09-1389Council File #
Green Sheet # �
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT,PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented by
�
1 WHEREAS, MGM Properties LLC, in Planning Commission File #09-203521, on or about July
2 13, 2009, submitted a site plan for review pursuant to Legislative Code §61.400, for a modification to an
3 existing parking lot located on property commonly known as 1102 Larpenteur Avenue West, and legally
4 described as Clifton Dale, Ramsey Co., Minn. Subj To Rd; Lots 1 Thru 5 Blk 1; and
6 WHEREAS, on September 17, 2009, City zoning staff prepazed a report on the said application
7 and recommended denial of the site plan application and referred the report and recommendation to the
8 City's Planning Commission for a public hearing on the site plan application; and
9
10 WHEREAS, on October 22, 2009, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, having
11 provided notice to affected property owners, duly conducted a public hearing on the said application and,
12 at the close of the public hearing, the Zoning Committee moved to recommend denial of the application to
13 the full Planning Commission; and
14
15 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on October 30, 2009, based upon all the files,
16 submissions, staff report and the recommendation of the Zoning Committee, moved to deny the application
17 based upon the following findings and conclusions as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-
18 66:
19
20 1. The site plan submitted by MGM to the City for review does not show a fence or barrier between
21 the parking lot and the alley. The site plan shows an area labeled "proposed access" between the parking
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
lot and the alley.
2. Section 62.108(c) of the Zoning Code says that in "arder to approve the site plan, the planning
commission shall consider and find that the plan is consistent with" the findings listed in that section.
a. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in
relation to access streets, including traff c circularion features, the locations and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is not consistent with this finding. Staff from Saint Paul Public Works Traffic
Engineering reviewed the site plan and the impact on traffic safety of unrestricted access
between the MGM parking lot and the adjacent alley. They concluded that it is not consistent
with the safety of vehiculaz and pedestrian traffic. In a memo about the site plan dated
September 3, 2009, Public Works staff said:
"The site plan submitted by MGM Liquor provides no pertinent traffic inforxnation regarding
access, accessibility or traffic safety for this site. All that was provided was a rudimentary
sketch showing full access to the abutting alley at all points along the south boundary with the
alley and evidently an undefined alley/driveway access along Lexington. It is presumed that no
changes are being proposed internal to the parking lot or at the access points along Larpenteur.
6 � - f���
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
To address this submittal we took a look at the site access including collecting some general
volume and speed information surrounding the property.
T'he data collected shows the alley volumes are 2 to 4 times higher than a typical residential
alley and actually has more traffic, in particular at the east end of the alley, than the adjacent
local streets of California and Dunlap. Traffic volumes of a local street magnitude in an alley
are not acceptable from a traffic management/safety perspective as the design of an alley is
narrower than a street with more limited lines of sight and a need for lower speeds to offset the
potential for vehicle/vehicle conflicts with the limited sight. The open accessibility along the
full length of the property allows traffic to enter the alley at any point along the alley with
higher speeds aggravating the vehicle/vehicle conflict. In addition, it appears from the data that
the property may be experiencing some cutting through of traffic from Larpenteur eastbound
across property to the alley which again is a traffic safety issue intemal to the site and the public
alley.
On the basis of the above, we recommend denial of the site plan showing full access along the
alley and the undefined driveway/alley access point onto Lexington.
b. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
1. The site plan does not meet the conditions in Section 63310(fl for alley access from
nonresidential property.
Section 63310 first states that alley access is not permitted "except where the applicant can
establish, in the review of a site plan application, that allowance of alley access would not
cNeate oY aggravate an unsafe condition ...." The applicant has not established that
allowing access to the alley by removing the privacy fence for the MGM parking lot meets
this required condition.
In addition, Section 63.310(� does not permit alley access unless the applicant can show
that "one (1) or more of the following conditions exist ": The applicant has not established
that any of these conditions exist for the MGM parking lot.
Alternative to alley access are unsafe due to traffic volumes, t�affzc speeds,
proximity to an intersection, steep slopes, a blind pedestrian crossing, or sorrce other
unsafe condition.
There are safe alternative to alley access. The parking lot for the MGM store and
office building has two driveways on Larpenteur and one driveway on Lexington.
• The location of the existing structures on the property prohibits access to the street.
The location of the existing structures on the site does not prohibit access to the
street from either of the two existing driveways: the two-way driveway on
Larpenteur and the exit only driveway on Lexington.
�' � � (�8�
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
• A comprehensive plan or a neighborhood pZan approved by the ciry council
recommends that new off-street parking facilities be located in the rear of
development sites or discourage additional curb cuts or driveways across sidewalks.
There is nothing in the comprehensive plan or any neighborhood plans for this area
that addresses the location of parking or curb cuts for this site.
• The number of parking spaces in the off-street parking facility is seven (7) or less.
There are 28 parking spaces in the parking lot for the MGM Liquor store. There are
an additional 12 parking spaces in the adjacent parking lot for the MGM office
building that would have access to the alley through the MGM Liquor store parking
lot.
2. The site plan does not meet the requirements for visual screening in Sections 63.313 and
63.114.4. The applicant is proposing to provide the required visual screen on the residential
property across the alley. This is only permitted in cases where it is "mutually agreeable to
all property owners involved." Although MGM owns most of the property across the alley,
it has not demonstrated that all of the property owners across the alley have agreed to have
the visual screen on their property.
c. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for such
matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air,
and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is not consistent with this finding. The privacy fence along the alley is needed to
protect adjacent and neighboring properties by providing the required sound and sight buffer for
the MGM parking lot.
Unrestricted access to the alley would have a substantial negative effect on neighboring land
uses.
d. The arrangement of buildings, uses and faeilities of the proposed development in order to
assure abutting pYOperry and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably affeeted.
e. Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The site plan is not consistent with this finding. The site plan does not provide a visual screen
along the alley that is needed to protect neighboring properties and required by the Zoning
Code.
£ The City's adopted corrtprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the
city.
The site plan is not consistent with this finding. Alley access, as proposed in the MGM site
plan, is not consistent with objectives of the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
� � -r���
134
135
136
137
li8
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
to "mitigate the consequences of local traffic in neighborhoods" and "make neighborhood
traffic control a priority."
g. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically signifzcant characteristics of the
city and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Removing the fence along the alley does not affect
unique geologic, geographic or historically significant characteristics of the city and
environmentally sensitive azeas.
h. Creation of energy-conserving design through Zandscaping and location, orientation and
elevation ofstructures.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Removing the fence along the alley does not affect
the energy conserving aspects of the pazking lot.
i. The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions to
any drainage problems in the area of the development.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Removing the fence along the alley does not affect
the sewers or stormwater drainage of the parking lot.
Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the AmePieans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Removing the fence along the alley does not affect
the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
k Provision for erosion and sediment contYOl as specifzed in the "Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Control Handbook. "
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Removing the fence along the alley does not cause
issues with erosion or sediment control.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Legislative Code § 61.702(a) MGM Properties, LLC, duly filed an appeal
(Planning Commission File No. 09-319912) from the determination made by the Planning Commission
and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said
commission; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 61.702(b), and upon notice to affected parties, a
public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on December 2, 2009, where all interested parties
were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application,
178 the report of staff, the record, minutes and recommendation of the Zoning Committee and the
179 Commissions resolution, does hereby
��-r���
i8�
181 RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, pursuant to Legislative Code § 61.704 does
182 hereby affirm the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter as the appellant has failed to show
183 that the Planning Commission committed any error in its fact findings or procedures and the Council,
184 accordingly, herein adopts the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission as its own in this
185 matter; and be it
186
187 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of MGM Properties, LLC, be and is hereby denied; and
188 be it
189
190 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this Resolution to the Appellant
191 MGM Properties, LLC, the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator.
192
193
194
Requested ep t [ � �/
By:
Approved by the Office of Fmancial Services
By:
Adopted by Council: Date �����✓%
Adoption Certified by Coun '1 Secretary
BY ` S /!
Approv a Date t (Q
By:
Approved by ity Attom�ey
BY � G�G✓G�✓,�— � Z — `t — a %
Approved M orfor� bmissio to ounc'
By:
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
Depar4nenUOtficelCouncil: � Date Initiated:
G� - l3d'°I
r CA-Cityqttomey � 09DEC2009 � Green Sheet NO: 3091116
� Contact Person &�Phone: i �
I Peter Wamer �
' 266-8710 �
Assign
I Must Be on Council Agenda by ( ate): � Number
�'� 23-DEG09 �p� � �..�� i For
� Routing
� RESOLUTION � Order
Doc. Type:
E-DOCUment Required: Y
Document Contact: �ulie Kraus
Contact Phone: 266-8776
0 Gtiry Attomev I i
1 �Ltity Ahomev � I Deoarbnent Director '
2 itv AttorneY (,tity A�tt �mo ev ( l�� 1 � O l��°i
3 MayoYs Office MayodASSistant
4 .Couuc� �� ---�—�
5 Ciri Cleck l Cil — tv Clerk �
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Memonalizing City Couacil's December 2, 2009, motion to affinu the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter and deny
the appeal of MGM Properties, LLC regazding a modification to an existing pazking lot located on property commonly Imown as
1102 Larpenteur Avenue West in Saint Paul.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R):
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Gommission
Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions:
1. Has this personifinn ever worked under a coniract for ihis deparimenY?
Yes No
2. Has this persONfirm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/frm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Facplain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet.
Initiating Probiem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
The Council is required pursuant to City 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 resolution in
ordei to comply with the Charter.
AdvanWges If Approved:
Resohition will fulfill the Council's dury under the CharCer.
Disadvantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
CosURevenue Budgeted:
Acfivity Num6er,
December 9, 2009 11:25 AM Page 1
DEPARTMEM1'"f�OF SAFETY AND INSPEC7'f0� iS ! Y/1 � I� 1�/]
Bob Kessler, Direcior �l I O%
CZI`I' OF SA1NT PAUL
Christopher B. Coleman, May�r
Novembar 12, 2009
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Research O�ce
Room 3'!0 City Hal4
Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
373JacksonSireet,Suite210 Telephone: 65/-26G8989
SrPau1,.+.Irnn.esota55l01-1806 Frzcs+m<le. 65l-166-4.
Y�eb: �nnvs!pard gav/Asi
I would like to confirm that a pubiic hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
December 2, 2Q09, for the following zoning case:
Zoning �ile Number:
File Name:
Address:
09-3199t2
MGM Properties LLC
1102 Larpenteur Avenue West
Purpose: Appeai of a decision by the Planning Commission to deny
a site plan showing changes to an existing parking lot.
The site plan cails for removing a fence between the
parking {ot and the adjacent alley.
Previous Action:
The Zoning Committee recommended denial of the site plan with conditions on a vote of 7-0 on
Qctober 22, 2009.
The Planning Commission denied the site plan on a unanimous vote on October 30, 2009.
f have conflrmed this day with the office of CounciSmember Hefgen. My understanding is that this
public hearing request will appear on the Council agenda on or before November 25, 2009, Gity
Council meeting and that you will pu6lish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legai Ledger.
Please call me at 651-266-9088 If you have any questio�s.
Sincerely,
��� """'_` `_
Tom Beach
Zoning and Site Plan Review
cc: File #: 09-089-752
Appellant: MGM
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Saint Paul City Council wiIl rnn-
duct a public hearing' on Wednesday, De-
cember 2, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in the GYty
Councll Chambers, Third Floor, City
Hall/Covrthouse, 15 West Kello�g Boute-
vazd, St Pa�1, MN. to consida tfieap��
of MGM Prope,rties LLC to a decision oFthe
Planning Commission to deny a site plan
sh l o �g cl�anges to an e�sting Pazl�ng lot
ZarpenteurAvenue West
Racquel Naylor
(=1ty Covncil Offices
Dated: Nwember 12, 2009
(Novem6er 19)
81: PAOL IEGAL' ^'^^"—
42224086
M Equal Opportunity Employer
�
�
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor
Date: November 18, 2009
To: Ms. Mary Erickson
Council Research
310 City Hall
St Paul MN 55102
From: Tom Beach, DSI �
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECT[ONS �, 6
Bob Kess[er, Director `� ,' /�lil
lJ i �" (
COMMERCEBUlLDING Telephone: 651-266-9090
8 Founh Sbeet Eas; Suite 200 F¢csimile.� 651-266-9114
StP¢u1,Minmesota55101-1024 Web: wvnvslnaul.eov/dsi
Re: Zoning File #: 09-319912
File Narrie: MGM parking lot site plan appeal
Appellant: MGM Prope�ties LLC
Address: 1102 Larpenteur
Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a site pina showing
changes to an existing parking lot. The site plan calls for removing a
fence between the parking lot and the adjacent ailey.
Citv Council Hearinq: December 2. 2009 5:30 p.m.. City Councit Chambers
Staff Recommendation:
District Council:
Zoning Committee Recommendation:
Support:
Opposition:
Planning Commission Decision:
Deadline for Action:
Staff Assigned:
Attachments:
Denial
Recommended denial
Recommend denial 7-0
0 people spoke, 0 letters were received
2 people spoke, 1 letter was received
Denied, unanimous
Applicant has waived 120 day deadline per
enclosed letter.
Tom Beach, 651-266-9086
Appeai and supporting materials
Deadline for Action extension letter
Pianning Commission resolution
Zoning Committee minutes
Correspondence received
Staff Report packet
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
� Department of Safety and Inspections
375 Jackso� Sfreet, Suite 220
�� Saint Pau(, MN 55101
651-266-9008
APPLICANT Name MGM Properties LL �
Address 1124 LaroenteurAvenue West
City 5t. Paul St.MN Zip 55113 Daytime phone 651-224-3781
Name of owner (if different)
PROPERTY Address 1102 Laroenteur Avenue West
LOCATION Legal description: Lots 1 2 3 4 and 5 Block 1 Clifton Dale
rf
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 61, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision
made by the Citv of St. Paul Planninq Commission
on October 30 � °S A . z�3sz � s.�- Vkw
, 2009. number:09-66 Zak,,, F� (� oq.3{�.$.�t� 31yy �
(date of deasion) �—
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit,
decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the
Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
See Attached Exhibit A.
(attacir additional sheet if necessar _
- --y� - - - - - -- -- - - — --
� plicant's signature �i ��'�i�-i�� � �
/, Date � G � City agent
J:rzonelHandouts�APpEAL.doc � ` /✓�ji'� �aa1 f `
,�
Kelly & Lemmons, P.A.
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
OFCOUNSEL:
McGUIGAN& HOLLY, PLC
❑ Chad D.Leu�mons
chadlemmons@kellyandlemmons.com
Reat P�operty Iaw Specialist, Cerhfied bythe Rea]
Property Section of the Mmnesota Shte Baz Associalion
November 9, 2009
Office ofDSI
City of St. Paul
375 Jackson Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
VIA HAND DELIVERY
RE: Zoning FYle No. 09-203-521
Application of MGM Properties, LLC
Property Address:1102 Larpenteur Avenue West
Dear Sirs:
Bnclosed herewith please find the Application for Appeal formally appealing the decision of the
Plamung Commission dated October 30, 2009. I ha�e also enclosed a check in the amount o£
$435.00 in full payment of the filing £ee. �
Please contact me with any questions or comments.
Respectfully yours,
KELLY & LEMMONS, P.A.
Gi����
Chad D. Lemmons
CDL/smk
�
�
�
7300 HIJDSON BOULEVARD NORTH, SU1TE 200 o SAIlV'l PAUL, NIINNESOTA 55128 �
TELEPHONE 651-2243781 FACSIMII,E 651-223-8019
www.kellyandlemmons.com
�- ���s I
i
EXHIBIT A
l. Finding 3A is unsupported by the evidence submitted by the City of St. Paul ("City").
The data relied on by the City of St. Paul was insufficient. The City relied on one single traffic
study count which was conducted over a 36 hour period. A review of the City records indicates
that no past traffic study count has ever been performed of the alley lying within Block 1, Clifton
Dale.
Manuals on traffic studies state the proper traffic study procedure is to conduct multiple traffic
counts. By failing to conduct multipie traffic counts the City has not followed the proper
procedure to establish the historic traffic count on the alley in question. The City's factual
fmdings are also incorrect due to the City's inconect comparison of traffic flow on the alley to
that of a typical residential alley. The use of the north half of Block 1 is exclusively commercial
while the south half of Block 1 is residential. In addition, the north half of Block 1 faces
Larpenteur Avenue a heavily travelled road. The proper comparison would be to those blocks
abutting Grand Avenue, Ford Parkway, and portions of Snelling Avenue in which the block is
shared by both commercial and residential uses.
2. All uses of the north half of Block 1, Clifton Dale is commercial. All other commercial
parcels in Block 1 have access to the alley and use that access on a daily basis. The Applicant is
the only commercial parcel forbidden access to the alley. Such treahnent violates the
� ApplicanYs right to equal treatment.
3. The City's Finding that the Applicant must comply with Section 3.310f is incorrect. The
ApplicanYs use of the property as a retail liquor store with the parking lot commenced in 1980
prior to enacrinent of the 1994 Court Amendment Farbidding Alley Access by a Commercial
Property Owner. Historically the property owned by the Applicant has had access to the aliey.
4. The City's Findings in 3b.2 and 3d aze factually incorrect. St. Paul Legislative Code
Section 6331(3) requires that all off street parking facilifies which adjoin or abut across an alley
from residential use must provide a visual screening as required in St. Paul Legislative Code
Section 63.11(4). Section 63.11(4) provides that when mutually ag�eeable to all property owners
involved a required visual screening may be located on the opposite side of the alley right of way
from the non-residential zone. The Applicant did construct, with permission of the property
owners, a screening fence on the south side of the alley, opposite its property. The Applicant
conducts all ongoing maintenance of the screening fence with permission of the property owners
upon which the screening fence is located. The Applicant is the fee owner or equitable owner of
all properties which lie south of the alley and face the ApplicanYs property. The Applicant has
granted itself permission to maintain the existing screening fence.
5. Finding 3b violates the ApplicanPs property right of access to all streets and alleys
dedicated to the public in the plat of Clifton Dale, see Bolen v. Glass, 755 N.W.2d, 1. As the
owner of lots located in the plat of Clifton Dale, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirms the
_- -- applicant's_iights ofaccesstoallstreets and_alleys dediFated_inthe plat.. The only evidence___ __. __
� produced by the City is anecdotal. Such evidence fails to establish that the ApplicanYs use of the
alley represents a safety risk to the abutting property owners.
3
6. Finding 3b.2 is factually incorrect. ApplicanPs site has only one existing curb cut •
allowing access to Larpenteur Avenue. Finding 3b is also inconsistent and factually incorrect.
The Finding states ihat the Applicant has one driveway providing access to Lexington Avenue
yet the second succeeding pazagraph states that the driveway leading to Lexington is eicit only.
This Finding is factually incorrect in that the drive located along the south side of the Applicant's
building is used by delivery trucks as an entrance from Lexington and was designated by the City
as an entrance only. With the fence in place, if MGM is receiving a delivery, this point of
entrance/eacit is not usable for traffic. Additionally, if MGM is receiving a delivery, cars headed
south on Lexington Pazkway tumiug right into MGM aze unable to see the delivery irucks unfil
they have entered the driveway and then aze forced to back out onto Le�cington Pazkway with
very limited visibility, crearing a very hazardous maneuver for vehicles and pedestrians on
Lexington Pazkway.
7. In addition, the City has previously permitted the Applicant to remove a portion of the
fence which would allow access to that part of the alley lying south of the Applicant's existing
building.
Finally, the Applicant objects to certain statements of history contained in the Resolution dated
October 30, 2009. It first unplies that a permit is required to rexnove a fence. A review of the St.
Paul Legislarive Code indicates that a permit is only required to cons�uct a fence and no permit
is required to remove a fence.
This history also misstates the Appellate Court's Decision. The Court of Appeals did not find �
that MGM did not safisfy the screening requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Instead, the
Court simply found that the evidence regazding the fifth properiy owner was not sufficient to
sarisfy the requirements of a summary judgment. The Court did agree with the District Court
that regarding the other four parcels, MGM satisfied the requirements of the Ordinance by
permitting an opposite side screening to be erected.
�
�'�, ( 3S�
�
�
Request for Continuanee
September 23, 2Q09
Gladys Morton, Chair
Zoning Committee
City of Saint Paul
I 100 City Hall Annex
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Re: Zoning File # 09-203521
MGM parking tot site plan review
Dear Ms. Morton:
I am the applicant orthe applicanYs duly appointed representative in die Zoning File above stated.
I request a continuance ofdie public hearing on the application in this Zoning File which is presently scheduled
before tbe Zoning Committee on September 24, 2009.
I understand that a continuance of the public hearing before tlie Zoning Cominittee meaiis that the fmal decision
of the Planning Commission on this applicarion, which is presently scheduled on October 2, 2009, will also be
continued.
I am aware of and understand tUe statutory reqnirements found in Minn. Stat. § 15.99 (1945) limitin� tha time
the City of Saint Patil has to approve or deny this application. I desire ta waive the statutory requiretnent for a
decision on the application within that period.
Sincerefy,
��Q//' ����113�1 f'
Pnnted name of applicant or applicant`s
du3y appointed representative
�}��� d6� ,��,�/�o� �°
�l G1�
/. ��'`"'/!� i��
Signature ofapplicant or applicanYs duly appointed
duly appointed representative
�
i
�i�
city of saint paul
planning commission �esolution
file number 09-66
date ��:+ohP� so, �ons
WHEREAS, MGM Properties LLC, File # 09 203521, has submitted a site plan for review under the
provisions of Sec. 61,400 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for a modifications to an existing parking
lot located at 1102 Larpenieur Ave W, legaily described as Clifton Dale, Ramsey Co., Minn. Subj To
Rd; Lots 1 Thru 5 BIk 1; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on October 22, 2009, held a public
hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application
in accordance with the requirements of §61,303 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning
Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings as
required under the provisions of §6T.402(c):
History
• A site plan for the existing buildings and parking lot was approved by the City in 1980.
• The approved site plan shows an 8' high privacy fence along the south properfy line, between
the AAGM parking lot and the adjacent public atiey. The fence prevented vehicular access
beiween the MGM parking lot and the aliey. The fence also provided a visual screen between
the MGM parking lot and the residential property across the alley as required by Section 63.313
of the Zoning Code.
• In February 1994, the City amended the Zoning Code to restrict access between commercial
parking lots and adjacent alleys in cases where there is a residential use across the alley. Alley
access is prohibited unless the applicant can demonstrate during site plan review that the plan
meets condifions related to traffic safefy and other issues listed in Section 63.310.f.
• The fence remained in place until MGM removed the fence in November 2007. No City
approval had been obtained to remove the fence.
• The City received a complaint and after an inspector confirmed that the fence had been
removed, the City sent a letter on November 16, 2007, to MGM ordering them to restore the
fence.
• MGM declined to restore the fence.
• The matter went to District Court which ruled that removing the fence is permitted because there
is screening on the souYh side of the alley and that denying MGM access to the alley constitutes
a taking of the property.
• The City appealed the matter fo the Minnesota Court of Appeals which ruled that MGM sfiould
have followed the City's administrative process for obtaining alley access; the City did not
exceed its authority or interFere with MGM's property rights; and MGM did not satisfy the
screening requirements of the zoning ordinance.
• MGM submitted_an application for site plan review on July 13, 2009.
moved by Morton
seconded by
�
�
------ IPI - ��if91" -- — — tlnanPmous -- -- --- -- ----
against � �
Page 2 of 4
File #09-203-521
��-����
� 2. Site plan
The site plan submitted by MGM to the City for review does not show a fence or barrier between the
parking lot and the alley. The site plan shows an area labeled "proposed access" between the
parking lot and fhe alley.
3. Required findings
Section 62.108(c) of the Zoning Code says that in "order to approve the site plan, the planning
commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with" the findings listed in that
section.
a. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in
retation to access streets, including traffrc circulation features, the locations and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is not consistent with this finding. Staff from Saint Paul Public Works Traffic
Engineering reviewed the site pla� and the impact on traffic safety of unrestricted access
between the MGM parking lot and the adjacent aliey. They concluded that it is not consistent
with the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In a memo about the site plan dated
September 3, 2009, Public Works staff said:
""The site plan submitted by MGM Liquor provides no pertinent traffic information regarding
access, accessibility or tra�c safety for this site. All that was provided was a rudimentary
sketch showing fuil access to the abutting alley at all points along the south boundary with the
alley and evidently an undefined alley/driveway access along Lexington. It is presumed that no
changes are being proposed intemal to the parking lot or at #he access points along Larpenteur.
To address this submittal we took a look at the site access including coltecting some general
� volume and speed information surrounding the property.
The data coilected shows the alley votumes are 2 to 4 iimes higher than a typicai residential
ailey and actually has more traffic, in particular at the east end of the alley, than the adjacent
local streets of Califomia and Duniap. Traffic vofumes of a local street magnitude in an alley are
not acceptable from a tra�c managemenU safety perspective as the design of an alley is
narrower than a street v�rith more limited lines of sight and a need fior lower speeds to offset the
potential for vehicle/vehicle conflicts with the limited sight. The open accessibility along the full
fength of the property atiows traffic to enter the ailey at any point along the alley with higher
speeds aggravating the vehicle/vehicle conflict. In addition, it appears from the data that the
property maybe experiencing some cutting through of traffic from Larpenteur eastbound across
property to the alley which again is a traffic safety issue internal to the site and the public alley.
On the basis of the above we recommend denial of the site plan showing full access along the
alley and the undefined driveway/alley access point onto Lexington."
b. Appiicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
1 The site plan does not meet the conditions in Section 63.310.f for alley access from
nonresidential property.
Section 63.310.first states that alley access is not petmitted "except where the applicant
can establish, in the review of a site plan appfication, that a/lowance of alley access would
not create or aggravate an unsafe condition...." The applicant has not established that
allowing access the aliey by removing the privacy fence for the MGM parking lot meets
___ __ this_re�uired_con_dition._
�
�
Page 3 of 4
File #09-203�21
In addifion, Section 63.310.f does not permit a!/ey access un/ess the applicant can show
that °one (1) or more of the following conditions exisf : The applicant has not established �
that any of these conditions exist for the MGM parking lot.
Altematives to alfey access are unsafe due to traffrc volumes, traffre speeds,
proximity to an intersection, steep s/opes, a blind pedestrian crossing, or some other
unsafe condition.
There are safe altemafives fo afley access. The parking (ot for the MGM sfore and
o�ce building has two driveways on Larpenteur and one driveway on Lexington,
The location of the existing structures on the property prohibits access to the street.
The location of the e�sting structures on the site does not prohibit access to the
street f�om either of the two existing driveways: the two-way driveway on Larpenteur
and the exit only driveway on Lexington.
A comprehensive plan or a neigflbofiood plan approved by the cify council
recommends that new off-street parking facilities be locafed in the rear of
development sites or discourage additionaf curb cuts or driveways across sidewalks.
There is notfiing in the comprehensive plan or any neighborhood pfans for fhis area
that addresses the location of parking or curb cuts for this site.
The nvmber of parking spaces in the off-street parking facility is seven (7) orless.
There are 28 parking spaces in the parking lot for the MGM Liquor store. There are
an additional 12 parking spaces in the adjacent parking lot for the MGM office �
buiiding that would have access to the alley through the MGM Liquor store parking
lot
2. The site plan does not meet the requirements for visual screening in Sections 63.313 and
63.114,4. l`E�e applicant is proposing to provide the required visual screen on tfie
residential properly across the alley. This is only permitted in cases where it is "mutually
agreeable to all property owners involved.° Although MGM owns most of the property
across the alley, it has not demonstrated that a!I of the property owners across the alley
have agreed to have the visual screen on their properiy.
c. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for such mafters
as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and
those aspects of design which may have su6stantial effecfs on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is not consistent with this finding. The privacy fence along the alley is needed to
protect adjacent and neighboring properties by providing the required sound and sight bufFer for
the MGM parking iot.
Unrestricted access to the alley would have a substantial negative effect on neighboring land
uses.
d. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to
assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably affected.
�
�
Page4of4 b�'I �e's /
File #09-203-521
e. Suffrcient landscaping, fences, walfs and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
� The site plan is not consistent with this finding. The site plan does not provide a visual screen
along the alley that is needed to protect neighboring properties and required by the Zoning
Code.
f. The cify's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the
city.
The site plan is not consistent with this finding. Alley access, as proposed in the MGM site plan,
is not consistent with objectives of the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to
"mitigate the consequences of local traffic in neighborhoods" and "make neighborhood traffic
control a priority." (Transportation Plan Chapter 5 Page 21)
g. Preservation of unique geo%giq geographic or historically significant characteristics of the city
and environmentaily sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Removing the fence along the alley does not affect
unique geologic, geographic or historically significant characteristics of the city and
environmentally sensitive areas.
h. Creation of energy-conseiving design through landscaping and location, orientation and
elevation of structures.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Removing the fence along the alley does not affect
� the energy conserving aspects of the parking {ot.
i. The satisfactory avai(ability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions to
any drainage problems in the area of tite development.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Removing the fence along the alley does not affect
the sewers or stormwater drainage of the parking lot.
j. Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of fhe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Removing the fence along the alley does not affect
the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
k. Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the '�Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Control Handbook"
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Removing the fence along the alley does not cause
issues with erosion or sediment control.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Pianning Commission, under the authority
of the City's Legislative Code, that the application of MGM Properties LLC for site plan review for
modifications to an existing parking lot at 1102 Larpenteur Ave W is hereby denied based on findings
3a through 3f.
-
. �
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor .
City Hail and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
PRESENT: Alton., Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon, Jqf�nson, Kramer, and Morton
EXCUSED: Margulies
STAFF: Tom Beach, Samantha Langer, Patricia James, and PeterllVamer
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton.
�
MGM parking lot - 09-?03-521 - Modification of a previously approved site plan. The approved site plan
shows a privacy fertce betwsen the MGM parking !ot and the public alley. The plan under
consideration does not show this fence at 1702 Larpenteur Avenue West
Tom Beach presented the staff report with a recommendation of denial of the site plan submitted by MGM
Properties LLC. The site plan shows removaf of the privacy fence between fhe MGM parking lof and fhe
adjacent public alley. Tom Beach stated District 10 recommended denial, and there were 0 letters in support,
and 7 letters in opposition.
Mr. Beach explained the original site plan was approved in 1980. This was before the zoning code was
amended in 1994 to restrict access to alleys from commercial parking lots where there is residential property
across the ailey. He also confirmed that the fence was Iocated on the MGM side of the alley and there was no
alley access for cars. However, since MGM removed the fence, there is unrestricted access to the alley.
Upon questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Beach stated that there aren't other fences for the otlier �
business along the alley. He also stated he did not know what Department of Public Works position would be
on allowing resfricfed access to fhe altey,
Chad Lemmons, representative of MGM, explained that the trial court finding was that MGM did satisfy the
screening fence requirements and the appellate court was concemed that one home owner was not completely
satisfied with the screening. IVIr. Lemmons also stated that the trial court dismissed the City's actions against
MGM with prejudice and the appellate court changed to dismissal without prejudice and there has not been a
reversal of the trial court decision. He aiso stated that there are screening fences across the alley that were
added in 9980 by MGM and have been maintained by MGM since they were constructed with permission of
the owners. He stated that based on this, MGM does satisfy the zoning requirement for visual screening in
Section 63.114.b.4. Mr. Lemmons also stated that there is no requirement to obtain a permit to remove a
fence. He also stated that the traffic report, done by the Repartment of Public Works in August 2009, shows
no indication if accidents have inereased or decreased since the fence has been removed and that a twro day
traffic study does not accurately determine the true character of the traffic levels. He explained that the report
created referred to the alley as a t}rpical residential alley, but it.is more similar to residentiaf/commercial alleys,
such as the alley at Grand and Lexington. Mr. Lemmons stated he believes other similar areas have not had
to apply for access permits that the City is requiring of MGM. He stated that MGM was willing fo discuss a
co�npromise with the City, but the City has taken the position that MGM must cease using the alley and has
never offered to discuss other options. Mr. Lemmons reiterated that in the two years since the fence has been
removed there hasn't been an increase in accidents.
Upon inquiry of tfie Commissioners of whether or not MGM had requested a layover to pursue a compromise
with either the City or the neighbors, Mr. Lemmons, exptained #hat the reason MGM requested the layove� was�
due to the fact that MGM's use of the property might ctiange and thsre would be no need for alley access.
Upon further inquiry, Pafick Kelly, representative of MGM, stated that MGM has attempted to speak with
Council Member Helgen and the City Attomey's office and the only response they received was to put the �
�-1�8�
Page 2 of 3
� MGM Parking lot
ZF#09-203-521
fence back up. Mr. Keliy stated that MGM has nof conducted a traffic study of the ailey. He also sfated he
does not believe that the two day sfudy by Pubiic Works was a sufficient amount of time to monitor the traffic.
Mr. Keliy stated fhat he did see the pictures submitted of the delivery trucks parking in the,alley and explained
that truck�parking should be next to the store on their own property: He explained that it is a correctable action
by contacting the delivery companies and letting them know they cannot park.in the alley. Mr. Kelly clarified
that the cross-hatched area on the site plan submitted was intended as a traffic directional area and cars were
meant to travel east of that area. He stated that a designated ingress/egress point could be detemtined with
curb stops and signs, but he stated MGM would prefer not to put another fence in for this purpose because
they have already satisfied the.screening that is required. He stated that MGM is dedicated to Saint Paul and
would be willing to find creative solutions to restricted. access in the alley.
No one spoke in support.
Nick Clausen, T 153 California Avenue, spoke in opposition. His ma.in concern was the delivery trucks blocking
the alleyway. He stated he has confronted the drivers on a couple of occasions and both times they refused to
move until threatened with calling the police. tie also stated there is more traffic and litter in the ailey. He aiso
stated the neighbors did to work with MGM'at District 10 Council meetings, bu4 they tore the fence down
anyway without respect for the neighbors. Mr. Ciausen stated that he doesn't believe that a new site plan with
restricted access and prohibiting delivery trucks would be a solution.
Vickie Schimke, 1139 Califomia Avenue, spoke in opposition. She explained her concem was the increased
�traffic and litter. She stated that limited access would not be a solution to the safe#y issues.
Mr. Lemmons stated that MGM wants this access point because the amount of traffic that can back up at the
intersection of Larpenteur and Lexington makes it difficult for drivers to enter and leave the site. He also stated
thaf according to the speed analysis, in the report from Public Works, there is nothing unusual for a typical
residential alley, and this is not a typical residential alley. Mr. Lemmons clarified that there was only one street
access entry and exit point on Larpenteur Avenue. The other entry point immediately next to the aliey is
designed as an entry point for trucks only.
The public hearing was closed.
At the inquiry of the Cominissioners, Mr. Beach stated that at the access point immediately next to the alley
has a sign posted stating entry only, liut there was no reference to the type of vehicle.
After further discussion on the site pan submitted July 13, 2009, lacking detail in regards to travel lanes,
directional arrows and signage to control traffic, Commissioner Carole Faricy moved approval of staffs
recommendation. Commissioner Richard Kramer seeonded the motion.
The inotion passed by a vote of 7-0-0.
Adopted Yeas - 7� Nays - 0 Afistained - 0
Drafted by:
��n�r�«(�6�
• amantha Langer �
Recording Secretary
Submitted by:
�D�-c ��c��
Tom Beach
Zoning Section //�
�����
Approved by: ���%GaY�—
� Gladys 'rton
Chair
,�
`
September 24, 2009
Zoning Committee
Department of Planning 8c Economic Development
1100 City Hall Annex
25 W. Fourth Street
Saint Paul, Mutnesota 55102
Attn: Gladys Morton, Chairperson
Dear Chairperson Morton:
I write with regazds to MGM Properties LLC's applicafion for a site plan review. As a
resident of the neighborhood since 1995 and a block clnb capYain represeating neazly
forty homes on Tdaho and Dunlap since 1997, I am deeply concerned with the situation
that currentty exists with cut-through tr�c in the neighborhood. Due to flus �isting
problem, I believe MGM's desire to open the alley to nonresidential traffic would
fundamentally atter the function of the alley by creating a secondary commercial artery.
This pmposed cl�ange would dramatically aggravate safety concerns that have eausted
since MGM unilaterally removed the fence during a city holiday nearly two years ago.
Neighbors bave reported numerous close calls while attempting to exit garages thaY abut `
the alley. Additionally, tra�'ic and street parking is already congested where the a12ey
connects With Duntap. This proposed change would aggravate the situation, especially
during aftemoott rush ho� ttaffie whea nei�bors are coming home, eut through traffic is
at its peak, and alley iraffic to MGM may also be at a peak.
As a former boazd member of the District 10 Council, former Land Use Committee Co-
chair, two-time member of the CIB Streefs and Utilities Task Force, and an author of
Como Pazk's neighborhood plan, I can assure you tbat this proposal is not supported by
an overwhelming majority of the residential community and ]ikely faces opposition from
MGM's commerciai neighbors. A key principle in the neighborhood plan is to retain the
residentiaZ character of Como Pazk. Turning the alley north of California Avenue into a
commercial artery would profoundly conflict with that principle.
'The application submitted for site plan review does not appear to meet any of the ZoniIIg
Committze's requirements. As a Humphrey graduate with a concentcation in economic
development, the submitted revised site plan is faz from detailed. At the very least, the
site plan should attempt to address ihe safety issues of surrounding �c flow and
visibility. As per item (1) of ZoIIiIIg C;ode Section 63310, I believe that MG1VI will
asserf fhat atley access reduces traffic issues aiong Iarpenteur. I believe this cbange wiI1
merely extend the boundaries of the traffic problems into the residential community and
dangerously aggravate already e�sting safety concems.
�, •
1
ey-I��s�
� Items (2), regazding current eztisting structures, and (4), regazding pazking spaces, aze not
applicable azguments for MGM's appfication. Item (3), reg,arding compliance with
comprehensive and neighborhood plans, is not applicable either as commercial pazldng
and access is allowable from Larpenteur and is consistent with the neighboring
businesses.
This is a very technical debate over what really boils down to a fence: A fence that was
constructed when the groperiy was conshucted, with the compliance of MGM, in
recognition and respect for city codes. Since the city's fence was removed by MGM, the
neighborhood has been adversely affected. 7ust two weeks ago, I saw twa cars exiting
the alley illegally onto Lexington, one turning right, the other, right next to it, tuming left.
At least when the fence was in place, it was only possible for one driver to break tUe law
at a time.
Public officials are often criticized for the tough decisions they make and are razely
recognized for the fortuitous decisions they make on a daily basis. The requirement of a
fence to separate commercial and residential traffic in the alley north of Califomia was
otte of those foriuitous and brilliant decisions and the wisdom and intent of that decision
should be upheld.
Supporring alley access for commercial traffic would move us in the wrong direction
down a dangerous path. I respecifiilly request that MGM's request for coxnmercial alley
� access be denied and that MGM be required to replace the city's fence in its former
location.
I thank you for your time and effort and for considering the nezghbors on 8us serious
matter.
Respectfully,
G
athan Volz
1623 Dunlap St. Notth
St. Paul, MN 55108
�
l`�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FILE # 09 203521
1. APPLICANT: MGM Properties LLC
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Site Plan Review
3. LOCATION: 1102 Larpenteur Avenue West
� 4. PIN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 222923110186
Clifton Dale, Ramsey Co., Minn. Subj To Rd; Lots 1 Thru 5 Bik 1
5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 10
6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.402.c
7. STAFF REPORT DATE: 9/17/09
HEARING DATE: 9/24/09
PRESENT ZONING: B2
BY: Tom Beach
8. DATE RECEIVED: 7/13/09 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 11/10/09 (60 day letter was sent)
A. PURPOSE: Site plan review for changes that were made to an existing parking lot. The
applicant removed a privacy fence that was located between the parking lot and the adjacent
public alley.
B. PARCEL SIZE: The site of the MGM liquor store is 24,000 square feet (192' x 125'). MGM
also owns the adjacent site to the west and uses it for its corporate office. The adjacent parcel
covers 9,375 square feet (75' x 125') and shares the parking lot with the liquor store)
C. EXISTING LAND USE: Retail store and accessory parking lot
D. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
North: Commercial (In Roseville)
East: Commercial (62)
South: Single-family residential (R4)
West: Commercial (The parcel immediately to the west has an office building that is MGM's
corporate headquarters.) (62)
E. ZONING CODE CITATION:
Site Plan Review Section 61.402.c lists 17 findings that must be met in order to approve a
site plan. (These findings are listed below in Section H3.)
�
!
Alley access from nonresidenfial properfy Section 63.310.f
Entrances and exits to and from all off-street parking facilities which are located on land in
nonresidential zoning districts and which abut residentially zoned land across an alley shail be
denied alley access except where the applicant can establish, in the review of a site plan
application, that allowance of alley access would not create or aggravate an unsafe condition
and one (1) or more of the following conditions exist:
1. Altematives to alley access are unsafe due to traffic volumes, traffic speeds, proximity to an �
intersection, steep slopes, a blind pedestrian crossing, or some other unsafe condition;
2. The location of existing structures on the property prohibits access to the street;
� /
��-(�g�1
3. A comprehensive pian or a neighborhood plan approved by the city council recommends
� that new off-street parking facilities be located in the rear of development sites or
discourage additional curb cuts or driveways across sidewalks; or
4. The number of parking spaces in the off-street parking facility is seven (7) or less.
Visual screening for parking lots Section 63.313 and 63.114.4
For off-sfreet parking facilities which adjoin or abut across an atley, a residential use or zor�ing
district, a visual screen shall be provided and maintained as required in section 63.114, Visual
screens.
When mutually agreeable to all propefij owners involved, a required visual screen may be
located on the opposite side of an alley right-of-way from the nonresidential zone. Maintenance
shall be the responsibility of the person required to erect the screen.
F. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff has not heard from District 10 at the time
this staff report was written.
G. FINDINGS:
1. History (A more detailed history can be found in the attached Court of Appeals Decision.)
• A site pian for the existing buildings and parking lot was approved by the City in 1980.
• The approved site plan shows an 8' high privacy fence along the south property line,
between the MGM parking lot and the adjacent public aliey. The fence prevented
vehicular access between the MGM parking lot and the alley. The fence also provided a
visual screen between the MGM parking lot and the residential properly across the alley
as required by Section 63.313 of the Zoning Code.
� • In February 1994, the City amended the Zoning Code to restrict access beiween
commercial parking lots and adjacent alleys in cases where there is a residential use
across the alley. Alley access is prohibited unless the applicant can demonstrate during
site plan review that the plan meets conditions related to traffic safety and other issues
listed in Section 63.310.f.
• The fence remained in place until MGM removed the fence in November 2007. No City
approval had been obtained to remove the fence.
• The City received a complaint and after an inspector confirmed that the fence had been
removed, the City sent a letter on November 16, 2007, to MGM ordering them to restore
the fence.
. MGM declined to restore the fence.
• The matter went to District Court which ruled that removing the fence is permitted
because there is screening on the south side of the alley and that denying MGM access
to the aliey constitutes a taking of the property.
• The City appeafed the matter to the Minnesota Court of Appeals which ruled that MGM
should have foliowed the City's administrative process for obtaining alley access; the
City did not exceed its authority or interfere with MGM's property rights; and MGM did
not satisfy the screening requirements of the zoning ordinance.
• MGM submitted an application for site plan review on July 13, 2009.
2. Site plan
The site plan submitted by MGM to the City for review does not show a fence or barrier
between the parking lot and the alley. The site plan shows an area labeled "proposed
access" between the parking lot and the ailey. (See attached site plan.)
a 3. Required findings
Section 62.108(c) of the Zoning Code says that in "order to approve the site plan, the �
1
planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with° the
findings listed in that section. �
The sife ptan is not consisfent with the reauired frndinqs a-f•
a. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian tra�c bofh within fhe site and
in relation to access streets, including tra�c circulation features, the locations and
design of entrances and exits and parking areas wifhin the site.
Staff from Saint Paul Public Works Traffic Engineering reviewed the site plan and the
impact on traffic safety of unrestricted access between the MGM parking lot and fhe
adjacent altey. They concluded that it is not consistent with the safety of vehic�lar and
pedestrian tra�c. In a memo about the sife plan dated September 3, 2009, Public
Works staff said:
"The site pian submitted by MGM Liquor provides no pertinent fraffic informafion
regarding access, accessibility or traffic safety for this site. All that was provided
was a rudimentary sketch showing full access to the abutting alley at all points
along the south boundary with the ailey and evidently an undefined alley/driveway
access along Lexington. It is presumed that no changes are being proposed
internal to the parking lot or at the access points along Larpenteur.
To address this submittal we took a look at the site access including_ collecting
some general volume and speed information surrounding the property.
The data collected shows the alley volumes are 2 to 4 times higher than a typical �
residential alley and actually�has more traffic, in particular at the east end of the
alfey, tt�an the adjacent locaf streets of Califomia and Duntap. Traffic wlumes of a
local street magnitude in an alley are not acceptable from a traffic management!
safety perspective as the design of an alley is narrower than a street with more
limited lines of sight and a need for lower speeds to offset the potential for
vehiclelvehicle conflicts with the limited sight. The open accessibility along the full _
Iength of the property allows traffic to enter the alley at any point along the alley
with higher speeds aggravating the vehicle/vehicle conflict. In addition, it appears
from the data that the property maybe experiencing some cutting through of tra�c
from Larpenteur eastbound across property to the alley which again is a traffic
safety issue internal to the site and the public alley.
On the basis of the above we recommend denial of the site plan showing fuli
access along the alley and the undefined driveway/alley access point onto
Lexington."
b. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
1 The site plan does not meet the conditions in Section 63.310 for alley access from
nonresidential property.
This section first states that alley access is not permitted `except where fhe
applicant can establish, in the review of a site plan application, thaf allowance of
aliey access would not create or aggravate an unsafe condition....° The applicant
has not estabfished that removing the privacy fence for the MGM parking lot meets •
this required condition. �
1
�- i���
� In addition, a(ley access is not permitted unless the applicant can show that one
(1) or more of fhe following conditions exist'• The applicant has not established fhat
any of these conditions exist for the MGM parking lot.
Alfernafives fo alley access are not unsafe due to fraffic volumes, fra�c
speeds, proximity to an intersection, steep s/opes, a blind pedesfrian crossing,
or some other unsafe condition.
The locafion of the existing structures on the property does not prohibit access
to the sfreet.
The location of the existing structures on the site does not prohibit access to
the street from either of the two existing driveways: the two-way driveway on
Larpenteur and the exit only driveway on Lexington.
A comprehensive plan or a neighborhood plan approved by the cify counci(
recommends that new off-street parking facilities be located in the rear of
developmenf sites or discourage additional curb cuts or driveways across
sidewalks.
There is nothing in the comprehensive plan or any neighborhood plans for
this area that addresses the location of parking or curb cuts for this site.
• The num6er of parking spaces in the off-street parking facilify is more than
� seven (�.
There are 28 parking spaces in the parking tot for the MGM Liquor store.
There are an additional 12 parking spaces in the adjacent parking lot for the
MGM office building that would have access to the alley through the MGM
Liquor store parking lot
2. The site plan does not meet the requirements for visual screening in Sections
63.313 and 63.114.4. The applicant is proposing to provide the required visual
screen on the residentia{ property across the a{4ey. This is only permitted in cases
where it is "mutuaily agreeabie to all property owners involved." Aithough MGM
owns most of the property across the alley, it has not demonstrated that all of the
property owners across the ailey have agreed to have the visual screen on their
properly.
c. Profection of adjacent and neighboring properties fhrough reasonable provision for
such matfers as surface wafer drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservafion of
views, light and air, and those aspects of design which may l�ave subsfantial effects on
neighboring land uses.
The privacy fence along the alfey is needed to protect adjacent and neighboring
properties by providing the required sound and sight buffer for the MGM parking lot.
Unrestricted access to the alley would have a substantial negative effect on
• neighboring land uses.
d. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of fhe proposed development in order
'�
to assure abutting property and/or ifs occupanfs will not be unreasonably affected.
e. S�cient landscaping, fences� wa!!s and parking necessary to meet the a6ove �
objec6ves.
The site plan does not provide a visual screen along the alley that is needed to protect
neighboring properties and required by the Zoning Code.
f. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or projecf plans for sub-
areas of the city.
Alley access, as proposed in the MGM site plan, is not consistent with objectives of the
Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to "mitigate the consequences of
local tratfic +n neighborhoods° and "make neighborhood traffc control a priority."
(Transportation Plan Chapter 5 Page 21)
The site o/an is consistent with the frndinps listed below.
g. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historicaliy significant characferisfics of
fhe cify and environmentally sensitive areas.
Rerrtoving the fence along the alley does not affect unique geologic, geographic or
historically sign�cant characteris6cs of the city and environmentally sensitive areas.
h. Creation of energy-conserving design through fandscaping and locafion, orientation
and elevation of structures. �
Removing the fence along the alley does not affect the energy conserving aspects of
the parking lot.
The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including
solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the development.
Removing the fence along the alley does not affect the sewers or stormwater drainage
of the parking lot.
j. Site accessibilify in accordance with fhe provisions of the Americans w'rth Disabilities
Acf (ADA), induding parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible roufes.
Removing the fence along the alley does not affect the provisions of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
k. Provision for erosion and sedimenf control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and Control Handbook"
Removing the fence along the alley does not cause issues with erosion or sediment
control.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings G.3.(a-fl, staff recommends denial of the'site plan submitted by MGM .
Properties LLC showing the removal of the privacy fence between the MGM parking !ot at 1902
Larpenteur Avenue West and the adjacent public alley. �
[
�� I JV /
ATTACHMENTS
� 2009 MGM site p{an review application (site p4an, letter and app4icatian form)
2009 Letter from DSI extending review time for site plan review
2009 Traffic memo from Public Works
2009 DSI enforcement letter
2007 DSI enforcement letter
1980 Approved site plan with fence along the alley
Aerial photos and location map
C�
�
��
�
APPLICATfON FOR,SITE PLAN REVIEW
Deparfinent of Safety and lnspecfions (DS/J
375 Jackson Street, Suite 220
Saint Paul MN 55'!Oi-1806
651-266-9008
APPLICANT
Name Company MGM Properties, LLC
eaaro 112A Larpentuer Avenue West
St. Paul
OWNER
pf d"rfierent than
appficant)
PROJECT
p1N �;� 55113
Email chadlemmons@kell,yandlemmons.com
Name Company
Address
Phone
Project name / description A11ey access to and from the parking lot
lying westerly of the MGM Liquor Store 112�t Larpentuer Ave W
�
i
Project_address/Location 1124 Larpentuer Avenue West southwest corner
oP Lexington Avenue and Larpentuer Avenue
Legal description of the properly : Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 1,
CliPton Dale
ApplicanYs signature G�
�
J:�mneWantlwtslSite P� M1anticu5\7 ApPGCaGOn foc ste P� �ev+.tlac 102p08
b�- I ��`l
�, Kelly & Lemmons, P.A.
A T T O R I3 E Y S AT L A VT
OFCOUNSEL:
McGUIGAN & HOLLY, PLC
• Chad D.I.emmons
chadlemmons@kellyandiemmons.com
Rea1 Property Law Sp ' i'cy CertiSed by ttte Reai
Pmperty Section o£the Mmncsoh SEafe Baz� Association
Ms. Corinne A. Tilley
DSI Inspector-Zoning
City of St. Paul
375 Jackson Street, Suite 220
St, Paul, MN 55101
7uly 13, 2009
VIA U.S. MAII.
RE: MGM Liqnor Warehouse at 1102 Larpentner Avenne West
Deaz Ms. Tilley:
Enclosed herewith please find the Application for Site Plan Review, a copy of the proposed Site Plan and a
� check in the amount of $435.00 in full payment of the Application fee. The area which MGM proposes to use
as means of access from their pazldng lot to the alley is that azea marked in Blue. However, it is my
understanding that the portion of the paved azea lying north of the boimdary Iine and south of the building
immediately adjacent to Le�ngton Avenue would still be entry only. -
It is our position thal the Miimesota Court of Appeals Decision filed 7une 2, 2009 does not require MGM to
provide an explanarion of compliance with Zoning Code Section 63310( fl. Therefore, none will be provided.
MGM does not intend to restore the fence which elcisting along its south boundary line. It is still MGM's
position that the fence located along the southboundary line of the alley satisfies the screening required by St.
Paui Legislative Code Section 63.313. Tn addition, MGM has complied with the requirements of St. Paul
Legislarive Code Secrion 63.114(b)(4). This position is again supported by the Decision of the Miunesota
Court of Appeals filed 7une 2, 2009.
If you have any questions regarding flus matter, please feel free to contact me.
RespectfuAy yours,
CDL/smk
Enclosures
.
KELLY & LEMMONS, P.A.
��
Chad D. Lemmons
7300 HUDSON BOULEVARD NORTH, SU1TE 200 . SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55128
TELEPHONE 651-2243781 • FACSIIvIII,E 651-223-8019
www.kellyandlemwons.com
� D
�
�
�
�1
�
0
�
�
z
�
�
�
�
\ 5 n
V'
s
�
�
4f
-�-�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�� �
, , h o ���-� i
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS
Bob Kccsler, ZHrector n��
� � CPi'I' OF SAINT PAUL
Christopher B. CoTemarz, Mayor
SeptemUer 4, 2009
Public hearing at the Planning Cammission
The Planning Commission has delegated most site plan reviews to the Zoning Administrator. However, in 2004 the
� Planning Commission adopted a resolution on the Site Plan Review process which says: "An individual site plan
application should be brought to the Planning Commission if ... any staff decision will probably be appealed to the
Planning Commission." It goes on to say "When a site plan applicafion is brought to the Planning Commission, the
Zoning Code requires a public hearing. Public hearings will be held at the Zoning Committee unless the 60 or 120-
day deadline in state law forces the City to save time and go directly fo the full Plazuung Commission for a public
hearing and a vote on the same day."
Based on this, a public hearing at the Ptanning Commission has been scheduted for Friday, September I8, 20D9
Chad D. Lenvnons
Kelly & I.emmons PA
7300 FIudson Bouelvard North Suite 200
Saint Paul MN 55128
RE: Sife Rlan 09-203521
MGM pazldng lot at 1102 Larpentenr Avenue West
Deaz Mr. Lemmons:
On July 13, 2009, MGM Properties submitted a site plan to the City for the pazking lot for the MGM store at 1102
L,arpenteur Avenue West.
This letter is to inform you that City staff intends to serzd the sife plan to the Planning Commission for a public
hearing and that staff is extending the time allowed for the review of the site plan under �nn. Stat. 15.99 (1995)
A copy of the Planning Commissions' resoluflon is enclosed.
Estension of time for review of site plan
Minnesota law gives the City 60 days to complete its review of a zoning application but allows the City to "eactend
the time line ... by providing written notice of the e�ension to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons
for the extension and its anricipated length, wluch may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant " Minn.
Stat 15.99 (1995)
This lener is to inform you that the City is zctending the site plan review period for an additional 60 days to
Tuesday, November 10, 2009. This er.tension is needed to provide time for the public hearing on the site plan at the
Planning Commission and a possble appeat of ihe Planning Commission's decision to the City Coimcil.
375Jac1aonStree�Suife220 Telephone: 651-266-8989
St Paul, Mimruota 55101-1806 FacrimIIe: 651-266-9124
Web: wvnv.stpm�7.gw/dri
If you have any questions, you can reach me at 651-266-9086 or tom.beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us.
.
Sincerely,
TomBeach
Zoning and Site Plan Review
��
An Equal Opporhmity Employer
0
Page 1-of 1
T om Beach - MGM Site Pl Comments -
�
From: Monica Beeman
To: Tom Beach
Date: 9/3/2009 3:28 PM
Subject: MGM Site Plan Comments
CC Linda Murphy
AtEachments: LexLarpenteur.pdf
. ��
The site plan submitted by MGM Liquor provides no pertinent traffic information regazding access,
accessibility or traffic safety for this site. All that was provided was a rudimentary sketch showing full
access to the abuiting a11ey at all points along the south boundary with the alley and evidently
an undefined alley/driveway access along Lexington. It is presumed that no cbanges aze being
proposed intemal to the pazki�g lot or at the access goints along Larpenteur.
To address this submittal we took a look at the site access including collecting some general volume
and speed information surrounding the properly.
The data collected shows the alley volumes aze 2 to 4 times higher than a typical residential alley and
actually has more traffic, in particular at the east end of the alley, than the adjacent local slreets of .
Califomia and Dunlap. Traffic volumes of a locai sixeet magnitude in an alley are not acceptable from
a haffic managemenU safety perspective as the desi� of an alley is narrower than a street with more
limited lines of sight and a need for lower speeds to offset the potenfiat for vehicle/vehicle conflicts
with the limited sigh� The open accessibility along the full tength of the property allows laaffic to
enter the alley at any point along the alley with higher speeds aggravating the vehicle/vehicle conflict.
In addition, it appeazs from the data that the property maybe experiencing some cutring through of
traffic from Larpenteur eastbound across property to the alley wluch again is a traffic safety issue
intemal to the site and the public alley.
On the basis of the abov� we recommend deniai of fhe site plan showing futl access along the a11ey and
the undefined driveway/alley access point onto Lea�ington. -
Monica M. Beeman, PE
Departrnent of Public Works
Civii N, Tra�c Engineering
8�0 �ty Hall Mnex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102-1660
(651) 266-6214
;.�o
� �
.-, .i..... . -`- -_� c._.�.e___�i..___ti,._��r,.....t o,...:..,...\'i`e,,,,dY'D..�...,.,;�o\ddOFF(1R2mai 9/�!�(109
�� _
� �� � ,
,� � = , �-
_ E � x . �
a ' �i =' a.�..�� e_
l ` 4
_ ; y. s 3 i : 2
L 'a. f �t� ��m.�-�wz � !-
�.
tk:
. ..o ,—+� .v.�ae� ._._ k.._..
;%} ,�
�:.� .
r�� �M� �� 1 _�'
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECi20NS
Bob Kessler, D'vector
,,.�
?�:�:_
�i�
; .����I
crrY o� sa�rr rAUt.
CI¢�istopher B. Colemme, Mayor
J,�y 6, aoo9
375JacksanStree;S�dIe220 Telephane: 651-266-9090
SYpmr�Mirmesata55101-1806 Facsimile: 651-266-9I7fF
Web: wxnv �t^m1Lem'�ds+
�. r�t s�r �
MG1�I Properties LLC .
ll24 Larpenteur Ave W "
St Paul MN 55113-6317
RE: MGM Liquor Warehouse at 1102 Larpenteur Avenue West
Dear Mr. Setter.
In reference ta the decision issued by the NT'mnesota Court of Appeals on 7une 2, 2009 regarding the
par�ng lot fence at the referenced location, d�is letter is to formaliy notify you of actions yon will
need to take to bring the site into compliance with the City of Saint Paul's Zoning.Code.
• Restore the fence
Restore the fence as shown on the approved site plan for the cons7uetion of fihis site dated
June 18,1480. The fence must be in.place by 7uly 14, 2009.
- A fence permit from the Deparlment of Safety and Inspections (651-266-900� is
require3.
• SnbmiE a revised site plan
If you decide notto restore the fence as shown on the approved site plan dated June 18, 1980,
you mnst submit a site plan review application requesling to amend the 1980 approve3 site
plan by 7uly 14, 2009. A site plan review application packet is enclosed for your reference.
The following items must be included with the submittal of the site plan review application
- . An application fee of $435.00.
- A detailed, revised site plan.
An explanation of compliance with Zoning Code Section 63310(fl for alley access
from nonresidential propert�, which states that enlrances and exits to and from all
off-street parldrig facilities which aze located on land in nonresidential wning
disiricts and which abut residentially zoned Iand across an alley shall be deniecl alleY
access except where the applicant can esfablish, in the review of a site plan
application, that allowance of ailey access would not crea#e or aggravate an nnsafa
condition and one (1) or more ofthe following conditions esist
(1) Altematives to alley access are unsafe due to traffic volimmes, iraffic speeds,
- to mtersection, steep slopes a blind pedesirian crossing, or some other
�
•
proxm�ty an . �
unsafe condition; ,
(2} The location of existing stmctures on t�e property prolu'bits access to the �
�
An Equal Opporiunity Employer
�
MGM Properties LLC
Page 2
3uly 6, 2064
� 1-13��
(3) A comprehensive plan or a neighborhood plan approved by the city
council recommends tUat new off-street pazldng facilities 6e tocated in the
rear of development sites or discourage additional curb cuts or driveways
across sidewalks; or
(4) The number of pazldng spaces in the off-street pazking facility is seven
(� or less.
Note: A notice will be sent to adjacent pmperty owners located within 350
feet of the proposed alley access and oppofimity for them to comment shall
be provided.
*If you claim that item (1.) exists, a h�affc impact study is required.
�
•
Zoning Code Section 63313 Visual sereening, states that for off-street
pazking facilities which adjoin or abut across an alley, a residential use or ,
zoning district, a visual screen shall be provided and maintained as required
in section 63.114. However, Section 63.114(b)(4) says that when mutually
agreeable to all property owners involved, a required visual screen may be
located on the opposite side of an alley right-of-way from the non residential
zone. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the person required to erect
the screen. Submit proof of agreement with properly owners.
You may appeal this order and obtain a hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals by filing an
Application for Appeal and paying the application fees to the ZAning Administrator within (10) days
of the date these orders were mailed. The Application for Appeai may be obtained from the Zoning
Administrator's Office at 375 7ackson Street, Suite 220, Saint Paul MN 55101-1806.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 651-266-9085 (office) or
corinne tilley�ci stpaul mn us (email).
Regazds,
(. ,�''Qe � � �.
..,._ � 1 �
Gorinne A. Tilley
DSI Inspector — Zoning
Enclosures
Copy: Council Member Lee Helgen
Ciiy Attomey Rachel Tierney
DSI Director Bob Kessler
' DSI Deputy Director Christine Rozek
DSI Zoning Manager Wendy L,ane
��
DEPA�iSMEIdF OL• SAEEIY AND INSYfiCIFONS
BoBKesster, D'nutm
CITI' OF SAINT PAUL
Cfmirtopher $. CoZgeearr, Lfayor
November 16, 2007
Iufr. Paul Setter
NfGM Liqaor Stixes Inc
i 124 I.atpenf�ur Avenne West
5aint Paul hRId.55i 13
COMM&2CEBLRLD7NG .TelepFwme 6SI-26S-9890
8FowikS[reefEas�Svite200 Fdcsirui(e= 6SL-�66-9I24
SY Pwr� Mmnesota 55101-1424 Web ui w smmd emfda
R�: Response fo complainE and fieId inspectioa resalts an the proper{y kscaEed at 1192 Larpenteur
tivepue West
Mr. Setter:
It 5as come to my a#tenfion that a camplaiut was regisfered (07-198285) regardiug a feqce thet was
removed from th� prope�l.g located at 1102 Laz�ienteur Avenue West Upoa review of tixis pioperty; I
6ave come to the eonctusioa ffiat Che fence �ust be replaced immeiliately.
Tfiis letter sexve& as a written foilaw�p d�ttailing the xesuits of my fieid inspectibn at1102 Laipeateur
Avenue ViTest and my visit wiUt yo� at yonr eorporate office loeated at 1124 Lar}�enteur Avenue
VJesk
F3uring my field in.spection on'1'hursday, November I5, 2007, I visual�y confrmed ttiat tbe obscuiing
fence extending firom the MGlt4 corporate office bui3ding tQ a pomtfive (5) feet frafn fhe properly
Iine at T,exington Parkway, I�2s be�n iemov�d. a�d new asphalt has been poeued covecing a11 fence
posts.
Immediateiy aftex my fieId inspecfibn, I�et iuith you at the MCarM cocporate offic0 and handed you a
copy of a 3=page letter, dated 7anuary 2I,1980, Prom Fdwacd J. Driscoll for Lackin, Hoffcnan, Daly &
�,indgrea L`PD to 1VIr. and Mrs. Franees C. GiT1en, residents of a neighboiing property loCafed ai 1105
Califomia Avenue WesC The letter is a writfen confinnation o£ an uuderstanding between Richard
Lazson (the arct�itect employed hy MGIv�, 3vfn 3�riscoll, Mr_ and Mrs. Gillect aud Mr. and �vIts.
Elvester. One o€the items agreed upon is au eiaht f 8j €oot cedar fence. You sbted that sicece flxose
cons[ituenls are no loager residents o� Califoinia Avenue, �he agreement is no tanger valid.
I stated that accocdi�g to the zoniag code, a fence must be providecl wheti a parldng lot is loeated
across the a11ey fiom a residential use.
You sNated that the zofling code does not specify on �ch side of the allay t�e fence must be erected.
You also sfated dtat MGM h.ad att agreenient with the.neighbdring tesidents to build the fsnce a[ong
tfieir lots. Therefore, you feel the fence on the residents' pcoper€y is su�cie�. You stated that you
do not haue a capy af this agceement
The following speeific sec$ons in th� Zoning code will clazify fhe fettee reqnirameat and iis location:
ii
•
Sea 63.30L �ff-street parking faci�ity st¢nd¢rds end design
YPherever the o, f,�street parkiRg requiremenGr ira artide II, parlcing requirements. of'tF:is chapter
require the building of �c off-s[reetfacility, or where a YP vehieular parkuzg distrzct is providec� o� �
AA=ADA EEO E�ploye[
�y�13��
�, whes-e arry off-street pm�king faciliiy is built. such off�street parking facilities shalt be laid out,
conrtructed and maintczined in accordance tivith t�Ze foltowing standards and clesign
This see4ion defi�es lYI�1K's parldng lof is as o€f street faci{ity fhat sfiail he laid ouf,
consfructed and mainfained in accordanee wifh the Followiag stsatiards and design.
Sec 63.384. .i'arking tocatian, fxonresidestiaL 3
Off-stt�eet pert�kirzgJ'or other thmi residential use shall be eiFhe.r:
(a} Qn the same zoning lot as the Building it is intended to serve;
This sec4ion defines that MG1YI's o€f street parlang musf be on the same zoning tot as tfie
bnildiing it is inteaded to serve.
See. 63.313. Y'rsualscreening.
For off-street parkingfaciliSes wkich adJoin or abut across an aZley, a residenttal use orzoning
disisict, a visital sereen shall be provided artcl mainsained as required in section 63.114, Y'rsual
screens.
This sectian defines that MG1Yi's off-street parleing facility which happens to abut across an
alley of a residential use and zoniug districf must provide a visual screen.
Sec. 63.IZ4/Y"uuai screeres.
(a) Wh€rever a visuerl screen is seqzrired b}� this code, it shall be of sufficisnt height and density to
visuaZly separate the screened activi[y from adjacent property. 17xe screen may consist ofvc�ious
ferace materiats, earFh be�ns, plarzt ma2erials or a eomhirrafion tkereof.
� (4) �hen nzuYzuzlly agresable to a11 propert� owners involved, a required visual screen may be
located on th€; opposite side of an alley right-of-way from the nonresidentzal sone. Mc{inte�xmece shall
be the responsibility of the person requtrectto erecf tke screen.
This section defines thaf tfie fence, as sta#ed by you, waS erected by MGM as agreed upon by
the property owners involved, The written agreemeut can not be found.
As of today, accordiag fo all the e�sting pr-operty owners involved, fhep do nat mutually agree
to a required visual screen located on the oppasite side of an alley right=of-way from.the gon
residen&al zone. �
I have enclosed a copy of the pasking facility chapter from the Zoning Code and highlighted the
specific sections.
��,
In, addition, Pve enclosed a copy of tkie approved site plan from June 18, 1980, for the constcucfiott of
the MGNf building. As shown, an eight (8) foot high cedar fence from MGM's corporate office
building e�ctends up to Lexington Pazkway. The east ten (i 0} feet of that fence is two (2) feet, sis (6)
inches high for intersecrion visibility.
MGM's removal of the fence has ereateci a parking loY that no longer conforms to the standards of a
paziting facility in the City of Saint Paul. Tbe fence that was removed must be raplaced.
Failure to comply with ttiis order before Becember 3, 2007, will result in further Iegal actions
including cciminai citations to all responsible parties, possible adverse action against the business
license, end ! o: possible revocation of the cectificate of occupancy.
� �
�
Shoi�ld you have aay qr�estians or concems xegazding this matter, please contact me at 651-266-90&5 ,.
(phone), 651-298-4194 (fax), a� covinne.tilley(cr�,ci•stpaul:mn.t�s (ertiail).
Regaids,
�����' „� ` �`• - 7 `l� f.�'��
Coxi�e'A. Tilley .
� " �1
D9I Zoning and Site Plan Review
Enclosufes
Copied: Councii Member Lee Helgen
DSI Direetor �ob ICessler
•
�`�- --� �
.
Chapter 63. Zoning Code--Regtxlations of Genexal Applicability Page 1 of 3
��`1'13��
AAlICLE III. 63360. OFF-STREET PARKI{1G FACIIITY STAidDARDS AND DESIGN
� Se� _¢3:30f; parking facitiEy'sfandacds artd desigr+.
�.SNherei[ec:�he�bfF,-street parking'requirements in articte II, parking requirements, of this chapter req�ire,tMe
hui{ifing"of � aPf-stFeeC faci�ity; or where a VP vehicutar parking district is provided; oF where any o�f-streeY
parking faciCty is 6uilt, sucF off stree[ patking facil'dies sh�if 6e laid ouE, eon5trucEed and Fnaintain.e-d in
� accordance with tfie fnilowing sFanda�ds and design;
Sec. 63:302. SiEe plan review.
A site ptan shatf 6e submitted Eor review as�outlined in section 61,402. In addition, the foflowing shall be
submitted:
(a) Ownership of ail lots or parcels intended for use as parkit�g;
(b) Indication of atl structures or facilit[es to be served by tfie off-strEet parldng facility; and
(c) Location and direction of drainage fo� stormwater runaff.
AppticaHOns for building permits that involve changing any Qarkinq space to anotfier use shall indude the
fnt(owi�g information:
(1) All uses, structurea ot facilities served by such off-street parking spaces;
(2) Total number of parking spaces accessory to such uses, structures or facilities; and
�3) iVumber of parking spaces pcoposed to be changed to another use,
Sea 63.303. PatKing locaYion, reside�rt3a1.
Residential ofF-street parking sha11 consist of an off-street parking facitity or parking spaces as defined in Ehis
code. Parking spaces far one- and twa-family dwelling �units shall be located on the same zoNng fot that they
are intended to serve. Parkfng spaces for 6uildings conta{ning_three (3) or rr�ore dweliing units shall be on fihe
same zoning lot, in a VP vehicular park(ng district, or in an abutEing zoning lot irt the same or less restrictive
zoni�g district. �
�Se� 63;304. Pa,rking iocation, nonresidentiat.
• Off-streeY parking far ottieP tiiari=residerrLial use shal! be either:
(a) On the same zoning lot as the buildiFlq it is inYend'ed tn serve; or
{b) In a VP vehicular parlang district or within the same or a less resErictive zo�ing district as the principal
�se. This parking shatl be tocated within three hundreG (300) feet of the building it is intended to serve,
measured from the nearesE point of the building to the nearest poinY of Yhe off-slreet parking lot; or
(c) of a sBared commerclai parki� arrangement tn an institutional IoY pursuanttn seetion 65,732.
Sec. 63.305, Minimum lapauY di�ensians.
Pattern
Paralie4
Parking
30 - 53
54 - 74
Partai�g
SpaGQ
Width
8 ft.
S ft., 6 in.
8 ft., 6 in.
75-90 9ff.
INSET: Parking Space Pattern
Sec. 63.306. CompacE spaces.
Parking
Space
�ength
21 ft.
18 ft.
18 R.
18 ft.
Maneweri�g
Lane
WidNt
iZ ft.
12 tt.
SS ft.
20 ft.
Accessory parking faalities may designate up to fifty (50) percent of the spaces for compact cars only, in
which case, the minimum Iayout dfinensions may be reduced to elght (8) feet in width and siYCeen (i6) feet
in' length. Compact spaces shalt be designated by signs with a mintmum of one (L) sign per every faur (4)
mmpacEsgaces.
.
Commerctal parking faciiities may designate any namber of compact parking spate5.
See. 63.367. Handicapped accessiWe parking spaces.
Parking spaces for the handicapped shall be designed in accordance with the provistons of ffie AccessibiiiYy �
Guidetines for 6uitdings and Faci4ities of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA}. /�,
SeC. 63.308, Maneuvering lanes. J
Except as provided Sn section 63304, access to aay parking space for a use other than one- er two-family
http:/lwww.stpaul.gov/codeRc063.htm1
11l16l2007
' Ghapter 63. Zoning Cod�-�2eguLatioas of Genetat Apglicability
Page2of3
strudures shalf be proaided by a maneuvering lane. Ait off-street parking fadlities shall be designed so that
any vehicfe Eeaving or enfering the tacility from or onto a public street shali be Eraveling fnrward.
Sec. 63.309. Stacked par(cing.
Stacked parking shall be aUowed in any off-street parkirtg facility whenevei an attendanE is presenY, Space for
any maneuvenng of veh€des must be provided in the attentled parking CaciEity.
�$e� 63� 2P. EnEcances and e�dYS. .
_ . ...'�t� .. ... .
=Adecjaate enirarices and �xifs �to and fi'om the parkirtg facility shall 6e provided by means of deaKy deflned
arid.limited drives, :
(a} Entranees and ecits to a�d from a parWng fadlity on residentially zoned tand shall not be a¢oss iand in a
more resMcaYe residenttal zanin9 distrzct �
{b) Enirances and exif's to and from a parking faciGfy in a commercisl or industriai zoning district shall not be
aaoss Iand in a residen�iat dfs€rict.
(c) Entrances and exiYS to and from all Parking'fac[lities located in land zoned other [han RL -R"C2 shali be at
IeasE twenty-five (25} feet frnm any adjoining property in [tL--RT2 zoning disEricts.
(dk €ntrances and exits to anrl fram a parking facility shafl be at feast thErty (30j feet tmm the point of
intersection of cutblines of two (2) or more inEersecting streets.
(e)"Afley atcess frorn residentia! property. Entrances and exits to and from ail off-street parldng faci{ities
lacated on land zoned for residential use shail be permiited access to an aiiey except whece it is determined
in the revfew of a site p[an appl[cation that perFnitting aI{ey access may be fiarmFUi to the peblic peace, healtii
and safety.
Us�s prohiblted alley access eisewhere in Che zoning code shall not be perm[Lted alley access by the
provtsEOns of hhfs section.
; vn�aup•arc Na,a�cu �ar �m�u u� uvtyc
� ati.eji s(iall fie detti�l�all"ey access e:
appt(catiott, #hat atlowance of 81tey
more ofi tFie fo[lowing eonditinns ex
es and exits to and from atl off-street parkiny tacilities
:trici�s arid which abut residentialfy zoned Iartd across a�
..._..:-N � , u � _ ..
pplECariE can 'e`stiblisfi,, i� Flie bFa"sit�e'p�ai[
cFeate or aggravaYe an irrisafe curtdit3brt and ane (1j or
(2) AlternaHves ta altey access are ctnsafe due ta iraffte wlumes, traffic speeds, proximity to an intersection,
steep stopes, a b{ind pedestriai� uossing, or some other unsafe condition;
(2) 'ihe tocafion of existing struc[vres on the property prohtbiEs access to the sFreet;
(3) A mmprehensive plan or a nHghborhood plan approved by the city-coundl recommends that new of�
stFeeE paddng facitities be located in tlie rear of devefopenent sites or discourage additionai curb c�ts oF
driveways across sidewalks; or �
(4j The ceu[nber of parking spaces in the off-street parking facility Is sevan (7) or less.
a,ne±rr al(ey is proposed whieh �riil secve eic,�hh,(8) or mnre parlang s,paces, notice to a<.(jacent
���'=
,�"r8i`p�'�4'�I�Fs and'opportunitjt fo���Siem.�o comtiieFlt 'shalF be providei! �rt the inannu set foi#h it� sedion
Sf.4fi2(b)(S), Decisiarts to grant or deny all�y acce9s are sutiject to appeal pursuanh to the provisions nf
seetion 6i,7�0.
Usesprohibited alley access elsewhere iri the zoniflg cade shall nat be permitted altey access by the
@ravisioqs of thf5 SeC�ion. ,
Sea 63.311. Whee1 stops.
Provisions shall be made by use of such devices as cvrbs, wheei stops and earth berms to prevent vehictes
from damaging or overhanging ad]acent property, public rights-of-way or required 6andscaping.
Sec. 63,322. Settrack.
Except as otherwise provided ia sectton 66. 442(c} or settiort 66.432(b) off-street parking spaces shall not be
w'�thin a required front or side yarcl and shait be a minimum of four (4) fieet from any [ot Iine. For housing on
Irvine Avenue, a gaest perking space may be prrnEded on the driveway or eisewhere. If it is pravided
efsewhere, a guest paridng area is eacempt frorrm setback requtrements fnr parking spaces and it may be
paved with gravel.
;Se6 63.313, �wa[ screening. .
For aff-str�eet parking faaGtles wttich adjo€n or abut across an ailey, a residenY3a1 use or zoning disFrict, a
Visua6 screen shail be provided and maintained as 'required in section 63.ii4, uisual saeens.
See. 63.324. Laedscaping.
� �
i
.
For any parking faalify, oEher than a par[ting garage, Iandscaping shafi be provided to buffer t6e facility from �•
ad7acent properties and from the public rtght-of-way; reduce the visuat glare and heat effects oflarge
expanses of pavement; and provide areas for the reten6on and absorption of stormwater runoff. All required �
http:/Iwww.stpaul.gov/code/1c063.htm1 l l/lb/20d7
Chapter 63_ zoning Code--Regulafions of General Applicability
Page 1 0£ 1
a�-( 38�
•
Sec. 63.214. �suai scseens.
(a) Wherever a viseai screen is required by this code, it shatl be of sufficient fietght and densify to visua{�y
separaEe Ehe screened activity Ci adjacertt psaperty. The screen may consisY of vasious fence materials,
earth berms, ptant materials or a wmbinatiort thereof. �
(b) Whenever visual screens are required, fo� the uses 6elow, Ehe foUowing sEa�nda�ds shalt apply.
(1) Height reguiations:
Use
Off-street parking
Outdoor stotage
Rec.ycEing drop-off station
RecycHng collection center
Recycling processing center
Motor vehicie salvage operation
Minimum Height
4R. 6 in,
6 tt.
6 ft.
6 ff.
8 ff_
8 ft.
Maximum Fleight
6.5 ft.
Hospitai, ambulance and delivery areas ' 6 fr. 8.0 Pt.
Uttlity building, staEions and subsEations 6 fr. 8.0 ff.
(2) Visua! screens shall be located completely withln the lot line. ,
(3) Visual screen locations sfiail mpform with front yard setback lines in residential districts,
���,;V,��t2il;attuYualf,y;2��ahte.to.aq;peop_erty owFlers ihvolved; a required �isuetscreen maybe located on t(ae
opposiYe side bf ait �5110y rig{�E='of=ivay ftdm'tf�e nliriresi$enEial'zo'�e. Ma7iteriance s1iaN�tie the responsibility of
�thep2fis,on'tecjuiiedfo.erecYt�e'screen.� � � � ��
(5) T1ie land behveen the screeq and the peoperty lina shall be landscaped and tnainta[ned so that all plant
materiais ate heaSthy and that the area is free from refuse and Gebris.
(6) Requir2d visual sereens shall h�ve no openings fot pedestrians or vehicles except as shown o� an
approved site plan. �
C�
(7) Visual screens shall be maintafned in a good state of repair.
(8) In alf cases where a required �lisua{ screen woufd extend to an alley or street vahich is an entrance te ar
exit frorn an off-street parking faeility, it shalt be permissible to end the vis�ai screen riot more tf�an ten {10)
feet from such a11ey lir�e or street line. �
(9) FoY rhulCi#amily structures w7th ten (ID) or more units, office, commerciaf and industrua[ uses, garbage
dumpsters and trash conWiners 'sfiall be bcated to the rear of the prirtcipal building and ertclosed by a visual
screen.
�
��
http:!/www.stpaul.gov/code/Ic06�.html
11/16/2007
� �. _
�
_� y
ai4��#Y - �ol '- ' _ _ - ,:z �:'
j� �
s* a# + ' � - ": 'E
; �a ;�a 4 �• �
c��i �, ' � _ � � = � _ �
• � '�� �a - �� � � -
� , . ,.� _ �.' i
iiti3 �.: �� •.. - .
. , Liq '�_st .• t � - � ; � . � ' . _
, ,
,
�.' ' .: , � -. _ .
� t ,
.s 3 �,;g ... . : _ �
4 _ . � »
s " -` '
' S i� '. � . `� �� ..�i�.. . '
; . ,
, '
:. ..� IM ' .... : a .` ._ . .. .°
_ . . ��_ ` �... . , � :-.
.. `E-.� � _ � a . �
. r�w
� . r . . . .�j , y �<
___ ..Q ` ��:0 _._ ' '_ "'_ � �...�.._.._� . ... ..
i � ___
,-___ __ ....___ � :_... � .._._ _, _� �. O�
__ . _
;sp �-:. . - r s . .. . __... .
'
,.
at) .� � . .. , . . .
:: �- ' d..._>_-�_____v._' -- _. _ ..3�'== -_ -
... . _ . ._ ,.:�, ._,` ._ -: _
, , _ ' ._ _ t _" '
.r� . �� ,�� ... , � ..
_ '; i
:
�. , . , �; . ,..�.
" _ x a� � "- . - �
� ,� � �V'9. � �
r �
'_
. :. .2. . ' ..... � _. C �g_ _.�_ -
... � �. . `�� ��� � ,
.. ' - lS.r- . ' . ':�.
:_ � .. i:.i ' .. . ' '.. .-
w .. .. � .� . � `
. �. � _�P�. . . . .
Z
� 1 . .. _ - � T�e.�.
. . . A � P �. '.. � ';. � . .,._ X __
...�
. - ... < C - � - '?� �vd., i � ,...,.'� `
u =
; �� � _; . �,� �,'
. .. ,*,. �. . � � — c . �.,x�; ,�: � �"
. , �, . 3 ., . . . ', . .. :.-� a�:. `: �� -.
. j � �: �.. � < . . r'.:� , � . . ', � l . . o. . ��.t.
. ati3.. � . . -_� . .. . . _..,".�m:.,�.e
?ii'! �'I6 � ._ �. _e ,i , "'�� �:-ha, . �:
� ' . � -. � - ',A
� '.' � , .. , � . :. . � eia .
� �
��
. ' � .. "' l S . ' - � � OE
. a� " ' . . ;� , � t ,. A �� ���
��S g
a�adi _ .�� _ 4 '. ,� p - � � � �=
-* �� �� ' � 9 3 , dr �..`5 S
_. " . '
. — . . _ . . � . .� r.
ni rk i'+(3 r� __. ���T
. - r . .. �.. � � � .- :
�,,, .. 'xa � i� �':. 'r �� .... _-. '' . > . .. -_. ;
_ � �� - _ ;�� 1 �, �; § )1 . _ �...�_
. , '
',,. :
k .�.� - " ;_ ?I
1L2 i"JFI ... � x�� : 7 �'9 . �; , t
�➢ ".., _ . _ - " � �-. � �5'F2 '., ,� j , � � :�.; .
..--- ._ _ r� . . _ _ � ,_ .
_,_.�_ __:_ . . — . -: -. .
A �� � � � .�.j a ,.. . . :: ..
_._� _.._ a� - _ "� .�,s
[ - ;;`+
_. ,ti ' � ; . J ' ., r " ' � � . . _
.
.
_ ` . ,,,.. _,
' _ -. _ ' . ` �� � ;� ,,`� � � _ � � "
! � -- ���
' rc!T �� � +,� �asja� �n� ��
— - l _
d+C ... ..^ , _
.. tn7. . ' _ . . -
_ � � - i] � ;- - �
t � --�' lCaS �1 � ���� ... �, .
,. . .. � - . . ' — .: ,.
� _ _ ` — _ , : r`�' , - -
;.,
— - — , � � � ; � r_ j�
' ,— -— � ' ^ -- � � '� �
.� ' — � . - - '�` , � M- -
tur� i . . �„ .
u
_ ° t/IY ��_ ._ i . � ._". a „,,. > �
� ._ __ _ _ � .�
,., .W;e. '"�e
.� _,2 e � _ r. ■ _� � � . ��
��� �
a _� _. ... : � � ' — � " :.� "$ :
T � _ �
�.-s -. « .=...i��--..� .`- + � M i - . .
I �] � _ �
: -- �.� �� .��_... � � � _:�, - �
. ' all � '!1 :.�
. . ... ... . . __..
� _ ' ` _ al = w� �:�`�. �- ��� ._ ��
° 't'ss lav . '. �. .' c
� � . . . _: .� `3�, , ,2 . � _'_--- .. ... .. �
t a
� 3 , .._ Rp, i ` ; a, ' .
g _ - � � " - k . t , ... ' �
_ . �� �,�
a . �
-.. _ ,
�x
.� �'� � �. � <�
- � , _ . , � �.�
.. � ` i: f �� "
r
_ � � x ,�
� . � ,.� - . .. ` ,. . � 3`�rr3
: I � . , � v . . .
'� ` :' � . � .. . ."
.�.. � .. ..._ .... �
�. . . p . . .. . .. . .. ..:. . i x�.. . . .. '
' i . , '� „� I "a'r+.tro ~� � �� �' � T � ��...bt ���y
5 `w+}-w � � i �`
� ��� � � �� �'F � �.. �..
f 5 l `m4� ..
� � H � ...c� s_r...
�� � � � � ; 1�. '!'�� `" �'
s ° �. : * ' �1 � ��� +e+++
� � � � 3 .. . , m. i -, . '
� .; .�4 ' � : . ' ;� . �" � - �
�. .. - .. . _� . .
. ' } �_ ��" . .
�.. . . t. ,i .., . ` , 5.� y � i
� � ; , ' ' ' �"°'--�
� <... . � �+ � �
� �'�,.- ' .. '` .� y �� g � �
� s '�` "P °�..� -.
$ .;:� - - 3 ` �� � � ;
T{y{ J6
� � �
§ 1 �^'� ..3 �
� a
� �. & a.�f°" .
� �
� � �
P� �
--e._.d.'t ..� 1 � , ; ` DSe' ' ". ,
� �
{ �..�.. . , ..
rt a{
. � �S s = � �,•� , -
r
� �;
� . t�' °ro' , �.
__ e �; =: . 'i
�'�o,�� ; ��" � �� � �, ��
; � � �- �, =a �.� u
; ,� - �.�,� t� � s ; � � ` �
� � � ��
i _ � . = i _� � � �°
' �� � �
: ', ` , .� � >#. � .: � °.
� �� �,
�, � _� _ ��� � � � .��
_ j
�
�
�
�
�
�
!�7
�% -�38`�
Page 1 of 1
� Samantha Langer - COMMENTS for 12/2 Hearing re: MGM Parking Lot Site
Plan
w..,..:,=-s:.-s xcu...�sn �r.��.�;c:�.=n:u.c�mx:;.c3=z...� :.-Tr.:-..:,-r�r.� :s,.zawe.ax,°_::xisc; : ,;r�4i,..,_»..,.,:,_...r,..<m=,.szc:«>F-.� Y-:..�,:�.m_ r+t.-x:.::.sc�szs-�.a
From: M Neison <meltingneison@msn.com>
To; <tom.beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: il/20/2009 1:04 PM
Subject: COMMENTS for 12/2 Hearing re: MGM
Dear Mr. Beach:
•
•
Parking Lot Site Plan
Piease accept this email as communication of our concerns regarding the upcoming Dec 2, 2009
hearing regarding the MGM Parking Lot Site Plan (file # 09-319912).
We have been homeowners on California Avenue for the past fourteen years. This is how we
understand the history of the events:
*in 1980 or so, MGM built the existing building as was required to file a site plan. That site plan
had, amongst other things, the specification for an 8' high fence separating the business parking
from the area residents and aliey.
* 2 years ago, on Armistice/Veterans Day (when coincidentally city offices were closed), MGM had
the fence taken down and the area tarred over, thus allowing cars to exit their parking lot and use
the alley going west.
* the current situation (without a fence) has increased safety issues in the alley and aiso traffic
going up and down the alley. Children and neighbors in backyards are directly exposed to the
rapid turn around of traffic/parking from a retail establishment.
* The city has met with the neighbors (even the city attorney John Choi) and ultimately took MGM
to court. The latest is that the judge ruled in favor of MGM, but the city is appealing the decision.
* Eariier this year, MGM wenC before the Zoning Commission and asked For a change to the site
pian taking out (officially) the fence. The zoning commission denied their request.
The junction of Lexington and Larpenteur is a major traffic thoroughfare. As residents in the
neighborhood, we do not want the (original) site plan altered since it calVs for a bufFer
between the business and the alley. We do not believe ANYthing has changed that should
aifow MGM to deviaYe from the original site pVan. The Zoning Commission has upheld this same
view. We urge you to hear the concerns of the citizens of District SO on this matter.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Regards,
TimoChy Nelson and Margo Melting-Nelson
1007 Ca{ifornia Ave W
St Paul MN 55117
file:f(C:�Documents and Settings\langerlLocal Settings\TemplXPgrpwise14B091939maild.., 11/23/2009
�% sy'
�
�
From: Dwight Nelson <tlpnelson@istl.net>
To: <tom.beach�ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 11/20/2009 10:31 AM
Subject: MGM Parking Lot Site Plan
Dear Mr. Beacn
I am writing as a resident of the 1100 block of California Avenue and
also to voice my opinions on the MGM Parkin9 Lot / Site Plan change,
D9-319972.
t believe the Planning Commission has acted approp�iately in denying MGM
liquors changes in their ezisting site plao. The new site plan would
allow removal of a fence between the business parking lot and a
residenGal alley allowing traffic from the business to flow through the
residential alley. This would cause safety and traffic concems for
area residents as well as increasing noise leve(s for the resitlentia(
area.
We need to keep a bUffer between the businesses on Larpenteur Avenue and
the Coma residential area to the south. The existing site plan, with
its inclusion of a fence sepaiating the two should be kapt intact.
As such, I am apposed to modification of the existing MGM Liquors site
plan.
7hank you for your interest.
Dwight Nelson
1142 California Avenue
�
ay-13��
Dwight Nelson <�nelson(�a isdnet> 12/1/2009 9:10 PM »>
Greetings Mr. Beach and Mr. Helgen
As a resident of Saint Paul who lives on California Avenue, not far from
MGM Liquors on Larpenteur and Lexington Avenues, I would request that
you forward on to the full city council our sentiments regarding MGM
revising their original site plan. They should not be allowed to revise
their site plan to take out the fence that (originally) separated their
parking lot from the residential ailey to the south. As you know, MGM
removed the fence that was called for in their own site plan exposing
the neighborhood to additional Iights, noise and danger in the form of
traffic from their parking lot moving through the alley. It has been
over two years now that we have been farced to live without that buffer
between MGM's parking lot and the alley. Not only should this request
be denied, but the city in fact should put up barricades of some type
and charge MGM for doing so.
I am not sure if I will be able to attend the city council meeting on
Dec. 2- I know other concerned residents also have work conflicts - but
we wi11 be there in spirit.
Dwight Nelson
ll42 CaliforniaAve West