09-1256Council Fi1e # 09-1256
Green 5heet # Q� �
RESOLUTfON
PAUL, MINNES07A
Presented by
�J
1 WHEREAS, Semper Development, (PED Zoning File No. 09-089752), submitted a site plan for review
2 pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.400, for the establishment of a Walgreens Pharmacy on property commonly
3 known as 2101 Ford Pkwy and legally described as Saint Catherine Park Lots 18 And Lot 19 Blk 9; and
4
5 WHEREAS, zoning staff determined that the said site plan application should be considered by the
6 Planning Commission (hereinafter, the "Commission."); and
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
WHEREAS, the Commission's Zoning Committee, in accordance with the requirements of Leg. Code §
61303, duly conducted public hearings on the subject site plan application on July 16, July 30 and
September 10, 2009 at which aIl persons ptesent were given an opportunity to be heard regaxding the said
application; and
WHEREAS, the Commission, on September 18, 2009, and based on all the files, records and proceedings
including Yhe evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearings moved to approve Semper
Development's site plan application, for the reasons set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. �9-
58 finding, as requiied, that the site plan was consistent with the provisions of Leg. Code § 61.402(c):
1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of
the city.
The District 15 Highland Park Neighborhood Plan calls for "incorporat[ing] a mix of uses and
a pedestrian-friendly envirorunent in commercial areas."
2. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The proposed use is permitted in the B2 zoning district. The site plan meets a11 zoning
requirements including minimum number of parking spaces, setbacks, lot coverage, building
height.
The City's has design standards for pedestrian oriented commercial areas (Section 63.110.c).
• These standards say that buildings must "hold the comer — that is have street facades at or
near the sidewalks on both streets ... unless the applicant can demonstrate that there are
circumstances unique to the property that make compliance impractical or unreasonable." In
this case, the proposed building is up to the street on Ford Parkway but the parking lot fronts
on Finn Street. Due to the depth of the lot, locating the building on the corner and maintain a
driveway to the site on Finn would require a significant redesign of the building. In addition,
holding the corner is not as critical in this case because Finn is not a typical street — it is a
dead-end street that stops at the alley.
• The design standards say that "buildings shall have windows and door openings facing the
street." However, the standards do not specify how many windows ar whether they need to be
09-1256
43
44
4�
46
47
4$
49
56
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
6�
69
70
'I1
72
73
74
75
76
77
7$
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
clear glass. Tn this case, given the context of the other commercial buildings in the area with
large, clear windows, it is reasonable to apply the T�T2 standards and make this a condition oF
approval for the site pian. These standards say that 50% of the frontage of the frrsi floor must
have clear windows that allow views into and out of the building. The applicant has revised
the building so that if ineets this standard.
3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic ar historicaily significant characteristics o£ the
city and environmentally sensirive areas.
The site does not have unique geologic or geographic characterisrics. The proposed
development will be in keeping with Yhe character of the area as it has developed over the last
60 years.
The gas tanks from the existing old station will be removed as a part of the demotifion under a
permit from the City.
4. ProCection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable pTOVision for such
matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight bnffers, presen�ation of views, light and air,
and those aspects of design whick may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Surface water wili he dixected to the City storm sewer system. The parIcing lot will be
screened from residents across the alley to the north. Views, light and air will not be affected.
There is currently a problem with cars driving north on Finn from Ford Parkway and then
going into Yhe alley behind the site (even though the alleys haue "Do ?�'ot Enter" signs.) The
site plan includes a curbed island in Pinn Sueet to make it harder for cars to enter the alley
from Finn.
5. The arrangement ofbuildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to
assure abutting properiy anNor its occupat�ts will not be unreasonably affected.
The site plan wilS limit the irapact on the residenYial prc�perty to the north acxoss the alley. The
]ocat'ton of fhe driveways will minimize the impact on Ford Parkway. The building is built up
to the sidewatk on Ford Parkway so lhat it is consistent with the existing buildings on the norfh
side of Ford.
6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation and
elevation of shuctures.
The site plan meets ct�rrent standard praeiices for landscaping, site layout and building design.
7. Safety and convenience of both vehiculaz artd pedestrian traffic both within the site and in
relation To access streets, including Lraffie cireulation featwes, the locafions and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
09-1256
88
89
9a
91
92
93
94
95
9b
97
98
99
1�Q
iQl
102
103
104
105
106
I47
1Q8
109
I10
Ill
112
113
11A
115
116
I17
lra
114
t20
121
122
123
I24
12S
126
127
12$
129
130
131
132
The stfe plans sbows two dziveways. There are currently has 4 driveways. The proposed
driveway on Ford Parkway wpuld be configured to limit cus to i2ight-In and Right-Ouf only.
The intersectian of For� and Finn already has a high level of traffic and so Saint Paul Fuhlic
Works asked Walgreens to submit a Traffic Impact Study for the project. The Study dated
August 14, 2009, looks at traffic on Ford Pazkway, including Ehe intersections at
FordlCleveland and FordlCretin. The Study concludes that "the proposed development has
minimal impacts on traf5c operarions." it recomrnends improvements to Finn to increase its
capacity, including widening Finn a few feet so that an addifionaI southbound lane can be
added. These recommendations have been incorporated into the site pian. The study also
recommends limiting on-street parking on the north side of Ford in front of the site.
Staff from Saint Paul Public Works reviewed the Traffic Impact Study and in a memo dated
August 25, 2009, they said they "concur wzth the conclusions as to the impact of the
development on the level of service of the area intersections that were analyzed...."
&. The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, inchiding solutions
to any drainage problems in tihe area of the development.
The site plan has been reviewed by Public Woxks and they have determined ihat it meets City
standards subject to some minor chuiges.
9. Sufficient iandscapang, fences, walts and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The parldng iot will he heavily laadscaped on the sides facing �ord v�d Finn with trees shnzbs
and an ornamental metai fence. The parking lot will have a privacy fence and shrubs on the
side facing Uae allay.
The site plan shows that 41 off-strcet parking spaces wiIl be provided. The zoning code
requires a minimum of 38 spaces. (For purposes of comparison, the two existing businesses on
the site have a tota2 of 15 off-street parking spaces.}
10. Sifa accessibility in accordanee with the provisions of tbe Americans wiYh DasabiliYies Act
(ADA), incIuding parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
Twa accessible parking spaces will be located near the entrance to the building. The entrance
to the building wiil be accessible from the public sidewalk.
11. Ptovision for erosion and sediment controi as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion Sediment
and Control Handbook."
The site p1an shows that erosian and sediment conirol measures will be used during
construetion, ineluding silt fences, rock construction entrances, inlet protection and street
sweeping.
09-1256
133 WHEREAS, the Commission, in approving the said application, further imposed the following conditions
134 on the said approval pursuant to L.eg. Code § 61.402(d):
I35
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
14B
lA9
I50
151
152
I53
154
ISS
156
157
158
159
160
Y61
162
163
164
165
16b
lb7
168
l69
170
171
172
]73
174
175
176
177
178
1. The site plan must reflect the recommennatzons of Public Works Traffic Engineering staff
in eheir memo dated August 25, 2009:
• Walgreen's shall widen Finn Street north of Ford under an ordinance permit issued by Public
Works Street Engineering in accordance Traffic Engineering's recommendations as stated in
paragraph A, page 6-i of t�eir TIS and as shown on theit latest site plan incorporated into the
TIS. All cosTS for the reconstruction of Finn and changes to the Fi�v7/Ford intersection shall be
the zesponsibility of the developer including, but not Jimited to relocating signal, lighting and
other facilities.
• Their site plan shall include the following nate: "Signs reguJating parking andfor traf£c on
private property shall be installed by the property owner or contractor outside of the public
right-of-way. Signs approved by Public Works Traffic Engineering regulating parking andlor
traffic in the public right-of-way far this developnient sha31 be installed by City forces at tha
e�pense of the development. Contact Linda Murphy, Traffic Engineering 651-266-6205 six
weeks in advance of needed signs."
• Their monument sign near ihe Ford Pkwy driveway needs to be moved away from their
driveway to allow cl eaz visibiiicy of pedestrians for exiting drivers.
• Public Works can also ban pazking, as necessary, on either side of their driveway to furiher
enl�auce site lines for exiring dxivers. All costs for the ins�allaYion ofNo Puking signs would
be the responsibility of the project.
• Plantinga on the bump-o�t at the Finn dziveway just south of the ailey must be low plantings
no higIZer than 18" at maturity to prevent sight Iine issues.
2. FinaI plans for sewers and stormwater drainage must be approved by Public Works Sewer
Divzsion.
3. Approval of the site plan does not constitute approval of the signs shown on the site plan.
AII signs for Yhe site must conform to the City's Sign Ordinanca (Section 64 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code) and be constructed under a Sign Pemnit fram the Department of Safery and
Inspections.
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2069, UFCW Local 789, pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code �
6T.7�2(a), duly fiTed an appeal (PED Zoning File No. 09-278989} fram the determination made by the
Commission and requested a hearing before the City Counc'tl far the purpose af considering the
Commissiott's action taken in regard to Semper'S site plan applicarion; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b) and upon no6ce to affected parties, a public hearing was
duly conducted by the City Council on October 2I, 2009 where all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard; and
09-1256
179
180 WHEREAS, The City Councit, having heazd the statements made, having considered the application, the
181 report of staff, the record, minutes, the recommendation of the Commission's Zoning Committee and the
182 Commission's final decision does
183
184 HEREBY RESOLVE, That fhe Council of the City of Saint Paui, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.704 hereby
185 reverses the decision of the Commission in tkus marier as the Council, based upon the record before it,
I&6 finds that tbe Comsseission erred in its determination to approve the said site plan application for the
187 following reasons:
188
189
190
i91
192
193
144
195
196
]97
198
199
204
2di
202
203
zoa
205
206
207
208
2fl9
210
211
The site ptan agproved by the Pkanning Commission is ineonsistent with the site plan approval
requirements set forth undar Leg. Code § 6L462(c)(2) which calls for site plans to be consistent with
applicable city ordinances. In this application, the proposed use is iocated in a pedestrian ori ented area,
Accordingly, the design gu'tdelines under Leg, Code § 63110 place additional requirements on designs foz
new construction located in pedestrian oriented areas. The site plan approved by the Piannino Commission
do not meet the general desis,�s standards required under Leg, Code § 63.1 I0.
Additionally, tbe design approved by the Planning Conunission will ultimately be inconsistent with futura
development that wi3] occur in t1�is particutar azea as it is one of thepremiet retaik/commercial nodes in the
City. This is especially true if the area is rezoned to TN2 as recommended. Requiring new construciion
desigs�s to meet design standards that wili comgiiment future development is in keeping with the goals of
Leg, Code 61.402(c)(5) wkaich reguires Chat psoposed deveIopmants will not unreasonabiy affect adjoining
properties. Allowing a desagn thaf perpetuates an aufo-oriented design in a pedestrian oriented district will
make it that much more difficult to facilitate pedestrian oriented desi� standards on adjacent properties in
the fufure.
AND, BE IT FLSRTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of UFCW Loca[ 789 be and is hereby branted and,
further, that the site plan application of Semper Development is hereby denied, be it
FINALi.Y RESOLVED, the City Clerk sha11 mail a copy of this resalution to Yhe site glan applicant,
Semper Deve2opment, LTd.; to the appellant, UFCW Loca1789; and to the Ciry's Zoning Adminiskrator
attd Planning Commission.
Requ � e artment of; c� o
Approved by the Office of Financial Serv7ees
By:
Ado
Ado
By:
t+PP
By;
Approved ' C / ity� / Attomey
/ By: . W t/t�in^"s� ( v.� o� a y
pted by Council: Date j�/ �.7 fCf� Appxove M yo foT Subi 'ssio o Couneil
ption Certifaed y Co cxl Secretary By:
,� �1���
roved bdv:viary Date
�`�
09-125
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
i �A _c�v
I Contact Person & Phone:
� Peter wamer
266-8710
; Mus� Be on Council F\qentla by
Ooc. Type: RESOLUTION
E-Document Required: Y
Document Contact: �ulie Kraus
Contact Phone: 26E8776
os NoV Zo� I Green Sheet NO: 3087376
i �
' Assign
Number
! Por
1 Routing
� Order
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
0
1
2
3
A
5
E�...a-� s�
Memorializing City Council's October 21, 2009 decision granting the appeal of ITFCW Local 789 of a decision of the Plarming
Commission to approve a site plan for Waigreen's phazmacy at 2101 Ford Pukway.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R):
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
. . GivilService Commission
Personal Service ContraMs Must Mswer the Following Questions:
1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
Yes No
2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employse�
Yes No
3. Does this persontfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
curreni city employee�
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and ettach to green sheet.
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
The Council is required pursuant to Ciry Charter to have its actions reduced to writing either in the form of a resolution or an
ordinance dependent upon the nature of the matter before it. The decision of the Council in this matter required a written tesolution in
order to comply with Uae Charter. Approving the attached resolution fulfills the Council's dury under the Charter.
Advantages If Approved:
DisadvanYages If Approved:
Disadvantage5 If Not Approved:
ToWI Amount af
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Financial InformaGon:
(E�cplain)
Cost(Revenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
November 5, 2009 91:01 AM Page 1
DbPARTMENT OF PLANNING &
fiCONOMIC DEV EIAPMENT
Cecile Bedor, Director
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Chrfstopher B Calemars, Mayor
September 29, 2009
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Research Office
Room 31 � City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
25 West Four(h Street
Saint Pau{ MIJ5�102
09-. f ��,
Telephone. 6�1-1b6-6700
Facsimile. 651-228d?20
I would like to confirm that a pubHc hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, October
21, 2009, for the following zoning case:
Zoning File Number:
Appellant:
File Name:
Address:
Purpose:
09-089752
UFCW Local 789
Walgreens
2101 Ford Pkwy,
Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to approve the
site plan for a new Walgreen's Drug Store.
Previous Action:
The Zoning Committee recommended approval of the site plan with conditions on a vote of 5- 2(Gordon,
Margulies) on September 10, 2009.
The Planning Commission approved the site plan with conditions on a vote of 11-6 on September 18,
2009.
I have confirmed this day with the office of Councilmember Harris. My understanding is that this public
hearing request will appear on the Council agenda on or before the October 7, 2009. City Council
meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at
651-266-9086 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Beach
Zoning and Site Plan Review
cc;
File #: 09-089-752
Appellant: UFCW Loca1 789
Applicant; Semper Development Ltd for Walgreens
Paul Dubruiel
NOTICE OF P[TBLIC�HEARING
The Saint Pau1 City CoUncil will con-
duct a.public hearing on Wednesday,� Oc-
fober 21, 2009 at 5:30-p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, Third Floor, City
AalllCourthouse, 15 West Ke11og� Bou1e-
vard, St. Paul, MN, to consider tfie appeal
of UFCW Local 789 to a decision of the
Planning CommJssion approving the site
ptan`for a new Walgreens Drug Store at
2301 Ford Pazkway. - "
Dated: September 30, 2009 �
MARY ERICKSON
.P,ssistant City Counc3l Secretary ,
` - -fOctobet 5)
_" �� 51: PAUL LEGAL LEDGER=�_-c=
222i�6:86 _ � �
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
09-12E(�
THOMAS E. CASEY
Attorney at Law
2854 Cambridge Lane
Mound, MN 55364
(952) 472-1099 (office)
(952) 472-4771 (fax)
tcasey@frontiemet.net
October 13, 2009
St. Paul City Council
c10 Mary Erickson
15 Kellogg Boulevard West, Room 310
Saint Paul, MN SS 1Q2
VIA E-MAII.ONLX
Re: Proposed W algreens Store — 2101 Ford Parkway, St. Paul, MN
Applicarion For Appeal
File No. 09-098-752
Dear Honoxable City Council,
On 7uly 28, 2009, Mr. Peter W. Warnex, Assistant Ciry Attorney, provided a 6-page legal
opinion to the St. Paul Zoning Committee, advising them that "... the City lacks the discretion to
review the propased use for compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan."
On behalf of UFCW Loca] 789, this letter is submitted to explain why Mr. Wamer's
analysis is incomplete. Contrary to Mr. Wamer's opinion, the Minnesota cases he cites do not
support his conclusion. Instead, the St. Paul City Counci] must apply Zoning Code, Section
61.402(c)(I), which clearly requires that Walgreens' site plan be consistent with the
Comprehensive plan and Subarea Plan.
CHANHASSEN AND CHASE CAS&S SUPPORT ZONING ORDINANCE CRITERTA
(THE SITE PLAN MUST BE CONSISTBNT WITH THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN AND
SUBAREA PLAN.)
Mr. Wamer's Iegal opmion relies on the following two cases:
l. Chanhassen Estates Residents Associarion v. Ciiv of Chanhassen 342 N.W.2d 335
(Minn. 1984); and
2. Chase v. Citv of Minneapolis 401 N.W2d 408 (Minn. App. 1987).
However, neither the City of Chanhassen nor City of Minneapolis zoning ordinances contained a
specific requirement that the site plan must conform to the city comprehensive plan. Unlike
09-1255
St. Paul City Council
Oetober 13, 2009
Chanhassen's and Minneapolis' ordinances, the St. Paul Zoning Code, Section 61.402(c)(1),
specificallv re uires that a site plan applicarion be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Subarea Plan. In other words, the cases cited by the Assistant City Attomey actually support
the applicability of St. Paul Zoning Code, Section 61.402(c)(1), to Walgreens' site plan
appIication. The basis for this conclusion is explained below.
I. Chanhassen Estate ResidenYs Association v. City of Chanhassen 342 N.W.2d 335
(Mina. 1984). In this case, the plaintiff associarion sued the City of Chanhassen to enjoin the
issuance of a bui]ding permit to construct a McDonald's restaurant. The court stated that the
principal issue is whefher the proposed McDonald's is "drive-thu" facility (a permitted use} or
constitutes a"drive-in," which requires a conditional use permit under the Chanhassen zoning
ordinance. (Chanhassen, at page 338.)
The court, in passing, mentioned another of the plaintiffls arguments, i.e. that the
proposed McDonald's restaurant was contrary to the City Comprehensive Plan. However, the
opinion contains no language regarding whether or not compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
was a stated criteria in the zoning ordinance for site plan review. In fact, a$er reviewing the
"Briefs Minnesota Appellate Courts" at the Minnesota State Law Library, it is clear that the
Chanhassen Zoning Code (at tke rime the case was decided) contained no r�uirement that a
permitted nse must be consistent with the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan.
Furthermore, the court stated, "The zoning ordinance defines a pennitted use as `a use
which may be lawfully established in a particular distdct or districts, provided it conforms with
ail requirements, regulations and performance standards of such district.' Chanhassen, Minn.,
Zoning Ordinance 47, Sea 4.02 (1972). The proviso demonstrates that the counciYs review of an
application for a permitted use need go only to the applicanYs compliance with the spec�c
`requirements, regulations and perfonnance standards' prescribed by the ordinance. Subiect
to such compliance, approva] of a permitted use follows as a matter of right?' [Emphasis
added.] (Chanhassen, at page 340.} (Note: This language was also cited in Mr. Wamer's memo,
page 4.)
Finally, the Chanhassen court reiterated the mles of constructian for an ordinance or
statute: "When Yhe words of a statute or ordinance in their application to an existing situation aze
clear and free from ambiguity, judicia] conshuction is inappropriate." [Chanhassen, at page 339,
with footnote #3: "Ordinances are constnzed according to the recognized prindp[es of statutory
construction. State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 89 N.W.Zd 910 (1958)."J
Unlike the zoning ordinance in the Chanhassen case, the language of the St. Paul Zoning
Ordinance cleazly requires that, as one of the criteria for site plan approval, Walgreens' site plan
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Subazea Plan. The City of St. Paul Zoning
Code, Sec6on 6I.402(c) states-
"(c) Site plan review and approval. In order to approve the site plan, the planning
commission shall consider and Snd that the site plan is consistent with:
"(1) The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans
for sub-areas of the city." jEmphasis added.]
09-125�
St_ Paul City Couiicil
October 13, 2009
It is noteworthy that, sometime after the Chanhassen decision, the City of Chanhassen
amended its zoning ordinance to require that the site plan be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The r�esent City of Chanhassen zoning code contains the following language for site plan
review:
"Sea 20-110. Standards.
"In evaluating a site and building plan, the planning commission and city council shall
consider its compliance with the following:
"(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development
guides, including the comprehensive plan, offacla3 road mapping, and other
plans that may be adopted; ..." [Emphasis added.]
[This oidinance contains the following history of amendments at the end of the section: "(Ord.
No. 119, 2-12-90; Ord. No. 212, § 5, 7-11-44; Ord. No. 286, § 7, 12-14-98). It is clear that this
site plan criteria was added in the ordinance amendments after the 1984 Chanhassen decision.]
2. Chase v. Citv of Minneapolis 401 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. App. 1987). In tbis case, the
plaintiffs sued the City of Minneapolis to compel issuance of a permitted use building permit for
a convenience food restaurant_ Similar to the Chanhassen case cited a6ove, the court's opinion
contains no language regarding whether or noi compliance with the Comprehensive Plan was a
stated criteria in the zoninQ ordinance for site plan review. In fact, after reviewing the "Bziefs
Minnesota Appellate Courts" at the Minnesota State Law Library, it is c]ear that the Minneapolis
Zoning Code (at the time the case was decided) contained no requirement that a pennitted use
must be consistent with the City of Minneapolis Comprel�ensive Plan.
Furthermore, the Chase court, citing the Chanhassen case, stated: "[R]eview of an
application for a permitted use need go only to the applicant's compliance with the speciTic
`requirements, regulations and performance standards' prescribed by the ordinance. Subiect
to such compliance, approval of a permitted use follows as a matter ot right:' [Emphasis
added.] (Chase at page 412.)
Again, clearly different from the ardinances in the Chanhassen and Chase cases, the plain
language of the St. Paul Zoning Ordinance re uires Walgreens' s3te plan to be consistent wiffi the
Comprehensive Plan and Subarea Plan, as one of the criteria for approval. The City of St. Paul
Zoning Code, Section 61.402(c), states:
"(c) Site plan review and approval. In order to approve the site plan, the planning
commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with:
"(1} The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans
for sub-areas of the city." [Emphasis added.]
In other words, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Subarea Plan are one of the "...
the specific `requirements, regulations and performance standards' prescribed by the
09-1255
St. Pacd Caty Council
October I3, 2009
ordinance ..." that the Chanhassen case (see page 340} and the Chase case (see page 4I2)
contemplate.
It is noteworthy that ti�e Comprehensive Plan had less legal importance in the Chase
opinion than it does now. The Court of Appeals stated, "More specifically, however, Minn. Stat.
§ 473.858, subd. 1(1986} provides `[i]f the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the
zoning otdinance, the zoning ordinance supersedes the plan.' Id. (emphasis added)." Chase at
page 413.) However, in 1995, Minn. Stat. 473.858, Subd. I of the Metropolitan Land Planning
Act was amended to presently read in part:
"If the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning
ordinance, the zoning ordinance shall be brought into conformance
with the plan by local government units ..."
Also, Minn. Stat. 473.865, Subd. 2 of the Me1a Land Planning Act provides:
A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official conh�ol or fiscal device
which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan or which permits activity in
conflict with metropolitan system plans.
Therefore, unIike the Chanhassen and Chase cases, decided over 20 years ago, there is a more
compeiling azgument for including consistency with the comprehensive ptan as one of the
requirements for site plan review in Section 61.402(c) of the St. Paul Zoning Code.
SITE PLAN vs. USE
Mr. Wamer's July 28, 2004 memo also mentioned, "It must be further noted under the
plain language of Leg. Code §61.402(c), the matter under considerarion is the site plan, not the
use." (Pages 4-5.)
A two-step analysis yields an opposite conclusion. Secrion 61.402(c)(1) of the Zoning
Code requizes that the site plan be consistent with the comprehensive plan and subareas plan.
T1te comprehensive ptan contains certain requirements, including that the site plan be a"mixed
use" development.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, the clear and unambiguous language of the CiTy of St. Paul Zoning Code,
Section 61.402(c), requires that the site plan be consistent with the comprehensive plan and
subarea pIan:
"(c) Site plan review and approval. In order to approve the site plan, the planning
commission shall consider and find thaf fhe site plan is consistent with:
"(1) The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or
project plans for sub-areas of the city." [Emphasis added.]
4
St. Paul City Council
October 13, 2009
09 ,a 5�
The decisions in the Chanhassen and Chase cases are based on zoning ordinances that did
not specifically require that the site plan (for a"permitted use") be consistent with the cities'
comprehensive pian.
As carefully explained in the "Attachment to Applicarion Foc Appeal" 6y UFCW Local
789, the proposed Walgreens store is inconsistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and
Subarea Plan because: (1) it is not a"mixed use" development, as defined in the Zoning Code;
(2) it does not "maintain or enhance" the range of goods and services in Highland Vallage; (3) it
]essens the number of `9iving wage" jobs; and (4) does not contribute to neighborhood self-
sufficiency or improve the Highland DistricYs position in the regionai economy.
Therefore, Walgreens' Site Plan Application must be denied.
On behalf of UFCW Local 789, I thank you for your kind consideration.
Very truly yours,
;'
�°,:
` y i ( .(svf ? ���
r�
Thomas E. Casey
cc: UFCW Loca] 789
Tom Beach, Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development, City of St. Paul (via e-
mail only)
File
P.S. - Please include this letter as part of record for this site plan application. Thank you.
o9-i2sr�
�i�y
�
October 12, 2009
St. Paul City Council
c/o Mary Erickson
15 Kellogg Boulevaxd West
Room 310
St. Paul, MN 55142
Re: Proposed Walgreen's Store — 210I Ford Parkway
Appizcation for Appeal
Bear Honorable City Council: -
As a company doing business next to proposed redevelopment, Snyder's has serious concerns
about how the existing site plan "assumes" deliveries will be made to the proposed Walgreen's
store, Presenfly there are e�i,sting traffic problems on Ford Parkway, and there is also significant
congestion in the one-way all.ey going east to west on the north side of the site.
Attached are illustrated dtawings by a Iicensed architect showing some of the problems witb the
proposed site pIan,
SheetNo. SS-2
T'his drawing shows that it is impossible for a standazd semi truck to tum into the allep from
either direction on Cleveland Avettue: (a) the double dashed line depicts the travel of the $ont
wheels of the "cab' ; and (b} the single dashed line shows the outside course of travel of tbe semi-
trailer.
5heetNo. SS-1
This drawing shows that a semi truck would need to trespass on Snyder's property in order to
gain access to the loading dock.
Sheet No. SS-3
"Fhis drawing shows that the only way to access the loading azea from Finn Street is by going
down tlie alley against the one way traffic. The truck would also be facing the wrong direction.
7111 Cedar Lake Road � St. Louis Park, Minnesota � 55426 �Telephone 952-935-5441 � Fax 952-544-01&4
www.snyderdrug.com
o9-�a�r�
SNyDERS�
�
St. Paul City Council
October 12, 2009
Page Two
Sheet No. SS-5
This drawing depicts a smaller straight truck that could access the aliey going south to north
(assuming that the existing conditions were perfect), but stiil cannot make the turn approaching
from the north.
Sheet No. SS-4
Continuing with the straight truck drawing, this drawing illustrates that the turn to access the
loading azea on the site is extremely difficult to make without uespassing on Snyder's property.
The difficulty presented by this configuration wiil only add to traffic congestion in the area.
SheetNo. SS-6
On this drawing a straight huck is shown coming down Finn Street again going against traffic
down the alley "the wrong way". Note that the truck's turn is extremely tight with the back of
the trailer hitting the edge of the green space.
In conclusion, i£ delivery vehicles were to access the site and "park" at the loading area as shown
on the site pian, they would have to turn around on Ford Parkwa� and back down Finn Street
which would still cause them to back the "wrong way" into the one way alley in order to be
£acing the conect direction.
I respectfully request that this information be considered by the Council in its deliberations
regarding the proposed site plan.
Very truly yo�s,
SNYDER'S DRUG STORES (2009), INC.
ave Leonard
Vice-President Real EstatelIndependent Retailers
Encs.
cc: Tom Beach
7111 Cedar Lake Road s St. Louis Park, Minnesota � 55426 �Telephone 952-935-5441 � Fax 952-544-0184
www.snyderdrug.com
09-125�
09-1256
,�.��Y / i
/
/i .�
,� � �, ���
i
— '� ; i
� : � SEMf iRIY,�:
— � �
� ��
S'cMIt�1Gr �
� ��
p � ��5
� % � � � ���
��. � `� ���� � -------�—
�,���� , , � +;
Wolfgram�Knutson Architects Ltd. F: s
3140 IJ2il Armsfro�g
�uiie 328 �
Eaga�
4�innesoia 55121
� �`y 5{tE PL,4N
I � SCALE:I"=24'-�"
--� � ,
TfTLE: &1�iTp�R'S Di�.ICs STOR�S Sheet No.
55
NiGNLAND PARK d � t � :
5Et1f 7RUCK AT R�CEIvI� {m-7apg
09-1255
09-1256
09-125�i
Wolfgram�Knutson Architects Ltd. r.6si_6as-s3a4
E 6�1 688-63dJ
31-00 Neif krmsfroog Bivd
Suile 326
Eagon > :
�m�esafa s�i��
5{T� PLAN
SCALE: P'=2m'-ID"
TMTLE: SuYDER'S D�Z S?ORFS
� ' ii
���
NICsNLAND PAt�C
sr�ai��r j�c� a� �c��vin�
Sheet No.
SS-4
Date:
i�-7-�
o9-ia�
z
� �>
r ;
m --�
� r
� �
B
8
�
Wolfgram�Knutson Architects Ltd.
3140 Neil dimsiroog
Suife 328
Eagc�
�ianesoia 55121
�\
.
TITLE: �11'DER'S DRIJG STORCS
NiC,NLAND PARl:
SiRAIC�-IT tRUCK AT �INN d Al.I�EY
Sheet No.
SS-b
Dote:
1�•7-�9
�a e�r r —
�
�� _���
.�
09-125�
�;:��;= SIKC) ASSOCIATES
i;'M`,�=�
-...._..� � ��.� u:� a„ a � e u
October 5, 2409
Tom Beach
Zonin2 and Site Plan Review
Department of Safety and Inspections
375 3ackson Street, Suite 220
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Mr. Beach;
As you are awaze, Biko Associates, Inc., on bettalf of its client, United Food and Commercial Workers'
Union (UFCW) 789, conducted a review of the traffic study prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc for the
proposed Walgreens store at the intersection of Finn StreeUFord Parkway in Saint Paul, Minnesota. We
]earned through our revSew of the traffic study that a queumg problem is forecast to occur, under the
proposed build wndition, for southbound tra�c during the PM peak houx, at ihe intersechon of Finn
StreeUFord Parkway. In an efforc to better undetstand this issue, we attempted to run an intezsection
capacity analysis, using the SYNCHRQ computer model and using inputs provided in the body of the
traffic study. We were not able to duplicate the results obtained by Wenck Associates.
Inputs provided m the body of the traffic study report include: a) forecast build, PM peak hour turning
movements, b) a Ciry- of Saint Paul, recommanded configurat�on o£ lanes, and c) available storage
distance for southbound vehicles. With on]y these inputs, it is no wonder we were not able to duplicate
Wenck's resulis.
In order to analyze results obtained by Wenck and determine if there are refinements to the inputs that
might lead to a shorter, southbound vehicle queue, it is necessary that we are given an opportunity to see
the inputs Wenck used in the analysis of this intersection. These are readaly availab3e in the SYNCHRO
computer pnntouts.
I'd like to formally iequest that you provide Biko Associates with the computer printouts &om the
SYNCHRO intersechon capacity analyses that were conducted for the traffic study. VJhile the forecast
buitd condition for the PM peak hour for the mtersection of Finn StreeUFord Parkway �s most cntical, we
would like to have an opportuniry to review the printouts for all the mtersections under analysis in the
August 14, 2009 traffic study, for the AM and PM peak hours, and for the existing forecast no-build, and
forecast bui3d condirions.
Sincerel}t„
��� ��`�i�
Will�am Sn�ith, AICP
Biko Assoc�ates, Inc.
COMMUMT�' PLANNING AND DESIGN
LAND USb AND TRANSPORTATION
POLICY RESEARCA AND ANALYSIS
GRAIN BELT 6REWERY BOTTLING HOUSE
79 ]3th avENUE N.E. STUDIO 70'1
MINNEAPQLIS, MINNESOTA 55413-1073
PHONE:612-623-4000 FAX:612-b23-0200
www . bikoassociates . com
09-125r8
Attachment
to
Application For Appeal
Semper (Waigreens) Site Plan Application
File No. # �9-089-752
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Per St. Paul Zoning Code, Section 61.702(a), UFCW Local 789 states that the St. Paul
Planning Commission made the following errors in fact, procedure, or findings.
SUMMARY
The City of St. Pau] Zoning Code, Secrion 61.402(c) contains the eleven (] 1)
xequirements to approve a site plan applicarion. At least four (4) of the requirements, ]isted
below, have not been satisfied.
"(c) Site plan review anc� approval. In order to approve the site plan, the planning
commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with:
"(1) The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for
sub-areas of the city.
"(2) Applicable ordinances of the city ...
"(7) Safery and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traf&c both within
the site and in relation to access streets, including traffic circulation
features, the locations and design of entrances and exits and parking azeas
within the site.
"(S) The satisfactory availabiliry and capaciry o£ storm and sanitary sewers,
including solutions to any drainage pzoblems in the area of the development.
EXPLANATION
I. THE SITE PLAN IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN AND
SUBAREA PLAN.
Zoning Code, Section 61 _402(c) requires that a site plan be consistent with:
"(]) The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for
suh-areas of the city." [Emphasis added.J
The proposed Walgreens store is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Subarea Plan for the following reasons:
A. WALGREENS IS NOT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. The Comprehensive
Plan, Chapter 2(Land Use), states on pages 7-8:
o9-izss
"Neighborhood Centers. Growth in Neighborhood Centers provides housing for
changing demographic groups; jobs that capitalize on emerging tabor markets;
and commercial areas with goods and services for people who live and work in
them ... Neighborhood Centers conform to the following characteristics:
"*Compact mixed use azeas with a range of housing types at high
densities, as described in this plan, and aY densities identified in zoning
studies recommended by this plan." [Emphasis added.]
The Comprehensive PIan, Chapter 2(Land Use), states on page 9:
"114 Pmmote Neighborhood Centers as compact, mised use communities that
provide services and emptoyment close to residences." [Emphasis added.]
... Some of the benefits of mixed use are activating urban azeas during
more hours of the day, increasing housing options, reducing auto
dependence, and creating a sense of place."
The Area Plan Summary of the Dishict 15 Highland Pazk Neighborhood P]an (adopted
July 18, 2007} states on page 2:
"Throug� the implementation of this Plan, the community strives to:
• inwrporate a mix of uses and a pedestrian-friendly street
environment in commercial azeas."
"MIXED USE" IS DEFINED TN Tf� ZONING CODE. St. Paul Zoning Code, Section
66.421 states that a miged residential and commercial use is a permitted use in the BZ zoning
districk [Emphasis added.] Furthermore, "Table 66.421. Principal Uses in Business Districts,"
contains a check mark (�) afrer "mixed residen6al and commercial use," which requizes
confonnance with development standazds, including Zoning Code, Section 65. [See Zoning
Code, Section 66.101(d).]
St. Paul Zonir,g Code, Section 65.143, contains ecific standazds for a rr,ixed use
development in the B2 zoning district: "Mixed residetttial and commercial use. "Srandards
and conditions in BI --B3 busfness and IR--72 industriad disiricts: Residential uses are limited to
not more than fifty (50) percent of the basement and first floor. The entire upper floors may be
used for residential use. At least fifty (50) percent of the basement and first floor sha]I be devoted
to a principal use permitted in this district, except residential use." [Reminder: Walgreens
proposal is in the B2 zoning district.]
Although Highland Village is a"neighborhood center," the proposed Walgreens store is
not a mixed use devetopment. There is no second story for housing or office opportunities.
There is precedent in St. Paul for a Walgreens store, with second story for mixed use
opportunities. On Augvst 1, 20�7, a Walgreens store, with a second story for office purposes,
was approved in the Midway District of St. PanL (Note: Although the photo below is a"stock
photo" from an unlmown ]ocation, it is clear that Walgreens can build a two story building with
mixed use opportunities.}
09-1256
B. THE WALGREENS STORE DQES NOT ENHANCE SHOPPTNG
OPPOIZ11JN1TIES. The Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2(Land Use), states on page I 3:
"1.d4 Maintain and enhance retail commercial areas throughout the city by
promoting standards that make them vital and attractive:
a. access to a broad range of goods and services;
b. an anchor far surrouttding residential neighborhoods;
c. safety far pedestrians; and
d. azchitectural elements that add interest at the street level."
Wala eens will not "maintafn or enhance" a°broad range of goods and services." To the
contrary, the proposed Walgreens store will be in dizect competition with following existing
pharmacies:
1. Snyders, located immediately to the east across the parking lot fram the
proposed site;
2. Prairiestone Pharmacy, ]ocated in the Lund's store, immediately southwest of
the proposed site; and
3. Fairview Highland Park Pharmacy, immediately west of the proposed site.
In other words, even without the Walgreens store, there is still plenty of competition for
pharmacy business within a very short walking distance from the proposed site.
Upon anformation and belief, Walgreens has overbuilt in an attempt to dominate the retail
drugstore business sector. Walgreens has stated on its website: "In fiscal 2009, we'll open 495
new stores. In fiscal 2008, we opened a total of 629 new stores, including 32 acquisirions, for a
net increase of 561 stores afrer relocations and closings. Our goal is to have more than 7,000
stores in 2010." [See also Walgreens "Store Csrowth" information, attached as Exhibit 1(two
pages).]
09-1255
Once Walgreens achieves market domination, it will more than likely close its own less
profitable operations in order to control costs andplacate its shazeholders. It is conceivable that
Ford Pazkway could end up with more than a few shuttered stores as a result of closures and
corporate restructuring.
C. WALGREENS WII.L NOT PROVIDE AS MANY LIVING WAGE JOBS —
COMPARED TO THE BXISTING SNYDERS STORE. FURTHERMORE, Tf�RE WILL
LIKELY BE A NET LOSS OF LNING WAGE 70BS. The Comprehensive Plan, Introduction,
states on page 3:
"Implicifly, however, the Comprehensive Plan is not about Iand and
buildings but about the people who live and work in the city. Thus,
policies in a land use plan are intended to foster the creation of jobs
so that residenYs can eara income." [Emphasis added.]
The Comprehensive Plan is clear that "income" means `9iving wage jobs." The
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2(Land Use}, states on page 2: "For Saint Pau] to have a strong
economy and to thrive, it must have businesses with living wage jobs." [Emphasis added.]
The Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 8(Implementation Plan), states on page 3:
"High prioriries for action ... for which without which Saint Paul's future can be realized ...
"* Laying the foundafion for more jobs that pay a living wage." [Emphasis added.)
It is all but certain that living wage jobs will be lost at the Snyder Highland Drugstore,
immediately across the parking lot to the east ofthe proposed Walgreens store in the following
respects. Cunently, there are 35 workers at the Snyder HighIand Drugstore. AII of the workers,
with the exceprion of the managers, are covered under a co]lective bargaining agreement with the
United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 789. Under this ageement, wages rates vary,
but clerks progress from a starhing pay over minimum wage through a scale up to twelve doIlazs
per hour and over 1/3 of the clerks are "over "scale (i.e. over $12.00) per hour, because of their
long service to the company. (Many of the senior clerks have over twenty years with the
company and tumover is low.)
By comparison, although the job count from Walgreens is not entirely clear, thirty (30)
jobs were mentSoned for the proposed locarion. These workers are not covered by a coliective
bargaining agreement. From conversations with current Walgreen clerks at various locarions, it
was determined that wage rates start at minimum wage and workers receive raises on a merit
basis. It is likely that turnover will be higYi and, consequently, fewer empIoyees will achieve a
"livable wage" at Walgreens, than if they worked at Snyders.
It should be noted that the "Living Wage" (i.e. the hourly rate needed for an adult to meet
their basic expenses) in Ramsey County is $12.21 an hour. {See Living Wage Calculation,
Ramsey Counry, Minnesota, attached as ExLibit 2.)
Given the fact that Walgreens, along with CVS, are engaged in an aggressive expansion
race right now in the United States and the fact that Walgreens is sti11, as of 2009, opening a new
store every 18 hours (per Walgreens website, attached as Exhibit 1), it is reasonable to assume
that smaIler chain stores such as Sttyders Drug will c]ose. What we will end up withis at least
04-125�
35 jobs ]ost, many of them ]iving wage being replaced with 30 jobs, many of them m3nimum
wage and without benefits.
D. THE FR4POSED WALGREENS STORE WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE TO
NEIGHBORHOOD SELF-SUFFICIENCY. The Area Plan Summary of the District I S
Highland Park Neighborhood Plan (adopted July 18, 2007) states on page 2:
"Through the implementation of this Plan, the community strives ta:
• provide services that contribute to neighborhood
self-snfficiency while improving the DistricYs position
in the regional economy."
Walgreens will not contribute to "neighborhood self-sufficiency" or improve the
Highland District's position in the regional economy by directly competing with at least three
existing nearby phannacies, resulting in the loss of living wage jobs and loss of the opportunity
for mixed use development.
Furthermore, in 2008, a federal judge approved a sweeping consent deczee in a race
discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against
Walgreens. "The decree, one of the lazgest monetary settlements in a race case by the EEOC,
provided for the payment of over $24 million to a class of thousands of African American
workers ..." (See attached Exhibit 3.) In 2008, according to the U.S. Deparpnent of Justice,
Walgreens also paid Medicaid fraud settlements of $35 million and $99 million. (See attached
Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 4A.}
Can a reighborhood be truly "self-sufficient" if a large corporation, with a history of
racial discrimination and Medicaid fraud, wants in? Will mishust deter minorities from working
or shopping at Walgreens? Walgreens has the burden of proof to answer these questions.
In summary, the proposed Walgreens store is inconsistent with the City Comprehensive
Plan and Subarea Plan because: (I) it is not a"mixed use" development; (2} it does not "maintain
or enhance° the range of goods and services in Highland Village; (3) it lessens the number of
"tiving wage" jobs; and (4} does not c�ntribste to neighhorr,�od self-snfficiency or im�rcve the
Hlghland District's posiUon in the regional economy.
Therefare, Walgreen's Site Plan must be dettied for this reason alone.
E. MINNESOTA CASE LAW SUPPORTS ST. PAUL'S ZONING ORDINANCE,
WHICH REQUII2ES THAT THE SITE PLAN BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVH PLAN AND SUBAREA PLAN. On July 28, 2009, Mr. Wamer, an
Assistant City Attomey, rendered a legal opinion to the Zoning Committee, concluding that "...
the City lacks the discretion to review the proposed use for compliance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan." (See page 6.)
Howevei, UFCW's attomey will provide another interpretation of the law, concluding
that the City of St. Paul must include consistency with the City Comprehensive Plan and Subarea
Plan as one of the criteria for Site Plan review.
09-1255
II. WALGREENS' BI3ILDING FAILS TO "HOLD THE CORNER" OF FORD
PARKWAY AND FINN STREET.
Zoning Code, Section 61.402(c) requires that a site plan be consistent with: "(2)
Applicable ordinances of the city." [Emphasis added.]
The proposed Site Plan is inconsistent with the St. Paul Zoning Code, Section 63.110,
which states in part:
"Geneial design standards. The foltowing design standards shall be used in site plan
review, as applicable, unless the appiicant can demonstrate that there are circumstances
unique to the property thaf make compliance impracfical or unreasonable ...
"(c) In pedestrian-oriented commercial dishicts (generally characterized by storefront
commercial buildings built up to the sidewalk} the folIowing standards for new
construction shall appIy:
(1) BuiIdings shall be as close to the sidewalk as prac6cal.
(2) At intersecrions, buildings shall "hold the corner," that is, have street
facades at or near the sidewalks of both streets ..." [Emphasis added.]
In brief, this ordinance requires the building to "hold the comer" of Ford Parkway and Finn
Street.
The developer has the burden of proving that the property is "unique.° There is no
evidence that the properiy is "unique." It just happens that the subject property does not fit
Watgreens' cookie-cutter site plan.
Furthermore, the develaper has the burden of proving that the "uniqueness" of the
property makes wmpliance with the "hoiding the comer" "impracticai or unreasonable" for
Walgreens. Waigeens has not met this burden of pmof and has provided no written informarion
— that could be subject to UFCW's review and comment - to substanliate its claim that it cannot
"hold the comer."
In fact, a plan by BIKO Associates (dated JuIy 28, , 2009), attached as Exhibit 5, easily
demonstrates that "holding the comer" is possible — and reasonable - by re-designing the
buiIding (with a greater length along Ford Pazkway, and a shorter width along Finn Street) and
placing the building on the comer of Ford Parkway and Finn Sffeet. With a shorter building
width, a driveway could be placed on Finn Street.
In this way, the building complies with the Zoning Code by being as "close to the
sidewalk as pracricaP' and "holds the corner" of Finn and Ford Pazkv✓ay.
III. THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE
'PRAFFIC PROBLEM IS RESOLVED.
Zoning Code, Secrion 61.402(c) requires that a site plan be consistent with:
09-1256
"(7) Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the
site and in relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the locations
and design of entrances and exits and parking areas within the site." [Emphasis added.]
There is insufficient evidence to demonshate that the proposed site plan is consistent with
the "... safery and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic ...." The traffic numbers
purported in the latest Wenck Traffic Report (August 14, 2009) do not include the Synchro
Intersection Capacity Analyses for the intersections that were analyzed. A Minnesota
Govemment Data Practices Act request has been delivered and UFCW Loca] 789 reserves the
right to submit additional informarion in response to informarion received as a result af the
request [See letter from Thomas E. Casey, Attomey at Law, to Tom Beach, City of St. Paul,
attached as Exhibit 6.))
IV. THE STORMWATER ANALYSIS IS INCOMPLETE.
Zoning Code, Section 61.402(c) requires that a site plan be consistenT with:
"(8) The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including
solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the development."
The Pianning Commission Resolution, approved on September 18, 2009, stated that:
"The site plan has been reviewed by Public Works and they have determined that it meets City
standards subjecf to some minor changes." However, that same resolution contains the
condition: "Final plans for sewers and stormwater drainage must be approved by Public Works
Sewer Division." This condition conflicts with the plain meaning of the ordinance which
requires that the Planning Commission must find that there is "satisfactory availability and
capacity of storm and sanitary sewers including solutions to any drainage problems in the area of
development.
This criterion has not been satisfied until the "minor changes" have been identified and
an adequate opportunity has been provided to my client to review and comment on this issue.
Siinilarly, Zoning Cade, Section 67.402(c} requ;res that the site plan be ccnsistent with:
"(4) Protection of adjacent and neighboriug properties through ieasonable provision for such
matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air,
and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses."
(Emphasis added.} Until drainage issues aze adequate reviewed, this cxiteria has not been
satisfied.
OTHER LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT GOVERN CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION
I. THE INTENT OF THE B2 ZONING DISTRICT. St. Paul Zoning Code, Section
b6.414, states: "Tntent, B2 community business district. The B2 community business district is
intended to serve the needs of a consumer population ..." [Emphasis added.] Adding a 4`
pharmacy store in ciose proximiry to three other existing pharmacies does not "... serve the
needs of a consumer population.°
09-1255
II. MORE TtEST"RICTIVE PROVISION TO GOVERN. St. Paul Zoning Code, Section
6D.109, states:
"Other city, ]ocal, regional, state and federal regulations.
"(a) Conflicting regulations. Whenever any provision of this code conflicts with any
other provision of this code or any other taw or ordinance, the more restrictive
provision shall goveru, except as otherwise specifically provided." [Emphasis added.]
"(b) Reference to other regularions. In addirion to the requirements of this zoning code, ali
uses and development shall compiy with all other applicable city, local, regional, state
and federal zegulations. All references in this zoning code to other ciTy,local, regional,
state or federai reguiarions are for informational puiposes onIy, and do not constiNte a
complete ]ist of such regulations. These references do not imply any responsibility by the
city for enforcement of other local, regional, state or federal regulalions."
[Comment The Planning Commission erred by not attaching compliance with other
local, regional, state, and federal requirements as a condition for site plan approval.)
III. WALGREENS I3AS NO VESTED RIGHTS. St. Pau] Zoning Code, Secrion 60.113,
states: "Vested right. 1Vothing in this code shall be interpreted or construed to give rise to any
permanent vested rights in the continuation of any particular use, district, zoning classificafion,
or any permissible acrivities therein, and they are hereby declared to be subject to subsequent
amendment, change or modification as may be necessary to the preservarion or protecrion of
public heaith, safety and welfaze." [Emphasis added.]
N. THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE THE "MINIMi7M" REQUIREMENTS;
TF3E CITY MAY IMPOSE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. St. Pau1 Zoning Code, Section
60.108, states: "Requirements declazed minimum. In their interpretation and application, the
provisions of this code shall be he]d to be minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of
the public health, moxals, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viabiliry, convenience or general
welfare. It is not intended by this code to repeal, abrogate, annul or in any way to impair or
interfere wifl-. any existing proriszon of taw, crdinance, rules or regulations. The city msy
impose additional requirements where deemed reasonable and necessary to protect the
public interest and to ensure compliance with the standards and pnrposes of this zoaing
code and the policies of the comprehensive plan:' [Emphasis added.]
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
As stated above, UFCW Local 789 has submitted a continuing Minnesota Govemment
Data Practices Act request. (See letter from Thomas E. Casey to Tom Beach, Cily of St Paul,
dated September 23, 2009, and attached as Exhibit 6.}
UFCW Local 789 reserves the right to submit subsequent information to the St. Paul City
Councit as result of. (] ) new information received through its continuing Government Data
Practices Act request(s); or (2) additional factual/legal research.
Enclosures:
E�tibit 1— Walgreens "Store Growth" (2 pages)
09-125¢
Exhibit 2— Living Wage Calculation, Ramsey County, MN (Jobs Now Coalition)
Exhibit 3— EEOC Press Release — March 25, 2008
Exhibit 4— Department of 7ustice Press Release — 7une 4, 2008
Exhibit 4A — Depamnent of 3ustice Press Release — September 29, 2009
Exhibit 5— Memorandum of BIKO Associates (July 28, 2009)
Exhibit 6- Letter from Thomas E. Casey, Attomey at Law, to Tom Beach, City of St.
Paul (September 23, 2009)
Sign In: isfer Whv reqister? � Shopp+lg Cart (0 items)
��..�. CQTrl� tJser rrrmne -- Pa�ord C� YourACCOUM � Hetp
BarEc to Norree ` ,=�' Mailbox
Gt�mpany Infc�
t Careers
• press Room
: Press Rek2ses
: E�cu6� Bios
: Fact Sheets
: Photo Archive
: StutlenU�fo
: FAQ
- Toats
: Media Login
: REgK1sf
= Nkdia Search
: My Sriefcase
s RSS Feeds
� Community
� In�estor Relaaons
� h�siory
---99-125�-
m
���� $�t�����
on aligibie orders
, ttf'S54 or mereF
� � �
40Di6 CkZN� , , kEtaiE4
eR+�rrezt ' ' nn�e azscrs
Financial and Qther IVumbers
Saies 8 Earnings
Waigreeris fias recorded 34 co�ecutive years of record sales and eamings.
Rscal year ended Sales Eamings
Aug_ 3T (in biltio�l Percent inene�e (in billions� Aercent increase
2008 $59.0 4.8Yo 5216 5.7%
2007 $53.8 13.4% $2-04 16.6%
2006
ZOQS
2004
$47_4 12.3°/a $175
$42.2 12.5% $1.56
$37_5 74.3°/, $1.35
Fiscal year ended Aug. 31
2008
zoo�
zoas
2U05
2004
S'�OCB GCOWth
Fiscal Year
New Stores
Acquisitions
2008
629
32
Eamings per share
52.17
az.oa
$1.72
$1.52
$f.31
2007
50'!
120
2006
475
95
12.3%
15.5%
15_7%
Pe►ceM increase
s.s%
i s.o°�
t3.2�o
16.0%
15.8°/n
2005
4:�
4
2004
423
14
��: , -� � Press Reieases L3 Faa Sheets c? FAQ
09-125tf
� ►�f 1+
C04L�TiOk
Home
A6out JOBS NOV�
What's New
2048 Cost of4�ving
in Minnesota
Findings
Regionai Job
Yacancy
Summaries
Fast Facts
Re5earch
Timeline of MN
Labor MisYory
Wage & Budget
Catculatflr
Rt the Legislature
Mirtimum Wage
Caritact JOBS P10W
Site Map
Membership
Dfrectory
5earch;
co
t�s � i�
s+rpperting tNe
srark ef tflBS Nt3�?
ssaar�are
ux,n9 J�2 Lef+�
� Enter Your Mon#fiy
COSts � ��
i $,s — � �
� ��69�
��i��
-- I$.ai �-� -- .
�� -
- ---- �
r
_ — ��tEG __—
_
���
, '_____ - _ _ _ �
tS2,t 17
�jS2fi,A44 � �
- - --,
�-------- —�_ _i____
�Hourly Wage 1592.21 �512.27 I
i ` , I
` - i
� ThiS is Ne Wffi7 houny ! � `
jxageraquired �
.'h� meeta lsmiJys basic i i !
�expenses. � C��C11�eLE �
I!n lxo-xorkertrouseholds, ' Cfick ceJCUiate" afler you make your selec5ons, or charge �
Mx's amourtt shoufd 6e
1 �vided7nh2HC�obtaine Yo���mngsormonthlyWSts.
perv.orkerhouAyxe9e ___ __ '
amnunt �
._.___ .__ —'----- --
Please take a moment to give � your feedback so we may rrrdke future improvements to The
CaicuNator. F�re is a link io the feedback form.
{pmB > N/aye 6 Budget GICU1Btot
�,��
Yew
Last l7pdued Ocwbar 2�8
7he Cast of Living in Minnesota Family Wage 8� Budget Calcu{ator
Aboui the Wage and Budqef Calculator
Select a Geographic Area EH
" Pick a County
Ramsey
Select a FamiYy Size �
i Adult
Statewide
aR Greater Mirxiesota
7 Coisty Metro Area
Enter Hours Worked Per Week �
Totaf hours per week : 40
Sugqesdon: Setlhis valae higAerifmore tl+an one person �wrlcs ovtside
tlre house. (i.e. 8Q hours to� 2 tvll-Gme vnrkersl
C21�CU�tC = Click'celcuiate'afteryoumakeyo�rse�ections,ord�engeyoursetbngsormonthfycosts.
Cost of Living Calcutation �3
�� �Ramsey, 1 AduR
y��� i 1 Adult
� / Gategory Monthq Costs
/ �--------(
° Foad � I$252
Datafrom2Q08 �}}p�ir� �$699 --
—�'.__ . _ ____—_
�ounty: Ramsey tNea{th Care $144
—� --- -----._ _- -
'Transpartation }$441
8es iob vacanc�es m 7 �� --
i_-
� �auntv I1�etro Rrea i iChiW Care $0
i_ �te 6on __ ! �Clothirg(Other �$169
�—_
�NetTaxes 1��
7ax beta+i
; '_'_`__"_ _' __ _ ._—__—_
� See vwhat workers ea€o ir �
_ Ramsev Caunty _i !,7otal Montt+ly �
E2,117
jC
Totaf Annual i -_. _
I ��25,404
!�Cost:
`
��t �f�s� ����:��
'�33 � � ��s.t's'�:�
��' N�
�'� � ��
�."�e°^� ,''�,>���
� �<3
�k�� �`:'_
� �„�s°.��`;
� �:�t�s���s� �S"em€r= a� � �sss�; � ���s ?.�� � � zr� ����.
���rw ���
;�� �� ,�;�*R� ;�, ��"��
; € }�^�t:e�€?�: ?,Q�7
09-1255
=s�
.�=: i
� E' 2 �,
"�"�t�� �€€ct���a���: � €��s :��� �s"a �����> r �a' "� c�� ��:��£n�� ��� ���t��f� Ei#�a
#�e�.������ �s� s��;�*art�t� ��z�s�rsz�as���_ r
�. ��ass� ��a ��-� �- �x���r�s����. �,���s
�����c�t� ��rc �� s��a€�� �t��"
�ic�y�� ��ar�
� : ��;,f➢L�
sn�iF�: �'s�s,
; ��, �
�€�C3�� #�'�,��
� : l��.?��
°�`��� �*���p€ �ii���
��'i,�: �'3i �a°@'sr�;a
.� '�: �� rr3a�3it€a�
^� ': ��� t�sisS�i�
�:3G+. 4��� rr�ii=�tsr
� . _ � srs�;ldcrr�
4��s�a�� a� �: �� �r�e� ����� ��:��?���s:��
5,� �a���i�r�
�����a� �g�ez��c��t:�^�
��(�re�vas �r��s�i���� c��4�� exp�n���,��� �im� r���i� a�a�aa�sax§rss���u �1.� �aziiica� ��-a Fssc,��
��3�. ���s *��� � � �� t�a€�*� �€z� s�u� s�€��s, �:.s��a�cs�� ara� a ��t +��i�ea�'xa��
���?ie� i�s �s���c�i�rs� �����s;rs�'� �a��€ i� ��za�s�rr� �£�.
� T ��s � $
§ F # �$ q .� } � j5y ��An'�..3�.1$�.G�
��.V 3 [.1�4.L'F. 3 Lq4DSt6? ��Mf4 �S�?�'..�4
��E.?C3i"a �£3C��:f:� �u�a.� .
�FF?b�'8�@"y'�4°.�`; ��
Ac»�a��� �:a��: �.� €a3sl�a�ars
09-1256
The U.S. Equa! Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS REIEpSE
3-25-08
FINAL DECREE ENTERED WITH WALGREENS FOR $24
MILLION 1N LANDMARK RACE DISCRiMINATfON SUfT BY
EEOC
Class of More Than 20,080 to Receive Manetary Refief; SigniFcant Injunctive Remedies Induded
EAST S7. LOUIS, Ill. - A fsderal judge here has grented final approval of a sweeping consent decree resoiving a
dass raee discrimination fawsuit filed by the U.S. Equaf Empioyment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against
Walqreen Co., the Dee�efd, IN.-based national drug store thain, The deaee, one of the Iargest monetary
settlements in a race case by the EEOC, provides for the payment of over $24 miliinn to a class of thousands of
African American workers and orders comprehensive injunctive retief designed Co improve the company's promotlon
and store assignment practices.
The EEOC Fled its suit In March 2007 alleging that Walgreens discrim+nateti against African American retail
management and pharmacy employees in promotion, compensatio�, and assigntnent The decree, entered by U.S.
Districi]udge G. Pabick Murphy of the Southern District o# Il�inois, resolves the EEUC's fitigation and a private class
suit �led in ]une 2fl05 on behaif of 14 African Ameritan current and former Walgreens' employees (EEOC v.
N!algreen Co., S.D. I4. 07-CV-172-GPM and Tucker v. Watgrnen Co., S.0. Ii. 05-CV-440-GPM) Tfie two cases were
consolidated in Apri1 2607 Following a faimess hearing, the court ruled that the consent decree is fair, reasonable,
and adequate.
"The EEOCs case is a good example of the Commission`s renewed emphasis on c{ass and systemic {itigation and
furthers the agency's E-RACE In+tiative, which is designed to address major i�.sues af race and calor discrfmination,"
said EEOC 6enerai Counsel Ronaid S. Cooper "I commend the work of our outstanding triai team, which included
lawyers from Kansas Ciry, St, Louis, Miami and Chicago, as was appropriate in a case which wiH provide benefits to
a nationw6de class."
The morsEtary payments wili be shared by approximatety lO,ODD Rfrican Rmerican current and former store-Ievei
management employees across the country The decree afso requires Waigreens to retain autside consultants to
r�view and make recommendatians regarding their employmenY prackices, including standardized,
nos�-discriminatory promoti4n and store assigr�rnent standarcis, procedures and promotional benchmarks Cocnpliarsce
with the decree will be monitored by the EEOC and the Goldstein, Demchak firm af Oakland, Galif The Court wid!
retain jurisdiction over the decree for five years.
Jean F. Kamp, acting regional attorney for the EEOC's St. louis District, said, "The Combtnation of very substantiat
monetary relieF and far-reaching injunctive provisions make t�is decree a model for reiiei in similar cases The court
compfimenteA the settlement during the fonal faimess heanng, and we agree that this is an outstanding result fior
African American managers at VValgreens."
According to its web slte, www.walgreens,com, "Walgreens is the nation's largest drugstore chain with fiscal 20D7
sales of $53.8 blllion. The eompany aperates 6,237 stores in 49 states and Puerto Rico.'
)ohnny 7ucker, a Waigreens store mana9er from Independence, Mo., who helped iniYiate the suit and was present at
the fairness hearing, said, "I lpok forward to aii of the positive changes thfs settlement wili bring to the company."
Tucker and the ptivate cfass were represented by Foland, Wickens, Eisfelder, Roper & Hofer, of Kansas City, S•io.;
Spriggs Law Firm, of Tailahassee, Fla.; and Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Bargen & Darda�ian, af Oak[and, CalifThe
inifia� charges of discrimination fi4ed with the EEOC were investigated by Harold Emde in the agency`s St. Louis
District 6ff+ce and Samuel James in the Kansas Gty Area Office.
On Feb. 28, 2007, EEOC Chair tdaomi Earp faunched the agency E-RACE Initiaiive (Eradicating Racism And Colorism
from Emplayment}, a nationa{ outreach, educaGon, and enforcement campaign focusing oo new and emerging race
and color issues in the 21st century workp{ace Further information about the E-RACE Initiative fs available an the
EEOC web site at htcp:llwww.eeoc.aovl�nitiat+veste-raceJindex.html.
i'he EEOC enfarces federal {aws prohibiting employment discrfmination further information about the EEOC is
3vaitabie at www e eoc acv
09-1255
�
,,�' � -
�; i -
�-- , „
��i , ��:
�. r
�-- _;,.;%,
U.S. Department of Justice
Patrick J. P+Ggeruld
United Smrv3' Akmney
FOR INIIv1EDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY JiJNE 4, 2008
s��i��a.�,�i��i��c�v �sac'zir;
United States Attorney
Narthern District oflllinois
FedernlEu�lding
219 South Denrborn S�ree�, S�h Ffoor
Chicago, I(l+noit 6f1604
(31?) 353-5300
PRESS CONTACTS:
AUSA Linda Wawzenslfl (3I2) 353-1994
AUSA/PIO RandalI Sambom (312) 353-5318
WALGREENS TO PAY $35 MILLION TO UNITED STATES, 42 STATES AND
PUERTO RICO TO SETTLE MEDICAID PRESCRIPTION DRUG FRAUD CLAIMS
CHICAGO — The United States, 42 states and Puerto Rico will receive $35 million from
Walgreen Co., of Deerf'ield, Tllinois, to settle Medicaid prescription-drug-fraud claims initiaTed by
a whistlebiower, federal and state officials announced today. Walgreens, a narionwide pharmacy
chain with more than 5,000 stores in 48 states and Puerto Rico, aIlegedly substituted different
versions ofprescribed drugs (such as tablets forcapsules) solely to significantly increase the cost and
prafit rather than for any legirimate medicat reason. The settlement covers Walgreens' submission
of reimbursement cIaims to Medicaid programs in 42 states and Puerto Rico for three prescription
drugs from July 2001 through 2005: Ranitidine (generic Zantac), Fluoxerine (generic Prozac) and
Eldepryl or Selegiline (generic Eidepryl).
The settlemenY, which was fiIed today in U.S. District Court in Chicago, was announced by
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for theNorthem District ofIllinois; Daniel R. Levinson,
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Michael Cleary, Special Agent-
in-Charge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Of�ice of CriminaI Investigations, in Chicago;
09-1256
and Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The whistleblower lawsuit that initiated the case was unsealed at the same time.
The settlement with Walgieens is siznilaz to previous settlements with CV S Caremark Corp.,
which agreed to pay $36.7 million in March of this year, and a$49.5 million settlement with
Omnicare, Inc., that was reached in November 2006.
During the investigation, the United States Attarney's Office joined forces with the National
Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units (NAMFCU), to conduct a joint health care fraud
investigation NANIFCU is an organization of 49 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units and provides
a forum for sharing information and improving the quality of investigations
"$witching between tablets and capsules to deliver medacations might seem harmless, but
when that is done solely to increase profit and in violatian of federal and state regulations that are
designed to protect patients, pharmaeies must ]rnow that they are subjecting themselves to the
possibility of triple damages, civi] penaIties and legal fees," Mr. �itzgerald said. "These significant
�enalties, combined with the willingness of insiders to report fraud, should deter such misconduct,
but when it doesn't, companies that manipulate the system should know that we will aggressively
pursue all available legal remedies:'
Inspector General Levinson, of HHS, said: "The Office of Ins�ector General is committed
to working with our state and federal partners to fight prescription dmg fraud." Noting Chat the
Corporate Integriry Agreement with Walgreens includes comprehensive oversight of the company's
fedexal health care program business, he added "let this serve as a reminder of our prioriTy to
investigate and prevent illegal schemes that abuse Medicaid pmgrams at the expense of taxpayers
and vulnerable recipients."
2
09-1255
The officiais noted that Walgreens did not admit liabiliry as part of the settlement.
Under the agreement, within 10 business days Walgreens wilI pay the United States
$18,584,972.62 as the federal share of settlement and it will pay a total of $16,415,027.37 to be
apportioned among the participating state Medicaid programs. Separate settlement agreements
establish the amounts owed to each state. The State of Illinois, for example, will receive
approximately $L25 million.
The only states not participating in the settlement are Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii,
Maine, North Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia.
The universal federal settlement covers aIlegarions that, for each ofthe three drugs, Walgreens
improperIy switched Medicaid patients from a cheaper version of the drug to a more expensive
veision solely to inctease its reimbursement rate. Medicaid parients who were prescribed 150 mg or
300 mg tablets of Ranitidine were switched instead to more expensive capsules; prescriptions for 10
mg or 20 mg capsules of Fluoxetine were switched to more expensive tablets; and prescriptions for
5 mg tablets of Eldepryl were switched to more eacpensive capsules.
While capsules and tablets generally function in the same way when they enter the body, both
federal Food and Drng AdministratSon taw and state statutes provide that the different c3osage foirns
ofthe same compound are not considered the same. Therefoie, pharmacisis cannot switch customers
between capsule and tablet forms of a medication without a direct order from a physician. State and
federal regulations permit a pharmacist to switch between medications (such as from a name brand
to a simiIarIy formulated, equally efFective generic drug) for a Medicaid beneficiary only if two
conditions are met: first, that the replacement drug is considered therapeutically and
3
d9-12S6
pharmaceutically equivalent, and secondly, that the unit price for the replacement drug is less than
the unit pnce foz the medication originally prescribed.
Medicaid is a joint federal—state program that provides health care benefits for certain groups,
primarily low-income and disabled persons. The federal involvement in Medicaid includes providing
matching funds and ensuring that states comply with minimum standards in the administration of the
program. The federal share of states' Medicaid payments, known as the Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage (FMAP), is based on each individual state's per capita income compared to the national
average. Among the states, the FMAP is at least 50 percent, and in sozne instances, as high as 83
percent In Illinois, the FMAP or federal shaze is SQ percent.
As part of the settlement, Walgreens has also entered into a compliance agreement with the
Deparhnent of Health and Human Services that is designed to prevent this type of drug switch in the
future. The compliance agreement will be in effect for five years.
The individual, or sacalled "relator," who initiated the case by filing his own separate
]awsuit, will receive a shaze of the setUement from both the United States and the states thaC have
their own whistleblawer statutes. Relator Bernard Lisitza will receive a total ofjust ovez �5 million,
comprised of $3,159,445 as his share of fhe federal settlement and $1,844,377 irom the state
settlements.
Mr. Lisitza, a licensed plaarmacist, is represented by Michae] Behn, of Behn & Wyetzner,
Chartered, in Chicago.
The United States was represented by Assistant United States Attomey Linda A. Wawzenski,
deputy chief of the U.S. Attomey's Office Civil Division. Walgreens was repiesented by Frederick
Robinson, of Fulbright & Jaworski.
�
09-1255
The case is Unifed Stafes et al., ex rel. $ernard Lisitza v. Walgreen Co. , 03 C 744 (N.D. Il.).
Under the federal False Claims Act, defendants may be liable for hiple the amount of actual
damages and civil penakies beiween $5,500 and $11,000 for each violation. Individual
whistleblowers may be eligible to receive between 15 and 30 percent of the amount of any recovery.
####
09-12�
� �� � � ��#�rt ��# �x� � �x��� ��e
�
FOR IMMEDiATE RELEASE C�/
Monday, September 29, 2008 (202) 5i4-2007
4°VW W.USRC3J,CsdV TDD (202j 514-1888
Walgreens Pays U.S. $9.9 MiHion to Se#tle Medicaid Prescription Drug
Altegations
WRSHINGTOfV — I{finois-basad natianal retai! pharmacy chain Walgreens has pa�d the United States and four
paRicipating states $9.9 miAion to resotve al4egations of falsety tiiliing the Nledicaid program, the Justice Department
announced taday.
Walgreens submitted cfaims ta Medicaid agencies in four states for prescnp[ian drugs dispensed to persans covered
both by Medicaid and by private ihird-party insurance. The retaiS pharmacy chain aEleged4y charged the four state
E�iedicaid programs the difference between what #he private insurance companies pa+d for tk�e drugs and wha4 the state
Medicaid progtams would have paid for the drugs in the absence of private insurance
The govemmeni atleges the cdairrs were false because the drug chain was entitled to reimbursemeni from the
t�hedicaid programs on{y fot the amouni the Medicaid beneflciary +NOUid have been abligated ta pay Walgreens had the
cla9ms been submitted solety to the private insuress, typicaliy the co-payment amounL yet it knowangly subrratted ciai� to
the tvtedtca'td prograrrs in excess of the co-pay amou�t. As a resutt of #hss irr�roper billing, Waigreens rece�ved
reimbursemen# arruunts firom the sia3es' Medicaid programs that were higher than it was entitfed to receive.
'This settiemenf confirms that we wiqt vigorausiy pursus eliega4ions oi fraud and abuse m stata Meciicaid prograrer>,
wh:ch are funded, in part, by the federal g4vern�nt said Gregary G Katsas, Assista�t Aftorney G�neraE for the
Depa�lrr�nt of Justice's GEvi! Qivisson.
�ii� Uniled Stales initiated the fnvestlgatian in response to a tawsuil brought by two pharrri�cists at Vv'aigreens.
v3nte! 5i�u€anee and Plsi! ThCmpscn. �nder the ��l.se �deims Rct, pr?vate indiv?duals can bring such acfions for fraud on
t�halt of the Ur�ited Sta#es and coilect a share of any proceeds recovered 3Jncier variaus state Fafse Ciaims Acts
private individuals can aiso bring acfions for fraud on behalf of those skates and receive a share af the proceee�s As a
resuli of today's settlement, the two refatars wift share $1,446,658.54 as ihefr portion of the reeave�r_
"Health care fraud contlnues to be a pr'sority for twth the District ot Minnesata and the Department ot Justice
nationwids," said U.S. Attoeney frank J. Magill. "Our �ifice is gratified to see a substankia3 recovery oi funds for the
taxpayers, helping to ensure #ha coniinued avaflability a� Medicare and Medicaid trust funds in the future."
The case was hand{ed }osntly by the Justice Departrs�nYS Civi! Diuis9on ars� the U.S. Attorney's Clffice f�r it� Uistri�t
of Minnesofa, and th� oftices of the RtlQmey General for the states of MicRigan, Florida, Minnesota and the
Co�rum�wealfh of Massachusetts, with investigatiue assistance provided by fhe Otfics ot the inspector Generaf,
�eoartr.eenf of t-tealth arad Human Services.
Tha ease �s enti2ied U.S, ex +el. Thompsan et a?. u. Wafgreen Co., (D, fihinn) Civ, Ac#ion No. 05-SC-75S
�
G'$-861
09-1255
q= BIKC3 r1SSOCI�1'1'ES
�r�����
.,.__.� ; � c a> K z u a n r r a
Memorandum
DATE: July 28, 2009
TO: Saint Paul Zoning Committee
FROM: Wil&am Smith, AICP
RE: Proposed Walgreens Development
Biko Associates, Inc., on behalf of its client, United Food and Commercial Workexs' Union
(UFC4� 789, conducted the following witfi regard to the Semper Development, Ltd.
(Applicant} Submittal fox a proposed Walgreens store at 2101 Ford Parkway, Saint Paul,
Minnesota.
1. A site plan review
2. Review af the traf&c impact study
Findings from Biko Associates' reviews are summarized below.
Zoning and Site Plan Review
As described in the Zoning Committee Staff Report for this project, 7/9/09, the City of Saint
Paul has design standards for pedestrian oriented commercial areas (Section 63.110.c). The
standards state that buildings must "hold the corner — that is have street facades at or near
the sidewalks on both streets .., unless the applicant can demonstrate that there are
circumstances unique to the property that make compliance impractical or unreasonable.
Staffs stated opinion in its report of 7/9/09 is that such uniqueness does exist where the
configuration of the development site would not permit the Walgreens building (as
proposed, emphasis adde� to be constructed and also allow construction of a driveway
access point, at the northwestern corner of the site, to/from Finn Street. Staff further
stated that because "Finn Street is not a typical street," holding the corner is not as criticai,
presumably as it might be in other Iocations in the city.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DESIGN
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
POLICY RESEARCIi AND ANALYSIS
GRAIN BEL.T BILEWERY' BO?TLING HOUSE
79 l3th AVENUE N.E. STUDIO ]07
NfINNEAPOLTS,MINNESOTA 554 7 3-1073
PHONE:612-623-4000 FAX:672-623-0200
www . bikoassociates . com
09-125�
City of Saint Paul Zoning Coimnittee
July 28, 2009
Page 2
Biko Associates respectfully disagrees with the Staff Report in two areas.
I. Significance of Finn Street:
It is true that Finn Street is unique in that it is only a non-continuous street that merely
provides access from two easUwest alleys and direct access tolfrom a parking structure and
a surface parking lot. However, it is not a street's continuity or the destinations the street
serves that are the critical concerns.
The city's design standards are concerned about design image and appearance along its
commercial corridors (e.g., Ford Parkway), and the £act that Finn Street approaches Ford
Parkway and has a face on Ford Parkway as enough to ensure its inclusion when the city's
design standards are being applied. Were this not the case, the decorative pavers on the
northwest and northeast corners of the Ford ParkwaylFinn Street intersection needn't have
been installed.
If anytlung Finn Street's uniqueness as a`2esser" street is all the more reason to ensure
that it faces Ford Parkway with a desirable appearance; a design that would help elevate
its status. It is Biko Associates' opinion that requiring the new Walgreens building to "hold
the corner" would serve this purpose....... not only for Finn Street but, more importantly,
for the face that Finn Street presents to Ford Parkway.
2. Hardship Caused by the Site's Configuration and Dimenszons:
A development site's physical configuration and dimensions can support an applicant's
request for a variance from design standards and requirements in a zoning code. It is Biko
Associates' opinion that with a little imaginat.ion, rather than strict adherence to a
prescribed, formulaic design, the Applicant can develop alternatice design concepts that
comply with Section 6311Q.c. In fact, with just a little imagination, Biko Associates
developed a concept-level site plan tha� does just that. (Page 4 shows the Applicant's site
plan. Page 5 shows Biko Associates' conceptual site plan laid over the Applicant's site plan.
Both plans were prepared at 40 scale, and concept-level dimensions can be taken &om Biko
Associates' illustration.)
As shown, the suggested reconfigured site plan inchtdes:
• Turning the building 180 degrees so that the long side of the building fronts along
Ford Parkway, and the short side of the building faces Finn Street. As proposed by
the Applicant, the long side of the building is parailel to Finn Street, and the short
side of the building fronts on Ford Parkway.
09-1255
City of Saint Paul Zoning Conunittee
July 28, 2009
Page 3
Reduce the dimension of the short side of the building from 85 feet to 74 feet, and
increase the long dimension of the building from 112 to 12S feet. This would
accomplish two things:
1. Maintain the proposed building area of 9,483 square feet
2. Allow the short side of the building (along Finn Street) to be constructed
without preventing the Finn Street driveway (as located and illustrated on
the Applicant's site plan} from being constructed.
• Two dTiveway access points:
1. A right-in/right-out driveway on Ford Parkway that is approximately
(centerline-to-centerline) 225 feet from Fintt Street and approximately
(centerline-to-centerline) 80 feet from the next right-in/rigfit-out driveway to
the east on Ford Parkway.
2. A full movement driveway on Finn Street, as described in the Applicant's
submission to the city.
• Thirty-eight on-site parking stalls, the minimum required by the Zoning Code.
It should be noted that the Applzcant proposed 41 on-site parking stalls. Thirty-
eight (38) of these would be accessible by either of the two driveways illustrated on
the Applicant's site plan. As illustrated, however, the other three would only be
accessible via the alley that runs parallel to Ford Parkway and provides backyard
and gaxage access to residences that fiont on Pinehurst Avenue.
•'Itvo areas along the edges of the development site that can be landscaped, compared
to the Applicant's submission, which shows no landscaping along the edges of the
development site.
• A screened area in the northeast corner of the site where trash and refuse can be
stored.
09-1256
�
d
i�
.�
O
�
bA
�
.�
�
N
�
h�
a
��
�o
'� �
u� _
w��
o �
y � �
� h. ai
�_____ =_��_._ ___�
; 'S
� t zl
� [ e �
�� ��
'} �
_. i i �
s. 1
x' �
` - - a
"�; '
� 3 ti,
{ ^�
� � ;' � �
i , t
�` � x ,_.._-._-. :. . , __,.�,_" t -a�-i-_� "
..�_ ' t �" ' Z�+�ni!�#�;a'Y
`e, ` `,t
r , z{,. . .._, ..
�
<
z '�k^°.. �
�
N
«
�
CS
u_
4X
�a
Y =�
4a
ct =
r` <�
� E:
4 � [� r �
i -... . - "' ; a
_ � ' "' �_-� .
rt . vt _ "� — ' 'i""<
i; � # � � q'-"i �' � ,� � -°,
�+ . .. ��;:.
i ,. .
� ' � `�
� " � ,
� . � . a `,��' �
" , 4` < . . - - : c4
;'_ q _ :�
}' ' _�3'.[ �� - - � ;S
p ' � l " __,.. . . ... . � _ Qi
n .
, . ,. .... � , _ � -.^. -
I. - . _ . .a �,• "
g
f�
, . �"``" f e " . {° A �fl
' �`" ' � �.. . 133Li t5 Mt-� " .'�
� � ��
� r $
- A. i: , _-.. _ . �..
,. .:r5`�'= _� . .- _, .
�
i:�
z
a
J
�
�
N
z
K
K
�
U
C3 �
� J
} .�
4a
��
UZ
� �
o�
qJ
�d
F5
r c:
� cc
�
_� i
c�
c,
G
t{
09-1255
d
61
�
.�
O
�
17Q
S"i
.�
0
N
�
�
a
��
�o
'� �
m .
���
o �
a�
v�a
�.. t�i i , _ . _
` ��"' ��� ,� � � . r ,�.
t ==
r
x '.� °�
��� , r ' t' i " r ' 4 : �
�s
� { �`=�"` �. . . _ � - � .� `� !
('�'�'': ��: y
° �' r�i wj .�� �:
a�
f Y � K �� �` � ����
.. � �E+.-..0 :g>. � _
�-- � � ' � .
{ f � ~ � . _ <£ ��'` '( n, �i
!�� 4 1y .`5 .: . , . e� -,.
S i
_ � � t G _.. -' ' � � ya
Y } �
3 f t�
}
�
t { � N
3C��
�''^ } T
. . � ! ,e . __ .
Y � p�:
�
\
a £ µ5 y5A
\ 4_" _ �
d
��.. �
- $, ._ ' C,-.. :'
� _.._ -.,'..,,- .e...=.
. ."�J -�; � 3`.� tt;[vi::
�
�
m
t �
w �
oa
c �
o =
�_• Vy
R R y
� � ++
+. aJ C
Q. � R
61 C t�
C V Q
O N Q.
C� 0.' Q
J3 »
�°
.t °
�
�
.�
�
� �
� _
� �
�a
U es
� =
��
o9-izs6
City of Saint Paul Zoning Corr�mittee
July 2$, 2009
Page 6
Tra£fic Study Review
Biko Associates' review of the traffic study prepared for the proposed Walgreens
development showed that assumptions used are reasonable and procedures followed are
accurate. There was one area of confusion, however, and that was the recommendation for
the lane configuration on the southbound approach to the Ford ParkwaylFinn Street
intersection. As stated on Page 1-1, and again on Page 6-1:
`Ba.sed on the leuel of seraice analysis, queuing ana.lysis results, a.nd
discussions with the City, the recommended la.ne configura.tion for the
southbound approach of Finn St�°eet is a southbound left turn lane a.nd a
southbound through-right turn la,ne for the entire length between Ford
Parhwa.y and the r•amp/deuelopment access. The existing roadway width of
this segment is 29.5 feet face of curb to fa.ce of curb. The recommended width is
36 feet face of curb to face of curb. This widtJa would a.ccommoda.te a
southbound I2 foot right tur�z lane, a 10 foot southbourcd through-left turn
lane, and a 14 foot northbound lane." (Traffic fmpact Study for Walgreens,
Firzal, July 22, 2009, Wenck Associates, Inc.)
This language is confusing because it appears that
two different southhound lane configurations are
being recommended for Finn Street, as it approaches
Ford Parkway. It was assumed that this is a
typographical error in the traffic study report.
A. B.
The report recommended two
different lane configurations for
the southbound approach to the
Ford ParkwaylFinn Street
intersection
09-1255
THOMAS E. CASEY
Attorney at Law
2854 Caznbridge Lane
Mound, MN 55364
(952) 472-1099 (office)
(952) 472-4771 (fax}
teasey@frontiernetnet
September 23, 2009
Tom Lieach
Zoning and Site Pian Review
Department of Safety and Inspections
375 Jackson Street, Suite 220
St. Paul, MN 55101
VIA FAX rllVD U.S. MAII_
(651)266-9009
Re: Proposed Walgreens Store — 2101 Foxd Parkway, St. Paul, MN
File No. 09-089-752
Minnesota Goveznment Data Practices Act Request
Dear Mr. Beach,
On behalf of my client, L7FCW Loca1789, I request the following data, pursuant to the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Mmn. Stat. 73.01 et seq.}, regarding the proposed
Walgreens store on 2101 Ford Parkway:
1. All "public data" in the possession of the City of St. Paul and/or its apents, whether
employed or under contract, pertaining to the subject of Appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council. (Note: My client wiil be filing an
Application Far Appeal of this matter on or before Monday, September 28, 2Q09.)
2. The computer printouts from the Synchro Intersection Capacity Analyses for the
intersections that were anaIyzed in the Wenck Traffic Report {August 14, 2009), or in
any subsequent traffic reports, for:
a. the existing traffic (2009);
b. no build altemative (2011); and
c. build alternative as proposed by Walgreens (2011).
3. The signed Planning Commission Resolution and minutes (draft and approved) from
its September 18, 2009 meeting pertaining to the Walgreens Site Plan Application.
4. The Highland District CounciI document submitted at the last moment during the
September 18, 2009 Pianning Commission meeting.
5. Public notice of the City Council heazing.
09-125B
Ciry ofSt. Pau1
Septen2ber 23, 2009
6. The date and time that this matter is scheduied before the St. Pau3 City Council, as
soon as it is known. (Based on my September 18, 2009 conversation with Patricia
Jamea, it is my understanding fhat October 21, 2009 is the earliest date that this matter
could be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council.)
7. All documents intended to be provided to the St. Paul City Council regarding the
appeal and the date I can e�cpect to receive said documents.
This request app]ies to a13 public data, whether in written or electronic form. [Please be
advised that Minn. Stat. 13.02, Subd. 7 defines "government data" as "... all data collected,
created, received, maintained or disseminated ... regardless of its physical form, storage media
or conditions ofuse.")
This request is deemed continuing. I would appreciate your courtesy in sending me a
copy of all subsequent data at the time the data is �enerated or received. [Please be advised
thai standing requests for govemment data must be honored. See Minnesota DepaRment of
Administration Advisory Opinion: 04-007 (February 27, 2004).]
Please advise me in advance if the estimated bill is over $SQ.QO. [Please note that Minn.
Stat. 13.03, Subdivision 3(c) states in par[, "... if 100 or fewer pages of black and white, letter or
]egal size paper copies are requested, actual costs shall not be used, and instead, the responsible
authority may charge no more than 25 cents for each page copied."]
Please be advised that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.05, Subd. 12, you cannot require my
client to "... state a reason for, or justify a request to obtain this data."
Please note that Minn. Stat. 13.01, Subd. 3, states in part, "This chapter ... establishes a
presnmption that govemment data are public attd are accessible by the pub3ic ..." In Che
unlikeiy event that you deny this request, please be advised that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.03,
Subd. 3( fl, you must "... certify in writing that the request had been denied and cite the specific
statutory section, tempozary classification, ar specific provision of federal law upon which the
denial is based."
You may either fax or e-maii these documents to the above address. Please provide any
billing document at that time.
On behalf of UFCW Loca3 789, I thank you in advance in anticipation of your kind
cooperation.
V ery truly yours,
_/�� 'r.
���;'., ,� 4 '«.
,
�,�
;�
Thomas E. Casey
�
;
;
i
i
/
�
0
p
} �
� �
� �
J2
Q m
�
m
a
�
� ��.
��
�.�
y��
E�n�
�b'OL' S�ONIW(11�8 J�l9ild)
1��211S NNI�
' (
�
09-1256
a��
��C.;�
}
Q °
� O
a
Y�
�o
Q Z
d�
� �
� m
Q n
� v
0
Z� �
�.�
W�
� ,�
�=
�,
r
��r
0
o�
o�
o�
�z
zLLzo
W.a�o
� 4 a P
3� °
a�
0
O
Q o3�0
m� z a 2
��Q`^i.':
(
�
�
V '�
13�2i1S NNI�
V �b
-, �
09-1 �
II f � �� 1
I
Q O
�j C
> c
Y�
� _
O
a�
d
O�
�m
� a
LL�
Z
W zz
'�So
.,, .y � o
�
> Y y O
Q
0
0
s
a= w��a `
=� =�=
��a�Fve
4
Q I o
�i0
W �
F 11
�^
1 \
r' '
�
D
O ,
O
�
7
O
O
�
O
O
O N
�
oR8
E �
�4�
9�<
c5�d
� �
� �h�b
3 �..-�
09-1256
oRS
O
F �
xo�
s�3
o µ $ m�
0
0
$ - g�F3
� 3 rr�r
\� �
09-125fa
`' � .
. n
� � t �4�
� � � , , � �s� ��_
� �.. 000�
7 I __ _�9 6_ � /// �/J
I j'I � ' � I A>;q9'0`:C^ �4?L r:. IV ��,�'.
DO —^�� (:(?J _'�
l
1
1
. '
� !
� Q O i
W
. . . C� e N : �.
v
F> j
O G
V
pi\ 4 a
� iy
\ � �
t •
o G'
�'� . � � .1�: -
0
` °� z —
�.c � ,� �
�, m
�
� ��
s �
o FV v
i��
M
N�
�. M
� o�N
w� ��
w�
�
,
..;
�� .
�.
lt
O e
p O IIII
a o ��
�
�
��
r
�
1t
�,.
�, 4 t � `r'.
— — _ —..—
�; .
- — �s�5zE-- -- �,;
,7�,9�'.90a�B&3 , -!
3cwvyiMa a ,': ' .- _ -�
'o �'CC�R�C�RF� �����ZRCC-RRZC�C�
d1YYtl 9NDW'JJ
. . � .. \
������`t�a..� a ��
09-1256
n � S I
' ��, tn C.
� yr J
�\ `
i � dl,.�E.5�o00N f f
`�" � .�-' � � � � 09'9Z'E � � ����� ,,:��
<�
- o� ' I � � 5am,l�on.ua am
:a��� OOOC�O � � . I , �� 5 .
i 1 � .
� �
i t � �
�
<�
p � � ' _�
: �
y � • 9 � , I � � j .
�`.
a�� ° o o . I'-� 5.
,: % I
o ''-
� ' e o
c x r .. 2 o p n n : _
s ��
� �i' .i ' � o. p �"
i i. .� •
oR8 � °� ' o � `J
O ..... :\� I if iQ.�� o � i' �;� _\ ,
I /
F 4 w" 1 �� � 1 1 V `''
,��a` �`.+� ' i ' ` �\/=
3 " � � p
° ,
° oP 1 O
� *9a ��� � I i .�. r ; .
S , � � � � �
c . \ I �- �� _ __ -- ° D1Y8° ae
�\• 1 i�l �
p, S'.:.,m°s � I �
� ° a �,,i ; c� c� �� ��
�� � �z � �
� o ���x ° i� i °I m
o * xk � —
"' � �.�� .
°� � n �
c
\ ..�.
<:
�, i
� .
�` i i
� � ' . � vJ
I
� � , i t 1 T
I�
� �
� �
�:� I I
:. � � �,.
�
�: ; �
<� � � � - � ' �
(%\ "Ntl ��I
\�
� ., . : I .
I � z
i � /
4 \ -. ,. '�'� m_vil
� ; , 4 1 p� . .:..; � _..-=
,,
, ; �-
, . � • . .. .. , � ,;
,, °. ..�, : . �
, _��;
' �`,;,, — — .a — — — �� -
� ��g
� ��� ,-�; -- cs'szl�-- —' ! ` , i
` , 90-BB's'-
i d^a:�.
� '` �\ , ,\\ • �JLVD. ' `
p '� I�
d�a.f4 QtlOM 5 - ,S�b 0�s ni��C —
� . � �.
, .
� . . -l' � � � ��
' � '' ��a `` �`� — -'_' _
"'_ ^ � t
.�
, __'______
-,.-<;�"_'___— '_
-''�y „i '_"'__ _ - g � u
� �� � a Eb u�
. s . `__________ ____ _ _ ` �
�`` ! . . �., � \ �c
_2:JY8i1li .
_ . � � . ._ �'� , . .,
� Fa�u�����..��r������ �.'C�: ,�.�T��C�R�:.';'caCiR��a�R����,'C�C��ZS�•a'RC������ , .
� nr,ed ^onaara ��° : .-"'. •
12�5
Z°
O°
Wm�
_��
_a�
c .�
{: :
�
W3 �
� Y
Q �
3a
z
°��
O�a
a�Q
O � 0.
� � r
d N 1n
09-12SS
-l�
� �- Q I :
J
d o
W �
� n
N =
\
; >
a W
� J
J
� a
�
,�
� a
��
Q
3
�
a
a
0
�
0
LL
�
S
0
�
z y
w2
���
< b�
�3�
O"Y++
`oe
so
0
�
f{ -
O '"�a
sJ� � E '
C �a=E::
1256
�
�
��� j
;
-,.;
.
;;
��,
�,
�
�
,
;:'�
��_�
�` .
��
il�.= I
�.
;
�
�I
�
..�� i�
1
``� ;.
�
.��3
��''
� �
� I
�
tl
/�
�y_ �
�
g
N
O
O
v
Z°
O°
�m�
_��
_a�
��
�
{�.�
W
�
�
Q
3
0
W
N
�
6.
0
a
d
Q
Y
�
a
0
�
O
LL
N
z
�
�
d
r
N
izsb
z°
O°
Wm�
s J�
_a�,
��
�
Z
W Q
� �
� Y
3 a
d
z
0
°�f
O � �
d � Q
O•-a
� '- �-
d N N
Z
0
_ - -- �
� _ >
,w
��::: w
- �
N
H
�^•^ W
£ . . . ..� Z
' . � v:h _c. . .
Q
� .��. _ .���.e_u.¢.:�X�n^C\ �
y
W
Q
Z
0
H
>
�
�
x
O
�
Z`
O°
Wm�
_��
_a�
��
�
Z
W3 �
� Y
3 a
a
o �z
O � �
a^a
O '- a
� � �
a- (V N
�
w
J
J
a� ¢
/: �
\_ �
Q
Y
�
Q
a
0
O
�
�
�� Z �
�
�
18
z '
g
ao
W �
F' u
h =
�
a
0
�
n
0
�
N �
� N
K Z
� � �
a��
Q f 6
w>
O�y
6
Q L
G �
0
�� . `, .
�,���
�,���� _ r `
, /� �
, � �� � �
� ,:
�.�',.����„, ° , r �, . � . .
� :a < �
`�* 6 �,'-F4 �,.'
�{` �'� ^ � � i
1
� Y � ,
�° F .
� ;
� . �.. . . .: i
*
�
f
w: z . {.
i „
_ ' ;�.. ' . . . . ' . . � ';
„j
t1'.
, , j � . t . ., .
, ..' ' _. . _ _ _ = a .
�.
..: y � . �..�.. ... �
_ . .. . � � �1�1
` — i
: A � �W1�"� . .
�
�;`� k ''�`� s �"� ;,.� � �. ,
s ti,� .: � — � � �.� ��
: '4 y �%'"�3� � " . ..�!'�'°'�'�'�� .
rY: SY . 1 � �� � 4. ' �!�'
'•�� �` #��'�` :: 4 ' `� 4.. t � .. "�.- .
5 '�#�"y rE b ' r,. . ���... ..
� ,��� °' � �;� �;
���� � � � � � �
�fi, fi:
a .y�3 •,'� . _ -..- �. .
u
i;� a��a. a'ti t ' m� .
y ' �� � - �5�°_ .
� �n
4
_ ( d � � � . �� �' �E'C � .
`�} . —.
f `} �
; z "�� :.
- r' c + + r�' �jEf
r .-s
�
; ia 5 � . i .
b i
t� � � � ��J�. � " .
�� � �
ro N� m4 �
�� � y �� � �� .
* � � I.
� � � �
'� �p,y �v ,�^ I
T+Mr Ly yyy
� �� r `• .
� �� �
� i 1 3
{a, ri ,
� S�� ���i :o '��_ d� F�/ F"` ��'
'� J ' "v" a�'1'-0� J '. F �`
�' ^`Ft+� I
l 3. .F fj � �'
e -� � � l �
� t...��� I
'� �'+��; .. . —ca
• r ' S , ,,: ��
j�.. 3. ��� ��
r y:, '
a!
+y .
� /,-.,'.� - i7 _ " � •
"� �� :
. �
_. ..?,', ' a � . � ,^�f.: . I
Z°
O°
—o
Wm
_��
C:�
�
Z
W3 �
� y
Q Q
3a
z
o�
O � �
n. � Q
� � d
� � r-
C N t!)
12�
Z°
O°
Wm�
_��
_a�
c .�
N
Z }
W 3 �
� Y
3 a
�z
0
W��
O��
a � Q
o�d
ce �— r
a c� v�
��i��1��T • - =
D!" ta
�,
i
, i
,- .
,� ,:
no_i�ct
�,
t
� S
��
n4_t �c�
D� tt� Walc�rPP
�!" to WalareP
D' �e �C� 1�c� l [� rP�
.._. _ . . �.._.�:. .... �..-�... �;..
_ , .. _- � , �; � � �;;, � � � .,£ _' • � �P� �s.
�, �_ ___ __ � a -- ----.
- ��i'�r°� _ :.�.�,.E�CY�s�;��...
�
E _ . ��
r- - �
, � Gt�,_
:
a,_�D rov�
-.. _ ,.��:
` � i �`��
_ -- r. �
�� ��pa�
� ��
�I�r �� xl'1u.���a-� _E l��y-1-- . - ----� t:
�-a.cP�_ _��'=_a� az.c������ -,-�� _ �-
. ?. � _ � t
��: _ _.���_� _— ------- ------�—�
n��� -- U�� --; ---------- --
_____-- -•----__
-- _ --- , L ---
__ _. __.�._..._ _._ _.. /_./
_._.—_ -.,_V - ..
-- ✓---
_— : - --�_
-�ae�� _�
�_ ` � �i r .
v-
-- - --�---- ----- �-
� ���-� ��z.�,c ..... ---;— _ ��� � �"e�-esse��--�„e=- ----- �-`���---- -- � 1��
,!.'/-� z, f�n.v�,r� /53 -� Eyta.,e�z. �q v� l. R9 - SG M� �tc
- --......_ ___ _ ._ _.... _ ----- ----'- ----...--_--
I ,----
'"'�i=Vrlo� _C � �`LZ- /�GsaFrca,.j__�tt� .
— -- -
�_ _" . � �_
- -- -----� .. -�- - _-- _
�����c.E'�<v� . .YR�[Iz__._!�P_a g_GJ��swa -_ '�.��f /6 0 3 � f/ ._.
J (( [
� ,.���`y _ d !.�'_�...._._. € Z��.S �^M1�!�V<_ f �"'.
...-'---- --- ---- -- ' -'---
09-1256
�. , , .
� � � ���� � � �. -
-. - _ ----�-�"elep��r�� i��,�o,,;
._ _ �__. __�--
c fi� _._L��ll_ �.... __ �.l
-- E--z �� Y yf. c /�; � A�-e
�e.---- - ;- - �75 ��-�. G '�
M-e�,�__. `7.15 �.._ _�T. f' L�..�.�
i
� -..�
�#
'�2_�
� �e. _..___���a� ��ii�f�� .- ----! - -
._.. - -� .�
A , � , �JG�� /J .. / .�1� • �r.
� .... . . .� _ ___ _ _
5 S . . �� ..�_ �_�a.���J� _.�✓ • . ' . ��-� � -��.
t � • �
u -�- - - ---. _�I����,s.�- -.__.._---,- �z_`�.`��
a . ° {' ` �'c-�- . -- — ---�L`t S 3_t�-�-. �--a-e� ` ---_ _ _
`_. ,�>.��_.�_�:i�--l--i7�-=�'�- 5�__..__
�-
,
j-.
a
F�
t 7 �' o. _�_y[,r�Z
/ 8 a� �d�
2.163 GK���/jlil
-� �-�-r--�- - -
i� a3a
l�'fb=���� --
��'�.`"LS' `,�; --
l�_L9�7
� �—
.,�-�.=� __
t ti' ' 3
� 90_ �2 q J 9
90— � � 6
9�-,P�,
_�
�"�
t �
� '
09-1256
� � �� t� ��� � a ree
r°'<r
�_,�
no_»ec
,
%
T
I
�v "N�
__ �-.r �..;,�� ._
--�
„ : ."- -
�.��
'09-12�
' ...� __ ., _�.._._ f
�� � � �Q ��f K����� �;.
� _ ��� - -_
", rri�.. �° � Address T�le �hon�:: ' � :°,���f -
f :k 3 S S 1�,� �i},;� S. S' t�=�d7 .S��s _...''���'
`°''�°`' ` LI1�1 3+ A � .,��-.;.. _�u;-�-.
y! t\ .
��� � �� � t
. :�: � yaw� �:�1`3 6S/ �p`�'`l y?3���?Sa.._; _.�;
�Sr ��r'�r �� `��;
' t7rc� 1_ _,'C_._._.
- � s �5 �� ?° _y_. _ .._
� ,� . �-
,' ` , :, — = �-`, -- -
�, e. +.r. �e'� --
'� � . - n ; . /d A. �7, 1 � /.�w r...-.n �A.1%1 ��� � 9� �SGJ') � � ('�[�.' � �
�
z b'K� � ��LS���v i�J� (oSL—bq�t 57oZ�!
a-, __ , �?''L _ �'! �3_ � 3 �?�
,� m, '.�_.�.�::f _...��..�, f`�� ���,���_'�i'-
�.�.�,�'.�.'".S.E_i..`�h��1 "�['� J��� �`�'
_ �y{,..Y�y._-C`�a.--hmc+""n'�s=YJ�`-"-�{>=-•�l'=---._,..� "�.'�'���f.
-- t - "�, �
' /d',�f��� •' s� r� �� u_.�`.^��a✓� w G.4%_ d 5'c �3
s
� �� � rn �w�..S ���--_ � - - D �1��
��� tt «SM. '. ZS -3y -�(�
Z J 4 �t'ec5�� ,f�, 0 �
aC ( / G cTC trZ . C9 S� �� 4i ✓
,G,� ' ! 5 `/'a'
�, U�yti ,f- ( v�2 - 7z 5��
? �r v<¢ ,: °S S" � (���G � sat
7 2 6S (�i�.�.,.�-�.. _ C�L�L_I��t�4�'3L
� � � ��� �_��f��
--� - .:'I• �� ' �i .
-��� .r r
! _i. � ' ' � ,�,
���� . ► ���'''��
- ' ' �
" " ,
- -'' . � ., ,
� , Jit� ��.����
� - ..�..� �
�°J 1" t3l"1 U_"� t �-
�� �6q�-i��v
�n2 �2`1 613�
�� � 3�e S�/5'
�ca� `t-1 �
b� �7 � �v�i'
c s� � 9 � -t-��.
�l-Z�
&5Y-G9a -55'��
63/'�Ya ssF 6
Gs'i 6�0 3 9 3;
�� �, `
;.�' . .,
�,-�v„..
�
_�
��,
_��' i
,
� z;
�l�ii�����1 � :
-f '
�.
' } �I
f �
�� ;
o9-iasl�
! �- /
�l�ii����F1 � - �
:i�ii� [l�Iii�il�l�F1 •. - -
D!" to Walaree
�l�ii�►��F1 � - =
Say "NO!" to Wal reen's
g
�
f
,
�
<� rTv �S�e
Telephone "No!"
-��v -�s
�.,f/—in9_i,�n� a�
�
� I inQ��rr-r �
e� 2 -! �'E � ��.��-1 ar l
%P 3 c-c; .� f� c,.�. �/l,w•.
1 �.�.�`+ �i�9c,C.�J��� S1 . `�
J� �
7�fD ��lc�
18 Sv x
Jlzl� o- ,C
S03'� Q. „ti..;.�'� i
� ^
, �1 � �_
;
� � V �V sJ1 n r., �.,1�. �i-
�/a0`19_Q�/t
� - 63 Q .
6 - 8-
vs/ 1 " ,{/�/
�1 t �v�=c�vj �,, �
� � 2 - ! '1
s - � - � �
� �- � �� �a
1-bS� 3j y �
I- 5
�
� d
- sr �y/- �l�i o
i --(r, �o-d-�rx1 l� �
��F - G � -�
b sr -6 99- 3!� N �
c7 6P�3� - a N �
r`��r ��4� �aaa ,na �1
�7� 33o is r �fU
� 1-G4�1-- v
�-vtiya .�1/0
/
�PS 1 �4Y a71J �
;S'J �9 �- s»
vs"l 6 q i S� 1l,' o
f�5r -� _��
�S'l �qS� - a5 �.�., yut,
r' ��S - d G •
">IV� �� -�� ''p
s� �oG9- 99n?, k a !1 `�
'�..�.._ _ --
S ay - �4
— Name
"S �c N �t.i.Z Lb
6-`r
� �
� ,
7
� �
� _ .�
"NO�" t
.
Address
{E� S Px�cw
> K , � vs�,o�
7 cj N.� �
�v a�b`1/ /-fi"
Za �i r?u.-«
�, `� ��
o Walgreen's
Telephone "Noi"
��L � �ir�1- Z43-o � �S y��
A n 1 7to3 1 3{�
� �. � �
e `� (� f/ - 69e -S�'sq c�
� --59 t,�
,..� A�r 4�48 — Z'3
.c �ri..i�s �' /iy9
w� a� c e
� /`�P/��l?.
�
5
-�
. ,. � ���
.
. .� ��::��
r l� , a►) �/
-�
���
� � !. ; i
�� ��
��/�
�, u �
�S Si_Z/6
- ,r
A_� �rt..rqQ�Cli�
d c �n �,, �,..1 a Qs
�1 L
Q
�
�
0
D!" to Walare
_�
�
,�,
; ,
. �-- I
Say
i � ..�
• . . • --
�... - -. , - .
- ~ �
� I i i /
- i 1 �
� . I � A � � �
��Z��C�i/i'��►'�
� r /
� � .U.0 %� � ' � � � -�- � � +I.�� 1 . '
� � � ��
.
� t �.r �/}-- l.��l.� ` ' �
� �•ALRds.i� , .' . -' �
I�i.��'� • � �. e� t�r.o .e. 1 �
�%'.�� , � / �� � . � il�l�
� ' , r ii
��,� L�._I / � � .f�' ��
� v � �, � A
� -, _ / _� _ 1 = �_�_ �
�„
S -- l�ce 3 i v- � t� y�— , C�o
� .
-z�.1 �,j1L N, s Ti s s.i°Pr .✓� w L.�%- 6 9s-�3 3 �
�� �` o��j �lnh'u'S -� ' ") X
- � `+� ) _34 --u�
/ G,y„� �:�'14�w t S � �,lr P� �� t3
_ . � l� 4 �.1'2�Sm/t '� � �
.b /� !�-ot r' ! G cn'c crZ � � G`�'i �i �-
,� �
� � � 90 -
ou.0 t1-) � � 7�
ct tr �3 +�, lS t��z - �z s 7
'(�,,�,,� / i a,w. � — i v�@w .5 � S" i' �J / G S� S
Z b5 �
Z � � S2 2
� ��F� 1 � �� � �
' � NNd�e�v �l S �6qK-tS � 9
� _ . .
$ 5 zb �Co � i.r�7 �5N ��Z � z 6 � 3,
`%�%� �C � �i 3J'e - S�i/S t
�" � �� � �oy� � 5 t�5
�� � � _� ____.
� ^� �-- 1 ��S a.e. ' cQ
,-4 ;�.�'� �A-e �- �e . 61� a � - 7�
�j' .. � � �ma.� � s � ( 9 ° -�fzi
� � . S � -Z � 7 7
J ..l�,,,�, - 1iY5-���'C`•�sfYa�io3�•�� (,91-c9o-5S6�
,2/5i5_f:v�tl %<wY#io3 f.R�t� ��/'G4a ssb6
�..` ,./u�€ ��$�92 �57 lo c iG 3 `/ 3
_._ �. �7t.2 ( �A...SL SStt-,S �'SI °l`la3 �
D!" to Waiare
( �.
��
/
Di'' ta
__(^-.
�;:
09-125t�
- {,-�
�R
'�.`�{
r_,._...,.---. .� 09-125�+ --•__ !.
` -- �--�}-- ����� � �� �� �� ������� �� �,
F,� �.
-T- � .__�__-_ _
���<.:� �=�. ; ,=�.�;r;;��t �T�Ie��Qne� '�r,,.
- -- - -- - . � __ t
- �_��.���molc- � ���'+c�m�s �-'e_ ::�s�'.' 'i � � — —
"r? _�___��__-�_ ----...��
�ec-�� -� ���E. ,' �3og _�o�'-�wc �s- -�^'�- __ � �e 1a;"?2'3S�S E • �
Ytit �. . V11�9. __ �-13 --g�"t�e�r.i�5__A�2 __ _ ��a1aa5�c5 � x ---�
--.��-nk ___.. �a � .
_.. .._
---- —_=..
�i s � _ _ �-�-oi�crb�� � �g _?vc?Icv�n.t �S _ f� U2 ; (ota-`� � �5 r _ ��-.
'� �-- -� S .1�c/ _ ���_ r� �,�'i�s��: . ._ :
�
i � .�/ .sr/�� � �'��( ���.�-�S� �_Ca_1�� �aZ� �
� � � =S - /�f �� /�_y.�`�.._ Gi�._.. : _ � iz_ 9l1_vs"� . -
. , - —! - - �- -:
�!'/'l� f�iSf�v� _ ��Lk W.. Z�'�' ._ --- !. ��l-�r�-�310� x'
!__,'z� _.. ---- �-- --� L�_ -- --_�
� _ __ 5g � �tYD� �-�r ���- ��-��z . _
�F.�;;� �` �� e`� S�b.2 _ ��-i �s�, i a� �, �s.1. - � �.Y -1 �9z -- � {% x
� - 1��'�- (78t_�v3d p'` ct` �' �57/,6 � 6�'i 6��5'�t� _ _ _ `
. v'
t . _ � (cw.o _ s�o/y �fls�_t9-�e S� b���aso�3� ! ----
- �y .�_
� � '�n� ��r`°`_ __-�. .. �' �� � Qa�r� � �L�_ 6 Sl - (sis - `��S _f1 v (� �
i .� Ut�� ____.__ "f�"I"�I SD.(.lJl(GCZY �} (vSt_L�9�-`{�� �_--•__�'
-.--- _C<�..._._2� S�b) S-F � ---.-�SoS1:=1�'i�? "77� X !
; - - �o?a f .5c��.�n�✓.�-s/� . . _ �(�S/-1�,9.c� 3�,3� - - "_�
.. _ . Z� �
, - ._.. " : - v���--��'�_:c���_���:�(��-- - �_.
� lG�kl�-- - � - - - .. . ��_ � - -- --- f?�(_. 5 . r 7�.� _
L-��.�c� x� .. . Sa l�x�J�� � f�l -.b��S_ L`�.3�_ t
� ��>?�,� _3�_.y�`��- S� M�t� _ _�.�5.� `���s2�? � -
�.�.._.�.
�. s �t��n I���i.�iu�M ��..���,c,{a1�h � .
_.. .. �' l-�'2�2f.�� - -- j
- �-- �- ►�u -�{t2.Lld1� � i��nv��p1�, - - - -(�, �7�t-�,4�''.
�. _ � . _(Gvr �c�L_�'V � u. �? �� ��t.vta�j j�1��e_ ;� =�-_.�_ (- ��� � -_ _ --- __ .
�-- --� J s _.� �Q
- ��.�_ - .=�s�--��c-���__ _ �
:� - � _�S, . �s.s.�_�1� -�:�=i - -��—.�Z-�,� ,
� . ��° � � x
`��- - _. _ - � _u� _ _ ��� _� - - ----.�� �� ��� - - � -- - -
,-�- � - _ - �
---.u.li1�� .�. i..S.a- J � - - �-__-,_�eSJ___�Z�v`�c2.1.°�__� �
�- ` "_ `�- �'�5--_ . �4�- -- — �C�������--- --- - -�
r„ ii ---- i =-_- --- --' �'�'`�� ---j� -..__. .._ _—_--�-------------- ...�- - - -- --
�I9t1-� �v-'��- '-- - � 30 �---__/.� ' �
-- - ---- ---------- '----- ------ - -- �— --
--�--��-� '-�d - ._..!(oFs� �ur�-Ic('�d lklrer1(,t. _��4zsz8ov --�-..NU�----,
---�� ---------- ----- �--------------�--.-'
: - - -�` -------- -�-Lb �d__R.a�h�,.u_ �,° -- __��8�?-���_-�- !�J — �
� - __ _� '� _ -- --- - �� � 3����� —_ _— - -- _�._ 1� � �
� —
=- { - ., �_ - ;---- ---- ��-- �
� .v�. f 4 �_�-�r�2-`- I /b %�� .i
����
t�
�'l
. �_
�
�
�—�
�,
o9-izs6,
D � " ta
.
_�
�;
09-12�
�
�.
�� =
�
��.
o9-izstv
a� �����. t� �������e
�l�Yi����Fl � s
�
1
�
•
.�
_�
��,
. -+��
���
�
� . ` •!
/ �
� � �� ,
�
,, �
,
��
' ��
� � �
�� 1
•
• i
�
/
�'
�
�
.:
� '�`
1 '
��
� �� �
1 '�
► ���; `l,
�
k
� �
�«
� ` � J
�'
.+►
���
�� � �
�` -
� ,
�
��� � � ;
_ �l ,
o9-ias�
v �
� �
�
� -
�
� =
w ��
a� 9 � g ' °� �' �� q�
� � � �
v� � < ' ' �° �-- � �
� � � w r �- s � o `s" '�
� �
�� ��t� ���� ���
�
���:'l�
�
�
tir
�
--�`
�
09-125£p
� ,
• � ' �� , � �� ��;
�
� \., � a :i,l � �� .,. i �' .1
.� ►
' � . \� ' �
• � \ a i� , ' �
\ �
, � . � •. � . .
.
• � . , �
� '
� , . , , . �� `� • \ � • � '�� �
_ ' ,� i
� _
, � i
.
1 � � � \ �
� '\ �� � i
' " � � � \ . -'. v' -
1 � �� ` ' • � „ ,
. -
� �� � � � . � �� � �,` � �� .�
� v �
• ` � � �\ �� � �
V � �� � �� -� A` i ��
I � �� � �i.
� �
� ` , ` { , \ � �` �
� �� ,
: ' ` .. ` � , � `� . � i •� `�
.
\
�
�, ��.
� \�, c.�.
� � �I_
,\ �` \ .. , ; � . �
�
� � • � �� ��I� � � � <
1 . � �.� � � \ � � ` � ' � � ; �i �
� � � / � � � �
�..
' � �v _ / �� ��\ � ���
��\1 ;�� l�. � , 1 \ � 7 .1 �..
.
� � � � �, �
� `�
� � � � ��� h±�� ,; y . i � ` � ► �'� ;��
' �� ���� \, c! * `��►�i�C
09-125Cp
--� �
-�'� � ' -
= �
V ♦ z �1 � J
� �
� � �s
c°
v ��� �
W (
� � f � �
L. � e`�� `_
� ~
�
� �
- � �-
� �
,.� � �.
, �
� � ��
-1—J � o— .i
a� � � �
'� � �, f� ` cd � � Lt �� �
• � .../ � V� V'� 1
O � � � � \_ �
z
r
r � � �
� �
N '
� � d
� U �
(Lf
�_ Z `
° � t'1
��a
� � �
� � �
�
�
S-
�
U
�
�
�
�
�� � �
�
� J �
� ^ o
� i_ �
�wo
�
S�
1
`
M ' °" �
�n � � ' ✓
a" �
� .� , � � `
�
J
/�
_—�
� v � O ��
CI) z ° � �
� -
� � � �
� i� ; � '� n s��s ` , M {
W � `4 _ (� ;p � ,
O i� �
� Q� ��m� �� �� ��
o� �q �- � N N
� � ^ ` � � � �
L �-�a � U ' 1r �P � cy ��.i�
� ~ �' �
_h
�� �3" �� � � '�� � 3
� � �
� � � }� 3 � � , � v
� ��� ?�
�-� � �� � �� �
- � �'. � J ` � v1 -�` -�
O }� �
J qS � c�y a e i .. .
..�J tn v S a�' �� .� Z S
� � ° � v v� 3 '*a y — �
� � � �� � � P � �
��.. � C M� � r' J„ 6�- b � ° y
0 a� � �- m �e
,
z
_ ��
_
� �, �
>' x � � �
� � � �
�/'� � � s � C
iJ J � z k `'
; , Z -�t �
�
�
o9-i2s�,
•� e � `
� �y�
� � .. `
. � � �
� � � � _
� O � � � 1
� � �� � �
�9 `�9 4 \
o �
v L '
� �' � �
��� � �
v �
�, � �
� � v
j \ � 4 :
���
�
,
�
�
_�
- �
V) z �
_ :
� �
���
� � �
� I �
� � � `I
� ^' � r
W �
� � � \
�� �
� �
� �
� �
J � ^
� y �
�� � t
� �
.. � C
� �-}� V
��■ - t �
O � �
c
z
_ �.
_
>, � �
�
�
��
�.
�� �
�
�� �
N � �
�
� b �
` � i
M
�
t
cb
�
�
1
�
�+
� ►
y ._
�
�
�
���
o9-ias�
��
�\VSIvII�
a
�
u
!
�
�
��
�
.�
C
_�,
��
�.J
V) Z �
� �,
�
� �
� �-
L °�
a�
�~
� l
� �
�
�
o ��
�E...� tn �
� �
` � � �.. �
O a �
Z �
_ �
—
�
� n
� ��
� ��
��
Z
�
�
W
�
,
��� �
o9-izs�,_
�-. _ -.
-�.
i " �
� � �
��� � �
i • ` ' `� *�
� , , � w��
�
e , , + ' «►
,' ' + ►
�
� �� � � �
--,�
� �.� � 0 -�'o (/� a�! ��s
o9-izs�
- "Nb f ' ` '--'
-�'� A�d��S � �, � _ .�
,.��, ��sQ� �r�� Yy�`'�,� � kc� �~�` .�>���
� � � - 7�� - �r s3 X �s �,--TS' ,� �
_ „✓ z?��-�s, ,ua,<1
� � w-�- ��¢
�- a � �� �s - �4s�- a � �� � .�.,� ��
�,J¢. �---
�- �-r�3- .(�.s - ��8'- ��s� �-..-�, L�
�� �J L y32�1�/t�Q�L �• i(/o Aleec� �� � .
°" ��'� i(1 /S. �`lnt SSyoC Liz - zzg-oG9/ jJa,j r��n,5!
� i --
�� fGLZe��l�9�,,.�. �s'l—��lz
't� �c.�i� 1� �s3� I�ew� tt in� �I�o. ��3. �15Zy
� �--_�-�- �
'""1 � (Q��S "`v`-1 "�1��t51he^
� ��vQ `�.1 w� v�.ee
� �� �
,,,
,�_
t
os-iast�
-�,
—,
�,
�
�
� �,�
��,---
;—:
Grs �� � ��
,_.
09-1256r
_ �J � � � � �v �/
- � �—�-- i
— �` ! C� � GLLG�22� g �
��
6v��X?iL
��
_�_- 0 _ „ �
ii �Z-,��� �� �
>
,
���
G��
;
�
) � �'
,� �C�
7�t0 !� �P �
� �
z �' S � � 3 �5 /1�
-�o.�.� ss i ��
�
csi- 6 gy _$�
Q`�-P S" 5 l �G
zoa y
��i ,
f.1 % � f � .��, �
�' ���✓.�v � S �-;� �,
' � / Gl�GI��-rr�c, �l� ( . �" ���.�,_�`�
°�--� 1� � �G)�Q ��/�Pi S 5" / 1.6
� �/��'�Z�� �O y'�-
�z,� ��� ��� � ���°���-� � �, ���
�-��---{� �`�' � `' � �.� C�.� �'� �3// !�
� `� �-d,�. L 1..,� � I � Z �? �� �W�� U�K� ��1 � (�
J ��
- . G'� rf3� � � - �<« `
—�. -.�
.� ��
a
�,/�1�. f�
�.
;�:
���
�������
' ���z-�„�
4�
� ��' r' � //;,. _ e
_ � �.. >
-ss� �
_ ,
J`� `
`V ���� J ��1� �
`"`' c�� L�� �
� �/� � � / / `�-� � - �� ( �
8t• � ,�Jl� �.e, /�e i,t/ ,� �i� 8�
��-� ��'� ���-�`�'� �a� /z,�
S�,�<� �J�,
��i�.���l�
� �� (�
o9-i2s�
. Yz � � �� � �o �'��////�'�/ �
�'�„� - �'�2c � _ _ 9 4 _, ��_
��J��
9 t� ��
Y �' i �h v
� "Y' x '� y 'a -- -
s'�.� ' - - r �. °-
� ;�
� . � � ��� r �.�7�
c <<�� �f�
/ ^ > y ��' k
� /� ��i
;z •• �Y
k
r
>�
C�G�U,.��f
��ecc� God�
/"�!�'J'-l�- �i=rNJ'ON ► lvly-69d f(o9�
����.C� �Q.��/��� ��/� 9 ������ m
�ev�� �-��� � t2'«'��wS �, Ssl�3 GiZ-7c�2-�z�
Ct�IE���Skr��r� �uz� ��r� �,r� �n��z�-�
��' l�� } ' ;/ J�(/�� �,// ��S% � 9� 7d/ j
�1��-.w '�37����-�J ��°�-�b Tl�aew - .c�
� .57 -G y,{� - �30�, S .
�� Qfl,�l'f Z��3 e(�G„ �'rl - 6 5'8 - 62.2�
�
� �S��n�, f `i2o ��� �J �e`�S ��� l
�� To � �- ,�� $'l 6 s � . ,��E�_ ���� �
f 50�.��d�e'� (�2 �91 62d t�12_
� � So� `�l� RS� t/�1(� �J �e( �S/- 7S �?�7
� ����� �
���� � �-��-��{
�. �r��. � c��� s1�
f-� �C. S(ot�.tRe t'aca��{ i�S Co�Y K.7 GS'� G5f-Y'b�o �
�flz�,,,,,K�,� (�Sl H� �70 �3
. /�°? ��� 7 ��Q�u�.�. 6� l 6q9�"�zir
`��3 Ccin � ��,�C., Ci:
� ��� F i/Mao/f�' � df
i��
l,J�
�� (G�- �Z3 ��v�zS�-
iL% �,���a V � ` +LtcQ -lS/aj�"
. �,� q' � /�lro F-t�r'd,�i
. „
sl3 a.z� ��aq
� �l �� �� 1
6 �l- � ��i37�
�5�/�5 �� y��
�5 l- 3�
�ri� • ��zo
���- >Z� �ZZ�,
��� - �� -�t� � s
l� 5'� -�-�-Y�&�fG�/
�s �-� ��-�a�
09-1256v
- �
-�'.� G ��
�( � fD
/�
��
r'`�
�...:
/Yi.� �w�� �
0� �l u-��'S�
,
i� � 4 uM �-�'�+�
�U(7� t�w.0 � r v i 11 P
�ti . �������
�� �'�-�
- � � ��
v� CzY� [ GC:�qv
� ���,�,1� /s e �
� � ��
_. , ia,
I(���
l � 7� � �t!C/-�12S �
�
✓
✓
✓
�
� ��-6�/�6��T 2�
✓
�'S(- 3 �- �`f fS
� � — �o� � ��f
�l- t���_�-lo�
c� s � - 2� �+�--� 1�9
b5� �q g 33 �.�
�s�_ � q � -07 �-/
�� z �nns �d � �
v
�
��
✓
��
�.�� ��c o,�ay
�,'S� — 65�-oyy`� .
d�a_ �a�-3�/ �
��� 3�- Li— � � ��
�s �-aq� l�h�a
C�S�'a��� �� 1 ��
�s �- c�q�� �� ��
(� 5 f - Cr� - = -f �I �.
`� � - ���'t - _�7�
✓ (�S!-��`0--13t?
�/ �1�7-1�-�'td
�./ �� _ � � F'- $��y
� b5/- �gFs- �,B�g�
� �S�` � (p�j g - 5 I t�v
6st - � _ a�s�
�
�
✓
�.--
��� ���i�t�
� s t - 6�2- � ��
(� 12--ht�' �l b�
��z- -� z� g ��`,/
__-__ Say
- ( � Name
� j
,�Na ��� t
.
Address
� G T '�'7 L�-N J .,
t b 31 [t �! f c,-�
\�Sa C� ui
J ��
— � L {a '- v � -- � - [ - y � (
v.'( > f
\� s �
o V1la1g���n's
_ _ Te{ephone "No�"
�
,,�
�_
�
�.�
��
� �
�
� ,�
;�
:3 � �
-- �.
-(
(
��;
r' �
,;
,
;
__��-.
�
�'
. .:
-�
� �
' I'tGr�, I�Cr'rav��_'.—__ ""_i�Li �GlShtoUk f�\C�� "_ � 1 �\ _ N_.�_�
p � � _� --�--- �
C ' —' �< -----a-t`i'l"l '��i� Ws� �- -- �'t - c�� - ��-- �
� �rw�1'�,�1�� .'. _�9�f�zn,�� t%�-� __ -�--(y�iS `r(�� ��, _ .l
_ i'.�,� rn, �jL, th 4r!>. �.� a S_ r.�r._ �.. _ S-_ - G)2_�2i. t�� ��+ � o '
�.��-uL� z.,�i���t � l 7 3 a/��. f�i�; / S/ - G y c/ -�d.�`� _/� p
� - - -- --
-�- - =�- �= --� o - �- - � �nS�(��1��� d�
- -� -
- �� � `���'� ---�- - � l�a�l -� q� _�_r� _ i/�Jp
_����_. 7�is 7licao. �, � " .�� ssC �5"t ��1�= 3rr6 ��S
-�1�,,� �a�, m ��� � . --- --�! �=�s �--�
' _. _ �°�`1Cs ���- — '�s�-�`�C���I� ��� ;
,. . _ 1�b�-i� _ ° b�1 � �` �- � �,3 ?-�.���<n�_ � L �
,_.. ----' ' -- . 3�s�� 2�`".� Sv _ Cns1 �s�c���'� {
� '��— , l0�{5 cl��e��v��t r�ve 5, �11 �is.5t-q2s I�;C�
� .._._.� r...�.
o9-ias�
; � :�'�,� �, � � �, � ��._� _ . M t
; � ���- ���� _�����.��: -� 4
���.�� K � , � } _ _ l _� A �__ 'R __�
' � �" � i�� E.t 4 "t'' ``• `.` �--- �--- -- - , : N; [ I .; �'r � '- k� �:,- � . f'' S
f���- -` - - - ' - -- --- - �-- - --' -
� ���', ' I y �i . �-._ �_ .. .� t_ 6 9 R-1 t? �1 �-
� �����-.,-`- .�( ��!-.��---� � �trl. °_v�,�YS�_����-=��x---�-,- �t°
�__ ; 1� �i.1 �__����o_.S� ��-,4�- �-3�1 S - -�`
� _.'�%iti.�ll� �w_ .x fff /// ���///,,,///��� ,,,, ��/� ��I `f0%,�_._%�, �� -- —_- -L�� ' 711 J
�� . . � ��_. 1: /_ J .
��.Y � �(n C.ort �1�:� �_�K`� �L �!+'!C� �11�-. - -- �-�%!Z . � Z° "3� �- --;
� n ,
� �`� — -�-.� �-� c�5 r�.� ,�._ --- -j �l�(o4v - r�i7 _ N`� -
i.-_ (ar`^ ''-� --- [b w 65g. C�r�� �— --- - —' -� B 4 a =��� � - !� -
` � ��---- —`�- - * 39� s .G�evv�noF� � -- --- � — �
��oSsrDL._-- 'L ���\- �aaC� �,ve • ...---- ��>Z = 2l0- Gzzl rJ(�
-�.' ' - - .
t;n"'`e � ------� ��� ��0� t�,c.�- ----,- I. (as�_ la�f 5 ts�-(_ i'-�o __J
/ � /
-� . - `°. ,��`� .�F-��Z'- /'nho
----� '°�OL� �C � S� �
-- — --,� �.��'------ —� — ------
E
�--------- -- - - i ----- — -------
-------- --�------------~--
V --- ------------
— --- -------- �__— -- - --------
--- -- --- � -- -------- --
-------- ------�-------- --
— ---- -------- '
�
— 6t(�—�/Y5 1U�
._�_
_-/�
�
�
�_�
nn � �et
�;
f� �#
� �-.
�r
I➢�ii�: -
i • • � � � s
. � • • ' ' • � � �
I:'j.l�,� �; - .�,�.; , �/�
����:.'.�� . �, . . � + � :, ' j N�
�i�' � %Il�j' O!/
��1.��� . ��
.: :��f!� : _-- . . :.� � i � , � �
E"�i'�K�.�'s�� � - . � � ����
�'=�l��".��` �L _ �
�s.�ii . �. i . • �; �
� � i
'��3'" ` •� ' � �'� -- -• '� %.L al
� � . . �� ' � li�a� � �
.��.7_t/:. . . ..� iL.�' . -I`.u���r i ��
-�����II������y l.. I / / I ,.
�. � �_�.��'��G.��������������.� i�,�.� ����
��'���t -_..� '� , --5- f ���
«i%I,�.J�� ''�I�II'�T!J�' � �1i �� Jllil� �
�,.`'�3�/'° L"% . - ... -,�.
�
�
�� �
■ �
���� ���
���
�� �
�
�� ��
���
���
: -'�.
�
�
�'
�
�--
r
�
�. �
�ay "NO!" to 1/�/algreen's
Name Address Telephone "No!"
ise �.c, rlals `�g+ �c�i 5� sSfos Gz.Siz��Tz�f�
�. ��C� f 5Y �Ju� �f t� - � -
—�
\
�
t
�,
�
nn i �ct
�'
-- �
� ,
.
�y�
nn_i2cG
09-125�
- - s�t n�
Building and Constrvction Trades
October 20, 2009
Kathy Lantry, President
City Council Members
Saint Paul Ciry Council
15 Kellogg BIvd.W., #310
St. Paul, MN 55102
Dear Council President Lantry and Council Members:
Council
I am sending this letter to let you know that the St. Paul Building and Construction
Trades Council supports the plan for the new Walgreens proposed at the intersection of
Ford Parkway and Finn. We agree with the approvals by the Highland District Council,
the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission itself
in their support of this project.
This is a good project and will provide a significant number of jobs for our men and
women from all trades.
Sinc` rely,
� F �`�\�
Harry Melander
Executive Secretary
HM/df
Opem#12
651-224-9445 • FAX 651-224-9783
LABOR CENTRE, 411 MAIN STREET, ROOM 206 • SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 �. -��
o9-i2s�
�$1��a.11C�.
��iS1�leSS
1�.SSOC1a�lOri
October i5, 2409
Mr. Tom Beach
City of Saint Paul DSI
375 3ackson Street, Suite 220
St. Paw, N1N 55101
Re: Proposed HighIand 4�%algeer="s Site Plan
Dear Mr. Beach:
On behaif of the Highland Busi�_ss �ssociarion I am contacring you with regards to a site plan
for a proposat to build a �Va;greer: ��n Ford Parkway here in Highland. This is located next to
Snyder's who has been a longsta� cia:g and valued bvsiness within our community.
W e understand that objection l�as �e �n: raised to the site plan submitted by Walgreens. There was
a suggesrion made at the Planuing vominission ievel that the site plan should be altered to place a
builcling an the southwest eorner �f the property at Ford and Fiun. 4ur board reviewed the site
plan and discussed this issue at ou �ietober board meering. Ovr board is oppased to requiring
Walgreens to alter the site plaiz to ;_�cl��de a building on that corner. We support the site plan
which has a pubPic area an the cc•� .� . 2.Iany of the customers of ovr shopping district waIk to the
area and having a seating area tha� �� ;,Ieasandy landscaped would be an asset to the commerciat
district
Sincerely,
;,
%� � � r � �?
/ I�;/r��" �'�-�---�
! � � + � � v
Anne Langfe�rd
President
Highland Business Association
cc: tii�axd 7 Council Fresiden� n�?np Lantry
�Vard 3 Couneilmember �_z "arris
tR'ard 1 C�unci3membe� ";:�: �:n Cµrter III
Ward 2 Councilmember u�-r Ti�,une
t�ard 4 CounciIn7ember R:,�;s Stark
VJard 5 CounciImember Lez Hefgen
Ward 6 Councilmember L*�. 3ostrom
?90 Cieveland f,ven_<<- ?; ° Suire 219 • Saint Paul, MN 55116
Tel: 65 i.69990�2 a��x �.:� �.099.024� • �Veb: www.highlandba.com
09-1256r
- -
10/21/09
Parce�l'D 26-29-22-220021
Maryland BP
1200 White BearAve N
St.Paul MN 55420
651-7780404
This letter is an objection to proposed assessment for 1200 white bear Ave N. this amount is
very high and expensive for our business. Our property value is under $ 400.000 and we already
paying over $24.000 a year in property taxes. We are barely making it. We have 2-4 employees
working for us; i'm the owner khal AIouI working 30 hours a week for no pay. Also my wife
works about 25 hours a week with no pay so we can remain open. This amount will put us
behind and possibly close the business, this is a very hard time for small business financially and
we ask this will not pass for now.
Sincerely
Khal Aloui
651-343-4995
o9-ias�
SOQ I�5 CENTER
80 SOIJTX EIGXTH STREET
MJNNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3196
MAIN: 61 Z 63Y309Q
fAX: 61].632.{4�q
THOMAS l. �OHNSON
ATTOPNEY
QIREG7 DIAL:611.632_3202___ _ _
fnX; 612-632�430� -
October 20, 2009
President Kathy Lantry & Councilmembers
City HalI
I S Kellogg Blvd., West
St. Paul, MN 55102
SubjecY: Appeal of Walgreens Site Pian Approval
Dear President Lanhy and Councilmembers,
VIA EMAIL
& U.S. MAIL
The site ptan for the proposed Walgreens Pharmacy – at Finn and Ford Parkway – has been
approved by the Plannin$ Commission. Both the Zoning Commit[ee aad City staff
recommeaded approval. The Highland Park District Council also supports the groposed site
plan.
Appeals to the City Council mus# be based on allegarions tl�at the Planning Commission made an
error in the facts they examined, the procedures they followed, or the findings they rnade. (City
of St. Paul Code of Ordinances, Section 6I.702(a)}. No such error exists here. Rather,
the appeal is based on allegations that were made previously and dealt with affirmatively and
correctly. Accordingly, the City Council must approve the Walgreens'site pian far the same
reason as did the Planning Commission: The plan is consistent with the City's requirements for
site plans (Section 61.402(0)) and that is the only lawful determination before the Council. Each
of Appellants' azguments are summarily discussed below.
The appellant argues that the site plan must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
'Fhis argument was first xaised when the matter was before the Zoning Committee. In response,
the Committee asked for a memo from the City Attorney. The City Attorney dismissed the
appellanY's contenfiion, stating that when a proposed use is gecmitted under the zoning code, such
as here, the eniy issue is wkether the site plan is consistent with the City's requirements.
Considerarions that relate to the use of the property are not allowed. {See Rewrd of Decision
"ROD", PP. 89-94).
Even in the face of this apinion, the Appeliant continues to reference language from the
comprehensive plan that encourages mixed use development, enhanced sfiopping opportunities,
livable wage jobs and neighborhood self-sufficiency. These are all relevant — and legally
appropriate — considerations when the Council is deciding which uses are to be permitted
within a partionlar zoning classification and how a particular azea within tha City should be
zoned. But, as stated in the City Attomeys' memo, once the City determines the zoning
classificauon for a particulaz property and, correspondingly, the permitted uses for that property,
"any aYtempt to apply provisions of the Comprehensive Pian as a basis fo deny tke site plan
application for this permitted use would be arbitrary and capriciaus." (ROD, p. 93).
GRAY, PLqNT, MOOTY, MQOTY 8 BENNETT, P A
A FULL-SERVICE LAW FINM
MINNEAPOUS, MN • ST ClOUD, MN • WASHMGTON, DG
WWW.GPM�AW.COM
o9-ias�
Conncil President Kathy Lantry and Councilmembers
Page 2
October 20, 2009
Appellant next azgues that the site plan is inconsistent with the City design standards which .
state that "At intersections, buiidings shall `hold the cornar,' that is, have street facades at or neaz
the sidewalks of both streets." This design standard can be waived if "there aze circumstances
that aze unique to the groperty that make compliance impracticable or unreasonable..." T'he
Planning Commission had considerable evidence on which to base its determination that the
proposed Walgreens Pliarmacy should not be located on the corner of Finn and Ford Parkway.
The evidenceincluded:
• The unique nature of Finn Sh�eet - which is only one-half biock in length and serves
solely as the driveway for two pazking facilities and the egress from an alley (ROD, pp.
30, 36, 78);
• The opportimity — supported by the Dishict Council – to create a public space at the
comer of Finn and Ford Pazkway which would "hold the corner" and serve as a focal
point for Ford Parkway (ROD, p. id3);
•'Fhe opportunity to widen Pinn and create a right turn lane that would facilitate traffic
movement out of the parJdng faeilities (ROD , pp. 32, 33, 50, 79);
• The placement of the Pharmacy building on the corner would cause nixrnerous design
problems, including having the driveways for Walgreens and Snyder's too close to one
anather on Ford Parkway for safety purposes, crearing a"sea of parking" by locating two
surface parking lots immediately adjacent one another, and causing site line issues for the
traffic on Finn Street (ROD, pg. 30-33, 78, 142}; and
• The fact there was "no public support for a building on the comer" (ROD, p. ld2).
Based on this evidence, the Plamvng Commission rightfixlly concIuded that the site plan should
provide far public space at the corner of Finn and Ford Parkway and that the Iocation of a
buiIding at the corner was not only unnecessary to comply with the ordnance, it was undesirable.
'I'he Appel2anYs third argume�t is Yhat the develcge: :as �ct ;�et its bu:den of p�ocf to
demonstrate t3iat the traffic problem has been resolved. Few assertions conld be further from the
facts. Applicant c�nducted extensive traffic studies at the d'uection of Publie Works. Traffic
Bngineering then recommended approval of fhe site plan subject to various recommendations.
(See ROD, p.72). The developer has adopted each and every recommendation in the revised site
plan. Simply beoause the Appellant continues to argue for fur{her traffic studies does not mean
that they need to be conducted. In fact, Traffic Engineering agrees that "...the Walgreens will
generate less traffic than tha previous uses that were on the site – the gas station and parry snpply
store" (ROD, p. 71). Moreover, the proposed site plan improves existing traffic flow pattems,
particulazly on Finn, (ROD, p. 3Z) and is pedestrian-friendly (ROD, p. 68}.
09-125fv
Council President Kathy Lantry and Councilmembers
Page 3
October 20, 2009
Next, appellants azgue that that the storm water analysis is incomplete. This is apparenUy based
on a statement in the Planning Commission's approval that "Final plans for sewers and storm
water drainage must be approved by Public Works Sewer Division." This is always the case.
The site pian is never the final plan. This is true for the issuance of building permits, signage
permits, eta These permits aze isstted on the basis of more detailed plans developed after the site
plan's- approval. What is important is that Public Works has determined thete is adequate sewer
and storm water service capacity. This is reflected in the finding in the Zoning Committee Staff
Report that "the site plan is coasistent with the satisfactory availability and cagacity of storm and
sanitary sewers." (ROD p. 80).
Finally, as additional grounds for theu appeal, Appeliants throw out a number of"other legal
principles that govern City Council decisions" (ROD, pp. 8-9)None of these principles,
however, are applicable to the review of the Walgreens' site p2an. All but one of the them relate
to the use of the site, rather than the site plan. As pointed out previously, the City Council
cannot legally take into consideraUon the apprapriateness of a new pharmacy on the sita, That
determination was made when the Council designated the sita — and the sunounding commereiai
azea — for tbe B2 zoning elassification. The proposed pharmacy is a permitted use in a B2 zone.
AppellanYs frnal "principle" is that ihe City `Snay impose additional requirements where deemed
reasonable and appropriaie to protect the public interest...." `Fhis is hue so Iong as fhose
conditions do not prohibit a permitted use, In fact, the City has "proposed" revisions to the
Walgreens' site glan thax the developer has adopted. So, too, has the neighborhood. AppellanYs
goal — unstated, but obvious — is to prevent the Developer from building a pharmacy on the
groperty. 11tis, they cannot do.
As pointed out numerous times in the record, the Walgreens' site plan has been snbject to much
study, discussion, and pnblic input. The plan (which started with two buildings on the site,
including a small building on the corner of Finn and Ford Farkway) has evolved as a result. It is
now a better plan from the viewpoint of all the interested garties — except Appellants'. It is also
a plas3 in full comgliance �vith Lhe City's site p:an requirements and, as a result, one that must be
approved by the City Council. To do differently would mean inappropriately and tmlawfuliy
yielding to ait Appellant whose singular goal is to prevent the subject properiy from being used
for a puxpose which is +�ermitted under the City's zoning code.
Very truly ,
s�% °��`"
Thomas L. Johnson
Attomey
cc: Mayor Chris Coleman
GP2661726 vt