08-267Council File # �a -a��
Green Sheet #�js �
RESOLUTION
PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented by
��
1 WHEREAS, Randolph Hill LLC, in Planning Commission File No. 07-195250, duly applied for a site
2 plan review pursuant to Leg. Code §61.400 for the purpose of removing an existing commercial building
3 and residential housing and constructing in their place a two commercial buildings, a 14,000/sq.ft. building
4 for a proposed grocery store and a 5,568/sq.ft. building proposed as retail space, all on property commonly
5 known as 1094 Randolph Ave and legally described as set forth in the said zoning file; and
6
7
9
10
WHEREAS, On January 17, 2008 and pursuant to Leg. Code § 61303, the Planning Commission's
Zoning Committee duly conducted a public hearing on the said application at which all persons present
were given an opportunity to be heard and, at the close of the said hearing, the Committee recommended
approval of the site plan on a 6-0 vote with one abstention; and
11
12 WHEREAS, On January 25, 2008 and pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.402(c), the Planning Commission,
13 based upon all the files and evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the
14 minutes and record on the zoning committee, unanimously moved (w/one abstention) to approved the said
15 site plan application and imposed certain conditions on the approval, based upon the following findings as
16 set forth in Commission Resolution No. 08-05, which is incorporated herein by reference, as follows:
17
18 1.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 2.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The City's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the city.
The site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Land Use Plan supports a compatible mix of land uses in traditional neighborhoods
(Policy 5.2.1}
The District 1 S Highland Park Neighborhood Plan (adopted by City Council on July 18,
2007) includes in its vision statement: provide services that contribute to neighborhood
self-sufficiency while improving the District's position in the regional economy. The plan
also supports use of TN urban design standards in recommendations throughout the plan.
Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The proposed commercial use is not permitted on the portions of the site that are zoned residential
and so the applicant is in the process of rezoning the property to TN2. The Planning Commission
recently recommended approval to rezone the property to TN2. The City Council will hold a public
hearing on the rezoning on January 2, 2008.
The Planning Commission recently approved a Conditional Use Permit far this development to
allow a retail establishment of more that 10,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area and variances of TN2
standards to allow a floor area ratio less than 0.5, a masimum building setback greater than 10 ft.
and placement of parking in front of the building and occupying more than 50% of the lot frontage.
DB ��-le�
42
43
44
45 3.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55 4.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66 5.
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
The site plan is consistent with all other zoning regulations and other applicable ordinances of the
City.
Preservation of unique geologic, geogt-aphic or historically significant characteristics of the city
and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site does not contain any geologic, geographic or historically significant characteristics.
There was a gas station on the site in the past. A Phase 1 environmental study was completed for
the site and the applicant did additional soil samples/testing on the gas station site. They indicate
that the site is "clean" with no contamination. MPCA indicates fuel starage tanks were removed in
the 1990's and the file has been closed to the satisfaction of the MPCA.
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 neighboring land uses.
The site plan is designed to handle surface water drainage so that it will not impact the adjacent
properties.
A brick wall and dense landscaping will be used along the south side to buffer the neighbors across
Juno. Staff will work with the adjacent residents to refine the details of the landscaping as well as
the design and alignment of Juno.
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.
A driveway for the development is proposed on the south side of the site on Juno Avenue. The
traffic from this driveway wili have an impact on the residents on the south side of Juno.
• Juno is a dead end street and currently has very little traffic. It is an oiled street with no
curbs.
• There are four single-family houses on the south side of the street that would remain if the
project is built. None of these houses has a driveway on Juno (except the east house which
has a short driveway that is used to store a boat.
• The development will lead to a substantial increase in traffic on Juno, especially during
peak hours. A traffic study prepared for the developer by Alliant Engineering projects that
during the peak hour for traffic on weekdays (430-5:30 p.m.) there will be 137 trips on
Juno. It also projects that there will be a total of 1000 trips a day on Juno on weekdays and
1200 trips on Juno on Sundays. (A car coming to the site and then leauing counts as two
trips. See the attached traffic generation suimuary for a more detailed break down on
traffic.)
• It is not possible to eliminate or move the Juno driveway. The site needs two driveways to
operate and Juno is the only place where a second driveway could go. A second driveway
cannot go on the north side of the site (on Randolph) because it would be too close to the
������
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
ll6
117
118
119
120
121
122 6.
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
35E entrance ramp. A second driveway cannot be added on Lexington because it would be
too close to the north driveway.
• Juno should be improved as a part of this project to minimize the impact of the increased
traffia The following improvements are needed and appropriate:
• The street should be paved and concrete curbs provided on both sides.
• A curb bump out should be included on the south side of Juno at the intersection
with I,exington to nartow the width of the street.
• The driveway from Juno into the site should be curved to minimize glaze from
headlights to the Juno residents.
• On-street parking should be prohibited on the north side of Juno. Parking bays
shouid be provided on the south side.
• A sidewalk should be added on the north side of Juno as far east as the driveway into
the site. A public sidewalk should be added on the south side if the residents request
one.
• In addition to the street improvement, an 8' high masonry wall should be built along
the south edge of the parking lot on the property line to act as a screen. The
screening should be reinfarced by heavy landscaping, such as evergreen trees.
• Rain gardens or dry swales can be incorporated into the design to itnprove water
qualaty if feasible.
• If the Juno residents request it, it may be appropriate to change the design of June
east of the driveway into the development so that it is narrower and resembles a
driveway. However, a width of 20' would have to be maintained for emergency
access. Special arrangements are needed to plow this part of the street since
standard Public Works plows can not do it and therefore the developer should be
responsible for snow plowing/removal. It may make sense vacate this portion of
Juno if the two residents directly affected want to and staff should explore this
option with them.
• Before a final plan for improving Juno is approved, there should be a chance for the
Juno residents to meet with staff and the developer to work out the details.
• These improvement would be made and in 2008 to coordinate with the development.
The City will pay for the reconstruction of the street under its RSVP Assessment
Policy. The developer has agreed to pick up 100% of the assessable portion of all
properties fronting Juno.
Creation of energy-conserving design through Zandscaping and location, orientation and elevation
of structures.
The site plan is designed to encourage pedeshian traffic which will help save energy by reducing
the number of caz trips.
Over half of the parking spaces will be underground. This will reduce the amount of pavement
needed on the site compared to a typical development with all surface parking.
D$-�1�7
131 '7
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in relation
to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the Zocations and design of entrances and
exits and parking areas within the site.
Increased traffic that would be generated by the development is a concern because the intersection
of Randolph and Lexington is already congested at times. During peak traffic hours the service
level is currently D with some individual lanes(movements experiencing lower service.
Improvements are needed to offset the increase traffic at the intersection and maintain current
levels of service. These improvements should be paid for by the developer. Public Works has
recommended that the following improvements be required:
• Adjust the sign timing at the LexingtonlRandolph intersection and other nearby
intersections within the nerivork to optimize service.
• Widen L,exington Parkway south of Randolph by 6' to provide a separate right turn lane.
This can be done by moving the curb on the east side of Lexington in front of the
development and reducing the width of the boulevard to 6' from the current width of 12'.
• Add a left turn signal for northbound traffic on Lexington.
• Add a left turn lane for south bound Lexington entering the site. This land would extend
from 50' north of the Lexington driveway all the way to Juno.
• Increase the length of the existing left turn lane on Randolph for westbound traffic turning
onto Lexington.
154 If these improvements are made, the traffic study estimates that the existing levels of service will be
155 maintained.
156
157 8.
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
Satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitaty sewers, ineluding solutions to any
drainage problems in the area of the development.
Storm water currently drains towards the south of the site. The site plan calls for installing a
system of catch basins and underground pipes to catch storxn water and temporarily store it so the
most of it can infiltrate into the ground instead of draining off the site.
The plans for sewers and storm water drainage need approval from the following:
Saint Paul Public Works. Public Works staff have reviewed the plans and determined that
the plans meet their standards subject to some minor revisions.
Capitol Region Watershed. The Watershed has strict standards regulating the quality of
storm water leaving the site. The underground storage pipes and other improvements
shown on the plan are intended to allow storm water to infiltrate into the ground and meet
the Watershed's standards.
MnDOT. The plan shows a sewer that would connect to a Mi�DOT sewer associated with
35E. A perxnit form MnDOT is required for this.
08-a-�7
177 9.
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187 10.
188
189
190
191
192 11.
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200 1.
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214 2.
215
216
217
218
219
220 3.
221
222 4.
Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The site will be landscaped. Additional landscaping and a masonry wall for screening will be
provided along the south edge of the site to buffer the project and its parking lot from the four
single-family houses across the street.
The development will provide 103 pazking spaces (18 more spaces than required by zoning). 56 of
the pazking spaces will be under the north building and the remaining 47 spaces will be in rivo
sur£ace parldng lots.
Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the American Disabilities Act (ADA),
including parking spaces, passenger Zoading zones and accessible routes.
The plan is consistent wit the provisions of the ADA for accessibility.
Provision for erosion and sediment control as specifted in the "Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Control Handbook".
The site plan meets these standards. Erosion and sediment control has been reviewed by City Staff
and it will also be reviewed by the Capitol Region Watershed as a part of their permit process.
[As noted above, the said site plan was approved subject to the following conditions:]
The developer will pay for the cost of improvements recommended by the Public Works to mitigate
the impact of increased traffic that will be generated by flie development:
• Adjust the signal timing at the Lexington/Randolph intersection and other nearby
intersections within the network to optimize service.
• Widen Lexington Parkway south of Randolph by 6' to provide a separate right turn lane.
This can be done by moving the curb on the east side of Lexington in front of the
development and reducing the width of the boulevard to 6' from the current width of 12'.
• Add a left turn signal for northbound traffic on Lexington.
• Add a left turn lane for south bound Lexington traffic entering the site. This lane would
extend from 50' north of Lexington driveway all the way to Juno.
• Increase the length of the existing left turn lane on Randolph for westbound traffic tuming
onto Lexington.
The developer must make improvements to Juno Street to mitigate the impact of the development
on the residences on the south side of Juno as described in Finding 5. The developer will be
responsible for all costs for these improvements above the City's contriburion under the RS VP
project. The developer will also be responsible for snow plowing/removal on Juno since City
equipment is not suited for operating on Juno based on the street design in the site plan.
The plan for water quality must be approved by the Capitol Region Watershed.
A permit must be approved by MnDOT to connect their storm sewer to 35E.
OS-7�� �
Zas s.
224
225
226
227
228
229
230 6.
231
232
233
234 7.
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
Final details of the site plan, including storm water drainage, landscaping and lighting, must receive
approval from City staff.
The landscaping plan must be revised to provide additional green space along Randolph. To
accommodate this, the north faqade of the north building must be pulled back 4-6' from the
Randolph property line and an easement provided for the landscaping and/or public sidewalk.
The Juno fa�ade of the south building must include enhancements to add visual interest such as
windows or architectural elements to make it consistent with City wide design standards that
prohibit blank walls facing the street in pedeshian oriented azeas.
Parking lot lighting must be turned off when the businesses are not open except for minor lighting
if necessary for security. This restriction does not apply to lighting of the building."
AND, WHEREAS, On or about February 20, 2008, in Planning Commission File No. 08-021704 and
pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(a}, Harold Clapp and Laurie Watson filed an appeal from the
Commission's decision alleging certain matters as set forth in their appeal application which is included
herein by reference, and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the
actions taken by the said Commission; and
WHEREAS, On or about February 20, 2Q08, also in Planning Commission File No. 08-021704 and
pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(a), James Ferstle also filed an appeal from the determination made by the
Commission which alleged errors regarding "parkland" as more fully specified in his appeal application
which is included herein by reference and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of
considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and
WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b), and upon notice to affected parties, the City
Council duly conducted a public hearing on these consolidated appeals on February 20, 2008, where all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, The Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the
report of staff, the record, minutes and recommendation of the Zoning Committee and the Commission's
resolution; does hereby
RESOLVE, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.704 hereby affirms the
decision of the Planning Commission in this matter the appellanYs having failed to show that there were
errors in the Commission's facts, findings, or procedure and the Council hereby adopts as its own in
support of this decision the facts and findings as set forth in Commission Resolution No. 08-05: and
BE IT F'IJRTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal filed by Harold Clapp and Laurie Watson and the
appeal filed by James Ferstle aze hereby denied for all the reasons stated above; and,
BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, Notwithstanding the Council's denial of the said appeals, that the
Council, pursuant to its authority under Leg. Code § 61.704 when hearing appeals from Planning
Commission decisions, the Council, based upon the submissions and testimony produced at the February
D8-2��7
268 20, 2008 public hearing, hereby modifies the conditions unposed on the said site plan by the Planning
269 Commission, as indicated by underlined language, as follows:
270
271 1.
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285 2.
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305 3.
306
307 4.
308
309 5.
310
311
The developer will pay for the cost of unprovements recommended by the Public Works to mitigate
the unpact of increased traffic that will be generated by the development:
• Adjust the signal riming at the Lexington/Randolph intersection and other nearby
intersections within the network to optimize service.
• Widen Lexington Pazkway south of Randolph by 6' to provide a separate right tum lane.
This can be done by moving the curb on the east side of Lexington in front of the
development and reducing the width of the boulevard to 6' from the current width of 12'.
• Add a left riun signal for northbound traffic on Lexington.
• Add a left tum lane for south bound Lexington traffic entering the site. This lane would
extend from 50' north of Lexington driveway all the way to 7uno.
• Increase the length of the existing left turn lane on Randolph for westbound traffic turning
onto Lexington.
The developer must make improvements to Juno Street to mitigate the impact of the development
on the residences on the south side of Juno as described in Finding 5. These im�rovements shall
include an eight-foot hiQh fence for screenine and noise buffering pUrposes alone the south
pxonertv line of the site as shown in the elevations submitted to the City with this application. This
fence shall be conshucted from durable and attractive materials. The area in front of the fence.
which is to sav the fence as seen from outside the site's propertv lines must be landscaroed and
planted as approved bv the City. These apnroved nlantings and landscaping shall thereafter be
maintained in a manner that will soften the visual im�act of the fence while maintainine its
essential p_urpose as a sound and site buffer. The fence shall also be extended so that it runs for an
additiona140 feet alone the site's north/south nroperty line in order to act as a buffer from 35E
subject to anv approval bv the MNDOT. The north/south fence extension shall also be eieht-feet
hi�h, constructed of the same durable attractive materials and shall be landscaped ulanted and
maintained in the same manner as that portion of the fence alonQ Juno. In the event that MNDOT
avnroval for this portion of the fence cannot be obtained, the area alone 35E must be extensivelv
landscaued, planted and maintained as apnroved bv the City after receivin� comment on such a
landscaUe/nlantin�plan from the residents on Juno. The developer will be responsible for all costs
for these improvements above the City's contribution under the RSVP project. The developer will
also be responsible for snow plowinglremoval on Juno since City equipment is not suited for
operating on Juno based on the street design in the site plan.
The plan for water quality must be approved by the Capitol Region Watershed.
A permit must be approved by MnDOT to connect their storm sewer to 35E.
Final details of the site plan, including storm water drainage, landscaping and lighting, must receive
approval from City staff.
6 $ �?�� �
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321 6.
322
323
324
325 7.
326
327
328 8.
329
330
331
332
333 9.
334
The landscaping plan must be revised to provide additional green space along Randolph. To
accommodate this, the north faqade of the north building must be pulled back 4-6' from the
Randolph property line and an easement provided for the landscaping and/or public sidewalk.
Rain gardens must be incorporated into the design to improve water qualitv. These rain eardens
must be planted with appropriate landscaoe material. A final landscape plan for all of Juno.
including any rain eardens, must be ap�roved by Citv staff after the Juno residents have been eiven
a chance to comment on it.
The Juno fa�ade of the south building must include enhancements to add visual interest such as
windows or architectural elements to make it consistent with City wide design standards that
prohibit blank walls facing the street in pedestrian oriented areas.
Parking lot lighting must be turned off when the businesses are not open except for minor lighting
if necessary for security. This restriction does not apply to lighting of the building.
The developer a ees to join with the other adioinine ronerty owner to initiate the process of
vacating east 40' of Juno. It is anticinated that issues unique to this location including stormwater
draina�e, existin� undereround utilities and access to 35E for MnDOT will be considered during
the vacation nrocess.
The develo er will pa for signs on the south side of Juno to control parkine.
335 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Harold Clapp,
336 Laurie Watson, James Ferstle, Randolph Hill LLC, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning
337 Commission.
338
Yeas Nays Absent Requested l�; ent of: G � D
Bostrom � �
Carter �/ "
Hartis �/ g
Approved by the Office of Financial Services
Stark
Thune
✓
By:
Appcoved // City ttorney
By: W' /.t.�'r�e-- �— � O�
Approved a or Submi io to Council
By: �e�,.� ,� D,�����
Adopted by Council: Date
Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary
By: �
Approve y Date � � Q
By:
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
a8-��
CA c;ryAUOmey
osMaa-oa
Green Sheet NO: 3050754
CoMact Petson & Phone:
Peter Wamer
266-8710
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
E•DOCUment Required: Y
Document Confact: Julie Kraus
�/
Assign
Number
For
Routing
OMer
ConWd Phone: 266-8776 I I
ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature)
0 "tyAttorneV
1 ' Attorne De ariwentD'uector
z - ano� 3- L -flY
3 or's Office Ma orfelssistant
4 oanN
5 ' Qetk Gti Clerk
MemorialiZiag City Council's February 20, 2008 morion to deny the appeal with condirions of Hal Clapp and 7ames Ferstie to a
decison of the Planning Commission approving the site plan for a new commerical development that includes a Trader Joe's grocery
store at 1094 Randolph Avenue in Saint Paul.
�aaaons: Hpprove �H� or n
Planning Commission
CIB Commitlee
Civil Service Commission
7. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
Yes No
2. Has this personffrm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
The Council is required pursuant to the City Charter to have its actions reduced to writing dependent upon the nature of the matter
before it. The decision of the Council in tltis matter required a resolution in order to comply with ffie Charter. Appxoval of ihe
attached resolurion fulfills the Council's duty under the Charter.
Adva�Wges If Approved:
None.
Disadvantages If Approved:
Failure to approve the resolution violates the City Char[er requirement.
DisadvanWges If Not Approved:
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financiallnformatlon:
(Explain)
Activity Number.
CoSflRevenue Budgeted:
March 5, 2008 9:55 AM Page 1
• CITY OF SAIlVT PAUL
ChristopherB Coleman,Mayor
DEPARTMSNf OFSAFE7Y AND MSPECITONS �
Bab Kesslel. Direcw� 0$ i�/ �
�.r
COMIdERCEBUILDING Telephone� 651-266-9090
BFou,lftSYrzetEas(,Suite200 Facsrmi(e- 651d66-9114
StPaul,Mvcnuotn5510J-7024 SYeb wwwsipoul.gwfdsi
Fe6ruary 5, 2008
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Research Ofifi'ice
Room 310 City hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
I would like to confirm thaY a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
February 20, 2008, for the following an appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving a
site pian for a commercial development.
Appeilants: Hal Clapp and James Ferstle
File Number: #08-021704
Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision fo approve a site pian
for a new commerciai developrnent that includes a Trader Joe's
grocery store.
• Address: 1094 Randolph Avenue (southeast corner at Lexington Parkway)
Legai Description
of Property: Willius Subdivision of Slock 57 of Lyman Daytons Addition to Saint
Paul Subj to esmts and ex SWIy 10 ft. for alley; NWIy 73.91 ft. of
Lots 1 thru 3, Block 57
Previous Action: Planning Commission approval; unanimous with one abstention,
1/25l08
Zoning Committee approval; vote 6-0-1, 1/17/08
i have confirmed this date with Councilmember Narris. My understanding is that you will publish
notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. If you have any questions, please contact
me at 651-266-9086 or tom.beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us.
Sincerety,
� +����
Tom Beach
Zoning
cc: File #00-140458
Cauncitmember Harris
•
H��COMMON�S�te PIan1S
AA-ADA-EHO Employer
NOTICE OF PUBLiC �+�AR�
The Saint Pavi City CoUncil will- con-
duct a public hear'uig on Wednesday,-Feb-
ruary 20. 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, Third F7oor City
Hall/Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg Boule-
vard, St. Pau1, MI3, to consida the appeal
of Hal Clapp and James Ferstle to a deci-
sion of rhe Planning Commission approu-
ing a site plan for a new commertial devel-
opment that includes a T7ader Joes gro-
cery store at 1094 Randolph Averiue
(souYheast comer at Lexington Pazkway).
[ZF 08-0217041 -
Dated: February 5, 2008
MARY ERICKSON -
Assistant City Covncil Secretary
[February 71
____= ST. PAUL LEGAL LEDGER =_�____
22158794
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor
Fabmazy 12, 2008
�
•
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Reseazch O�ce
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
RE: Trader Joe's Site Plan Appeal (File 08-021704)
Deaz Ms. Erickson:
DEPARTMENTOFSAFETYAND INSPECTIONS ,,yy
Bob Kusler, Director fi y��� /I
(/ V
COMMERCEBUILDWG Te7ephone: 651-266-9090
8 Fourth Street Fast, Suite 200 FacrimiZe: 651-166-9124
St Pau1, Minnesota 55101-1024 Web: www sroc..ul�. ov/dsi
HEARING DATE: Febmary 20, 2008, 530 pm. at City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the site plan for a
new commercial development that includes a Trader Joe's grocery store.
APPEAL FILED BY: Hal Clapp and James Ferstle
PLANNING COMIVIISSION DECISION: Approve with condifions (Unanimous with one abstention)
January 25, 2008
ZONING CONiMIT'TEE RECOMMENDATION: Approve with condirions (6-0-1) January 17,
2008
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions
SUPPORT: 5 people spoke in support and 7 letter were received in support
OPPOSITION: 7 people spoke and 8 letters were received in opposirion
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
• A copy of the site plan is included in ffie packet.
• The site plan shows two new commercial buildings. The north building on Randolph will be one-
story with 14,420 squaze feet of floor azea. It is intended to be used for a grocery store and a
small liquor store. The south building on Lelcington will be one-story with 5,658 square feet of
floor azea. It is intended for multiple tenants, most likely a coffee shop and retail. -
• There will be 103 pazking spaces. Pazking will be provided under the north building (56 spaces)
and in two surface parldng lots (47 spaces). The zoning code requires a minimum of 85 pazking
spaces.
• There will be two driveways for the development: one on Le�ngton and one on Juno.
Lexington Pazkway will be widened at the developer's expense so that an additional hun lane can
be added. The developer will also pay for lraffic signal modificarions at Le�ngton and Randolph
and lengthening the left hun lane on westbound Randolph at Leicington
• There will be a loading dock large enough to accommodate semi-trailer hucks at the southeast
(back) corner of the north (Trader Joe's) building. The south building will not have a loading
dock.
• There will be a plaza at the northwest corner of the site and additional landscaping around the
edge of the site.
ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL
Impact on residences on the south side of Juno and measures to mitigate
The appeals states that additionai improvements should have been required to mifigate the impact of the
development on the residences on the south side of Juno.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
❑
The Planning Commission required that the developer make the following improvements to Tuno:
• Pa�e the street and build concrete curbs on both sides of the street and provide a curb bump out
on the south side of Juno at the intersection with Le�ngton to narrow tke width of tke street.
• Curve the driveway from Juno into the site m;nim;�e glaze from headlights to the Juno residences.
• Prohibit on-street pazldng on the north side of Juno and building pazldng bays on the south side.
• Add a sidewalk on the north side of 7uno as faz east as the driveway into the site. Add a public
sidewalk on the south side if the residents request one.
• If the Juno residents request it, change the design of Juno east of the driveway into the
development so that it is narrower and resembles a driveway and vacate Juno if this makes sense.
(However, a width oF 20' would have to be maintained for emergency access.)
• Require the developer to plow 7uno.
• Build an 8' high masonry wall along the south edge of the pazldng lot and provide additional
screening with landscapmg, such as evergreen trees. Incorporate rain gazdens or dry swales into
the design to improve water quality where this is feasible.
• Require the street improvements be done in 2008 to coordinate with the development. The City
will pay for the reconshvcfion of the street under its RSVP Assessment Policy. The Developer
has agreed to pick up 100% of the assessable portion of all properkies fronting Juno and 100°/a of
all other costs for the improvements listed above.
The appeal askr that the following improvements be required:
• Vacate the eastem 40' of 7uno Avenae and deeding the property to properry owners at 1086 7uuo
Avenue (city w� ve easement w ere nee e or s ee e a er sffeet iH3p . —
street would be narrowed creating a private drive. City staff has suggested that residents maintain the
rain gazden and as part of the property transfer we would agree to this.
• Developer to specify plant species to be used in rain gazden
• Extend sound barrier along the eastem end of 7uno (same material and height as that on the north) ,
screen same with Arborvitae 5' mrnimum height
• Establish Permit Pazldng only on the south side of Juno (developer/owner of properry on north side of
Juao to pay for annual pemut) .
• Since residents of Juno will be using the reaz alley for pazking and backyazds for entertaining, the
alley should be repaved and beautified through laudscaping and rain gardens
Issues relate to Parks and Lexington Parkway
The site is located on Lexington Pazkway and it is therefore subject to the City's rules dealing with
development on Pazkways as well as the Citywide requirements for Pazkland dedication for new
developments. The appeal states these requirements have not been met:
• Parks Commission Review The site plan should have been acted on by the Pazks Commission.
• Parkland Diversion Lercington Pazkway would be widened by 6' to accommodate an exira lane
of traffic. As a result, the plan does not meet the citywide requirement `°no net loss" for pazkland
• Parkland Dedication The amount of land (or money in lieu of land) required for tlie project is
not adequate.
Sincerely,
��
Tom Beach
DSI Zoning
ATTACHN�NTS
1 Appeal fomis
5 Planning Commission resolution, Zoning Committee Minutes and Staff Report
19 Letters in support and opposition
30 Site plan, landscape plan, illustrations and location map
.
�
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Department of Safety and Inspecfions
Commerce Building
8 Fourth St E, Suife 200
Saint Paul, MN 55909
631-266-9008
APPLICANT
Address1086 Juno Avenue
�
PROPERTY
LOCATION
City St. Paul Zip 55116 Daytime phone 612.964.8737 Icell)
Name: Jim Ferstle
Address: 538 Lexinpton Parkwav South
City St. Paui Zip 55116 Daytime phone 651.699.6443
Name of owner (if different)
bordered bv Juno Avenue and I 35E
Legal description:
(attach additional sheet if
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
Board of Zoning Appeals City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 61, Section 702, Paragraph A of the Zoning Code, to appeal a
decision made by the Planninp Commission
on Januarv 25, 2008. File number 07-195-250.
(date of
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit,
decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by
ie Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
We feel that some of the concsrns we have while discussed and agreed to in concept by city staff and
our council representative need to be documented on the site plan and receive formal city council
approvai. Other issues such as landscaping street lighting etc. we feel confident can be addressed in
other stages with city staff. (see accompanying site plan for details to appeals 1-5)
1. Vacating the eastern 40' of Juno Avenue and deeding the property to property owners at 1086
Juno Avenue (city would have easement where needed for street drain etc.) after street
improvements. The street would be narrowed creating a private drive. City staff have suggested
that residents maintain the rain garden and as part of the property transfer we would agree to
this.
2. Developer to specify plant species to be used in rain garden
3. Extend sound barrier along the eastern end of Juno (same material and height as that on the
north) screen same with Arborvitae 5' minimum height
4. Permit Parking only on the south side of Juno (developer/owner of property on north side of Juno
to pay for annual permit)
5. Since residents of Juno wiil be using the rear afley for parking and backyards for entertaining city
staff has suggested and we agree that the alley should be enhanced we would request it be
repaved and beautified tfirough landscaping and rain gardens
Appeal # 6 to be addressed by Jim Ferstle
been answered by staff, city officials or the Planning Commission. These include;
• No review by the Parks Commission
• The "no net loss" ordinance for parkland
• Proper set-aside for buildings constructed next to parkland/parkway
additiona/ sheet rf
ApplicanYs signature Date City agent
Applicant's signature Date City agent
�
U
0
h:! .__ ... . ...._ _ . _ _
;2Y ; ''ri
:"' t`�.� . MNN
d t
,� � ENIRNICE
� �,� }
ryi � _ ��
� � tl
;} ' "_'a ___ _" _ __ _
II ry'. :...':: :
� II °�.L:•
1 � � •g �
��T� .+ z ., �: i � � �
' ° 08 a=� �
.,,� f ': � I �� _ " '�
�`_1 I caxi � �.?: a�c 9ws
� ' � �� W i
��; � I 0 I - � ¢ � B
;'';' �'i - I GROCERY MqRKET
" ? = 14.420 SF '
}i = '
�m.wessos-xm.asr¢ov
: �:_' _ ^-:
i .:i = I S s. �e' , 2Y tg t^:
::t =_ o ¢ � � g �` �
� -� _ 6 TRWWGKFLL P' _S
i .. ' �i ' _ rmx xrnun � �
" � � e wnaao au�
,, .� � wi¢ � �'
� _ ��
� uxomczwxo �� xaws �amixc
c
� y ��;� � uwr sroRnr� p� �wmr 0°° '
.,- ,.. ,
r-; s
:. . . . �
`_'' ., a -- ------------ — _ . _ _ '
`:.' s [wsm+s ax -' `
�"? �:� , e Fr m eE '� -
>«� � V4CFiE0 - 51FP � 1 § '� .`°� P:
M�: r�' .�� a .� . •RAS
•£ �5 { YL.� Rf ��`- � R2� 8 ���� ����� _� �Ki
i +:` a • .
� :'. � i • • � � . _ . • �'1
% i. ' l�' 1i' ` Z T ° ` lOP 4GN BlE ARq01Y R•
• °rn' n.
, ..�e a� a� sw-mz- .. +
QONGP[lE ' La g��yq_E 1XREE fi StFp$ RETNNWG Wqly 3 v
' , c �j '"� O� 0.QN HWPS WI RNLS HOTH R � 'MM 9ECCW.IN[ }r .
) ,� t i` � ��. I'� I � SO 5 oFD GIIMD ftuL e AILET i0 BE -_
' r ' 'rt ►<D2 0' WNQVEIE Ynlil ' " .
1 v Rf3� � 4 �Km RAOIiNi XEpT N Mt�q �BAtl( FOR
: i � , e � 5l0 EYJSIMG -'_
0.6' "' �MWOtFENCE _a_
ry `' a _ I i0 PENNN
�'�'� I ? COFFEE SHOP
n"�€ 7� 2,137 SF - � rnoouu¢
. : : �y ' I k cOrvcGEIE 9LOC2
r .+J � a �, { i }1Y 6' IDn2 rtn p5 a� u mnGtz ' 18� 22� 2Q p' I RETAINING WdLL
- - J c `c .� ��.`; 3 I uc HC m` .8..
-,•. !, � � � ' 'i - 'CO I x -r n
�,{�. �',' - 5E i a - � n .. " -
L• 8 �_ �'i¢ w.
.s., 56 HC I 6 5 3 �{ s'eua
r : y R TAIL I . .. �Nwn'co
.�4 u K rcx¢
\ �.;t i n � 3,521 SF P ¢ S '.
;� �;s _ Im.Rau53�16IDV6 ��'
.��'� ,�. _ -
: : � � + - PRpGOSEp
I� WQIT OF WAY
:
.: . i _ ,
i�"�k `L J � _ � - ..
.' :s '`; .�' _, __ �' '°___ _"_ oarswa���� ���
�� 5 �� Rs W 4 _ 9p *-�i
(, � 5 9' 8' 3" 5. 3 r��° � 8v
� :: if ��"',
x �
� _ � aaa : q : wvn caxocH r'r':
--�m, x _
i Rzo' , � : ( J � � � �v� � �
� , , � +� �,�� y
I PEDESIRIFN HAW. � � ��r'�` ��
:. PER LIIY ; � j C��
j � sra+oueos . s R3 B N N%- _ F � J�
� _ -.� JUNQ AVENUE * "�� ,
ez • M y J �� axxn asa
Rd � R} �_kkOSIIRE e
r'� 3
l � 4:� - � t �.- p�s���
� _ i T ;:. Y �ver5ree�s
� � � , :, . , .���m<< �
� � ..._ �}M: , ��
� - �t�� � I
- E:�M �w�,�
� �
� I �
, � �,�
� I � ,..... .. i e ��� ��
` A' � I � � � , � i � r ��
11 V ��
1� - �L i-� �l � �� i rv� P��1�e�n�s� �
3 --
s��r
l e��' : I
�a���;
[�';�,..:�r��€rr����tF ���r�.�
�-.. <� �� , . , ,
a . . �
��F �
.. #p .� . . s i .. r � �. - � ��
F tk' �t
i3:�' � }= -
13aytimephone �QS���f�~��
�8[tt8 4� t3Y7(f£i" �i� �
PEi�3���$1t J AC3SICESS T'�CC3� ir
LC?C��'fiQ� � Lega1 descriptinn;
�
:i, ���'�. • 'i-� .a l �.sa �s
� Boaicl cat Zortiog Appea�s � Grtyc Coustat
t�r�d�r'th� psovisi4ns c�f �i�apter �1, �itm .�1�Pacagfaph � o# �ie Zi�n"tng Ge�ie, � appeat a decesion
rnadekayfFte ���t�� �.�8s2�i�Sstl�
c+rt t.� *} �) ZQi3� �ii�ttuni�aer'.�� 1�5��-�i
t; ��.S �t3F� : F�plaifs why yau feelt�ie€e has 4een�an e�rin a�yx�u6rsment, P�rnit.
t�eci�,o� refusat maci� hy a� ai#r�sic�raiive of�iaat �� erXOr in #aCt, pro��ediar� or finc#ittg r�ade bp the
�artf ctF�t�ing s or#he 3'laatni�g C4mrriissian; ��{�;�� ��-� �t�'i�e�r s
���'� � �R���s� t r.�.�f�����- ����� ���L.�1� ��-�
� r�t'.r t��T" '��'�t1 ��'�rz� r� #3 � s;',3�-p.� �> � t��'� cr,� L� t�fz �6e:
�'�.�'t1tR1t�� �c:�nt� SSfa�d. 1 tl�S'� j�tk:t-�Ir3,�'s` N� ;`� �y �
��IC� Go��a�SS���1� � � ��z`,LQs,s � �s�r�d•r�G�' 7�r�� � ',�
�� ��o�i��?- 5�r �`rt�� F�r� Btir�t���`s c���sz���.rz:.�e� �1�:xr- �x,
�. �'���t�������.
(atfscn addtlu7na! sf�etif necessaryl
l�p�icarrt"ssigna#ure.�„��� ������ 47�fe �-'�:� � Gi#yagent �
� � �
�
, City of Saint Paul bg ��� �
Planning Commission Resolution
File Number os-os
II , . „•
VJHEREAS, Randolph Hill LLC, File # 07 195250, has submitted a site pian for review under the
provisions of Sec. 61.400 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the establishment of a new commercial
development on property located at property address 1094 Randolph Ave , legally described as Howazd
Greene Second Addition Lot 5; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Plauning Commission held a public hearing on 1117/08 at
which all persons present were given an oppornuiity to be heazd pursuant to said application in
accordance with the requirements of §61.303 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WI�REAS, the Saint Paul Plaiming Comtnission, based on the euidence presented to its Zoning
Coznmittee 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:
The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the
city.
�
The site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• The Land Use Plan supports a compatible m'vY of land uses in traditional neighborhoods
(Policy 5.2.1).
• The District IS Highland ParkNeighborhood Plan (adopted by the City Council on July 18,
2007) inciudes in its vision statement: provide services that cont�ibute to neighborhood self-
suff ciency while improving the District's position in the regional economy. The plan also
supports use of TN urban design standards in recommendations throughout the plan.
2. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The proposed commercial use is not permitted on the portions of the site that are zoned
residential and so the applicant is in the process of rezoning the properky to TN2. The Plazuiing
Coxnmission recendy recommended approval to rezone the property to TN2. The City Council
will hold a public hearing on the rezoning on January 2, 2008.
The Planning Commission recently approved a Conditional Use Permit for this development to
allow a retail establishment of more than 10,000 sq. ft. in gross floor azea and V ariances of TN2
standards to allow a floor azea ratio less than 0.5, a maximum buiiding setback greater than 10
ft., and placement of parking in front of the building and occupying more than 50 % of the lot
frontage
n
L,
Moved by Morton
Seconded by
In Favor Unanimous (1 a F azicy)
Against
�
Case 07-224-335
Jattuary 25, 2008, Alanning Commission Resotution i�
Page 2
The site plan is cottsistent with all other zoning regulations and other applicable ordinances of
tfie City.
3. Freservation of unique geologic, geograph%c or historically sign�cant characteristics of the city
and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site does not contain any geologic, geographic or historically significant characteristics.
There was a gas station on the site in the past. A Phase 1 environxnental study was completed for
the site and the applicant did additional soil samples/testing on the gas station site. They indicate
that the site is "clean" with no contamination. MPCA indicates fuel storage tu�ks were removed
in the 1990s and the file has been closed to the satisfac6on of the MPCA�
4. Protection of adjacent and neaghboring properKes through reasonable provision for such
matters as strrfdce water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, lighf and air,
�eets"af-de � 'Sbl�oxing-I�l yses.
The site plan is designed to handle surface water drunage so that it will not impact the adjacent
properties. �
A brick wall and dense landscaping will be used along the south side to buffer the neighbors
across 7uno. Staff will work with the adjacent residents to refine the details of the landscaping as
well as the design and alignment of Juno.
5. The c�rrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to assure
abuttingproperty and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably aff'eeted.
A driveway for the development is proposed on the south side of the site on 7uno Avenue. The
traffic from tliis driveway will have an impact on the residents on the south side of Juno.
• Juno is a dead end�street and currently has very little traffic. It is an oiled sireet with no
curbs.
.
��
There aze four single-family houses on the south side of the street that would remain if the
proj ect is built. None of these houses has a driveway on Juno (except the east house which
has a short driveway that is used to store a boat).
The development will lead to a substantial increase in iraffic on Juno, especially during peak
hours. A traffic study prepazed for the developer by Alliant Engineering projects that during
the peak hour for traffic on weekdays (4:30-5 30 Pl� there will be 137 trips on 7uno. It also
projects that there will be a total of I000 hips a day on 7uno on weekdays and 1200 trips on
7uno on Sundays. (A caz coming to the site and then leaving counts as two trips. See the
attacfied traffic generation summary for a more defailed break down on traffic.)
It is not possible to eliminate or move the 7uno driveway. The site needs two driveways to
operate and Juno is the only place wfiere a second driveway can go. A second driveway
cannot go-on the north side of the site (on Randolph) beeause it would be too close to the 35
E entrance ramp. A second driveway cannot be added on Lexington because it would be too
close to the north driveway. .
Juno should be improved as a part of tius pmject to minrmi�� the impact of the increased
traffic, The following improvements aze needed and appropriate.
o The street shonld be paved aad concrete curbs provided on bottt sides.
�
�
�
Case 07-224-335
• January 25, 2008, Planning
Page 3
Commission Resolufion
�� � /
o A curb bump out should be included on the south side of Juno at the intersection with
Lexington to narrow the width of the street.
o The driveway from Juno into the site should be curved to m;n;mi�e glaze from headlights
to the Juno residences.
�
n
LJ
o On-s�eet parking should be prohibited on the north side of Juno. Parking bays should be
provided on the south side.
o A sidewallc should be added on the north side of 7uno as faz east as the driveway into the
sife. A public sidewalk should be added on the south side if the residents request one.
o In addition to the street improvements, an 8' high masonry wall should be built along the
south edge of the pazking lot on the properly line to act as a screen. The screening should
be reinforced by heavy landscaping, such as evergreen trees.
o Rain gazdens or dry swales can be incorporated into the design to nnprove water quality
if feasible.
o If the 3uno residents request it, it may be appropriate to change the design of Juno east of
the driveway into the development so that it is narrower and resembles a driveway.
However, a width of 20' would haue to be maintained for emergency access. Special
arrangements are needed to plow this part of the street since standard Public Works plows
can not do it and therefore the developer shotild be responsible for snow
plowing/removai. It may make sense to vacate this portion of 7uno if the two residents
directly affected want to and staff should explore this option with them.
o Before a final plan for improving Juno is approved, there should be a chance fot the Juno
residents to meet with staff and the developer to work out the details.
o These improvements would be made and in 2008 to coordinate with the development.
The City will pay for the reconstnxction of the street under its RSVP Assessment Policy.
The Developer has agreed to pick up 100% of the assessable portion of all properties
fronting Juno.
6. Creation of energy-conserving design through Zandscaping and location, orientation and
elevation of structures. _
The site plan is designed to encourage pedestrian.traffic which will help save energy by reducing
the number of caz trips.
Over half of the pazking spaces will be underground. This will reduce the amount of pavement
needed on the site compared to a typical development with a11 surface parking.
7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in
reiation to access streets, includzng traffic circudation features, the locations and design of
enirances and exits and parking areas within the site.
Increased traffic that would be generated by the development is a concem because the
intersection of Randolph and Le�rington is already congested at times. During peak traffic hours
the service level is curtently D with some individual lanes/movements experiencing lower
service.
Improvements aze needed to offset the increased traffic at the intersection and maintain current
levels of service. These improvements shouid be paid for by the developer. Public Works has
recommended that the foliowing improvements be required:
• Adjust the signal tuniug at the Lexington/Randolph intersection and other neatby
intersections within the netwark to optimize service.
7
Case 07-224-335
January 25, 2008, P(anning Commission Resolution
Page 4
• Widen Lexington Pazkway south of Randoiph by 6' to provide a separate right tum Iane Tfiis
can be done by moving the curb on the east side of Lexington in front of the development
and reducing the width of fhe boulevazd to 6' from fhe current width of 12'.
• Add a left turn signal for northbound traffic on Lexington
• Add a left turn Iane for south bound Le�cington �c entering the site. This tane would
extend from 50' north of the Lexington driveway all the way to 7uno.
• Increase the tength of the existing left turn lane on Randolph for westbound iraffic tuming
onto Lexington.
If these improvements are made, the traffic study estimates that the existing levels of service will
be maintained.
8. The satisfactosy availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, includang solutions to
any drainage problems in the area of the developmeret.
•,
. u - -� � . � � . . �- . � • �- �- - . .� . � �• .
��.. �..� - - - -- -- -
- - -- -- - -- - - - ----_- - _ ..,,,
�. ��� � .� � �. - � . �- �. �. � -.� . . . � �� .' �- -
The plans for sewers and stormwaYer drainage need approval from the following: •
• Saint Paul PubZic Works Public Works staff ha�e reviewed the plans and determined that
the plans meet their standazds subj ect to some minor revisions.
• Capitol Region Watershed The Watershed has strict standazds regulating the quality of
stormwater leaving the site. The underground storage pipes and other improvements shown
on the plan aze intended to allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground and meet the
Watershed's standards
• MnDOT The plau shows a sewer that would connection to a MnDOT sewer associated with
35E. A permit from MnDOT is required for this.
9. Sufficient 1"andscapin& fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The site will be landscaped. Additional landscaping and a masonry wall £or screening will be
provided along the south edge of the site to buffer the proj ect and its pazking lot from the four
single-family houses across the street.
The development will provide 103 pazking spaces (18 more spaces than required by zoning). 56
of the pazking spaces will be under the north building and the remaining 47 spaces will be in two
sutface pazldng lots.
10. Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabidiiies Act
(ADA), including parking spaces, passenger Zoading zones and accessible routes.
The plan is consistent with the provision of the ADA for accessibility. •
11. Provfszon for erosion and sediment control as spec�ed in the ' Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Controt Handbook"
The site plan meets these standards. Erosion and sediment control has been reviewed by City
staff and it will atso be reviewed the Capitol Region Watershed as a part of their permit process.
�
� Case 07-224-335
January 25, 2008,
Page 5
�
n
LJ
Planning Commission Resoiution
OS-d��
NOW, TT�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Platming Commission, under the authority
of the City's Legislative Code, that the application of Stuart Simek for a site plan review to
at 1080 Randolph Ave is hereby approved subject to the following condifions:
The developer wiU pay for the cost of improvements recommended by Public Works to ttritigate
the impact of increased traffic that will be generated by the development:
• Adjust the signal timing at the LexingtonlRandolph intersection and other nearby
intersections withiu the network to optanize service.
o Widen Lexington Parkway south of Randolph by 6' to provide a separate right turn Iane
This can be done by moving the curb on the east side of Lexington in front of the
development and reducing the width of the boulevazd to 6' from the current width of 12'.
• Add a left turn signal for northbound traffic on Lexington
• Add a le$ tum lane for south bound Le�ngton traffic entering the site. This lane would
extend from 50' north of the Lexingto� driveway all the way to Juno.
• Increase the length of the existing left tum lane on Randolph for westbound traffic turning
onto Lexington.
2. The developer must make improvements to Juno Street to mitigate the impact of the
development on the residences on the south side of Juno as described in Finding 5. The
developer will be responsible for all the costs for these improvements aUove the City's
contribution under the RSVP project. The developer will also be responsilile for snow
plowing/removal on 7uno since City equipment is not suited for operating on Juno based on #he
street design in the site p1an.
3. The plan for water quality must be approved by the Capitol Region Watershed.
4. A pernut must be approved by MnDOT to connect their storm sewer in 35E.
5. Final details of the site plan, including stormwater drainage, landscaping and lighting, must
receive approval from City staff:
The landscaping plan must be revised to provide additional green space along Randolph. To
accommodate this, the north facade of the north building must be pulled back 4-6' from the
Randolph property line and an easement provided for the landscaping and/oz public sidewalk.
6. The Juno facade of the south building must include enhancements to add visual interest such as
windows or azchitectural elements to make it consistent with city wide design standazds that
prohibit blank wa11s facing the street in pedestrian oriented areas.
7. Parking lot laghting must be turned off when the businesses are not open except for minor
lighting if necessary for security. This reshiction does not apply to lighting for the building.
�
�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
PRESENT: Alton, Donneily-Cohen, Faricy, Johnson, Kramer, Morton and Rosemark
EXCUSED: Gordon
STAFF: Tom Beach, Patricia James, Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenso� and Peter Wamer
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton.
Randolph Hill, LLC — 07-195-250 — Site plan review for a new rental development.
Two buildings are proposed: a 14,000 foot grocery store and 5,400 square foot
commercial building.
Tom Beach presencea me s�au ,o � rv.... .....��.•,.---------- —..
He also stated there were seven letters in support and eight letters in opposition and District 15 did not
comment on the site plan. The traffic impact study concluded that the development would generate 3000
trips on a weekday and up to 3700 trips on the weekends. •
Stuart Simek, the applicant, stated he lives rivo blocks from the site. The site plan has gone through
numerous changes based on input from neighbors, city stafF, Highland District Council, CiTy Council, etc.
The site is a gateway to the neighborhood and the corner deserves a high quality development. He said
that the City required a traffic impact study (TIS). He went on to describe the process and stated that real
tr�c data from other Trader Joe's stores was used. He went on to compare Trader Joes to the other
stores in the neighborhood in regards to pazking and the floor area ratio of the store. They acquired two-
thirds of signatures in the surrounding neighborhood in support of the rezoning for the development.
Lee Sepping, Collaborative Design Group, explained the design and site planning elements and how they
conform to the TN design guidelines. He also focused on the changes they made in response to input
from city staff, neighborhood and Juno neighborhood including the privacy and redesigning of Juno
Avenue, realigned sidewalk for landscaping, rain gazden, gazden brick wall, windows, ligh6ng, pedestrian
access, scale of buildings and how it relates to the topography and activity of the neighborhood.
Bill Foussazd, representative of the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the proposed
retail development and stated the development is consistent with the Chamber's Economic Development
principles.
Eric Anderson, 1048 St. Paul Ave., stated Stuart Simek would do everything he said he would do. He
also stated there would always be concems pertaining to traffic and he was in support of Trader Joes. He
also be(ieves competirion improves a neighborhood and draws in more development.
Paula Meragen,1892 Goodrich Ave., stated this project evolved and improved as aresult of public process
and she supported the site plan and implied the developer has gone above and beyond the call of duty. �
7ohn Krenick, 1270 Cleveland Ave. S., was in support of the project and was impressed with the
jo
�
0$����
File # 07-195-250
January 17, 2007 Zoning Committee Minutes
Page 2 af 3
devetoper and how they worked with the city and neighborhood.
Tom Kiefer, 535 S. Le�ngton Ave., complimented Stuart Simik on how he kept the neighbors informed
and was in support of the development. He also explained the City of St. Paul should be proud of the
improvements that will be implemented on that comer.
Nanette Echols, 1256 James Ave., stated she was in opposition ofthe development because ofthe
location. She also had concems pertaining to trafFic, and stated there were seven grocery stores in a two
mile radius. These stores contribute to the schools and events in the neighborhood and she has concerns
about those businesses going out of business.
Hal Ciapp, 1086 Juno Ave., stated they were offered slightly above tax assessed value and then slightly
more. City staff have been responsive but all issues were not solved. He requested a lay over to iron out
the rest of the issues. (See Hal Clapp Attachment).
Jim Firstale, 539 Lexington Parkway, stated he had concerns pertaining to the impact of tra�c to
Lexington Parkway and the neighborhood. He also stated there were critical issues that needed to be
addressed including emergency vehicles.
� Ed Seniger, 1402 Place Ave., was in opposition because of all the variances and wanted the zoning intent
to stay intact and reiterated the traffic concerns.
Tony LeMay, 5088 3uno Ave., thanked city staff for meeting with him and working with the 3uno
residents. He also stated he agreed with all the speakers in opposition and stated he was hoping for the
best and requested a lay over to address additional issues.
Laura Wallace, 1102 James Ave., reiterated traffic concerns, and stated the site is not appropriate for a�
store of this magnitude and believes it doesn't fit a traditional neighborhood.
Lori Watson, 1086 Juno Ave., was in opposition because she believes it will devalue the property in the
neighborhood. She would like an opportunity to work out issues before the site plan passed.
Stuart Simek, applicant, stated he appreciated the process they went through and said they worked with
the city and neighborhood and did as much as they could to please as many people as possible. He
touched on the income that it would bring to the neighborhood and City and stated notices regarding the
development were in the Highland Villager, Star Tribune, etc. The densiTy is about one-half of what
could go on that site. Mr, Simek deferred to the City Engineer regarding the traffic. Most of the
neighbors have been willing sellers and they never said they needed the homes or land. A delay woutd
not appease anyone and he supports the staff recommendations and conditions.
The public hearing was closed.
• Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen moved to approve the site plan with the conditions in the staff report with
a change to condition number one to make it clear that the developer wil! pay for the cost of
improvements
t�
�
File # 07-195-250
January 17, 2007 Zoning Committee Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
John Maczko, City Engineer, stated Public Works did a thorough review of the traffic in the area and the
impact that Yhe proposed development would have. He pointed out thaz the previous use of the proper[y
as a gas station generated a lot of traffic. He also explained how emergency vehicles will be
accommodated. He talked about levels of service and how Juno would fit in with the project.
After further discussion, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1 with Commissioner Fazicy abstaining.
Adopted
Drafted by:
Recording Secretary
Yeas - 6 Nays - 0 Abstained -1
Submitted by:
Tom Beach Gladys
Zoning Section Chair
b y : ,�_
�
•
/Z
•
L�IV-IfVC� C.U11iliVlf 1 1 tt � f AF� ��f C��� �'�"� �
F1LE # 07-195250
.�
•
�
'1. APPCiCANT: ,Randolph Hill LLC HEARING DATE: 1i17/08
2. . TYP€ OF :APPLlCAT10Nc Site Plan Review "
_ - t
3. LOCATION: 1080 Randolph AVenue (southeast corner at Lex'in_g#on Parkway}
4 PIN=&:LE�AL DESCRIPTiON: 112823320D81 Howard Greene-Second Addition Lots 7 8 And
6ot ��Bik 1 -.
5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 15
6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.402.c
7. �TAFF REPQRT DATE: 12/12/07
PRESENT ZONING: RM2 and R4 ,
(Application tb rezone to TN2 is pending)
BY: Tom Beach
8. DA7E RECEIVED: 11/7/07 DEADLIME FOR AGTION: 3(6/08 (Staff extended the
deadline to 120 days.)
A. PURPOSE: Site plan review for a new commercial development.
B. RROJECT DESCRIPT(ON: The site plan calis for removing the existing commercial building
and housing on fhe block and replacing it with two new commercial buitdings and parking.
• The north buildirig on Randolph will be one-story with 14,420. square feet of floor ai It is
intended to be used for a grocery store and a small liquor store.
� The south bUilding on Lexington wiil be one-story with 5,6,58 square feet of "floor area. It is
intended for multipfe tenants, most fikely a coffee shop and retail.
� Both buildings tiave windows and doors facing the adjacent street.
• There`wiil be 103 parking spaces. Parking will be provided under the north building (56
spaces)-and in two surface parking lots (47 spaces). The zoning code requires a minimum
of 85 parking spaces.
►=There`will be two driveways for the development.` one on Lexington and<one on Juno.
Lexington Parkway wili be widened at the developer's expense so that an additional tum
larie can be added. 7he developer will also pay for traffic signal modifications at Lexinqton
and Randolph and lengthening the Istt tum lane on westbound Raridolph at Lexington
• Ttiere will be a loading dock large enough to accommodate semi-traifer trucks at fhe
souEheast (back) corner of the north buiiding. Tk�e site plan has been laid out so that
d�livery trucks would use Lexington and vrould not use Juno. The south building will not
fiave a loading dock_
� There will be a plaza.afthe northwest corner of the site and additiona! landscaping around
tiie edge of site.
C. AARCEL SIZE: 55,186 sq, ft. (1.27 acresj Parcel has frontage of 198 ft. on Randolph, 290 ft.
on Lexingfon, and 183 ft. on .luno.,
D: . E3CIST(NG LAND_USE; Mix of singte-family and multipie-familX residential and vacant
� cortt}nercial property.
}3
E. JI.IttttVUtVUftVt� �.PIIVL� i1Jt: � . . . - . �
=�lo�th: Mixed residentiai/commercial building and fow density residential (RM2)
EasE: I-35E
�outh`. Single family residential (F22)
Uyest` ivlu�tiple family_residential (RM2, RM3) -
F_ �ONI�IGCODE CITATION: Section 61.402.c regui�tes sife plan review
G. - HIST4RY: In 9985 a variance application was submitted to the 8ZA to vary tfie.lot area
requirements for a multi-family structure (BZA#9781 �. -
["n-1992 a variance application was submitted to permit one more room than was altowed under
the code {ZF#92121). _
In 1997 there was an application fnr an enlargement of a noriconforming use to aliowr a coffee
kiosk on site, which was approved (ZF#97-257). .
In"2007 the Planning Commission approved a Condifianal.Use Permit and Varianc�s for this
'project on a dote of 13-1. The Pianning Comm'ission also recommended approval for rezoning
�hep�operly from R4 and RM2 to TN2. The City Councit approvsd rezoning the propert� to
TN2on January 9, 2008.
H. Dl$"fRICT COUNGIL RECOMMENDATION: The Highland Community Counci� has not
coinmented speciftcafly on the sife plan. Howeve�, in November 2006 the Highland District
, Council Communify Development Cnmmittee recommended tha# the soufhe�-po�tior�-of.the-- ----- ---
prope,rfy nof be rezoneci fo TN2 "unless fhe devetopers woefc wifh fhe adjoinmg properfy owners .
on the south side of Juno Avenue to make aceommodations io find a vvorkable solufwn for
these residents " �
FINDINGS; Section 61.402(c) of the Zoning Code says that in `brder to approve the site plan,
the planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with" the
findfngs listed below. •
1. The city's adopfed comprehensive plan and deve/opmenf or project plans for slib,areas af
ft�e city.
The site ptan is co�sistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
r.Th.e Land Use Pfan supports a compafible mix of land uses in traditional neighborhoods
(Poiiey 5.2.1}.
• The Districf 15 Highland Park Neighborhood �lan (adopted by the Cify Couneil on July
18, 2007) includes in its vision stateme�t: provide services fhaf confribute to
neig/�borhood self-su�ciency whi/e improving the Disfncf's posifion in the regiona!
eeonomy. The plan also supports use of 7N urban design sfandards i�
Yecommendations throughout the plan.
2. Applica6le ordinances of fhe Cify of Sainf Paul.
The property has been rezoned to TN2 andti�e-prspns�d Eommercial uses are permitted by
TN2zoning. .
The Planning Comrriission recently approved a Condifionai Use Permif for fhis development •
to allow a retail esfablishment of more than 10,000 sq: ft. in gross floor area and Variances
af TN2 standards to ailow a floor area retio less than 0.5, a maximum building setback
greater than 10 ft_, and {��ement of parking in front of the building and occupying more
1�
� than 50 °la of the lot frontage
og-�-��
TFtie site plan is consistent with afl other zoning regulations and other applicable ordinances
of t'tie City. - .
3._ Pxeservation, of unrgue geologic; geographic or hrsforically significant characteristics of the
cit"y and environmen#ally sensifive areas.
� TFie site does'not contain any geologic, geographic or historically significant characteristics.
Theie was a gas station on the site in the past. A Phase 1 enuironmental sfudy was
cojnpleted for the site and the appiicant did additional soil samples/testing: on the gas
sEation site. They indicate fhat the site is "dean" with no contamination. MPCA indicates
fuetstorage tanks were removed in the 1990s and the file has been closed to the
safisfact+on of the MPCA. ,
4. Profeefion of adjacent and neighboring properfies fhrough reasonable provision for such
mstters assurface water drainage, sound and sight 6uffers, preservation of views light and=
- air, and those aspecfs of design which may h8ve subsfantial effecfs on neighboring fand .�
'uses.
The site pian is designed to handle surface water drainage so that it will not impact the
adjacent properties. ,
------- - _... -- -------_.:.__._. ------- --�----------._=..._ - _ ....- -� --
� A bricR wall and dense landscaping will be used along the south side to buffer the
neighbors across Juno.
The main impact on the adjacent properties will be increased traffic. Traific is discussed in
� items 5 and 7 below.
5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilifiss of the proposed developmenf in order to
assure abufting properfy and/or ifs occupants will not be unreasonab(y affecfed.
A driveway for the development is proposed on the south side of the site on Juno Avenue.
Tfie tra�c from this driveway will have an impact on the residents on the south side of
Juno.
• Juno is a dead end street and currently has very little tra�c., It is an oiled street witli no
curbs. �
� �= There are four singie-famity houses on the south side of the street that woutd remain if
the project is built. Nnne of these houses has a driveway on Juno (except the east
house which has a short driveway that is used to store a boat).
.- The development wili lead to a substantial increa5e in traffic on Juno, especially during
peak hours. A trafitic study prepared for the developer by Alliant Engineering projects
that during the peak hour for traffic on weekdays (4:30-530 PM) there wili_be 137 trips
on Juno. It also projects that there will tie a tofal of 1000 trips a day on Juno on
weekdays and 1200 trips on Juno on Sundays. (A car coming to the site and then
leaving counts as fwo trips. See the attached traffic generation summary for a more
, detailed break down on traffic.)
. .- It is not possible to eliminate or move the Juno driveway.- The site needs two driveways
tnaperate and duno is the oniy place where a second driveway can go. A second. �
driveway cannot go on the north side of the site (on Randolphj because it would be too
ctose to the 35 E enfrance ramp. A second driveway cannot be added on Lexington
because it would be too ciose to the north driveway.
.. Juno should be improved.as a part of this project to minimize the impact of the increased
/S
traffa Staff thinks that the foifowing improvements are needed and appropriate. .
(Fiowever, staff also thinks that befare a final plan for improving Juno is approved, there `
sfiould -be a chance foc the Juno residenfs Yo meet with staff and fhe developer tq work .
o�tfhe defails.) .
o: The"street shoufd be paved and concrete curbs provided on both sides.
o A curb bump out shouid be included 6n the south side of Juno at the intersection
=wifh Lezington to narrow the width of the street,
o The driveway from duno into the site shoufd be curved to minimize giare from
fieadiights to the Juno residences:
o Qn-street parking shquid be prohibited on the north side of Juno. Parking Iiays
shbuld be provided on the south side.
o A sidewa�k'should be added on the nortf� side of Juno as far east as the driveway -
'info the site. A public sidewalk should be added on the sauth side if the residenfs
request one.
o In addition to the sfreef improveme�fs, an 8' f�igh masonry wal( should. be built afong
the south edge of the"parking lot on the property line to act as a screen. The _
screening shouid be reinforceii by heavy landscaping, such as evergreen trees.
o Rain gardens or dry swales can be incorpora#ed into the design to improve water
quality if feasible. _
o If the Jurio residents request +t, it may be appropriate to change the design of Juno _
" driveway. (However, a width of 20' wo�(d have to be maintained for emergency -.
access.) Special. arrangemenfs may need to be made to plow this part of the street
---- ---s+aeestandaKd-Public Works plo�,vs eould noY maneuver_.It may make senset�—______._.__ _
vacate this pofion af Juno if the two residents directly affected want to. �
o These improvements wouid be made and in 2008 to coordinate wi�h the
clevelopment. The City will pay for the reconstruction of the s4reet under its RSVP
Assessmer�t Policy. The Developer has agreed to pick up 100°!0 of the assessable
, portion of aikproperties fronting Juno. '
6. Creafion of eriergy-eonserving design fhrough landscaping and Iocation, orienfation and
efevation of sfructures.
The si#e plan is designed fo encourage pedestrian traffic which will help save energy by
reducing the number of car trips.
OVer half of the parking spaces will be underground. This will reduce the amount o#
pavement needed on the site compared to a typical development witfi all surface parking.
7. Safefy and convenience of both vehicular and pedesfrian traffc both within fhe site and in
celation to access streets, inctuding traffic circulafion features, the locations and d�sign of
entranees ar�d exifs and parking areas whhin fhe sife.
increased traffic that would be generated by the deveiopment is a concem because the
infersection of Randolph and Lexingfon is a[ready congesfed at fjmes. DurCng peak fraffic
hours the service levei is currently D with some individual �anes`/movements ezperiencing
lower service.
linprovements are rreeded to af#set the increased traffic at the intersection and maintain •
current_levels of service. These improvements sMould be paid for by the developec Public
Works ha5 recommended that the following �provements be required:
.- Adjust the signal timing at the Lexington/Randofph infersection and ofher nearby
infersections withi� the neiwork to optimize service.
��
�
��i�'��
• Widen Lexington Parkway soufh of Randolph by 6' fo provide a separate right tuFn lane
This can be done i�y moving the curb on the east side o€ Lexington in front of the
deVelopment and reducing the width of the bou(evard fo 6' from the current.width of
12'_ _ .
•�Add a teft furn�signai for northbound traffic on Lexington
�: Adtl a 1eft turn.lane for soutti bound'Lexington fraffic entering the site. This lane would
exfend from 50' north of fhe Lexington driveway all the way to Jlino.
•;- - In_crease the tength 9f the existing .left tusn 4ane on Rando(ph for westbound traffid .
turning onfo Lexington.
ff these improvements are made, fhe traffic study estimates that the existing levels of
service wili be maintained. •
8. The satisfactory avai(a6ility and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including so/ut�ons
to any drainage p�oblems in the area of fhe development.
Stormwater currentiy drains towards the south o# the sife. The site plan calls for installing a
systerr� of catch basins and underground pipes to catch stormwater-anii temporasi{y store it
so fha# most of it can infiltrate into the_ground instead of draining off the site
The plans,for sewers and sEormwater drainage need approval from the following:
. Saint Pau! Public Works Public Warks sfaff have reviewed the plans and determined
_ that the plans meet their standards subject to some minor revisions.
-`"-- "-"""-� -- • - �"Ca ��ot Re r ri t�l/af�YSh'ed Utiat�rsi��e�t h�� strict standards re ulafin the uafi
� --.
P � J 9 �1 _ -- �
of stormwater Iea`ving tfis site. The underground storage pipes and other improvements
` shown on the plan are inter�ded ta al{ow stormwa�er to infil4rate into the ground and
meet the Watershed's standards
• MnDOT The plan shows a sewer that would connection to a INnDOT sewer
associated with 35E. A permi# from MnDOT is required for this_ -
9. Su�cienf landscaping, fences, waNs and parking necessary fo meef the at�ove objectrves.
The site will be landscaped. Additional landscaping and a masonry wall for screening wili
be provided along the sou#h edge ot the site to bufFer the project and its parking lot from_ the
four single-family houses across the street.
The development will provide 103 parking spaees (18 more spaces than required by
zoning). 56 of the parking spaces will be under the north bu�iding and the remaining 47
spaces will be in two surEace parking lots.
10. $ife accessibility in accordance w'�th the provisions of fhe Americans wifh Disabilifies Acf
(ADA), including parking spaces, passenger load�ng zones and accessible routes.
The plan is consistent with the pravision of the ADA for accessibi[ity.
11. Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion Sediment
and Confrol Handbook."
� The site plan wi{I,meet these standards. Erosion and sediirr�nt contsol has been reviewed
by City staff and it will aiso be reviewed the Capitol Region Watershe'd as a paft of their
permit process. _
J. S7AFF RECOMMERIDATION: ,
Based on fhe findings above, the stafE finds that the site_plan is cons'istent with all of the
�7
required findings and recommends approvai of the site pian Tor a new commercial deveiopmeni .
at.1080.Randofph Auenue, subje.ct to the following conditions:
1:_ The developer, at his experise, must make improvements recommend�d 6y-Public Works _
to mitigafe the impact of increased traffic that wiil be generated by the development:
• Aiijustthe signal fiming at the �.exingtonlRandolph intersection and other nearby .
inteisections within the network to optimize service.
�->. W iden Lexington Parkway south of. Randolph by 6' fo provide a separate right tum lane
Ttns can be dor�e by moving the curb on the east side of Lexington in front of the
developmertt and`reducing the width of the boulevard to 6' from the current width ofi
i2'.
•. Add a!eft Yurn signal for northbound traffic on Lexington . _
•.=_- -Add a left furn lane for sou#h bound Lexington tra�fic entering fhe site_ This lane would `
eztend from 50' north of the Lexingfon driveway all the way to Ju�o.
• Increase the length of the ex'isting left tum lane on Randoiph for westbound fraffic
tuming onto Lexington.
2. Ffie developer must make improvements to Juno Street to mitigate the impact of the
development on the residences on the south side of Juno as described in Finding 5.
3. The plari for water quaGty must be approved by the Capitol Region Watershed: �,: -
4_ /k`permit must be approved by MnDOT to connect their storm sewer in 35E.
�___`_-,.._... s= Fina►�de#aitsofthe site plan, irrctuding I�ndseaping a�d-tig�r4ing; tnus4---.�—._._
ceceive approval from City staff. - �
Attaehments
�, tetEers
��, Location map and aerial photo
8ite Pian
�, Bui(ding elevations
� �, f'hotos of surrounding area
�
� �
6�-�Ce?
�_ ` Dear Council Members,- 7anuary 9, 2008
Eollowing is testimony from a member of the Saint Paul Plauning Commission and a wall
zespecfed Sainf Paul ArchiYect familiar witk TNZ Zoning. They echo the senfiments of the 22Q
neighborhood residents who signeda petition over the past 15 hours expressing theit opposition
to the development and the dehimental effect a project of tFus size v,Fill ha�e on the neig�borhood
and tlie intusection of Lexington and Randolph • .
Ear eicamplethe two entrances expected to handIe up to 3704 daily trips only alloiv "stacidng" of.
two cars total while waiting to hun into the development. Peak periods accounting for 6 hours of
a weekday and 4 hours on the weekends will obviously be the wocst. During these times shoppers
wili be p'rone to bloeldng the southbound thru larie on Lexington while they wait for one of the
�vo spots to t�m; forcing traffic back ups and jams at the intersectiou. Those that do not will be
forced to coniinue past the development where there is no pazldng on the west side of Le7cington
forcing them to U Tum in the middle of Leungton to capture one of the few parldng spots in
front of the residences ou the east side of Le�ngton. Those unlucky enough to find pazking will
proceed north on Leacington to attempt to enter further eYacerbating the problem.
This intersecfion is alreadq congested just ask the Fire Fighters at Station #10, at 754 Randolph
Avenue who will tell you it is the worst they have to deal with and where response times average
over 7 minutes when the average is 3 minutes.
--------- - »,---�..�_----_ .__ ....__ .. .— - ---- - --
` ` Prom a personal perspective we the residents of Juno Avenue find it incomprehensible that the
ci13%would allow four homes to be demolished on a dead end street with minimal traffic, repiace
Yhem with a pazldng lot and then allow 1500 plus cars a day and 138 cars an hour to pass bq the
remaining homes all for the exclusive benefit of the city and the developer and to the detriment of
the residents in ternns of reduced property values, quality of life and safety.
As a privateiy held company that sells liquor Sa3nt Paul will never have more than one Trader
Joe's so why we have to ask do we choosa to locate it here af this intersection and one that no one
disputes is not the best location for a Trader Joe's.
As we have stated numerous times we want development on tlus comer and feel ."Saint Paul
should be open for business" but not so much so that wesacrifice the quality of life that makes us
Saint Paul and distinguishes us from tha suburbs and even Minneapolis, especially zvhen so many
other viable and more app'ropriate options exist for a Trader 7oe's type develogment. This site
could be a great example of a TN2/Transit Oriented Development that would inctude a housing
component, lower impact retail (and heaven forbid sustainable design features and a public art
component). Instead our "Gateway to Highland.Park" will be unsafe with traffic snazls at the
intersection, frustrated slioppers driving deep into the surrounding neighborhoods in search of
parking, and a suburban looidng Trader 7oes' aunouncing Saint Paul is open £or business �
anyone's bdsiness!
1Veighborfiood zesidents and consumers will ultimately wonder why a development generating
tliis volume of traffic and the resulting safety issues would haue heen placed in a location so ill
� equipped to deal with it and ultimately wonder whose decision it was to do so.
Thank you for your consitleration, �
�
�
FLa1-Clapp" 1086 Juno Avenue
�estunony from Bob Spaulding, IVLember Saint Paul Planni�g-Commission
T'RAFF'IC TIvBACTS
The most consistent theme we heazd from nearby neighbors is a concem about traffic impacts. _
�Yhat about p'edestrian safery? For years, ?his azea bore the.brunt of connecting Ayd Mill Road to
I-35E. Le�cington is designated a Pazkway in the Comprehensive Plan, and woutd be the only
ctear cammer"cial-st91e buildiag facing Le�agton Pazkway between I94 and West Seventh, And
since trucks aze disallowed on both I-35E and Lexington, how aze they to access the store?
After the developer tears down all the homes on the north side of Juno, how upset should
neighbors be that flien one of tlie two parldng lot entrances will now be there, on their cul-de-sac, -
1ikely adding hundreds or thousaads of trips a day to their front porch? I say they should be �
ineredibly upset - th� worsYpart of an illconceived proposal. I cannot in good faitli d�fend a vote
_ , _ - -------�- --- -- -
-_ __ - ---- -OTHEKSPI`ES -T=----------. .. __
Mare broad�y, there are several places in the City for Trader 7oe's to anchor mixed use projects
without tearing down homes. A cauple years ago; Trader Soe's was looldng at locating in the -
Emerald Gazdens along Uniaersity. Tlze store would be an ideal anchor for the neazby Victaria
Park or Schmidt Brewery developments on West Seven#h. These alternative locations aze on
prime commercial streets, are in areas our Comprehensive Plan has more cleazly fargeted for
mvied-use commercial nodes and Yhey aze on primary mass trausit comdors. Everything I heaz
suggests grocery stores aze' a key awenity to spur new housing dedelopment in this down matket.
&eing smaz t aUout these decisions is eminently pro-development. In better times we mig�t kave
had:the resources to be more proactive in courting these amenities.
The azclutectural response is the best part of the proposal, but the best azchiteciure would be
nnable on its own to rescue the developer's luniting oveiall coneept. In the long tezm, I don't
believe the issue is i#'the City will be getting Trader Joe's, it is a quesfion of form aad location,
and whether fhat serves or undermines the City's larger interests. With so many oYher better
locations, with a projeet that falls so short of our zoning eode, and impacts s€veral neighbois so
severely, why should we bend the rules so significanfly?
----_ _� -
i
�a
�
--- _.�-.._ .�... _
�
�g,�te7
Cornmenfs from Saint Paul Architect and TN2 Zoning expert
N1y main points for wliat they4e worth:
T. Tam familiar with T�I-2 zoning, as I"was part of a development team that used this fox
leithaanser Lofts at 800 E 3rdSt. N1y obse� vation is that TN2 was intended to solve a
problem such as the Leithauser site, but the Juno! Randolph site is an 3nappropriate use of
tliis zoning, as the infen# of this_pioposal is actually "large=scale or high infensity.
neighborhood commercial," not smaJl scale sucfi as what TN2 was intended for. As I
irite�ret TN2's underlying intent - it addresses a pariiculaz site for new appYopriate use
whose purpose cau operate in a way that DOES NOT DISTURB the surrounding
TItADITIOIVAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 'Z'o me this propo`sal would bring on a much higher
intensity of site use that falls outside of typical zoning site numerics such as building
azea, parlarig rafios, eta -
2. The whole nahue of the pheaomenon that is Trader 7oe's will overwhelzn this site and
sunounding neighborhood, but the zoning (zoning is always a necessary but unperfect
instruinent) is inadequate for tius unique development. The Saint Louis Puk T7 attracts
suburbanites from all directions to a site more ac�enable fhan Juno/Lex, but the 5t Louis
,Parl� site is still inadequate for the intensity of its TJ, and I assume SLPazk city planners
-tivouidnotdvthisproposaltodayinthesaule-way-ashovaithappened. . __..____;__-_—_
3. Saint Paul has so many residential neighborhoods whose small scale and certain
atneniries make them highly livable in the sense they would b,e impaired by anything that '
brings change of any real siguificance (evea those changes intended to sincerely impzove
the place) Tlus is what makes Saint Paul Saint Paul. In such a tight Imit community, the
"tight lautness" can be greatly adversely affected in a ripple fashion by the likely .
intensity that tlais development would bring.
4. So many hippy fashionistas feel a Trader 7oe's increases the life style we strive £or, so
Saint Paul deserves to provide a Trader 7oe's for people like them. However, in tnany
ways, there aze University Ave sitas that alx�ady have Uuilt-in infrastructure for high
impact development that would be the better location.
�
� ��
�'Pa�eicia James - Rezo
r .___. .
��na
' _ T'�s=.f . .
ba�e;
_ � _;_-
-Sub�ect:
����
d�=--�-�a s� - zs-�
�(Lexington site
113f08 3:39 AM `
Reioning o� Randolph/Lexington site
Pag� 1 ofZ
�
,,We alfel%iied the Sf. Paul.City Council's public heari�g (Jan: 3) oh the reiqnihq of_khe RandolphfLexington s�te to pav�:
-i�te tvay for a developmeitt incfud'tng a Trader Joe's store: some tnterestyig facts emerged.at thaf hearing thaF suggest
=that;t#i'is pYoposed development isnne gifthnrse we better (ookin the mouth. -
3. Fhe de"velopers, when.q��sfione
cortimercial �oning would fiacte reqi
noui requesting TN2 zoning and:a"s
la[qer-than-ailowed setbact�. Is thei
w{iict� �ecjuires preserving a specifi
;Eo�`use�any of#his ease�ent, are re
iutwhy they �are_seeking
a large setback; which d'
br a_conditionai use pem
ice o� pur-suing` 7N2 a wz
sement on eaeh side of !
i to purehas€squivalent
istead.Af comrne�ciai �oning, said thaE
it their purposes. It�stead, fhey aFe �
3.v3ria��e§,a�eof'whictiistopeRnitthem:a •
k around tfie Parklartd Preservatian Qrclinariee,
on� �P�ivaEs resid`ents on lexington; it they wish
nd for Ihe City.) '
,`�: Th�City Traffie Engineer testifred that'the ra er_ oe s s ore woutd�d ' , -_ `_;_
l'his' is,soon after Ayd Mill Road was opened fo eliTninate_ u§e of tfie intePsectiori by_ 16,90�°yehieles a,day. Qoes it mal�e •
sense �ow undo almost.a third nf the relief that Ayd MiN fias providedto Lezington Pl�y. residenfS?._ .
- __• ,_ ._ _--------� _---- --- __--___..-----°-�_.�.-- --- ....- - -°-- - -- _..,__ - ----- -- - - - —
-- --- ---._,<._.. __..._ :................... -._._......_�. __. _.... , .� _.. _,.... - --
3.;1/Urth due respecf to tha City TrafFc Enginee�, it�appeaFS fha#i�is r�porF c-oqsidered sucti factofs as fraffic �. .- f
i�w, roadbQd capacity, timing of ligtrEs, narrowing and addiflg af laries, etc $ut g�5oeed the hurnaFl fa_ cto s irivolyed in �
addi�g 300� uefiicaes perday to tire.lives of �eop(e m this�heavilyiesidentrat n�igtiborfiooct �/lJ� ot�rselves experienced -
� su„mm.�P of havirig Hamline Ave frajfic di�erted onto our st�eet (Albert St ) and_cen test�fy to the additianat nois�,
exfiaust, road.dust, and congastion this caused in our lives. Rathefthan sympathizing with ffie:smoot{rfalkirtg '
proponents of "keeping St. 2aul.op�r1 for 6usin�ss `� come �owri o�i tfie side of the young. mother whQ hues�bn
L.e�inyton and tesfified to the number of acciiients and sidewipes ttiat have direcffy impacted her life"in this already-
*° < - � -
h'sav�ty-traveled area. -. - �
f7ne,ne�rt.Gity Council membe� hit the nai•{ on khe fieadwhen fie q,uestioned fhe deg�ee of cqnfidence vwe can haVe in
ftje �ratfic Enginee�s anatysis of the sikua6Qh, A�ter a�a, tfiere rriust haVe been a fra�c study.done'prio�.fo the f#ie same
d'eVelopel locating the St. 4ouis Park l'rader Joe s` and fhaT has hzd.unfatunate re'spfts, Are traffic studi€s infattib#e?
Do t(�ey use realFsfic ass�mptions or refy fon heaviFy ot�'a deyelnpe�s predicf"rons?
_ , z
�,'TtSe developer praposes helping the traffie situa�ion 6y making it easier.�r�usfomers to ieave fiis site—adding a
right-lum lane Por N-bound Lexington fra#fic tuming ontq Randoiph as well as'a-le$=Yurn lane and arrow for i�-bound �
L"ezingfori traffic tur�ing onto i2andolph. Tfiis does=nott�ing fo address the problem"of traffic a�proachi � his site, from
ttie:bther three directi.ons: Specificatly, tra�fic comin_y.,off_.of! _35E has av� shor�leff-tttm lane on Randolph; on a .
hltt,-irwhere they must wait to enter texington', where they mus#•agaan wait fo make a teft fu�to enter'the site. There
irrost�e`tainly wi(1 be sp'i((over anfo Juno of thQSe'dnuers wfio despatr of turr�ing le$, info tf�e. Lexington enfrance. ,
tlnderstapdably, the resitients from duno Ave. who`tes#ified about losing their quiet residential sfreef have an entirely
iliffetenf view of being St: Pau{ "open for busines's" tfiafl the Trader ,loe's propanents have.
°The'deyelo�was.que�tioned abouCwhether theCiiywould be required to_purohase land to add fheright-tum lane, �
and the reply was that the developer woatd provide � ft. of the tand requi�ed other I'a�tes`on Lexington w4uld be
narFaw€�#
#o`provide,the rest. Whet happens to the parkland easement in all of this? -
�� T�e��roponents of.Trader Joe's are using_the. man�ra that"St. PaUi is open.f�r business;'vihich seems to mean thai
Hew hus�ness—any business-is a good fhtng as long as it increases the taxbase. They seem fo fiave missed one
important point brought'outat the heanng that Trader Joe's, for the most pait, uses nan-local suppliers. Adding thi�
thafacf t�at the store is patt of a rriulti-nat�onal chatP, awned by a foreign com_pany, with a supply wa�ehouse IocaEe
_, . _ :. .. � .,.:: . , :
G�cag6;�we wonder where "bUying9ocal" comes mto the picii�'re? !s it worth the }ocal jobs T'rader Joe's would provide, if
Flearby; loca(Iy.owned and Aperated and staffed,6usiness supplied by locai suppliers suffe(?
fi-ts?t#�e_gr�ting of Traditional-Neig't�borhood zoning fa: fhis ¢evelopment jus#ifie3 if the requested 3 variances in effect
� �
r;2_rir._«>---���,._a �+,.w:a-....lT..........C'TDh7 - T717......1Q,�t+:...:..\Te.,..:.1�D - .:..�.�..�elii"]�!7'7lL`Cfl.:..,:i _. 1/1l771f14
. Page 2 of2
. b8 ��-�e 7 -
- :,,gut the intent o#TN2? Cf fhis spot zoning change with �II its major variances is gra�ted,hovT can fhe Cify ever say "no" '
=fo any developerwho wanfs to put a strip mall on Lexington Parkway?
.F _Lastly,"all_the proponents of Tra�er Joe's spoke most,highly of StuaR Simek the Incat developer, festifiying to his
-�airness responsibility etc; One speaker, howe4er, shed new light on his follow-through ahilities. it seerris that the.
t:pi perties he owns acFo'ss.#Eie sfreet #rorim this prop.osed devebpment hsve had s�ecessive years of prolilems with
`shflw arid.iee.retiiovaa �in the sidewalks atiutting :his.apartments. How can St. Pau16e "open for bu'sines:s" f€ ifs
_ . :sidewalks are�a`�ardous7 - - ' = .
Taking aIl_ttiys'into consideratinn it appears thaYaitemptinc� to surt the Randolph ancl Lexing�n s�te to a Trader Soe's
store ts-li�Ce _frying_to fit CyideFella`s glass slipper on one of#he ugty step=sisfers. There rrtust be some other way to ,
=�n�rease the tax-6ase without subveRing the infenf of €he City's zoning laws and adversely irripacting the livss oP so. .-
... -._.. . . .
r�ny eitizens� ° ' .
�..Ilija�guerike°Senninger `
Edwiard Senninger - . ' .
14D2 Palace'A,venue =
.5t: Paul MN 55i05 .._ ..
: See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to sta�n_shape for winter.
:_
, . .. _ . _
.��.. . _. �
�
�
' � �
W
Page 1 of 1 �.
Subject; Trader Joe's -. •
I'm a faidy new resident of Nighland Park, having previousiy Iwed ih Chicago and Southem Califomia where '
Trader Joes is a ftxture. I drive fo St Louis: Par`k every.few weeksto load up on groeerfes a�d wine_ i stiW buy ,
at'the local Lund's and Whoi� Foods buf thePe��`e many ifems at SJ's thaf are either Iess expensive than or not
avalable st locai sfores. Please bring Trader Joe's to Highland Park. it would be a great addition tQ the area:
Faficia Marx Geiser •
•2081 Village Ln •
StPaul, MN 55116
Tpm Beach - Trader Joe's �
Fiotn: . -
To• . .
D`a'ie: 12130/2007 929 AM _
�ee s op raTed� - #aae#er-win��r �
.
i
� �.
fii�://C:���uments aucl�,S'�ttiugs\Beachto�°C�`esa�:�e#tingslTemp�g��iseL4�4I>�ni:.. 1/i0/200�_ :
Page 1 of 1 �
i Tom Beach - Supparting Trader Joe's � g ��� �
k'�om: "�miIy Kleiber"
T =o' � ,>>,,,>>, .
Date: 12/29/2007 10:31 PM
Subject: Supporting �rader 7oe's
To whom it may concern:
T-he goal of this email is to let you icnovr fhat there are many residents of Highlarid Pazkwho are
TITRLELEB at the th6ught of a Trader. Jae's in our neighborhood. It is an amazing stose with an .
outstauding natibnal reputarion. It would be a shame to see the suburbs confinue eo be the only azeas tbat
are given opporhaniries like Trader Joe's. It to bring neW life to this azea of St. Paul as well as
create new jobs_ Why tum down the �opporiunity to develop an eyesore and improve this cornmunity?
I urge you to support this chance to weicome a Trader Joe's,to our wonderful neighborhood!
Thank you for your time:
-Emily & Pete Kleiber
� 20481VIontreal Avenue
St. Paul
.
�
- file:((C:�D�cuments and Szttings�Beachtom�L,ocal Settings\Tem��grpwise19776CAB2m... 1/10l2008
Pa e 2�of 1, �
Tr�ders 7oe's in T�ighland Park g
fiom Beach - Traders Joe's in Highland Park "
- � �
E!'rom• "Don SehwarEz"
Ta= >>.>>.,>,>, - �
'D'ate: 12/26/2007 11:10 AM
Sulij eet: Tiaders 7oe's in Highland I'ark
- OearCouncil Members and Cify Staff,
�
i airi writing to express my support of tfie pla�ned Fe-devetapment of the South �as# corrier of Randolph and
Lezingfon Avenaes. Admitteiily, as a reat esfate professioFlal, 1 may have some bias but my support is hased on
logic �a#trer than emotion and developmenf for the gceatergood rsther than prot�cting'the interests of just a few -
individuats. ' ' :
on the qualificafions nf the developer Stuart Sirnek i know Mr. Simek through the professional assoeiations
9�titi Housing Association'(MHA) and-the Certified Com�nercia( Invesfinent Member (CCIMj. Bofh are very
�enPCtPd ordanizaYions in our industry: MC Simsk has played a stiong ro[Lin both organizations Iocaliy and
nationatly based on his high personal sfan a_ s o pro ess�aiia, ..: . ,. . ,, '"s,w.,*.-�--�r �a�!�.,.a
business owner and resident of'High(and PaGfc he has a personal stake in seeing this project succeed to ttie
keneft ofthe neighborMood, As further �vidence of Mr, Simek's qualifications I wowld point out the suecessful -- "
Eawnhome projects completed in HigMand park over the past severat years. Lastly,-k�is partnership v�eith-T�LD"..-. ------
De4elopment gives the team additional resources and dep#h to ensure project success. _ �
With° any deveiopment Ehere are many complek issusS to iron out during the_planning and approvaf process and.
f�iis si�e is no exception. Based on presentations IYe seen, this team of develapers and architects has.addressed
the needs of surrounding neigfibwhood with exlreme sensitivity and has created a"sense of place" tha# vasUy �:
iiiiproyes.a blighted comec Granted, the�s a�e a few reside�ts that would p[efer their current view rattier than a
pai�einFg lot and comme{ciat buildings. H.owever, the design has been amended to minimize that impaet and _
provide. a vievr that is quite pteasing to a reasonable. person. LasUy, the issue of traffic is of great concem to
maAy, myself included.. I frequently fravel through this inteisection and will be directly impactsd by fhe addifional
usage. _!t seems a small pnce to pay for suoh a g�eat arrieniiy. 1 would compare it to dealing with the traffic at
Lunds=gn Ford Parkway. Is ifa hassle? Yes. Is it warth i#'? Again, yes. W1l the additional traffic create a
hazar�? Perhaps, but fhaYs wtiat fraffc (aws are for and tfie deve(opment plan addresses those issues in a
praginatic way that miniriiizes the impact.
[n the end, we need to decide if we want St Pau! to stagnafe and decline or cfiange, grow and improve. i believe
this;is a clear- case ofg�owth and improvement for the benefit of fhe residents of St Paul. , "
On a` psrsonai note, 1 like Trader Joe's products and wiil definitely be a customer. As a residenf of Highfand Park (
6elieve this project will prove to be a great asset to Yhe community.
Thank you fior your attentio�; please approve this project for St Paul!
�n`Schwartz -
F'r+ncipal
Setneiartz Properties, LCC
'�fi64 Hartford Ave
Sain#•Paul, MN 55116
(fl12�860-9797 (cell) -
(fi5�j"20�-6482 (fax)
uvsvvv:�chwarFzp roperties.com
� z�o
� J
- fil�:�l�_�Documents a�d Settings\BeachtomU�ocai Settings\Temp�grpu✓is�\47723694m... 12(29/20Q7-
�-
0
Page 1 of 1
. Tom Beach - TJ Support bg,'�'� .?
From-
`�9:
Dafe: . 12/25/2007 2:58 PM
Subjecf: TJ Support
T-oin-
Happy Holidaysi We wanted to take a moment to let you laaow thaY we greatly desire a T'RADER
JOE'S at the comer of Randol£ We iiaye shopped w! T7 for over 20 years (I moved here from,DC) at -
times even having _items flown in. Now I spend our money in St. Louis ParYc and Woodbury! It would
be nice to spend it in $t. Pau1 and haue our city capture the tax base (anything to help our rapidly rising
propert}� taxes.) Also, less driving will benefit the Yhe environment.
�
Please support its development.
- --- _ ...---- --- � -- - - - --_.. . _— - - – .. . _- ----- -- � -- -- -_ � ...
. . Deb�and Cfie"t Slipak ' -- -. _ . .-- - --
1861 Beechwood Ave. ,
St, Pau1, NIN 551T6
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Ivlailt
lJ
4 �
file://C:�Documents a�d Seftin�s�Beachtomll:ocal SettingsC'f�mp�XPgipwi"se\477d 1A96:.. .12/29/2007
' Page I of2
Tom Beach - RaudoTphlLe�ngton Rezozung.
Fiom: "Katie Sterns"
`rto: _ -
D�e:. : _.�Z/24/200712;01 AM
S�ii�iject: " RandoIph/Lexingtan Rezaning.
��: ,,,>>,,; .
Greetings.Couocdmeriiber Harris, Fellow Gouncilmembers and City SfafF,
_ _ . _ . . �
My:name-is Ka6e SEerris and I live at 1493 Sch2ffer Ave in your district. I am not sure'if twilt be able to attend the
rezaning commitfee meefing th+s week but I wanted to codtinue to "voice my supporE of tfie redevefoprrienf af fhe
RandolpfilLexington corner as proposed by the developers. I've had the opportunity to d'i"scus's this wi.th many of
my neighbors and peopfe are overwhelrrgngly suppor#ive and e�ctremely exciteif.atiout the idea of that comer
Fxeing `redevelaped wifh a Trader Joe's store �n it. We love our neighborfiood, one reason is because of the
Unique_Mom and Pop businesses here. We also love having a Walgreen's eonvenie`nt. i�lonetheiess, although
we do`}he"bulk of our shopping locally, mos4 of us travel outside this area on occasion fo visit specialfy stores
sueh as Tiader.ioe's, My ofhercity in the rtietro would love to get a Tra�er Joes: We shoutd be.excited fo seize
Randolph.Ave arrd the east side crP Highland has not had mucfi_ investment in many years and it is sore{y needed.
t am Geally excifed to see someone willing Yo take the politically difficult and fnancially risky undertaking of. real
-- ->-. -�state:develo�meFlt in-tk�at-area in##ie �tirenE times: - I'm at5o happy to see stable-ar�d suee�ssfui-businesser-- --- --
come in that will help to inc�ease our taz tiase a�d reduce the residenfs' heffy faic{�urden. ' •
At the HDG meeting, some there wondered why it couiddtbe.in the old Walgreen's location. Although i wouid
loveto have it eve.n Goser to my home; I think the proposed lacafion is even be4ter for the fioilo�nrjng reasnnsc
I_. Easy access for suburbanites wtiowill now undouti#edly be stopping fhere on their way hortie from wotk to
shop.;. no# sure if they'd drive the extra mile up the hiil. This is a good thing! We want outsiders spending
- ttieir money in our City doF1't we?
2: Central location along Randolph Ave to spur additional developmertt�investment East and West... Tcader
Joe's has fhe kind of ancfior store pu1l that will bring peopte in to shop, and maybe liave a bite to eaf at one
of our great local restaurants, while they're here on the weekend.
3: Aitfiough that is aiready.a congested intersection, in a sense, the concentration of the traffic bn that one
inYersection will be easier to manage and deal with rather than if we have a steady s�ream of traffic gomg
tftni the n�ighborhoods to get to it. We live in a high density urban arsa and thaYinterse.ction is busy and
sFiould be busy. IYs odd that peopie are complaining fhat a potenYially very'succes"sful business wants to
come there. The deyelopers have done fheir due diligence in obtaining the required traffic studies and t
4hink they have met the �ess�.. I think it is inferesting to contrast thaf intersecfion with Selby and Snetling
wh"ich has always been extremety congested and very heavity occupied by retail propefie"s (wifh almost no
olf street parking either). Now there are new condos going in on that intersectiori. Cleady it is poSsibie and
eVen desirable to mix high use refail wifh residential even in "neighborhoods" that aren't in ttie heart of
downtown.
4: I:�ink it is inappropriate for the council to base its decision on the basis of protecting current busiFlesses,
6ut if it is a coacem, t think its proposed locatioa is less likely to interf`ere w/ existing neighborhood .
tiiisinesses. -
S: That intersection is a inajoF °Gateway to Highland" intersection. It is currently depiessing and ugly. Trader�
Jpe's is seen as a wonderlui amenify and would improve the overall impression �and appeatof our
neighborhood, Trader Joe's has broad markef appeal whereas a Rea! Estate office or Med'ical Bvilding �
wouiddt. The aFChitectural design for the Trader Jne"s complex is very appealing antl l think it is preferable,
fo-have pa�king in front because�ifi improvQS fraffic/comer visi6ifity, and hence safety, at fhat comer. -
-� ;
� .. . file•IIC:�Documents andSetting"sl�eachtomtT;ocaI Settiags\Temp�grpwise\4'7`6EF�DD... iZl29120Q7 � -
Page 2 of 2
b8 -�� �
� Reqarding changing the currenf residential zoning as part of the request, 1 drove_over fhere to eheck things out
personalty. The houses that they are_removing do not took we[I maintained in my opinion. Two of the houses
�cross the sfreef (of the four) look especialfy nice and weli kept in, compa�fson to Yhe other homes. { imagine that
-_these are owned by the two home owners who hayen't yet come to an agPeement with #he developers (maybe
. `the}� have by no+m). 'Fhey contend thaf this developmenf would hurt their property value; f ques#ion that. Given `
ttie`sfaf"e of their neighbors yards/homes ! think their view and property vatue might be improved with a Trader
Joe'shext door, especially with the addition of nice landscaping. Obyiously their quiet side streetwill 6e impacted
somewhat_ '
I don't normally get inyo{ved in fhese types of campaigns, but 4 know that the opponents of new developmeni are
atways so vocal, especially in St. Paul, and i feel very strongly that our neighborhood �eally wants this and that it
sFiould happen."Most proponents assume itivill_happen because iE seems like such an obviously good thing.
7hey there`�ore never go to the meeting to voice their.support. I feel that inost of my neighbors and many others
i�i St: Paul wili be e�tremely disappointed if tfiis is re}ected by the St. Paul City Council. If this is rejected, our
"s_uburban neighbors will be wondering what in tfie v✓orid we.were fhey fhinking, all the while licking their chbps in
the hopes that fhey might now have a shot at a Trader Joes in their neighborhood.
i appreciate your cnnsideration and patience wiffi this long email. I look forward to your brave support of this
proposal in ihe face of loud, fearfui and ang.ry, but small, opposition.
Sincerely,
Katie Stems
��
•
�
f�e:/IC;�Documents arid Settings�Beachtom�;ocal Settings\Temp�XPgrpwise\476EF6DD.:. 12/29/2007 `
�—
---„�---
� y � �
_-: - ~=`.::==�, I���,
�V.�;�=; � �
s ..�
�.� ; r,
� -----a ---- --
�; ti . ,
;� : I
�, ; ��� ,
_ �;.:
. �3� �
t
I i '
ll�:
� _' �}. _
. �
`. i
r.--: �';__ _'
i � �
�^� k
� S
\ •
3. M:
C �= �-'- ----- a -- --
i; , -z ---
<`� �� ; � �
- _ - ��: ° �
�{': � I
F � �>:� I
' �..:' i `` i. �� I
,,, �-� ' ��� -
_ `y` �`` I
l �y� � i
A _ '� , , ?
* � ----- -� y �
. I P6ESMIN 1
[ R0.Ott '
I � n��
I �
I � , ��
� ,
�
�
- - - - - - - - - - - - � �
�. -----�,.._w... _.- � - -
,� , - .__.._. � �__ . - -
E v t�
� RANDOLPH AVENUE y ---3 YT ��� --
� - -
—� _ , _..._._. .t
�
GROCERY MARKET
�
m..�. s- .�a�sw
�S;
t'
COFFEE SHOP
2,737 SF
SI6RIIfn4.ssm.fB
j Q r ;
�
5 6 5
RETAIL
3�,527 SF
�r. mv.�.mws
JUNO
F—,. T� � ,,.
' - ffi 1 � , �� .. �
fiClf -�- 5 � p � -
_, • _ ; .., ,:
� -
imx �' _.. _. -.. msmc �omm _
uurro� '
u' xm�orttnn�m[ m� �° � '
� �v:m � a,. ��„�„ - _
�.� �-�.,« �.,�,.n,� ...
a.wwr ianr ro sr�vr
unonrn
wxae¢ mna
�uem�c wru
II' M W � .: .'.
� $ .: _.
N ..
q� e::':. �:�.
Y &/a� '
$ $ 8. .� GM� �t�iEN¢ :::
~ 5� '
raoPago _
raoP o
mwr ar xnr "_
m q
u'
��' tliY SM4E/
— � PMI GVCEN
�_ _ ,
ENUE �,�,,, .,,„ ;
�4�
_ ... �� 5��
I �
� n �.�
�,�,}°�.� ;
��� � .�.���.
�
'. `�'s ...>a:5�'�:_.�
� ` RANOOi�H � �l
����''� �
., ., �. ,
i z Y _ ' �:,
`_ � � :�
� �:=� '�� .3 � _
,.��
�
- • —
� - ��? �= �
� '� !
�
� , ,.,
,�
s ,�
,
Y
z,= °;
O:: _ _ _
�--
�
z
�
w;
J'
� l :
� 1� :
��:
. Y
. . . . '..� � _
W -w �
_
� � � �� �
��
� .�_ .� � :
{�.. i�
y
�
i
�
y j f
' f
i
,�
�
� •
�
�
�
�
3
0
�
r+
�
�
L
�
�
•
.� y
t , '
j ' ._
��'`- "��„,::
. .� _.
�'� =•�_ ,�" > :
� ��
=--'�--� �
��,_ � _-
// `�t � � ; e
�1' �
il� i�,�Af[".�� � �
7 —•T
� � .��� � . l ¢ . �'
�:
_ _ ��
a
� ^ � ��
` �� ' �= - oE _ .� T _ .
4� x � �
��a., � � I�r,�-�' 4 '��� �� c ,`�': , i
t , ,.�: , • —..., 3 '.:
� � d
r ._ � s ,„�µ��y ?�� . � �_� S
1 ��� � ��� �^ � . . '
1' '{`I t. �
.. ---- � ,` � . � � ... ..e�"� R.' 's+.�T°'^'�—+-.,�a.�
� ��+.. � � 1 � �� 4 '� i %r
������ �� � �
'.�z. > < 1 � �"
z� � a�XF� �, r /
°�p �6£ ^! • �f
� � . «a �r-. �
� � '-��� � �e°.� y�yg �.-� t ° i �� ✓ .
� ti ,_ti ' T � � �' 1Gy _ . _ _
T ` A .:m���r :, "'.-'�t �"f ' . . _ -,
. -�` �''._ .� �.: _
h . ii' ` ��
�` _� i _ ..� ,.�--� ' _
.1 � c � l
U -s l %`
� �� : �' � _ ` _ � L '
� s �� �
� �
� �� � - � � � ` .i
- �. ' ��- s � � ',.
`.�r �"' f � ` ' � � _
_ ��"----- '.
_J i►
� � �
� '� ��� , �
.: �� ���
_ �- � ��
- — , ` `_'� ��
e � .� ,
_ �`"�°-�"�`�: �
- - ���
� — ,'� �� ;, '� � �-� �
� ���'
_ �= "� � ', � _ � � ,�.;
_ ��„�°f�ia �
;'.a e'--�t. �=�=____� �,��� �
_.. - � �' T � � -:
- _ - —
_ --
, _ _
a
�� c �' = - � � _ ` � : . � . `Z"� = .r" . .
� ' _ _ � . �"s - .
� �, � - _ � �� . .
�
�< �*
�* v � _ -� �'
_�� � = y - _
� ��
g � ` �� � _
' _ � .; - _ _
�! ° - , -
��i���I ' k ��
�__� `�...°x -
. �,
� � �: _ - '+s� _ -
,
�_�e . V�
-�
�i� +� r�
� - :
� � ,,, ,� ,,
I � v l �. � ? J�1'.� ° � _:� 1 `J � lil j ! �
�������-,, 1 . i . ����rym���� �'' .
. . �, .� r � g .
• � � �� � � \ � `. �
� � . . "'R` � � � .
'.. �,<.. `i . '�.. , e_ � \�� \ ' yi � �.... / �.
. ,'�° I � \ .'� 1�'�
.: � . .. ., ! (S � �. � n 1f � i{`,'
� � �`�,
. . _ . _ j >' � 1,
. . .. . _ .x _� a_ _ � ,w." s�3��a:7
- -' —�
. .. _ .._ � , . , z S��f -�u�=...—.
; :r;
ti = _
.' . '- �':. �
l
_ . . . � , ,� . _
' �':�13.^�%
q i7eN
,
.. ��� .
�:
�<
s�� �� -
�r � a
Qi��
� "` f�
.
I� � "� � .
� a�a..
. � x -
.�` _
�_
w , f
�
�
P ' �
$
� ' }°
y i
^' , t
geA { �
— J
,�
�� �
�� � �
, .�
:� �
� � � - __ � : -;
� : �- - �:�--� - � ���
._..�..3 `' ,�„ ^�'a� ' �� �r�r `�`-�'�^
��' �,��*�-� � �»t ��s,.,
, � j
' 3 . "s)
� � ' �
3 �
� �� �. �� �_ � - �.
+ -,' -
;� . � , �>= , -
yrs S jv
i f ` �' } :
3
� � @ ~e'S' '� l
� k _� ���.,�
�',. v ,,;� a„+�.
a
� + � '�
� � Y j' .:
� �
a"..' � � �. t� J _ .
� �. . a �. ' ..•_
4
I "�" � 'r"�� � A', "`3 � � ,
' �, S y � s � S
'ar' { %.# \ ' y a �:, t
w �M+.' \ _ ' ! Y ' :
M `
� � ���� 4 �� � f ti
r,�h�` . -...�..n �o.�.s , � , h1a:@6...._ �..,i, ai � � 3 """�.
�. �
� � . *'
� t d
� ... �������Z� 6f l.'
8 ; �
5" � .... i l
f ` '� s M1 � .. =�` � rz
�� " � i '"te � " ° t F�5'
rS � � . z : : 5 a.� V
�� ) , .. q . ':. � � � .�y � �--� � :
d� ���1}3 A� �Il�'S � K
S
d ���A �' �,` 6 " " � ' t * ��'�2�
.,?. j '9� '� _ �n� f k}
� *+�
j� �� M1�� � � � � '��
i 4 ' ' .. . y� ! „ a - r�- �� "x's 'S� _:
y . � "`s_"� u g ' � ; +(. � ' .i
A f � ` T `�� `*�`�` C �
,� x � � � � "
" 4 f 5b 3' � .
: , ` �j ,�� r . �,{ ; Mr x � `
ffi � �
; , : i � � . � �, pe;� � :
t . ' � xg �^3� �s?� t + � s3
�f P � � i f
C=' 3-r � �`�x k�'� � _,
`w. ca i
', . .� T�° �'�k'�`t_ �... a `1
"� Y � + � �-� 1 5� r �"�� -, Y k � e
_ ' � L . a ' .n' . � �.§� 9 'T..'.
c�� �� d � k' *' �
�� M � �" ' �
.t�.� ..��.. �. ._.. . . . � .�. . �`� ., a .. "�
�
�
� �`
` �~
�-
��
� t
� * �
t r �
` �> ��
� ��° � .
� -- ��
�; d .
� - ��' ' �
�. �
.
s �
�.- �� � � � �: � � ,.,
��,�: _ �� �. � , . _ ��
� � _ {�/�. , „ : _ _ � , v ,
€ � 4'i .� ' i " � 3 �
"� � -} � _ "�..�- 4 .D ll , ( S � } - L--`_ �� NJj ` i �+' . "
{ � � !
c � � �"
� � �� � 1 � - �,-r � i?
� �� � � . a ..�.� � e } � �'�� �,s '.��� �' ��"'
4 � z , y y .
c+
- < � '.✓- � .! _� �a . � - p, -+z �. �,
- � �� � ����'�� �.'�� � a� � ._._:1= t ,...�ft� � -���` t
� c � ,�,� ' ^s ' . . _ �� 4 _
! �' a+ j � .; � ,y � h � �' � 1'.
r \ _ .�+.-.-�.c ._ .3"..vu��u . rs ` : ... g
� �� : ,�,_� rvrt� � ��.'4 � I
r � �.- 'f i �= t[ JF -�"�"y � . � � x^ � ��
°5� Y�� 'F? � .' �_ -' •�•?�� _
9 yn
g 1 �"�sS l3". T � � .
� � ..A �� 1 `tS1 .� � � � � '_ � � �1 ` "8'°� r .L
-�-.' \� S � d q � . '��°'"�� ✓ s:� �'; p� � j � .. �..£ '�, ,�.
€
t {- ? 4� S s ,r S
i i i ry
F � �� * i t ! � . ��� ` '�.,,"'�'�� .' - �-Z . � _ �
� +� �' � i� , a � �zr� E 3 1 3= -�-� ' � � � � �2� : � '
i �
} � •t' �� _ �� ^1 � y , ��l\ � �! . y �
� 4 A"`� .4 j � } . � y � �+
� � "� � � , a lk � �
-� �t � • � :. � :- :
� - '"--•^" : ..=p.. �'�+s �,°:'"s�. 4 s52.� . . �:
"��, au� �x ..� �� q i � � ' �� � E= `
�i t b � � 7 �� 2 � � � " - w�
r—
' . : i '� ;� � i ( � t ' � � _ . .�s�` � �` 3 ) ��
. i- � � 3 r.. � . g �. � �.
� . _ c
— �� E�3 � � � ' '�`� 1
�'I� - ,�. `�`'' ' f�. .:�� ''�
� � � _r
- z . � - � 2 t g� <o ��� c ( s
�€ : ;� � 1i g t }` _ 7 �` � k ; �
� � � �
d ; y .'- y ' ; � � �.3 a : .:.
_ wt.c. sv. �aZ 'disex'".ac^s ..a���� ..�'c°�r .�- �'9 } ����
� vjC i r ' •�Yd � � , .
.,._. ' ` 1 � . =_J � i � l ' -��"" , . .,, .
. - - t ; . --� ..�c� y�C r �...�., � �'.
@1 �T.c_.>> _ -`°�•�-- ... . _ �'a� �.�-'� -r"S_S_r�-"''�... .,. "' �..�e ..
�E f
- _�� ��� Y ' ,�� � � �. �� ' � �
i
�=A
��' j i �3 ;.' ' 1�� vx�'x� � � - X ':j
4 t _ a.fr. � R t f
/ t
, � " ._ �_ � � I � � �� � `/ , . 5 ¢ y. � p � � ��
�.� �.c.. r.. � ° %. S � �;� . � 1 � �
� ��.�' � . 3 � �.
9 �3 F����_ T , �1 .. . � F � � '_ d ���� i � �
"` °s t?:�Z"x ' r. i �_i r� '--___3 � '� - � � ,y zv
� � ,,: „�,�,', � �'"'„-, " - � ' _- C � ��
_ . � �, � � ��
",� ''_ _ �....... { 'i..� ���, � � - _�-� `.. � � a F � r:: 3 .: e
� — � �� � �'
,
x —� �� ' � —', � �5 �� � ��� E
` f A � z . , �-�
` .+ a f �
t 1 �l. � i
3 1 'a� '� �' } .�__ � � � �l, � �� j � �, ���
��}� ` ti
£
' V-" � •�-- { ' � � � _ � ' � a I
�; y j
_��,��/ `�� �� 3 � � r �� � � „ y ..' �* i i f � �
� "k �t� e � `� : �.. � . g �
�X � " � _ - �� j�"�
� ,- � a. � �"�' CL! .:t » � � `
�,_ �,� �i a � -- _ T � .
'�'':Zt'�' a'�� "� :i*
� �* E ' .
� � I a�.. � ',� ° �� �_� > >
�, �� _� �'��'" � w t .� : + k � �
I ^ J � J "t � ��� � „ � . . �.� -. �. �� ' � �„ I 2
� �\ � �� :� j f � d ` a � : � � � , [ �
V\ � - ' � ` � � �_� � ,`� � e
Vli ,_� , Je� � � � � �� {�
,� � �� � ,3 i y. p G i y .-
� � � �. �� � � . � �E � �1 �� ' � j �
-� f { .0 C��Y� - '�' � ti ..�-� � y� � �
� � �
� ,� � .
r. F � ' �G �, � � �� 1 s �}' � � ``
J'-- � ,. � � � 1 Y �
ZkUC ." �"1 � .:� � - .� j` - � �
�� 1.1.4�. - �'�i� ° � * _ a y �,�� �t � y
� �- � —� � � �' 1 � � �
' ` , .� "` x } " .,., ,S � i t' � a
r _. 4 ,� � � r - �, _� �� ` -
� ' _ — "� - iG - �.. � �` � .�
-� >
�
¢�.
� ,.
, ���. -
3l�tl
� 1S
�
�. _
� _
�z ��.
ti-:�
:
��,
� :
�' ;�,�'
��`�
i►.� : '� I
a
�
z
3htl b3NA271S
� .. _.... .. _.'_ _ ' _ _. . . __.'�.... __.._ _..._._......_. _ '__.
W
�
3 �
3l�V H1IWS
N
�
LL
� Q
. i
O y�
£K
o¢
U e.
K
a
z'
w>
P
F
N
�si-l�
/
��
��L�� _'
�
�-�e� 3h
�z-ZO-o�s
p�-��7
Trader Joe's Site Plan Conditions
The 8' high screen shown along the south property line must be extended to run another
40' noRh/south along 35E to act as a noise buffer subject to obtaining any required
approval for the screen from MnDOT. This portion of the screen/buffer must be at least 8'
taf( and constructed to be durable and attractive. The area in front of the screen(buffer
must be planted with landscape material that will grow tall enough to help soften the
screen. If approval from MnDOT cannot be obtained, this area must be heavily landscaped,
which will be approved by City staff after comment by Juno residents.
Rain gardens must be incorporated into the design to improve water quality. These rain
gardens must be planted with appropriate landscape material. A final landscape plan for all
of Juno, including any rain gardens, must be approved by City staff after the Juno residents
have been given a chance to comment on it.
The developer agrees to join with the other adjoining property owner to +nitiate the process
of vacating east 40' of Juno. It is anticipated that issues unique to this location including
stormwater drainage, existing underground utilities and access to 35E for MnDOT will be
considered during the vacation process.
The developer will pay for signs on the south side of Juno to control parking.
,(2J20/2008) Councillnfo - Trader Joe support Page 1�
���� 3 �
From: Mathews Hollinshead <mathews.hollinshead@maacom> 6 � � �" � �
To: <ward3@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, �councilinfo@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, John Marshall <j...
Date: 2/20/2008 3:10 PM
Subject: Trader Joe support
Dear Councilmember Harris and City Council:
We write in support of the location of a new Trader Joe's grocery
store at Randolph and Lexington, and especiaily ensuring that transit,
bicycling and walking have precedence for access.
This location is ideal for transit users, as the #74 bus has high
frequency and good access to other destinations all along its route.
Trip chaining for grocery shopping, a necessity of iife, is among the
fastest growing category of urban and suburban travel. Although car
trips dominate this form of travel, locating a new grocery stAre
adjacent to a high-frequency bus line can encourage change as time
goes on.
Cities all across Minnesota and the country suffer from the exodus of
retail and private services as businesses find it cheaper to locate at
the fringe. Here we have the phenomenon of new grocery stores wishing
to locate in the very core of the metro area, contribute to our tax
base and, if more residents would utilize transit, biking and walking,
allow us to cut energy consumption and harmful pollutants. We all know
what is happening to property taxes. We urgently need new retail to
help share the cost of city services and cut the distance between
customers and services.
Sincerely,
Mathews and Karla Hollinshead
2114 Pinehurst Ave.
Saint Paul, MN 55116
651-698-0260
(2)25%2008) Mary Erickson - Fwd: Trader Joe's-support � Page 1
�Q, a'� �
From: Patricia James
To: City Council - Letters
Date: 2(19(2008 10:36 AM
Subject: Fwd: Trader Joe's-support
for your infortnation. PNJ
»> On 2/18/08 at 12:34 PM, <patriciamancl(o�aol.com> wrote:
Please do not allow the appeals against the site plan for Trader Jce's at Randolph and Lexington to delay this project. Trader Jce's
will be a great addi6on to Highland Park. I'm so Iooking forv✓ard to shopping close to home rather than making bi-weekly trips to St
Louis Park.
Patricia Geiser
2081 Village Ln
St Paul, MN 55116
Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living
h�tp•l/living aoi com/video/how-to-qlease-vour-picicLeater/rachel-campos-
duffyJ2050827?NCID=aoicmq00300000002598 )
-�,-,-
(2/25/2008j�Mary Enckson - Fwd: Vote "FOR'` Trader Joe's in Higlanii � � _ � � � - � � � �" Page 1 �
Q�� ���
From: Patricia James
To: City Council - Letters
Date: 2J19J2008 10:38 AM
Subject: Fwd: Vote "FOR" Trader Joe's in Nigland
CCe Beach, Tom
FYI. Mother letter re[eived in support
Patricia ]ames
»> On 2/18/08 at 5:33 PM, rnsabinpJWF.ORG> wrote:
Pat,
I appreciate your years of dediration to the City of St Paul and wanted you to know I support the Trader .lces' coming in to
Highland both for the residents and for nonprofits like us in the area.
Over the last 8 years while visiting my daughter in New York, I became a long-time customer of Trader Joe's . Since Trader Joe's
rame to MN, I often go to the stores in Woodbury and St. Louis Park. Yes, there can be traffic challenges in SLP, but they always
have a guard outside helping and the wait has never been more than 4 mins, which is more manageable than ANY of our sporting
events. 7hat kind of wait is no big deal when the store is wol!
I also know the Simeks and can vouch for their long-term, community oriented approach. They'll bend over backwards to do the
right thing, so I have no doubt they'll listen to the community and act accordingly.
Pls vote "FOR" Trader Joe's in Highland!!!
Nancy Sabin
Executive Director
Jacob Wetterling Foundation
2314 University Avenue West
Suite 14
St. Paul, MN 55114-1863
651-714-4673 or greater MN call 800-325-HOPE (4673)
www.iwf.orq ( htt��/(www iwf ora/ )