06-508Council N�le # 06-508
Green Sheet # 3030885
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, M
Presented By
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
WHEREAS, Target Coiporation (hereinafter, "Tazget") made application to the Saint Paul
Planing Commission (hereinafter, the "Commission") for the following zoning approvals
pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislative Code: a Variance of the required off-street parking
requirements (820 required, 640 requested, Zoning File No.06-046-997, Leg. Code § 61.601);
and Site Plan approval (Zoning File No. 06-018-065, Leg. Code § 61.402(c)), for the purpose of
constructing a new "SuperTazgeP'on property commonly known as 1300 University Ave W and
legally described as set forth in the application contained in Zoning File No. 06-046-997; and
WHEREAS, the Commission's Zoning Committee, duly conducted a public hearing on the
variance and site plan applications on Mazch 16, 2006, at which all persons present were given
an opportunity to be heazd in accordance with the requirements of I.eg. Code § 61.303 and, at the
close of the public hearing moved to recommend the approval of the said applications subject to
certain conditions; and
WIIEREAS, The Commission, on March 24, 2006, based upon all the evidence presented to the
Zoning Committee as substantially reflected in the Commission's minutes and files, moved to
approve the said site plan application, subject to specified conditions, based upon the following
findings required under L,eg. Code §61.402(c) as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 06-34:
1. The City's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans
for sub-areas of the city.
The site plan is consistent with tbis finding. The Comprehensive Plan
calls for development along University Avenue that is dense and
pedestrian friendly. The Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
say that "Future redevelopment planning and efforts to redesign
University Avenue itself should find ways to make the auto-oriented
regional shopping work for pedestrians." (Section 6.3.3)
The site plan shows outlots along University Avenue with buildings up to
the street and parking behind. Target is not developing the outlots now
and the plans are intended to show a development concept rather than be
an exact proposal of what will go there. Tazget is not seeking site plan
approval for the building shown on the outlots at tlus time and the outlots
will require a separate site plan review later. However, Tazget has
requested the part of the outlots be landscaped and paved and that an
underground storm water retention system be built on the outlots at this
time. Doing these improvements now, before a separate site plan review
is done for the outlots would not be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan since it could limit where development could go.
�s�-zc-oc
2
2. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
OC� -SD�
3 The site plan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if a variance is
4 approved to reduce the off-street pazking requirement from 820 spaces to
5 640 spaces. The site plan complies with all other applicable ordinances,
6 including setbacks, lot coverage and building height.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically signifzcant
characteristics of the city and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site has no unique
geologic, geographic or historically significant characteristics and it is not
located in an environmentally sensitive azea.
4. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable
provision for such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sign
buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those aspects of design
which may have substantial effects on rzeighboring Zand uses.
The site plan is consistent wlth this finding. Drainage issues have been
addressed and sufficient landscaping to act as buffers is proposed. The
project will not impact view, light or air for neighboring properties.
5.
�
772e arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed
development in order to assure abutting property andlor its occupants will
nat be unreasonably affected.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The arrangement of the
building, pazking lot and outlots will not unreasonably affect abutting
property.
Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location,
orientation and elevation of structures.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Creating the outlots to allow
smaller buildings along University will help to increase density and make
the area more pedestrian fiiendly. This will promote energy conservation
by encouraging people to use walk and mass transit instead of driving.
Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both
within the site and in relation to access streets, including traffic
circulation features, the locations and design of entrances and exits and
parking areas within the site.
The location of the existing driveways that serve Target will not change.
However, Public Works has asked Target to submit additional information
on whether the project will significantly change the amount of traffic
generated.
Public Works also told Target that the azea at the southeast corner of the
building where trucks will make deliveries must be changes to eliminate
some potentiai traffic safety issues. Target is working on redesigning this
area.
����
t^
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
�2
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
53
E�
'�
f�
11.
If the information is acceptabie to Public Works and the delivery area is
changed, the site plan will be consistent with this finding.
The sarisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers,
including solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the
development.
The plan is consistent with this finding. The plan provides for
underground storage of storm water to meet City regulations for
controlling run off.
Sufficient landscaping, fences, walds and parking necessary to meet the
above objectives.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. It will provide more green
space than required by the zoning code. The landscaped areas will be
irrigated. The landscaped areas aze larger than what has been provided in
other large commercial developments to give plans mare room to survive
in harsh pazking lot conditions.
�� ���
Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the American
Disabilities Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading Zones
and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding, including accessible pazking
spaces and accessible routes to the building.
Provision for erosion and sedinzent control as specifzed in the "Ramsey
Erosion 5ediment and Control Handbook.
The site plan is consistent with this finding and calls for adequate
measures to control erosion and sediment during construction.
WHEREAS, the said site plan was approved subject to the following conditions as set forth in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-34:
1. A variance must be approved to reduce the amount of off-street pazking
being provided.
2. Tazget must submit traffic informafion that has been requested by Public
Works and Public Works must find that the site plan adequately addresses
traffic issues. In addition, the delivery area must be redesigned to address
traffic safety issues raised by Public Works.
3. The paving, landscaping and underground storm water retenrion system
shown for the outlots aze not approved as part of this site plan. Until a site
plan for the outlots is approved, development of the outlots must be
limited to grading, stubbing in sewer and water lines to the edge of the
outlots and planting grass or other interim landscaping.
4. The applicant must work with the staff to explore options for animaUng
the sides of the building facing Hamline and Syndicate including the
treatment of the building facade (including windows and architectural
� c
2
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
53
detailing) and the design of the setback between the public sidewalk and �����
the building (including planting and architectural elements such as
trellises).
VJHEREA5, The Commission, on March 24, 2006, based upon all the evidence presented to the
Zoning Committee as substantially reflected in the Commission's minutes and files, further
moved to approve the said variance application, subject to specified conditions, based upon the
foliowing findings required under L,eg. Code §61.601 as set forth in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 06-33:
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the
strict provisions of the code.
The City wants to increase the density of development along University
Avenue. In keeping with this, Target is proposing to use 3.2 acres of the
parce] to create outlots that can be developed to increase density along
University Avenue instead of using it to provide more parking.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this
property, and these circumstances were not created by the owner.
The property is located in an area where the City wants to increase density
and make commercial development more pedestrian friendly. This was
not created by the applicant.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code,
and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of
the inhabitants of the City of Saint Paul.
The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code
to provide adequate off-sueet parking. With the variance, the new Super
Target would provide 640 spaces for 186,000 square feet of building area
(one parking space for every 295 feet). In comparison there aze 447
parking spaces for the existing 141,000 square foot Target store (one
space for every 310 square feet), and this parking has proved to be
sufficient to meet TazgeYs needs. The location of the site along the major
bus route in the Twin Cities wiA continue to reduce the need for parking.
The variance is also in keeping with the City's goals of increasing density
and making commercial areas more pedestrian friendly.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the
surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values
within the surrounding area.
The proposed variance to reduce the amount of required off-street parking
will enhance the character of the sunounding area by allowing new
buildings to be constructed along University Avenue where the existing
Target has a large pazking lot. Based on studies done by Target and the
City's experience with the parking for the existing Target store, the
amount of parking proposed by Tazget will be sufficient and will not cause
parking problems far the surrounding azea.
� �.��
2
0
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
5. 77xe variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not pernzitted D � ���
under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the
affected land is Zocated, nor would it alter or change the zoning district
classification of the property.
The proposed Super Target and the commercial uses being discussed for
the ouflot aze all permitted uses.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the
value or income potential of the parcel of land.
The request for the variance is based primarily on the desire to increase
development along University Avenue in response to the City's land use
policies and goals.
WHEREA5, on or about Apri13, 2006 and pursuant to the provisions of Section I.eg. Code §
61.702(a), iJFCW Local 789; Lexington-Hamline Community Council and University United,
duly filed an appeal (Zoning File No.06-061942) from the determination made by the Planning
Commission and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the
actions taken by the said Commission; and
WIIEI2EA5, acting pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, a
public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 3, 2�06, where all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, at the close of the public hearing, the matter was further continued to May 17, 2006
and again to May 24, 2006 for the purpose of allowing the various parties the opportunity to
meet and confer regazding the proposed site plan and variance applications and to detemune
whether addiUonal mutually beneficial changes could be agreed upon regazding the same; and
WHEREAS, the various parties have met and the Council has been advised that compromises
have been reached with respect to the said zoning applications; and
WF3EREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and
of the Planning Commission, and having been fully informed of the agreements regazding
changes to the said zoning applications DOES;
HEREBY RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul denies in all things the appeals
by LTFCW Loca1789; I.exington-Hamline Community Council and University United, there
being no showing of enor in the facts, findings or procedures of the Planning Commission; and
BE TT FURTIIER RESOLVED, that the Councll affirms the respective decisions of the Planning
Commission in this matter, the Council having received information regarding agreements as to
the respective appeal points of the appellanYs and that the terms of such agreements have been
transmitted to the Council; and
BE TT FLTRTHER RESOLVF.A, that the City Council hereby affirms in all things the site plan
approvals and the variance approved in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 06-33 and 06-34
as modified below; and
BE TI' FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council, acting pursuant to the authority granted
under Leg. Code § 61.704, hereby adopts the said resolutions as its own herein by reference
�ti�.ac
thereto except to the extent modified as noted below, such modifications based upon mutual D� ���
agreements; and
4 BE TT FCTRTHER RFSOLVED, upon these mutual agreements, that Planning Commission
5 Resolution 06-34 shall incorporate the following conditions of approval set forth below and that
6 such conditions shall either modify or be added to the said Resolution, so that it reads as follows:
7
1.
10
11
12
13
�
4. Paving, landscaping, and an underground storm water retention system have not
been approved for the outlots as part of this site plan approval. Until a site plan
for the outlots is approved, development of the outlots shall be limited to grading,
stubbing in sewer and water lines to the edge of the outlots, and planting grass or
other interim landscaping. Prior to the development of the outlots, a site plan
shall be submitted by the developer and approved by City.
3. Target Corporation has submitted traffic informarion that was requested by Public
Works. Public Works has found that the site plan adequately addresses traffic
issues. In addition, the delivery area has been redesigned to address traffic safety
issues raised by Public Works and has been approved by Public Works.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
5. Target Corporafion has worked with City staff to explore options for animaung
the building on the sides facing Hamline and Syndicate Avenues and has agreed
to provide display windows along the Hamline and Syndicate Avenues sides of
the new Super Target building, as shown on the Project Elevation drawing
attached as Exhibit l. Target Corporation has also worked with City staff on the
design of the setback between the public sidewalk and the new Super Target
building (including pianting and architectural elements such as trellises) and
Target Corporation has agreed to provide the setback as illustrated on Exhibit 1.
Screening of the parking lot shall be provided by a three-foot high planted hedge,
and no fence shall be required by the City.
The Site Plan for the new Super Tazget store dated May 12, 2006, is approved.
A variance must be granted to reduce the amount of off-street pazking.
30 6. Target Corporation shall work with City staff and neighborhood groups in
31 connection with the design and potential development of the outlots.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
At such time as master planning in the University Midway area occurs, Target
Corporation shall cooperate with the owners/managers of the adjacent centers
(Midway Center and Midway Marketplace) in connection with such planning.
8. Prior to the opening of the Super Tazget store, Target Corporation shall hold a job
fair at a location within the neighborhood for neighborhood residents. The City
shall provide to Target Corporation the names of locai and community
newspapers that serve City planning districts 7, 8, 11, and 13 and Target
Corporation sha11 advertise the job fair by, among other things, advertising in
these local and community newspapers.
9. Tazget CorporaUOn shall participate in Xcel Energy's "Energy Design Assistance
Program." Another Super Target store design has easily exceeded the average
rate of energy savings as represented in the attached e-mail. TazgeYs
participation in the program for this Super Target store will facilitate energy
savings.
t � ,,�
1 10. Target Corporation shall participate in the Safe City Initiative by contributing a�`
2 least the sum of $200,000.00 to the Initiative.
3 11. Target Corporation shall work with Meffo Transit to re-locate a bus stop mid-
4 block on Hamline Avenue in the location shown on the Site Plan attached as
5 Exhibit 2. A covered connection shall be provided from the re-located mid-block
6 Hamline Avenue bus stop to the west front entrance of the new Super Target
7 store:, as shown on the building PerspecUve View attached as Exhibit 3.
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2�t
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
12. Tazget CorQoration shall provide bike racks along the walkway near the front
entrance to the new Super Tazget store.
13. A landscaped sidewalk connection shall be provided from University Avenue,
through the pazking lot, to the east front entrance of the new Super Target store,
as shown on Exhibit 2.
14. A more detailed site plan, consistent with the attached Site Plan, shall also be
submitted Target Corporation and approved by City staff that provides additional
details and information for storm water drainage, utilities, lighting and
landscaping for the subject lot.
15
16.
A security lighting system covering the entire site, including temporary lighling
for the outlots, shall be designed and installed as approved by the City.
Target Corporation agrees to work with the City to attract and facilitate the
development of a hotel or other uses on the outlots.
17. Tazget Corporation agrees that job relocation shall be available to all employees
when the cunent store is closed and the new Super Target stare is constructed.
Tazget CorQaration further agrees that it shall explore and provide transportation
assistance options to these employees. Target Corporation shall offer employees
of the current store the opportunity to return to work at the new Super Target
store.
Additional attachments, which are expressly not part of any of the site plan conditions
imposed above, are attached hereto for information purposes demonstrating Target and
TargeY s developer, Ryan Companies, commitment to minorityldiversity hiring practices
and vendor/supplier contracts. The attachments include: (1) a letter dated May 23, 2006
from Ryan Companies, and (2) a memo dated May 23, 2006 from Target Corporation.
AND BE TT FINALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
Target Corporation, UFCW I,ocal 789; I.exington-Hamline Community Council, University
United„ the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission.
� �,a�
1
2
3
4
5
AdoptedbyCouncil: Date //////,/�H. c7Dl�/o
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By: L///i/✓is/f'�i/l.!%,Si�2
Approved byMayor: ate � � ���
By f �`" �/`-�
Requested by Department of;
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
BY . � G✓. �cv✓�..� s- Z C— o C
Fortn Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
COUNCIL SECRETARY NOTE: THIS SIGNATURE PAGE ACCOMPANIES THE �� ��o
RESOLUTION DENYING THE SUPER TARGET STORE APPEAL BY UFCW LOCAL
789, LEXINGTON-HAMLINE COMMUNITY COUPdCIL, AND UNIVERSlTY UNITED,
COUNCIL FILE NO. .
� L���`
o� ��
From: Goldstein, Sue [mailto:sue.goldstein@xcelenergy.mm]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 20�6 1�:55 AM
To: Tom.Carrico
Super Target (Midway)
Cc: Stacy.Delzer; Doyle.Trankel
Subject; Super Target (Midway)
Tom,
I enjoyed speaking with you yesterday.
bebbie Montgomery on Friday, I believe
Page 2 of 2
Based on my conversation with Counsel Member
the following should help you at tomorrow's
meeting. PleQSe let me know if you have any questions, concerns or if you would like
addii information.
A Super Target in the St. Paul area recently participated in the Energy Design
Assistance program with great success. The Super Target saved 42% over code
(compared to the average 28%) and ended up with annual savings of 3,159,184
kWh which equates to powering 263 homes a year.
Xcel Energy's Energy Design Assistance program helps design your new facility with efficiency in mind to
lower energy bills by an average of 28 percent. The program helps you maximize energy savings by
building it in during the plann'ing and design phase of your project.
The Custom Consulting part of Energy Design Assistance is availabie to customers with buildings 50,000
sq. ft or more in early design stage. The program offers the following:
o tree, customized energy-design consulting expertise
O personalized computer energy modeiing for your planned building
O cash incentives for implementing recommendations
o design team reimbursement
O LEED assistance
Good iuck,
Sue
Sue Goldstein
Key Account Manager
Ir-, . .. .
/ i �:
NW W.RYATICOMPAN(fS,COM
RYAN COMPANIFS ti5, ING
so soumanm s�, wtr�sao
htin ae�polis, MN 5540}iM2
�YANm
.una�o w++.c uwn�.w.s
May 23, 2006
Ms. Deborah Montgomery
Cound{ Memher, Ward 1
Saint Paui Cfty Coundl
City Hall, Room 310.A
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Council Member Mon�qomery:
612-492-4000�d
612-492.3400 (
I am vrti6ng today to address the inclusion of women and people of color on the Super Target Midway
project currently under reviaw by the Ciry of 3aint Paul.
Ryan Companies US, Inc. and Target shares the City of Saint Paul's commiknent to increasing the
paAicipatian ofwomen and people otcalor through Encreased invoNement of women and minority owned
subcontractors as weli as females and people of color in the workforCe. Before turning direttly to
detailing the inclusion strategies we woultl pursue on this project, l would like to provide you with some
conteM for understanding Ryan's commitment to the inclusion of women and people of color on our
projects.
In 2004, Ryan estabtisfied its own Minority and Women Subconhackor inctusion Initiative. The purpose of
this initiative is to increase the number of Minority and Women Business Enterprises (MlWBES)
contractetl work on Ryan's private projecfs. In 2005, we have experienced success. Some examples
inctude the involvement of MNJBEs on projects forTarget, including Super Target Fridley artd the Target
North Campus rAmplex currently undef construction; as well as smaller commetcial developments.
Since 2004, Ryan has esWblishetl strong relafronships with MRNBES. 1 n May of 2006, Ryan heid its third
annual open housa for Minority and Women Ovmed S�bconVactors and Suppiiers. Over eighty
indivlduals representing roughfy seventy businesses attended this year's open house.
Ryan is a corporate member of the Assoc(atlon of Women ConFractors and the Natiorsal Association of
Minority Gontractors-Upper Midwest Chapter (NAMC-UM). I represent Ryan on the Board of the NAMC-
UM and regularly attend its monthly meetings.
!n 2005, the NAMC-UM awarcled Ryan Affifiafe ot ihe Year-FOr Profif for the second year in a row. These
repeat awarcts validate Ryan's commitment fo eacRanding opportunities for MMIBE subcantractor antl
supp4ier participation on Ryan projects.
Ryan is also a regular artendee at the Construct(on Partnering Program montfily meetings. I provide
project presentatlons and updates at these meetings.
To gain inclusion of MMlBEs and xromen and people of color in the workforce on the Super Target
Midway project Ryan would pursue the following strategies:
1. Identify M/WeEs in this market.
2. liequest that Majority-Owned Subcontractors partner with MNVBEs for the purpose of inclusion
on thfs project
3. Engage all bidders in the inclusion effort by apptying MNVBE and Minority and Femala Workforce
I�clusion Goals W 4id packs.
.� �,�,..�+.�e.4.�.�. a �n ro�,u
��-�og
Ms. Deborah Montgomery
Counal Member, Ward 1
Saint Paui City Council
May 23, 2000
Page 2
►l� a , ,
4. �ntegrate a review of the bidders' commitment to these goals in fhe bid review pracess.
5. Conduet post-bid revtew meedngs wifh tvINVBEs.
6. IdeMiry Majority-Owned subcontractors who have CPP parfnerships wifh MNJBES and otferthose
subconhactors opportunities to 6id on fhis projecl
7. Consider nagotiated workvrrth MfWBEs, pratided their pricing ts competi8ve.
8. Apply all agreed upon ind¢sion goals to the subcontractors through the subwnfractoragreement
9, Otfer "quick pay" and issue joint checks to those MMBE subcontractors who request expetlited
payment or are experiencing limited cash Bow.
10. Provide dabriefing mee6ngs with MNrIBEs to tliscuss perfoRnance in the following areas: quality,
oifice, design, pricing, field and safefy.
Piease feel free to contact me with any quesfions you may have regarding the content of this Ietter. I may
be reached at 612-492-4235. '
Sin���
Ei�eth ampbel
E erging Business/V✓orkforce Inclusion Coordinator
O5/24/'2006 15:16 FAX 6127613727
MaY.2�, 2oa6 z:>>P�
�` ' 'q�.
�
� � ��
.Z 4_:�.. 2r
�,.,�,,. i �.;is
To: Wl�om conc�ned
Re: Tazget Corpoiation Minority and Wouse� Business Development
�rom: Joseph W. Mudd, Sr. Manager, Minority and Womett Bus. Dev.
No.0422 P. 2
%/ I:
;[iris lett� comes to you in way of eapiauation of vur Diversity practices at Targe�
Corporation, specifically Mizlprinty at�d Women Business lkvelopment a.k.a, "Supplier
Diversity"
Target Corporation xs an equal apporhueity employer with opp�rhuaitzes fot all who
perform. We are slso a performxn�e based organizatioa
xn 1948, Target started it's Minority and Women Busiaiess DeveZopztxeut (MWBD)
pmgrarn. Today our emphasis has been to foCus ou developing non-retail (not for resale)
pzoducts, secvices and pzocess vendors/suppliers. We are proud to repart that our goal is
to acltieve over 300 million in aggregate spend with these suppliers in physzcal yeaz
200d. A significarxt porcion of this spend wAl1 corne firom our construction vendors om a
f�rst bie� (gezzeral coqtractsip rfine contracts) bases. Gtureutly approximately 20% of our
General Construction Contraetor base consist of Mimority oz Womea owned firms. We
have also beeu able to capture apptox. 65 ntz�ion dp]iars of tier 2(money first tser
veiadors spend with their sup�liers) spend with our prefetred general cozastruc4ion
contxactors. We currently measute all of our preferred constructiton vezidoa'S �1a "vendor
scozecards" on thear Mimariry and Wome�a partzcipation.
We have in many cases been asked to participate io SAB� (Small, Azsadvantaged
Business Extterpzass) quotastgoats. It is our inte.ption to meet these standards when
reasonable and to gve a good faith effor[ Lo these causes. Oux belie£ zs to develop
qualified sustainable Minority andlor Wozaen ow�aed entezp;�ses to participate to the level
of their capacity. We do not believe in achieving a goal if the busimess exxterpzise is not
leffitimate and does not have minority ar women r,eztt$cataon.
In addition, we are national corposate members o£ khe fo�owi.n�g orgauizations and have
b�exz zecogozzed fqx our work by the following;
�Tatianal i�znozity 5uppliez Develop�n,ent Cauncii — Corpc�rate member
Women's Business Enterprise National Council — Cor,porate member
MetroQolitan Ecunomic Development Association — Mianesota , recogaized as
Corporatian of the Xeaz — Juue 2006
Minnesota Minority Su�lier Development Councit — Corpaxate membez
Nationat Associatian of Minority Conuactors — 2006 Na6onal Convention Platinum
sPons4z. — held in Mpls.
r�r�
Property Deveiopment, 7000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55403
O5/24/2006 15:17 FA% 6127613727
h9ay.23. 2006 2:12PM
N L�
� � �r.
, 4� :
>�. �` � ,��
°�,�.N;��
r.� � �
No.6422 P. 3
Ul� -5��
'x'his brie£ly ouUiaes our commitment to khe development of minozity and women owued
enterpreses� If I caa aQSwez any further questions please let me know.
�inority and Women Business I3eve]opsuebt
{612)761-1473
Property Development, '1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55403
_��
�-,/
%
� ��
1'i
h—i
i �"•: +
%"
�:_k
i ,
! ` �I
'� i;
�' ii
t 4� i.�;
ii
L F�� ? I
� C.�
ly- k�
if�q�.,- , �
u �
���
�'
�
�4_ G�
` 1°'�
s;�"—=
�
r � '�
<<
� �:
�
���r,
>, �r�,,,=, _
-- -- -- _-- ��: � � . ,. ., „ :; , � r : s
- — - --- -_� -- —
� ��-'�=.,`— �,. . , =- �.-_ -- ��`
a
y
`u`i E �k-; r Y �� �� '_ �. � � ��: �!',.�
,� � ����
L� ' � �
r. /
_ 4 �" _ C � � r�,
-� ���. _' _
= - - �-
- �� ,_ ; - -
�� = � t
, �
;
,. __
�""_
. , �� ' � . '� .
i
�� � �_ � ,
.[� (�{'{%��� �; �
` I � 5�5��� 1 , . �, � - Y
� �1. � �
i 7�t I ' i �C-� . �-; �—?`.�,
�� � �;,
� �
��' � S-
�?' ' i��, �' /�
_ 'S � J .
�' � � �--� � �"� �=�-*=�
i
b
d(// - �" - r-7��
_ <
�
. i,
_. _ �
a_ _"'
x ---
I
' '_;—.
�
0
�
•ti �
�
� � �
� � 5
° � s
� � �
�
�
� � �
N � F
y �
�
�
c�
+
�
�
�
a n r. a� y .i .��.. a 1 i v 2
I "
ol� �� ♦
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
co ���
ConfactPerson & Phone:
Cdnal Presitlent ta�try
266-9670
MustBe on Counc�l Agenda by (Dafe):
24MAY-06
ContradType:
ae-�sauraN
24MAY-06
� ,
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Green Sheet NO: 3030885
0 ICarna7 I I
1 t '
2
3
4
5
Tofali! W Signatur� Pages _(q All Low fo rSignat ure)
Action Reques6ed:
Denying the appeat of UFCW L,oca1789, Le�ngton Iiamline Cowmmtity Council and Umversity United, and afErming decisions of the
Planning Commission for site plan approval, vaziances and agreements as modified.
Recommerdations: Appm�e (A) or R
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
CiMI Service Commission
Personal Service Contracfs
1. Has this pe�soNfirtn e�er waked under a cmtmcc forthis departmeM?
Yes No
2. Fhas Mis p�sorJfitm e�er been a cky employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firtn possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any
curteirt city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and atlach to green sheet
InitiaGng Problem, lssues, Opportunity (Who, Wha; When, Where, Why):
Advantages 1f Approved:
Disadvar�ges If Approved:
D'aadvanqges IF Not App�oved:
fotal Artwunt of
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
CosMtevenue Budgeted:
Activily Numbe�:
A�tay 25, 2006 9.30 PM Page 1
.i.r;
'�.. rac i.;
���l
Al1AA
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor
April 5, 2006
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIltONMENTAL PROTECTION
Bob Kessler, Director
COMMERCEBUILDING
8 Fowth Street East. Suite 200
St Paul, Mirtnesota 55701-1024
�� '��
Telephone: 65I-266-9090
F¢csimile: 6� I-266-9724
D✓eb; www.l:ep.us
I woufd like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 for the foliowing zoning case:
Appellant: UFCW Local 789 and Lexington Hamlline Community Council
File Number: 06-061942
Purpose:
Location:
Appeai of the decision by the Planning Commission to approve the site plan
and a parking variance for a new SuperTarget store
130� University Avenue West
f have confirmed this date with the office of Councilmember Montgomery. My
understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City
Council at your earliest convenience and that you wiil publish notice of the hearing in the
Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Please call me at 651-266-9086 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
�- / l�G�
7om Beach
Zoning Section
H:\COMMON1Site PIan�Big prqeds\University SuperTarget\hearing date confirtn nancy
hearing.doc
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
NOTICE OF PUSLIC AEHRSMG
11xe Saint Panl City Counc�l will conduct a
public hearing on Wednesday, May 3,
2006 at 5:30 p.m. in tkte City Council
C1�ambers, Third Floor �ry Hall, I5 West
Kellogg Boulevard, St..Paul. MI3, to con-
sider the appeal of UFCW Local 789 and
Lexington Haailine Community Council to
a decision of the Plannin�s Comm9ssion to
apprwe the site p7an and a pazking vari-
ance for a new Super Tazget store at 1300
University Avenue West. (File No.
06-061942)
Dated: Apri16, 2006
MARY ERICKSON � �
Assistant Clty Councll Secretary
(Aprt1 10)
\- -� SZ: PA71L I,FX?AL IEDGE{t x��=
�5113397 . . . >
/
•
�
•
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECCION
Bob Kessler, Director
crrY oF sansr raui,
Christopher B. Colem4n, Mayor
COMlv1ERCEBUlLDING
8 Fourth Street Eost, Sui7e 200
St Paut, Mirmesota SSIOI-1024
Mazch 28, 2006
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
RE: SUPERTARGET AT 1300 UNiVERSTTY AVENUE (File 06-061942)
Ol� -�8 ��
Telephone: 651-266-9090
Facsimi7e: 651-266-9I24
Web: wxnv.tiep.us
HEARING DATE: May 3, 2006, 530 p.m. City Council Chambers
PiTi2POSE: To consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the
site plan for a new SuperTarget store and to approve a variance reducing the number of
requued parking spaces.
APPEAL FILED BY: IIFCW Loca1789; Lexington-Hamline Community Council and
University [JNITED
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Approve the site plan with conditions (13-2)
and approve the parking variance (13-3)
ZONING COMNIITTEE RECONIlVICNDATION: Approve the site plan with conditions
and approve the parking vaziance (7-0)
STAFF RECOMNN �l�1VDATION: Approve the site plan with conditions and approve the
pazking vaziance
SUPPORT: No one spoke or wrote in support
OPPOSTPION: Two people spoke and one person wrote in opposition
Dear Ms. Erickson:
A public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, May 3 to consider an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to approve the site plan for a new SuperTarget store with a variance to
reduce the number of off-street pazking spaces from 820 spaces to 640.
THE PROJECT
Target Corporation proposes to build a new SuperTarget store at 1300 University Avenue to replace its
existing store. The new store will ha�e 1%6,000 square feet (about one third lazger than the existing
store) and wi11 include a grocery store. Tazget recently acquired the hotel south of its e�sting store and
proposes to demolish the hotel and locate the new SuperTazget store there. Just before the new
SuperTarget store is ready to open, the existing Target store would be demolished and a new parking lot
would be built where the esisting store is located. The site plan leaves just over 3 acres of land along
University Avenue undeveloped. Tazget intends to sell this land to other developers. Target is aware of
the City's plans regazding Transit Oriented Development and says it intends to sell the outlots along
University Avenue to groups that will develop in conformance with Transit driented Development
guidelines.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
�
'THE PLANNING COMNIISSSION'S DECISION
The Planning Commission approved the site plan and a pazking variance and found that they were
consistent with the goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, including those for this area along
University Avenue. A condition was added limiting work on the outlots to landscaping and grading
tznril a separate site plan for these areas is submitted and approved. (See the attached Planving
Commission resolutions and staff report.)
THE APPEAL
The appeal states that the site plan for a"big box" retail store and pazking lot is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan. The appeal aiso raises a number of ofher issues incIuding traffic,
impact on neighboring properties, stormwater drainage and landscaping. The appeal states that the
parking variance is moot since the site ptan shouId be denied. (See the attached appeal from UFCW
Loca1789; Le�ngton-Hamline Community Council and University UNP! ED.)
If you have any question, please contact me at 651-266-9086 or tom.beachna cistpaul.mn.us.
Sincerely,
.`�`c�
Tom Beach
LTEP Inspector III
ATTACHIVIENTS •
Pagel Appeal from iJFCW Local 789; Le�ngton-Hamline Cominunity Council and University
UNITED
Page 19 Letter from TargeY Corporation
Page 22 Planning Commission resolution, minutes and staff report
Page 38 Site plan, building image skeYChes and site photos
•
APPLIGATIOh! FOR APPcAL'
• �� Ofnce ofLicense, lnspecfions and Environmerrta!
Protecfion
Commerce Buii�ng
8 Fourth Sf E, Saife 200 9 ���
Sairsf Paut, MM �5901
854-266-9008
ApF� ie�,►a�
PROPER'PX
LOCl�TIOt�
UFC4tii I,ocal 789 c/o Bernie A°
266 Haraman 1�ve N,
C�, South St. Pau1 S+ P4N Z� 55075 QayEime phons 651 -451-6240
Name of owner {if different)
Aodress 1300 University Ave 4d., St. Pau1, PZN
Legaldascription:P�rtion of Auditor's Subdivision N�. 27
PIN: 342R 234 20023
TYPE OF /,PPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the:
i
❑ Board of Zoning Appeais �l City Council
under the provisions of Chapfer 61, Section � � Z. Paragraph � a � of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision
made6,ythe Planning Commission
on pSarc2i 24 20D . Fifenumherls: 06-34 {Application # 06-018- 65
(dafeofdecision) Target Cor� - Site Plan): & 06-33 Appiication , - 46-997
Target Corp - Variance) �
GROUN[TS FOR �PPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an eROr in any requirement, permit,
decision or refusai made by an administrafive official, or an error in fad, procedure or finding made by the
Board of �oning Appeafs orthe Planning Commission.
*SEE ATTACHP4ENT, T�dITH EXHSBTT 1
sddifionaf sheet
;•Applicant's signatura �� "� Date 04/�3/�6 eity agent
7
Attachment
to
Application For Appeat
Target "Super Target" Land Use Applications
# 06-018-065 (site plan review} and #06-046-997 (variance)
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Per Zoning Code, Section 61.702(a), the City of St. Paul Plamiing Commission made the
foilowing errors in fact, procedure, or findings:
City of St. Paul Zoning Code, Sec. 61.402. Site plan review (all districts).
"(b) Site plan application:
"(4) For pazking facilities, the city traf£c engineer or zoning administrator may
require submission of a traffic impact analysis as part of the site plan application. Such
an analysis shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements: hip generation,
directional distribution, traffic assignment and capacity analysis." [Emphasis added.]
L
[Comment: As explained below, the traffic impact analysis should have been made a part
of the appiication, as opposed to a condition of approval.] �
"(c) Site plan review and approval. In order to approve the site plan, the plamiiug commission
shaIl consider and find that the site plan is consistent with:
"(1) The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for
sub-areas of the city."
[Comment: The Comprehensive Land Use Plan does "guide" the subject property for a
commercial — auto land use. However, the proposed development is inconsistent with the
following provisions of the Land Use Plan:
Comp. Plan, pages 6-7 —"Strategy 3: Corridors for Growth
... redevelopment efforts over the next 20 years should focus on the five
corridors ... University Avenue and the Midway ... These corridors include large
development sites that can be linked together and can provide new economic
vitality to the neighborhoods near them and to the city as a whole_ They provide
good opportunity for linking housing jobs, and transportation ..."
[Coxnment: To the contrary, a big box "Super TazgeP' is not "new" economic
vitality; it's just a"super-sized" and expanded "oid" business. There is less
opportuuity for linking housing, jobs, and transportafion with "big box" stores.] •
��
0��5�8
"Neighborhood bus lines with high leveis of service will be a focus for smaller
scale, infill development ..."
• [Comment: The "5uper TargeP' will not be "smaller scale" development.J
Comp. Plan, page 8: "Implementation ... Urban design concepts need to be effectively
applied to development projects in the city ..."
[Comment: The Planning Commission's Mazch 24, 2006 Resolntion states condirion #4,
"The applicant must work with staff to expiore options for animating the sides of the
building ... and the desi�a of the setback between the public sidewalk and the building
..." However, overall site design must be cazefizlly re-evaluated, including, but not
limited to, reducing building "footprinY' and/or requiring the floor space to be on two
floors.]
Comp. Plan, pages 15-16 "Ten Principles for City Development.
"The recent Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework ... contains ten
principles that are applicable throughout the city.
"Policy:
3.51. As development opportunities arise and projects are designed, the City will
• refers to the Ten Principles for guidance and consistency over time.
TEN PRLNCTPLIES FOR DEVELOPMENT
"l. Evoke a sense of place. Saint Paul has a unique and beautiful nahzral
setting, many exceptional buildings and neighborhoods, and a rich history.
These assets will be enhanced."
[Comment: Adding a"Super TargeY' will not evoke a sense of place.]
"4. Broaden the mix of land uses."
[Comment: A"Super Target" does not broaden the mix.]
"5. Improve connectivity."
[Comment: A large "big box" adds nothing to connectivity beriveen uses; it only
adds to disconnection between uses.j
Comp. Plan, page 37: "Objective 61 Corridor Planning and Development.
Policies:
s "6.1.2 In comdor redevelopment programs, the City will seek new ways for
integrating business and industrial job crearion with housing development and the
��
improvement of existing neighborhoods."
[Comment: A big box "Super TargeY' is not a`hew way."]
Comp. Plan, page 40 — University Avenue Corridor:
"6.33 Future development and planuing efforts to redesign University Avenue
itself should find ways to make auto-oriented regional shopping ("big box"} retail work
for pedestrians ... and also to enhance the storefront, pe@estrian-oriented commercial
centers along the avenue."
[Comment: The best way to make "big box" retait "work" for pedestrians and to enhance
the store-front comxnercial centers along the avenue is to "say no" a"Super Target"
Furthermore, Target has created no assurances that the suggested outlots wilT comply
with this Comp. Plan language.)
Comp. Plan, page 47 —"7.0 Strategy - Environmental Stewardship."
"... Land use plazming can support sustainable development by helping to do the
following: reduce number and distance of trips, improve the livability of
neighborhoods ... promote ecological stormwater management ..."
.
[Comment: Attracting more car trips to a"big box" store adds more air pollution,
for which the City of St. Paul can ill a#'ford. (See Objective 73 be2ow.] �
Comp. Plan, page 50 - Objective 73 — Air Quality: Transportation and Tndushy
"Automobiles aze the largest single source of air pollution in the American cities."
73.1 "The City will help to reduce air pollution by planning neighborhoods where
walking, biking, and taking the bus are attractive alternatives to driving ..."
[Comment: Adding to an already over-sized "big box" will atizact more tiaffic and
increase air pollution.]
Objective 7.4 Water Quality: Drainage Basins, Site Plamtiug and Individuat Action
Policies
7.4.1 "The City wili promote the use of natural stormwater sotution ..."
[Comment: According the CapitoT Region Watershed District, storxnwater management is
inadequate.l
Comp. Plan, page 65: Land Use Trends and Assumprions ...
"7. More mixed use development based on `New Urbanism' principles. In the
contemporary search for community, there is a rising awazeness that physical plam�ing s
C'� �
��-��8
for whole communities should draw together a mixture of land uses in close proximity,
strengthening the `urban village' pattem."
� [Comment: The proposed "Super TazgeY' is NOT `New Urbanism.]
"11. Steady neighborhood retail demand and volafile �°big box" retail ... In the discount
and big box retail segment, Saint Paul has less than is market share, especially given the
city's moderate income population, but these businesses seem to be risky."
[Comment: Although the City of St. Paul is not responsible for the economic well-being
of Target, nevertheless, a"volatile" or "risk}�' big box market could saddTe the City with
a dark store and urban blight.]
[Note: These planning issues will be discussed in a subsequent document to be submitted
to the St. Paul City Council befare the public hearing.]
END OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCONSISTENCIES.
Zoning Code, Section 61.402 (c) — site plan review criteria (continued):
"(2) Applicable ordinances of the city."
[No comment at this time.]
, "(3) Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically significant
characteristics of the city and environmentally sensitive areas: '
[No comment at this time.]
"(4} Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of
views, light and air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land uses."
[Comment: See comments to paragraphs 7 and 8, below. Furthexmore, it is not clear that
there is adequate sound and sight buffers between the proposed development and the
proposed outlots to the north. Therefore, it is important to consider the site as a whole, as
opposed to one at a time.]
"(5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in
order to assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably affected."
[Comment: Again, until the entire site is considered as a whole, at one time, the Planning
Commission erred by concluding that the future owners and occupants of the proposed
outlots to the north will not be "unreasonably affected."]
� "(6) Creation of energy-conserving design throu„uh landscaping and location, orientation
and elevation of siructures."
.� j
[Comment There is insufficient evidence that this has been accomplished.]
"(7) Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both wiYhin the �
site and in relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the locations
and design of entrances and exits and pazking areas within the site."
[Comment: Zoning Ordinance, Section 61.402(c) states in part, ". _. the planning
commission shall ... find that the site plan is consistent with ...(7) Safety and
convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic ..." The Plauuiug Commission
erred by approving the Site Plan, subject to the condition #2, "Target must submit traffic
information that has been requested by Public Works and Public Works must find that the
site plan adequately addresses traffic issues. In addition, the delivery area must be
redesigned to address traffic safety issues raised by Public Works"
In fact, it is the Planning Commission's duty to adopt findings pertaining to this
requirement, NOT Public Works'. (Certainly, Public Works' recommendation would be
taken into consideration by the Planning Commission.)
Section 61.402 (c) states, "... (4) For parking faciiities, the city traffic engineer
or zoning administrator may require submission of a traffic impact analysis as part
of the site plan application_ Such an analysis shall include, but not be lunited to, the
following elements: laip generation, directional dishibution, traffic assignment and
capacity analysis" This is further evidence of the Zoning Code's intent to require
an analysis "up fronY' rather than deferring the analysis unril after the site plan is
approved.
Furthermore, the public wouId be more Iikely deprived of ineaningful �
comment, if intemal review by Public Works is all that is necessary before the traffic
issues aze "addressed."]
"(8) The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including
solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the development "
[Comment: Contrary to pazagraph 8 of the Plamiing Commission's Resolution (3/24/06),
the proposed stormwater treahnent system has inadequate or unproven capacity to treat
water quality and control volume. (See Capitol Region Watershed District report
(3!9/06), attached as ExhibiY 1, hereinafter, "Report.") The Report states, "Volume
control is not proposed for the development and therefore, the CRWD volume control
criteria aze not satisfied." (See page 2_} The Report also states, "Water quality treatment
is not proposed for the development and, therefore, the CRWD water quality criteria is
not satisfied." (See page 3.) These provisions must be included as part of the site plan
review criteria, based on the foilowing St. Paul City Zoning Code provisions:
"Sec. 60.113. VesYed right.
"Nothing in this code shall be interpreted or construed to give rise to any
permanent vested rights in the continuation of any particular use, district,
zoning classification, or any permissible activities thereitt, and they are hereby
declared to be subject to subsequent amendment, change or modification as `
.`f �i
�, ♦ �
may be necessary to the preservation or protection of public health, safety
� and welfare."
[Comment: Certainly, control of stormwater quality and quantity is necessary to
protect the public health and welfaze. The City of St. Paul may amend its
requirements to conform to the watershed districYs concerns.]
"5ec. 60.108. Requirements declared minimum.
"In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this code shali be held to
be minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, morals,
safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, convenience or general welfare.
It is not intended by this code to repeal, abrogate, annul ar in any way to
impair or interfere with any existing provision of law, ordinance, rules ar
regulations. The city may impose additional requirements where deemed
reasonable and necessary to protect the public interest and to ensure
compliance with the standards and purposes of this zoning code and the policies
of the comprehensive plan."
[Comment: Certainly, adherence to the Capitol Region Watershed DistricYs
recommendations would be "reasonable to protect the public interest "]
Finally, the Planning Commission Resolution states, "3. The pauing, landscaping
� and underground stormwater retention system shown for the outlots are not approved as
part of this site plan. Until a site plan far the outlots is approved, development of the
outlots must be limited to grading, stubbing in water and sewer lines to the edge of the
outlots and planting grass or other interim landscaping."
To adequately address stormwater treatment issues, the site should be considered
in its entirety, not by piecemeal approval of the "Super TazgeY' store and then being
"[big] boxed" in from considering other waTer quality treatment systems.
"(9) Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessazy to meet the above
objectives "
[Comment: Target and the Planning Commission have not adequately explored reducing
the building "footprinY' by building two or more stories high, thereby increasing the
landscaping aesthetics and stormwater trearinent. Pedestrian safety is also enhanced by
having a smaller "sea of asphalt to navigate before entering the building.]
"(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible
routes."
[No comment at this time.]
• (11) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook."
�
[No comment at this time.}
Zoning Code, Secfion 61.4d2:
"(d) Compliance and time requirements. The planning commission may make such
requirements with respect to the above matters as to assure compliance with them.
When changes are required, the revised site plan shall be submitted within six (6) months
from the date the applicant was notified ofrequired changes. The zoning adminisTrator
may grant extensions. The property must be brought into compliance with the approved
site plan within one year of the date of approval or as otherwise specified by the zoning
administrator."
[Comment: The Planning Commission should have imposed Capitol Region WD
requirements to assure compliance.]
Zoning Code, Secrion 60.109, states,
"(a) Conflicting regulations. Whenever any provision of this code conflicts with any other
provision of this code or any other law or ordinance, the more restrictive provision shall
govern, except as otherwise specifically provided."
r1
LJ
"(b) Reference to other regulations. In addition to the requirements ofthis zoning code, all
uses and development shall comply with all other applicable city, local, regional, state
and federal regu]ations. All references in this zoning code to other city, local, regional,
state or federal regulations are for informational purposes only, and do not constitute a �
complete list of such regulations_ These references do not imply any responsibility by the
city for enforcement of other local, regional, state or federal regulations."
[Comment: The Planning Commission erred by not attaching compliance with other
local, regionaI, state, and federal requirements as a condition for site plan appro�al.]
VARIANCE APPLICATION
The site plan application must be denied. Therefore, the variance application should also
be denied because the issues arising from the variance application are mooT.
s
�
03/31/06 17:J7 FA% 1 952 472 4771
�
;�
1. There is a hatched area at the nartheast comer of the site. The hatching is not shown in
i the pian legend.
� 2. A"pavemendisland drainrile detail" is shown on the detail sheet, but it is not shnrarn on
�� the utility plan. This practice shauld be incotporated with stormwatea management for
the site.
Mazch 9, 2006
THObfA5 E. CASEY
EXNIBtT 1
� / , I�
r� � .
C�egion Watershed aDistrict
Energy Patk Plaza,1410 Energy Park Dr., Su{te 4 St Panl, MN 55108
phone: (651) 644-8888 Fax: (b51} 644-8844 www.capitalxe�.oawd.org
Tom Beach
City of St. Paul - L.T.E.P.
8 Fourth Street E., Suite 200
St. Paul, MN 55101-102A
RE; Super Tazget, SL Paul, MN
CRWD Development Review #06-SP-004
The following is an evaluatinn of the pmposed St. Paul Super Tazget in terms of the DistricYs
areas of conceno. The Aistrict's development revievV criteria are included in italics.
EXHIBITS
1. Storm Water Management Report, by Westwood Professionat Services, dated ?/8106,
recd. 2/21/06.
2_ Transmittal I.�tter, by Weshvood Professional Services, dated 2/17/06, recd. ?J21/06.
3, preliminary Plans (sheets 4-16 of 1'7), by Westwood Professional Services, dated 2/8/06,
racd. 2/21/06.
HACKGRQUND
2.
3.
4.
S.
The pmject is located betwcen University and St. Anthony Avenues, and Hamlina and
Syadicate Aveaues in St. Paui.
'I`he total project site atea is 14,9 acnes.
The "Stomz Water Managemeat Repo�' natrative states that the existing site. area is 86%
impervious and contains a hotel and associated parking_
The proposed conditions contain the Super Tazget huilding, two ouUot huildiug,c and
associated pazking for each. Tk�e "Stotm Water Management Report" ua�r�tive states thuY
the proposed site area is 91% impervious,
Runoff from the gmposed site is divided into three diainage areas. Undeaground storage
has been desigaed for each dtainage azea to limit dischazgt to satisfy City of SL Paul
requirements.
GENERAI, COMD�NTS
"Our mirs(on ir ro protecR manage, and improve the water resources ajthe Capitot Region Warenhed D'utrict.'
�
03/J1/06 17:37 FAX 1 952 472 4771
BeacL, Page 2, 03/091p6
THOMAS E. CA5EY
3. Existing starrawater man�g�nmt was not described in the "Sborm Water Managemeat
Report". Existing conditions topogaphic and site plaas were not provided. These items
should be provided
RATE CONTROL
Peak discharge rates jor developments must be at or belaw ezisting mres for the 2, J0, and 100
year storm events.
r� �
Findings:
1. Peak discharge rate calculstions were not submittecl for the existing and proposed 2-, S-,
and 10.year events and the existing 1�0-year eaenR. However, it is likely tha2 ihe CRWD
rate controi criteria are satisfied because the existing site did aot contain sny stormwatet
management facilities but hsd a similaz amount of impen+ious area as the proposed
pmject
2. 'Ihe peak discharge rate for the proposed 100-ycar event was submitfed and satisfies the
G�ty of St. Paul 1.64 cfs / acre requirement
3. A drainage azea map was not aubmitted for exisling conditions.
4. Details of the undecground stoiage system were not included in the Phase 2 Utility Plan.
5. The ouflet pipe size for the "Outioc Area" drainage area does not correspond betwcea tlie
stormweter worksheet and die Phase 2 i7tility Ylan. The workshcet indicates that a 9"
CMP is necessary to control dischazge, but a 12" RCP is specified on the Phese 2 Utility
Plan_
6. It is not known if adequate capacity is provided in the pipe between STMH 40 and
STMH 39. Existing runoff fram off-site is directed to STMH 40. However, there is new
impervious that is aiso dire�ted to this catch basin_
7. Invert elevalions on the "Ouflot Area° stormwatet worksheet do not correspoad with
those listed in tfie table on the Phase 2 Uti&ty Plan.
If ltems 1 and 3-7 above were addressed, the proposed project would (ikely satisfy CEIWD
rate eonurot criterta.
VOLUME CONTROL
De�elopments and redeveloprnents mr4st reduce runofj'vnlumes in the amounY equivalent to an
inch of runo, j)'from �he impervious areas of the site. Stormwater musr be pretreated before
discharging in infelt�ation areas [o maintain long-term viability of the infiltratior► area
Pinding,s:
1. Volume control is not proposed foY the development and therefore, the CRWD wlume
control criterla is not satlsf{ed.
2_ Soil boring rPSUlrs wae aot grovzded. The "Storm Water Managemeat ReQort" nansrive
states that soil borings indicate silty sand fill over poorly graded sands.
The following is recammended to satisfy CRWD voluma conttol criteria:
. Address the use of pmposed green space, perforated storm sewer gipes, and parlcing lot
islands to reeeive parking lot and roof nmoff.
"Our mission it !o pro�ect, manoge, and t�nprove ihe wa[er resources of ihe Capi[oJ lteglon Waterrked D&frict "
� J
�
�
JO
03/31/06 17:37 FAX 1 952 472 4771 THOASAS E. CASEY �106
6l� -�ag
�
Seach, Pagc 3, 03/09/06
o Perforated pipes with gtavel beds aze effective and cost efficient in5ltratian
techniques. This will add little or no cost to the cunenfly pmposed stormwater
system.
o Paziang lot islands used es rain gardens for pazlang lot or roof tunoff.
. pretreatment prior to discharge to infilffalionifiltration areas is requued to remove
sedimcnt and prevent clog�ng. Stormsewer sump catchbasins or micropools are
recommended pretreatment techniques.
WATER QUALITY
Developments and redevelopments musr incorporate efjecteve non paint source pollation
reduction BMPs to achieve 90'�o solid removaf. G}edits will be givenfor the volume ofwaler
infeltrated.
Findings: -
1, Water quality ueatment is not praposed for the development and, therefore, the CRWD
water qnality criterIa is not satisIIed.
The foAowing is recommensied to satisfy CRWll water quality criteria:
• Address the use of proposed g�een space, perforated stoma sewer pipes, and perking lot
{ islands to receive parking lot and roof runoff.
� o Stormwater pond(s).
o Perfonted pipes with gravel beds are effective and cost efficient infiltration
2echniques. This will add little or no cost to the curzently proposed stormwatea
system.
o Paziang lot islands used as iain gazdens for parking lot or roof runoff.
• prctaeatrnent prior to dischazge W infiltiation/filh�adon areas is required to remove
sedimeat and prevent clogging. Stotmsewer sump catchbasins or micropools are
recommended pretrea�nent te+chniques.
n
U
FLOODTNG
A structu�e's lowestJloor elevation mvst be 2 feel above the 100 year hrgh water level ofthe
adjacent and water bodies.
Findings:
l. The Super Tazget first floor elevation (FF�} is 934.2. The underground storage high
watet level (FiWL} is 427.31.
2. The "conceptual restaurnnY' FFE is 926.3. The uadecgrouud sturage I3WL is 9?A.36.
3. The "conceptusl showroQm" FFE is 927.0. The underground swrage AWL is 92036.
The proposed project satisfles CRWD ilooding criteria.
WETLAND MANAGEIVTENT
l�etfands shatl not be dratned, filled wholdy or in pari, escavated, or have sustaining hydrology
impac[ed such that there will6e a decnease in rhe inherenr (ecisting) funetions and values of lhe
"Our mission fs fo prorese, manage, and irnprove the wuter resources of f6e Capltol Region K�alerrhed Distriet. "
�
oaisiios iT:a� Fnx i ss2 a�2 a�7i
BeacL, Page 4, 03/09106
THOTSAS E. CASEY
wetland, Wetland imp4cu will be evaluated base$ on the following principles in descending
order of prioriiy. Avoid the impact to rhe wetlarid, minimize the impact to the wetland replace
rhe wedand lhat was impacted. Wetlunr7 impacts witl be governed by a lteview comparabie so
the Wetland Conservation Act, with the fotlowing esceptions:
I. The de minimis size will be zero,
l. Fle�dbility Sequencing wrll not be aUowed
3. Public Yalae Credits can not be esed replacement.
4. All other WCA non-temporary irapact ezemptions to wetiands will not be allowed
.4 25 foot buJfer of permanrat nanimpacted vegesative growid cover abutting and srProunding a
we�land is required
There aze no known wetlands on or adjacent to the site.
EROSION COIVTROL
E�osion Conbol Plans must adhere to the MYCf! Protecting Water Quatity in U�ban Areas
ManunL
Findings: '
4. Inlet protxdon is uoted in the S WPPP text, but a detail aad locations are not shown on
the erosion coaunl plan. Inlet protection should be shown at all existing and pxnposed
catchbasins adjacent to land-distvrbing activities.
5. Silt fence is showa in the legend but is not clearly showtt on the erosion control plan. Siit
fence should be p�cnvided where aff-site runoff is exgectad to occur.
II the itexps ahove were addressed, the proposed project wonld satisTy CRWD erosion
control criteria
@10�
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development_ We loak fotward to providing
further analysis of the proposed proj e�t as we review revised plans. Please give me a call if you
have any questions_
Sincerely,
����/ '
Bob Fossum
Water Resource Specialist
cc: Dave Contly, Sewer Division, St Paul Public Works
Gretchen Landiai, Westwood Pmfessional Seivices
Todd Shoemaker, Wenek Associates
W:�07 Pugnms�DevdopmmiReviewslSt PeW�2006�0(iSP-004 SupaTa�ge[ Mid�.nyY16SP-OOa Revitw.doe
"Our neission ir fo proteet, ntqnage, and tmprove the waeer resources ojt6e Capttn! Region Waeershed Distrlet"
s
�
�
f �-
, � ��
n
��
SUPPLEMENT #1
to
Application For Appeal
by
iJFCW Local #789
Target "Super Target" Land Use Applications
# 06-018-065 (site plan review) and #06-046-997 (variance)
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Per Zorung Code, Section 61.702(a), the City of St. Paul Planning Commission made the
following errors in fact, procedure, or findings:
City of St. Paul Zoning Code, Section 61.402(c) sets forth the criteria for Site Plan review
in a11 zoning districts. The proposed "Super Target" fails the following requirement:
"(c) Site plan review and approval. In order to approve the site plan, the planning
commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with:
� "(1) The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans
for sub-areas of the city." [Emphasis added.]
I. INCONSISTENCY WITH "LEX-HAM TOMORROW" PLAN.
The proposed "Super TargeP' is also inconsistent with the following language of "Lex-
Ham Tomorrow" — a land use master pian for tl�e L.exington-Hamline neighborhood:
Page 7— A map depicts the proposed site as: "Proposed mixed-use development."
[Comment: Certainly, a"Super TargeY' detracts from "mixed use" development.]
Page 8—"Modifying the parking lots wouid allow for new stores along University
Avenue to have more street frontage rather than being set back behind a sea of
empty parking lots. With buildings close to the street, on-street parking would be
useful for a[sic] quick shopping trips."
[Comment: The "Super TargeY' will be set back behind a"sea" of parking lots.
Development of any outlots is not likely to adequately screen a behemoth "Super TargeY'
stare from University Avenue.J
Page 8—"... [N]ew development along University Avenue would benefit from mixed-
� use buildings: shops or business on the ground floor with apartments above ...
The buildings need to address both the current scales of University Avenue, the
existing fast moving traffic, and the new pedestrian scale. This would make
13
University Avenue mare like a neighborhood. Also since parking could be shazed
by several businesses, less of it would be needed and the buildings could occupy
more of the space." �
[Comment: For all intents and purposes, a"Super TargeP' store is "along" University
Avenue. A"Super TazgeY' will have an adverse impact on mixed-use buildings, the
"currenY' scale of University Avenue, and "new" pedeshian scale. A"Super TargeY'
would make University Avenue less like a neighborhood.]
Page 12 —"Neighborhood Goals ... 11. Provide new infili developments on and between
University Avenue and I-94."
[Comment: A"Super TargeP' is not a"new" development, just an expansion of an
existing big box.]
Finally, it is important to note that none of the "group" answers or neighbors'
responses to questionnaires requested the building of a Super Target!!
II. INCONSISTENCY WITH "LEXINGTON IIAMLIlVE SMALL AREA PLAN AND
40-ACRE ST`L7DY."
The proposed "Super TazgeY' is inconsistent with following language of the "Lexington
Hamline Small Area Plan and 40-Acre Study," adopted by the City Council on March 23, 1993:
Page 9—"12. Improve the overall image of University Avenue by reducing and �
improving signage, and developing a unified streetscape concept "
[Comment: It is milrnown if the Tazget property along University Avenue will have
a"unified streetscape concept " The Target properiy should be developed with a unified
plan for the entire property.]
Page 18 —"Continue to mazket the Lexington Hamline neighborhood as an attractive
place to live."
[Cominent: The building of a"Super Tazget," with added traffic congesrion, air pollution,
etc., deh from the livability of the Lexington-Hamline neighborhood.]
Page 23 —"Where commercial buildings do not come up to the sidewalk on University
Avenue between Lexington Parkway and Hamline Avenue, strengthen the
pedestrian edge with landscaping and/or low walls or decorative fencing. Weak
links in the pedeshian edge occur primarily at Target and along the northern
boundary of the Lexington/LTniversity shopping center. Better defuvng this edge
through landscaping and/or low walls of decorative fencing will end visual
continuity fo the street and improve pedestrian comfort, and may increase
pedeshian activity."
�
� ��
O l� ��'D�
[Comment: The proposed "Super TargeY' does not include a definite plan for outlots
adjacent to University Avenue. Therefare, the proposed site plan is inconsistent with this
� language.]
CONCLUSION
As discussed in this supplement and the originai appeal documents, the proposed "Super
TargeY' is inconsistent with the City of St. Paul Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the
Lexington Aamline uea plans. These pians do not indicate the community's approval of a
"Super TargeY' store. To the contrary, Target has not worked enough with the community to
develop an appropriate land use for this site.
UFCW Local #789 respectfully requests that the St. Paul City Council denv TargeYs site
plan and variance applications because they fail the legal requirements.
Subsequenfly, LTFCW Local #7891ooks forward to working with Target and the
Lexington Hamline community to develop a store that works for all stakeholders.
�
I'�
lI
� rs
Attachment to Application for Appeai
Lexington-Hamline Community Council and University UNITED �
Target Corporation - SuperTarget
FILES:
06 018065 (site plan review) and
06 046997 (variance)
SITE PLAN - GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
FINDINGS FOR SITE PLAN APPLlCATION: Section 62.108(c) of the Zoning Code says that in
°orderto approve the site plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is
consistent with" the findings listed below.
1. The city's adopted comprehensive p(an and development or project plans for sub-areas of
the city.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for development along University Avenue that is dense and
pedestrian friendfy. The Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan says that "Fufure
redevelopment planning and efforts to redesign University Avenue itself should find ways to
make the auto-oriented regional shopping work for pedestrians.° (Section 6.3.3)
Lex-Ham CC and UNITED argue that the site plan is NOT consistent with this finding.
While the site plan shows outlots on University with buildings that are up to the street,
according to the Planning Commissions recommendation, these outlots are not being �
considered at this time. Additionally, Target has offered no guarantees as to how these
outlots will be developed. Therefore we believe that the "potential" of these outlots should
not be "considered to have any bearing on the site use application.
The remainder of the site plan is for a 186,059 sq. it., single-story structure with 640 parking
spaces between the front door and a major transit route. Lex-Ham CC and UNITED argue
that this type a low-density, auto-oriented development is directly contrary to the
Comprehensive Plan and the Lex-Ham Tomorrow Plan and their calls for "development
atong University Avertue that is dense artd pedestrian friendly".
2. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
No comment at this time.
3. Preservation of unique geo/ogiq geographic or historically significant characteristics of the
city and environmentally sensitive areas.
No comment at this time.
4. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for such
mafters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and
air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring land
uses.
Lex-Ham CC and UNITED argue that without knowing what type of development will occur .
on the outlots to the north, it is not possible to determine if adequate buffers for sound and
��
b(� -��
sight, preservation of light and air quality, or traffic circulation {including pedestrian and
• bicycle traffic) have been provided.
5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed deve%pment in order to
assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not 6e unreasonably affected
Again, Lex-Nam CC and UNITED argue that without knowing how the northem outlots will
be developed, it is false to determine that the abutting properties and/or ifs occupants will
not be unreasonable affected.
6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation and
elevation of structures.
Lex-Ham CC and UNITED argue that the site plan is NOT consistent with this finding.
Again, according to the Planning Commissions recommendation, the outlots are not being
considered at this time and Target has not provided any assurances as to what will be
developed there so to claim that the entire site pian satisfies the creation of energy
conserving design based on the potential for dense development on the outlots is
inadequate.
A 186,059 sq. ft., single-story structure with 64Q surface parking spaces does not support
energy conservation and rather promotes further energy consumption through inefficient
land use and an auto-oriented design that discourages pedestrian access.
7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in
� relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the locations and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
Lex-Ham CC and UNITED argue that the site plan is NOT consistent with this finding.
Additional information regarding traffic impacts that was requested by Public Works had not
been submitted by Target at the time of site plan review. We feel that this site plan
application should not be approved until this information is made available to the
community.
8. The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions
to any drainage problems in the area o/ the development.
No additional comments.
9. Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
Given that the Comprehensive Plan calis for development along University Avenue that is
dense and pedestrian friendly, Lex-Ham and UNITED argue that the landscaping and
parking detailed in this site plan DO NOT meet the objective of providing dense and
pedestrian friendly development.
10. Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
� No comment at this time.
11. Provision for erosion and sediment control as speci�ed in the "Ramsey Erosion Sediment
and Control Handbook."
(�
No comment at this time.
RECOMMENDATION: - �
Based on the findings above, Lex-Ham CC and UNITED recommend disapprovai of the site plan
for a new SuperTarget store at 1300 University Avenue West. Additionally, we recommend that
the City Council and Mayor institute a development moratorium that restricts future development in
the corridor that does not meet or exceed TQD guidelines.
VARIANCE - GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
VARIANCE REQUESTED: A variance of the off street parking requirements is required to
construct a new Super Target. The new store requires 820 off-street parking spaces and 640
spaces would be provided for a variance of 180 parking spaces.
RECOMMENDATION:
Lex-Ham CC and UNITED believe that the site plan application should be denied based on the
reasons listed above. By e�ension, the variance application should be denied because issues
raised in the application will no longer be applicable.
Respectfully submitted,
Jessica Treat
Executive Director
Lexington-Hamline Community Council
Brian McMahon
Execufive Director
University UNITED
�
�
i
•
Apri125,2006
s
.�
President Kathy Lantry and
Members of the Saint Paul City Council
City Hall
I S West Kellogg Boulevazd
Saint Paul, MN 55102
6 �-��
Re: Response To Appeats By L3FCW I,ocal 7$9, Lexington-Hamline Community
Council and University UNITED of Certain Planning Commission Approvais For
SuperTazget Project At 1300 University Avenue West
Dear President Lanhy and Members of the City Council:
Target Corporation respectfu2ly reqnests that the Ciry Cauncil ughold the Planning Commission
approval of the Site Plan (File # 06 018055) and Variance (File # 06 Q46997) related to the
� proposed SupeiTarget at 1300 University Avettue West. Tacget plans to build a SuperTazget,
replacing the existing Tazget store wiYh a store that will attract new customers to Midway and
provide addirionai jobs, as well as reserve outlots on University Avenue to allow for future
development that will fit the City of Saint PauPs goals for the Midway area.
The Planning Commission approved Target's Site Plan, subject to certain conditions, and granted
Tazget's request for a parking variance. 'I'6e Pianning Commission found that the Site Plan was
consisfent with the factors set forth in Zoning Code § 61.402(c), including consistency with the
comprehensive plan. UFCW Local 789, Lexzngton-Hamline Community Council, and
Umversity UNITED (together, the "Appeal Parties") submltted two appeals of the Planning
Commission acfions. However, the Planning Commissian did not commit any errors in its
actions and the appeals shouid therefore be denied.
The proposed SuperTarget represents a significattf redevelopment for the Midway azea. Target
chose ttris location to be the site of tha first urhan SuperTazget in Minnesota The SuperTarget
will bring additional jobs and attract new consumers to the Midway area. The proposed use of
the site, including a SuperTarget in the neaz term as well as future outlot development along
Universtiy Avenue, respects forward-thinking plamiing and is consistent with muitipie
Comprehensive Plan goais. The Site Plan leaves the outlots undefined, atlowing them to be
developed in the future in connection with the evolving transit- and pedestrian-focused
development in Midway. The ulrimate development of the outlots will reqnire the approval of
th� Plauniug Coxnmission, and the City will be able to ensure that the developmenf complies
with the City's evolving goals for University Avenue.
�
��
ProPerty Development, 1000 Nfcoliet Mall, Minneapotis, MN 55403
The PTanning Commission found that tlte Site PIan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. �
For example, Section 1, Fmplemenfation, states that urban design concepTs need to be effectively
applied to development projects. Target has sought auf community input and has incorporated
this input into its designs. Furthermore, as a caondition af Site P1an approvat, Target is working
with the sta£f to explore options for aniinatzng the s'sdes o€ the building.
In addition, the Site Plan achieves the following specific goals related Yo retail development in
Midway:
• Section 6.7.2 recoguizes tlus site as one of the two strongest retail IocatiQas in 3aint Paul
for tazge residential populations and east-west commtiters. The SuperTargat wilI attract
new consumers to the area, benefiting neighborhood businesses. The proposed ouflots
coutd include addirional retail shops to attract new consumers.
Sectian 63.3 recoguzes that there will be auto-aFieated regional shopping along
University Avenue and efforts should be macle to make such big-box retail wosk for
pedestriana Target designed the SiEe Plan with pedeshians in mind, iusluding wider
siflewalks atong Syndicate Avenue and decreased parking requiremeatts. Furthermoie,
the outlots will allow for pedestrian- and traasit-friendly development as those cancepts
take shape along University Avenue
The Planuing Commission also found that the Site Pian complied with all elements set farth in �
Zoning Code § 6I .402(a). The Appeat Parties contesf cerfain of ttiese findings. tViany of the
objections aze based on the fact that the Site Plan does not define the use of the outlots. As
discussed above, this is an asset to the development process, as ft allows for greai fIexibitity in
adapting to the progession of pedestrian- and transit-friendly development. Moreover, the
Pfa}iniug Cotnmissian added conditious to its approval to ensure that no work would occur on
the ontlots that might prejudice future pedestrian and transit-friendIy development options.
Certain other objections aze not meritorious for reasons set forth below.
The Appeal Parties azgue that a traffic impact analysis should have been made a part of
the Site Plan submission. A traffic impact analysis is not required as part of the Site Plan
submission. Instead, the Planning Commission asked that such a study be a condition of
its apgmval. Tazget has completed such an analysis and wifl provida it to Public Works
as required by the Site Plan approval conditions. The study, zvhich included the
SuperTarget and potenYial uses for the outlots, shows that the traffic impact will be
negligible.
The Appeal Parties argue that stormwater management is inadequate and bases this
azgumeat on a letter firom the Capitol Region Watershed Distriet The Capitot Region
Watershed District is not the governing anthority for this site. However, Target is
working with tfie Watershed District and has addressed each of the concerns presented in
the DistricYs Niarch 9, 20061etter. The final deveTopment will meet or exceed
storn rate controI and quatity requirements.
.
�
�� ���
• s The Site Plan is a significant improvement over the current use of the overall site because
the Site Plan includes additional green space in excess of code reguirements as weli as
pedeshian-friendiy enhancements such as wider sidewalks.
Although one of the appeals azgues for a moratorium, the facts set forth above demonstrate that a
moratorium would be inappropriate. The purpose of a moratorium is to protect the planning
process while studies aze being conducted or a new comprehensive plan is being considered.
Mulfigle studies have been completed on the Midway area, including the University Avenue
Transit-Orien#ed Development Framework. The SuperTazget project was designed in light of
these studies as we11 as the Comprehensive Pian. The proposed SuperTarget is reflective of
thoughtful planning and forward-thinking acrion. The Site Plan approved by the Planning
Commission reflects an upgrade over the exisring store combined with the designarion of outlots
to be developed in the future.
Tazget appreciates your thoughtful consideration of this matter. If you have any questions,
ptease do not hesitate to cail me at 612-761-5846 or our attomey Rebecca Rom at 612-76f-7231.
V ery truiy yours,
r
� �
� Thomas H. Carrico
Real Estate Manager
Target Corporation
cc: Rebecca L. Rom
M I:l "> I?$80.01
�
2�
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number 06-34
date March 24, 2006
WHEREAS, Target Corporation, File# 06 018065, has submitted a site plan for review under the
provisions of 61.400 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for a new SuperTarget store on property
located at 1300 University Ave W, legally described as Auditor's Subdivision No. 27 Being
Kittsondale Lot 1& Lot A& Part Of Lots 2,3 & B BIk 4 Nlidway Industrial Division Lying N Of A Line
687.08 Ft S Of & Par To NI Of Lot 8 And Sub No.27 & In Sd Auditors Sub No. 27 Subj To Rds & Ex
N 260 Ft Of W 169.02 Ft; ; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on 3/16/06, held a public hearing
at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in
accordance with the requirements of §61.303 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning
Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following
findings as required under the provisions of §61.402(c) that the site plan is consistent with:
1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the
city.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The Comprehensive Plan calls for development
along University Avenue that is dense and pedestrian friendly. The Land Use Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan says that "Future redevelopment planning and efforts to redesign
University Avenue itself should find ways to make the auto-oriented regional shopping work for
pedestrians." (Section 6.3.3)
The site plan shows.outlots along University Avenue with buildings up to the street and parking
behind. Target is not developing the outlots now and the plans are intended to show a
development concept rather than be an exact proposal of what will go there. Target is not
seeking site plan approval for the buildings shown on the outlots at this time and the outlots wifl
require a separate site plan review later. However, Target has requested that part of the outlots
be landscaped and paved and that aR underground storm water retention system be built on the
outlots at this time. Doing these improvements now, before a separate site plan review is done
for the outlots, would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since it could limit where
development could go.
moved by Morton
seconded by
in favor 13
against
— with 1 abse
n
�
i
i
•
2z
�(� ���8
Zonin� File # 06 018065
Planning Commission Resolutiort
Page 2
� 2. ApplicaBle ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The site plan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if a variance is approved to reduce the
off-street parking requirement from 820 spaces to 640 spaces. The site plan compiies with all
other applicable ordinances, including setbacks, lot coverage and building height.
3. Preseivation oi unique geo%giq geographic or historically significant characteristics of the city
and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site pian is consistent with this finding. The site has no unique geologic, geographic or
historically significant characteristics and it is not located in an environmentally sensitive area.
4. Protection of adjacent and neighboring prope�ties through reasonab/e provision for such mafters
as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and
those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Drainage issues have been addressed and
sufficient iandscaping to act as bufFers is proposed. The project wiN not impact views, light or
air for neighboring properties.
5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to
assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably affected
, The site plan is consistent with this finding. The arrangement of the bui4ding, parking lot and
outlots will not unreasonabiy affect abutting property.
6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation and
elevation of structures.
The site ptan is consistent with this find'+ng. Creating the outlots to allow smaller buildings atong
University will help to increase density and make the area more pedestrian friendly. This will
promote energy conservation by encouraging people to use walk or mass transit instead of
driving.
7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in
relation to access streets, including fra�c circulation features, the locations and design of
entrances and exits and parking a�eas within the site.
The location of the existing driveways that serve Target will not change. However, Public
Works has asked Target to submit additional information on whether the project will significantly
change the amount of traffic generated.
Public Works also told Target that the area at the southeast.corner of the building where trucks
will make deliveries must be changed to eliminate some potential traffic safety issues. Target is
working on redesigning this area.
if the information is acceptable to Public Works and the delivery area is changed, the site plan
� will be consistent with this finding.
��
Zoniny Fite # 06 018065
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 3
8. The satisfactory availability and capaciiy of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions to
any drainage problems in the area of the development.
The plan is consistent with this finding. The plan provides for underground storage of storm
water to meet City reguiations for controlling run off.
9. Suffcient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. It will provide more green space than required by
the zoning code. The landscaped areas will be irrigated. The landscaped areas are larger than
what has been provided in other large commercial developments to give plants more room to
survive in harsh parking lot conditions.
10. Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans w'rth Disabilities Act
(ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding, including accessible parking spaces and accessible
routes to the building.
11. Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosron Sediment and
Control Handbook"
The site plan is consistent with this finding and calls for adequate measures to control erosion
and sediment during construction. S
NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, that the application of Target Corporation for a site plan
review to establish new SuperTarget store at 130Q University Ave W is hereby approved, subject to
the following conditions:
1. A variance must be approved to reduce the amount of off-street parking being provided.
2. Target must submit traffic information that has been requested by Public Works and Public
Works must find that the site plan adequately addresses traffic issues. In addition, the delivery
area must be redesigned to address traffic safety issues raised by Public Works.
3. The paving, landscaping and underground storm water retention system shown for the outlots
are not approved as part of this site plan. Until a site plan for the outlots is approved,
development of the outlots must be limited to grading, stubbing in sewer and water lines to the
edge of the outlots and planting grass or other interim landscaping.
4. The applicant must work with staff to explore options for animating the sides of the building
facing Hamline and Syndicate including the treatment of the building facade (including windows
and architectural detailing) and the design of the setback between the public sidewalk and the
buifding (incfuding planting and arcfiifecfural elements such as trellises}.
�
��
Dl� ��$
city of saint paul
�lanning commission resolution
file number 06-33
date March 24, 2006
WHEREAS, Target Corporation, File # 06-046-997, has applied for a variance to reduce the amount of off-street
parking required for a new Super Target store from 820 spaces to 640 under the provisions of 63.207 of the Saint
Paul Legislative Code, on property located at 1300 University Ave W, legally described as Auditor'S Subdivision
No. 27 Being Kittsondale Lot 1& Lot A& Part Of Lots 2,3 & B Blk 4 Midway Industrial Division Lying N Of A Line
687.08 Ft S Of & Par To NI Of Lot 8 And Sub No.27 & In Sd Auditors Sub No. 27 Subj To Rds & Ex N 260 Ft Of
W 169.02 Ft; ; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on 3/16/06, held a public hearing
at which afl persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance
with the requirements of §61.303 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at
the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings as required under the
provisions of Section 64.203 of the Legislative Code:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonab/e use under the strict provisions of the code.
� The City wants to increase the density of development along University Avenue. In keeping with this,
Target is proposing to use 3.2 acres of the parcel to create outlots that can be developed to increase
density along University Avenue instead of using it to provide more parking.
2. The plighf of the land owner is due fo circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances
were not created by the land owner.
The property is located in an area where the City wants to increase density and make commercial
development more pedestrian friendly. This was not created by the applicant.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health,
safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St Paul.
The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code to provide adequate off-street
parking. With the variance, the new Super Target would provide 640 spaces for 186,000 square feet of
building area (one parking space for every 295 square feet). In comparison there are 447 parking spaces
for the existing 141,000 square toot Target store (one space for every 310 square feet), and this parking
has proved to be sufficient to meet TargeYs needs. The location of the site along the major bus route in
the Twin Cities will continue to reduce the need for parking.
7he variance is also in keeping with the City's goals of increasing density and making commercial areas
more pedestrian friendly.
�oved by Morton
seconded by
in favor 12 - with 1 abstention (Aliqada)
against 3 (Commers, Nelson, Bellus)
��
Zoning File # 06-046-997
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 2
4. The proposed variance wrll not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properly, nor
will it alter fhe essentia/ character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established
property values within the surrounding area.
The proposed uariance to reduce the amount of required off-street parking will enhance the
character of the surrounding area by allowing new buildings to be constructed along University
Avenue where the existing Target has a Iarge parking lot. Based on studies done by Target and
the City's experience with fhe parking for the exisfing Target sfore, the amounf of parking proposed
by Target will be sufficient and will not cause parking problems for the surrounding area.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the
code for the property rn the district where the affected land is located, no� would it alter or change
the zoning disfrict class�cation of the property.
i
The proposed Super Target and the commercial uses being discussed for the outlots are all permitted uses.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential
of the parcel of land.
The request for the variance is based primarily on a desire to increase development along University Avenue
in response to the City's land use policies and goals. �
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the-Saint Paul Planning Commission that the provisions of
Section 63.207 are hereby waived to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a new
Super Target store from 820 to 640 spaces on property located at 1300 University Ave W; and legally
described as Auditor'S Subdivision No. 27 Being Kittsondale Lot 1& Lot A& Part Of Lots 2,3 & B BIk 4
Midway Industrial Division Lying N Of A Line 687.08 Ft S Of & Par To NI Of Lot 8 And Sub No.27 & In
Sd Auditors Sub No. 27 Subj To Rds & Ex N 260 Ft Of W 169.02 Ft; in accordance with the application
for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator.
_dac 2 c3 2
�
Ct1
o�-��
•
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Ha11 Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
Minutes March 24, 2006
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, March 24, 2006,
at 8:00 a.m. in the Conference Genter of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Fazicy, Lu, McCall, Morton, Porter, Smitten
Present: and; and Messrs. Aligada, Alton, Bellus, Commers, Cudahy, Johnson, Kong, Kramer,
Mejia and Nelson.
Commissioners Ms. *Trevino, and Messrs. Dandrea, *Goodlow, *Gordon
Absent:
*Bxcused
Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Adminish�ator; Allan Torstenson, Lucy Thompson, Penny
Snnison, Shawntera Hazdy, Christina Danico, Gary Peltier, Tom Beach and Wendy
� Lane from LIEP, Casey MacCallum (intern), and Kate Fleming, Department of
Planning and Economic Development staff.
I. Swearing in of New Members
Mr. Son Commers, Ms. Kristina Smitten, Mr. Gauis Nelson and Mr.Bob Cudahy were sworn in as
Saint Paul Planning Commission members by Ms. Shari Moore, City Clerk.
II. Approval of minutes March 10, 2006.
MOTION: Commissioner Johnson moved approval of the minutes of March 10, 2006.
Commissioner Be[Zus seconded the motion. The motion carried uxanimously on a voice vote.
III. Chair's Announcements
No announcements
�
��7
# 06-047-195 St. Crois Paziners — Condifional Use Permit for a muItiple family development •
with a leasing arrangemenY similar to a roomina house (permit required by action of City
Council) �z Territorial Rd, NW corner at Berry St. (PaEricia James, 651/266-6639)
MOTION: Commissioner Mor[on snoved the Zoning Committee's recommendalior� to approve
the conditional use permit with conditions. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
# 06-046-051 Metro Metals Corporation — Condi5onal Use Permit for operation of indoor
metal shredder nt conjunction witlx eXistiug legal motor vehicle salvage operafion.
2676 Doswell Ave., SW corner of Doswell and beltline Ry.
(Patriciadames, 651/266-6639)
CommissionerMorton repnrted the apptication was rejected
# 06-046-997 Tazeet — A Variance of the off sireet pazking requirements in order to
construct a new Super Tazget. The new retail store requires 820 pazldng spaces, 640 spaces
are provided for a variattce of 180 off street pazking spaces. 1300 University Ave., W.
(Tom Beach, 651/266-9086)
MOTION: CommissionerMorton moved the Zoniag ConamBttee's recrommendation to appwve
the variance with conditions. The motion carried on a vote of 13-3 (Commers, Nelson, Bellus)
I abstention {Aligada).
# 06-018-065 Tar¢et — Site Plan Review to constnzcY a new Super Tazget. 1300 University �
Ave., W. (Tom Beach, 651/266-9086)
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zonisg Commiuee's recomme�datiox to approve
the szte plan. The motdon carried on a vote of I4-2 (Commers, Nelson)1 abstention (Alagada).
VII. Comprehensive Planning Committee
Chair ponnelly-Cohen gave report and announced the meeting will be Tuesday, April 4, 2006.
There have been five task force committees establish�d for the five chapters for the
Comprehensive Pian. Chairs for tfie followiug groups wilI be; Commissioner Kramer, for land
use, Commissioner Faricy, for transportation, Commissioner Bellus, for housing, Commissioner
Gordon, for pazks and Commissioner Johnson, for water. There will also be community
participants in each task force and Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen asked for two more
Commissioneis in addition to the Chairs to participate. Penny Simison will send out information,
but e�cpect the meetings to begin in June, 2006.
VIII. Neighborhood and Current Ylanning Committee
Commissioner McCall announced the neat meeting will be on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, and
gave the agenda.
IX. Long-range Planning Committee
No report
�
�L�
t � �=
� MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
PRESENT: Alto�, Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Mejia and Morton
EXCUSED: Anfang
STAFF: Rachel Gunder.son, Tom Beach, and Carol Martineau,
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton.
Super Target Midway - 06-018-065 — Site Plan review to construct a new Super Target,
1300 University Ave W.
Tom Beach presented the staff report with a recommendation of approval with conditions for the
New Construction. Tom Beach also stated District 13 recommended denial, and there were 0
letter(s) in support, and 1 letter(s) in opposition.
Brian McMahon, stated he was in opposition to the site plan review. He went on to explain
• some of the reasons related to Transit Oriented Development and called for a moratorium to the
area to bring some clarity to the issues of the neighborhood and the University Avenue Corridor.
He presented pictures showing examples of denser development with structured parking and
incorporating display windows into building facades. He tequested buildings that would have an
urban look and a reduction of under-utilized parking lots. Mr. McMahon also demonstrated the
problems that the design would cause for pedestrians and transit riders. He also requested to
know what type of buildings would be placed in the outlots. He recommended additional site
work be done with a plan for all the retail ce�ters.
Commissioner Kramer explained that the Zoning Committee does not have the power to impose
a moratorium.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. McMahon has not seen a site plan for the area
and recommended parking spaces be created in underground parking or deck parking on the
roof.
Betsy Leach, 1672 W. Minnehaha Ave., 7he TMO requested that the private east west roadway
include eight-foot wide sidewalks and bike lanes in both directions and there should be two
additional north south pedestrian watkways through the site starting at the two entrances at the
store and going north to the new proposed roadway. She also stated there is a bus stop located
on Hamtine.
Bernie Hesse, 1602 Thomas St., stated he was in opposition of the permit because of the big
box building and would generate a lot of traffic causing safety risks.
�
2�
File # 06-018-065
March 16, 2006, Zoning Committee Minutes
Page 2
Dale Beckman, the applicant stated they have worked with the City and neighborhood on the
site plans and are complying witF� fhe City's footprint for fhe area's master pfan. He also went
on to explain how they are using sidewalks to prepare for pedestrian circulation.
Tom Carrico, Target Corporation, explained that structured parking is very expensive and not
practical for this site. He atso explained they would take an active role in what will happert with
the outlots and will come back to the committee with the site plans when the development takes
place.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Gordon moved approval with conditions of the New Gonstruction. Commissioner
Faricy seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-0.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
Drafted by:
Carol Martineau
Recording Secretary
Submitted by:
Tom Beach
Zoning Section
Abstained - 0
Approved by:
Gladys Morton
Chair
�
�
n
U
�
�� /���
. MINUTES OF T4iE ZONING COMMlTTEE
Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:30 p.m.
City Councii Chambers, 3rd Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
PRESENT: Alton, Anfang, Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Mejia and
Morton
STAFF: Tom Beach, Rachel Gunderson, and Carol Martineau
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton.
1300 UNIVERSITY AVE W- 06-046-997 - A variance of the off street parking requirements
in order to construct a new Super Target. The new retail store requires 820 parking
spaces, 640 spaces are provided for a variance of 180 off street parking spaces. 1300
University Ave. W.
Tom Beach presented the staff report with a recommendation of approval with conditions for the
Major Variance. Tom Beach also stated District 13 made no recommendation, and there were 0
letter(s) in support, and 0 letter(s) in opposition.
. Upon the questions of the commissioners Mr. Beach explained the parking issues, the outlots,
and how the Targets store will remain open during construction.
Upon the questions of the Commissioners, Mr. Beach stated Target is accepting the Conditions,
and the access points are not changing, He also explained Target is planning some
landscaping.
Jackie Bell, applicant, introduced the technical group that is working on the project.
Dale Beckman, Westwood Professional Service, stated the old store would be closed for
approximately 60 to 90 days when the new store is being finished and then the existing store
will be razed and the new store witl open. He also exptained the studies that they explored and
how they came to designing and locating the project. He also went on to explain how the
outlots will be designed and what type of businesses they are hoping will locate on that
property.
At the question of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Beckman explained what improvements they would
like to make to the outlots and why. Target does not develop small sites like these outlots but
will have other developers build on the outlots in the future.
Upon the question Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen, Mr. Beckman stated they were comfortable
with the amount of parking spaces proposed.
�
31
File #06-046-997
March 16, 2006, Zoning Committee Minutes
Page 2 of 2
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Beckman explained that the storm water retention
field is a crucial piece of the development because it forces future development to go along
University Ave.
Tom Carrico, Target Corporation, explained they would like to improve the outlots to the point
of being ready to be built on so that in the future it would not disrupt the businesses around it.
The Iocation of the proposed sewer and paving wouid force the development on the outlots to
locate along University Ave. He also explained he had three meeYings with the neighborhood
and explained the changes that were made to accommodate the neighborhood.
At the question of Commissioner Altort, Mr. Carrico ciarifiec! the property they owned and cross
easements that exist and Target will take an active role in what is developed on the outlots.
At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Carrico, explained how the outlots would be
developed to be made ready for future development.
At the inquiry of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Beach explained why the City was against the
improvements being made to the outlots at this time.
Betsy Leech, 1672 W. Minnehaha, sfated she was in support of the parking variance. The
Midway Transportation Management Association supports the parking variance and went on to
explain why and gave examples of other stores with similar parking.
Bemie Hesse, 1602 Thomas St., requested that the variance for parking be denied because of
traffic issues, pollution, and pedestrian safety and went on to give some studies relating to these
issues.
Dale Beckman, the applicant, stated the traffic issues will be resolved by working with the traffic
department.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Mejia moved approval with conditions of the Major Variance. Commissioner
Gordon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-0.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
Drafted by:
Carol Martineau
Recording Secretary
Submitted by:
Abstained - 0
Tom Beach
Zoning Section
Approved by:
Gladys Morton
Chair
�
•
n
U
1� 2-
�j(p -�b8
ZONING COMMITfEE STAFF REPORT
s
FILES 06 018065 (site plan review) and
06 046997 (variance)
1. APPLICANT: Target Corporation
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Site Plan Review and Major Variance
3. LOCATION: 1300 University Avenue West
HEARING DATE: 3/16106
4. PIN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 342923420023 Auditor'S Subdivision No. 27 Being Kittsondale
Lot 1& Lot A& Part Of Lots 2,3 & B Blk 4 Midway Industrial Division Lying N Of A Line
687.08 Ft S Of & Par To NI Of Lot 8 And Sub No.27 & In Sd Auditors Sub No. 27 Subj To Rds
& Ex N 260 Ft Of W 169.02 Ft;
5. PLAPfAIING DISTRICT: 13
PRESEtJT ZONING: B3
6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.402 and 63.207
7. STAFF REPORT DATE: 3/9/06 BY: 7om Beach
8. DATE RECEIVED: 2/8/06 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 4/7/06
A. PURPOSE: Site plan review and a parking variance to construct a new Super Target.
• B. PARCEL SIZE: 15.9 acres
C. EXISTING LAND USE: Target Store and vacant hotef
D. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
North: Commercial (B3)
East: Office, industrial and multi-family residential (B3, 11 and RM3)
South: Freeway and Concordia College (RT1)
West: Commercial — Midway Marketplace Shopping Center (B3)
E. ZONING CODE CITATION: 61.402 and 63.207
i
HISTORY AND PROPOSED PROJECT: The existing Target store expanded in 1999. At that time
Target obtained a variance to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces required. Target Corporation
recently bought the hotel immediately to the south of the existing Target store.
Now Target is proposing to tear down the existing hotel and construct a new 186,000 square foot
SuperTarget store. The existing Target store would remain open during construction. Once the new
SuperTarget is ready to open, the existing Target store would be torn down and a new parking lot with 640
parking spaces would be built in roughly the location of the existing Target store. The site plan shows
three outlots at the north end of the site where commercial buildings would be located along University
Avenue. Although the plan shows possible building locations, the design of the buildings and outlots has
not been finalized and a separate site plan review will be required for the outlots before anything is built
there.
G. DtSTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMEOJDATION: No recommendation was received at the time this staff
report was written.
= d3 e 1 �a 5
33
Variance .........................
......................................................
H. VARIANCE REQUESTED: A variance of the off street parking requirements is required to construct a ne�
Super Target. The new store requires 820 off-street parking spaces and 640 spaces would be provided
for a variance of 180 parking spaces.
I. FINDINGS FOR THE VARIANCE:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasona6le use unde� the strict provisions of the code.
The City wants to increase the density of development along University Avenue. In keeping with this,
Target is proposing to use 3.2 acres of the parcel to create outlots that can be developed to increase
density along University Avenue instead of using it to provide more parking.
2. The ptight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were
not created by the land owner.
The property is located in an area where the City wants to increase density and make commercial
development more pedestrian friendly. This was not created by the applicant.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirif and intent of the code, and is consistent with the healfh,
safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code to provide adequate off-street
parking. With the variance, the new SuperTarget would provide 640 spaces for 186,000 square feet of
building area (one parking space for every 295 square feet). In comparison there are 447 parking spaces
for the existing 141,000 square toot Target store (one space for every 310 square feet) and this parking
has proved to be sufficient to meet TargeYs needs, The location of the site along the major bus route in
the Twin Cities will continue to reduce the need for parking.
The variance is also in keeping with the City's goals of increasing density and making commercial areas �
more pedestrian friendly.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent proper(y, nor will it
alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established properiy values
within the surrounding area.
The proposed variance to reduce the amount of required off-street parking will enhance the character of
the surrounding area by allowing new buildings to be constructed along University Avenue where the
existing Target has a large parking lot. Based on studies done by Target and the City's experience with
the parking for the existing Target store, the amount of parking proposed by Target will be sufficient and
will not cause parking problems for the surrounding area.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for
the property in the district where the affected land is /ocated, nor would it alter or change the zoning district
class�cation of the properly.
The proposed SuperTarget and the commercial uses being discussed for the outlots are all permitted uses.
6. The request for varrance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or rncome potentiaf of the
parcel of land.
The request for the variance is based primarily on a desire to increase development along University
Avenue in response to the Citys land use policies and goals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE VARIANCE: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends
approvaf of tfie variance to reduce fhe amount of off-street parking required from 820 off-street parking •
spaces to 640 for the proposed 186,000 square foot SuperTarget store.
��
D � -���
� S4TE PLAN REVIEW ................................................................................
K. FINDINGS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Section 62.108(c) of the Zoning Code says that in "order
to approve the site plan, the planning commission shail consider and find that the site plan is
consistent with" the findings fisted below.
1. The cify's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of
the cify.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The Comprehensive Plan calls for development
along University Avenue that is dense and pedestrian friendiy. The Land Use Chapter of
the Comprehensive Plan says that "Future redevelopment planning and efforts to redesign
University Avenue itself should find ways to make the auto-oriented regional shopping work
for pedestrians." (Section 6.3.3)
The site plan shows outlots along University Avenue with buildings up to the street and
parking behind. Target is not developing the outlots now and the plans are intended to _
show a development concept rather than be an exact proposal of what will go there. Target
is not seeking site plan approvai for the buildings shown on the outlots at this time and the
outlots will require a separate site plan review later. However, Target has requested that
' part of the outiots be landscaped and paved and that an underground storm water retention
system be built on the outlots at this time. Doing these improvements now, before a
separate site plan review is done for the outlots, would not be consistent with the
. Comprehensive Plan since it could limit where development could go.
2. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The site plan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if a variance is approved to reduce
the off-street parking requiremerrt from 820 spaces to 640 spaces. The site pfan compfies
with all other appticab(e ordinances, including setbacks, lot coverage and building height.
3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically significant characteristics of the
city and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site has no unique geologic, geographic or
historically significant characteristics and it is not located in an environmentally sensitive
area.
4. Profection of adjacent and neighbo�ing properties through reasonab/e provision for such
matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and
air, and those aspects of design which may have substantiaf etfects on neighboring land
uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Drainage issues have been addressed and
sufficient landscaping to act as buffers is proposed. The project wiff not impact views, fight
or air for neighboring properties.
� S. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to
assure abutfing properfy andlor ifs occupanfs wi/I not be unreasonably atfected
_(fS`E 1 G3 5
.;�
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The arrangement of the building, parking lot
and outlots wil( not unreasonably affect abutting property. •
6. Creation of energy-conse�ving design through landscaping and location, orientation and
elevation of structures.
The site pfan is consistent with this finding. Creatfng the outlots to al(ow smaller buildings
along Un+versity will help to increase density and make the area more pedestrian friendly.
This will promote energy conservation by encouraging people to use walk or mass transit
instead of driving.
7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian tra�c both within the site and in
relatron to access streets, including traffrc circulation features, the locations and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The location of the existing driveways that serve Target will not change. However, Public
Works has asked Target to submit additional information on whetfier the project will
significantly change the amount of traffic generated.
Public Works also told Target that the area at the southeast comer of the building where
trucks will make deliveries must be changed to eliminate some potential traffic safety
issues. Target is working on redesigning this area.
If the information is acceptable to Public Works �nd the delivery area is changed, "the site
plan will be consistent with this finding.
8. Fhe satisfactory availa6ility and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, includrng solutions .
to any drainage problems in the area of the development
The plan is consistent with this finding. The plan provides for underground storage of storm
water to meet City regulations for controfling run off.
9. Su�cient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. It will provide more green space than required
by the zoning code. The landscaped areas witl be irrigated. The tandscaped areas are
larger than what has been provided in other large commercial developments to give plants
more room to survive in harsh parking lot conditions.
10. Sife accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loadrng zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding, including accessible parking spaces and
accessible routes to the building.
11. Provision for erosion and sediment control as spec'fired in the "Ramsey Erosion Sedrment
and Control Handbook."
The site plan is consistent with this finding and calls for adequate measures to control
erosion and sediment during construction.
L. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR SITE PLAN REVEW: �
Based on the findings above, the staff recommends approval of the site plan for a new
SuperTarget store at 1300 University Avenue West, subject to the following conditions:
��
a� - S��
• 1. A variance is needed to reduce the amount of off-street parking being provided.
2. Target must submit traffic information that has been requested by Public Works and Public
Works must find that the site plan adequatety addresses traffic issues. fn addition, the
delivery area must be redesigned to address traffic safety issues raised by Public Works.
3. The paving, Iandscaping and underground storm water retention system shown for the
outlots are not approved as part of this site plan. Until a site plan for the outlots is
approved, development of the outlots must be limited to grading, stubbing in sewer and
water lines to the edge of the outlots and planting grass or other interim landscaping.
r1
LJ
•
= d3e 3 Gs 5
3�
�C
I� �Fdt
!
����g�
. �
� $`�
.�
'S
� t�
I ��
� ���
I�
�! ��
�
r
y
�e
�
m
�� A
�� �.
�� �
� �
A
d
F
y
��
� �
��
T
�r ��.
v%�'� \
,•'y \
S:�
:' � \
yyJ1 \
��S1�4
• :.e_� \
„ g z e
s�g � x
� o a �
z
s � ° �
� N s
s t� �
�
°.! ° z
� � �� ����
" '� S '•''�" .-a,�€.,I i�O��i' ii OS �� i�i�� . 9 I �N�OiOsi�J�� �p � � �
�i ``.b� "'"3 gS � ° % Ss�i�i0; �ii4�i� �O: �
� :�;' �. ����.�iq i ,� y♦.�0�0�'/• 140���������J�
�� s �, i i �O` ��� �ii0� �// 7��� . � � J.
fs M � � :�.:�F;1 �`iS'i�i, �/% 1'I//���:N�':•:.h•.:�J�F�
� �z.�r. z _ . ., . .•� ♦ � a ������� ♦.
g i * x��f R- w0+� ��i������I� �OOi�i���������i�0i
�' ,:a Y a_a� -- i. I�ii /'� � ,///////:..a..!:t:!��.. ��,
�' � � °- '"'S oi m � �i��Ji�i� ���Ji� � .
:e�
�
_�
o
_ ��,'._.�;__�' ' T �.,- ' �-�.�.
t� :� : . . : : : : �. .: �,
e��_.: -- ---- _� - �
�? � � ..,.. _j .
. • • r � =-�-= _ - _�-- --- - - =- -= , '
� - - _ -_= _ - - _- _- ---- ~
,� -=� _
�-<-- _ = _ -! <
-�- __:_ :
�_ - �.
t� - — ' '�_ T= = __"_ -_ � .. =" ` c
c=-_ _ =__ �� -- �=�_'" _�_ _ _ =_ - :_�_ ==i - �
- - �-- -'--- ---- ---- -- - - -- --- ---- - � a
_ _.
- --�-- --� -'-- --=� - . =� - --=- --`-- ---- --� �
-- --�- -+.' '
- �_� - i - --- - _ '-- --_ �=y _� ; n
_ ,-F -_,.,*_= J - - - -- - - rt
- - '-- -� --�- -= =-' --i a
-- --i- --��--- -- -- i s --- --;___ -' � � n
�__ a �� �T._:. 1! _, e -`='" -- '= : �
-- �� —T -'-- ---�-- - - - - '
-- --'._-- '-'-- - �-- -�'+- -? u `
J � � '�' � � �i .
'� m e
�
9 I o
� �
�
D
�� _
y � ' _
MGYiWAY
�
� � �� �
t
3e�£
3a 4
���z
a�g�
�:���
�
i��+it e;t
— — �?� _
_� �
�
�, 1
�
cd �i
r� �
� �
f�-i �
u
i �
� �
� �
�,.i
{,��
�� �
•
�
r�
L
4i
I � /�
,w���
;� �
� �
��_ �,�:
�-:.s;�,<
.
�
n
r--�
t-+
C!�
cr�
0.)
�
Ri
�
t --t
u
U
�
.�
�
C
�' L
7
..
>
�
�
�,
�
T°"
�
�
°'�
.�
�
v
�
�
6
s
�3
D� -sog
CODE OF CONDUCT
B3- and between
Tar;et Corporation and UFC�' Local 789
1NIS AGREEUENT is a CODE OFCO�VDliCP mnde lrv and 6eiween Tar�et Corporation(the EmpioyerJ and G�'ClVloca1789 (the Lnion representing
Aldi�s Grocer� Store empioyees in the St. Pau1 jurisdickon). The intent of Ihis �i�reement is to esaab[isii an orderty enuironment for fhe
Employees of the Tar�et Gorporation to exercise their ri;hts under Section F of the i4ationai babor Relations Act and to prohibit picketing
and/or other economic action directed at the Employer durin� an organizing driue among dte Emplayees.
1. The pariies mntaally recognize ihat National I.abor law guarantees Employees ihe riglit to to�m oi select any labor oiganizauon to
act as 17�eir exclusive representative far the pnrpose of collective 6argaining wiW their Employer, or to refrain from sneb aciivity.
2. 7'he Employer will take a positive approach to Dnionization of Employees. The Employer tivill not do any action nor make a�
siatement ihat vrilt directl� or indireai�} state oc imply an}� opposition bptl�e Emplogec to t{�e selection of a colleciive bargainm;
agent hy the Employees of the Targei Corporation, or a preference Sor or opposition to any particnlu Dnion or baigainin; agent.
3. The Union and iis represeniatives wil] not coerce or Uuealen any Employee in an effort to obtain auihorization cards.
4. IVhenever the Employer finds it necessary lo hire new Employees for vacancies, the Employer agrees that any interest demonstrated
by an applicant in joining the Union will noi consritute gmunds foi discriminatury treatment oc dispaiaLe tceatmeni nor advecsely
impact tLe applicant's ab�7ily to be hired by the Employer. The Employer shall be the sole jndge of a¢ applicant's snitability,
compe[ence and qualiiications to perform the work o[ auy job to be Iilled.
5. Within ten (10) days following the receipt of written ito�iee of intent to orgauize Employees, the Employer will fmnish the Uuion
with a complete lisi of snch Employees boi�i 6�11 and part-time, including tlte addresses of all Employees.
6. TLe�uionmayreqnestrecognitionast7ieexclusivecollectivebargainingagentforthe'fargelCorporationEmployees.StateBurean
of 14ediation Services (B61S� will conduct a review oS the Employees' authorizaiion cards and membership iniormation submitied lry
the Union in snpport of its elaim to represent a majority ot i�e Employees. The Employer will not file a petitfon with the National
Labor Relations Board Sor any election in eonnection with any demands for recogniiion provided for in this Agreement.
7. If the Union is recognized as the exclnsive collective bargaining iepresentative as provided in Pa�agraplc 6, nogotiations shal] be
commenced immediate]y. If ihe parties are ima6le to reach agreement on a collective bargaining agreement within 90 days after
recognition pi¢snant to Paiagraph 6, all issnes shall be submiited for resoluUOn to Gnal and binding arbitration. TLe arbitrator
(identified in parag�aph 10) shall be giuded by the following considerations:
Employer's Sinancial ability;
Size and rype of the Employer's operahons;
Cost of living as it afSects the Employer's EmpIoyees;
ability oS the Employees through a combination o1 wages. hours and benefiis to eacn a Iiving wage to susiain themselves
and tfieir iamities;
Employees' prodnctivig�.
Dnring the tife of this Agreement, the linion will not engage in picketing or other economic activity at the Target Corporafion
locations and the Employei will not engage in a lockout of the Hmployees. This paragcaph will expire npon recognihon of �he Onion
as tlie representative of such Employees pnrsnant to Paragraph 6. Notwithstanding the terminalion provision above, if the EmploVer
recoguizes anc other ilnion besides UFCIS' Local 789 as ihe exclusive liargaining representative of Employees, or any of them, this
puagraph shall terminate without notiee.
9. No work tradttionally peiformed by Employees iu We classifications cove�ed by this Agreement shall be performed nnder anv
snblease, snbcontract, or olher ab eement.
10. TLe parties agree that any disputes over the interpretation or application oI this �,;reement sLall be submitted to binding
arbitration. ��ith a neutral arbitrator chosen from a list of seven arbitrators provided by Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services
(F�1CS�. The parties shall aliernately strike from this list imN only one (1) name remains, that name shall be the one (1) to hear and
decide the dispute. The parties hereto agree to complv �vith any order of tLe arbitrator as the order or judament of the arbitrator as
the order oi p�dgment of Yhe Duited States Dis�rict Court without entry of find5ngs of fact and conclusions of law.
IN WITVESS WHEREOF, fhe parlies herato, through lheir aufhorized representatives, have executed this Agreement:
FOIi THE Eh1PL0YER:
By:
Its:
Date:
FOR THE UNION:
By° —
Its:
Date:
BH/Ld�Opein #12
file: Data/Hesse/code of eonduct
��e
��==
�
,. ��
a €:
__ b6_,l7MH�J1H _ J _� �
:
— — — o 0
3AV.WOHINY' _
`� _ _. _. _. ., ..._,.�.... __ ., .. ..._. % q
��i
��� _ ' _. . _._..>a _ _ .. _ '
.� �
I L
O
�
��P "� �
�
� $
X n
�
�
a
�
a,
�
E �
GL�i
f/�1
� g
� i
� ��
�
F
i
�
�'�_�
0
___" � _ _:� - � � .
�� L37n. 5�'� ,, ��'e �-� sea"�
� ��!
�°6� _�� SEc
YS� �� .L..`�2S
�%". �
� :: �� '�`.,
t I I
f; I
�
u..+y'..'.� uP^' ug_ —
e
..� .� ., , . -.^;�:. 1 fi �>
� ' � �
� � %�
— m
� O 9
� � £
r
- N s
u _ � � � � �'i.� �1011 \_ y`a — � I� R
/✓ \\ "J l
- ; �� � ,. �� \ � \ I
9i
; — i i �� /�. j � /j i
- �, � !% �/ � �
� _ _ —_a/ �=h' �/ : �� �?-.� �, ��� x
i� — _.:J. .'\; ��;.- .'i; '"""� 4
_- -� : �.•� -�� �\ �'' � �.
i ` ;� �� i / p
� 'l � `� � y � -
/
�
i µ`
� __ p� z�� � � � —
0
� �i �� , �:� �.
a � � R0
� om- m a
, a_ � �
„9 anN3nv ALSfl3A/Nn
i1 � � � � � 'h
� �—
�Nl�
I
1
.
i���!
��
Dl -�o��
�
� �a
� y�
� aj
a t�
56 AYMF/_'V�' ^._ � �
��� _
i
-- e � a
� � �
� d
§ } �
� E�1� x
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
Ol -S a�
�
e
�� �
Y
II a
II 8 e
. io
F
W
01
KW
g C �_
W� J LL m�
�pj d F
��
amSW�w�
6 > > > W
.16(10 j �
C '� G �
jF
�OLL
�
axsomo6
W W FZZy�a
W8p«zW
OWy�yy�00
w�>Wf�s
pa�
Q W�(iLL6LL
�
�
F
W
a
W
Z�
�
3
m
�
F O
3
i�
N�
Q
3
�
m
0
r $
. �
N 3g
w� f
9
6
d' C8
�E
a+
r
F
�
7ffiE�
�ll
1
!
!
�d�
��
!J
�
� a o =
�d �
s p � a � � ,� �- _ � � m, _
� �s
; 5�
; ii
d fs
15 AYMYW _._._� �
a
__ �� O � O
�� ��
a
4 �q W
_ t
�s _
4
R a � n
E �� ¢ 8 0
���
Ll� . , o
Y
�
�
W
a
�
�
�
Z
4.
V
�
0
z
a
J
�
� O T �
~ 6
� W } ~ '6 �
2TeY'��y �-� i
wwoWWa� �
o�a�ia��W
z
� J �3oriw
° az���
�°u�aZFf d
O��- d o
J O W Ol 6 Q= � a
m �00}Jn p�
WW
=Va6a;� w3�
WWW��O o�
ozaw ���
ZWa�a=uz �
a<awz�a �
~ aw�
GWWOW�W 4
Z W O 2 W O p g
g K-�}�ZW F
�;aLL<n.
����
, lll
a
�
1
�
�
�
$�
���
��
�
e k e �
Ae -- -_
� W
� �§ z
$ �� W
;a;a
a ts W
a
�
a
y
�
��
�e�
��:
a�-��g
a
II �9
' i
� � � -
x , i ;
m
� ca �
F' z3 ` o �
u az � 3
�< i� �
z z Z¢ m� t
� p �p a
W �
O
0 � W 6
W
LL p JK
Q
LL Q K�
C~ ; �a4 a o
S
W W a J U �
tg fa20 0�
6� W=S6W �"�4
(�i WOaQ:� d�
O W 02qJj ���
m LL W<� J Q m
OQ 4 CQ rn
2CYl{�� �
W Z M O n G W J
�Q�ZaZ`aF
WWt�1uHU �
�t 7fpW I7
p a W 2 W n' S_
��z
ana3au.oa
J�J�
i
i
,ll
a
�
��
�
�
� :-
���
��
J
♦�
��
�
�
� ��
� �
� ~
W
� U
N
� O
� �
�
�
�
� s ., �
y 4 n
-. •t
i:, � :. -
�.,�
� �• �
h
�
. IS 1.:�� �
�.
1
/ /
1
O �.
4
,�.�'):'� ...
�
I .7'
� �'
s ,;X�
�y
� � �
�;
`i
s
a. .+.'
prr;
C•�
4 �., � �
- _ �°u;�. � _,�.
� `
�
�_' e � � �
��
�a
�, el
� t .� _
F..E���;
.. � .i..; . .
[�S. '� /
y ��P•�c.l.. x Y �.
� rv.J....' I.,, ,- . . �
£ r �i
il�
�P` t��� ...
�e _€
� ���
a : e i
� y .
. �
�l , �.�-;;.
;j � �
� s
� '
`\ _
J ._ . ." :.;i:
��� � _
y .
...'.. -t`[:C::K:`.:'...
+ i l
; l
G'. ;
I
I; i
— ��LL`'�.