�
05 3�'
Whi_te ihe presence of blight on the site makes all of us anxious to the see the comer �
redeveloped, we will Iikely live with this redevelopment for the next 20-50 years.
Splitting up this lot is not in the long-term best interests of the City of St. Paul or the
neigiiborhoods of the Midway. If ever there was a need for a bi� picture, thoughtful
approach to redevelopment on this site, it is now.
Thank you for your consideration of this critically importaut matter.
Jessica Treat $rian McMahon
Executive D'uector Executive Duector
Le�ngton-Hamline Community Council University UNITED
�
�
3 2
•
�
C J
1���� �
u � 0�5-3 8
I�ti,�'�' C� r��w,��� w��$ ��
v���'`�v �� ������;�
Leaangton/University Comprehensive Plan d Commnnity VSsio
i. I,ex-Ham Tomorrow Plan Approved by City Cotmcil in 2001, called for mixed-use
development including housing.
2. City of St. Paul Snelling/L.eungton University Avenue TOD Framework Plan, adopted by
City CoLmcil in Febmary 2004 as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, funded by Met Council
Livable Commtmities Czrant, calls for transit-oriented development on the site and lays out a
range of possible land-use scenarios. TOD is defined in the Framework as compact, pedeshian-
fi development with a high density of employment and housing within walldng distance of
a major public h�ansportation stop.
3. City of St. Paul Transportation Plan, a cl�apter of the City Comprehensive Plan, 1999:
Policy 3. The City should work with other agencies to invest in infrasitucture and system
management that support transit, cazpooling, biking, and walkir.g."
Policy 4. The City should gtzide land use and development of the city in ways that reduce
trips and promote use of alternative modes of travel.
Policy 80. The City supports the cenisal corridar between downtown St. Paul and downtown
2vlianeapolis as the top priority for development of transitways — busways and/or LRT — in
the region.
4. Summary of the Ciry of St. Paul Comprehensive Plan, 1999
16. University Avenue Corridor/ Midway —.,. University Avenue should confinue to be
developed as both a hansit corridor aud a mixed-use business street, serving city and
neighborhood needs. The Land Use and Transportarion chapters support:
• I3igher density of households and employment along the corridor that require and
support better transit,
• Redasign and redevelopment to make the auto-oriented regional shopping area
comfortable for pedeshians and to enhance storefront, pedestrian-oriented
commercial centers along the avenue, and
• Establislunent of the "central corridor" (of which University Avenue is a spine) as the
top priority for the development of transitways, busways andfor LRT in the ren on.
5. Development Principles for University Avenue, 1999,
(T'hese aze an Advisory Supplement to city ordinances and standards)
A. Principles for the Entire Length of the Avenue:
�. Buildings should be oriented to University Avenue and aligned with the street where
consistent with use, lot size and configuration to support the goal of an urban and
aesthetically pleasing streetscape.
7. Buildings on University Avenue should have attracfive pedestrian connecrions to the
avenue.
�
�
�5��8
17. To ensure that University Avenue is as pedeshian friendly as possible, @evelopments �
should **+in;m; �e or reduce c�sb cuts where possible, and share curb cuts for adjacent paz�dng
azeas should be encouraged.
C Principles for Neighborhood Shopping Nodes
3. Buildings shouid be buiIt up close to the sidewalk unless there is a demonstrated
pedestrian design amenity, such as abimdant greenery and trees. Canapies and other.fa�ade
articulation can also address the goal of having an aesthetically pleasing street scape.
5. Multi-story and mixed use buildings aze strongiy encouraged, with building height and
mass compatible with adjacent commercial andresidential azeas.
6. Buildings need to have windows onto the sfreet and towazd pazIdng lots so that people can
see in and out of retail and service businesses. As a guideline, at least 40 percent of the front
fayade of new or reconshucted buildings shnuld be devoted to windows and doors,
6. University UNTTED's Potential Housing Sites on University Avenue report ranked Lexiagton
and University as the number one housiag site alona Ylze corridor afrer an extensive community
process.
i
r
�
i .. f � � �
i�
Z
W
� '
.P
V W :_ : ;': ; �:L� ; � „
� ` *:
+n 3 z�s e-�= s7e_p s,�z:8
� �•' O se^_ 3:°'x £a_gx 4 .
V! � q a�8 - 5°3 �`5<' stlei� s �£`�
�((� Q $'�� a' b3 " _ z�se: ��;as:
m ; 3' sg?e _ � '
>_ ' s
V/ z 7m 3 Y a'€n s�rd ^i^ '' i�i&: 3SZ.°.�g
V� y = L SF . �
Q � (yd�i. si�� j:e:: $aeL3 ��e'°;°e
� � Y4(] �� _?F_Sg #eS�s ..e.i
°-- - ° E-]= -
O O C o� __- .� j �y -__'a Y=s `pa
`1 � Y .-i :':.a] iss �=:�i
i� O " � :'_sis'> .° S' _` '°3
^ � a � i s -i � ..�-.� ,sF _?n
n ,t4 -�i?3� se:s =��•i.
Yi �,d E� :Se $ :a..f : : :
�/� O� fr v F s. e _
�L ' � g•• d `. ; €�==d ?s;:a gIC::F
U = fn '� e '_ � °- ` _ - : � '` f :.`-__:
Y / � l � � W 8 t- 8 = zs 5 5 '" 5�__= °^5_ 4 S £,'?`:"
�y �[D f'3�2�j tl e ��9 ' S:S{w� � n.:s� s Eie��SF
0 7 � ` '
�
�
�
W
� -----r------,_J
-- � - — - , — -- s :v .n�rer►d t����
r ! I '
{ 8 —� i� .,..m wwwA, w w��$
y_ i �_, S 3f4L600N �
� � � � - � 1 ! .��_ �
� � I, fr ��R ."7 � y S£�
�- 8�- `i :.1e
I � e x �° � d `` C ji` I
� • F"3 is= '
�_ _ � � E.3 l I
� I `
�}
� � _" aeszacoN - \
i
I_ ��
a .i
;i
.�e .
c
�P +:vi "
G • �
� � a 3s?
I ^ �
I i �
� `
4
� I
�
� _,.��_rop.�,m,
�
a t '"
a _
—��cmvnre'OSVrWle+ L£ ..
_ .x,eszaops
� %�' � d/LY�Q
_L _ __ __ _ — ._
E - � $
a_
`@' a '
o �
" s�$� :�$�
%' �g � �� %
� � �
� Wreed
& yq
oS�Sr�� mARa
W� g 4 FaA_
tE w.m�€
_ �! � `�tl
V�
<
Y
3 �
�
��
L _ _ _
Y — _� � _ �
f - ` ��. �
\ �
� �
\ �il�il�
♦
. � �
I
—�„ ;� � �
2I +
9 � I
. = I �
� I �
_ �` — �
fT. —
� 1 -".:�. � I
I n, .. �'
' t � �I
' � �_ 1J
�
�P3S
i�
� �
��4 ;
s`
7�g: a
� €?F 1
_,
j�i e
_ 2
J.... .
£[
S
�
�
II➢C➢ �-�
��� f�# i
��
�Pf �
�
.. i
� ,
C�'1 �3�1 t� 9'i
�
�a�
r
S ketc h
- OI� �ANAGEM�NT
�nergy Park Drive, Suite 100 �
St. Paul, MN 55108
�P�
ttJ MANAGEMENT, ING
2GY PARiC pRIVE
MN 55t06
292-0072
Designer, Engineer
& Surveyor.
RIJC - Kuusisto, LYd.
81t0 8tue Circte Onve -
MlnrteTOnkc, Minnesotc 55343
Tei- (952) ?33-0972
?xopeity DucripGOb �
Tw7b kl l.b fm[ pfLoT36, aIl ofLot 35, Lot 34 excepttyaf pgt ofLot 34 Lying East
`Aest 350 {ct md Noxty of a Sme 39155 feezNorfh oft6e South imc MNorty I II.6
f Lot 36, an m 3�ev.� �s3�1's A33i*im�v HY3-?a�s, a....^°�!heast-00 fcei
���B�P�Y, ezcotd'sg ta thcmcoidedPlazihexco� andyctazedm
�Y Coamy. Mmmcsam.
Pazrel Daeiptioac
�L "A"
part oi tueNoim Ii1.6 iea oiiot36, ali of Lot 35, Loc 34 i9mg Noxth of aiimee drsyva
iG fxE NoCfi of a¢dpualleLto the $puth yy� o�'t� p7�y 111.6 fxt of Lot36, excepttLazpart of
4lyiug Fasc o£ihe West 350 fre[ ffid NoRh of a 3ffie 39155 fx[ Np�flt of andp�atiel ip the
i Ime of she Notth 2FF.6 fraofLot 36, eIl m Bmwa aa3 E�'s Adfition m gyde park, �j��
'asity Avca¢e aad �eepttLe East 4D fcet takm forLeffigNa PadtwaY, �S�tolhc
�P� �o$ �d simated'mRazvsey Co�19, Mmnesom "
�I.'B"
:�ds ofl.ot34 andLot351y'mg East a {'� West 356 fcet �dNorth of a lme dream
5 ffetNoxthof �dp�ilgl m tLg Souih 1me oftyeNoN.h 111.6 fgct ofLot 36, md So�uh
�ely�g392S5fat'Noxfh of�3p�e[leito the Soutp 1� o£ffieNoxth t21.b0 fcet of La
: m Hmma mmdAs72k.4dditioa tn &9"� p�}, csccptihe Eatt 40 &et�Ym florLexmgtan
�%Y, � ta tLe xewrded plaf thaeo£ avd siNated m Ramsey ComLLY, h�n�offi.
3'S. "C
iozthtS2.6fretafLof36,allofLot35andLot341y�" 8southafa7medmvmq4l.L}gct
iof�d pamtlei m fae9onth ]me of'tyeNorth 1I2.6 h:et ofLot 36, cceocthose
of LM 34 andLot351yingEa4 of tSe West 350 &rt �d Nortk ofa �e 22355 frUNME
3PanIld ID tbe Soath 1'me oftLeNarth 111.6 &et ofLot 36, aIl m Browa acd gyp•
Cana� %ydePazk sablatin Umve�ty Avew�e �d except the East 40 feGfakm{ar
�g�OaF�tazY.azco�ngtr�ffietecoxdedP]aiThaeof �dstuaKdmRamseYCoumy,
xsam.
idONUMENT FOUND �
JNUAdENT FQUNp
�'lCll "Y iA'WIiYFntr
�
i
��
A
� �q �
;
3 i �{
�#
�$
�
*
�
:i
f
�3
ar
� S._
'�$
P, o =
� r$
a�
e�'
ea�
m��
E
.,�"a
e��
Fs�
"e�
'^�` < a
s
s
i
e
S
2
x
3
�
�
� �
♦
�
.�
� \
• �'�
n
�
�
�
DHPAATMENt OF PL42�'NINCs
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SusanlCimberly, Director
�
G� r
ixr
UL
�
AAIlA
�
CIfiY OF SALN'i` PAUL
d¢ndy C. KeZly, Mayor
7une 28, 2004
NSs. Tanya Bell
Wellington Management Inc.
i 625 Energy Parx Ih
Suite 100
SaintPaul, i�tT SS1G8
25 �ertFourxh Sneet TeZephone: 651-266-6626
Sa+'.ntPaul,MN55102 itusimile:6ii-228-33�1
RE: Lot split application at SW comer of University Avenue and Lexington Parkway
(Zoning riie # 04-081-837}
Deaz Ms. Bell:
Your applicafion to divide the property at the southwest comer of University Avenue and Lexington
Pazkway (azea bounded by Dunlap, University, Lexington and the south Iine of the north 111.60 feet of
lot 36) into three pazcels is hereby approved by the City of Saint Paul, subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The lazge er.isting commercial building that straddles the boundary between your new
lots A and C must either be demolished or you must build a parfy wall on the lot line that
meets Ciry code standards for pariy walls. You can check with LIEP about these
standazds. This must be done by Febzuary 28, 2p05 (eight months).
(b) All obsolete sewers must be cut off and plugged at the properry lines.
As I have explamed in email messages, the City's approval of your 1ot split application does not mean
that PED supports the site p1an co�gurations that we have seen to date. I encourage you to continue
working with couununity groups and City staff on your development plans for the properry. My hope is
that you will find a feasible and marketable plan for the property thaf works well for University Avenue,
improves Lexington Pazkv✓ay, includes housing as well as commercial space, and will ultimately meet the
objectives of transit-oriented development.
Any interested parties may appeal this decision by the Planning Administrator fo the Planning
Commission within thirty days as provided under Section 61. 701 of the Zoning Code.
If you have any quesiions, please feel free to call Paul I7ubruiel at 651-266-6583 or me at 651-266-6575.
Sincerely,
� Larry o rholm
PIamm�g Admnustrator
�
�
C:�Docume.n*s and Settings�dubruiel�i.ocal Se:angslTemp\wellington8lbVu'�kF�n�k�h}�r.wpd
D5-38
page 2
Tanya Be21
Zoning fiIe ,�#04-081-837
cc: Joseph Samuel, RLK Kuusisto Ltd
Councilmember Debbie Montgomery
A1 Carlson, PED
Martin Schieckel, PED
PauI Dubruiel, PEb
Tom Beach, LIEP
Linda Murphy, PW
Jessica Treat, Leacington-HamIine Community Council
Brian NicMahon Univezsity UNfI'ED
C:�Dornmeats �d Settings�dubnveN,ocat $ett"vie�\Te�\we7linaton7aYaL+r�HI�Rypy�E¢apMmr.a,yd
�
�
�
lJ
.. �, �
Area P1an Summary �5 - 3 �
• UniversitpAvenue Transit-Oriented Development Framework:
SNELLING AND LEXINGTO� A.REAS � �'(j�
25 Ju1y 20D3 � .�1l�'Y4�
Addendum to tIie Compre'
Recommencted bp the Planni
Adopted by the Citp Council
�
�
��
S3utt PSUl . s
25, 2003)
�
Tbzr szrmmary appendr to the Co�ireberesive pj�n ths virion and .rtrategier of tbe UrzverrityAvesuse Tran,rzt-Oriented
Development Frmnework: Snelling and Lexington�Qrear.
Co�ier of Zhe full-lengtbplant an avaiJable for nviem at the .SaintPaul Dej�csrCmeut afPlanrring and $conomic
Develo�ment anll tbe o�"zie.r ofthe Hamline Midway Coa&tion, Tboma.r-Dale Planning Countil, Szrmrrrit-LJnzverrity
Di.rtrict Council, I.ex-Ham Community Cauncil, Snel!-Ham Community Cauncil, Merriam Park Communizy
Counci� and S[ Aathony Park Commurrity Couneil.
P_ur�ose of the Studv
The Citp of Saint Paul in partnecship with community stakeholdets initiated a plan� studp to
jdenti£p transit-oriented development oppoxtunities at two key Univetsitp Avenue intersections:
Snetling Avenue and Lexington Pazkway. The goai of the study was to buitd off the recent successes
� and majot investments along the avenue and identiEp tedevelopment oppominities foz a nusnbex of
key propexties that have become run-down, vacant, or outdated.
Univessity Avenue is the spine connecting the two downtowas and has lustorically been the main
coznmexcial st�eet of the xegion. Univezsity Avenue is currentiy a major traasit line with the highest
ridetship in tlie region. The City's Compzehensive Plan identifres Univexsity Avenue as the
atignment prefersed by the Citp for light zail transit in the Centsal Coxridoz. As the zegion continues
to gtow and congestion incceases, t}�is central regioaal Iocation is becoming inczeasingly valuable £or
" residents and businesses. City, communitp and business leadess aze eagex to see these critical
intersections revitalized witl� new deveIopment that is tcaasit-oriented. Transit-oriented
developmenc (TOD) encoutsges compact, pedestaan-£rieadly davelopment with a high density of
emplopment and housing within �vajkin� distance of a major public tcausponation stop. Numerous
examples of TOD alzeadp exist along Univessitp Avenue.
The primaxy goai of tke studp is to pzovide the City of Saint Paul with a developmeat framework
that idenrifies potential fot new developmeat in these areas over the nest 5-20 years.
�
Location and CL ent Land Use
The two focus areas of this study aie Snelling Avenue/University Avenue and Lexington
Pazkmap/I�niversitp Avenue. Theq wexe chosen based upon the evstence of vacant and
widesualized land aad theiu pzo�imity to an eaisting major Twin Cities public uansportation route.
�
"� �
�-
u � 1'��P(arz Summmy (25lrry' �3)
Page S
azise, the City should act to implexnent the broad goals ouTlined in this {rame�
�exington Development Concepts
The I'exin�r°n���e�ty intersection concepts addtess thcee core issues: the soutliwest Supesblock;
creatiag a new libxazy; the notthwest (BP/Amoco) and southeast comezs. Ovetall goals - foz this
tntezsection incjude:
' Removing blighted properties aud redeveioping them soon;
� �ntens2fying tbe use of the Iand as possible; •
� Matntaining tfie hig� quahtY Paz'�'aY enviconaxent;
� �PYO°'Ilg �e public tealm;
' Czeating smallet blocks consistent wirh TpD p�in�ples, if the market suppo� �
developmenY type;
' Creating paths within fihe new development foz pedestrians moviug� between huiIdings and
transit stops.
� Designing new development to be compatible with es�� � f�y n�,hborhoods,
such as along Cen�� Sherbume, and Aurora Avenues.
Southw�
The overarc�xiag goat is the redevelopment of this site. In alI the scenarios pmvided, basic TOD
priuciples aze applied No esa,ct breakdown of uses is provided because it wiI[ be det� by the
mazket The putpose of this framewor�C �s to setgoals foz how the atea {unc�o� not the exact
" T�e °PtiOIIS ��ove White Casde in ordes to demonstrate a TOD apptoacli; however, itis
recognized that White Castte map zemai� as detennined bq rhe market Simi7arly, since tlie atea is
nuxendy zoned B-3 (genezai comtnetcia{� a�aditional big bos develop� � o �� Su� as the
fa��'ly pmposed Home Depot
Foz the putposes of this studp, four options wece identified 6y the task force. They aze egamples of
how TOD principles may be applied. They aze not Iisted in auy zan� ozder.
I'nmadlyHousing
T�S optxon assumes that housing of at least GO units to the acre ys buitt based on new housing
densisies buitt elsewhexe in Saint PauL Additionallp, the modet assuaies primar�y � ��
on tfie first floor atong University Aveuue. Housing is mo=e Iikelp to be successful on the {ust ttoor
atong Lexington than Universitp due to tfie public amenity of the pazkwap, Tbis opaon **�a,t;m;��
zesidential use on the 93 acze deveiopment site. A limited amouut of zetaii/comz�e�� L5 �cluded
along University. pazkn� ys mosdp accommodated below sixrface aud undez buijdin� footpzints,
Buildings aze shown as tFitee, fouz or five stozies mith the middle bloc& ozganized atound,a
neigfiborhood pazk.
MiY of Uses IacludingHoasing
Tbis optioa suggests capturing �e commescial market app� o f j � � ��or streets
while providing some housing behind An esact ratio of commesdal to fiousing is not estimatecL
This option places a gteatet emphasis on eomzaercial re
Universitp, while still acco / tat7 usesin the mixed use buildiag faciag
mmodating as muck residentiat as pzacticai. Patking is under buiidiIIg
�ootpnnts, on-steeet and in limit�d st�{ace lots. The middle block tnap por��p ��ude a
�
�
�
- ��
TOD P/we Sromoary (25 jxfy 03)
Pa&e 6
C�-3 �
neighborhood patk.
� S.rngle Co�errial/Of&ce Sceaarlo �
The intent of this option is to show fiow a Iarge employer coutd use this site. This option dedicates
tha site to a siBgle use such as a.n office C9fll oI Similat aaynpemest T site may accommoc3ate
appLOSimatelp 170,000-180,004 sf of commetcial uses sezced by sutface pazkiag. Addirional squaze
footage map be accomtnodated mith the use of stcuctuzed pazking. ,
Urbaa &ig-BoxModel
Based on examples ocn'� in other czties, it is possible to imagine one of the majox chains
building one of the newex "urban models." Typicaalp these are about half the size of the lasgez big
boxes +a��;n ia size from 40-60,000 sf.' Tfiis option is similax to the Singie CommercialJpffice
Scenario in that it is a single use but includes a Iaxge format retail facing ISnivetsitp. This utban
format would have a flooipiate from 4Q,000 to 60,000 sf aaanged in a 2-story configuration. 5uiface
parlang would be located intemai to the block
.�
Nozthwest corner
The northwest cornex curtently has significant vacant land. The pritnacy piopett� owne�s aze Hoa
Bien restautant and BP/Amoco. 'I'he general goal is to cxeate a signanue building at the comer of
Universitp and Lexington that suppozts the Pazkway atmosphexe. Commuruty members utged a
bnildiag of at least 2 stories but no more than 4 to pxcvent shadows from negativeIy unpacring
residential pmperty ownezs on the narth side of the a3ley.
Library o tions
The construction of a new library is a priority for the community and the City. The libraty needs to
remain near the intezsection of Univezsitp and Lexington in oxder to sustain the pazmership with the
Hubbs Center and easp access to Central High School. Due to the lack af a specific proposai to
zeview including possible impacts, this fxamewoxk makes no site zecommendation. However,
couununitp membess believe the aew faci]ity should have a steong piesence on University oz
Lesington.
Blocks south and west of Duula and I7nive i
To the west of the vacant southwest superblock at Lexington are two additional superblocks with
many business propeities. These indude a series of inedical buildings, auto zelated uses, Bally's gyxn,
and the now vacant 3M building. Tn genesat the TOD pzsnapjes aze applicable hexe, howevet
development shouid be phased in as appzopriate without deuimental impact on vibrant bvsinesses.
Blocks Between Universiry and Sherburne
Most blocks behveen University and Shetbutue, and Univessity and Auxora, have an alley betmeen
xesidentiai and commercial uses, FoL yeass, aeighboss and businesses have struggled to addzess the
freqnent problezas of dumping, cxime, etc. that plague many of these aiieys. Theze has also been
occasioaal tension as businesses, desperate for laud to grow, have iried to �ow aaoss the aIIep,
while zesidents tried to pxotect the residential charactez of Shexbume and Aucora. One goat of �is
study was to e�Iore if it is possible to build new housing and/os commetciai buildings that would
psotect and enhance the residential neighborfiood and be vibrant on Llnivetsitp. Whi1e no such
�evelopment is pIanned at this time, City staffmho have reseatched growth trends in othex dties
�.� ll
�xingtan Ar�a
OPTtON A
�
Z�3� 5_ ���,�-xan �,�;8;�;�,� �
&� � ��
�� , ���
Primarily Hausing
1�!� ����
r,.�,; �_ _� _..._
,� . s�z_�N,- -.;:.:. .., 'r
� �
� � r
� � ' �
's•• i- �
�� �
,` ��\ �
\ �\
� . ;� +rr
��..�- ��
�,\,
� � �, .
� � {�n \ ��. •.
'ROP0.SED PUBl1C REALM
Option assumrs thaYhousing u£atIeast
6o uaits fo the acxe is 6uilt based on
new housirig densities buitt elsewhue
irt 5aiat Pau1. Addit'sanally, the model
I assumes ptitaari]y commercia! uses on
the fust flooralongUnive�ityAvenue.
Housing is more likely tn be success-
ful on ehe &cst floor a{oag Lexingtnn
than University due to t6e pu6lic ame-
nity of the parkway. This option
maximizes residential use on the 9•3
acre developmenk site. A limitod
anxount of retail/commercial is in-
cluded along University. Parking is
mosdy ac�ommodateci below surface
and nndec building footprintc. Build-
ings are shown as three, four or &ve
stories with the middle block orga-
nized aroctnd a ncighborhood puk.
Grass Area =9.3 acres
Proposed ROW =1.5 acres
Devetopa bfe Area = 7.8 acres
Proposed Uses
Residential; approx. 468 units (7.8
acres � 6p dweiting unit /acre)
Commerciai: 3,OOo-5,0�0 sf
• Referettce Frontage Types: 2, 3
• Reference5treeiTypes: 8, C, D
• Reference Bu{diagTypes: il, f{!
_,
_ �^�
.� ,
'OPOSED BLOCK PAT�EFtN
�afl ��� 05—� g
t4i� $
��� �;�
��::.-;
�, - �.
/ � � l�
/ ` � ='`-
� --
�•• �: �
�`�= � .
� �
� � �� �
� ;` '`.\ ..,__.__
v- g.=3:Y."�'t`fl ues2l�:ce;xs wa`+.
' Mix of Uses Inclodfrtg yousing
T1xis option suggesfs cap#uring tl3e
wmmacial market appral of Iocating
along the major sfieets while ptovid
iag some housutg bc]iind, An e�act
raEio of wmmtrciai to ho"�� is not
estimated This optFan placcc a gceate=
amp�asis on commeicia2lmtail vsa in
tfrc m�ed vse building facing Univer-
sity, vrhile stil! accommodating as
much residential as praciical. Par�ng
is under building fontpriats on-st�ret
and in timitedsissf'ace 1ots. The middle
block may potentialIy include a
neigborhood pazk.
Grass Ar� =s.3 aczes
Proposed ROW = I.5 acres
Developabie Area _ 7.8 acres
Plo Uses
CotnmerciaL• 20,OCQ-30,COQ sf
Residentiai; approx 32p380 units
• Reference Fronfa� Types: 2, 3
• RsterenceStreetTypes;B,C,D
• Reference Buldmg Types: !1, !II
�
�-
�
�
�
� _J
ClTY OF.SdR.T P.iU2 � University T4Q 5tudy Fraisiewoek � �� 51
1
� ��
1POSED PUBLIC REALM
'OSEBBLOCKPATTERN
�2XIt3gfOR �3
�PftON C
�
�` =�
i���.`z;';i,s�
-(sf 'a`rW'ci�..<_''''=.:-.._ '�
. i1
� ! � ll
'�'• �: �
�����
f _
� � � �
•�.• �.
�_
Lezinb'�� Qa�Y
�
�� �\
��
� �
�
�^��� --
= -� - r 4
a� „ � �,_— -
� _ - ..__...-�--
a - ! �.� .
•s ►: �
� 1�-
�- l�Ex"tr.�to� �Spg�: �At
Single Com�nerciaUOffice
Scenario
The intent oF this option is to show
how a,lazge empIoyer could use this
site. This option dedicates the site to
a sing�e use suth as a office campus ar
similar atrangement The site tnap ao-
commodate approximatoly
i7o,000-.i8o,00 sf of reEai( uses sen•ed
by surface pazking. Additional sqwzce
foQtage may be accomodated with the
t:se of stmchued paz&ing.
Gross Area =9.3 acres
Proposed R�W =1.5 acres
Devefopabie prea = 7.8 acres
Proposed Uses
Commercial:170-180,000 sf•
Commerclai: 500-54o,�f*
`(surfaced patked at 3/1000)
• Reference Erontage Types: l
• Reference Street 7ypes: B
• ReferenceBukfingTypes:�
gron �� v�5-� a
ron� a
���'�:°-.
�..3�= --
��.:�-:�_a�. ;-..
� —
� w '
F12+
! ~� .
� i
•�• i� •
�
r —'`
Gross Afea = 4.3 aues
Proposed ROW = 2.5 acres
Developahle Area = 7.8 acres
Pmposed Uses
�����
; �::.:v=:� .
�
i � � �
• • • ' �
�y,w� ...—
.�—� \.
� ` \�
Commetciat UrGan Fortnat;
iZ0.000sfl
Commercia(, other: aa5a,o0osf*
`(surfaced patked at3/1�0)
• Reference Fronfage Types: i
• Reference Street Types: B
• Reference Buiding 7}rpes: I
�
�
�
�
�
QTY OF 53.1hT P_'lUl � Universify TpD Stt�dy Framevtorl ��'-` �� � �i' 1 53 .
a <rxn�wu v�..c,.ry.....,..
w.�._
Urban Big-Box ModeJ
Basu! on exampla occurring in other
ciEies, it is possible ta imagino one of
dxe major c6ains building one of the
newcr ° urban models.' Typically
these azc ahnut haIf the size of the
lazger 6ig 6oxes, raaging in siu from
4o-60,00o sE. This option is ssmilaz
to Option G in that it is a singfe use
but iactuds aa tacge {orma{ n �j ��
ing University. This urban format
wouId have a fioorplate fcom 40,000
to 60,00o sf arcanged in a Z-story coa-
$guration. Su�a.m pazking wouId be
located internat to the binck.
�SED BLOCK PATTERN
�; � • `
. . -
� Area Plan Summary
Lexington Hamline Small Area Plan and Lex Ham TomoYrow Plarz
Addeadum to The Comprehensive Plan for Saint Paul
Recommended by the Planning Commission - February 9, 2001
Adopted by the City Council - April 25, 2001
This summary appends to the Cortzprehensive Plan the vision and smategies of the Lezington
Hamline Plan (adopted in 1993) and the Lex Ham Tomorrow Plan. These plans outline a
community agenda based on the following values:
1. Providing access for a11 to programs and destinations throughout the neighborhood
2. Thriving, attractive residential areas and neighborhood businesses
3. A strong pedestrian realm
4. High-quality urban design in redevelopment areas
Copies of the full-Zength plans are available for review at the ,Saint Paul Department ofPlanning
and Econorreic Development and the offzce of the Lexington-Hamline Community Council.
Locarion
� The Lex-Ham neighborhood—which constitutes a portion of Citizen Participation District 13—is
bounded by Lexington Parkway on the east, Universiry Avenue on the north, Hamiine Avenue
and Ayd Mi11 Road on the west, and Summit Avenue on the south. The neighborhood contains
approximately 46 blocks, or 320 acres.
�
Lex-Aam
��
�5 -� �
VIS10II �
The Le�cington-Hamline neighborhood will be characterized by well-maintained older homes,
streets, and businesses. The neighborhood will be an aitractive and stable place where people
will choose to Iive anc3 will want to remain. Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections
centered around Griggs Street wiI2 unify the neighboLhood, connectmg gathering places,
shopping, offices, residential and recrea�ional azeas, thereby creating a more vibrant envizonment.
A trail will be constructed adjacent to Ayd Mill Road, fiutl�er impmving oprions for pedesfrian
and bicycle travei in the neighborhood. New construction or rehabilitation wiil be compatible
with the existing urban fabric and neighborhood chazacter. University Avenue will become more
pedestrian-fiiendly, with new development that is mixed-use, pedestrian-scaled, and oriented
closer to the street edge.
Specific Acfion Strategies and Implementation Steps
Neighborhood Character and Idenrity
The plans emphasize the need to ensiue the vitaiity of residentiai areas and neighborhood
businesses through continued maintenance and improvements. Residential structures that need
maintenance shouid be monitored and the owners notified, and low-cost funding should be made
available for ea�terior improvements. Similarly, commUnity bvsinesses are encouraged to invest
in exterior improvements, such as awnings, Iighting and bigh-quatity signage. Neighborhood
identity should be strengthen by mazking major entrances to the neighborhood. In addition, the
plans recouunend reinforcing an attractive public realm through streetscape improvetnents
(aspecially alcr�g St. Anthany and Concordia Avenues), beau�fica�on measures such as tree, �
shrub and flower plantings, and keeping the neighborhood free of litter.
Neighborhood Conneeiions
The plans recommend a series of actions to enhance tfie public realm and connections in the
Lex-Ham neighborhood. Many of the streetscape zecommendatians from the 1493 Small Area
Pian have atready b.een implemenTed. Other recommendations include improving existing and
providing additionai pedesfrian connections, particularly along Griggs Street and north of I-94,
for better access to key destinations throughout the azea Streets and bridges should better �
accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. The community wi11 cont4nne to moaitor and be
involved in pla*3ning related to Ayd Mzil Road and light rail transit in the Central Corridor.
UniversityAvenue Vitality --�.._._
The vitality of University Avenue is aaother major focus of the two p.�arzs. Redevelopment
opportunities eacist at the southwest comer of University and Lexington, and in the former 3M
building..Tl�ese sites represent the opporiunity to support a range of redevelopment options,
including housing, mi�ced-use development, or destination businesses. Urbau design strategies
for University Avenue include strengthening the pedestrian edge on University, especially east of
Griggs Street, breaking up lazge pazldng lots with landscaped islands and lighting, and ensuring
that new development be Iocated closer to the street edge to strengthen the pedestrian realm.
Any redevelopmenY scenario should supgort the continuation of Cenizal Avenue as a safe, vital
residential azea.
Page 2
r.cay so, 2oot �zo2o�
��
05-� �
� feasihle. (Public jFlorks)
• Establish other "pedestrian pathways" in the north end of the neighborhood, connecting
Skyline Towers and the new Crtiggs pedeshian bridge to destinations north of I-94,
including the Tatget stoze. (PED, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, affected property
�
�
�
owners)
Continue to monitor the light rail transit (LRT) planning process for the Midway Corridor
for its isnpacts on the neighborhood. (Lex-Ham Community Council, PED, Ramsey
County Regional Rail Authority)
Continue to monitor the AMiZ EIS process. If the road is reconstnxcted (with or without
connections), ensure that a bicycle/pedestrian trail is accommodated adjacent to the
pazkway. (Public Works)
Where commerciat buildin�s do not come up to the sidewalk on University between
Lexington and Hamline, strengthen the pedestrian edge with landscaping and/or low walls
or decorative fencing -- particulazly east of Cniggs Street. (Public Works, Parks and
Recreation, affected property owners) ,
Other new development along University Avenue should be mixed-use, and pedestrian
scaled and oriented with buildings located close to the street edge. (PED, affected property
owners)
3M building should be renovated into professional businesses and/or housing. (PED,
affected property owners)
Lessen the negative visual impact of lazge pazking areas by increasing landscaping along
the edges and installing landscaped islands. (affected properry owners)
Planning Commission Findings
The Planning Commission finds that The Lex-Ham Tomorrow Plan is consistent with the Saint
Pau1 Comprehensive PTan and other adopted City policies.
PianninQ Process
The Lexington-Hamline Smali Area Plan was written with participation of a Small Azea Plan
Task Force, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, Saint Paul PED, Public Works and Parks and
Recreation.
The community planning process for the Lex-Ham Tomorrow Plan was sponsored by the
Lexington-Hamline Concordia University Area Collaborative_ The Collaborative is comprised of
five organizations: Youth Express, Central High School, Higher Ground Academy, Concordia
University, and the Lexington-Hamline Community Council. In 1999, community memhers spent
six intensive months articulating a vision for community change, reseazching community needs
and developing strategies designed to move the community toward its vision. This work was
done through a combination of lazge community-wide meetings, small strategy groups and less
formal input from community members. Financial support was provided by the St. Paul
Companies.
�
Page 4
May 30, 2001 (1020ANn
I
�5-3�
�
..., �_�,
..�. � l i��
a
•
_ ._�
NERRi;41+ FK.
� d�f� !YL-3�; �
�� }:_ �u r�t��C�L� � � �--�u
,.. ... ��f� '�� ��'���: ; � �:J
� ...�... t-1�i8 T ' ���� �^� ��
�--, ����=��
- ,r — ,�---,r----, :
, _.... �,--„---„— —��--� ,
HAMLINE DFSTRiC7 13 N� -� �
�� � � � � � � � --_.,
e
' � . . . . . � . . � . � •
D5- � 8
�
�
�
� ` •-
L1iiZFN PARTfCIP,�TFO�V'pf5�4iCrS
CI[II��.�A2itG�Prt�.b� FtAhfNING QISTRICiS
�. Sl1NR( Y=3k�fLECREE�C>H:6H�OQD
2:GRc'AZER E�ST �iDE
3.W�5i S_rp�
�. 6RY I CN.' S c�f_.IIrF . I
S.PkYi�:_-PHAr=y
6. Nd�tTN c?i-0 . ' �
7 . 7F;OMfiS=.DA�c y
6 . 5 U�IMIT - U�(IVErt.SITY ��(�
S:W€ST S_��N�H
1Q.C�it10 . .
1 1. HAN(l.If�c -�HI QSd.4 Y
» T, ANTtiQi�Y
� 13. RRI,4M PK.-Z�XI�ITON HAMLIN�
i u , G ROYEtANO-MRC�1LESiEr� .
15. h i GHLA��O .
9 b.5UMMs'7 HrL�.
17 , 004dNT04(N
.?"� � ���3� �
/
-, - - �..� .
, .• s _
, -=. :,,::. ;._.. .�
� -,. �=
3 � •S.;
S —
�!: .• ` '
� " F . �� , �. � S�y�.
� � �
�`5 Ti . ;•_`•�`�•�
���� fb` ✓.
�� . \"w X.2� '�i'7y/'TUwv�' .���
._ � : $ � �L�_L��x��+•"'-:
. 9' y� �'�t �.
�+9 � .,� i�"'�.� �- -, r' - �z ���..�.,°`�'..v�: ca::
� � �� ��:
���'`' ,-- " � .
��„ �' _,f� . � . °"-°��
_..i ' �� ..c^' _ - _ R,
t - i"'c,; . .
Y��.�, v
`� ' - � _ _ l �"'tv��
- ... . � .. -...��
5���
1
.(' r
r" T
£cS y �# �� Y � �Ir��' I 'i " �,_
1 1 a
' " i. � � `+ti -'• a
'�'; .: � Y y .�- . , �
�'
V « y
"� J . �� , �
Y " t ` _
� �' : "� "
�
���.:— -� �� s
—_ _.y. --- �: `�``,,, � � � ... a� ...
— i
. ; ` L � ` �� fd ��
' � ; . ' ' ` ,, : ':
; . _ . . . ._.: . , , . : ' '..., , ,
. a . ' Gy. ' -- .
' _ - . . �;, � ' '
.., � � , � . -.. . .
. . � -'..z _ " " �. . . .
; _ .
.:.' . ;_ :.. � � . `[-, . ..�.( _ ..,-:�. �_.�.._. ,.�:' _.� ".i'
i`, .._._ ... : . � , �_- _ ( .( s r � ..
_ , .
� . �
. .'. . ': . Y.%'F
.. .. .. :yx e , .'
. . . £ 1 ' . . . � . � . •
. ��F l� " . . � . . . �.
S _
Z
I A : � .�: G�x2" � . � � . . .. .
�
. ..-..r, ,. _ ... . .. . ... . . ...... ...� ., . ..._ , �t . � . . .
_ ,� _ _ _ T r �.�.�� v_ .'r�� � .� � '�"y.�.'a� �Z
-. ..; ,. , .;
, '.. . '. .: � :„ .:� , ..:'. . . : _ ��
r '�" � " t, ��,.�^t� `"-�-"?
_ -
_ .. _ v ' �„""« �_ � .�.. � 7� �"�,'�'""� ��-�'��.'
-� . � ��- :_ : �., .. "
y
i '�, ;:,_- ' v _� : =e.� _.'.. . . . , : _ .F- �'��
3
z ..
° °�
_.�_ . : . °' .y:' .�° . .. ..
. . . - -:.`_: " _ -._'.� ' .. . . - '- ,._. . .:
. . . . . _. _ _ ' _ ' � .-�` _..
�... . - `_,.
_
._ _ --c ' _ . ,- _
._-._ ...._.�__'__ ... ..__, ._._.. . _,_.. __ _ . � . :. � a '� -. -"""` -..
. . � -.._-�_------
?"�' y c� � �A� ��''�� +���TS£s�C'd-
d�;
... �- .
¢.. �
��k� `
. ��
_��: ` �'ti _._ .
. �-. �.�=.—""� _ _ _ _ �.�
a
-=-. �- __. J.-.-T
.r^=,�. . � —. . _ .
/=�
�-�:� °.
� , _
.. ' -w. ''�.Y�� ._-e�' i �. ��,.'� "�a` .' ..-'4 � - s�
� :, , e;..v. �1� .. < "�
-,-�.,. ,�r� � �,� _ � _ .
. ' � r� �_ _ _ _
�'.,'.�...� ' '
• ., �
u^ ��'�
� ��'
y :z�.�`' - ..
'-`--. . _. . .
_.._ .�r -:, -_...�-_ .:_ �„_ - ._r _ '
.___ ..� _ . ��... .
` _% _ ._ :.'C ': ..-n...: _`G<.6 1_'� � -�`-- '___
�
. _� . ..... .
. . . . :.__�_ ... �:. � _ .
. . .. -.'�'...Li.-v✓•� ._rs_' .....-�. . . .
w.
� - - -
�- � _
l ,�, U �--� -': -_
�=
�
_ _ {-.>�� �. �
� �; �
����
, '
' `caS. ��� _
. , .. . , , :. . -^ -� s�"��..*`�� , , , _
�
-: , �.: . � � . ���
_�. � .._ . : '":.:. � ... . ; ' •� x�.<.— . :.��:.,_ - �
� ; " � "i" ,"'.�'' " .
� � .�'�c � �..,er + ,. :r .
t ir_"" , q. . ,, 1'��.:..� ".
_ - ��Ji� � a x .
.x+.. , _ � .. .
,� .,. , - --„'`� . - , „
._',...� : - . . ' , . . _ .. _ _ . _ � .
. .. . . �. . �. _ , -' ��
. ..> � ... °- � -.. .
� a ... .. _._""'__. .. .
_ . ._ ... �, , d .__ +. - _ _
= s G � v .: � i. �.• -�,� = d5-3�
` W o < � . � i�b Y = ,_.',c`e� `aaa r _ '
n± o..r.. <�� a y �° r- r.. Y`F `d•? � '"m� ..
L p 1 S .....� �.rR.� y� �':��.
� 3 n 5 � ��°. �<L� a o a . zw ' _ ;
� � LL c az ` z
i = z � � Z N6 �<E ` _ J°y c�<r _ � � �
- ' � � �¢ � �2? = Y� jF-y� �. {i} -
r 6 0'c a r q . _ s a'_= < o ' E- u c =. •
i�L' � � :��� < _ - � 4,
y'- y � x C Y�Y2 .. Cy`� � Z � .
� Y � � 'L � < 4s -'� iat �^� _ � S v .
N 5 _ „_ j; =-= _� o __ �
x � � _ - t� s' 2 m_ a_ <i ..' N' C.3 zco �°`��i -
� _ JI . -_ '. ' 02� _< -�- {� _ - '°,'v=,�
;�
1�
1
1
��'"��►l�"
l
�
1 ic 3
t !i �
� , 1 i
t : : , og o E
� . � .
r 1 � ? 4
SC � `c � z � .."" _ "Z zi �..a �c� �M ci Z o�._' c<:.i.! ❑ = 4
o . Q ci - �c o - 05 _ , . . , -
_�, Y. i � y¢ Z�� < 2 ? z ia^ �<ic _ v,� i.. �"_�� z .��_ 'f g3
'i }= y � Lg [� � i o4• c.�t �� Y,m'z�. �}��� Q L�� S r«v'� C�7 �g"g��3 e9 �# °$
= a a� 4? �_ : �o� �= <` ��€ _ �� = b �_- _ '=;� LL! a'�'��� �iaa.� sa
.. Zc.. '<iW�. �p - �- J n �o.AS�, 2yY�y` ��
8 f Y
0
- Y->..e:� = - S
�
�
��
_j
I:
�_:�
�
TjZ �
Y y's=
Q ^�1�
2 't"
� = z
Z ��
Ctl c �,',
ffi =�.'
�
i
r
i
�
�
�
�
<
�
a
�
z
V
r�
u
�
1
, i P 'nr '.zs aro t�rn¢ � �;� a�.esra�
_ _ ___ ..,,� �:�
.; �
,�';�=
� .�':
_ ��_
�_ �,.� .� _ � ,
E��' - -
.�
,� �
4
�� _
x �
��� ,
� � t
��� i
��� ' } I
�
� ��
ti F `
�' �
� ` "� ��
� ` �
■1 ..: =`; � ,
y � � ,w:✓"" _
x V3
5` y .
ni.i' ' - rY�
�� 4
< -- r„�,'-�
s .- '� .�:y y .
'� ) :.' � .'Y "F C '. _
.R� _r�''' � �, ' _
�FV. .
>I' ;
L
��:' � ���
_ � x . _
Fti 3°ac '���� '
-�„- �„v , � �
-, ������ <
�
� ����+c'� `
a i�,.��� e �v: � �;'�.
. . �.s. ti3[��
k�: �. �,'rt' t - : .� � . ,�'.: � �`. � _
6
� Y �. . ,,,
n
; e.
x .:
,�.
':: �.�•.: