07-994Substitute - 10/24/2007
RESOLUTION
Presented
by
SAfNT PAUL, MINNESOTA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
of the Central Corridor
Council File # 07-994
Green Sheet# 3044931
Strategy
WHEREAS, a light rail transit (LRT) line has been proposed for the Central Corridor, which will
connect downtown Saint Paui, the State Capitol, the Midway area along University Avenue, the
University of Minnesota, and downtown Minneapolis; and
WHEREAS, the construction of an LRT line represents a tremendous opportunity for the City of
Saint Paul to evaluate the future of Central Corridor and how the community can best take
advantage of this major transportation infrastructure investment; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Coleman asked the Planning Commission to establish two community-based
task forces to prepare a vision and strategy for how University Avenue and the downtown area
should grow and change in response to the planned investment in the Central Corridor Light Rail
Transit (LRT) line; and
WHEREAS, the Pianning Commission established the University and Capitol/Downtown Central
Corridor task forces in mid-2006, and the task forces met throughout the year, using a very
inclusive public participation process, and finalized their recommendations for the Central
CorridorDevelopment Strategy in Apri1, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Central Corridor
Development Strafegy on July 13, 2007, notice of which was duly given in the Saint Paul Pioneer
Press on June 30, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended several changes to the plan, after
considering public testimony and reviewing the plan's conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is authorized under Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355
(2) and Chapter 107 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to recommend to the Mayor and City
Council amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on September 7, 2007, recommended by its Resolution
07-64 adoption of the Central Corridor Development Strategy by the City Council;
WHEREAS the Citv Council held a public hearinq on the Central CorridorDevelopment Strateav
on October 17 2007 at which several wording chanqes were suapested• and �
WHEREAS, the City Council chose to incorporate chanqes as reffected in a Citv staff memo
dated October 22. 2007 as amended bv the Citv Council�
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
!.'1.'7
07-994
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the
Central Corrido� Development Strategy as a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, with
the changes as recommended by the Planning Commission and with additional amendments
approved bv the Citv Council, contingent upon review as required by the Metropolitan Council;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Citv Council reauests that the Metroaolitan Council and
its consultants preparinq the Final Environmental Imaact Statement (FEIS) work with Citv staff
Minnesota Public Radio, Central Presbvterian Church, the Church of St. Louis. Kinc1 of France
and the Great American Historv Theater to: 11 address the qropertv owners' concerns about
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Adopted by
Council:
Adoption Certified by
BY /}�/ji1,i
Approved by
Mayor: ,
By: �
Date / Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to
fd /dS�o�dD� Council
Co / Ui1 cil Secretary gy:
�./�lil/lL%sJ
Date �� ��, Approved by the Office of Financial Services
1„
f� � i , , BY
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
Department/offce%ouncil: � ��� �
Date tnitiated:
PE — P�ng&EconomicDevelopmeut ,��T-0� Green Sheet NO: 3044931
Contact Person & Phone:
Do�na Drvmmond
6-6556
must tte on
17-OCT-07
Doc. Type: PUBIIC HEARING (RESOLU7
E-DOCUment Required: Y
Document Contact Donna Drummond
Contact Phone: 6-6556
�
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Total # of Signature Pages _(qip Aii Locations for Signature)
0 ]annin & Economic Deveto me
1 ]annin &EconomicDevelo me De arlmentDirector
2 " Attome
3 or's Office � Ma or/ASSistant
4 ouncil
5 ' C1erk Ci Clerk
u.�(J
Approval of a City Council resolurion adop6ng the Cenh�al Comdor Development Shategy as a chapter of the Ciry�s Comptehensive
Plan.
iaaaons: npprove(a)or
Planning Commission
qB Committee
Civil Service Commission
1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
Yes No
2. Has this person/firm ever been a city empioyee?
Yes No
3. Does this personffirm possess a skill not noanally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and aHach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, lssues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): �
Mayor Coleman asked [he Planning Commission to establish two community-based task forces to prepare a vision and strategy for
how Universiry Avenue and the downtown azea should grow and change in response rA the planned investment in the Centrat Corridor
Light Rail Transit (LRT) line. The task force met from mid-2006 to mid-2007, using a very inclusive prublic participation process,
and finalized their recommnedations for the Cenhal Corriodor Development Stra[egy in Apri1200Z The Planning Commission held a
public heazing on hily 13th, and on Sept. 7th recommended adopfion of the plan, with minor changes, as a chapter of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Advantages If Approved: .
The City will have a pLan to guide future development along the light rail corridor.
Disadvantages If Approved:
None.
�_ _ . __ ��Si��
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
The City will not have a plan to guide future development along the light rail corridor.
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Einancial Information:
(Explai�)
Activfty Number:
CostlRevenue Budgeted:
October 10, 2007 8:02 AM Page 1
Council File # Q��9C/L�
Green Sheet # 3044931
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented
by
Adoption of the Central Corridor Development Strategy
2
3 EREAS, a light rail transit (LRT) line has been proposed for the Central Corridor, which will
4 conn t downtown Saint Paui, the State Capitol, the Midway area along University Avenue, the
5 Univers of Minnesota, and downtown Minneapolis; and
6
7 WHEREAS, e construction of an LRT line represents a tremendous opportunity for the City of
8 Saint Paul to e luate the future of Central Corridor and how the community can best take
9 advantage of this ajor transportation infrastructure investment; and
10
11 WHEREAS, Mayor C eman asked the Planning Commission to establish two community-based
12 task forces to prepare a ision and strategy for how University Avenue and the downtown area
13 should grow and change i response to the planned investment in the Central Corridor Light Rail
1�1 Transit (LRT) line; and
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WHEREAS, the Planning Comm sion established the University and Capitol/Downtown Central
Corridor task forces in mid-2006, a the task forces met throughout the year, using a very
inclusive public participation process, nd finalized their recommendations for the Central
Corridor Development Strafegy in April, 007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held ublic hearing on the Central Corridor
Development Strategy on July 13, 2007, notice f which was duly given in the Saint Paul Pioneer
Press on June 30, 2007; and
25 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended
26 considering public testimony and reviewing the pian's
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is authorized under M
(2) and Chapter 107 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to rec
Council amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and
changes to the plan, after
�ance with the Comprehensive
Statutes Section 462.355
to the Mayor and City
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on September 7, 2007, recomme ed by its Resolution
07-64 adoption of the Central Corridor Deve%pment Strategy by the City C uncil;
p�,Gc� �}
3 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Councii hereby adopts the
38 entral Corridor Development Strategy as a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, with
39 t changes as recommended by the Planning Commission, contingent upon review as required
40 by e Metropolitan Council.
of:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
ey:
Approved by Date
Mayor:
�
By: <`�
Form A , by
By: �'"b�/, �rEv
Form Appr`ov
Council
By:
Attorney
/� O - ( 0 U'�
Approved by the Office of Financial
�
Adopted by Date
Council:
PLANNING COMMISSION
Q
Brran A(ton, Chair
CTTY OF SAII�IT PAUL
Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor
September 10, 2007
25 West Fourth Street
Satnt Paul, MN 55102
Telephane: 6� I -2666700
Facsrmtle: 6� I d 28-3210
Mayor Chris Coleman
Council President Kathy Lantry and Members of the City Council
3r Floor City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Mayor Coleman, Council President Lantry, and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of the Planning Commission, I am pleased to transmit the Central Corridor
Developmenf Strategy to you with a recommendation that it be adopted as a chapter of
the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. The Central Corridor Development Strategy is the
result of a year-long process of community involvement, discussion and review. The
Planning Commission's resolution is attached.
Building light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Corridor presents a tremendous opportunity
and challenge for Saint Paul. The great opportunity is to provide a significant upgrade in
transit service to aN of the communities along the Central Corridor, and to feverage this
significant transit investment to achieve neighborhood revitalization, reinvestment and
growth. The challenge, of course, is to do so in a way that respects and celebrates the
neighborhoods along the corridor. The vision, principles, objectives and initiatives of the
Development Strategy wili guide both public and private investment in the Corridor over
the next 25-30 years.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft document on July 13, 2007.
Ten people spoke at the hearing, some of whom submitted their comments in writing,
and written comments were received from five additional individuals or organizations. A
summary of the comments and some minor changes to the document recommended by
the Planning Commission in response can be found in the attached memo from the
Commission's Comprehensive Planning Committee.
Piease feel firee to contact me (651-290-0301) or ponna Drummond of the planning staff
(651-266-6556) if you have any questions.
� cerely,
ia on, ha
Saint Paul Planning Commission
o�-���
city ofi saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number 07-64
date September7 2007
Recommendation of Central Corridor Development Strategy
WHEREAS, a light rail transit (LRT) line has been proposed for the Central Corridor,
which will connect downtown Saint Paul, the State Capitol, the Midway area along
University Avenue, the University of Minnesota, and downtown Minneapolis; and
WHEREAS, the construction of an LRT line represents a tremendous opportunity for
the City of Saint Paul to evaluate the future of Central Corridor and how the community
can best take advantage of this major transportation infrastructure investment; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Coleman asked the Planning Commission to establish two
community-based task forces to prepare a vision and strategy for how University
Avenue and the downtown area should grow and change in response to the planned
investment in the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) line; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission established the University and
Capitol/Downtown Central Corridor task forces in mid-2006, and the task forces met
throughout the year, using a very inclusive public participation process, and finalized
their recommendations for the Central Corridor Development Strategy in April, 2007;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hefd a public hearing on the Central Corridor
Deve%pment Strategy on July 13, 2007, notice of which was duly given in the Saint
Paul Pioneer Press on June 30, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended several changes to the plan, after
considering public testimony and reviewing the plan's conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan; and
moved by Donnellv-Cohen
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
6 ?���
Recommendation of Central Corridor Development Strategy
Pfanning Commission Resolution
Page Two
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is authorized under Minnesota Statutes Section
462.355 (2) and Chapter 107 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to recommend to the
Mayor and City Council amendments to the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission
hereby recommends to the Mayor and City Council adoption of the Central Corridor
Development Strategy as a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby directs the
Planning Administrator to forvvard the Central Corridor Development Strategy to the
Mayor and City Council for their review and adoption.
o �-���
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CENTRAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY: A CHAPTER OF THE SAINT PAUL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Saint Paul City Council wiil hold a public hearing at 5:30 p,m. on Wednesday, October 17, 2007
in the City Council Chambers, 3` floor, 15 W. Kellogg Boulevard, on the Central Corridor
Development Sfrafegy, a proposed chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Written comments
will be accepted until 430 p.m. on October 17, 2007. They may be submitted to Donna Drummond of
the Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development via e-mail to
donna.drummond@ci.stpaul.mn.us, fax to 651-225-3341, or mail (25 West 4th Street, Suite 1200,
Saint Paul, MN 55102).
What is the Central Corridor Development Strategy?
Central Cottidor represents a tremendous opportunity and challenge for Saint Paui. if the community
takes ful� advantage of plans to construct LRT on University Avenue, linking downtown Saint Paul with
the University of Minnesota and downtown Minneapolis, the result will be stronger businesses, more
vibrant neighborhoods, and a more beautiful urban place.
Process
In mid-2006 Mayor Coleman asked the Planning Commission to establish two community-based task
forces to prepare the Centrai Corridor Development Strategy, a vision and set of strategies for how
University Avenue, the Capitol area, and downtown should grow and change over the next 25-30
years in response to the planned investment in light rail transit (LRT).
The University Avenue and Capitol/Downtown Task Forces each included 18-20 people who are
representative of area residents, businesses, and communities of color, as well as those with interest
and expertise in areas such as affordable housing, real estate, urban design, finance, sustainability,
and transit-oriented development. They met over a period of nine months, using focus group
discussions, public open houses, presentations, and other community meetings to gather community
input and develop the vision, strategies, initiatives, and other recommendations found in the
Development Strategy.
Contents
The Central Corridor Development Strategy is divided into 4 sections:
Section 1: Where We Are Today introduces the Development Strategy and answers a series of
important questions on the study area, process and intent.
Section 2: What We Want describes the community's Vision and Objectives for the future of the
Central Corridor.
Section 3: What It Should Look Like outlines and illustrates current and future building types,
streetscapes and open spaces located along the Corridor.
a ����
Section 4: How We Get There presents implementing policies, programs and strategies to guide
future decision-making so that investment and growth in the Corridor are compatible with the Vision
for the future of the Corridor as set out in Section 1.
Key concepts from each section are highlighted below.
Our Visian for the Future of the Corridor
The Central Corridor will build on its assets to become a place that has stronger businesses, more
vibrant neighborhoods, and more beautifui urban piaces. Along University Avenue and in the
downtown, the Corridor will invite residents, shoppers, employees and visitors to linger on safe,
pedestrian-friendiy, attractive, tree-lined boulevards; establish a home and sense of community in
stable and diverse neighborhoods; and work and invest in an area that provides a range of
employment and economic opportunities.
The vision is grounded in the six principles described below. These are the "Big Ideas" that public
investment in the Central Corridor LRT should help achieve.
1. Reposition Saint Paul in the Region
2. Benefit and Strengthen the Diverse Communities Afong the Corridor
3. link and Foster Economic Activity
4. Improve People's Mobility Throughout Their Community
5. Improve the Image and Quality of Life Along the Corridor
6. Collaborate from Design to Operation
Each of the six principles describes a"Big Idea" for the Corridor as expressed by area residents,
businesses and stakeholders. The Central Corridor Development Strategy also describes the many
objectives — the goals and desired end results - that will help achieve each principle. Objectives
describe the things the community wants to see happen or change over time. Each objective is
further followed by a set of strategies, which represent individual actions, opportunities, investments
and partnerships that will assist Saint Paul in realizing its vision for the Central Corridor over the neut
30 years. Please refer to the full text of the Development Strategy for more information.
Public Spaces and Places
Streets, parks and squares are the civic giue that we all share in cities. These are the places that
become enriched with distinctive heritage and culture; they are the gathering zones for planned and
serendipitous meetings; they become the front and side doors that frame development and make the
transit experience expedient and enjoyable.
The Developmenf Strafegy contains a recommended Public Realm Framework that integrates five key
components:
• LRT Zones
• Remarkable Streets
• Connecting to the Corridor
• A Centraf String of Parks
• Distinguishing Features and Places
Defining Areas of Change & Stability
LRT has the potential to result in many positive changes along the Corridor; identifying where change
is likely and ways to manage this change are the primary aims of the Development Strategy. The
Areas of Change and Stability diagram (pp. 37-38 in the document) outlines the area that will most
likely be the focus of change as a result of LRT and areas where the existing characteristics —
whether low-rise residential or employment — are intended to be protected from change.
Key Principtes For All New Development:
o����
Making Development "FiY'
• Design new development to provide a transition in scale and ensure it fits into its surroundings,
improves existing street conditions, and integrates well with existing neighborhoods and communities.
• Achieve minimum ground level floor-to-ceiling heights of 13' along major streets such as the Avenue
and at important intersections.
• Fill gaps in the street with new buildings or by grouping buildings to create walkable clusters of
activity that wiil animate the public realm.
Transif-Supportive Land Uses & Densities
• Promote a mix of transit-supportive uses, such as medium-to-high density residential, small-format
retail, restaurants and institutions.
• Provide a range of housing types and sizes that will cater to both new and existing members of the
community.
• Animate the street by positioning entrances to individual units at grade and by locating active uses
such as restaurants and retail on the ground floor.
Transit-Supporfive Access, Circulation & Parking
• Locate parking so that it does not detract from the image of the area by placing it internal to the
block, within parking ramps, inside buildings or below ground.
• Seek opportunities to consolidate parking, access and servicing.
• Seek to develop balanced and coordinated networks of movement that allow for a mix of pedestrian,
bicycle, LRT, bus, and vehicular circulation.
A Green, Attractive & Connected Pedestrian Environment
• Design open spaces as a focus for new development and work towards improving pedestrian
amenities along the Corridor, especially adjacent to stations.
• Extend existing streets, open spaces and open space linkages to strengthen connections with the
surrounding community.
Six Development Types
The Development Strategy defines six development types iliustrating ways that development could
respond to the range of distinct site characteristics along the Avenue, through the Capitol Area and in
downtown. Please refer to the full document for an elaboration on the unique set of characteristics,
principles and design directions for each.
Type 1: Urban Villages
Type 2- Market Intensification Sites
Type 3- Larger Front & Back Sites
Type 4- Half-Depth Infill Sites
Type 5- Full-Depth Infill Sites
Type 6- Urban Infill Blocks
In Downtown
As the line leaves University Avenue and turns south through the Capitol District into downtown, the
nature of the Central Corridor LRT noticeabiy changes. No longer separated from pedestrians by
several lanes of traffic, and running along much narrower rights-of-way, the "downtown leg" becomes
primarily a transit and pedestrian corridor with limited vehicular movement along its route. LRT
through downtown creates an opportunity to redefine several key streets within the city center,
promote a greater balance between pedestrian and vehicular traffic, enhance transit connections, re-
activate the street level, and pave the way for a number of new developments that together will help
reposition downtown as a vibrant, contemporary urban center.
Key strategies in this sectio� include:
• A Pedestrian-Friendly LRT Zone
• Park Streets - Extending the Pedestrian Network
• improving Public Spaces along the LRT Corridor
• Connecting to the Entertainment District
6����
Fourth and Cedar
The diagonal passage of LRT and the creation of a station across the Athletic Glub Bfock at 4th and
Cedar provide an opportunity to create a unique landmark development focused on a dynamic new
public plaza in tfie heart of the city. A development on this block could house important new
amenities to serve the growing downtown residential population and act as major destination a�ong
the Corridor.
Union Depot
LRT provides an important oppoRunity to reinstate Union Depot as a prominent gateway to the city
and a multi-modal hub in the Twin Cities regional transport network. As both the beginning and
terminus of LRT in Saint Paul, Union Depot and the areas around it will take on heightened
significance in the future as not only the heart of the Lowertown Urban Village but as an important
regional destination.
How We Get There
This section focuses on a new concept for the Central Corridor: the Transit Opportunity Zone. This
multi-faceted, geographically-defined zone is intended to support and encourage opportunities for
improvement and investment along the Corridor. The Transit Opportunity Zone (TOZ) is composed
principally of two policy layers — an enabling layer that establishes a priority approach for a range of
financial and policy incentives, planning efforts, infrastructure investments, economic development
initiatives and capitai improvements; and a regulatory layer that contains a set of transit-supportive
planning and development directions.
Implementation: 20 Community-Building Strategies
The many principles, ideas, concepts, investments and initiatives identified in this document will
require partnerships on many fronts to realize their impfementation and success. The implementation
section contains 20 Community-Building Strategies to help these partnerships begin, including: a
green & sustainable corridor with recommendations for streetscaping and green buifding design
guidelines; an inclusive housing strategy with options and incentives for promoting affordable home
ownership; a parking management strategy with suggestions for maximizing available parking while
minimizing conflict with non-auto uses and activities; options for strengthening local businesses and
promoting building ownership; ideas and agreements that ensure the local community benefits from
LRT; techniques for mitigating disruption through the LRT construction period; and 15 others. Each
should be used to help frame a dialogue around priorities, establish who is responsible for what, and
identify future partnerships and collaborations.
Questions or More Information?
A complete copy of the Development Strategy may be viewed or downloaded from the City's website
at www.stpaul.qov/centralcorridor. Under "Breaking News", click on the iink to the Urban Strategies
website and follow the directions. You may also request a copy of the document on a CD by
contacting Donna Drummond at 651-266-6556 or donna.drummondCa)ci.stpaul.mn us. A copy of the
Planning Commission's recommendations concerning the document may also be obtained from Ms.
Drummond upon request.
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Christopher B. Colem¢n, Mayor
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
August 30, 2007
Planning Commission
DEPARTMEN7 OF PLANNING & �
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Cec:le Bedor, Direc[or °�'°'°°
6 7
25 Wes! Founh Street Telephone: b51-266-b626
SaintPaul, MN55102 Facsimile: 651-228-3341
Comprehensive Planning Committee
Central Corridor Development Strategy: Public Hearing Comments
and Committee Recommendation
INTRODUCTION
On July 13, 2007 the Plaiuung Commission held a public hearing on the Central
Corridor Development Strategy (CCDS), a proposed chapter of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Ten people spoke at the public hearing, some of whom submitted
their comments in writing, and there were written comments received from five
additional individuals or organizations. This memo summarizes the general comments of
each, highlights comments suggesting a specific change to the document, and provides a
committee-recommended response to each. It will be helpful to use your copy of the
CCDS to review the specific pages and sections referenced below.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Susan Kimberlv, St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce
The Chamber generally supports the vision articulated by the Development Strategy. In
developing permanent zoning regulations to support the vision, the City should be
cautious about balancing the rights of property owners with the desires of the community.
The market map not be ready to fully support the vision until after LRT is operating in
2014. The City should consider phasing in additional regulations over time, as overly
burdensome regulations can slow down investment. The Chamber is willing and
available to work with staff and the Planning Commission on next steps.
Committee response: No change in language is required.
Paul Mandell, Capitol Area Architectural and Planning Board (CAAPB) (written
comments submitted)
The letter submitted by the CAAPB contains comments on an earlier draft of the CCDS,
and was sent to staff in February 2007. Some of the suggested changes were made prior
to printing the final draft.
Comprehensive Pianning Committee
August 30, 2007
Page 2
D�-�q�
Comment: List Paul Mandell as staff to the CAAPB.
Committee response: This was corrected and is reflected in the public hearing draft.
Comment: Check the mazket potential figures for the Capitol Market Azea (p. 7) to
ensure that they reflect the heights and densities that would be permitted by the CAAPB
on the Sears site.
Committee response: The market potential figures reflect the heights and densities
permitted under the CAAPB's regulations.
Comment: Any removal of public parking, already in short supply at the Capitol, must
be carefully studied and considered before being simply eliminated (comznent made in
reference to Leif Erickson Park, p.23, and Fourteenth Street Park, p. 61).
Committee response: Staff acknowledges that, before public parking lots are
redeveloped, there must be a close look at where and how replacement parking will be
provided. Staff is committed to working with the CAAPB and the Minnesota
Department of Administration on how parking can continue to be provided as
redevelopment occurs. The first two bullets on p. 39 under Transit-Supportive Access,
Circulation & Parking will be guide the location and design of new parking within the
Corridor. Staff continues to believe that the best long-term use for these sites, given the
introduction of LRT, is as mixed-use development or open space. No change to the
document is recommended.
Comment: The heights shown on p. 40 far the redevelopment of the Sears site (Capitol
Hill Urban Viliage) violate current CAAPB restrictions.
Committee response: Accarding to Urban Strategies, Inc., the heights shown meet the
CAAPB restrictions.
Comment: Sears has been open in the past to relocafing its store wiYhin its current site.
Committee response: The CCDS shows two alternatives far redevelopment of the Seazs
site at Rice and University — one with Seazs removed altogether and a second with Seazs
still on the site but relocated to be closer to I-94. Staff recommends keeping both
alternatives in the document.
Comment: The proposed extension of Western Sculpture Park to the east has long been
part of the CAAPB Cornprehensive Plan for the Minnesota State Capitol Area.
Committee response: The staff/consultant team reviewed the CAAPB Comprehensive
Plan and fek this was an important idea to support in the context of a new urban village.
Comment: The CAAPB Comprehensive Plan supports the infill ideas iliustrated on p. 58
for the Rice-University azea. Structured parking along the rear of the block may be
preferable to underground parking.
Committee response: The document is deliberate in illustrating underground parking.
The edge of the block that would face Sherburne is currently predominantly low-density
residential, and lazge, structured parking buildings across the street would not be
appropriate. The details, however, can be addressed in station area planning.
Comprehensive Planning Committee
August 30, 2007
Page 3
0�-���
Brian McMahon, Universitv iJNITED {handout submitted)
University LTNITED is very supportive of the Development Strategy. It is a good
foundation for guiding future development of Central Corridor. However, planning is
only one element. It is critical that the City follow-through on enforcing and
implementing the vision that has been developed. He cited examples of upcoming
important development decisions that should be guided by the Development Strategy,
including: Home Depot, WalgreenslBig Top Liquor, and Snelling{University intersection
improvements. He further recommended that no decisions be made on these in the
absence of a broader plan for the Snelling/Universiry area.
Committee response: Staff is proposing that station area planning begin in the fall of
2007, which would create more detailed plans for Snelling/University and other station
azeas. No changes to the Development Strategy are necessary.
Anne White, District Councils Collaborative (DCCI (written comments submitted)
The DCC is very supportive of the Development Strategy and strongly supports its
adoption. Anne was also a University Ave. Central Corridar Task Force member, and
was very complimentary of the task force process. She emphasized the importance of
following through on the next phases, including the proposed interim zoning overlay and
station area planning.
Committee response: No change in language is required.
The co-chairs both spoke about the strengkh of the process in terms of community
involvement and urged approval of the plan. Julie Causey noted the plan has helped the
community move from articulating "what we don't wanY' to "what we do want."
Committee response: No change in language is required.
Joe Finlev. Rein Midwav Limited Partnershiv
Joe Finley spoke as a representative of the owners of Midway Shopping Center and as an
azea resident. He said the Development Strategy represents a great vision for the Corridor
and urged its adoption. He referenced a letter submitted by Paula Maccabee,
recommending that pp. 89-90 of the document, which contain specific recommendations
for zoning code amendments, be removed. These recommendations are not appropriate
far a planning document and could become prescriptive for subsequent work on
permanent Zoning Code amendments. He cautioned against ovenegulating the market,
requiring it to produce certain types of development that may not be possible when the
opening of LRT is still years away. He spoke against the two-story height minimum
contained in the proposed interim ordinance, and advised people to ride the Hiawatha
LRT and observe the limited new development that has occurred around station azeas.
Comprehensive Pianning Committee
au�st so, 200�
Page 4
D�-99�
Committee response: The suggestion that pp. 89-90 be removed is addressed in
response to Paula Maccabee's letter later in this memo.
Janice Rettman, Ramsev Countv Commissioner (written comments submitted)
Commissioner Rettman applauded the effort put forth by both task forces, City staff and
the community to create this document. Her suggested changes are in response to
feedback she has received from those who live and work in the Central Corridor. She
advised against creating unrealistic expectations that cannot be financially supported, and
wants successful coexistence between new development and the existing residences and
businesses. She suggested language additions that stress the need to maintain the #16 bus
at current service levels; effective pazking management to minimize the impact in
residential neighborhoods of new development; preservation and improvement of
pedestrian and vehicle crossings of both University and I-94; protecting residential
neighborhoods from adverse effects due to li�t rail and new development; and, in
general, celebrating the Avenue, its architecture, communities and assets.
Commissioner Rettman's proposed language changes are underlined. Existing language
in the CCDS is in italics.
Comment: Page 6, column 2, Theme 2: Enhancing Existing Transit Service, lst bullet
point. Add the following: First, a commitment to maintain local transit service at
complementary service levels. .....The 16A bus service is vital to those with suecial needs.
accessibility needs older citizens and veonle with strollers walkers etc 16A service must
remain comolete, downtown to downtown without forced transfer esnecially with stations
located one mile apart alone Universitv Avenue.
Committee response: The language in the existing paragraph under this bullet is currently
quite strong about the importance of the # 16 bus, and the need far the bus and LRT to fully
serve the existing community. No change is recommended.
Comment: p. 6, column 2, Theme 2: Enhancing E�sting Transit Service, 2 bullet point.
Add the following: Second, improve north-south connections to LRT from neighborhoods
and destifzations adjacent to the Avenue... Circulator buses should also serve neighborhoods
adiacent to the LRT line alone University Avenue to encourage access to business and to
transit. This will discourage "hide and ride" activity in neishborhoods and is a must far
commuters who wish to access LRT at the most convenient location
Committee response: This addition is an interesting idea that shouid be added. However,
the concept should be presented as"Explore the use of circulatar buses to serve ..:' and the
second sentence should read "This may help to lessen `hide and ride' acrivaty ..."
Comment: p. 6, column 3, Theme 4: Maximizing Parking Efficiency. Add the following:
Pazk-and-Ride facilities must be developed both in and outside of the Universitv Avenue
corridor, including suburban locations.
Committee response: At this time, the community has made no commitments about park-
and-ride facilities. The issue of park-and-ride continues to be an important consideration.
The full range of issues relating to parking will continue to be near the forefront of City
Comprehensive Planning Committee
August 30, 2007 ���Gf �(�
Page 5 �
concems. As planning moves forward, consideration of the following issues will be
included:
• loss of on-street parking;
• better methods to manage and utilize existing pazking, both on and off-street;
• pazk & ride accommodations, if any;
• appropriateness of additional off=street pazking to meet current and future needs;
and
• critical development opportunities near/at stations.
The existing CCDS language fully describes the concerns and possible approaches. No
change in language is recommended.
Comment: p. 13, Objective 1.2. Add the following: Elevate the Avenue as one of Saint
Paul's core assets... This should no� however, be at the expense of other St. Paul
neighborhoods, especiallv those that haue a direct business connection to Universitv such as
Rice Street and Snelline Avenue the Rondo communitv or even Payne Avenue
Enhancement and reinvestment should not include businesses or services relocatin to the
Avenue from other azeas of the citv.
Committee response: The existing language does not imply that this would be done at the
expense of other neighborhoods. The suggested additional language is not needed and is too
specific for the context.
Comment: p. 14, Objective 3.1. Add the following: This goal should include a
strateev that protects residential areas from the hi�her levels of activity and
associated problems such as parldng when new develonment occurs.
Committee response: This is implied in the existing language of this objective. The first
sentence now reads, "Ensure commercial development is comparible with surrounding
neighborhoods ..." No change is recommended.
Comment: p. 15, Strategy 3.5.2: Create a Parking Management Strategy targeted to the
needs of commercial and small businesses. Add the following: Equallv, create a vazking
manaeement strateev that addresses the needs of existing residenrial pro ep rties
Committee response: Add this concept, but rephrase as follows: "Furthermore, create
pazking strategies to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods from undue nnpacts from
`overflow parking' along the Avenue."
Comment: p. Strategy 4.3.6. Add the following: Park-and-Ride facilities should be
located throu2hout the corridor and in suburban areas.
Committee response: Please refer to the committee response to the park-and-ride comment
above.
Comment: p. 15, Strategy 4.41. Add the following: Pedestr access across the Avenue
is critical to the success of businesses and a sense that neiehborhoods aze connected bv not
split by LRT, as has been the criticism of Interstate 94
Committee response: This is a concem that has been raised by others in the community,
and is an appropriate addition.
Comprehensive Pianning Committee
Au�sti 30, zoo�
Page 6
D�-���
Comment: p. 15, Strategy 4,61. Add the following: Maintain the #16 bus at
�en�k�e� existinQ service levels. Service must remain complete, downtown to
downtown without forced transfers.
Committee response: We are not sure where the concept of "forced transfers" comes
from. No added transfers are required on the Route 16 service. Furthermore, we should
support the idea of complementary service, rather than demanding that existing service
levels be maintained. We know that Route 16 service cuts shown in the Draft EIS aze
too deep. The City's position on such cuts is detailed in the City Draft EIS response of
3une 2006. Demand and need for service will be reevaluated once LRT is running. In
addition, the text in Objectives 43, 4.5, and 4.6 gives overarching guidance to our future
decisions on Route 16.
Comment: p. 16, Strategy 5.1.4. Add the following: Establish a Parking Management
Strategy that may include principles such as no new net gain in surface parking along the
Corridon The "no net ¢ain" strategy must reco¢nize that business exnansion and building
re-use could draw additional vehicles and create new uarkine demands that must not flow
into abuttin� neighborhoods.
Committee response: Add this concept, but rephrase as follows: ", balanced by the need to
minnnize the spillover of commercial pazking into residenfial areas."
Comment: p. 16, Strategy 53.4. Preserve the unique architectural character of
desigrtated historic districts, such as the University-Raymond Commercial Historic District
and the Lowertown Historic Districz Add the following: However, nearlv all of
Universitv Avenue has unique architectural character and buildines. Preservarion efforts
need to focus on all blocks, not iust a few nodes.
Committee response: Add ttvis concept, but rephrase as follows: ", individually designated
historic structures, and otlxer significant buildings that contribute to the Corridor's identity
and sense of place."
Comment: p. 21, Initiative 31. Madway Shopping District. Add the following: �
develoument plan must recoenize that customers to various new businesses will need quick
and convenient access to transit whether bus or LRT if thev are carrvingpackages and
products home, particulazlv verishable items such as millc or ice cream.
Committee response: Good service and access far pedestrians and transit users in the
shopping area is unplied in the existing CCDS language. The suggested additionallaaguage
is too specific for the context and does not need to be included.
Comment: p. 21, Initiative 36. Crossing the Highway. Opportunities exist to improve
north/south pedestr�ian and bicycle connections across I-94. These improvements will help
extend the benefit of the LRT investment, and connect residents on both sides of the
Interstate with the amenities and facilities that exist on either side. Add flie following: �
new bridges and the eaistine bridees need to haue the same amenities such as azchitectural
desien features and iron fencing as those found on 35E south of 1-94 There should be no
sense that these freewav bridges serve "inner city" residents and neiehborhoods and thus
deserve less.
Comprehensive Planning Committee
August 30, 2007
Page 7
07-��t�
Committee response: Demanding the same level of amenities as the bridges cited may
make them so expensive as to be impractical. However, those over I-94 currently have
virtually no azchitectural design features or iron fencing, and the aesthetics could be
improved substantially. Instead of the suggested language, add the following sentence: "In
addifion, the aesthetic appeazance of these bridges and all bridges in the city should be
anproved with azchitectural desigi features as they are rebuilt or improved as a matter of city
policy."
Comment: p. 39, Add a new point: While increasing density to maximize transit use is
important, this should not be done at the expense of existin� single-familv xesidential
neiQhborhoods north and south of Universitv Avenue Such neiehborhoods are the heart and
soul of Saint Paul and are recognized as a oart of the adopted comprehensive plan Thev are
extremelv important to atiract new families and new inveshnent for the future In these
ne�borhoods, minimum lot width should be no less than 40 feet and variances to exceed
minimum lot coveraee should not be aranted.
Committee response: The CCDS has defined an area of "Change and Stability" on pp. 37-
38. The singie-fasnily neighborhoods north and south of University are specifically
identified as areas where the existing character should be maintained, and redevelopment
should not be encouraged. This directly addresses the concern expressed, so additional
language is not necessary.
Comment: p. 43, Type 1: Urban Villages. Add the following paragraph: Urban villases
aze distin�uished as a few new developments on underurilized parcels specificallv identified
in the plan. Goa1s and desians are not intended to flow into e�sting residential
neiehborhoods in the corridor that begin'/2 block south and '/2 block north of University
Avenue.
Committee response: Piease refer to the committee response directly above. The additional
language is not necessary.
Comment: p. 45, Type 2— Market Intensificafion Sites. Add the following: Any desipn
plan must recoenize that the success of retail businesses in the Midway area reauire readv
access for automobiles as well as the availability of and access to public transit
Add the following: Nothine in the plan should construe that existine businesses aze not
wanted and/or should be forced out.
Committee response: The CCDS emphasizes the need to better balance the modes of
movement in the corridor. Currently, the movement of automobiles is given priority over the
movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. Customers, employees, and visitors will
conrinue to travel to the Midway azea by cars and trucks. There is a lot of language in the
CCDS about better managing paddng, and encouraging a better balance of modes, but no
implication that cars and trucks will not be accommodated or will be eliminated. FuYcher,
there is nothing in the plan that implies existing businesses are not wanted or should be
forced out. Businesses will be established or leave based on market forces, not because of
this plan. The additional language is not necessary.
Comprehensive Planning Committee
Au�sc 30, Zoo�
Page 8
0��99�f
Comment: p. 66, Blank walls. Add the following: Any artwork, murals, etc, must be done
tastefullv with communitv consensus and with full approval of buildine owners
Architectural features on manv buildings, whether in downtown or along Universitv Avenue
and whether lustoric or modern, aze artwork in and of themselves.
Committee response: While these are good comments, this level of detail is probably too
much for the conteat.
Comment: p. 77, key principles for station design, Accessible. Add the following:
Whether in downtown or along Universitv Avenue, stations should not be excessively lone
be easily accessible and without fences or other nnnediments that could restrict nedestrian
access. Such throu¢h access is nnportant not onlv to lieht rail transit but to businesses alone
both sides of the rail line.
Committee response: Allowing unrestricted pedestrian access to all points at stations
may be inherently unsafe. Therefore, the design of stations must follow the best
practices with regard to safety, which may or may not include railings/fences. These are
issues that will be fleshed out and addressed in detail as part of the Preliminary
Engineering process, which is beginning during the summer 2007. No change in
language is recommended.
Comment: p. 78, key principles for station design, Integrated. Add the following: Side
streets crossing University must retain an unobstructed crossine to facilitate pedestrian and
vehicle traffia Anv encumbrance to cross travel will only serve to divide Universitv Avenue
nei¢hbarhoods that haue made great strides in that last few vears in re-joinin� to eg ther
Committee response: First and foremost, the allowance for cross-traffic needs to be
detemvned by the maYimizing of public safety. Analyses done both far this corridor and in
other corridors in North America have found that uncontrolled intersecrions (no signals) is a
safety probiem, and are generally to be auoided along the LRT route. The preliminary
design for LRT along University Avenue retains cross-sh�eet access at %4 mile-spaced
signalized intersections (as it is today, generally). However, these design and access issues
will be more fully addressed as part of Preliminary Engineering. No change in language is
recommended.
Comment: p. 86, 1�` column, Easing pazking requirements. Add the following: Easin¢
parking restrictions must be done in a thoughtful manner takiu� current and future uses into
consideration. Some retail uses such as hazdware stores home building centers or furniture
stores require an automobile to transport large items or to make purchases quicklv Other
uses such as bars and restaurants can cause overflow varkine vroblems for adjacent
neighborhoods. LRT stations, in and of themselves are land uses that will reauire parki�ng
azeas if thev aze to be used successfullv and without overflow into nei�hborhoods Permit
parkin¢ free to neighborhood residents must be a part of the nlan
Committee response: These are very thoughtfiil comments that staff will take into
consideration as we study and develop a recommended parking management strategy.
However, this level of detail is not appropriate in the plan.
Comprehensive Planning Committee
August 30, 2007
Page 9
b�-���
Comment: p. 89, Zoning Ordinance: Transit Supportive Tune-Up. Add the following:
This new zone should enhance not encroach on the e�stin¢ residential ne:ghborhoods
north and south of Universitv Avenue.
Committee response: The CCDS has defined an azea of "Change and Stability" on pp. 37-
38. The single-family neighborhoods north and south of University are specifically
idenfified as areas where the existing chazacter should be maintained, and redevelopment
should not be encouraged. Any zoning changes that are proposed would follow the policies
that aze adopted in the plan ar subsequent station azea platuiing, which will further define the
"edges" ar boundaries around stations, as well as the transitions between station azeas and
adjacent neighborhoods..
Comment: p. 93, Elaborating 6 Key Strategies: Inclusive Housing. Add the following: The
greatest strength of the Central Corridor is its daversity. The potential for genhificarion and
displacement of low-income individuals and families from the Corridor as property values
rise is a primary concern ofresidents,...
Committee response: This is an appropriate elabaration of the concept, as"gentrification" is
a term that has been used eatensively in the community discussion that has occutted as part
of developing the CCDS.
Paul Mohrbacher, CapitoUDowntown Task Force Co-Chair
He applauded the efforts of the task force in dealing with some tough issues for the
downtown area, such as the proposed loop alignment. He is pleased with the results and
thanked the staff for its work with the task force.
Committee response: No change is language is required.
He works for Jewish Community Action and represents a coalition of community
organizations who work on behalf of existing communities in the Corridor. He
complimented the co-chairs and task forces on running a very open process. He supports
the vision and plan, but noted that implementation is critical_ UACC will wark to ensure
that new development preserves and enhances opportunities for the businesses and
residents who aze in the Conidor now, in terms of good jobs and affordable housing.
Committee response: No change in language is required.
Additional written comments submitted:
Dana B. Badeerow, Commissioner, Dept. of Administration
Some of the initiatives could potentially reduce access to the Capifoi Area for employees,
legislators and visitors, primazily the recommendations to redevelop surface parking lots
adjacent to State-owned facilities. Perhaps the site most greatly impacted is the Sears
site, where 797 State parking spaces are cunently located.
Comprehensive Planning Committee
August 30, 20Q7
Page 10
d ����
Committee response: This concern was also raised by the CAAPB. Staff acknowledges
that, before pubiic pazking lots aze redeveloped, there must be a close look at where and
how replacement pazking will be provided. Staff is committed to working with the
CAAPB and the Minnesota Department of Administration on how parking can continue
to be provided as redevelopment occurs. The first two bullets on p. 39 under Transit-
Supportive Access, Circulation & Pazking will guide the locafion and design of new
pazking within the Corridor. Staff continues to believe that the best long-term use for
these sites, given the introduction of LRT, is as mixed-use development or open space.
Ms. Badgerow's letter appeazs to support redevelopment of the Sears site, assuming that
structured pazking is provided. No change to the document is recommended.
Debbie Meister & Gene Christenson, 1312 Portland Avenue (written comments
submitted 6/12/07)
Meister and Christenson are generally in support of the Development Strategy and feel
that it is reflective of community input. However, they are concerned that some
outstanding proposals and actions will wark to "undermine the success of the Central
Corridor strategy." These include the allowance for big box development, which
generally caters to the automobile, is anti-pedestrian and provides relatively fewer jobs
per acre; investment in proposed changes to UniversitylSnelling and Ayd Mill Road(I-94
as these projects demonstrate a lack of faith in LRT as an alternative to cars; and, the
reduction in Metro Transit funding for existing routes and necessary potential north-south
connections.
Committee response: No change in language is required.
The letter was sent directly to Mayor Coleman, whose response is attached. Where
appropriate, additional staff comments are noted below.
Comment: The document calls the proposed LRT station at 4 and Cedar "the Hub."
Commissioner Ortega asked that the CCDS be changed, where appropriate, to reflect that
there is only one transit hub in downtown 5aint Paul, the Union Depot multi-modal hub.
Commissioner Ortega expressed concern that having a second transit hub just blocks
from the Depot will compete with it, confuse the public and dilute the public investment
in downtown revitalization.
Committee response: Regarding Commissioner Ortega's first point, both the CCDS and
the Downtown Development Strate� strongly support conversion of Union Depot to a
multi-modal transit hub. Use of the word "hub" for the station at 4`�' and Cedar was
never intended to diminish the importance of Union Depot as a multi-modai hub. To
avoid any confusion, staff recommends replacing throughout the CCDS the word "hub"
(when used to refer to the 4�' & Cedar station) with an ap�ropriate alternative. Staff also
recommends that the word "hub" be removed from the 4 and Cedaz computer-rendered
station images on pp. 71 and 72, and replaced with a more appropriate station name.
Comprehensive Planning Committee
August 30, 2007
Page I1
D �7-99 �
Regazding Commissioner Ortega's second point on possible competition between the two
sites, staff does not agree that having two major LRT stations within four blocks of one
another will diminish the importance or use of either station. It is staff's contention that
tl�e two stations will serve different purposes. The 4`�' & Cedar station will be the prunary
station for use by downtown employees and visitors to the Entertainment District. Union
Depot will be the primary location for transfers to inter-city bus lines, Amtrak, commuter
rai1, etc., as well as for service to the immediate Lowertown residential population. Staff
does not agree that having two downtown stations will confuse the public (as long as the
name of the 4` & Cedar station is changed), nor will it dilute public investment in
downtown revitalization.
The two sites aze very different from each other from a development standpoint. The 4tn
& Cedar block is likely to be redeveloped with new residential and/or Class A office
space in a tall tower, while the Post Office building is likely to be converted to Class C
(perhaps Class B) office space and/or industrial storage activities. Even if the Post Office
tower were to be converted to residential use, it likely will not compete with a new
residential tower on the 4 & Cedar block. Further, over the 25-30-year time frame of
the CCDS, which will probably span 2-3 business cycles, it is likely that there will be
more than enough market potential to accommodate the redevelopment of both blocks.
Comment: The RCRRA supports LRT connecting to Union Depot on the concourse
(lower) level. The CCDS shows it connecting at 4�' Street (upper street 1eve1).
Committee response: Staff does not recommend changing the document to show the
LRT connection on the concourse level of Union Depot. The preferred alternative
selected in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement far Central Corridor shows LRT on
Cedaz and 4` streets, terminating at Union Depot on 4 Street. The CCDS accepted this
as the alignment for planning purposes, and the Capitol/Downtown Task Force supported
a 4�' Street connection to Union Depot as critical to serving the nearly 2200 housing units
(4000 residents) within '/< mile of Union Depot and to activating the street. Staff agrees.
Having said that, however, Preliminary Engineering, now underway by the Metropolitan
Council, is exploring three alternative connections to Union Depot, two of which inciude
a 4`" Street connection. The City has pledged to Ramsey County and the Metropolitan
Council that it will abide by whatever preferred solution results from this analysis.
Comment: Characterizing Union Depot as Saint Paul's "welcome maY' for visitors by
train (p. 90) does not do justice to the range of transit services that will be available to the
public.
Committee response: Delete the phrase "for visitors by train," so that 4)c. reads:
"Union Depot as Saint Paul's "transportation gateway."
Comment: Commissioner Ortega asks that the City work with the LOCATE task force
and RCRRA's consultants on economic development plans and station area planning
around Union Depot.
Comprehensive Plavning Comxnittee
au�st 30, 200�
Page 15
��.'rf � � /
`7
COMNIITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Comprehensive Plauniug Committee recommends that the Planiiing Commission
forward the Central Corridor Development Strategy to the Mayor and City Council with
a recommendation for adoption as a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan with
the amendments noted above. A draft Plamiiiig Commission resolution is attached.
Attachments: Mayor Coleman's Letter to Ramsey County Chair Rafael Ortega
Written Comments Submitted
Draft Planning Commission Resolution
cc: Public Heazing Testifiers