10-137Council File # 3096896
Green Sheet #�Q - /?.��
V I IV17
CITY OF AINT,PA L, MINNESOTA �
Presented by
of the Downtown Station Area Plan
Amendment to the
dor Development Strategy
0
6 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Central Corridor Development Strategy in October 2007 as a
7 chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
9 WHEREAS, the Central Corridor Development Strategy lays out the City's vision for how best to take
10 advantage of the almost $1 billion investment in LRT through the revitalization of neighborhoods adjacent
1 1 to the Central Corridor LRT line; and
12
13 WHEREAS, the Central Corridor Development Strategy recommends station area planning as a next step
14 to further plan for desired development along the Central Corridor; and
15
16 WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul hired Urban Strategies, Inc. in October 2008 to work with City staff and
17 a community steering committee on a station area plan for two of the three downtown station areas at
18 4` and Union Depot; and
19
2Q WHEREAS, the third downtown station area at 10 station will be addressed in an update of the
21 Fitzgerald Park Precinct Plan; and
22
23 WHEREAS, between October 2005 and July 2009, staff, consultants and community members conducted
24 stakeholder interviews, a� evening roundta6le, an all-day workshop, three Steering Committee meetings
25 and an open house to gain public input on the issues and opportunities presented in downtown by LRT;
26 and
27
28 WHEREAS, a draft Downtown Station Area Plan was released by the Saint Paul Planning Commission for
29 public review on November 13, 2009; and
3Q
31 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft Downtown Station Area Plan on
32 December 18, 20�9; and
33
34 WHEREAS, on January 22, 2010, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the
35 Mayor and City Council adoption of the Downtown Station Area Plan with the amendments laid out in the
36 Planning Commission memo dated January 15, 2010, as an addendum to the Central Corridor
37 Development Strategy, a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, contingent on review by affected
38 jurisdictions and the Metropolitan Council; and
39
/�✓/��
40 NOW, THEREFORE, BE 17 RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the Downtown Station Area
41 Plan with the amendments laid out in the P{anning Commission memo dated January 15, 2010 as an
42 addendum to the Central Corridor Development Strategy, a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive
43 Plan, contingent on review by affected jurisdictions and the Metropolitan Council.
44
45 ,
R by Department of:
Planning 8 Economic Development
By � `� �_`--
— o - ,�
Approved by the Office of Financial Services
By:
Adoption Certified b CouncilSecretary
C
By: "� � lSdrr
Approved ay : Date 7iDZ
BY � ---���_+,
Form App ` v � ed , b City Attorney
a �l�'� i✓�— 2-1- !�
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: /��� �i�f� "`.:"" °7 - � - /O
PLANNiNG COMMISSION
CITY OF SAIN7' PAUL
Chrrstopher B Coleman, tilpyor
January 28, 2010
Brmn Alron, Chav
25 W'est Faurth Slreei
SaintPaul .4L1 JS/02
Mayor Christopher B. Coleman
Council President Kathy Lantry and Members of the City Council
Third Floor City Hall
15 W. Kellogg Boulevard
Saint Pauf, MN 55102
(6�(�7
fl'
Telephone 6�1-?bb-6700
Facmme(e 651-228-31?0
Dear Mayor Coleman, Council President Lantry and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of the Planning Commission, I am pleased to transmit the Downtown Station
Area Plan and recommend that it be adopted as an amendment to the Central Corridor
Development Strategy, a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. This is the
eighth in a series of station area plans to be considered by the City Council; in 2008, the
City Council adopted seven such plans for the LRT stations along University Avenue.
The Downfown Station Area Plan addresses the issues of mobility, land use, built farm
and public realm for two of the three downtown Central Corridor LRT stations — 4
and Union Depot. (The third downtown LRT station at 10`"/Cedar will be addressed
through an update of the Fitzgerald Park Precinct Plan ) The Downtown Station Area
P�an is the resuit of a nearly year-fong process of community involvement, discussion
and review
A copy of the Downtown Statibn Area Plan is attached. The Planning Commission is
recommending some changes to this version, based on public input gathered in writing
and at the Commission's public hearing on December 1 S, 2009. These changes are
described in a January 15, 2010 memo to the Planning Commission, also attached. The
Planning Commission took action on the Downtown Station Area Plan on January 22,
2010 (resolution is attached). The Commission is not recommending that the City
Council hold a second public hearing on the P/an; it is not required, and the Commission
feels that its proposed changes to the Plan address the major concerns already raised.
Please feel free to contact Lucy Thompson in PED (651-266-6578) if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
��.
Kathi Donneily-Cohen, Chair
_ ttir�;
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
/ D�/3�
DepartmenVOffice/Council: Date Initiated:
PE PlanningBEcorwmic 27�AN2010 Green Sheet NO: 3096896
Contact Person & Phone:
Lucy Thompson
__ 266-6578 _
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Oate}:
10-FEB-10
�oc. Type: ftESOLUTION
E-Document Required: Y
Document Contact: Tanya Traeger
Confact Phone: 266-65G5
�
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Totai # of Signature Pages 1 (Ciip All Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
0 Planoin¢&ECOnomicDeveiopme� _
1 Plannine&EconomicDevelo➢mer DeosrtmentDirector
2 CiNAttorneV C�h'Attorne�___
3 VlaVOr's Office � vlavor/Assista�t _
4 Council G7ty Couucil
5 CitvClerk CiNClerk _
Adoption of the Downtown Station Area Plan as an amendment to the Central Comdor Development Strategy, a chapter of the Saint
Paul Compcehensive Plan. Adoption is contmgent on review by affected jurisdict�ons and the Metropolitan Counc�l.
Recommentlations: Approve (A) or Reject (R):
A Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
Personal5ervice Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions:
1 Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
Yes No
2. Has this person/firm ever been a aty employee�
Yes No
3 Does this person/firm possess a skiil not normally possessed by any
wrrent city empbyee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet.
' Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity �Who, What, When, Where, Why): �
' The Downtown Station Area Plan addresses Phe issues of mobility, land use, built form and public realm for two of the three
, downtown Cenfral Corndor LRT staGOns - 4th/Cedar and Union Depot. It is the eighth in a series of station area plans to be
considered by the City Council; in 2008, the C�ty Council adopted seven such plans' for the LRT stations along University Avenue.
The Plan is the cesuLt of a neacly yearLong p�ocess of community invotvement discusSiQn and review.
Advantages If Approved:
The Downtown Stahon Area Plan explains how ffie almost $1 billion LRT invesdnent can be catalytic to the redevziopment of major
sites in downtown, iiapxove tl�e pedestrian realm and connections to hansit, and bxoaden the mix of land uses in the c�ty's coce
neighborLiood.
Disadvantages If Approved:
Notte
Disadvantages If Not Approved: ' � �
There will be no Comprehensive Plan policy specific to development and other oppoctum[ies adjacent to tha Ath/Cedar and Umon
Depot LRT stations.
To[ai Amount of
Transaction:
Punding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
January 27, 2010 231 PM
GosVRevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
�`�` �.�����
:' a � ; �..� � {.
Y
Page 1
"'?°f"�( �1�1 ���N
�71�0
/( fi"'�..�
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number ,o-os
date January22, 2010
jo -J�`l
Recommendation of Downtown Station Area Plan for Central Corridor LRT
WHEREAS, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Mayor and City Council adopted the
Centrai CorridorDevelopment Strategy in October 2007 as a chapter of the City's Comprehensive Pian;
and
WHEREAS, the Central Corridor Development 3trategy provides a solid foundation for the more detailed
planning that is needed around proposed station areas; and
WHEREAS, the Central CorridorDeveiopment Strategy recommends station area planning as a next
step to further plan for desired development along the Central Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul hired Urban Strategies, Inc. in October 2008 to work with City staff and
a community steering committee on a station area plan for two of the three downtown station areas at
4� (Central)) and Union Depot; and
WHEREAS, the third downtown station area at 10` station will be addressed in an update of the
Fitzgerald Park Precinct Pian, and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Station Area Plan was originally intended to also function as an update of the
1994 Lowertown Sma�i Area Pian; and
WHEREAS, beiween October 2008 and July 2009, staff, consultants and community members
canducted stakeholder interviews, an evening roundtable, an ali-day workshop, three Steering Committee
meetings and an open house to gain pubiic input on the issues and opportunities presented in downtown
by LRT; and
WHEREAS, in the course of preparing the Downtown Station Area P�an, the Lowertown community
determined that there are some issues that require more detailed study than appropriate in a station area
plan or possible within the timeline laid out for the Downtown Station Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, a preliminary draft of the Downtown Station Area Plan was reviewed by the Lowertown
Master Plan Task Force and Downtown Station Area Plan Steering Committee in July 2009 to ensure that
it adequately addressed concerns unique to Lowertown and properly laid the groundwork for a
subsequent new Lowertown Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, a revised draft was released by the Planning Commission for public review on Novem6er 13,
2009; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public heari�g on the draft Downtown Station Area Plan on
December 18, 2009, notice of which was published in the St. Paul Legal Ledger and sent to the Early
Notification System list, property owners within the study area, relevant community organizations in
downtown, and all persons who participated in the roundtable and all-day workshop; and
moved by DonnellY-Cohen
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
Downtown Station Area Plan for Central Corridor LRT (Q �r��
Planning Commission Resolution
Page Two
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered afl public testimony, and developed responses and
recommended amendments to the pla� language; and
W4iEftEAS, the responses and recommendations are contained in a memo to the Commission from its
Comprehensive Planning Committee dated January 8, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is authorized under Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355(2) and
Chapter 107 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code to recommend to the Mayor and City Council
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission hereby recommends
to the Mayor and City Council adoption of the Downtown Station Area Plan with the amendments laid out
in the Planning Commission memo dated January 15, 2010, as an addendum to the Central Corridor
Deveiopment Strategy, a chapter of the Saint Pauf Comprehensive Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby directs the Director of Planning to
forward the Downtown Station Area P�an to the Mayor and City Council for their review and adoption
contingent on review by affected jurisdictions and the Metropolitan Council.
DEPAATMENT OF PLANNING &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Cecr(e Bedar, Drrector
CIT'Y OF SAIN I' PAUL
Chnslopher B Coleman. .�layor
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
25 West Fourrh Street
Sa�nt Paul. �.IN 55102
lo�i�7
Q
Telephone 6�/-266-6565
Facs+mrte 65t-728-3261
Ja�uary 15, 2010
Planning Commission
Comprehensive Pianning Committee
Response to Public Hearing Comments on Draft Downtown Station Area
Plan
BACKGROUND
The Downtown Station Area Plan addresses the issues of mobility, land use, built form
and public realm for two of the three downtown Central Corridor LRT stations — 4'"/Cedar
(hereinafter referred to as Central) and Union Depot. (Note: The third downtown LRT
station at 10` wili be addressed through an update of the Fitzgera�d Park Precinct
P�an.)
The draft Downtown Station Area Plan was released by the Planning Commission for
public review on November 13, 2009. A public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission on December 18, 2009, and the public record was left open until 4:30 p.m.
on December 21, 2009.
KEY ISSUES RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Three persons spoke at the December 18, 2009 public hearing. Written comments were
received from eight individuals/organizations. The written comments are attached. Afl
those who commented stated general support for the Plan. Four key issues were raised:
. Children's Play Space at 4`"/Sibley
• pedestrian connections between LoweRown and the Mississippi River
. parking maximums and prohibition of single-use parking structures/surface
parking lots
. zoning for animated ground-levei buiiding frontages
Children's Play Space at 4`"/Sibley
Several comme�ters mentioned how important the play space on the southwest corner
of 4`"/Sibley is to making downtown a neighborhood that welcomes a broad range of
residents and visitors, including families with young children. The play space is in need
of significant investment to restore its appearance and safe use. Those who commented
asked that specific mention be made of the Children's Play Space in the Downtown
Station Area Plan so that future capital requests are supported by the City's
Comprehensive Pian (the Downtown Station Area Plan will be adopted as an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan).
/o-l��
Pianning Commission
January 15, 2010
Page Two
Committee Response:
The Committee agrees with adding specific mention of the Chifdren's Play Space io the
Downtown Station Area Plan. The downtown commu�ity has worked hard for several
years to have ownership of the play space transferred from the Saint Pau! Housing and
Redevelopment Authority to the Division of Parks and Recreation. It is an important
asset in making downtown a diverse, family-friendly neighborhood. The Committee
suggests text be added in the following places:
Page 28, Section 2.4, Direction #1
Add as fast sentence of first paragraph:
For example the Children's Pfav Space at 4` across from Un+on Depot, is a
valued amenitv that helps make downtown a diverse familv-friendlv neiqhborhood.
Page 40, 2(b)
Add as last sentence:
in particular the Children's Plav Sqace on the southwest corner of 4`"/Siblev now 17
Pedestrian Connections Between Lowertown and the Mississippi River
The Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation asks that the Downtown Station Area Plan include
a strategy to connect Lowertown to the Mississippi River via a pedestrian path under the
historic Union Depot track bed along either Broadway Street or Pine Street extended.
Committee Response:
The Committee recommends no change to the text. In the course of preparing the
Downtown Station Area Plan, the train deck was determined eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. With this determination, more complicated design and
engineering work would be required to know whether it is possible to "cut through" the
deck in a way that does not adversely affect its architectural and/or historic integrity.
Therefore, the Downtown Station Area Pian recommends further exploration of
Broadway and Pine street extensions to Warner Road and the riverfront as part of the
Lowertown Master Plan, which is recommended as a next step (p. 52, bullet #9). The
Downtown Station Area Plan recommends immediate work on improving Sibley and
Jackson streets as pedestrian and bicycle paths to the riverfront (p. 4S, Strategy #1).
Parking Maximums and Prohibition of Single-Use Parking Structures/Surface
Parking Lots
The Chamber of Commerce voiced concern over the recommendations in the Downtown
Station Rrea Plan to inst+tute a parking maximum and prohibit single-use parking
structures/surface parking lots in downtown. The Chamber notes that parking lots are
often a tool for holding land for future development, and that more parking is needed to
meet the growing entertainment, resident and employment activity in downtown. In
previous conversations with City staff, Chamber staff have also mentioned their belief
that, due to the cost ofi providing (usually structured) parking, the market will self-
regulate and only provide what is absolutely needed.
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
jp�(��
Planning Commission
January 15, 2010
Page Three
Committee Response:
The recommended changes to the Zoning Ordinance will not occur upon adoption of the
Downtown Station Area Plan. The intention is for the P�an to set the philosophical
ground work for a subsequent, more-detailed study that would look at the totaf amount of
parking downtown, existing parking ramp occupancy rates, and the use and location of
surface parking lots.
A core principle of the Downtown Station Area Plan is a belief that adding LRT (as well
as commuter rail, high-speed rail, and improved local and long-distance bus service)
downtown will lower the modal share of private automobile use. LRT and other
improved transit service is the "carroY' to get to a more economically, physicaNy and
environmentally sustainab{e way of living and moving; a parking maximum would be the
"stick." According to City staff, however, current (August 2009) occupancy rates in HRA-
owned parking ramps and lots in downtown average out at 52%, with some ramps as
high as 80-94% occupancy.
The recommended prohibition of single-use parking structures is not a recommendation
to prohibit alf structured parking. lt is a prohibition against sing�e-use parking structures,
i.e. those that contain only one use — the parking of cars. A 4ree-standing ramp that
contains only parked cars is detrimental to a vibrant downtown. The intent is to require
all new parking structures to contain one or more land uses (in addition to parking) that
will animate the street, contribute to a vibrant human environment, and "tame" the car.
First-floor retail space, office space and residences are appropriate shared uses with
structured parking.
Finaliy, the recommended prohibition on surface parking lots reflects a core principle of
the Plan that with LRT and other improved transit service will come market acceptance
of and support for density, and a fuller ("higher and better") use of every parcel in
downtown. In addition, surface parking lots detract from a vibrant public realm and the
pedestrian-friendly character that every downtown plan over the last 20 years has
supported. However, the Committee agrees with the Chamber that surface parking lots
have been an effective land-banking tool, and does not support prohibiting them
altogether.
The Gommittee had a fair amount of discussion on parking. Committee members
generally agreed with the Chamber's request to delete the recommendation regarding a
parking maximum; supported the prohibition on freestanding, single-use parking
structures; and supported some oversight of surface parking lots, while not prohibiting
them outright. The Committee suggests the following:
• remove the Pian recommendation to institute a parking maximum in downtown,
since occupancy rates are currently fairly robust (p. 53);
• retain the recommendation to prohibit single-use parking structures, since they
do not contribute to an active pedestrian realm or a diverse land use environment
in downtown (p. 20 and 53), but clarify the definition of "single-use;" and
• amend the text to recommend that new surface parking lots in downtown be a
conditional use, so that they may be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and
�a -r� �
Planning Commission
January 15, 2010
Page Four
considered in the conte� of site, adjacent land use, consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, etc. (p. 53).
Zoning for Animated Ground-Level Building Frontages
The Chamber of Commerce stated a concern with the Plan recommendation to adopt
design standards that require minimum retail frontages and minimum window giazing at
street {evel. The Chamber believes that such a requirement ignores market realities and
is not conducive to long-term downtown development. In addition, an individual
(Matthew Pahs) stated that he believes reactivating street-level retail in existing buildings
will be cost-prohibitive and physically difficult.
Committee response: No change is recommended. The Committee believes that both
of these improvements are critical to achieving vitality at street level and an active
pedestrian realm. With the planned streetscape improvements that will be built with
LRT, and a renewed emphasis on pedestrian activity that will come as LRT replaces
some cars with pedestrians, active first floor uses are most certainly conducive to long-
term downtown development.
Other comments:
1. The fZeport of the Diamond Products Task Force should be removed as a
planning precedent on p. 9 because it no longer reflects current plans for the
Diamond Products site.
Committee response: Reference to the Diamond Products Task Force
Report should be retained. The core principles of the Task Force Report that
are mentioned are sti�l relevant and are carried forward in the Station Area
Plan.
2. The Downtown Station Area Plan should identify specific pedestria�
improvements to specific areas (Section 2.1 Mobility).
Committee response: No change is recommended. The Station Area Plan is
intended to set the groundwork for subsequent, more-detailed study of
specific actions. In fact, two implementation documents have already been
prepared — the Central Corridor Bike Walk Action Plan, and 6`n + 5 rn A
Capital Improvement Initiative to Beautify 6 Blocks of 5treetscape on 6'" and
5 Streets in Downtown Saint Pau� - that contain specific ways to implement
the directions laid out in the Station Area Plan.
3. The Plan should recommend greater building setbacks to allow for more
activity on sidewalks.
Committee response: No change is required. The Central Corridor
Development St�ategy, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Pian in 2007,
already supports greater setbacks as new development occurs on vacant
parcels along the Central Corridor line.
4. The discussion on the future of Union Depot Station (p. 36) needs more
detail.
Committee response: No change is recommended. The purpose of each
station area pian is to guide future development so that it takes the greatest
advantage of the almost $1 billion investment that will 6e made in Central
lo`(��
Planning Commission
January 15, 2010
Page Five
5.
Corridor LRT. The Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority is responsible for
the fuff build-out of Union Depot as a multi-modal transit hub It is currently in
the midst of two very large contracts related to Union Depot: the designlbuild
program for its multi-modal operations, and an analysis of the economic
impacts of the multi-modai iransit hub. Together, these efforts wili lay out
specific transit and development opportunities at Union Depot. The results of
this work wilf be incorporated into the Lowertown Master Plan called for in the
Downtown Station Area Plan.
The word "waterfront" should be replaced with °riverfront° wherever it
appears.
Comm+ttee response: The Committee agrees.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends that the Planning Commission support the following
amendments to the Downtown Station Area Plan:
1. Page 28, Section 2.4, Direction #1
Add as last sentence of first paragraph:
neiqhborhood.
2. Page 40, 2(b)
Add as last sentence:
I n particular the Children's PIaV Space on the southwest corner of 4`"(SibleY
now 17 vears old requires siqnificant investment to replace the rubber surfacinq
3. Delete the second paragraph on p. 53 regarding introducing parking maximums
in downtown.
Page 20, Section 2.2, Direction #6
Amend the text in the second paragraph as follows:
"Restricting the amount of new parking downtown will help to maximize the use
of existing structures, encourage the use of transit, and create more opportunities
for new activity-generating developments. New freestandinca sing�e-use parking
structures should be prohibited within the downtown core.
to a principal use and is used for the exclusive puraose of parkinq cars. Where
parking structures exist, the City should work with property owners to activate the
ground floors with street-related uses."
�o�r��
Pianning Commission
January 15, 2010
Page S+x
5. Page 53, Paragraph #3
Amend the text as follows to recommend that surface parking lots i� downtown
be a conditionai use:
"Prohibit construction of new freestandinq, single-use parking structures
efilets and make surface parkinq lots a conditional use Freestanding
single-use parking leYs structures detract from our
experience of the built environment and public realm in downtown.-and-sbeald
be-{�Feqil�ited.
. New surface parkinq lots shouid require a conditional us�
etc.
6. Replace the word "waterfronY' with "riverfronY' wherever it appears.
The Committee further recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Forward these recommended changes to the City Council; and
2) Recommend that the City Council adopt the Downtown Station Area P/an (as
amended) as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, contingent on review by the
Metropolitan Council.
PLEASE BRING YOUR COPY OF THE DRAFT DOWNTOWN STATION AREA PLAN
TO THE MEETING. IF YOU NEED ANOTHER COPY, LUGY HAS SOME DISKS AND
WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEND ONE TO YOU. JUST CALL HER AT 651.266.6578.
Attachments
��-t��
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED
�o-���
From: Matthew Pahs <matthew.pahs@gmail.com>
To: <lucry.thompson@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 72/78/2009 2 09 PM
Subject: Comments on the Downtown Saint Paut Station Area Plan
Please accept the cAmments betow for the Downtown Sai�t Pau4 Station
Area Plan. I am a resident of Saint Paul interested in LRT development
in the City My comments are intended to provide input during the
public comment periotl of the plan.
1) General Concem
The POFS for the p4an that were made available on the CRy's we6site
(http://www.stpaui.gov/index aspx?NID=3296) are of poor condition The
"higher-resolution version" was not viewable and the "low-resolution
version" was difficult to read This made it diffcult for me to fully
revrew the document and thls may Iimit pubhc review by the general
public. fn atldition, texl in the pfan is not searchable, making it
tli�cult to find key words
2) Section 2.1� Mobility
I appreciate the efforts to advance the Neighborhood Park Streets, the
4th Street Artway, the Sth and 6th Cross-7own Connections, the
Mobility Enhancement Areas, EnhancemeM of the Grid, and AdvancemeM
of Cycling OpportunRies There has been some thought of improveme�ts
to these specific areas However, a more tletailed analysis and more
creative ideas are needed in these sections in order to prescribe
improvements the character of those sections of downtown For ezample
rather than suggesting broad petlestnan amenities, [he plan should
identify specific improvements to specific areas. There are numerous
blocks in downtown where the sidewalks are too naaow, and thfs isone
of the limiting factors for hvability m the downtoWn area. TheSe
areas are not hard to find, and Would onty require minimal time in
identifying the problem areas A recommendation for improves set-back
requirements for new buildings should be included.
3) Section 22. land Use
This section includes some good ideas for coordinating land use
downtown In particular, I think the promotion of hisforic building .
re-use is important in retaining the histonc character of downtown
Saint Paul. ln adddion, the idea of creating the "Green Seam" beiween
downtown and the Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary with an adive
recreation area is innovative and overdue. The discussion of an
outright prohibition of parking structures is underdeveloped without
first discussing the need to elimmate surface parking which is a much
less efficient use of land. Numerous parcels exist to the east and
north of ihe alignmeni, clearty within walking distance of station
platforms. In addition, ihe idea of reactrvation of curbside retail
into existing structures is misgwded, w�th the costs being
prohibitive and the spaces too hmited for most businesses. City
planning staff would use resources better in ensuring new development
meeis greater standartls for pedestnao-related land uses
4) Sect�on 2 3 Built Form
1 believe the section on strengthening the existing block and bwlding
pattem is exactly correct The greatest obstacle to improving
livability m downtown is the unfortunate misalignment of roads This
continues today, with recent road closure for the MPR expansion.
Although we will never have a good grid due to previous mistakes and
lack of foresight, we can protect what we have. The downtown needs to
protect the grid to create a more desuabfe built form The dtscusswn
of the Central Station Block is equaliy impressive. The City should be
eaTremely vigiiant m the development of this block, as it is
critically important for the future success of downtown I fully agree
with the importance of visually linking existing and new buildings to
Keflogg Mall and the M�ssissippi Pover fn adddion, I fully agree
with the importance of reinvigoratmg active uses at sidewalk level m
downtown and improve access to and from the skyway system.
5) Section 2.4: Public Realm
/b-f �7
I found this section to be mostly redundant to what has been
previousiy discussed
6) Section 3.1 Transit Environments
Central Station: I fully agree with this points made in this section
More detaii would be appreciated.
Union Depot Station: Th�s section �s severeiy lackmg important
mformation. There needs to be a more clear future outhned m this
section of the potent�al and tikely passenger rail oppoRunities at
this site This sub-point should be mentioned first, and shouid
mention the rail corridors under development For further infortnation
consult Mn/DOT's passenger rail plan under development and Met
Council's transit plamm�g activRies.
7) Section 3 2 Reinforcing Lowertown
I have no comment on this section other than it appears to be clear
and well constructed.
8) Section 3.3 Re-Imaging 4th Street
I have no comment on this sedion other ihan R appears to be Gear
and welf constructed.
9) Section 3.4 Waterfront Access
It is not clear what is meant by the budding of Trout Brook
Boulevard, although I asSUme it would be an eMension of University
which would run approximately parallei to Lafayette This �s a good
idea, the area desperateiy needs a new connection under the viatluct to
connect disparate sections Of this part of the aty. It is also a good
idea to impfove the faCade of the Sibley watluct underpass, as that is
a ma�or entrance to downtown
10) Section 4 O lmplementatlon
1 am glad to see an impiementation plan For the ideas presented This
section looks lhougMful and clear
Thank you for allowing me to submit these comments on the Plan I hope
they are helpful m future discussions and in development of a final
version of the Plan I look forvvard to seeing an improved downtown
Saint Paul m the near future.
Matthew Pahs
West Side resident
S�!y AiR. ?
T R 1 P 5
5T. PAUL SIfl2�t TfIR15
December 18, 2009
Lucy Thompson, Senior Planner
Department of Planning & Economic Development
1300 City Hall Annex
25 W. Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Lucy,
fl �rZ, �:
55 E STH 5T. SUITE 202�
SL PAUL, MN 55101
I'm writing on behalf of the St Paul Transportation Management Organization (TMO), d/b/a St
PaulSmart 7rips, to provide comments regarding the final draft of the Downtown Saint Paul
Station Area Plan for the future Central Corridor LRT (CCLRT). St Paui Smart Trips is a
501(c)(3) non-profit organization that improves access and mobility for those who travel in and
around Saint Paul.
We strongly support the CCLRT because it represents ihe most critical piece in the devefopment
of a balanced regional transportation system. The CCLRT will link downtown St Pauf, the Capitol,
the Midway, the University of Minnesota, and downtown Minneapolis providing connections to
jobs, education, services, and entertainment for St Paul residents and those who visit, work, go to
school, or do business in our city.
We offer our support for the following elements of the plan:
1. Identifying 5"' and 6"' Streets as cross-town connectors for bicyclists and recommending
that these be converted to two-way streets in the long term
This is imporfanf to Smart Trips b/c converting 5'" and 6'" to fwo-way traffic will create
more ba/anced streets fhaf cafer to all travel modes. The current one-way configurations
promote faster speeds and through fra�c rather than calme� speeds and /oca/ fraf(ic.
Fifth and 6'�' are a/so rdeal cross-town connections for bicycles because they will provide
direct connections to amenities such as the Bruce Vento T�ail and destinations around
Rice Park.
2. improving bicycle and pedestnan connections to regional amenities along the edges of
downtown such as the Sam Morgan Trail, the Bruce Vento Sanctuary, and Cathedral Hill.
There are a host of great pedestrian and cycling routes sur�ounding downtown but at
present, the connections between downtown and these routes are missing. lYs good to
see fhe plan idenfify the need to improve these connections.
3. Prohibiting new single use parking structures in downtown
We suppo�t prohibiting new single use parking structures in downtown because these
structures do not support street level vitality. Naving "eyes" on the street is one of the
keys to creating vibrant, active and safe sf�eets. These eyes a�e provided by street level
��-r��
retail, restaurants, and services with a �ange of store hours. When housing is situated
above street leve/ refail, if can provide a second set of eyes for overnight hours.
4. Introducing parking maximums
We encourage the intioduction of parking maximums in downtown as a way to balance
land uses and encourage the use of transportation opfions.
5. Implementfng design standards to animate ground level and building frontages
Single-use parking struefures are not the only use that can detract fiom street vita�ity_
There are plenty of examples of bui/dings in the core of downtown St. Pauf that have
blanks walls or heavily tinted g/ass that provide no eyes on the streef. Int�oducing design
standa�ds such as minimum retail frontages at street level, minimum g/azing as a
percentage of the first story elevation and mandatory pedest�ian entrances oriented to
the street will ensure fhat new and renovated buildings do fheir part to acfivate the sfreet
when feasible.
6. Restricting skyway expansion ln Lowertown
While skyways are intricately Irnked to Minnesota, they detract from vital downtown
sfreets by shifting foot traffic and storefront business from Ehe streef /evel to the skyway.
Restncting skyway expansion in Lowertown will not only p�ofect the integrity of its many
histonc buildings, it wi�l help Lowertown continue to th�ive as a vibrant destination in
downtown.
We look fonvard to continued collaboration with the City and Urban Strategies to finalize this plan.
Regards,
Jessica Treat
Executive Director
�o-t��
SAINT PAUL AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Becember 18, 2009
Mr. Brian Alton, Chairman
Saint Paul Planning Commission
1400 City Hall Annex
25 Fourth Street West
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Chairman Alton:
I respectfully submit these written comments in support of the public testimony delivered
this moming to the City of Saint Paul Planning Commission on behalf of the Saint Paul
Area Chamber of Commerce regarding the Downtown Saint Paul Station Area Plan.
While the Chamber generally supports the Plan, we are troubled by the limited amount of
stakeholder input it reflects. The Central Conidor project has been the Chamber's top
initiative for many years, and we closely followed the progress of station planning
meerings along University Avenue. It is clear the Downtown Ptan deviates from other
Station Area Plans on the fact that the Downtown Plan appears largely staff-driven and
reflects a different proaess for gathering community input.
Specifically, we would like to dTaw your attention to several elements of the Plan to
which the Chamber strongly disagrees:
Page 9, section 1.4: The Planning Context: we believe the Report of the Diamond
Products Task Force (2005) should be removed. The findings of that report are
inconsistent with comments later made in section 4.1: Preparingthe Lowertown Master
Plan, the new direction the City is pursuing wiYh the Saint Paul Saints, and new
knowledge regarding ground contamination.
Page 20, section 2.2.6: Prohibit New Single-Use Parking Structures and page 53,
within section 4.2: Introduce Parkin¢ Maximums and Prohibiting Construction of New
Single-use Parkin� Structure or Lots. These recommendations fail to recognize parking
lots aze often a tool for the public and private sectors to hold land for future development.
They also Pail to recognize the new, market-driven direction Lowertown is taking to
/D�(37
attract bars, restaurants, office tenants, and residents. It does not recognize the growing
demand for parking as Saint Paul's night life grows and businesses flourish. These trends
aze confirmed by growing residential and business populations in the downtown care —
trends we believe motivates employers like Cray to relocate in Saint Paul.
Page 18, section 2.2: Land Use: While we agree with the general sentiments regarding
more active use on the ground ]evel of buildings and innovative re-use of historic
buildings, we disagree with the specific suggestions in section 4.2 relating to zoning
changes that would require minimum retail frontages at street levels and minimum
window glazing as a percentage of first-story elevation. This regulation of street-level
retai] activity ignores market realities and is not conducive to long-term downtown
development.
In closing, I would reiterate the comments we have consistently made regarding Urban
Strategy's vision of a revitalized University Avenue and Downtown: This vision wi11 not
be achieved through governmental regulations or the completion of land use plans. It will
be fulfilled through private investment by a variety of businesses, investors and
entrepreneurs. Tf we strike the right balance between public regulation and private
investment, we believe the vision of the Strategy is achievable. However, if regulation is
done with too heavy a hand, investment will be drawn away from the City of Saint Paul
toward areas that make fewer demands and offer greater returns with lower rlsk.
Sincerely,
' / � ���
Karri J. Plowman
Director Central Corridor Partnership & On Board Midwest
Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce
Page 1 of 2
l0�(�7
Lucy Thompson - Downtown Station Area Plan Public Hearing Testimony for public record
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
"Tim Griffin" <griffin�a,riverfrontcorporation.com>
"Donna Drummond" <donna.drummond@cistpaul.mn.us>, "Lucy Thompson"
<Lucy.Thompson��n,ci.stpaul.mn.us>
12/17/2009 3:31 PM
Downtown Station Area Plan Public Hearing Testimony for public record
"Patrick Seeb" <seeb@riverfrontcorporation.com>, "Gregory Page"
<page�a;riverfrontcotporation.com>, "Katie Sabaka" <Katie(cr�,capitolrivercouncil.org>
December 18, 2009
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall
15 Kellogg Boulevard, West
Saint Paul, MN 55102
�hair Alton and Commissioners:
The Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation is pleased to support the °Downtown Saint Paul Station
Area Plan". We have participated in the dialogue that resulted in this draf� and submitted
comments on the June 23 draft as well. Many of those comments have been incorporated in
this draft. However, we again strongly recommend that the plan specifically include a strategy
to connect Lowertown to the Mississippi River via a pedestrian path under the historic Union
Depot track bed along either the Broadway or Pine Street alignment. This language shouid be
added to sections 3.4 and 4.1. This strategy has been a long-term goal of the Riverfront
Corporation and has been included in previous plans for the area.
We also request that the word river�ront be used instead of "watertront"
We look fonvard to the adoption of this plan and moving forward on the Lowertown Master
Pian, which will connect Lowertown to Dayton's Bluff and Trout Brook to the Mississippi River.
Sincerely,
SAINT PAUL RIVERFRONT CORPORATION
Timothy J. Griffin, AIA, AICP, LEED AP
pirector
Saint Paul on the Mississippi Design Center
25 West Sixth Street
Saint Paui, MN 55102
651 293.6864
www. rivertro ntcorporation.com
file://C:\Documents and Settings\thompsla\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B2A4EE3... 12/22/2009
/0��3�
� Ca itolRiver
W Cou ncil
District 17
101 East 5'^ Street, Suite 240, Saint Paul, MN 55101 �(651) 221-0488 � www.capitolrivercouncil.org
December 17, 2009
Ciry of Saint Paut Planning Commission
25 West Fourth Street
1400 City Hal] Annex
Saint Paul, MN 55102
To Whom lt May Concern:
On Wednesday, December 16�h, 2009, the CapitolRiver Council - District 17 Board of Directors voted
unanimously to support the Downtown Saint Paul Statio� Area Plan and its adoption into the Ciry's
Comprehensive Plan. The Board believes that the Ptan successfully identifies opportunities for
enhancements and improvements at both the Central and Union Depot light rail transit stations that
will integrate light rail transit into downtown Saint Paul's urban landscape.
Thank yoa,
;' � � � � ��� �-
Katie Sabaka, Director
CapitolRiver Council, District 17
Page 1 of 1
Lucy Thompson - FW: Downtown Station Area Plan f Q��
From: "Katie Sabaka" <Katie(i;capitolrivercouncil.org>
To: <donna.drummond@cistpaul.mn.us>, <lucy.thompson�a,ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 12J21/2009 3:19 PM
5ubject: FW: Downtown Station Area Plan
To: Planning Cpmmission
From: CapitolRiver Council - District 17
Re: Station Area Plan fior llnion Depot
Date'. December 21. 2009
To Whom It May Concern:
CapitolRiver Council - District 17 has expressed support for the Downtown Station Area Plan in a letter dated
12/17/2009. As an amendment to this letter of support, CapitolRiver Council wishes to request that the "Tot
LoY'/Chiidren's Outdoor Play Space Iocated near the corner of 4th and Sibley Streets be added to the Plan The
Tot Lot is a valued ammenity in our downtown neighborhood, and one that is heavily used by residents,
employees, visitors, and the schools and daycare centers in our community.
Thank you very much,
Katie Sabaka, Director
CapitolRiver Council
US Bank Center
101 East 5th Street, Suite 240
Saint Paul, MN 55101
(651)221-0488
file:llC:\Documents and Settings\thompsla\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B2F9200m... 12l22/2009
(D�I �7
From: Patricia Lindgren
To: Thompson, Lucy
CC; Hyers, Kim; Schlack, Andy
Date: 12/16/2009 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: DOWNTOWN PLAY AREA
Lucy,
The Children's Playspace (AKA Trein Park) on 4th Street was originally a private park that was funded
with private dollars in the early 1980s. In 2008 the City of St. Paul accepted it and ide�tified it as a City
Park. The park is heavily used by non-custodial parents and grandparents who both have little visitors on
weekends, holidays, and/or summer vacations; as well as the few children who do live downtown. The
rubber ground cover that was originally installed has worn out and desperately needs to be replaced.
Below are Jody Martinez's estimates (Parks & Rec). We would very much appreciate this being added to
the Downtown Station Area Plan as a near term capital improvement. The waterFall and replacement of
the train, boat, etc can be listed as potential Iong term capital projects.
Pat
»> Jody Martinez 1�J14J2009 12:07 PM »>
Pat:
We do not yet know the cost of the play equipment repair or replacement (see items in red below). The
$47,000 was a guestimate for those costs. As soon as we hear back from the play equipment rep we will
verify the $47,000 cost for equipment.
If the artist actually hand painted the waterta0 then I would sure agree that we would need to contract
with her again.
Jody
]ody L.Martinez, ASLA
Manager: Design and Construction
400 City Hall Annex
25 West 4th Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Office:651-266-6424
Fax: 651-292-7405
»> Patricia Lindgren 10/19/2009 11:57 AM »>
Jody,
Thanks much. Just a couple of thoughts. First, what is the extra $47,000 for? Inflation? Project
management?
Secondiy, since the watertall is an art installation, we ought not to hire someone other than the origi�al
artist to "repainY' it.
Pat
»> Jpdy Martinez SO(16/2009 4:48 PM »>
Hi Patricia:
Don Ganje has been working on the following preliminary estimate:
Play area built in 199Z ( 17 years old ) I believe, so needs lots of work.
/o-I�1
Estimate for replacement of all surfacing: 143,000.00
Design/Engineering / construdion observation: 12,000.00
Repaint of the waterfall: $5,000.00 ???
Limited plant material replacement: 3,000.00
i�Je are cpntacting suppher for flwng or replacmg (as reqwred) the Kompan ship, traln, truck, etc. so do
not know that cost yet.
Rough total is $163,OOD.00 Plus Equipment repair............ Preliminary estimate today: Grand totai of
$2U0,000.00
]ody L.Martinez, ASLA
Manager: Design and Construction
400 City Hall Annex
25 West 4th Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Office: 651-266-64Z4
Fax: 651-292-7405
Page 1 of 2
Lucy Thompson - Children's Outdoar Playspace
From: "James Miller" <miller(a�jmrealty.com>
To: <donna.drummond@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 12/21/2009 2:24 PM
�a-r��
Subject: Children's Outdoor Playspace
CC: <jessicasosenfeld@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <lucy.thompson@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, "Patricia Lindgren"
<Patricia.Lindgren(�a,ci.stpaul.mn.us>, "Katie Sabaka" <Katie@capitolrivercouncil.org>
To Planning Commission
From: Jim Miller
Re' Station Area Plan for Umon Depot
Date. December 21, 2Q�9
I understand that last Friday, December 18�h, the Planning Commission reviewed the Station Area Plan for the
Unron Depot and referred it back to the neighborhood committee. I am writing to comment for the record on this
matter. I understand that it is possible to comment for the record prior to 4:30 this afternoon I am an elected
member of the CaptioiRiver Council, District 17, and was chair of the board of the CaptiolRiver Councif when the
Chiidren's' Outdoor Piayspace was built in the early 1990's.
1 request that the Children's' Outdoor Playspace (corner of Selby and Fourth Streets) be included in the Station
Area Plan for the Union Depot. The Station Area plan is a Small Area Plan; if the Children's Outdoor Piayspace is
included In this Small Area Plan it will then be included in the City's Comprehensive Plan
The Children's' Outdoor Playspace is now approximately 20 years old and requires from $2D0,000 to $275,D00 of
improvements to address deferred maintenance. Approximately $155,000 of the cost is to replace the rubberized
material on the ground. The balance is to paint the mural on the wall of the adjacent building (Twin Cities Public
Television) and the playground equipment.
The creation of the Children's' Outdoor Playspace is a triumph for citizen based urban planning in Saint Paul.
When the District 17 Council finished the downtown portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1980 there was
no provision for a children's' playground. At the time there were very few children downtown and downtown was
not considered a place for children. When the District Council updated i;s portion of the Comprehensive Plan in
1990 things had changed. Severai daycare centers had opened, the Saturn School or Rivertront School had
opened, there were several charter schools downtown, and the inventory of housing had expanded to include
residences with children. There were also more single parents and grandparents with children. As a result District
17 recommended a revision the Gomprehensive Plan to include children's' outdoor playspaces and submitted a
funding request to the GIB Committee. The CIB Committee ultimately provided funds for the project, some private
money was raised, a site was located, and the City Parks Department designed the space and constructed the
improvements
I often pass by the Children's Outdoor Playspace and it is rare, eve� �n colder weather, that there are not at least
a few children in it. It is a beautiful pocket-park that makes downtown a more livable place.
Initially the site of the Chtldren's' Outdoor Playspace was leased by the City Parks Department from the C+ty's
HRA. This was changed about two years ago when the City Parks Department acquired ownership of the land
occupied by the Children's Outdoor Playspace.
If the Children's' Outdoor Playspace is included in the Station Area Plan it will ultimately be included in the
Comprehensive Pian. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan will make the Children's' Outdoor Playspace more
competitive to obtain necessary funding for deferred maintenanoe through the CIB process.
Thank you for your consideraYion.
James R. Miller
file:1/C:\I7ocuments and Settings\thompslalLocal Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B2F8529m... 12122l2009
Page 2 of 2
Principal
James Miller {nvestment Realty Company
P.O. Sox 1769
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone: 651-222-2561
Facsi mi le: 651-223-5513
Email: jmiller@jmrealty.com
ro-r� �
file:flC:\Documents and Settings\thompsla\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B2F8524m... 12(22/2009
/o-I� �
From: "Andrew Schfack" <aschtack@gmhf.com>
70: <Donna.Drummond@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 12728/2009 1.43 PM
Su6ject: Station Area Plan Children's Park between TPT and Union Depot
Dear Ms Drummond,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide further input on the CiTy of
Saint Paul's Station Area Plan for the Lowertown neighborhood
The plan under development ceiebrates the best thinking in broad based
input of multiple communiry stakeholders m Samt Paul. One element
that remains an important community asset is the Children's Park between
TPT and Union Depot This park continues to serve a number of residents
and visitors to Lowertown including famihes wdh young children,
noo-costodial parents, empty nester grandparents, and the numerous
visitors to the atys family friendly museums and entertainment venues.
Please consider how best to emphasize the importance of this key
community asset that can be referenced and integrated into the Station
Area Plan to aliow this important public space to continue to function
into the future as one of the onry family-frieodry adive open spaces in
Downtown, which is in need of capital improvements to ensure its safety
and success for years to come.
Respectfulry submitted,
Andrew Schlack
ResidenT 35� Saint Peter Street #tOt 1
Saint Paul, MN
55102
Andrew Schlack
APA, Assoc. AIA
.. . ... . . .... .. ... ......
. . .... .. .. . . .. .... .. .. . ..
Greater Minnesota
Housing Fund
332 Mmnesota Street, Suite 1201 East
Saint Paul, MN 55101
651-221-1997 --EMension#106
651-221-190A-fax
e-mail: aschlack@gmhf com
website: http'!lwww gmhf.com <http:(/www gmhf com/>
... ....... ..... ... ..... .... .. .. . . .....
. . ... . . .. . ..... ....... .. .... .. .
"Notice that the stiffest tree is most easily cracked, while the bamboo
or wiliow survives by bendmg with the wind "-- Bruce Lee
P please consider the environment before printing this e-mail