95-7440 R 1 G��f A L council File # 1� !`("7
Green Sheet # 33 ¢3 (�_
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MlNNESOTA �
Presented By
Referred To � Committee: Date
1
2 Whereas, The Saint Paul Division Of Parks and Recreation made application to
3 the Planning Commission for a Site Plan Review under the provisions of Section 62.108
4 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the purpose of constructing a parking lot on
5 property located south of intersection of Beulah Lane And Midway Parkway, in Como
6 Pazk; and
7
8 Whereas, the Planning Commission heid a public hearing on April 28, 1995, at
9 which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said
10 application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul
11 I.egislative Code; and
12
13 Whereas, the, based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, as
14 substantially reflected in the minutes, the Commission found that the site plan is
15 consistent with:
16
17 1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas
18 of the city.
19
20 The site plan is consistent with the Como Park Master Plan adopted in 1984.
21 One of the goals of this pian is to "increase parking facilities" The plan says that
22 this part of the pazk has a shortage of parking and ca11s for a 205-car parking lot
23 in this area.
24
25 District 10 pointed out that another goal of the plan is to maintain and improve
26 park edges and buffers. However, several references in the Master Plan indicate
27 that the concerns about buffers are primarily focused on the edges of the park
28 where the intent is to minimize the impact of the park on nearby residential
29 azeas. Objective 2 under this goal is to "provide buffers between park and
30 residential areas even in areas where they do not presently exist " A plan on page
31 27 of the Master Plan that identifies buffers does not show the existing area of
32 trees where the new lot wouid go.
33
34 A committee was created in February 1995 by the Parks Commission to look at
35 the details of implementing the Master Plan in the west end of the park.
36 However, work on planning the pazking lot began over two years ago and in
37 February 1995 the Parks Commission failed to approve a motion to delay
38 construction of the parking lot for the outcome of the ad hoc committee's study.
39
40 2. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
41
42 The parking lot complies with all applicable ordinances.
43
� 7�
i
2
s.
Preservasion of unique geologic, geographic or historically significaru characteristics
of the city and environmentally sensitive areas.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site plan shows 58 uees as well
as understory vegetation would be removed for the proposed parking lot. 'This
veaetation screens the picnic area from the conservatory parldng lot and may
provide shelter for some wildiife. However, any location chosen for a lazge
parldng lot in this part of the park wouid require removing a significant number
of trees.
Parks staff had the City Forester look at the condition of tl�e trees to be removed.
The C`ity Forester found that of the 58 trees shown on the site plan to be
removed, 38 are diseased. In addition, most of the understory vegetation is
Buckthorn Buckthorn is considered a no�ous, invasive species and Pazks staff is
trying to eliminate it from the park where possible. The plan ca11s for planting 50
new trees, 327 shrubs and over 2,200 perennial to compensate for the eacisting
trees and vegetation that would be removed.
4. Protection of adjacera and neighboring propenies 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 e,Jfects on
neighboring tand uses.
5.
C�
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Drainage meets required standards.
Existing vegetation to the west buffers the lot from neighboring homes across
Hamline Avenue.
The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed developmenx in
order to assure abutting properry and/or its occupanss will not be unreasonablv
a,�'eeted.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The proposed parking lot is 750'
from the neazest private property and will not unreasonably affect neighboring
properties.
Creation of energy-conserving design through Zandscaping and location, orientation
¢nd elevation ofstructures.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The most important energy
conservation measure in designing a parldng lot is to provide shade for paved
parking surfaces. The proposed lot would be landscaped with 50 new trees.
7. Safety and convenience of both .vehicular and pedestrian tra,�c both within the site
and in relation to access ssreets, including trafj"zc circulation features, the locations
anrl designs of entrances and erits and parking areas within the site.
Staff from Public Works Traffic Engineering Section reviewed the site plan for the
parking lot last November and found that it is consistent with this finding. Public
Works staff noted several improvements for auto circulation with the proposed
lot: the angle intersection of Beulah and Midway will be eliminated and the
2
95���
1..
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
c�
a
10.
11
parking lot will be better defined and no longer accessed from a through street.
The proximity of the east driveway for the proposed lot to the driveway of the
conservatory par}dng lot, mentioned by District 10, will not be a problem since the
new driveway -
will be for exit only.
Public Works staff also found that the pedestrian crossing at the traf�c light will
be improved by elinunating the intersection with Beulah. They did not find that
eliminating the vegetative buffer would be a safety problem for pedestrians.
The satisfactory availability artrl capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including
solutions to arry drainage problems in the area of the development.
Staff from Public Work Sewer Engineering Section reviewed the plan for the
parking lot last November and found that it is consistent with this finding. T1�e
situation for storm water drainage is unusual since the oniy storm sewer available
is located 600 feet to the south in Horton Avenue. This sewer drains to Como
Lake as do most of the storm sewers in the area around the lake.
The system proposed by Parks would direct water from most storms to an
underground storage tank where it could infiltrate back into the ground. During
heavy rain storms, water that could not be accommodated by the under ground
system would flow to Midway Parkway and down the street to the storm sewer in
Horton and eventually to Como L.ake.
Sufficient Zandscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above
objectives.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. In terms of landscaping, the plan
calls for planting 50 new trees, 327 shrubs and over 2,200 perennials to
compensate for the trees that wouid be removed.
In terms of parking, the proposed lot will initially increase the amount of parking
spaces in the park by about 60 spaces. In the long term, the Master Plan calls for
closing Beulah Lane south of the proposed lot. When this occurs the total
number of spaces in the lot will be roughly equal to the present number of spaces
in the e�usting lot and on the street in Beulah Lane.
Site accessibiliry in accordance with the provisions of the American with Disabilides
Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. ADA standards call for four
accessible parldng spaces for a lot of this size and these have been provided next
to an accessible route.
Provision erosion and sedimentation control as spec�ed in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and Corurol Handbook. "
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Erosion control measures and street
sweeping will be provided as needed during construction.
�?
�5�7�
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 64.206, District 10 Como
Community Council, 1566 Como Avenue South, saint Paul, Minnesota 55108, duly filed
with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Planuing
Conunission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose
of considering the acrions taken by the said Commission; and
Whereas, Acting pursuant to Sections 64.206 through 64.208, and upon notice to
affected parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on June 28,
1995, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
Whereas, The Council, ha�ing heazd the statements made, and having considered
the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Planning
Commission, does hereby
Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby reverse the
decision of the Planning Commission in this matter and the appeal of District 10 Como
Community Council be and is hereby granted, based on the following findings of the
Council:
i. The proposed site plan is not consistent with the adopted Comprehensive
Pian. The Master Plan calls for preserving the e�sting flora and fauna,
minimizing pavement, maintaining and improving unstructured areas and
small intimate areas which will compiement intensive use areas, protecting
the quality of the lake water. The Commission failed to consider the
planning criteria listed in the Master Plan to reduce the impact of the
automobile on the park element, activities and users and to provide
physical, audio and visual buffering.
2. The Planning Commission failed to consider the expert testimony at the
public hearing of the importance of this natural area and that it cannot be
replaced by new landscaping.
3. The Commission erred in not considering the effect of this lot on the
abutting property within the park. (The Zoning Code defines abutting as
having a common property line or across the street. Thus the area across
Beulah Lane and across Midway Parkway should have been considered.)
4. The Commission erred in finding the plan has adequate sewer drainage.
The quality of Como Take water has deteriorated. This would worsen it
because the water would run to the lake especially during heavy rainfall.
5. The Commission further ened in not considering the heaith and
importance of the existing grove of trees, and failing to consider the
reasons for the Parks parldng study and the Ad Hoc Committee's charge
that constructing the lot was premature and shouid be done after the study
is completed but not before.
5. The Commission committed an enor of procedure in that its agenda for
May 12th listed the site plan review as an update, and citizens could have
reasonably expected a public hearing and not a final decision on the site
plan application.
0
�s-���
1 Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the
2 Saint Paul Division Of Parks and Recreation, District 10 Como Community Council, the
3 Zoning Administrator and the Planuing Commission.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
Adopted by Council: Date a 1 5 1� �
i
i �% �
Adoption Certified by Council Se retary By: \� _ 7 �_ .� �� �,� ;
i/ �
BY = +t.�-.� c�- . ��� _ ' � r
Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Council
Approved by Ma Date
By:
By� S y _.
.
d� A ��� . � � ► 9� �
�s-��
DEPAflTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED N� 3 3 4 31
City Council 6/29/95 GREEN SHEE _. __ _-
CONTAGT PEflSON & PHONE INITIAUDATE INITIAVDAiE
O DEPAFRMENT DIREC'�Ofl O CRV COUNCiI
Nancy Anderson ASSIGN �CITYATfORNEV OC�NCLERK
MUST BE ON CAUNCiI AGENDA BV (DAT� ROVfINC � BUDG� DIRECTOR � FIN. & MGT. SEP.VICES DIR.
ORDER � MAYOFi (OR ASSISTAN"n �
TOTAL # OP SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Ju�.�.
Finalizing City Council action taken on �uky� 28, 1995, gxanting the appeal o£ District 10
Como Community Council to a decision of the Planning Commission to approve the site plan
for a new arkin lot in Como Park at Beulah Lane and Midway Parkway.
AECAM'nENDA7�ONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) PEHSONAL SEHVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
_ PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �� Has this persoNtirm ever worked under a coMrad tor this department? -
_ CB CoMMIT7EE _ YES NO
_ STAFF 2. Has ihis person/firtn ever been a G�ty employee?
— YES NO
_ DIS7RiC7 COURT � 3. Does this personHirtn possess a skill not normally possesud by any curtent ciry employee?
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNqL O&IECTIVE? YES NO
Explafn all yes answers on seperate sheet and attech [o green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, Wha; When, Where, Why�:
AOVANTAGESIFAPPROVED�
�� �i19f �1�
JUL 0 5 189 r
DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVE�
�ISADVANTAGES IFNOTAPPROVED: �������
V3J� V�J 7�77�
C��� AT� R �Y
TOTAL AMOUNT OPTRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
PUNDIIdG SOURCE AC7IVITY NUMBEH
FINANCIAL INFORMATION. (EXPWN)
a n� �N���
�/�lqs
CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
�s-?�ti
� ;.,�
r :..3v�
b�v::w,� :
OFPICE OP LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ��
ENVIItONMENTAL PROTECTION
Robert Kessler, Director
BI7IIDINGINSPELZ70NAt�7J Telephorze:6i2-266900I
DESIGN Faurimik: 672-2669099
350 SY Peter SYreet
S}du 3I0
Sainr PauZ, Minnesom SSIO2-ISIO
�",�v 3 � 1995
May 31, 1995
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City CouncIl Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
—__--�`�
I would like to confirm that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, June
° a g' -3� 1995 for the following zoning case:
Appellant:
File Number:
Purpose:
Location:
District 10 Como Community Council
95-104
Appeal the Plauving Commission's decision to approve the site plan for a new
pazking lot in Como Park.
Beulah Lane and Midway Pazkway
I have confirmed this date with the office of Councilmember Rettman. My understanding is that this
public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that
you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul I.ega1 Ledger.
Please call me at 266-9086 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
L�, �
Tom Beach
Zoning Section
� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -
t,
The Saint Paui City Council will conduct a.public fiearing nn W.ednesday. _
June 28, 1995, at 3:30 pm, in the City Council Chambers, Third FToor: City
Eiall, to eonsider the appeal of District 10 Como Community Council to a
decision of the Planning Commission to approve the site plan for a new parldrig
lot in Como Pazk at Beulah Lane and Midway Parkway. � ..
Dated: June 1. 1995 � ` , "
NANCY ANDERSON" � � ' - " - " - ---- �
Assistaat City Couacil�SecretaTy , � _ �; �'� �
, - � (June 10, 1995J . , - ,
OPFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIltONMENTALPROTEC110N
Ro6e�t Kesskr, Director
`� S -'i 4 �-�
YS
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Colemarz, Mayor
•
June 15. 1995
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
IAA'RY PROFESSIONAL
BUIIDING
SLite 300
350 St. Peter St'eet
SairttPaul, Minnaota SSIO2-IS10
Te(ephone: 672-26b9090
Faaimile: 612-2669099
612-2669124
RE: Public heazing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the site
plan for a parking lot in Como Park on Beulah Lane neaz Midway Parkway.
ZONING FILE:
CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE:
PLANNING COMNiISSION ACTION:
STAFF RECONIn'IENDATION:
�Ytl�7�)tTllil
OPPOSITION:
Dear Ms. Anderson:
District 10 Como Community Council
(Beulah Lane pazking lot)
95-104
6/28/95
Approve 11-5
Approve
1 letter in support
20 people spoke at the hearing, 3 letters and a petition
signed by 462 people
The District 10 Como Community Council has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve the site plan for a 98-car parking lot in Como Park on Beulah Lane near Midway Parkway .
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 28, 1995. At the close of the public
hearing, the Commission voted to send the case to the Zoning Committee on May 4 for further
discussion. The case went back to the Pianning Commission on May 12 and they voted 11-5 to
approve the site plan.
The appeal states that "the Planning Commission made errors of fact, finding and procedures
including but not limited to ... failing to respond to the substance of concerns, a�'expressed by
• citizens which were unchallenged by any other public testimony, which specificaily related to the
required consistencies as found in the legislative code ... [and] ... omitting written and oral testimony
entered in the public record from summaries, staff reports and the written resolution."
District 10 did not state in its appeai specifically which enors of fact and finding it believes were •
made. However, their original request to the Planuing Commission for a public heazing and the
testimony at the heazing focused on whether the site plan was consistent with the Como Park Master
Plan, the environmental impact of removing trees for the parking lot, and tr�c safety.
There was also discussion of whether the City could be financially liable if the lot was delayed to
allow for more study, since a contract for huilding the lot has already been signed. However, the
City Attomey advised the Commissibn that this was outside of the findings they needed to consider in
reviewing the lot.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on 7une 28. Please notify me if any
member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sincerely,
i�����
Tom Beach
cc: City Councilmembers
A1°fACH1VIENTS
Written material
Appeal from District 10 Como Community Council
PIanning Commission Resolution and Minutes
15 Staff report
20 Letters to Planning Commission and other letters
Pians
46 Site ptan
49 Como Pazk Master Plan
55 Location maps
•
•
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
•IG�' Department ojPlanning and Econotnic Deve!opment
IRT.T.11 Zoring Section
Yw�i II�O City Hal! Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN SSIO2
266-6589
APPELLANT Name DISTRICT 1C CGI•TO COT°�'�`_UlI^lY CCUIvCIL
Address ��5o COi+O AUETNL•'
City SAIIdT PAUI, gt_N;N Zi 55108 Daytime phone 644-3889
PROPERTY Zoning File
LOCATION , ��____„ _
appea a ec y
✓Vl
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �3:City Council
• '
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to
1 d ision made b+h= �kINT r1�UI, PI,t�PdNIivG CO��I�'iISSIOI�T
on
-' � (� � - V�/�l �
19� File numb�r. 94-265/RySOZUTION 95-40
(date of
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offcial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
SyE ATTACrIED t1i�Di,;IDUT�
t
• I Attach additionai sheet if necessary)
Appiicant's signature
i '� � r-, <
Date SZr�9 City agent ��'�
�
�S-`�L�y
�
: : .,,,
, �
_�:c�1��
-T-�—, .�":��3i
rm .- -•
�
District 10 - Como Community Councii
ADDENDUM A
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Department of P/anning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
7100 City Hall Artnex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been any error
in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative
official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning
Appeals or the Planning Commission.
We feel that the Pianning Commission made errors of fact, finding and procedures
including but not limited to
• failing to respond to the substance of concerns, as expressed by citizens which were
unchallenged by any other pvblic testimony, which specifically related to the required
consistencies as found in the legislative code
• omitting written and oral testimony entered in the public record from summaries, staff
reports, and the written resolution (file number 95-40)
1523 Como Auenue • St. Pau11FfN 55I08 • 612-644-3889
n
LJ
•
�
�S-���y
� city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number 95-40
(��e May 12, 1995
WHEREAS, THE SAINT PAUL DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, file # 94-265, has
applied for a Site Plan Review under the provisions of Section 62.108 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
for the purpose of constructing a parking lot on property located south of intersection of BEULAI LANE
AND MIDWAY PARKWAY, in Como Park; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on 4l28l95, at which all persons present
were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements
of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, as
substantially reflected in the minutes, found that the site plan is consistent with:
The city's adopted comprehensive p[an and development or project plans for sub-areas of the ciry.
The site plan is consistent with the Como Park Master Plan adopted in 1984. One of the goals
• of this plan is to "increase parking facilities" The pian says that this part of the park has a
shor[age of parking and calls for a 205-car parking lot in this area.
District 10 pointed out that another goal of the plan is to maintain and improve park edges and
buffers. However, several references in the Master Plan indicate that the concerns about buffers
are primarily focused on the edges of the park where the intent is to minimize the impact of the
park on nearby residential areas. Objective 2 under this goal is to "provide buffers between park
and residential areas even in areas where they do not presentiy exist." A plan on page 27 of the
Master Plan that identifies buffers does not show the existing area of trees where the new lot
would go.
A committee was created in February 1995 by the Parks Commission to look at the details of
implementing the Master Plan in the west end of the park. However, work on planning the
parking lot began over two years ago and in February 1995 the Parks Commission failed to
approve a motion to delay construction of the pazking lot for the outcome of the ad hoc
committee's study.
2. ApplicaUle ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The parking lot complies with all applicable ordinances.
moved by Vaught
seconded by �rdan s
� in favor 11
against 5
(Schwichtenberg, Geisser, Treichel, Wencl, Carter)
3
Site Plan Review File 1(94-265
Page Two of Resolution
3. Preservation of r�zique geotogic, geographic or historica[ly signifccant characteristics of the city
and environntentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this fmding. The site plan shows 58 trees as well as understory
vegetation would be removed for the groposed parking lot. This vegetation screens the picnic
area from the conservatory parking lot and may provide shelter for some wildiife. However, any
location chosen for a lazge pazking lot in this part of the park would require removing a
significant number of trees.
Parks staff had the City Forester look at the condition of the trees to be removed. The City
Forester found that of the 58 trees shown on the site plan to be removed, 38 aze diseased. In
addition, most of the uriderstory vegetation is Buckthorn. Buckthorn is considered a noxious,
invasive species and Parks staff is trying to eliminate it from the park where possible. The plan
calls for planting 50 new trees, 327 shrubs and over 2,200 perenniais to compensate for the
existing trees and vegetation that wouid be removed.
4. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisian 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 lanct uses.
•
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Drainage meets reguired standazds. Existing
vegetation to the west buffers the lot fcom neighboring homes across Hamline Avenue.
The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to assure •
abutting properiy and/or its occupanu will not be unreasonab[y affected.
The site plan is consistent with this fmding. The proposed parking lot is 750' from the nearest
private property and will not unreasonably affect neighboring properties.
6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and [ocation, orientation and elevation
of strrtctures.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The most importan[ energy conservation measure
in designing a parking lo[ is to provide shade for paved parking surfaces. The proposed lot
would belandscaped with 50 new trees.
Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in relation
to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the Locatiorrs and designs of entrances and
exits and parking areas within the site. '
Staff from Public Works Traffic Engineering Section reviewed the site plan for the parking lot
last November and found that it is consistent with this finding. Public Works staff noted several
improvements for auto circulation with the proposed lot: the angle intersection of Beulah and
Midway will be eliminated and the parking lot will be better defined and no longer accessed from
a through street. The proximity of the east driveway for the proposed lot to the driveway of the
conservatory parking lot, mentioned by District 10, will not be a problem since the new driveway •
�
`�S-7�t�
Site Plan Review File N94-265
• Page Three of Resolution
will be for exit only.
Public Works staff also found that the pedestrian crossing at the traffic light will be improved by
eliminating the intersection with Beulah. They did not find that eliminating the vegetative buffer
would be a safety problem for pedestrians.
8. The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including solurions to any
drainage problems in the area of the development.
Staff from Public Work Sewer Engineering Section reviewed the pian for the parking lot last
November and found that it is consistent with this finding. The situation for storm water
drainage is unusual since the only storm sewer available is located 600 feet to the south in Horton
Avenue. This sewer drains to Como Lake as do most of the storm sewers in the area around the
lake.
The system proposed by Parks would direct water from most storms to an underground storage
tank where it could infiltrate back into the ground. During heavy rain storms, water that could
not be accommodated by the under ground system would flow to Midway Parkway and down the
street to the storm sewer in Horton and eventually to Como Lake.
9. Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
• The site plan is consistent wi[h this finding. In terms of landscaping, the plan calls for planting
50 new trees, 327 shrubs and over 2,200 perennials to compensate for the trees that would be
removed.
In terms of parking, the proposed lot will initially increase the amount of parking spaces in the
park by about 60 spaces. In the long term, the Master Plan calls for closing Beulah Lane south
of the proposed lot. When this occurs the total number of spaces in the lot will be roughly equal
to the present number of spaces in the existing lot and on the street in Beulah Lane.
10. Site accessibiliry in accordance with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA),
including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. ADA standards call for four accessible parking
spaces for a lot of this size and these have been provided next to an accessible route.
11. Provision erosion and sedimentation control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Control Handbook. "
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Erosion con[rol measures and street sweeping will
be provided as needed during construction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Com�ission, that under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for Site Plan Review to allow a parking lot at
• BEULAH LANE AND MIDWAY PARKWAY is hereby approved.
s
I�KKI� �-b�N i�.� SS�� M i hK �S
M,��, , 2, i'its
��
t
Some discussion ensued. Chair McDonell calfed the vote. A roll call vote of the motion to
approve failed 4 to 9(FCramer, Schwichtenberg, Gordon, Mardell, Lund-Johnson, Mahoney,
Morton, Wencl, Lee).
MOTTON: Commissioner Kramer moved to deny the request to rezone the property at 958
Prosperity Avenue from RM-2 to P-I because it does not comply with the existing or
proposed District 2 or Phalen Village Smali Area Plans. Commissioner Lee seconded the
motion which carried 10 to 3(Vaught, Field, Geisser) on a roft call vote.
#95-051 Asmussen Entemrises Inc. - Special condition use permit to allow renta( of trucks
(1133 Rankin St, west side between StewaR & Benson; zoned I-1).
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved approval of the requested special condition use
permit to alfow rental of trucks at 1133 Rankin Street. The motion carried unanimousiy on a
voice vote.
#95-054 Westwav Tradins Companx - Speciat condition use permit to allow 4 storage tanks
for chemica[s used in the production of windshie(d washer fluid not to be elevated on fil(
above the regulatory flood elevation (2225 Childs Road; zoned I-2).
MOTION: Commissioner Mor[on moved approval of the requested special condition use
permit to allow 4 stora�e tanks for chemicats used in the production of windshield washer
fluid at 2225 Childs Road.
Some discussion ensued regarding the distinction between the production of antifreeze and
windshield washer fluid and the construction of the proposed tanks. The motion to approve
canied on a voice vote.
#95-055 John Rodri�ue - Rezone to OS-i to allow office space (484 Larpenteur Ave West
(southside beriveen Mackubin & Cohansey; zoned R-3).
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved approval of the request to rezone property at 484-
486 Larpenteur Avenue West to OS-I to allow office space.
Commissioner Field explained that he voted against this request to rezone because, in his
opinion, this is spot zoning to accommodate this one site. Commissioner Vaught concurred.
The motion to approve this rezoning was approved on a ro(t call vote of 8 to 7(Bader, Field,
Lund-Johnson, Gordon, Schwichtenberg, Vaught, Wencl).
Site Plan Review Update - Parking Lot in Como Park at Buelah Lane -(Tom Beach)
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved to reopen the public heazing at the planning
commission level and schedule it for May 26, 1995.
Mr. Beach summarized events since the public hearing. He noted that staff from the
Department of Parks and Recreation and representatives of tl�e neighborhood met on Monday
and discussed options for the lot. They plan to meet again riest Tu�sday. However, Parks
staff has indicated that they still want to go ahead with the plan that is before the
commission; options for minor changes are being considered.
•
r�
U
n
U
��
�S-�`S�f
� Commissioner Field explained that the zoning committee referred this site plan back to the
planning commission in order to hear what progress has taken place regardina controversial
issues of the parties involved; and sufficient notice time for a public liearing.
Commissioner Gordon asked whether there was any further information regarding the legal
ramifications of delay. Commissioner Vaught answered that Mr. Segal's letter did not
address the question that was asked. Mr. Wamer distributed a 3-page memo on the issue,
which he hoped would provide a springboard for more erploration on the planning
commission's responsibility regarding site plan reviews as described by the code in the Saint
Paut city ordinances.
Commissioner Mahoney asked if the City would lose the $320,000 grant from the
Metropolitan Council if the parking lot is not finished by June 30, 1995. Mr. Beach replied
that there is a deadfine on the grant, however it is possible to ask for an extension of the
grant.
Chair McDonell rephrased the question to ask whether construction of the lot needs to be
completed orjust begun by June 30, 1995 in order to receive the grant. Commissioner
Mahoney questioned the Met Council's history of grant extensions. Mr. Beach stated he had
no answer for either question. Chair McDonell deferred the question to later.
Commissioner Gordon asked, regarding the paragraph of Mr. Wamer's memo immediatefy
following the eleven listed factors that states:
• Any inquiry into matters beyond these factors, while possible relevant,
are beyond the legitimate jurisdictional boundaries imposed on this Commission
by the Saint Paul City Council;
"Could this inquiry rea(ly invite legal chal(enpes?" Mr. Wamer answered that although some
questions may be reasonable inquiry, it is not a basis on which the Commission can decide
whether or not to approve or disapprove a site plan.
Commissioner Schwichtenberg stated that he did not see any real gain from reopening the
public liearing. He suggested a vote now.
Some commissioners volunteered their reasons for voting as they did at the zoning committee
meeting; some expressed their hope for compromise.
Commissioner Kramer asked whether the commission could refer this matter to the City
Council without a recommendation. Mr. Ryan answered that they could not; the commission
must vote on it and appeal can be filed to the City Council.
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Wamer if the City of Saint Paul had a city ordinance that
requires that city funds be spent in the best interests of the City, and if so, isn't that an
applicable ordinance within the meaning of Sub 2 of Mr. Segal's letter. He commented that,
in his opiniop the Commission should no longer hold up this matter. Mr. Warner answered
that he did not have an answer with respectto an ordinarice dealang with the expenditures of
city funds; he suggested that the issue may be addressed in the City ChaRer, he will reseazch
• and respond with a letter.
� �
The motion on the floor to reopen the public hearing at the planning commission level on
May 26, 1995 failed on a voice vote.
�
VI.
C+T�
MOTION: Commissioner Vaught moved to approve the site plan at Buelah Lane in Como
Park. Commissioner Gordon seconded the motion which carried on a roll call vote of 1 I tc
5(Schwichtenberg, Geisser, Treiche(, Wencl, Carter).
Comprehensive PIanning and Economic Development
Chair McDonell announced that committee will meet on Wednesday, May 17, at 4:00 p.m.
Neiahborhood Planning and Land Use
No repoR.
Task Force Reports
Commissioner Field reported on last nighYs meeting of the Riverfront Task Force. He stated
tliat the mission of the task force was outlined and briefly ovtlined its three points: 1) to
integrate the Mississippi River Vatley into the community and the community into the River
Valley; 2) reveal and develop the Mississippi River Valley as a gathering ground that unites
the cult�ral and na[ural communities to Saint Paul; 3) utilize the Mississippi River Valtey as
a definina feature to construct Saint Paul's image and identity within the community and the
region. He announced that there will be one more meetino of the task force on May 31. M�.
Field seems to be impressed by Mr. Bill Morrish's viewpoint of Saint Paul/Mississippi
interaction, and fascinated by the task force process,
VIII. Old Business
Commissioner Treichel reminded commissioners that she has not received everyone's $25 far
the retreat.
IX. New Business
None.
X. Adjournment
MOTION: Commissioner Geisser moved for adjournment; Commissioner Field seconded
the motion that carried unanimousiy on a voice vote.
RespecYfully submitted,
Kenneth Ford
Pianning Administrator
plannive, Jminures,frtn
Appmved
(date)
Barbara Wencl
Secretary of the Planning Commission
•
•
•
:
�
��ahR►r� ��.;ssra� Mihk�cl
y�28�9s
q, S - `� `{ �(
recommendation thatthe matter be re-referred to the Neighborhood Planning and Land Use
Committee for final discussion and recommendation to the commission.
Chair McDonell read the rules of procedure for public hea�ing.
Efizabeth M. Kiernat, 1410 Edgecumbe Road, addressed the commission in support.
She was co-chair of the library study; she feels that the process was very open and very
inclusive, and that the recommendations brought forward are representative of what
people in Saint Paul want for the tibrary. She added that a strong continued
partnership/relationship must be maintained between the strong roles of both education
and the libraries; and while libraries are considered the heart of their communities, they
need to move outside their walls in order to service a fast-changing, fast-paced society.
Two other goals are included: 1) resources to encourage and help smali businesses, and
2) the strengthening of the regional library system.
2. Jean Fischer, 1166 Fairmount Avenue, came to represent a very small branch of the
tibrary on West Seventh. She impressed upon the commission the importance of this
smatl facility to the community surrounding it. She thinks that all of the funding should
include funding for small libraries as well as the public library.
•
CI
Chair McDonell asked for a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Geisser moved to close the public hearing on the Plan for
Librazies in Saint Paul and refer the matter to the Neighborhood Planning and Land Use
Committee. Commissioner Chavez seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a
voice vote.
Public Aearing: Buelah Lane Parkine Lot, Como Park -(Tom Beach)
Mr. Beach summarized the loYs history, showed maps to define location, and reviewed the
staff report �vith the commission. He noted that one of the key issues addressed in the
Master Plan is traffic circufation and parking. Staff recommends approval of the site plan.
He added that since the staff report was written, District 10 met and voted to recommend
that no approval should be given to the parking lot until the ad hoc committee created by the
Parks Commission make their recommendations.
Chair McDonell read the rules of procedure for public hearing warning people that he will
hold their testimony to the three minute rule.
Paul Taylor, #305, 3441 Emerson Avenue South, Minneapolis addressed the
commission. He is a member of the Native American Rainbow Network, Como Zoo
Docent, and the Minnesota Audubon Council, Forest Habitat Preservation Committee.
He advocated looking at alternatives like shuttle transfer to Como Park rather than
destroying a wild like habitat oF trees and brush to create another parking lot.
•
2. Dennis O'Rourke, 1371 Midway Parkway, and chair of District 10 Community Council,
clarified District 10's record. He emphasized that District 10 has been on the record of
opposing this lot since they first heard of it in April of last year at a joint meeting oF
their Land Use and Environmental Committees. They originalty asked Parks and Rec to
be included in the process. In April of this year they went on record supporting a
�, q
moratorium on pazking untii a study can be compieted regarding traffic circuIation and •
the Master Plan can be revisited.
Julie Hoff, 976 Goodrich Avenue, and community organizer for District 10, read a
statement from Thora Cartledge, an expeR Landscape Architect, who works in the field
of helping Yo preserve the landscape, architecturaliy and cutturally significant azeas in
parks. Tlie statement encouraged looking at atternative ideas for parking and
transportation in order to preserve the small wildlife azea in Como Park. It offered
some altemaTive suggesYions.
4. Kathy Aadette, 1388 Albany Avenue, submitted a letter from Kari Kantourea and spoke
in opposition to this tot. She has walked Como Park for years and is very famiiiar with
the area. She showed siides of the wilding azea and revealed what would be visible in
each direction if the grove of trees were removed. She urged the commission to do
what it could to retain this wild grove area.
Betsy Wehcwein, ]403 Albany Avenue, chair of the District 10 Como Community
Council Como Park Ad Hoc Committee, addressed the commission. She began by
praising the commission, especially for fostering citizen participation. She advocated a
more holistic and less environmentally intrusive management of pazking at Como Pazk.
She introduced letters, copies of a petition, and a copy of her own testimony. She
questioned why this padiculaz lot is treated differently from other plans at Como Park;
why citizen participation on this lot is being shut out; why Parks is not waiting far the
results of the parking study current(y being done by Benshu and Associates before going
ahead with this; and why is it the citizens' responsibility to produce an altemative .
design?
6. Pat McCusker, I389 Albany Avenue, said she considered the removal of this naturat
setting as an affront to park goers, She noted the grove's uses as a natura( noise buffer
and a serene background for picnickers. She indicated the spiritual contributions
provided by this free and natural wooded area. She wonders why a parking lot could
not be constructed in a place where trees would not have to be destroyed, This little
piece of woods is also a valuable bird watching azea.
7. Steven Audette, 1388 Albany Avenue, began by passing out an outline of his
discussion. He focused on crime and stated that according to the Saint Paul Police
Department, crime is on the increase in Como Pazk, and he listed ihese statistics: from
1993 to 1994 crime in Como Park was up 90 per cent; 85 per cent of all the crime
committed in Como Pazk is automobile parking related; 90 percent of aIi Como Park
auto crime is committed in a pazking Iot; only IO per cent is committed in on-street
parking. According to Officer Anderson, crime is more easily committed in a parking
lot, such as the proposed Buelah Lane pazking lot. He said that the Master Plan does
not even contain the word, crime. He added that the safety of pedestrians and
picnickers has also not been adeqaately considered. He urged the commission to deny
this site plan and to send the matter back to the ad hoc committee set up by the Saint
Paul Parks Commission to review the implementation of the Como Park Master Plan.
Saily Worka, 1241 North Hamline, a Districi 10 representative of the ad hoc committee
set up by the Parks Commission that is reviewing implementations of the Como Puk .
Master Plan, eapressed her concern as being specifically for the park. She used the
� 'O
°� S — 7 �1 �-(
layered map from the Master Plan to hetp indicate her concerns. She advocates a
• shuttle system from off-site areas, as was mentioned in the Master Plan. She
encourages the commission to deny this plan and send it to the Parks Commission ad
hoc committee.
Commissioner Chavez asked the mileage from Bandanna Square. Ms. Worke answered that
the shortest routes were between .4 and .7 miles; other routes were up to .9 miles.
9. Curtis Swenson, 1469 Midway Pukway, stated that as a taxpayer he is offended that
this type of inappropriate spending of monies is going on: $320,000 of the
Metropolitan Council grant money is being spent to give the area 2 more parking
spaces; demolishing a lazge grove of trees that has little or no maintenance cost
associated with it; the City of Saint Paul wants to increase taxes by $]0 per property for
tree maintenance; new trees and shrubs are expensive; $20,000 has atready been spent to
find out if the 19�9 traffic and circufation study is stili vatid, and then the City of Saint
Paul is not even waiting for the results before beginning construction. He asked the
commission to deny the site plan and send the issue to the ad hoc committee set up by
the Parks Commission to review the information of the Como Park Master Ptan.
10. Clair Smith, 2112 North Dale Street, Roseville, emphasized the importance of
maintaining natural areas wherever they might be. He added that children are being
deprived of the opportunity to explore and enjoy natural spaces, which these areas
provide. He said there is no comparison beriveen a tawn spotted with specimen trees
and a namral area. Wildlife and birds, of course, prefer natural areas, and so,
• preserving them within our urban domain will give us more of a variety of wildlife and
birds.
I1. Howard Vogel, 1343 Arona Street, law professor at Hamline University, was present
because one month ago nineteen of his students completed mock city council hearings
in which they conducted an argument about this very issue. He focused on one
ertoneous idea, a legal idea that he thinks is destroying the process:
We must do this; iYs a given; it's a done deat; we have a contract; we're
required to do it; our hands are tied; and if we don't, it's a breach that the City
will be financialty liable for.
He contends that such an idea is false, erroneous, and has screwed up the process. He
noted his reasons: 7) Does the construction contract for Buelah Lane prevent the CiTy
from considering and implementing an alternative design for the parking lot? The
answer, he said is:
No. The contract is flexible. It expressly gives the City the right to order
changes which may increase the cost of the contract or decrease the cost of the
contract according to a formu(a spelted out in the contract.
2) Will the City be exposed to financial liability in the amount of $80,000, as Mr. Pirim
suggested to you in his letter of March 28, if the project is delay�d to consider the
altematives to implementing the existing design? He replied:
, The answer to that is also no. Instead the City will incur a long term cost in
' 11
tha loss of historic character and ecology.
He emphasized that the City has an abso(ute right to change the work to be done under •
the contract general condition #8: 1) "The City may without invatidating the contract,
order changes in the work such as additions, deletions, or other remission." He added
that the contractor signed-off on this. 2) If the City increases or decreases the scope of
the work, "tfie contract sum and the contracf time witf be adjusted according[y." 3)
Special condition #83 states that "iF the contractor is delayed by the owner (City), the
contractor's sole remedy for the delay shall be the right Yo a ticne extension until the
completion of the conYract." He exited leaving the commission to think aboui the
following questions: WhaPs going on here? Has Parks and Recreation misunderstood
the right of the City under the contract? If so, why? Has Mr. Pirim admitted liability
for termination when no termination is being contemplated or requested? If so, why?
Has the City discussed this at all with Aschback Construction? Do they have any ideas?
Why are Ehe citizen's being so strongly discouraged from participation? Wliy has Parks
and Recreation made so Iittle reference to the historic and ecologica[ly unique character
of the groves of trees that will be removed? Are there plans in the works for
desTruction of other groves? Perhaps this is only the precipice for further destruction.
Maybe this isn't a picnic area parking area at all? Maybe this is really a parking lot for
the 200?
12. Rebecca Nittle, 1343 Arona Street, mentioned how the Twin Cities has changed over
the past twenty years that she has lived in the metropolitan uea She said in those first
years it was relatively easy to commute to a wildlife area outside of the City. Now it
takes at least 30 minutes. She noted that Como Park is stilt a place within the inner •
City in which one can observe real wildlife, although some people have lost faith,
within the last twenty years, in Como Pazk's abiliry to provide such an environment.
She said the park is "being tamed by this Master Plan."
13. Randy Croce, I 117 Churchill Street (one block east of the park), acknowledged a lot of
positive improvements that have been made on the part of the Master Plan: rerouting
Lesington away from the Pazk; regtazing of the Conservatory; trimming of many trees
that needed it; plantin� of many trees; and increasing green space. He knows that
parking is a problem, but wonders if altemaYives have been seriously considered. He
noted that Bandanna Squaze is virtualty empty and the shuttle service aitemative from
tliere and also from the state fairgronnds should be looked at. He suggested that instead
of spending more money on building more parking lots, money could be set aside
specificaliy for a shuttle service, especially since parking is only a problem in the pazk
for about seven weekertds a year. He added that it should be questioned why we make
the assumption that pazking must be centralized and also moved away from the street;
and why is it assumed that 70 per cent of the parking needs of the patrons af the park
should be within the pazk. He recommended waiting for the results of the studies that
are now undenvay and considering some of the altematives that are presented before
making a decision.
14. Greg Juenemann, 721 Mount Vemon Avenue East, Maplewood, member of the
Maplewood Open Space Committee, reported that Maplewood wa the first city in the
state and perhaps in the nation to successfutiy pass a referendum of $S,OOO,OOQ to retain
natural open-space areas witliin the City of Maptewood. He visited the proposed Buelah •
Lane parkiag lot site in Como Park on April 25, 1995, to evaluate the ecological and
x �L
qs -`��y
environmental effects of removing the forested area there. He has reviewed all plans.
• He informed the commission that worldwide, 75 per cent of the bird population is
threatened with extinction or serious decline, which is due mainly to the continuous loss
of forest areas. He noted how perfect this small area of trees is as a bird habitat.
15. Richard Thomas, 615 Chazles Avenue, advocated a clean environment and a better
world by seeking harmony in life with animals and plants on this planet.
16. Jill Danner, 791 Ottawa, a member of the Pazks Commission, first drew attention to
areas within Saint Paul that have substantiai acreage of wildlife habitats: Lillydale Park,
Battle Creek, Swede Hollow, Crosby Lake and Hidden Falls. She spoke, representing
the Parks Commission and exp(ained that the commission voted to not stop the process
on the Master Plan initiation; they did not want to make a decision that would hold the
City liable; nor did they want to waste money. She aiso stated that in her opinion, a
road that goes down the middle of a picnic area is not as safe as a pazking lot,
especially for children.
17. Pat Brown, 1257 North Hamline, addressed the commission from the audience.
18. Dr. Valentine O'Mally, 1960 Summit Avenue, advocated reviewing the Master Plan,
especially the parking situation.
19. Paul Wilbur, 1428 Franksen, expressed that he and his family continue to greatly enjoy
the neighborhood and wild area, which is part of a corridor of natural land.
• 20. Jol�n Wirka, Parks and Recreation, explained that Como Pazk is a regional park, serving
the entire metropolitan area and beyond. He feets that they have met every requirement
of the site plan review process, and so it should be approved.
21. Paul Mueller, 860 West Ivy, encouraged the commission to take a strong leadership role
in this issue. He urged them to break out of a mold; in this case, the mold is the idea
that one can always park directly in front of the store.
Commissioner Vaught questioned whether there would be dire financill consequences to the
City with respect to delay; there may be with respect to termination.
MOTION: Commissioner Vaught moved to close the public hearing and refer this matter
to the Zoning Committee. Commissioner Schwichtenberg seconded the motion.
Commissioner Gumey stated that he believes the hearing should be closed but he cannot
vote to refer it to a committee because of the loss of doliars that could be incurred if there is
a breach of contract.
Commissioner Gordon asked how long it would take to do this project, and also if there
would be jeopardy if the commission took the time to refer this matter to a committee.
Commissioner Vaught answered that he did not know, however he is convinced that the
contractor's only remedy with resQect to a delay in a project caused by the owner (City), is
� an extension in time in which to compiete the project.
�13
City Attorney Sega( reminded the commission that if the applicant were not the City, the
commission's obtigation would be to act within a reasonable amount of time on the �
app[ication for site plan review. He added that the decision needs to be based on whether
the site plan complies with the provisions of the zoning code. Mr. Segal a�so agreed to
provide the commissioa weth the necessary legal i�formation that has been requested;
however he added that he doubted whether there would be any relevancy in terms of that
legal information and the commission's review of the site plan.
Commissioner Schwichtenberg spoke against the motion. He feels the decision should be
made today. '
Commissioner Field stated that he would vote against the motion because, as Mr. Segal
indicated, the monetary damages are realfy irtelevant to the site ptan review process chazged
to the commission.
Commissioner Geisser noted that the Parl:s Commission's decision to go ahead with the
project seems to have been made on the belief that the City woald be held tiable. It has
been an important issue in this decision making process; it is not irrelevant; it's played a
very large role in another body's decision.
Commissioner Vaught reiterated that whether there are money damages with regard to the
contract is very relevant, at least as far as he is concemed. He commented that although the
commission's chazge is whether the site plan meets the provisions of the zoning code, there
may be other issues surroanding the review which are certainly important and relevant in
making that decision. In this case, one of those surrounding issues is monetary damages to
the City, which he considers very important. •
Commissioner Treichel supports Yhe motion; she feels that the money issue is always an
important issue to consider.
Cornmissioner Chavez stated he would support the motion.
Commissioner Gordon stated he was opposed to the motion; if visited, it should be done
now.
Chair McDoneIl called for the vote. The motion carried on a voice vote. Chair McDonell
reminded the commission that this case would go back to the Zoning Committee on May 4,
and then probably come back to the Planning Commission on May 12, 1995.
V. ZONING
Proposed Minor Zonine Amendments. March 1995
Commissioner Morton referred to #5 of the zoning amendments in the Apri( 20th packet on
Yhe transfer of functions
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved approval of Sections 64.1(�0, 64.101, 64202 and
64.204 which carried unanimously on a voice vote.
�
� ��
q,s-�yY
PLANIVING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
-----------------------
---------------- ------
•
FILE /{ 94-265
1. APPLICANT: Saint Paui Division of Pazks and Recreation I-IEARING DATE: 4/28/95
2. CLASSIFICATION: Site Plan Review
3. LOCATION: Como Pazk (west of the conservatory at Beulah Lane and Midway Parkway)
4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 10
5. LEGAL DESCRIP'TION: see file
6. PRESENT ZOIVING: R-3 ZONIIVG CODE REFERENCE: 62.108
7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 4/19/95 BY: Tom Beach
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
A. PURPOSE: Site plan review for a 98-car parking lot.
B. PARCEL SIZE: Como Park covers 450 acres. The proposed parking lot and the adjacent
area within the construction limits of the project cover approximately 1.9 acres (82,000 square
� feet).
C. EXISTING LAND USE: Part of the site is densely covered by trees and understory
vegetation (approximately 35,000 square feet). Part of the site is paved and used as a street
and a 44-car parking lot (approximately 35,000 square feet). The rest of the site is lawn and
trees.
D. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
I�Iorth: Como Zoo and amusement park rides
East: Como Conservatory and pazking lot
South: Picnic area
West: Picnic area and softball fleld. Neazest residences are approximately 750' west of
the proposed parking Sot.
E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 62.018 of the zoning code lists I1 findings that must
be made by the Planning Commission in order to approve a site plan. These findings aze
covered in Section H of this report.
F. ffiSTORY:
i. Master Plan Work on the Como Park Master Plan was started in 1979. The Master
Plan was adopted in 1984 by the City Councii and Metropolitan Conncil. Since the
adoption of the Master Plan more than $36 million of improvements have been made to
� the zoo, conservatory, pavilion and other areas of the park.
�5
One of the key issues addressed in the Master Plan is traffic circulation and pazking.
The pian cails for consuucting a parking deck neu the zoo and several new parking Iots,
ciosing/rerouting several streets and initiating a shuttle trolley. The Master Plan calis for �
a 205-caz pazking lot neaz the intersection of Beulah Lane and Midway Pazkway.
2. Grant for lot A grant for a smaller Iot at this location was approved by the
Metropolitan Council 4n January 1993. Available Regional Park funding dictated the
smaller lot size. The City Council passed a resolution accepting the grant in Febmary
1993. The terms of ttte grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council require that the
project be completed by June 30, 1995. However, an extension of that deadline may be
requested.
3. Design and contract for lot Parks staff began design work on the lot in October 1993
and submitted the site pian to the Planning Division for site plan review in October 1994.
In November staff determined that the site plan met all technical requirements, such as
tr�c safety and drainage svbject to some minor rev4sions. Staff also foand that it was
consistent with the 1984 Master Pian and notified Pazks that it intended to approve the
site plan once the minor technical revisions were made. Pazks submitted revised piaas on
March 22, 1995, that met all the technical issues raised in November by staff.
Bids for conswction of the lot were advertised on October 29, 1994. The bids were
opened in November 1994, The date of the contract is December 20, 1994. The
contract calls for work on the puking lot to be completed by by May 26, 1995 and the
entire project to be completed by June 15, 1995.
4. Communication with District 10 Puks stafF met with the District 10 Community �
Coancil to present the site pian for the lot in Aprii and May 1944. District 10 send a
letter to Pazks in June 1994 saying the board was "azdently opposed" to the lot and
"strongly urges you to reconsider the current proposa] ....Despite its reservations about
the proposal, the council will be sympathetic to it if it includes the rehabilitation of green
space elsewhere." Parks replied in lune 1994 that while this lot would result in a loss of
green space, it needed to be looked at in light of the lazger amount of green space that
had been added since the adoption of the Master Plan. District 10 sent another letter to
Parks in Ianuary 1995 stating their "coatinued oppositioa" to the lot.
Pianning staff routinely sends a copy of alI site plans to the district councit for comments
when one is submitted to the City for review. However, in this case, District 10 says
that it did not receive a copy and was not awaze that the current site plan was being
reviewed by staff until March 1995. District 10 subsequently requested that the Planning
Commission hold a public hearing on the site plan.
5. Current traftic study Puks Division is having a traffic study done for Como Pazk to
see if traffic numbers in the 1984 Master P1an aze still valid. The date of the RFP for
the study is November 1994 and an agreement with the consultant for the study was
signed in Ianuazy 1995. District 10 fias established an Ad Hoc Couunittee to work wifh
Pazks on the study.
6. Ad Hoc Committee In February 1995, the Pazks Commission vot,�d unanimously to
create a committee to develop "a recommended site plan to guide the implementation
and comple6on of Como Parks improvements, in accordance with the adopted 1984 •
Como Pazk Master Pian." Topics to be lookad at would include loca6on of amusement
rides, location of the picnic pavilion an@ parking azeas. However, at the same meeting,
�6
q S -'� �t �l
a motion to delay construction of the Beulah pazking lot failed (3 in favor, 2 against, 2
abstaining).
� G. DIST'RICT COUNCIL RECONIIVIENDATION: The District 10 Como Community Council
requested that the Planning Commission hold a public heazing on the site plan. In a letter dated
March 23, 1995, to ffie Planning Commission they contend that the site plan dces not meet Yrve
of the findings required for site plan approval, as summarized below. (See attached letters
from District 10 and Pazks ]etter dated Mazch 28 in response.)
1. Removing trees for "the lot is not consistent with the 1984 Como Park Master Plan
[which] states 'Goal - Maintain and Improve Pazk Edges. Objective 1.) Improve and
protect existing buffers."' (Finding 1)
2. "The parking lot is not preserving the historical chazacteristics of ... Como Park."
(Finding 3)
3. Storm water drainage and the removal of existing trees which act as a buffer will
negatively affect neighboring land uses. (Finding 4)
4. The lot does not meet required standazds for traffic safety. (Finding 7)
5. The lot does not meet required standards for storm water drainage. (Finding 8)
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site plan, the planning
commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with:
� 1. The ciry's adopted comprehensive plan and deve(opment or project plans for sub-areas of
the city.
The site plan is consistent with the Como Park Master Plan adopted in 1984. One of the
goais of this plan is to "increase parking facilities" The plan says that this part of the
park has a shortage of parking and calis for a 205-car parking lot in this area.
Disuict 10 pointed out that another goal of the plan is to maintain and improve Qark
edges and buffers. However, several references in the Master Plan indicate that the
concerns about buffers are primarily focused on the edges of the pazk where the intent is
to minimize the impact ot the park on neary residential areas. Objective 2 under this
goal is to "provide buffers between puk and residential areas even in azeas where they
do not presently exist." A plan on page 27 of the Master Plan that identifies buffers does
not show the existing area of trees where the new lot would go.
A committee was created in February 1995 by the Parks Commission to look at the
details of implementing the Master Plan in the west end of the park. However, the grant
was approved for the lot in early 1943 and the design work began in the fall of 1993. In
Februazy 1995 the Parks Commission failed to approve a motion to delay construction of
the parking ]ot for the outcome of the ad hoc committee's study.
Applicable ordinances of the City ojSaint Paul.
� The parking lot complies with all applicable ordinances.
3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically signifcant characteristics of
�7
the city and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan shows 58 trees as well as understory vegetation would be removed for the �
proposed parking lot. This vegetation screens the picnic area from the conservatory
pazking lot and may provide shelter for some wildlife. However, any location chosen for
a large parking lot in this part of the park would require removing a significant number
of trees.
Pazks sta�`�' had the City Forester Iook at the condition of the trees to be removed. The
City Forester found that of the 58 trees shown on the site plan to be removed, 38 aze
diseased. In addition, most of the nnderstory vegetation is Buckthom. Buckthorn is
considered a noxious, invasive species and Parks staff is trying to eliminate it from the
park where possible. The plan calls for planting 50 new trces, 327 shrubs and over
2,200 perennials to compensate for the e�cisting trees and vegetation that woatd be
removed.
4. Protection of adjacenr and neighboring propenies through reasonab[e provision for such
matrers as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, liglu
and air, and those aspects of design which may have substanrial eJJ'ects on neighboring
land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Drainage meets required standards.
Eacis6ng vegetation to the west buffers the lot from neighboring homes across Hamline
Avenue.
5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order 70
assure abuning proPerty and/or its occupants will nor 6e unreasonably afjected. �
The site pian is consistent with this finding. The proposed parking lot is 750' from the
neazest private property and wili not unreasonably affect neighboring properties.
6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landreaping and Location, orientarion and
elevaiion of strucrures.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The most important energy conservation
measure in designing a pazking lot is to provide shade for paved pazking surfaces. The
proposed lot would be landscaped with 50 new trees.
Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian tra�c both within the site and in
relation to access streets, includfng traffic circulation features, the locations and designs
of entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
Staff from PubIic Works Tr�c Engineering SecUon reviewed the site plan For the
puking lot last November and found that it is consistent with this finding. Public Works
staff noted several improvements for auto circulauon with the proposed lot: the angle
intersection of Beulah and Midway will be eliminated and the parking lot will be better
defined and no longer accessed from a through street. The proximity of the east
driveway for the proposed Iot to the dr➢veway of the conservatory parking lot, mentioned
by District 10, will not be a problem since the new driveway will be for exit only.
Public Works stafF also found that the pedestrian crossing at the traffic light will be �
improved by eliminating the intersection with Beulah. They did not find that eliminating
�$
C�
•
•
�
�
ll
the vegetative buffer would be a safety problem for pedestrians.
The satisfactory availability and capacity of srorm and sanitary sewers, including
solutions to arry drainage problems in rhe are¢ of rhe development.
q-s- � �f`fi
Staff from Public Work Sewer Engineering Section reviewed the plan for the parking lot
last November and found that it is consistent with this finding. The situation for storm
water drainage is unusual since the oniy storm sewer available is located 600 feet to the
south in Horton Avenue. This sewer drains to Como Lake as do most of the storm
sewers in the area around the lake.
The system proposed by Parks would direct water from most storms to an underground
storage tank where it couid infiltrate back into the ground. During heavy rain storms,
water that could not be accommodated by the under ground system would flow to
Midway Pazkway and down the street to the storm sewer in Horton and eventually to
Como Lake.
Sufficient landscaping, fences, wal[s and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The site pian is consistent with this finding. The plan calls for planting 50 new trees,
327 shrubs and over 2,200 perennials to compensate for the trees that would be removed.
The proposed lot will initialiy increase the amount of parking spaces in the pazk by about
60 spaces. ln the long term, the Master Plan calls for ciosing Beulah Lane south of the
proposed lot. When this occurs the total number of spaces in the lot will be roughly
equal to the present number of spaces in the existing lot and on the sueet in Beulah Lane.
Site accessibi[iry in accordance with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act
(ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible roures.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. ADA standards call for four accessible
pazking spaces for a lot of this size and these have been provided next to an accessibie
route.
Provision erosion and sedimentation control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and Control Hand600k. "
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Erosion contro] measures and street
sweeping will be provided as needed during construction.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1-11, staff recommends approval of the
site plan.
1�
. � �
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF' SAINT PAUL
May lI, I995
Members of the Saint Paul Planning Commission
Peter W. Warner, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Plahning Commission File No; 94-265
(Application by the City of Saint Paul Divisio
and Recreation for Site Plan Review for the
n of Parks
proposed
at Beulah
On March 31, 1995, this Commission voted to hold a public hearing
on the above referenced site plan application. A public hearing
was held by the Commission on April 28, 1995. Following reports
fzom staff and after hearing public testimony on the application,
the Commission closed the public hearing. The Commission did not
vote on the site plaa application. Instead the Commission referred
the matter over to the Zoning Committee meeting scheduled for May
4, 1995. Additionally, A member of the Commission requested
additional information from the City Attorney's Office on the issue
oP possible contractual implications which may flow from any
decision on the part of the Commission.
parking lot west of the Como Park Conservatory
Lane and Midway Parkway)
At the meeting of the Zoning Committee on May 4, 1995, committee
members were each given a copy of a Ietter prepared by the City
Attorney's Office which was intended to answer the Commissioners'
inquires. A livel.y debate as to the sufficiency of these answers
ensued.
At the conclusion of the review of this matter, the Zoning
Committee voted to refer the matter of the subject site plan
application back to the full Planninq Commission with no
recommendation as to the application but with a recommendation that
the P2anning Commission reopen the public hearing.
The matter is now before you, I see that you may elect from one of
C�
n
U
•
(°tA
qs-���
three possible options although there may even be other
• alternatives to explore. Nevertheless, the three options that 2
believe you may exercise are:
1. Vote to approve the site plan, with or without modi£ication;
or
2. Vote to not approve the site plan; or
3. Vote to obtain additional information by reopening the public
hearing into the matter.
Options 1 and 3 are self explanatory. Option 2 may not be clear
because it could appear that answers to questions raised by the
Commissioners', which were thought to be forthcoming from the City
Attorney's Office but which might not have been answered to the
complete satisfaction of the Commissioners', might play a role in
voting on whether or not to approve the site plan.
Saint Paul Leqislative Code Section 62.108(c) sets forth the
Pactors to be taken into consideration when reviewing a site pian.
The sections reads:
(c) Site plan review and aoproval In order to approve
the site plan, the planning commission shall consider and find
that the site plan is consistent with:
• (1) The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or
project plans for sub-areas of the city.
(2) Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
(3) Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or
historically significant characteristics of to the city
and environmentally sensitive areas.
(4) Protection of adjacent and neiqhboring 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.
(5) 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.
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping
and location, orientation and elevation of structures.
(7) Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian
traffic both within the site and in redation to access
streets, including traffic circulation features, the
• locations and design of entrances and exits and parking
areas within the site.
(��
{8) The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and .
sanitary sewers, including solutions to any drainage
problems in the area of the development.
(9) Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking
necessary to meet the above objectives.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), incZuding
parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible
routes.
(li} Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified
in the " Ramsey Erosion Sediment and Control Handbook."
These eleven factors establish the jurisdictional limits of this
Commission's legitimate inquiry. Any inquiry into matters beyond
these factors, while possibly relevant, are beyond the legitimate
jurisdictional boundaries imposed on this Commission by the Saint
Paul City Council. Basing any decision, one way or the other on
factors beyond the jurisdictional inquiry of this Commission,
invite legaZ challenges.
In all events, the decisions of this Commission are subject to
review of the City Council and the City Council is to determine
whether "there is an error in any fact, procedure or finding made •
by the Commission. Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206(a). The
decision of the City Council must be supported by evidence
contained in the record of its proceedings. #ionn v. Citv of Coon
I2apids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. 1981).
Finally, decisions of the City Council are also subject to appeal
and review in state district court. There, courts will review
whether the decision of the City Council was "arbitrary and
capricious, or whether the reasons assigned by the governing body
are legally sufficzent and having a factual basis." Castle Desian
v. City of Lake Elmo, 396 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). The
decision of the governing body must not be based solely upon the
complaints of neighbors. Otherwise, a court will over-rule that
decision. However, the governing body may consider the neighbor's
complaints in weighing all of the other evidence in the record.
Amoco Oil Co. v. Citv of Minneanolis, 395 N,W.2d 115 (Minn. Ct.
App. I986}.
•
���
�� ,� � y� �� � �
-�'-�. �.��i
�'� .�� �� .�s%�
�
3.�0 �.�f, ��� �`;" � 3io
X/ � Xi GE� v�•�: �J� ���
`, . � ,
/3 g.� CJ� ��'o�%
��� y; l y �s'
��� �y
.�� ���� —� �'.� .�� i� �� -
�����. (�� ��� ���� �-��i
.�"�.���,�� �e�. .��-u-� �� �—�
��,.��.���-� ��� ��-�,�-��° �•
✓�...e G� .�-u.. �o ��.��� ��� _
• �� �'�-�-.�. � _� G �� �.
'� .�-� �'.� �,,� .�
�?z��u.�--����� .
•
.��.�� ��/ ._-.�-���� �. �-�-��.�-���z
��� .���
�.� ��� ` � ��
��� � � ��� �� � �
�L�-�. �e.. �����f �°�—�
�� c-�-��y���e��"
�����c� .�z. �i u?�i���— Gc�
_���� C�' ���.,���rL f
�o
� ` i
�_�,���
�.�� 2� ��
� lp.dy�, Il�Ll1.0 1� �Nl;lul�l..�
`b 5�-� {C�v�.�o�o �J r C.� v
� • C��� �� � . ��,c.� � � (.�-mmt�/.l.�u
� �
/"�yt�.- - V hk'� �-� c�-) ��G Z
/� I � . Co-�� o f-�v^C' -
� � /'�,t.�� r���,� SSi � �'
����� �� ys-� �-s�
���� C- y���' � '�� iii�5
/� , �
(�-���wo �cc.� �H^/�u� �c�-oc �C�C� ri�-Z�
,� �
���� � ��
_. `� �ti-�.� ��� � ��..��;� ��� � �
C2 � ��es�-�cm �-�.��% v�, /y,. � �•�.��'_.
� �D��-�-�-G i���� �i.C:� c4v�
��C� �� /��5,
� � e�-�
�� ���� �
�� ��_� �
�� �'� c� - ��-._. �.
� �.��.� ��.e,
�,� ,r'�-� L /�a-� ���i �.._
� ,d �,�� ��e. �,o-����;-{�.c. �z��> � �
� .�c.��.rz.�:c,v c� . �/ ��i� �� d����.
- � � ( � ...C.L��rt�D Gti..�7���l �
��C�L1" 6�-t,z�1.f� ��(��? i�Lc/ • .
s
1 •
iJ ��'�sv�-a.� ' a 5u�c�'e � � .
��� � ��� ����.e�
� �
�.-� ��.��'1►� � �� c.P�� c�/.
��
�IS=�`i�i
� .
�
. �� `� c� � ..� / ,� .�
�-�.- . _ � ��� �� i��� ���;
i'/lX E:Cil J . .G �'L. G� �'(�X�(/�
i � , . � ��9 �� �� ���.�o� �o �i�� � .
� � . .
,7`��� ��-�� C�-��ti��o��� ����-�
G�L� _ ` 'i2.��-C�ti ��7'j � °�" L�L�(iC//L.
�� ��,� , ��� � � / �
- �-�C'_
/�'3 �,���� �✓C.�.� �,l�C�� �'.c>� �C' 6'�'l��
L�'L. � C ' � Cr�-'� � � .
�.� �.�
����yY�� �� J �-�' - �'- - t �-�-c?irtin�c�� G �
/ �r
C''t � y= c�r. �•vL.�,J 7�C� /✓�'�c��o' , ,
� ,�1�' � �-�� /-�� � �����-c.,�,.�� -
; � ;�.�� �ti��' -� �a��� ��� ����1x
/�ic,�� � �'-�--E�_ .���C.�.-�C ���1 F� .��:.�-{ �
�9-�C�-C' • / � � � / � ���c/7�-L c� �- �-',
, L�''�'!�'�iC�' ��><��C�`/y� �� ��_ ��
� /ri�z C� � � � �� J���i� '
� C-c�'��C
�Zti� �� ���� ���'� ,�=L�� �����
. �� / °
7�� �f� Gu��L�'�v � ���.c�C.Y� / ��c.��?-�-F� .
O�� /��% - J� ���yL���' ���C�! L<2
C� 1 - �-c.°� �o in��- cr ..ti2�O.����� �
. U l �� T'�?'G7�C`�C : //U' �i�-E'.G<7 7�?�
v`�!� ��P �,�� '�-� c� ��j��-c.�G�/�
��i 7'� C%GYiyvn��- ���-�`.P -�� r , .��?,���c�: _
• ��-�-�- �,- �� � �� � �
� G��� -
Z2
�j- ��� � � � � � � �
, ������-�.
�_� a-�-u, /z,E�L��-�� � .
`-� ���C�ti, �.�-�7 a� �2��� c� '
� ��:yC..� �iize-�%�c.�.C�� c�.-�� j�
�� � � .� "
` s�� � � .
� , � �� �� �
� �� � � �
�, y� � . - .
C� � .�-��v�-u:a� �� �'���/� L
i �G;u.� � c�,ti � ° ti�' �.�� �-v-�-r�G� L
�,�2c � ,i�� ` C�-o
`��' t�? �i� `�i,c.0 � � ��r_.t�ti�
/ � .�� �_ -fp vfti.. `�`� -
-� ��� C^ �
� . 'J � �
-��) � .� ' � � - ��c.e� c� c� a�
� -f'�-�
��
.�
�.t�e� �� l/ � �y�-�
�'�L .�-��� � ��'`�� ���'��
? �,� - -�.o -� �-�% �-�-�
c��c,-v ��.-�- - � . 7`��-P
5-�e�� v� J _ c� � �Qe �z..��
c�c,e-�v � ���z� �.�;Zcc�
,
C�c�. .�vo_ .
7/ � i�� �/l'YC� �b.. . /� /I'1�0. r c��c9-fl — CY
_ -�._ �� -- �-�- ���
U�� �� - ��
�. ��,-� �.�in �i �zs�-� . C,��2L'�-a-a
i�7t,2�Q C.O Q ' � /�'�9�- ��z�,C/y�
C]
qs-�yy
� � /� � / � - � lO ���
O<- / �
t��2�:�ts�� C2�t� /��t.�,c���:�i�rc�-�O ' ��2.0��?��c.�.C1�
. l�/ 1�.� /%Cx.t�� � >��t�c.o v�. L ,
��/`G� ? /� ,/�1-C�G�rvt��-P�t ���-/ '" _ :'
, v^ � / L
�j ��,vJ �'�--- �GY/� G�[=C�LVL � �L
� .�, C�t �-C��L��? �� [�-�, �
' �ti�� �� � ...�� � ��
����
�1r,c�2-l�c� w-�-��,� � � ��%�
��-�-�� .
�� �s��� � �o � . /�v
� �uir.Ci�J �-�
• ������� � -� � ���
��L ��.� � ��' , ���
��� d� ���
ch�� ��-�l � , � �
� 1 E ' r� ��2p uu�
� �,� - � . � �-
�� �v ��.�, �.�i�rn'�.-�'��, `�ri �,a �c.�
u��� � r� �
; � /�� � c.o ��ti��-�_ . / ��'�-
�,�,t �� f � �� ���-��
� 7��
. �� �
�� ��
• �'�`'�� .�
F
2k
.
i
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Twur Cities Campus
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Depanment ojPlant P¢thology
Cnflege ofAgricu/mre
10 April 1995
�s-�yy
495 Borlaug Nall
7497 UpperBuforACirrle
St. Paul, MN 55708-6030
612-625-8200
Faz: 672-625-9728
E-mail: anna@puccini.crl.umn.edu
RE: Wooded area off Beulah Lane and proposed parking lot.
I have studied the wooded area in Como Park described above ,
proposed to become a parking a lot, and o£fer this opinion. The
trees situated in this area are native species and the last
remnants of the large Northern hardwood forest which once covered
most of Minnesota. Some oP the trees are £rom 80 to 100 years old
and for the most part in qood health. They are identical to the
kind and type of desirable hardwood trees found in the grassy area
adjacent to the wooded lot in question as well as the surroundinq
area and blend in with portions of the park preserved as semi-wild
habitat. The trees and understory also provide a bu£fer for noise
abatement from activities in the park as well as an aesthetic
balance,i.e., breaks up the line-of-sight or view directly across
and all the way to Lexington avenue.
need protection.
The wooded species and understory are part of Minnesota's
heritage and its natural state cannot be replaced. It is my
professional opinion that these as well as other wooded areas in
Como Park proper are unique and need protection from land
development. The trees are valuable in the sense that they cannot
be replaced, add to the beauty of the park, provide shelter for
animals and from the academic point-of-view, serve as a reservoir
to teach students the identity of native hardwood species. They
SincereJ.y yours ,
i � .
//%� G" :`��
Che e Mirocha
Pr fessor
•
2�
��IS iS �RS.t � E t� 3� ��G ,1 �.� J�/G
V
- � �Ire ti -te o�- y42 ��,hs�ur�s. ;;,..^��� .
A c.�w-�,�Ck� c�,�, e& SH pR-y�s 4rti Iw
a6ka�H� ! •�., A `o �ro �086 ) �--
23ayor PIorm Coleman, Bobbi Megard and Bob Piram
we, the undersigned patrons of Como Park, �hat a
moratorium be placed on the Beulah Lane Parking Lot Project until
a full study is completed o£ less environmentally intrusive
options £or the project.
We £urther ask that.the study of less envrionmentally
intrusive options for the project include options for renovation
and reconfiguration'of trie Beulah Lane Parking Lot to protect the
existing trees in Como Park from damage or destruction.
DATF NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER
i. \ 4 �
Z -�_
i
3.� /
4 . i �
5.�
6 . -C,�
7 . �i
8._
/
9.�
10.�
ii .�'
zz�
13, �
l�
14��
15.�
16 ��
�
17.�
19._
20.
!j `/`��• Z�S��
� `("`f -'`f��G
- �
�
•
•
2�
�" � EctSl': (`rl0.t I ti; : CLyv�c' C..��v.:�.u��tr� Ci:tirrC< <• ISi�.(c Ceth;; j\UC .`�'[ FC�U�, M(�f jS I C c', l
�
18. �^
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION � S ���
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norne Coleman, Mayor
.
•
April 20, 1995
Mr. David McDonell, Chair
c/o City of Saint Paul Planning Commission
1700 City Ha{I Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102
Dear Mr. McDoneli:
3P0 Ciry HallAnnes Tekphone: 612-266-64P0
25 West Fourth Sneet IDD : 612-292-7083
Saini Paul, MN SSIO2 Facsimik : 672-292-7405
This letter is in response to Mr. Dennis O'Rourke's letter to you dated
March 23, 1995. Mr. O'Rourke, representing Oistrict 10 Community Council in their
request for a public hearing of the site pian review for the Beulah Lane Parking Lot,
aileges several "inconsistencies we have found in the site plan with respect to the
legisiative code and zoning code." I wish to respond to each of these items as
follows:
[. �: :.� •.
E�F_RFNCF• "This lot is not consistent with the 1984 Como Park Master Plan
(CPMP). Page b8-4 of the CPMP states "Goal-Main and Improve Park Edges.
Objective 1.) Improve and protect existing buffets." This groject removes and
does not replace such a buffer."
RF�PONSF• This allegation is false. The lot is consistent with the 1984 Como Park
Master P{an in every way. Furthermore, this project does nni remove an existing
park buffer. The area of trees the project removes is not considered a buffer in the
context of the Como Park Master Plan as it is an interior area within the park proper.
The stated goai on pg. 3 of the Como Park Master Pian is "Maintain and Improve
Park Edges and Sufifers." The key word here is "Edges" and the intent of the Master
Pian is and has always been to improve and protect the buffer areas along the edges
of Como Park between residential areas and the park itself. This is stated under
objective 2 of the referenced goal of the Master Plan which has been left out of
DiStfiCt 1��5 12ttCf; "Z. Pmvi�jp hnffars hatwvPn �rk wnrl rPCiriPntial arPas �en in
arPac whar�}}�y rin nntpracantly rrict " The Master Pian further explains this Goal
on pg, B9, as follows "Another goal of the Planning Committee ciosely related to
traffic leveis is to improve or develop buffers between the park and the community,
and provide for buffers where they do not now exist. They would serve the park and
residential areas, to shield the impacts of park traffic."
�
Mr. David McDonell, Chair
April 20, 1995
Page two
RFF� "We'd like to call your atteatioa to action taken by the St Paul •
Parks Commission. They have created an Ad Hoc Committee/1'ask Force to
revisit the CPMP and its impiementatioa In addition St Paut Parks and
Recreation have hired Benshoof and Ass. to study the Parking and Circulation as
it pertains to the CPMP. The $eutah Iane parking Iot is a integ'al piece and
should be included in this review."
RFSaoNSEc A Committee has been created by the Saint Paui Parks Commission to
assist the Division in impiementing components of the Master Plan on the West Side
of Como Park (west of Lexington Pkwy.) which have not yet been completed. This
is a committee to allow resideMs to participate in ��nlamPnring rhP adnprPd Cn..,n
Park MaetPr Plan nnt tn ra�iPCign thr+ Maetar Plan-
The tratfic planning firm of Benshoof and AssociaYes, hired after compleYion of the
plans for the Beulah Lane Parking Lot, has been retained by the Division of Parks and
Recreation to re-look at Yhe parking and circulation pfan on the west side ot the park
which was adopted in the 1984 Como Park Master Plan. We felt this was necessary
SIt10E an rking hae IIPPn fPf1'1fIVPlI in thP a� rk ei�p 1GR4,yyhila rtr�mhPrc nf v'�citnrs
havP in�reacad- These facts must be reflected in our plans for parking and
circulation in the park. The 8eulah tane Parking Lot is a"given" in Benshoof's study,
as it was under contract before Benshoof's contract went into effect.
a� �nR r��� Aaa_ .��P�_ •
RFFF�__RFNC'F_• "This parking lot is not preseiving the historical signi�cant
characteristics of the city and in partieular Como Park. The trees (including a
92 yr. old oak, 60 and 70 yr. old elms) to be removed for this lot were planted
and retained for this long because they are a cherished piece of the park land
area. This area provides habiYat to foxes and owls and it is a part of the wilding
areas left in Como Park. It is a piece of the whole and removing it is not
environmentally sensitive to this area."
RFSPOt�SE� The information presented here is incorrect. Tfiese are the facts: This
area, containing 105 trees, was surveyed by the Division of Parks and Recreation's
Forestry Section. Each tree was identified as to its size, species and condition.
There was nn survey of ages of trees. However, assuming the oldest trees are the
ones with the Iargest trunk diameter, we have saved the "92 yr. old oak, 60 and 70
yr. old elms," since the Iargest trees identified in the survey—a 23" Bur Oak, a 23.5"
Elm and a 19" Elm are not being cut down for this lot, but have been saved through
sensitive planning/design. The majority of the 58 trees being removed from the area
are diseased, according to the Forestry report. Furthermore, the understory trees in
this area are primarily Buckthorn. 7his species has been proposed by the MN Native
Plant Society to be added to the State Noxious Weed List. The DNR is actively
eradicating this plant in our State Parks and Wildlife Refuges because it is ihreatening
to kill many valuable and rare native plants. Once established, Buckthorn creates a
monocutture where nothing else can survive. It is environmentally ���Pn��rivP to
allow a piece of woodland in this condition to remain, as it threatens the whole of �
the park.
2q
.
•
•
Mr. David McDoneli, Chair
April 20, 1995
Page three
�: :.. -.
�ts-���
REFFRENCF " Surface drainage: 60°fo of the drainage off this lot will go into
Como Lake as presented by Don Gangie 3-21-95. Como Lake is already being
polluted by new poorly designed and drained parking lots at the lake side
pavilion. In regards to sound and sight barriers the most used picnic area at
Como Park will no longer enjoy the enclosure provided by the trees. The
activities from the Amusement Rides, Midway Pkwy, and the Conservatory
parking tot wili all be visible and audible, rather than the quietude aad aesthetic
beauty of matures, estabIished trees and uadergrowth. The plan for replanting
will not replace the existing sight and sound buffers evea ia its maturity. This
parking lot project removes and does not replace a buffer."
R S� All storm water within Como Park and much of the surrounding
community drains into Lake Como. Prior to 1986 Fa4con 4ieights area neighborhoods
also drained directly into Lake Como. With the new goif course we diverted that
water to hofding ponds on the caurse prior to pumping it into the lake. This has
significantiy cleaned up the lake; however, there are not existing alternatives to
draining Como Park other than to the laka.
The p+cnic area witl continue to enjoy the e�ctosure provided by trees due to
extensive overstory and understory plantings being installed as part of this project.
In addition, two long asphalt roadways accessing the pic�ic area from Midway Pkwy.
will be removed, turned into grass and planted with Pine, Oak and Serviceberry trees.
The amusement area will remain screened 4rom the picnic area si�ce the area of trees
along Midway Pkwy. across from the amusement area remains untouched. The new
grass area and ptantings will enhance the separation between the picnic area and its
activities from Midway Pkwy. and the Conservatory lot, while providing a greater
diversity of wildiite--attracting plant materiais.
�: :.� •�
RFFFRFN('F• " St Paul Park and Recreation hired Beshoof and Ass. to study both
vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within Como Park and in relation to access
streets including traffic circulation features, the locations and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within Como Parlc The lot is being
pushed through with no input from this study. A study deemed necessary by St
Paul Park and Recreation."
RFSPnN�F� This statement has been addressed in item 62.108 c(1) above.
RFFFRFN('F� " Burkes and Ass. in the 1984 adopted CPMP identified vehicular
traffic is already a concem at the entrance of Beulah Lane at Midway Parkway
(see map 4 following page 13 of CPMP and map 5 in front of page 15). Extreme
congestion and a problem intersectioa exist at the entrance and exit to Beulah
Lane. The design of Beulah Lane parking lot merely moves the access to Beulah
I.ane east of the present congested area closer to the larger Co`nservatory
parking lot access. If this project is completed as pianned, ail vehicular traffic
(picnic area bound) will have to use the Midway access, aa area highlighted in
the CPMP as already dangerously congested. Adding more traffic to this area in
addition to removing the grove of trees (Qresence of the trees forced foot tra�c
to use the cross walks on Midway Parkway) is too dangerous!!! This highlights
the need to have traf�c impact analysis input as a part of the parking lot plan."
�0
., " Mr. David McDonell, Chair
/ April 20, 1995
Page four
RESPnNCF• The new design of this parking lot removes the dangerous entrance and �
exit roads for Beuiah Lane and creates one access to the parking tot which is far
removed from pedestrian conflicts in crossing Midway Pkwy. Access to the picnic
area has been and will remain from Midway Pkwy. according to the adopted Como
Park Master Ptan. Furthermore, City traffic engineers have reviewed and found
acceptab(e the traffic geometrics and safety considerations of this tot through the
site plan review process.
R FF� RFN�F• "Safety and convenience will be issues exacerbated by this lot
Traffic by car and foot on and crossing Midway Parkway will increase. The
location of the lot near z00%onseivatory and amusement park rides will
eacourage people using those areas to park ia this picnic parking area.
Picnickers wili aow have to carry their goods from one end of the area, where
parking is, to the other end where tables are located. The projecYs advertised
improvement of safety regarding the crossiag of Beulah Lane betweea the
restrooms and playground by picnickers caa not and will not be achieved by this
project The southern half of Beulah Laae will remain open indefinitely until
more funds can be procured to close off Beulah Lane."
�Sa�NSF• The new lot provides enhanced safety features for both the pedestrian
and car user of the park. A new walkway from the lot and picnic area will now line
up directly with the existing entrance to the zoo/conservatory area across Midway
Pkwy. Presently, this is a dangerous crossing for pedestrians since they must cross
at a severe angie to the roadway adjacent to vehicles turning into Beulah Lane. The •
crossing will now be shorter and direct and there witl be no turning movements from
cars to contend with since the parking entrance is moved further east.
Since the proposed parking lot is in the same location as the existing lot—proximity to
the picnic area is the same as now exists. However, safety and convenience will be
enhanced due to a generous drop off area provided at the edge of the lot closest to
the picnic area. In addition, the parking bays have been aligned in the direction the
picnickers will be walking, to avoid crossing in and out of parked cars as presently
exists on the current lot.
With the addition of tfiis new lot, the crossing of Beulah Lane between the picnic
area and restrooms will 6e striped and parking eliminated, to enhance sitelines for the
park user.
�: :.. -.
R FFF RFNrF• "T'he Parking IoYs storm water managemeat started as a 7' deep 30'
diameter ditch as presented by Don Ganje 01-17-95. Later at the Lakeside
Pavilion 02-06-95 Doa Ganje presented a 2' deep 30' diameter 8raiaage ditch.
On March 21, 1995 as presented by Don Ganje no drainage ditch, and an
undergrouad basin to handle 40% of the 2oYs drainage and 60°� of the drainage
into Como Lake. This appmach to storm water management �{eeds to be
reviewed iadepeadentIy from the designer." •
� 3�
Mr. David McDonell, Chair
April 20, 1995
Page five
qs-`I��j
� RFSPnNSF• The parking {oYs originaf storm water management presented by Don
Ganje on January 17, 1995 was not a"7' deep 30' diameter ditch." Rather it was a
triangular shaped ponding area 140' x 140' x 160' in s9ze and 6' deep. Beneath this
ponding area, a system of perforated drain pipes and aggregate filter material allowed
water from the parking lot, via the ponding area, to be dispersed into the sandy soii
beneath the site.
The Department of Public Works did not like the depth of the proposed ponding area,
and asked us to either eliminate it and surface drein the parking lot or at the
minimum, raise the ponding area to fiave a depth no greater than 3'.
At ihe Lakeside Pavilion on February 6, 1995, Mr. Ganje presented the same plan but
indicated that the ponding area would be raised to a shallower depth due to a
request by the Department of Public Works. The finai design, he indicated, still had
to be discussed with the engineering consuitant.
Upon discussion with the civii engineer consultant at the firm TKDA, it was
determined that raising the pond dep:h wouid not allow ali of the parking lot
drainage to be accommodated in the u�derground filter system and that surface
drainage of the lot would be necessary in order to meet the requirements of the
Department of Public Works. Therefore, a new design based on a partial
underground system with no ponding area was agreed upon, thereby eiiminating ali
safety concerns. This design was presented on March 21, 1995 by Mr. Ganje.
• RFFFRFN(:F• " Is it appropriate to let a contract for a project before having the
Planning Commission sign off on the sight review plan?"
RFSPnNSF• As you are aware. the Pianning Commission delegates this procedure to
the site plan review staff within the City of Saint Paul. The site plan must be
approved by the staff in order for a construction permit to be issued to the
contractor.
RFFFRFN('F• "Is it appropriate that SL Paul Parks and Recreation have not
responded (as of March 22, 1995} in writing to Tom Beach's concerns about the
parking lot that was sent to St Paul Park and Recs. ia November 1994?"
RFSPnNSF• We have responded to Mr_ 8each's concems a�d made all requested
changes.
Lastly, I woufd also like to comment on item B9 1�R �(1n1 which reviews plans for
consistency with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Guidelines. The present lot
has no provisions to meei these guidelines. The new lot will provide a completely
accessibie Parking Area which is essential within this high use area of Como Park.
incerely,
j
• Robert P. Piram
Superintendent of Parks and Recreation
u:luser1kc31wp1dm42095.1tr
� 3t
Saint
. paul
Parks and Rec
.tion Commission
300 Qry Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, Saint Paul, MN 55102 -- 612/266-6400
COMO PARK MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AD HOC COMMIITEE
CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
Purpose
The Saint Paui Parks and Recreation Commission has set.up an ad hoc advisory
committee to the Commission. The committee's purpose is to make
recommendations to the Commission about implementation of components of the
Como Park Master Pfan that remain to be completed.
Charge to Committee
The charge of the committee will include developing a recommended site p(an to
guide the impiementation and completion of Como Park improvements, in
accordance with the adopted 1984 Como Park Master Plan.
Topics to be Discussed - Resulting in a Site Plan
(See Map: The study area outlined encompasses the portion of Como Park where
most of the pian components have not yet been implemented. The ad hoc .
committee wili focus review of plan components within this general area;
circulation issues wili invoive a larger area.)
Circutation
Tratfic and streets within park (inctuding rerouting Midway Parkway within
the park)
Access to various facifities (depending on locations)
Trails for pedestria�s, bikers and others
Farking Needs (inciuding parking deck)
Park Transportation
Siting Facilities
Location of amusement rides
Location of Picnic Pavilion
Parking areas
Term of Ad Hoc Committee
The committee witt sunset April 1996, unfess the Parks Commission deems
cbntinuation necessary.
C�
' ADOPTED BY SAtNT PAUL PARKS AND RECREAT{ON COMMISSION >
� _ APRIL 12, 1995 •
Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commissianers:
Jill Danna, CE�tirperspn; Tecrence Huntrods, Fust Vice-Chaicperson
Gaii Gisi, David Goodlow, Bazbara Johnson, Btia Moua, John O'HaIloran, Carol Osip, Phil Ravitzky
� 33
./� � L. �. � J
DMSION OF� REp17pN � ,5-- �J y �
,��,�'���-_
��``CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Cokmars, Mayor
300 Ciry HaUAnnts Ttltphone: 612-266�6400
25 West Fourth Srreer 7DD : 612-292-7A43
Sairu Pnuf, MN 55702 Facsimi(e : 672-292-7403
�
Maroh 28, 1995 � � ��� � �� ��
�A� � 01995
Mr. David McDonell, Chair
PLAt�N1HGA4iti ECOk��+{G QEVt�7Y��t;i
c/o City of Saint Paul Planning Commission
1100 City Hall Annex �
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102
Re: Request by District 10 far Review of
Como Park Picnic Area Parking Lot Plan
Dear Mr. McDoneil:
� Yesterday I received a copy of the District 10 Community Council's March 23, 1995
letter to you requesting Planning Commission review of the site pian for the Como
Park Picnic Area Parking tot. After reading tfiis Ietter f befieve it is necessary to
provide additional information for the Planning Commission's March 31 discussion of
this request.
•
District Council's fetter alleges that "project planning and implementation (within
Como Park) is taking place on an incremental basis, rather than within the context of
a comprehensive and holistic approach to park development." i disagree. This picnic
area paricing lot is identified in the Como Park Master Plan and is another step in the
continuing implementation of this plan, which was adopted in 1984 by the Saint Paul
P{anning Commission, Saint Paul City Council, Metropolitan Parks and Open Space
Commission and the Metropolitan Councii. Adoption of this plan compfeted an
extremely intensive and inclusive citizen participation planning process irtcluding
District 70 representatives and others, which took over seven years to complete.
This plan and the adopted plans for Como Zoo and Conservatory are responsibie for
over S36 M of improvements within Como Park.
Currently, there is much controversy in ptanning circies over the value of master
pians. The argument is not over the necessity of developing master pians—it is over
the fact that typica{!y, once a plan is developed whicfi anticipates a period of severa{
years to impiement, it is often set aside and forgotten, with the resuit that future
implementation of its components happens in a haphazard, unplanned way.
j
The Como Park Master Plan, by comparison, is a resounding success because it has
nnt been set aside and forgotten. In fact, it has guided the multimillion dollar
restoration of Como Park successfully over 10 years of construction.
� 3't
Mr. David McDoneil, Chair
March 28, 1995
Page two
The Division of Parks and Recreation is responsible for implementing the components S
of the Como Park Master Ptan as f�nding is made availabie. As a Division, we take
great pride in the fact that we have made significant progress in improving Como
Park and furthered the vision of the Master Plan, which represents the collective
interests and concerns of hundreds of citizens, elected officials and city steff over a
period of many years.
The subject 98 car Como Park Picnic Area Parking Lot is a smaller version of the 205
car lot indicated to be built in accordance with the adopted Master Plan. Available
Regional Park funding dictated the smaller size lot. When this project, or any project
within Como Park is funded, it is assigned to our professional staff of Landscape
Architects who then have the responsibility to site and design the particular space,
according to current safety, accessibitity and maintenance standards whi(e balancing
potential tree loss with the requirements stated in the Master Ptan.
Unfortunately, sometimes trees do have to be cut down when major changes are
being made to an established landscape. We do not take this tightly and constantly
strive to save trees whenever possible.
tn this case, the parking tot tocation was chosen after a thorough survey of the trees
in the immediate area. Detailed analysis by the City's Forestry Section indicated this
grouping of 60 trees contained 38 trees which were diseased, therefore, this location
was chosen. We believe that removal of trees which have advanced states of Dutch
Elm and Ash Yellows and replanting the same area with 50 new trees, 327 shrubs �
and over 2,200 perennial plants as we are doing here, can only be called responsible
and necessary management of the urban forest.
The District 10 letter states that 'there are numerous safety concerns about this
design." This is simply untrue. Geometrics, traffic flow, maintenance, ingress,
egress, drainage, aecessibility, signage, landscaping, etc. have all been reviewed and
approved for this design by appropriate city departments through the site plan review
process.
The Division of Parks and Recreation has met at( requirements for design of this
parking lot at the location shown. Furthermore, this design has already been
discussed with the commurtiLy ort severa! occasiorts: Apri! 27, '1994 with ihe
District 10 Land Use Committee, May 17, 1994 with the District 10 Community
Council, October 18, 1994, again with the District 10 Community Council and more
recently, on February 8, 1995 with the Parks and Recreation Commission which
voted against postponement of the project.
We have known since the May 17, 7994 District Council meeting that District 10 did
not support this project. 7his position is reflected in the District Counci!'s June 2,
19941etter to me which concludes with the statement that "the council will be
sympathetic to it (the parking lot) it it inctudes rehabilitation of green space
elsewhere. 7he council's primary goal is to prevent a net loss of Space."
In my June 3Q response to the District Council I noted that our work in Como Park •
has thus far "returned 127,64� sq. ft. (3 acres) of green space to the park since
1984"; thus we are in fact provid'+ng much better than "no nei loss" of green space.
k 3s
Mr. David McDoneli, Chair
�
U
January 24, 1995 was received January 30, 1995.
March 28, 1995
Page three � S � ��
Fo(iowi�g this exchange of correspondence and with no funher correspondence
fortficoming, we believed that the District Council's concern for loss of green space
had been satisfied, and we proceeded with construction plans and specifications.
The next correspondence on this topic from the District 10 Councii, dated
The project was bid on November 16, 1994. Ashbach Constructio� Company, the
low bidder, received the contract for the project in the amount of 5249,596.00. In
addition, the City has purchased the necessary 20 ornamentai lighting standards,
which have been delivered, at a cost of S16,840, and finaily, 551,737 has been
expended for survey, design, engineering and soil testing costs.
This project is funded by a Metropolitan Councii grent, which was approved and
accepted by the City Council on February 18, 1993, Councii Resolution 93-186.
Shouid the City faii to proceed with the project it must be understood that the entire
sum of the grant may have to be returned. The City wouid have to appropriate
funds to reimburse the Metropolitan Council for expenditures made, which would
include ail design and engineering costs, the light standard costs and the cost of
terminating Ashbach's contract, estimated to 6e at least S12,000. Total City
exposure is therefore at least $80,577.
in conciusion, the facts support going ahead with this project without delay:
1. The adopted Como Park Master Plan (a document that involved a seven year
• community-based pianning process) has successfully guided over S36 million
in improvements to the park since 1984.
2. The picnic area parking lot was designed according to current safety,
accessibility and maintenance standards and has been reviewed and is in
compliance with the requirements of the City's site plan review process.
3. The site has a grouping of 60 trees, 38
for the area cali for 50 new trees, 327
plants.
•
which are diseased; landscape pians
shrubs and over 2,200 perenniai
4. The District Council's primary concern in May 1994 about the parking lot
revolved around preventing a net loss of green space. This is in accord with
the adopted Master Plan and our work since 1984 has returned three acres of
green space to Como Park. We have, and will continue to address the return
of open space to the park.
5. The parking tot is under contract for construction. Survey, design,
engineering and soil testing costs have been expended (551,737! and light
standards (S16,840) have been delivered. The City's total exposure is
approximately 580,000 if we do not proceed.
6. Further park devetopments wiil be reviewed through th� Saint Paul Parks and
Recreation Commission's Ad Hoc Committee on impiementation of the Como
Park Master Plan.
� 3�
Mr. David McDonell, Chair
March 28, 1995
Page four
I believe it is time for this project io go forward and that there is no reason for
further review. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your discussion.
'ws ely.
�
� Robert P. Pirem
Superintendent of Parks & Recreation
cc: Mayor Coleman
City Councilmembers
Park Commission Members
District 10 Como Community Council
Besty Wehrwein
Saily Worku
Steve and Kathy Audette
Thore Cartlidge
u:\userlkc3\wpldm 32895.Itr
Arne Stefferud
John Wirka
Don Ganje
Benshoof and Associates
Ken Ford
Tom Beach
Roger Ryan
•
•
•
� 37
��
`"T��
I 4
- �•�<ITJY�J-�A_
__T-� ..
ym' :V'�
`� .S - � `� `�
� District 10 - Como Community C
March 23, 1995
Mr. David McDonell, Chair
Saint Paul Planning Commission
1988 Weliesley Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55105
Dear Mr. McDonell:
'I'i1e purpose of this letter is to request the Saint Paul Planning Commission
to review the site plan for the proposed Como Park Picnic Area Parking Lot at
Beulah Lane and Midway Parkway. It is our desire that you will refer this
plan to the Zoning Committee for a public hearing.
In our view, the project deserves further evaluation because of the questions
it raises about the logic of the planning approach being taken to park
• improvements. The Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission has
sufficient concems as to have recently created an ad hoc committee to review
the Como Park Master Plan.
From our interactions thus far with city staff, it would seem to us that project
planning and implementation is taking place on an incremental basis, rather
than within the context of a comprehensive and holistic approach to park
development. The Como Park Master Plan has often been referred to by city
staff and members of the Park Commission as being "conceptual in design",
and project details have generaily been done on a case by case basis. To some
extent this may be necessary in a planning process, as funding is allocated in
cycles. However, in this instance, when a picnic area parking 1ot has been
designed before thoroughly understanding how vehicular and pedestrian
traffic will move through the area, what kind of utilities and storm water
management may be necessary, or even where a new picnic pavilion will be
located, we must ask if this is a sound and responsible approach.
Indeed, the plan and design of the proposed project seem to contradict the
Como Park Master Plan goals. Included in the goals are desires to retain the
unique character of the park, reduce traffic volume, maintain and improve
park buffers, provide for the safety of the park users, prbvide for improved
maintenance, and maintain open spaces and intimate areas.
�
1523 Como Avenue • St. PauI MN 55I08 • 612-644-3889
�3�
Mr. David McDonell
March 23,1995
page 2
Of the Como Park Master Plan's goals, a significant d'uective is to preserve the •
current pazk atmosphere of the azea. The decision to place a picnic area
parking lot in this area will remove a grove of trees. These trees and
accompanying understory can be seen to provide a natural enclosare and
buffer for the current picnic area from the odors, siEes, sounds and traffic of
the heavily traveled Midway Parkway. City staff have referred to these trees
as diseased and dying while others have voiced the opinion that this small
intimate area represents an aspect of the park experience that should be
preserved. No further details of how to carry out this goal aze articulated in
fihe 1984 adopted Como Park Masfer Plan, however, this should be done
before a project like this parking lot is proposed. Transforming this corner of
the park will have repercussions on how Como Park will be experienced.
Environmental interest has expanded since the final adoption of the Como
Park Master Plan in 1984. Como Park is currently without the benefit of an
inventory of its geographic, historic and cultural features. It is these
enhancements that confribute to the unique character of this historically
designed landscape that was originally conceived as a key element in the city
of Saint Paul's park system. Since the Como Park Master Plan was adopted,
most restoration/preservation work has taken place on sizable stntctures in
fhe park. There are subtie aspects of the park that should be taken into
consideration as weli. It is imperative that such a survey be undertaken •
before any other new development take place. Park and Recreation staff have
commented that there is a delicate balance in Como Park. Certainly this is
true from an environmental perspective. We should have a clear
understanding of what exists in the park before we decide to alter or preserve
it. Placement of the proposed picnic area parking lot will once again alter the
park before we know what we have and how we want to treat it.
Vehicular and pedesfrian traffic are already a concern in this area. Extreme
congestion exists, highlighting the need to have a traffic and parking study
done of this area that will describe current d'uectionat distribution and suggest
an optimal circulation system. City staff are currently overseeing a parking
and circulation study of this area which is to be completed this spring. This
proposed parking lot has been designed without taking the conclusion of this
study into consideration.
The increased maintenance for this proposed lot should be reviewed.
Providing for improved maintenance should be considered in the design
aspect as well as being piaced in the operational context.
There are numerous safety concems about this design. Whether the south
end of Beulah Lane should be ciosed and how closing it or leavzng it open
will unpact the picnicking area is not known because the picnicking area has •
not been fully defined. Furthermore, there is another parking lot almost
� 3�
C�
•
Mx. David McDonell
March 23,1995 � S — � � �
page 3
straight across Midway Parkway which may be altered in some way due to
possible road/surface lot changes. How these two lots facing each other will
affect vehicular and pedestrian safety has not been addressed. The proposed
removai of the forest, a natural barrier, will open up a wide swath for people
to cross Midway Parkway in an uncontrolled way.
We appreciate any way that you are able to assist.
We hope that these comments will bring to light the need to review this site
plan more thoroughly. We have tried to keep our concerns focused on issues
relating to the Planning Commission's parameters, and offer them in the
spirit of mutual interest in the preservation and future use of Como Park.
SinrPralv_
cc: Besty Wehrwein
Sally Worku
Steve and Kafhy Audette
Thora Cartlidge
District 10 Board Members
Jill Danner
Terry Huntrods
Barbara Johnson
Janice Rettman
Bobbi Megard
David Thune
Mike Harris
Jerry Blakey
Marie Grimm
Dino Guerin
Norm Coleman
•
Arne Stefferud
Robert Piram
John Wirka
Don Gange
Benshoof and Associates
Ken Ford
Tom Beach
Roger Ryan
�! �{O
Dennis O'Rourke
President
Saint Paul
Parks and Recreation Commission
300 CityHall Annex, 25 W. 4th St., Saint Paul, MN 55102, 266-6400
February 8, 1995
DAYTON'S BLUFF RECREATTON CENTER, 790 CONWAYAVE., 298-5703
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jill Danner, Gail Gisi, David Goodlow,
Terrence Huntrods, Barbara Johnson,
John O'Halloran, Carol Osip, Phii Ravitzky
MEMBERS ABSENT: Blia Moua
1. APPROVE AGENDA, MINUTES, INTRODUCE VISITORS
The meeting was called to order by Jill Danner, Chair. The minutes and
agenda were approved.
2. NEIGFiBORHOOD CONCERNS
r�
U
Dayton's Bluff Booster Club members Millie Lange and Xavier Escobedo requesting •
improvements for Dayton's Bluff Recreation Center (addition to building,
renovations, piayground equipment). It was suggested they submit a capitai
improvement budget application. Information was given to them by Mr. Wirka to
submit by Friday, Febniary 10. It was also noted that the Dayton's Biuff capital
budget request is supported by the Commission.
• Beulah Lane: Steve
and Como Park Mas
com ponents of the
involvement of the cc
seconded. All were v
�arking lot by Barb J
opposed/motion faiis,
3. ADVOCACYISSUES
Audette distributed a written report regarding past meetings
ter Plan. Motion made to set un ad hoc committee to addres;
master olan that have not
Osip
Huntrods
two abstained, two
• Letter was sent by Jill Danner to Governor Carlson about community education and
to Robert Butterbrodt regarding the charter change related to parkland.
Mr. Wirka reviewed the Commission's recommendations for CIB requests for
Dayton's Bluff, Jimmy Lee, Minnehaha, Valley, Wilder and Mazgazet Recreation
Centers and Soccer. T'he Commission decided to move the Jimmy Lee project up
yeaz. CIB proposals to be written by Parks and Recreation with Parks
Commission backing.
•
�' � (
„
• � � � �s",�”, ,,� `s �
�s-���
District I O- Como Community Councit
January 24, 1995
Robert Piram
Super:ntendent, Parks and Recreation
300 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Sueet
Saint Paul, MN 55102
_ea: :,ir. F�irun:
This letter is to express the District 10 Como Community Council's continued opposidon to the pazldng lot
going in at Beulah Lane near Midway Parkway.
As you know, you received a letter from Disuict 20 (dated June 2), stating our opposiIIOn to the
conshuction of tfiis lot because of the net loss of green space. Addirionally a siguficant dense patch of
h�ees and undergrowth wiil be removed for this lot, changing the character of shis site. Your response of
June 30 indicated that there would be a net loss of geen space with this pmjecG You rationalized this loss
by stating that since 1984 there has actually been a net increase of green space in Como Park.
• At District 10's October 10 board meeting, we were informed by you and Mr. Wirka that a u�affic and
parking study will be done on Como Park. We understand that the City has recendy retained Benshoof &
Associates, Inc. to conduct a pazking survey.
Recenfly our council fomied a Como Park ad hoc committee because of the Beulah Lane issue and to look
at other future park planning and implementation. On Tuesday, January 17, this goup met with Parks and
Recreation staff to get more information on the Beulah Lane lot. It was stated that the pazking study
mentioned above is to be completed near the end of March,1995. Moreover, the money allocated for the
Beulah Lane parldng lot is to be spent by the end of 1995. Repeatedly people quesrioned why the Beulah
Lane parking lot contract was signed prior to obtaining the results of the parking sfudy . It seems that
there would be time to withold the buiiding of this lot until after the stvdy is finished and then sign the
contract if it sfill made sense.
tiVe conrinue to stste our opposition to the construction of the Beulah Iane parldng lot, and ask that you
reconsider yo�s decision.
Sincerely,
Densus ORourke
Council President
cc: Betsy Wehrwein
• Don Ganje
John Wirka
Counciimember Rettman
r
Councilmcmber Megazd
Council President Thune
Mayor Coleman '
I523 Cc -n tivenue • St. Po d hiN 55I08 • 6] ^-S�1•.3889
uj 2,}:�
DMSION OF PARPS AND RECREAl20N
i>us�)
.., �
I I �
I= -
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
No'm Colmfan.�Nayor
June 30, 1994
Ms. Julie Hoff
Community Organizer
District 10 Como Community Council
1523 Como Avenue
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108
Dear Ms. Hoff:
Thank you for your letter of June 2, 1994 regarding our proposed par�ng
lot construction in Como Fark I undeistand that the District IO Council
supports our proposaIs for the East Lakeshore and Como Pool projects,
but is opposed to our proposal for the new picnic area lot in the vicinity
of Beulah Lane.
As stated in your letter, this opposition is due to the fact that the picnic
area lot will remove green space from the pazk and set a trend for the
future parIflng demands, i.e., more loss of green space. The Council also
feeis the Division of Parks and Recreation has not adequately weighed
the consequences of destroying green space for pariflng lot construction.
�
Our staff has devoted considerable time to studying the issue of par�ng
in Como Parlti. We constantty wrestle with the problem of how much
par�ring is enough and at what point do we begin to destroy (with pazi�ng
lots) the reason people come to Como in the first place ,., its beautiful,
large open green spaces.
We believe it is unreasonable to think that the park will ever handle the
numbers of people see�ng to pazk on peak use days by relying on
surface parl�ng lots. There simpiy is aot enough available space to meet
peak demand. Therefore, when faced with the task of designing a new
parldng lot, we strive for a solution which best balances the requirements
of the adop;ed Como Park Master Plan with the anticip�ted use of the
facility, and the ability of the actual site to support pazlflng.
300 Ciry HaUAnnex
25 Wut Forrrth Strcet
Saint Part, MN SS102
Teleplane : 6I2-2
ZDD : 612-?92-
Fau'onite : 612-292-7�f05
C�
,�- y3
Ms. Julie Hoff � S— 7�( `E
June 30, 1994 %
Page two �
/
�
In the Beulah Lane particular locarion, the Como Park Master Plan calls
for a 205 car lot. To build a lot of this size would have required the
removal of a significant amourn of healthy, mature trees and green space.
Instead, we chose to reduce the lot to 125 cazs and move it to a location
that is presently full of diseased and dead trees. Obviously, however, we
still must take green space from the park to accomplish this ... in this
Iocation we would be removing an additiona113,546 sq. ft. of green
space. But this must tie placed in the proper context of what we have
accomplished in the pazk since construction began in 1984.
Since 1984, we have removed 431,855 sq. ft. of bituminous roadways and
pazking lots from the pazk and have built 304,ZQ8 sq. ft. This means we
have given back 127,647 sq, ft, of green space to the park since 1984.
This is enough surface area to park almost 300 cx�s.
As you can see, we aze no where near a net loss of green space in
Como Park, but in fact have restored green space for the benefit of the
park user.
We agree with the Council that a long term solution to the parldng needs
of the park must be found and we hope that the Council will work with
• us to do so. I assure you, we do not intend to sacrifice the quality of the
park experience to satisfy the need for parldng within the park
% :T ��� .
•.I�
.,, _ . .� ..
cc: Mayor CoIeman
Councilmember Rettman
John Wirka
Don Ganje
u:�user�kc3�wp�hoff.630
F
C�
� ��
Disiricr Y O Como Communify Councii
I 523 Camo Avertue
Sttint PauI, MN 55I 08
6443889
June 2, 1994
Mr. Robut Picam
Parlcs and Recteation Superintendent
Depaament of Pmis and Reaea¢on
360 City Iiall Annez
25 West Fow-th Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ivlr. Puam:
RECEIVED
.fUN - 8 1994
DIV. OF PARKS
& RECREATlON
On behaif of the District 10 Como Community Council, I am writing tn eznress the council's concem about the
proposed parldng lot construcaon that is scheduled to be done this summer in Como Park. While the councii
appfauds the attention that Mr. Wirka, Mr. Ganje and others afe giving to protecung the groen space and the aestheac
appeal of the proposals for the East Ialceshore lot and the Como pool lot, the board membeis are arden0y opposed to
the consavction of the lot near the picnic grounds off Beulah Iane,
The co�mcII dces not feel that the Park and Reaeauon Deparnnrnt has adequarely weighed the cocssequences of
destroying green space for black top. 'Ihey believe that the significant Ioss of gxn space that accompanies chis
proposal is setting the ezample for yean to come. Once thaz geen space is gone, it is gone foreva - and the
council fears tha[ as pazking demands in and around Como Park become grrata, that this uend wi12 conanue.
The council recognizes that parking is a sign�cant problem in and around Como Park, but feeis that long-term
parldag measvres are the key to alteviaang [he traffic problems. Moreover, thcy feeI that it wiII be impossible to
ever provide pazldng for all the people that visit the pazk and that traffic probtems will pecsist until a method that
keegs auto uaffic out of the park is found. Possible meazures to decrease the auto uaffic in the park could indude
stiutHe busses, a troIIey and the like.
District 10's commitrnent to maintaining the integrity of the pazk is evidenced by the recent completion of the
District 10 Como Park Community Forestry Plan. In addidon to its own plan, the council would like co be acave
in the city's master pian for Como Park. The council would also like to be included in the brainstorming and
decision-making prac6ces ihe city employs when developing proposaLc such as rhe parking lot additions.
Again, the council appreciates the excellent design of the Fast Lakeshort lot and the Como Pool ]ot. However, it
s�ongly urges }rou ro recoasider tde c�ment proposal for Ne Iot near Beulah Lane, Despite iu reservations aboat
this proposal. the council will be sympathetic m it if it indudes the rchabilita[ion of gcen space elsewhae. Tt�e
couacil primary goal is to prevent a net loss of green space. Thank you for your aaention to this mazta.
RespecffullY.
�����
Julie off
Community Organizer
Disaict 10 - Como Community Council
cc:
Janice Rettman
Robesta Megard
John Wirka
Don Ganje
Fil
•
•
�'f N �
WC/aYA Rlw �tlOWml'N4'� ��`V�
JLW{ WINY�Y�
� y � �� � � � N�'Id NOLLTIO„8U
mw+re qt9VTA9NbYtBli
0
000 � W
¢ ¢ O � a o
� a v $
m m¢ � � w w z � a
7 O O m 0 y � 6 m y � �
L �< O o N F Q F � c
< o - � � y � �
W`¢WW = � _
� �D � � � W ° a u '��' � �°.+ $
O 'V U m W V' U' �
2 2� 3 2 Z - � 2 O Z J
2��^ %� S� t O w� X¢ i�>
I,I m m W W g o �a � m n W�n n
� � � ' O'�.( � e o " 0 1 $. i � � , s ` y
�3 � �
e
Fg � �
�� � ��
�e �� �� � �
�4
t�� �� �� '
4 @ 7� is ,
��� �� �� _ I �--, �;
�
a
a I
� �
� �
�� �
f
s����
����8
r ! R 6 � �
� `. < ]
C Y S
�����
u
W
O
J
W
w
�
u
E
� �1
� �
f �a
� a e
� �888[
� �e
3
��
� 3�
�
�
E� ��
�� ��
b �
6�
Y �
�
��
��
��
soz �uixx�a ��x� q
�It�I�Id ?I2It�d OY1t0� '� ; S-? y�j
W i � < < �
I ! 0 =
�� t Z � 6 O r
I �{ a a y� � o
— F� V . J � J 2 U U Z
i � < : �� < � W
W [] J V��G 6 v $
I - �
y' �. eV /1 � N �O n 0 O N
g s�
� ��,
��
. � ��
•a3�
. � ��
' ��
' F,e }
� � � �
� �: �
p q
a
� a
� x� . �� �
� �� g a
�w�
� �e9r
��
G � �����
� �� $ �:
1�'�.. y 6
•._ .�, ° ° w �� : `"'�"' • .LO'I �ISI}I2I5d C��2IV (
'°-' n ""`'""""" °°� xvca �N�mu� �IN�Id X2idd OI1T0� � -
_ ����.�.�
.
0 0 ,
• �c, �its
0 0 0 0 8�y�3 'i z p� t
f ' €
• �:�� �. :� � �
• ` a . . - y�j3 j � : � p w
� y � 3M � • SEn z p ��
. { 3$ E � �
� �? @�$ i� z
c, • "s ° ai L� �'i �� '
3. @ 4
. �' G�s s�
� —� ��� & :
F o4 J
I . 6
) � �x3 � � ° � �s: s� �
_ . _�� : i� J �
. �.. oo ::
. L
• I : Q I'.
a7a 3 •
. 'a�E � •
. � i x
• • �.= 3 .,:: • �
'3 ;;;
. . w :� � ❑ .
�. � - � � �
-� : .
Y
i
.� � y
Y
� ' _ \ : px
�• 1 �;.� ' i'4 n.d {� , ;% x � � � "
. =: � o •
A` • � � \ \ \Y �� � . f's ;p '\ �. y . �
_� � \ .e'.� `�`;` Y y '. • � •
r • � �1 � , s ± '❑ •
e \� � � y �
�i o �
a � 4 ' ` �O
dG `o� �3 'Y c �.� � � •
p � �:. /
�; � � - 4,/
.� � — / 2
Y
\ ' € � � � • __.--,�
t t � �' i
, • g� .ii •
i /
' • • F �i , � i � ,. l `
e
,, I s ��� \ I � •
� � � S o �p � � �� 1 /� �// I
- . n . � � , �•` .I
. , � „
• \• •. � •• .• �•. . • • . tl , . • ryt •
� � � t
• �K � � � • s
• / i/ / e\ � � • •
\
��
f/ I /
� ww. zA .,. ..� �.. -� w�,� � � . so� �uixxea �v�xe �� .
- �����
•--- r�x,n � � oo� �ma �xwma �II�I�Id ?I2�t�d OI1I0� � -
v 4R� i�f1 p@JN a �.
o ,
o a o 0
, `�.S -'�
. ♦ � � o • • '
�
� , , • ■ ■ � , _ o
. _
� � s
' r �' °��
, , o
• � • ,��
. • . ,• , �
� e `_ � .
� • • ♦ � e �I�
� \� • _ • (T-l�
•
�
�
� -
' �( � .
Y �
Q � ¢ I
i
I_ Q {
'� i
r } d
�'� �? r
S!� �a ��
s � � �,
� � ed C.
�
� �_
j� �,'.
�,ile�}
e
e
• y ��
• r � e
I � p 3
• i tl
� � i
E
a p ° 4
, } y•
r , ���
:�
��8
� �;���
1� � � �
)
. �
W
I
> �r� � N
i � `� �
. Z
. �
Z.
. Q ,
J
��� d I
�, :
x� �
�I ¢;
;>
?:1
Y
Q# ' � � � �lW � � �
�`
� E . i O
q W
�' o o �W�� am +� � �
�C Z �� ��� ¢� � �
a � 3 � 3 � � =Y .��. �. . � � �
...1 � � � b � ���wa �� ����
� `' � �� �
� � � = : Ag$�
� ( 1 � ( S � , � =.f .� o � `�
�o
O ,� :J � , � '� ��
� �1 i
. !' . n �p ' :e <��� :
� O� , ;{�,$ Y .�: i ��.
J
00 � � 8,�, , m
h
� . - �� O $y 8 � .
U Da�p 'B
i- . Q: -' • O(� � �Do
j ' ' _ O 43' � •
, ' r ' i.�� � .+ � ��;Tk!'!"yt.71i O 'e�j<Y I p • _
' \ _ '.;+',W. � o �
� il� i a .L'. '�+ n rma. W O: r � f L
x I'c � �-. .pn�X.�.,�� � �"' � �•
�f �' 1 •�.. t "- jhvnf� xs I'r m
y .; ��l � � 1 `� �\'� � � _ �/� ' , !I � .. _ ; �Mi)IAinl�qrAfk � � .
, ' O p ' - :i -1 ; .y���r�t ,:.': \r,( ' ��ai y (17tL tlant7,lKAfIl�4 �I .
a" j i p �i.�: . 7
4 �� - .' ,� r:���,,,.J � �� . ��^� • '�[+� r;�i[iCDw�ol�u�a.. Rsxx�ya n�l �
❑ � .. � ._ :._ �. _ _ � �'O:t��,_ �.
,� � � '. .P �.. '� '__..
�• t . ,,.
° °�. �" '�!t_.`c—., ` `'µ y�. �.
18 °. � � � -' r — Yl ` j n - , �,__ � -
I a $ �° - � - •. ' ��, 4 '+� _ •- t' �
a•� , ,\� i ,'�� r . y .• '� ��,� �� � � �I
' / � �:r u.. � _� a
� � i�.,,- I � .
.` � .�'�',_. r , /� �.,�r. Q �•
I � ., �: rf'� �' �! . �' �` i I
) •, !, ,! , � !
A. ' ti \- e
: - _ � / � � �; � _:
'�` � - � ' S '1 � �.
� ` � � � •1. � � Q I
� `,� — ; _it. +�
�-,�,.�_-„ M :: %' ' \. � '�,� : x D E
�. . „ i' , • g
•,; � ❑ �r
� � S '� � ."'., f � .���' � . . 'I _ ,. �.
� � ;<"a �; ` , � , i
�- a- p � L_� � '=,.'�i� -
� o� � '. ` y �. ti i - ,� '�°
� ` - - -- – ^ _
� �? - _••� � ' [ ' ',
o � :..... � �-- • �. :
, .
� � � � � � --- � s � _ —._
r� �
�� N y d� o�o j
sQ3� ��=
��o s�•� •
����s -��.��
��� 3
O '
j � . ��� 2
-/ � !J
>;�
i�r
A �
,�
.M1�
.�
R�.
� �...
=M1iSE
T
V
i
�
a
Ny
x O
Y y
6r
N o
i y=
V
N P
4� �
OL
N 6
N N
�Q
tiK
�^
K
O
¢
VJ
W
C
L
O
C
1
�
C
2
�
�
w „
9
u� X
�
m
� C Y
u N
c i i
u 66
a w ° c
V Y 9 0
wa
ii
p� Y
O M� d
�
ma m
>
o_ �
6 O i
�ap
�
Y
6
�
LL
F
O
w
N F
Z� 4
r
z c�
u�
."'n ° z
O
is
F- C
6' N
o
G
0
�
�_
J J
O O
v �n
Y
i
�
�
z
h
F
�
O
F
2
6
¢ Z .
£�
°w
O N
ti
G
6'Q
o �
��
� a
_
6 V
O
�
+ V
y m
9 y
« �
w r
�
0
N 9
L C
V
Y c E
L
E O
w Ta�
� C �
E w
Y- 9 C O
o w— N
a WO E 9
d O Y � q
L 2 S N
O OY L
� O�� 1] 6
N �n q N L
ianww
� N m
W
�
Z
V
2
0
'
w
c
6
w
�
0
m
�N
W =
�w
zin
W
o�
¢�
U W
h�
w 6
E
N O
W 3
f u
¢ 3
N
�w
w ¢
C C F
ti^
r
° z�
6
�g
���
=oW
£a�
0
�
C
�r L
i`
ma
U T L
uE q n� ° .
V 9 G
_° ' _°
� ° -°�
� m v
wo y
1 O�i
v .�'+ u
q q b
E a+
Y V r
>vT��
u �"
m O d V �
V q C
9OYOY
O� E o
63N6Y
� 0
� N
.��.
2
O
6
a
�
J
>
4
O
�
a
�
c
6
G
Q O
O
�i V
0
�...
�4
J
q
�
GY
qs - x Z
� Q
a a
O a t K
lA
m ' m �
4 N 0 L Q
p a U 'in r L
� w
� ° Y
� � �
w A mm Q
y - L d
N �6
N � � O
Y C
C
Y 9 Q O
L ° o —° c U
o c `�
'� a N �
cwx � l7
�Y-d>
O o
`o«o dc
d N tp
W N q V � a
� �
L a"
q d W
� 9 C ^
q ^ � �j C
w"a U O
o°st+'o c U �
� jY1
O s � �
� �a
�
O '- N �
a
.' �
� Y � � � �. r c �-i -� i t-�-�-�-�-r �
W
Z
�
Q
�
�
J
Q
�
�
� >
v .�
Q Y V q
N L �
•- 3 0 �
�9 V O
~ n N � � N
NY �nN6
«' �d
� o �+
N W rn �+
; rn « o- o m
o•��
yAL L
a�+v� E
'r 3 � �
�m°'vao-
� L Y C d �
TN•�t C
T � E v ~ �
u�i ¢ t�J ~ L
C N O
v 3 w . w
6 O Y �� 6
w F a E � c
6 L�Y
t
E f { � a +
� �
.EaN�
y C O L +
V�
D L L V- � N
Y N L N� O
N£ �✓. �n
Y Y O
�y£•� 6�
L LLY-F d
Y-�a�0�3
Y O � C 9 >
WVO Y Y
� d N U N
N L L �r- �
O 9> N 3 O
6'6
2�
6 6'
O
f�Y
4 6 Y w
awo
uo
Q � V
W u O
K W
U 71-
�Z�
��<
f
3z�
N
6 W Z
O C
N }
O�Z
6 6 £
W�
2 U 6
�Ow
N U
O�+U
K¢LL
F 2'+
G3v�
O
t�J
Y
ti
LL
¢
O
¢
W
4
O
r
N
0
S
6
2
W
6
W
G
O
6
4
O
t7
N
>
Y
V
O
W
�~
� N
V�
M a
�n i c
N WYL
a ."- �w « o
�+ v �9 ms
E mY3c¢ ~ o
� �Y
� W N C N V �
W 9 d � G q L
C L C�- Y C L
i. i iia
° Y ° vrnq.�-NOs
y � Y 4- L q C N N
1�^ L n � C i L y� V
�n'O 6 O r- L y N V N p
a L O O� C N� Y O C y
O G O Y Y N C Y W
W O�a E �e E O�r p
�L+NN �LNC�-V
W pE � O N> r q
L> S G O� N n 6 m V
G V 6 N � 0�
�V > Y j Y 9 9� N V A
'>LN d?>'r
c i E s�- � w i s.�- w� c
�pr-id6NL6`cC'S�+
.-a�mcviaot�mm
�
�
�
W
6
�
�
6
W
CJ
ti
¢
d
¢
K .
Z Q
tiW
J U
> Z
�n U
LL
�O
HF-
W J
U�
0 V
C tJ
� �� t�
C�Z
�Q
$ a
a � d a ¢
Y a j Q F
d
m � �n r N (n
� L L N O C Q
L A � U'� C
m q � �
a � o T
� Y
� �
� wm rn> i o u1 y �
YYG YI C
w i� �`+ �c c v Y C C a
9 u1 G Y V ' �
n>. � rn n n q m � C O
1 3 L O C 9 L �V C
Y a L L O 9 y ^ O C
{ W Y Ol r V L L Q O
_ » ° y m3c U
^ N L n u 4 .0 ~ n 10 YI GI
c.-oL � « € .- a>
oYyau«Y o c �
p �nLS4-c T '� w N
.-anmw a � v
�JN 6LY�
' 6 Y Y ~Q C O T S! �
y � �n i L �
N W
u NV�i3? Oa v�W CnW Sa
Y Y i+ h L y L L O d N q �
O a O w u C� Q d L N L
N O 9 N W V C a> V� 7 C
u�iNC OI�N ��
> 2
N > L >> V L y � >�> yJ L U lO
� i^ 6 i... u w w a q d c c
Y 600QiK f+�+❑
d H
o j,
O �-NmCY1b1� W a �
Q
• t
1
;��
�
�'
F„ �
�:�s„
1�
::.�
��
� �
.``'�
'�
��.
K �
t:
�J
d
V
L
�
�
�
O� M
P � N
C .ae L .-
Y q py L �n �^ O
G dY�yY
3 c V � q 4 � v O� u
� Nc�
V
a
�-+
>
4
d
C
m
L C L
O
d 3 L
y �LL
A
�
d
�
r
� 7
qoo
� �� T s
� E G
6
a
C
Y
aaawi�Emi
01 wourn ° ouc
° � ° n� ° .� ° n'm °
m � s�
V
y9Y
1+r
QLL q
° ii
T>O
� £ 7
E
Y
N
�
Y C
L �
m o
w `''
a �
�� �
YN C 9
U^UQ iq
Lrr
wsa rn� ¢
n+ aoq>
c io
3GNFNV
i
c °i
� �
U L
N q
d O O
r L C N A N
Y N
�' N d L � 7
++� ioc�w
¢.+rn�"° u.-
Y 7 r � u�i L p
Y Y Y V�n U Y Y
C N N C C N�-
3 �UU2V
❑ Z
a Q
a a
a p�
m
F
N
vE Q
� �
Y
_� a
� � 0
C
a�
m W N v
ac�iE
O
b
d
b t0
�a
� C
` ` 0
U`—
❑
a
Q
� � � �. � �� � � � � �������
�
0
v �o
� x=
� �a
Y Ot �
Nt+a
3 aoc
� �ms
Y Y �V
3 q ��
m io
� n L 6
y „ �
r cOs
q � p. C
T Y O�
C C
°i o .`•.
1
6 W N
>�
C C L d u
��F �'
ona«"
i O L U N
�V
E >'OV�-L
O O N V 6
� � n
«
a w
o.c��od
� < N�O
o
a'r'-
u=
or
N
Y 2
J K
0
3
F R
4 O
>
O O
w 4
z
z
0 O
6 Q
W F
K Vl
O
F
�n o
¢ O
U J
0
K
uo
4
w w
6 �U
4
�
O
�
W
e a
T c 0
i _ n
o .-
~ u m
L 6
a �n
� o r
�
a 9 w
N ��
4-YV-
O ^ O P
Y C
N V O N O
n�FYrr-
W Xr
Y Z O a A
p Y N O �
; W 1 9 V
� �
�Y
E
U y L C �
vT�. m Y
�qvoo
¢ id E �
�
G
6
�
E
z �
¢
� O
Q
�
Nrn
N
i Y
w N
r
' L
.- s
T N O
r- E
a � ✓
�- y
YSl L
r oa
r A 6 9
V n N �
�F V
G G
P V L i
L � L a
Aw q a 3
>"'o
°y��
E^� E
�
6
¢
d
H
Q
d^
6�
o.�.
Z F
6 Q
w
K W
��
LL
C
�O
0 0
xx
m
� 0
¢�
L�
4
�
�
�
Q
W
�
t
Q
0
t9
¢
¢
a
a
O
O
6
�
�
>
O
0
m
i
>
o
ma
w x E'
O Y
r� �`
G C L Q
L Q
i a�e wrn
Or N i C
4 Y i 9 ��
T � Qf �
a'so�
N i a ~ t
O Y� N
c v�inmF
° oo 6° a
dnooi
� O
�N1nON
❑ Z
�O Q
n �'
a �
W
m F
�
oE ¢
� c U'� �
E
ti o N Y
c o E �
d � N m A
l
� -- �� a
a m m N
rv c o � � Q
�C 9�-9 C
N C� � L C
� C L� E �r a - V� � O O
NY�N"JRUN , W N N �
a'mE
0
a
W C
N W
`O a
c �2
O
n M�
�c�n �c�. ��
>.-� om i �.«.�-
« .`a w " V �°
i
G S t C q L L
� c � Y n� N w N
T
✓1 ZVl£UdfDU
W
Q
� ,�s �I
�
�
�
�
PROPOSED PARKtNG — EVALUATION � 5 � � �
The parking demand for Como Park as projected by R.B.A.!s Como Park Shuttle and
Parking Deck Study is shown in the following table along with the parking provided
by the park plan:
ESTIMATED PEAK PARKIN6 ALCUMULATION*
BY ACTIYITY AREA
GDMO PARK
S7. PAUL, MINNESOTA
Surplus Deficit
Demand Desian" + -
460 Can 576 +716 -
225 Cars 411 +186 -
7000 Cars 450 - -550
110 Cars 9� - - 20
300 Cars 244 -. - 56
100 Cars 100 = _
2195 Cars 7786 +302 -626
NET DEFICIT -324
� 1. McMUrray Athletic Fietd
2. Picnic Area/Open Fields
� 3. Zoo/Amusement/Consevatory
A. Golf Course/Skiing
5. Pavilion/LakeSide
� 6. Swiimning Pool/Tennis
TO7ALS
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
��
* Uoes not include buses.
** Based on July 9, 1980 approved park plan.
As shown> the net deficit expected is 320. cars on the peak days of the year.
The report concurrs with the Park staff and Advisory Committee recommendation that
it is "not economically feasible to park the peak capacity of cars, nor is it
aesthetically desireable to have large amounts of paved areas near the core area
of the park."
The following is the R.B.A.'parking spatial distribution evaluation' of the
park plan:
"The distribution of parking within the park is, however,
the key to proper management of the overflav. Table il
(see Appendix) shows the parking use estimated Dy time
of the year for each area of the park. The most critical
deficiencies are noted near the core of the park, parti-
cularly the Zoo(Conservatory area. The peak demand is
estimated as 1000 vehic7es, while the area has a capacity
of only 450, leaving a deficit of 550. The picnic area
has a capacity of 477, and an estimated demand of 225,
leaving 786 svrplus spaces. Since the amusement area has
been moved into this area, some of this surplus will be
absorbed by families 9oing primarily to the amuserrent
rides,.but other overflow is expected to absorb the
���;� , .-, -. � ," Phase
: � ��;
Planrimg � � Master Mainte- Gost
�Process; �Analysis � p� Develop� nance Estimate aPPendix
,,.;, ment r
,::;�
�, COMO PARK MASTER PLAN
� � g2
J
Q
Z
¢
W
Z
_Z
�O
W F
� J
��
a
O�
¢_
a U
�
$
8
��
�
�� � _ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �`
'a ?
r L L
°��
� r
i ` �
us+c
A u� �
�5' i ° c
O N 9
i �
�¢ O
.Y
«z"
.° °
�
y Y�
N;9
. C O i
� °� t
6
J �L .L
� «.o.�..v
5 TiwaL+
,J uoa
Z N a W L
¢ VY�
W a N E L
r
Z V V Y y
0 NY p�
� Y A N V
O ' i p Y N
O � � w �
Q 9 O
a a4a�
A qqo
� 6Y L
L+ _ �
Na�O �n�
~ v C L 6
m
"�oa�
C E q�
{ L C d �n
ya�V-
i
E� u O
0
V YV�
o °� � c o
O�Y E 6
O^ d U �
" L a .
V'O
9 6F� C
V O
'-cc .Q
i �aw.'-
wo d >
w m w ° �
C9 T� N4
N d Y u V
T � N �n
TNYVI
m � � Y A
L 1 V
U M 1 7 C
9 -
O Y � N N �
n��m¢E
LW C N m O
r o r » u
�
q T Y- q C
�� o�
omF ^ w`o
YPV- O V�Y
q O O W E U
�J�YY L L O
u��'
�te
.-z .+rnoi
p A3�iw
Y Y L W O U�
rQ� d
Y d 0. L y Y
N A O N � d Y
c w�v�
ao c��.
o.�i� d _
V C�Y i
d• N q N C
Y L N C � y V
a cQTZ rnw
it omc
yY Y q E
p a O O
ro i ¢ a
n.+ i a°. N .�+ i
E� �
no.o
'" { `w is ..
i T�� • •t
o `�
E � � 6�•�Y C
' Av o'r
C N6 t d M Y
✓ � 3
- J p 9 T E y N
01 FEYYY L
�n q N r�n � O� N
aL3i4 C al�o
CM1� OYw
C Ed N V Y C J
�✓ m s w o E o
L N q q� 6^ L
�- J660yL
� «
s °
m�E
� O j
i 3 E
� �w
L
Y Y Y
� �
' 4 N
aow
Y N V
Y q C
d L �
Y d
C V J
i O �
YTL
$"i
N �
q � n
was
y Q T
Na d
m�`w
y;�
t ` y
N � V
N J
Lyr
W i y
C �
6 Y
r �
Z y � Y
Y O N
6Y 6
r-L CS
AY�Y
LL OLT
4
�
��
N
V
�
�
�
3
V I
S
v
�
\f
Q
V
�
� 53
�
� a
� a
Q �
W
N � �
oE Q
U � �
Y M
m m LL
_� a
c � C O
C
G
a �
m3c U
W N N
a'wE
� 0
d C
m m
�a
s
, il �:.,,�s
�}aJ
p���l�
��
�'
� ��
� � 8_ :
� � •�
a r r {
� � 1
� FiCXT AVE'—
o �
8 0
8 e
� � � M R�
(� _ _ $ �I
t �i
{: ' $ v oy �
� o 'I
e�i
ARI� TON � �l
� 8 -�,.° L
; �.. o
a = �� ,
� �, �
fl' � '�
ir11DWAY RWY,
� OieQi .h �e
� a � ��
o �� '�
� `�
Com�o av , �
� e O L o f
e� ;
co p �1
I:`g i
�
� � '
0
� �
����'=
� �j :i::
� �.
� :.��
�
���i ,
o =', o q 6 0�
Q � q - o:� _.� (� <�x��
4 , s GJ 3.. b b o p;�r"t` o.,,,�
�� - 1�,1 ; f� '—� '°000:
i: ' I � I .� %��.. _ . ,�.�� \
, � �
1� e \ • ' i L � � , _ ' . _ i �:�i1
� , � _ . _ -�� c�,rs� --,_�
.�. . ;
'�- ' �� � - • -
,,
�
—`-'. �� <�
M � ���',
) o� ; :
li ii�i-�`- ` � �
c �. . ��: * .. � ;�� % ;.�.� "� �
1
�
� �� 5 �� �Q
�J AMJ�EMENfs
P�cnu- �r�
�s..�.:,
��.��� �, .....E.e,
�S—��ly
�. � _--� �, ` .
„A AvE. PROPOSED USE ARE�1.S�
° � r,�i Butter areas
_�� /'--
q �� dT � . � ' �"�� U IiYcs
�q° ^I^PI9^P �'� Uncha�yed use areas
e "L�L°�E � Redetined use areas
�° i�`
�kli;�<e e �ll °r,�J�
�,.AR4�N�+TQ�1 , VE
op f°�i
>�, - t �
� ; ..� ' ,o I ,, e e e '
-IiTT' �T - � - ! - f� e�o
e � ; aoww'e6a'E A ; 4 ,
���' eio
`) . � � .. �
U PV'P.0. � ' � a O �
♦n� , "
p R[xns'•} 1 � °'�'e
, t 1 >' __ `:,
— J i_'� � � - _ g' � �'
� ° o. L
.� �.. . � _� r� ; �? r
;« : j °s
� RecY�ion Area oi I
f 1 ( I _ , :E�� � I I 1.Ey" �{ i
����UI if 1:. �— ��.. _� y. o yn�-a./
- __c }:�• ��� u � °�
. , Y �%� o e vi i
� � _ _ �r3O°'c+ . /J��,> .. �t � ° � .°
. .. '�' (� <� o''I
' � lJ I�� ° � : . �
\:: ��F . � - �.y nuw n
:::�u�����.._`.�—�.- ` , . r^'rr)��
-�.. .! Y �
�' ' _-- i�._�.�����''��.1�,�`o__II..
ewxc. j
,�r�-- �` O �e '�� a,:
' I r� ^li- ��'���:a.�;a,o
z
__�� . . ... W n ��o'�.......[
c . _ ° � �!� �.. J
1
: �y a '
� <
�f, (�YCA- 'g I i � i < �: e
J.LJ,fe����Llj�:���• _�::��
�� � P�(° �?F �l',��� : '�' _P =
����� :- �..���
� A I'"11°i��� a a
� OOO �eo�0 � n�rs n
° �i ��!°LJ��131 °�e'oo�°e -°-�L"
' 4��Hhk'ao Y�N<l�Alf>I,g3
+TOOrooe oe � ����
xrnrn �i
..� 5 y
!
d
�
��
� �
�
�
�
� ��
� e
�
=
� �
_ �
� Q
:I
il
�
J�
''i�\v O �
� G
� �pK
� / O: �i lC `v�ll' �
� M� �` ��.
� •
C � J�
: � ; �
_� _ ,°-- q � o —
� o0
_— O �`-
�
c
_ �� � ._ � c�_ �
O �
� ���� ��._:: i , p � �J " +al
�' Ill�::li::� IrJ � i i J _
Ithi6:tl� ' I �-� G , ��\'�'' / 1� � t�
o � o i YI s
;I ii L i` i i��:i.�.i� � op O i �� ��� o� l j :�?
'� Y I�'tli':1:•:' • ° o : � ��� � . ' r
S � �
.� � � `
� F O � I �
� � _ . �c ` Q �
��- �,. .;:� ; :: : ; : �� � ( N
'�� v 'iih::::t. f.I�IIIE .: o , � �
.�:I ;!i�li:ilii!: i:'�'.'��In . O
• �� ILr- !1:':�:?'�7��.��i � \ . �.-.���
�
r.
�
�
�
•�� �
� �
��
��
mC
�;
H
L;) ��i:R
.���'� ���
: ;� ;�.;,:�. �'�
T i'-i:,�� ���
v�
� �'���
; � _,, ,— ;.�; � :.
.J�'•_` -•., i �
't�--1 Ii ='�
..a� g� tA�
��
�
�:
i !
� ��•
/'.
%�
� i
�
u_
1 (.�
� �
�
, � J
-1 �" .
;
C7
e
N -
' m�'
N
�
� �
�
�
APPUCANT -/ �• GR.t.j � �GfV K- � � l�e� �EGEND �
PURPOSE � t � G�{ l. �� zoning dis�ict boundary
�iLE # C�`� S DATE � Z d q� � subjec[ property �
P�NG. DIST� L v MAP # o one family ••^ commerc
� � twofamily � �� industriai
SCALE 1" = 400' �^`� f,.t' ¢.4 multipis family V vacant
� s--� ��
�
1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD
2. HAZEL PARK HADEN-PRdSPERTTY HILLCREST
3. WEST SIDE
4. DAYTON'S BLUFF
5. PAYNE-PHALEN
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
NORTH END
T'HOMAS-DALE
SUMMTT-UNIVERSITY
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE-MIDWAY
ST. AN'IT30NY PARK
MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE
MACALESTER GROVELAND
HIGHLAND ,
SUMMTT HILT. i
DOWNTOWN
� ZONING FILE � � s �
s�.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS
��
`�S_ 7`�
�
o�
Gomo Nark Ntcnlc Area
Pa�king Lot
Zoning code 62.108(C-7) �Safety
and convenience ofboth vehicu/a�
and pedestrian tra�a.. "
Picnic parking lot is inconsistent
with the Zoning Code & therefore
the Planning Commission erred in
approving the sight review plan. It
shouid be denied at this appeal.
3
Crime committed in Como
Park
Reported crime in Como Park has
increased 90%from 1993 to 1994.
85°/a of all crime in Como Park is theft
from automobiles.
90% of all theft from automobiles in
Como Park is committed in parking
lots.
a problein Yet?
The Planning Commission
erred and failed to
consider
1 Crime committed in Como
Park
2 Picnic area pedestrian
circulation and safety
�
7F�ft from,outo bv Qid far 1994
y 150
c
a 100
�U
C
w �
0
�
0
Conclusion:
62. 908(c-7) `Safety and con venience o
both vehicular& pedestrian tra�c..."
The ComoParkMasterP/an does not
even contain the word "CRIME
"CRIME" in Como Park's parking lots,
was not addressed in this sight plan.
The sight plan shou/d be denied.
Parking Lots need to be proactive in
their design so that Crime does not
become a common Como experience.
1
1 28 55 82109136163190217?A4
� ❑ Q7�5
�
`�S-`1`�y
The Planning Commission
erred and failed to
consider
♦ 1 Crime committetl in Como Park
♦2 Pedestrian circulation
and safety in picnic
area.
Pedestrian Circulation and
Safety
♦ Pedestrians unsafely crossing Midway
♦ New 90 degree cross walk.
♦ Children crossing Beulah Lane.
♦ Loss of Convenience for Picnickers.
♦ City paying Benshoof & Assoc. over
$20,000 to study parkinglcirculation
and notwaiting for the results. ,�
' 1
Pedestnans crossmg
Midway Avenue
♦ The north end of Beulah Lane is
curcently used extensively for over
flow parking for the Zoo,
Conservatory and amusement rides.
♦ Pedestrians will cross Midway at,
and between the two entrances of
the proposed lot rather then taking
advantage of t}�e new 90 degree
crosswaik.
�
i
`�S-��}�{
Kids Crossing Beulah Lane
♦ Restrooms on East side of Beulah.
♦ St Paul Parks & Rec. put a play
ground on the west side of Beulah.
♦ St. Paul Parks and Rec. tells us we
need this lot to Tix the dangerous
situation they created.
♦ This lot does nothing in these regards,
Beulah Lane remains open to tra�c.
�
3
9s-��y
r ,
Loss of Convenience to
Picnickers
♦ Picnickers wi�l be forced to carry their
picnic supplies much further to their
picnic area.
• Parents will no Ionger enjoy the safety
of having their kids step from the car
directly onto picnic area grass, as
currently available with on-street
parking.
�
_. •, .
... , �
.,: ;,
■... ::::.:
.�..c,._ .�-� � � -
•� ��
� . .
';:':"":<^\.�, � �
�c'"' --%_�
� �Sw�_.
3
�
�
O
�
O
�
�
a
0
rt
. �
-�i� �
3
• �j
�'� D
�� a�i
Benshoof & Associates
Benshoof & Ass. are being paid over
$20,000 of our tax money to study
parking and circulation in the west -
side of Como Park.
Butyet St. Paul Parks & Rec. is forarn
this lot in before we can reap the
benefits of this study which includes
safety.
Ad hoc committee meeting June
'15,'1995 Parks & Rec. staff said "......°
�
� s- ��y
The Proposed lot is
inconsistentwith the Como
Park Master Plan
♦ The proposed location is on the east
side of Beulah Lane rather than the
westside as shown in the plan.
Conservatory Lot
Master ' Proposedlot
Pian lot �
Midway Pkwy
�
�
ogether
Como Park Being the Winner
Please Listen
a%:�G,.....
;� :q::a
� � .��^`a
:: x � � � �
u'r u;
District 10 St. Paul U
Community Parks & Re�
�Z�J
�
�s-��y
3
t 3m, the iora .
W'e specsk ta
'� the Trees!Lr � -
L
..a^��'
�
s Let!
Does this mean that every time St.
Paui Parks & Rec. want to get
their way on a sight plan all they
have to do is "LeY' the contract
priorto getting the sightp/an
�eviewapproved. Then, threaten
Citizens and City Governmentwith
the negative consequences of
breakina the contract. n
0
�� � J —� `�
�.+�m�.
11M° ��! l ' .. �Y . �.�...';r. iJ.
Dist 1 - Como Community Council
June 23, 1995
Council President Dave Thune
3rd Floor City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Council President Thune:
This letter is to summarize the community's appeal to City Council to find
error with the Planning Commission's decision to approve a site plan for the
Como Park Picnic Area parking lot.
In the community's judgement, the Planning Commission erred in its
decision by failing:
• to find the site plan to be inconsistent with the Como Park Master Plan
(1984) and other adopted municipal planning documents which the
City is responsible for and authorized to carry out.
• to find the plan has adverse impact on natural resources.
, • in its responsibility and authority established in Minnesota Statutes
involving Municipal Planning and Development to find that this
project lacks planning sensitivity and fiscal responsibility.
• in its responsibility as set forth in the City's Administrative Code to
find the plan review process deficient in terms of maximizing citizen
participation.
There is a positive aspect to the appeal process, which we feel we have been
farced to undertake as the only means available to have important issues
seriously considered. This issue has invoked in Saint Paul citizenry a
renewed commitment to participate in the public process, so that the
preservation and enhancement of the City's valuable resources will continue
to make this city a significant regional asset.
What follows is a detailed document of the errors we have found in the fact,
finding and procedures of this process. We optimistically look forward to
resolution of these issues. We can hope that the site plan for the Como Park
picnic area parking lot is not approved, that a less environmentally intrusive
way will be found for parking picnickers' cars, that a more holistic planning
approach be adopted for the park and, finally, that the Parks and Recreation
1523 Como Avenue • St. Pau[ MN 55108 • 612-644-3889
june 23, 1995
Council President Thune
page 2
Division wiil be encouraged to more fully engage with the community in
promoting stewardship for all of the City's parks.
Sincerely,
Dennis O'Rourke
District Council President
Betsy Wehrwein
District 10 Como Park
Ad-hoc Committee Chair
Attachments
� �_-���
�c. Nancy Anderson
_ .�
,,,�: .,
���GD�RS� MA�� PGAi�_ �
YJAS R�4�f�p !1� I q S 6. �
ftl�Lo W 5 Us� oP O�p Go vKs�
1,p t F� Zm oJZ P� �_✓ ..
I.�. T-� %�i•
,
�
__ �1-
-, , , 4
_.�
3
�
'�';� �•
\,
IZIt.' �.
row�rv¢wr
, -
` ( ) PICNICKING ,
� `� - t �
i \
l�f)7�%' T�l�f �0� ►r�,MtOVed .1 �' ,. . � ° o
wl�n�► bw�a1 pta►� ,� .� �_.� --
a �n 198� A � •
j : � _ : ;��: �
1 rt- =
/ �-.
� '��� -
;�
� � n� i( a.�- I�
� .•
�:�--�..
-\� -.
� - �. - , � .,� ., cr � • � , .e
'� � � . _ i Lr
� �
i. ; ,�„�
� .`•..._, : � ,
..,-: ;;. . .._. ;
� w.t � -• :�,
� • ''�•� :' • ` • �
�i -�%��,� I`. i ,."
: �,,;--"L�
_ �
IjtKIMG' � � . �
� � �, �� " .� a
;�.
- � �,( , -
�� � .`.
.- . �..
� .: ::.:: _._ ��--•+ �
�'y.� . . . . . . . � .. • � - ■
, Y� �
3 ��_ ��
�
� ���
��
� i
� � sr�
d
.j
._ o
,
_ � �:.. a
' o°= o 0
�� 1. � ❑ rn O^'
�-� � q
�-�,. o o
S�
. . fl �
. �.
- - .: , ...` . � .. o a d
�
\ •; ` . [7 p p i
O �
�� � �-� ' �ii ��' ❑ �
� �. � I
Y[W F RI lf �' �}
� - ' (' •/� ' ✓ O
1�
.../ . . .
— • *� j
- -- -- — 1 �
.y_y �.- \
^ O �
�� °
f � Y�
�� v�
�--- -:
p
C{�j; Y /��
COMO PARK PLAN
.uur a, ueo
D�f —
COMO LAKE
MI.NYTGM
LEGEND
ONE NU4Y ROAD Q
� � �I�I�I�I�IMIN
� �►n� ...........
o� waY e�cE �r►na �,�
TWO WAY BRCE p1XT}� �,�••�
�
C�D TWO VW1Y
BYCE d� PEDESTRUIN �••�•�•�
P1QH
EXISTING ROADS/ _...""��—
PARKING TO BE REMOVED
�
_ •; �
..- i... �
� - �
.�. ' \^....� :-.
� �� �
' I�of11� Gtl/tNf��A TO
-t1�(o-W�Y TxAF�
W/tM ArfoPtroN oF"
199�} Gt9MQ �• MASTeF {'!'.Al�
�:
? :.�
g5- ��
CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT
The contents of this document are broken out into two parts. The first part,
immediately following, matches the April 19, 1995 Planning Commission
staff report, by point, against the community's response to each point. The
second part of the report presents the enors in procedures found by the
community. Threaded throughout this document is record of the written and
oral testimonies that have been omitted from serious consideration about
this issue concerning Como Park.
PART 1.
HISTORY OF THE PROJECT .............................................STAR'TING ON PAGE 02
PLANNING COMIvIISSION STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY�S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
DISTRIC'T COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION...........STARTING ON PAGE 12
PLANNIIVG COMIvIISSION STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY�S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FINDINGS ..............................STARTING ON PAGE 18
PLANNING COMIvIISSION STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY�S RESPONSE TO STAFF KEPORT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION .........................................STARTING ON PAGE 52
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY�S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
PART 2.
ERRORS IN PROCEDURES ..............................................STARTING ON PAGE 55
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION
LIEP AND PED
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
F. HISTORY:
1. Master Plan Work on the Como Pazk Master Plan was started
in 1979. The Master Plan was adopted in 1984 by the City Couttcil and
Metropolitan Council. Since the adoption of the Master Plan more
than $36 million of improvements have been made to the zoo,
conservatory, pavilion and other areas of the pazk.
One of the key issues addressed in the Master Plan is traffic and
circularion and parking. The plan calls for constructing a pazking deck
near the zoo and several new parking lots, closing/rerouting several
streets and initiating a shuftle trolley. The Master Plan calls for a 205-
car pazking lot near the intersection of Beulah Lane and Midway
Pazkway.
2. Grant for lot A grant for a smaller lot at this location was
approved by the Metropolitan Council in January 1993. Available
Regional Park funding dictated the smaller lot size. The City Council
passed a resolution accepting the grant in February 1993. The terms of
the grant agreement with the Meiropolitan Council require that the
project be completed by June 30, 1995. However, an extension of that
deadline may be requested.
3. Design and contract for lot Parks staff began design work on
the lot in October 1993 and submitted the site plan to the Planning
Division for site plan review in October 1994. In November staff
determined that the site plan met all technical requirements, such as
traffic safety and drainage subject to some minor revisions. Staff also
found that it was consistent with the 1984 Master Plan and notified
Parks that it intended to approve the site plan once the minor technical
revisions were made. Parks submitted revised plans on March 22, 1995,
that met all the technical issues raised in November by staff.
Bids for construction of the lot were advertised on October 29, 1994.
T`he bids were opened in November 1994. The date of the contract is
December 20, 1994. The contract calls for work on the parking lot to be
completed by May 26,1995 and the entire project to be completed by
June 15, 1995.
2
�5=��y
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
F. HISTORY:
1. Master Plan The report errs in stating that in the Como Park
Master Plan the 205-car parking lot is plotted to the west of Beulah
Lane, not to the east where this grove of trees stand.
2. Grant for lot The report errs in omitting to state
that the Metropolitan Council's Recreation Open Space Development
Guide/Policy Plan has specific policies on capital investment for
reimbursement of funds for which this project was rated. The highest
priority - for which this funding rated - includes "projects that provide
new facilities, rehabilitate facilities or increase capacity where there is
documented existing or projected high use, and where there will be no
adverse effect on the natural resource base." The proposed site plan
violates this policy priority in that a natural resource base will be
adversely effected, and if challenged, could result in the City not being
reimbursed for funds spent on this project, and therefore, this site plan
lacks fiscal responsibility.
According to Metropolitan Council staff, grants can be extended or
cancelled and reissued when requested as long as the project falls
within the scope of Met Council policies.
3. Design and contract for lot Staff erred in not reviewing this
plan within a larger context of significant redevelopment soon to be
impiemented in Como Park - including movement of amusement
rides, new picnic pavilion (possibly with other family shelters as weil),
large parking deck or surface parking near zoo, re-routing of Midway
Parkway, and the as yet unresoived Educational Resource Center.
Failing to consider this site plan within a more holistic context
indicates planning deficiency in looking to save the City money by
anticipating changes and in developing lands more wisely. Building
this parking lot first, without a full understanding of the holistic design
for this area of the park is like putting the wiring in a new house before
the framework is erected.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
F. HISTORY:
4. Communication with District 10 Parks staff inet with the
District 10 Community Council to present the site plan for the lot in
April and May 1994. District 10 sent a letter to parks in June 1994 saying
fihe board was "ardendy opposed" to the Iot and "sfrongly urges you to
consider the current proposal...Despite its reservations about the
proposal, the council will be sympathetic to it if it includes the
rehabilitation of green space eLsewhere." Pazks replied in June 1994
that while this lot would result in a loss of green space, it needed to be
looked at in light of the larger amount of green space that had been
added since the adoption of the Master Plan. District 10 sent another
letter to parks in January 1995 stating their "continued opposition" to
the lot.
4
g� 1��
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
F. HISTORY:
4. Communication with District 10 The report ens in omitting
key points made by District 10. In their January 1995 letter to Parks they
said:
As you know, you received a letter from L}istrict 10, dated June
2, stating our opposition to the construction of this lot because
of the net loss of green space. Additionally a significant dense
patch �f trees and undergrowth will be removed for this lot,
changing the character of this site. Your response of June 30
indicated that there would be a net loss of green space with this
project. You rationalized this loss by stating that since 1984
there has actually been a net increase of green space in Como
Park.
At District 10's October 10 board meeting, we were informed by
you and Mr. Wirka that a traffic and parking study will be done
on Como Park. We understand that the City has recently
retained Benshoof & Associates, Inc. to conduct a parking
survey.
Recently our council formed a Como Park ad hoc committee
because of the Beulah Lane issue and to look at other future park
plaruling and implementation. On Tuesday, January 17, this
group met with Parks and Rec staff to get more information on
the Beulah Lane lot. It was stated that the parking study
mentioned above is to be completed near the end of March, 1995.
Moreover, the money allocated for the Beulah Lane parking lot
is to be spent by the end of 1995. Repeatedly people questioned
why the Beulah Lane parking lot contract was signed prior to
obtaining the results of the parking study. It seems that there
would be time to withhold the building of this lot until after the
study is finished, and then sign the contract if it stili made sense.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
F. HISTORY:
4. Communication with District 10 (cont) Planning staff
routinely sends a copy of all site plan to the district council for
comments when one is submifted to the City for review. However, in
this case, District 10 says that it did not receive a copy and was not
awaze that the current site plan was being reviewed by staff until March
1995. District 10 subsequently requested that the Planning Commission
hold a public hearing on the site plan.
�� 5-� �1�-I
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
4. Communication wiEh Districf 10 (cont.) The report errs in
stating that comments were solicited when the site plan was sent. This
never happened. The site plan review cover letter which District 10
did receive only mentions about a staff ineeting and District 10 was
never invited to participate in this meeting or to offer input in the site
plan review at this level.
District 10 requested a public hearing because they felt they weren't
being considered as part of the site plan review process. In a letter to
the Planning Commission dated March 23, 1995, District 10 raises
important policy issues about this site plan, saying, "the project
deserves further evaluation because of the questions it raises about the
logic of the planning approach being taken to park improvements."
The letter goes on to say
in this instance, when a picnic area parking lot has been
designed before thoroughly understanding how vehicular and
pedestrian traffic will move through the area, what kind of
utilities and storm water management may be necessary, or
eyen where a new picnic pavilion will be located, we must ask
if this is a sound and responsible approach.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
F. HISTORY:
5. Current traffic study Parks Division is having a traffic study
done for Como Park to see if traffic numbers in the 1984 Master Plan
are still valid. The date of the RFP for the study is November 1994 and
an agreement with the consultant for the study was signed January
1R95. District 10 has established an Ad Hoc committee to work with
Parks on the study.
0
q5 7�I�
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
F. HISTORY:
5. Current traffic study First, this report ens in stating that a
traffic study is being done, when it is in fact a parking study. The
purpose of this siudy as outiined in its work swpe is "to verify, and
then modify as necessary, the Master Plan's pazking needs and
recommendations which account for the recent and future changes in
parking demand and available spaces in the west side of Como Park."
'The report neglects to state a main concern expressed by the
community, that the parking study be done, and the Parks Cominission
Ad Hoc Committee review it before further decisions are made.
Furthermore, this report errs in not stating that Beulah Lane is in the
parameters of the parking study. Mr. Piram in a lefter dated Apri120,
1995 to the Planning Commission addresses the parking study being
conducted by Benshoof and Associates: "the Beulah Lane Lot was a
'given' in Benshoof's study, as it was under contract before Benshoof's
contract went into effect." Please note that the date of Benshoof's work
plan is dated November 29, 1994, before the Beulah Lane contract was
signed. Furthermore, on February 2, there was a focus meeting with
Benshoof and Associates, Parks and Recreation and Districts 10 and 6
people regarding Phase 2 of Benshoof's work. At that meeting, Mr.
Benshoof was questioned about the work plan. Concerns were raised
about the lack of citizen participation in the project and what the
intention of the city was. The minutes of that meeting say the
following:
Benshoof responded by saying that first, he wanted to
sincerely hear the community and secondly, City staff wants
an independent study of this [parking needs] and reassured S.
Audette and others that this would be a fair study. Benshoof
responded to the part of the work plan that calls for
recommending surface lots and said that this refers to the
total context including what there is now, looking at
enlargements, reductions, [and] additions to one or multiple
lots.
In other words, Beulah Lane parking needs are to be considered in this
study.
F9
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
F. HISTORY:
6. Ad Hoc Committee In February 1995, the Parks Commission
voted unanimously to create a committee to develop "a recommended
site plan to guide the implementation and completion of Como Park's
improvements, in acrnrdance with the adopted 1984 Como Park Master
Plan." Topics to be looked at would inciude location of amusement
rides, location of the picnic pavilion and parking areas. However, at
the same meeting, a motion to delay construction of the Beulah
parking lot failed (3 in favor, 2 against, 2 abstaining).
10
� �-� ��
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
F. HISTORY:
6. Ad Hoc Committee The report errs in neglecting to indicate
that the Ad Hoc Committee was given, as part of its charge, a list of
future improvements that remain to be implemented about which the
Committee is to make recommendations. The list includes the Picnic
Area Parking Lot.
11
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
G. DISTRICT COi7NCIL RECOMMENDATION: The District 10 Como
Community Council reguested that the Plann;ng Commission hold a
public hearing on the site plan. In a letter dated Mazch 23, 1995, to the
Planning Commission they contend that the site plan does not meet
five of the findings required for site plan approval, as summarized
below. (See attached letters from District 10 and Pazks letter dated
March 28 in response.)
1. Removing trees for "the lot is not consistent with the 1984 Como
Pazk Master Plan stated 'Goal - Maintain and Improve Park Edges.
Objeciive 1.) Improve and protect existing buffers."' (Finding lJ
2. The pazking lot is not preseroing the historical characteristics of
... Como Park." (Finding 3)
3. Storm water drainage and the removal of existing trees which
act as a buffer will negatively affect neighboring land uses. (Finding 4)
4. 'The lot does not meet required standards for traffic safety.
(Finding 7)
5. The lot dces not meet required standards for storm water
drainage (Finding 8)
12
�5- h'� �
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The report errs in
that this is not District 10's recommendation. This letter, according to
Tom Beach, "is to be considered one of the neighbor's." District 10's
official response at the time that the staff report was written was not
addressed by the report. These concerns are found in District 10's
March 23, 19951etter:
In our view,_the project deserves furfiher evaluation because of
the questions it raises about the logic of the planning approach
being taken to park improvements. The Saint Paul Parks and
Recreation Commission has sufficient concerns as to have
recently created an ad hoc committee to review the Como Park
Master Plan.
From our interactions thus far with city staff, it would seem to
us that project planning and implementation is taking piace on
an incrementai basis, rather than within the context of a
comprehensive and holistic approach to park development. The
Como Park Master Plan has often been referred to by city staff
and members of the Park Commission as being "conceptual in
design", and project details have generally been done on a case
by case basis. To some extent this may be necessary in a planning
process, as funding is allocated in cycles. However, in this
instance, when a picnic area parking lot has been designed before
thoroughly understanding how vehicular and pedestrian traffic
will move tkixough the area, what kind of utilities and storm
water management may be necessary, or even where a new
picnic pavilion will be located, we must ask if this is a sound and
responsible approach.
Indeed, the plan and design of the proposed project seem to
contradict the Como Park Master Pian goals. Included in the goals
are desires to retain the unique character of the park, reduce traffic
volume, maintain and improve park buffers, provide for the safety
of the park users, provide for improved maintenance, and
maintain open spaces and intimate areas.
13
q����
COMMUNITI''S RESPONSE TO STAFF IZEPORT
G DISTRICT COLTNCIL RECOMMENDATION (cont)
Of the Como Park Master Plan's goals, a significant directive is to
preserve the current park atmosphere of the azea. The decision to
place a picnic area parking lot in this area will remove a grove of
trees. These trees and accompanying understory can be seen to
provide a natural enclosure and buffer for the current picnic area
from the odors, sites, sounds and traffic of the heavily traveled
Midway Parkway. City staff have referred to these trees as diseased
and dying while others have voiced the opinion that this small
intimate area represents an aspect of the park experience that
should be preserved. No further detaiLs of how to carry out this
goal are articulated in the 1984 adopted Como Park Master Plan,
however, this should be done before a project like this parking lot is
proposed. Transforming this corner of the park will have
repercussions on how Como Park will be experienced.
Environmental interest has expanded since the final adoption of
the Como Park Master Plan in 1984. Como Park is currently
without the benefit of an inventory of its geographic, historic
and cultural features. It is these enhancements that contribute
to the unique character of this historically designed landscape
that was originaily conceived as a key element in the city of Saint
Paul's park system. Since the Como Park Master Plan was
adopted, most restoration/preservation work has taken place on
sizable structures in the patk. There are subtie aspects of the
park that should be taken into consideration as well. It is
imperative that such a survey be undertaken before any other
new development take place. Park and Recreation staff have
commented that there is a delicate balance in Como Park.
Certainly this is true from an environmental perspective. We
should have a ciear understanding of what exists in the park
before we decide to alter or preserve it. Placement of the
proposed picnic area parking lot will once again alter the park
before we know what we have and how we want to treat it.
Vehicular and pedestrian traffic are already a concem in this
area. Extreme congestion exists, highlighting the need to have a
traffic and parking study done of this area that will describe
current directional distribution and suggest an optimai
circulation system. City staff are currently overseeing a parking
and circulation study of this area which is to be completed this
spring. T'his proposed parking lot has been designed without
taking the conclusion of this study into consideration.
15
�5
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
G. DISTRIC'T 10 RECOMMENDAT'ION (cont)
The increased maintenance for this proposed lot shouid be
reviewed. Providing for "vnproved maintenance should be
considered in the design aspect as well as being placed in the
operational context.
There are numerous safety concerns about this design. Whether
the south end of Beulah Lane should be ciosed and how closing
it or leaving it open will impact the picnicking area is not
known because the picnicking area has not been fully defined.
Furthermore, there is another parking lot almost straight across
Midway Parkway which may be altered in some way due to
possible road/surface lot changes. How these two lots facing
each other will affect vehicular and pedestrian safety has not
been addressed. 'I'he proposed removal of the forest, a natural
barrier, will open up a wide swath for people to cross Midway
Parkway in an uncontrolled way.
We hope that these comments will bring to light the need to
review this site plan more thoroughly. We have tried to keep
our concerns focused on issues relating to the P1amling
Commission's parameters, and offer them in the spirit of
mutual interest in the preservation and future use of Como
Park. We appreciate any way that you are able to assist.
Also, at the time of the Aprii 28, 1995 public hearing, District 10 passed
a resolution asking that "a moratorium be piaced on the Beulah Lane
parking lot project until a full study is completed of less
environmentally intrusive options for the project. We further ask that
the study of less environmentally intrusive options for the project
include options for renovation and reconfiguration of the Beulah Lane
parking Lot to protect the existing trees in Como Park from damage or
destruction."
17
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. . FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Planning Commission si�all consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with_
1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and deaelopment or
project plans for sub-areas of the city.
The site plan is consistent with the Como Park Master Plan adopted in
1984. One of the goals of this plan is to "increase parking facilities".
The plan says that this part of the pazk has a shortage of pazking and
calls for a 205-car parking lot in this area.
District 10 pointed out that another goal of the plan is to maintain and
improve park edges and buffers. However, several references in the
Master Plan indicate that the concerns about buffers aze primarily
focused on the edges of the park where the intent is to minimize the
impact of the park on near[b]y residential areas. Objective 2 under this
goal is to "provide buffers between pazk and residential areas even in
areas where they do not presently exist " A plan on page 27 of the
Master Plan that identifies buffers does not show the existing area of
trees where the lot would go.
�
c��,-���-
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Planning Commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or
project plans for sub-areas of the city.
The report errs in not referring to the current comprehensive plan
adopted March 21, 1985. Entitled A Plan for Parks and Recreation, one
of three major policy areas that it addresses is the Open Space System.
The first policy under this area of the plan says:
The natural resources of the city's regional parks should be more
fully utilized for programs focusing on nature and ecological
systems which appeal to residents of all ages.
This parking lot plan draws away from the natural and ecological
significance of Como Regional Park and is not consistent with Open
Space System Policies.
A common characteristic regarding Open Space Systems identifies:
The existing flora and fauna in some regional parks provide
a rich, and as yet untapped, resource for natural
interpretation program. The city should explore ways to take
advantage of these unique resources.
In this site plan, the unique resource of flora and fauna is being
removed.
Chester J. Mirocha a Professor of Plant Pathology at the University of
Minnesota, in a letter submitted to the Plamting Commission says:
"the trees are valuable...and from the academic point of view,
serve as a reservoir to teach students the identity of native
hardwood species".
The second Parks Plan Open Space Policy states:
T`he city should continue to pursue means whereby regional
funds may be used to supplement the present operating
funds provided by the city for the operation and maintenance
of regional parks.
19
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Planning Commission shall consider and find that the site
plart is consistent with:
1. The city's adopted comprehensiDe plan and development or
project plans for sub-areas of the city.
Please see page 18
20
Ci5 �) �
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, fihe Planning Commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and deaelopment or
project pTans for sub-areas of the city. (cont.)
This plan jeopardizes the funding received from the Metropolitan
Council. In receiving CII' money from the Metropolitan Council,
Como recurringly ranks as a high priority for funding because it fits
into the Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan Policy
6(Development and Redevelopment Priorities), Number 1 which is:
Projects that provide new facilities, rehabilitate facilities or
increase capacity where there is documented existing or
projected high use, and where there will be no adverse effect
on the natural resource base.
This proposed parking lot violates this Metropolitan Council policy in
that it will have an adverse effect on the natural resource base.
Secondly, the report errs in failing to present an objective view of the
Como Park Master Plan. This site plan is not consistent with the Como
Park Master Plan as adopted in 1984 for the following reasons:
Staff erred in neglecting to state other goals of the Como Park Master
Plan that District 10 has referred to. In the March 23, 1995 letter from
District 10, some goals of the Master Plan include "desires to retain the
unique character of the park, reduce traffic volume, maintain and
improve park buffers, provide for the safety of the park users, provide
for improved maintenance, and maintain open spaces and intimate
areas." Furthermore, members of the community, aligned with
District 10 brought many aspects of the Master Plan to the Planning
Commission and stafFs attention, and yet they are not considered in
the report, or in the final resolution as passed by the Planning
Commission.
Staff only comments on the argument of whether this grove of trees is
to be considered a buffer or not, and yet staff refers to these trees as a
"vegetative buffer" in its own report (under Finding 7) to the Planning
Commission; it is hard to not refer to these trees as having a buffering
effect in the park.
21
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Planning Commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and deaelopmettt or
project plans for sub-areas of the city.
Please see page 18
22
c{5-+� U �
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Planning Commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
1. The city's adopted comprehensiae plan and development or
project plans for sub-areas of the city. (cont.)
The parking lot site plan plan is inconsistent with the following goals
of the Como Park Master Plan (CPMI'):
CPMP GOAL 1: ADOPT A DESIGN PHILOSOPHY WHICH
WILL CREATE A PARK ATMOSPHERE WHICH REINFORCES
AND RETAINS THE UNIQUE CHARACTER, HISTORICAL
SIGNIFICANCE AND MANY UNUSUAL ATTRIBUTES OF
COMO PARK.
This parking lot design doesn't carry out one aspect of this goal. This
goal creates the definitive vision for the park, and yet this design lacks
sensitivity to the historical, cultural and environmental reasons that
make Como Park the asset that it is to the City and the region. The
character of the park will be significantly lost by the placement of this
lot as proposed and people's experience with the park will be altered.
A parking lot is not an unusual attribute of Como Park and so
preserving an historically significant grove should take
precedent, especially when there are alternative designs which
would protect the resource and yet accommodate the demand.
Parks and Recreation did not design this parking lot while
keeping this perspective of the Master Plan in mind.
CPMP GOAL 2: PROVIDE A UNIFIED AND HARMONIOUS,
TOTAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY, OBJECTIVE 4.
PRESERVE EXISTING PARK FLORA AND FAUNA
58 trees over 5" in diameter, and an unspecified number under 5"in
diameter will be removed. This will destroy the grove of trees in this
area of the park, and set a precedence for further removal of this
natural resource. This plan in no way preserves existing park flora and
fauna.
CPMP GOAL 2: PROVIDE A UNIFIED AND HARMONIOUS,
TOTAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY, OBJECTIVE 10. RELATE
PARKING TO CORRESPONDING ACTIVITIES -
This parking lot is going in prior to an understanding of where
picnicking facilities will be placed.
23
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Planning Commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or
project plans for sub-areas of the city.
Please see page 18
i�!
g�
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSB TO STAFF REPORT
H. FTNDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Planning Commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and deaelopment or
project plans for sub-areas of the city.
The parking lot site plan plan is inconsistent with the following goals
of the Como Park Master Plan (CPMP) (cont.):
CPMP GOAL 3: REDUCE TRAFFIC VOLUME, INCREASE
PARKING FACILITIES, AND ELIMINATB CIRCULATION
CONFLICT AREAS
First, how can traffic volume be reduced and parking facilities be
increased at the same time, without moving the increased parking
facilities off-site from the park? This goal is in conflict with itself
otherwise.
Secondly, in order to eliminate circulation conflict areas, there must be
an understanding of current directional distribution and suggest and
optimal circulation system. The traffic plan done for the Master Plan is
dated 1981. Currendy there is a parking study being done that willlend
updated information and perspectives on such concerns. This parking
lot is planned to go in without having the results of that study
completed.
The report errs in stating that the Master Plan says nothing of the sort
that this parking lot is to make up for a shortage of parking. The
decision to add more surface lots in Como Park (the Master Plan calls
for a total of 1183 parking spaces to be added) was made because the
Master Plan calls for the moving of on-street parking to surface lots. In
fact, the Master Plan calls for reducing the number of parking spaces in
the Conservatory's lot. The Master Plan states:
The parking criteria established by the advisory Committee for
Como Park is to remove on-street parking from park roads and
to locate adequate parking areas conveniently adjacent to each
park facility and use area.
According to the Master Plan, it says, the final parking lot plan was
developed by the City of Saint Paul as part of the assignment of space
for park uses.
25
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Plannuig Commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and deaelopment or
project plans for sub-areas of the city.
Please see page 18
26
���� � �
COMMUNITI''S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Planning Commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consiseent with:
1. The city's adopted comprehensiae plan and development or
project plans for sub-areas of the city.
The parking lot site plan plan is inconsistent with the following goals
of the Como Park Master Plan (CPMP} (cont.):
CPMP GOAL 4. MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE PARK EDGES
AND BUFFERS
These trees will not be improved or protected with this proposed plan.
CPMP GOAL 5. PROVIDE FOR THE SECURITY AND
SAFETY OF THE FACILITIES, PARK USERS AND
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY
The Master Plan calls for the closing of Beulah Lane and yet this site
plan calls for Beulah Lane to remain open with a DEAD END sign
being installed at the Horton end. Beulah Lane street traffic would not
only continue to pass through the picnic area and the restrooms, but
would funnel through this parking lot as well, causing extreme
congestion problems.
CPMP GOAL 6. PROVIDE FOR IMPROVED MAINTENANCE
WITHOUT SACRIFICING PARK CHARACTER AND
AESTHETICS
Maintenance is not improved with this lot and the park character and
aesthetics has been sacrificed.
CPMP GOAL 7. MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE
UNSTRUCTURED SPACES SUCH AS OPEN ° MEADOWS�� AND
SMALL INTIMATE AREAS WHICH WILL COMPLIMENT
INTENSIVE USE AREAS.
This small intimate area will not be maintained nor improved, but
eliminated.
27
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
A. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Plann;ng Commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
1. The city's adopfed comprehensiae plan and deaelopment or
project plans for sub-areas of the city.
Please see page 18
A commiftee was created in February 1995 by the Parks Commission to
look at the details of implementing the Master Plan on the west end of
the pazk. However, the grant was approved for the lot in early 1993
and the design work began in the fall of 1993. In February 1995 the
Parks Commission failed to approve a motion to delay construction of
the parking lot for the outcome of the ad hoc committee's siudy.
m
g�-�y�l
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Planning Commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and deaelopment or
project plans for sub-areas of the city.
The parking lot site plan plan is inconsistent with the following goals
of the Como Park Master Plan (CPMP) (cont.):
CPMP GOAL 8. CREATE A MORE FUNCTIONAL
PICNICKING SYSTEM
This goal is not being carried out because the picnic area is being
planned and 'unplemented on an incremental basis, rather than within
the context of a comprehensive and holistic approach to park
development. This picnic area paxking lot has been designed before
thoroughly understanding how vehicular and pedestrian traffic will
move through the area, or even where a new picnic pavilion will be
located. This is not a sound and responsible approach.
The City received funding in 1992 to construct a picnic pavilion and
parking deck or surface lot in the zoo/conservatory area In 1993 they
were awarded money to provide surface parking for the picnic area.
These two projects were awarded at least two years ago, and yet these
projects are not being incoxporated into a unified design.
The Parks Commission Chair, Jill Danner, while speaking at the
Planning Commission public hearing of April 28, she said that the
main reason that the Park Commission did not vote for a delay was
because of liability concems for the City.
29
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
2. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul
The parking lot complies with all applicable ordinances
3. Preseraation of unique geologic, geographic or historically
significant characteristics of the city and environmentaliy sensitiae
areas.
The site plan shows 58 trees as well as understory vegetation would be
removed for the proposed parking lot. The vegetation screens the
picnic area from the conservatory parking lot and may provide shelter
for some wildlife. However, any location chosen for a lazge parking lot
in this part of tFie park would require removing a significant number
of trees.
Parks staff had the City Forester look at the condition of the trees to be
removed. The City Forester found that of the 59 trees shown on the
site plan to be removed, 38 are diseased. In addition, most of the
understory vegetation is Buckthorn. Buckthorn is considered a
noxious, invasive species and Parks staff is trying to eliminate it from
the park where possible. The plan ca1Ls for planting 50 new trees, 327
shrubs and over 2,200 perennials to compensate for the existing trees
and vegetation that would be removed.
30
q�-�►�I�
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the Planning Commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
2. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul
The parking lot complies with all applicable ordinances
3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically
significant characteristics of the city and environmentally sensitive
areas.
First, the report errs in failing to state that the site plan is not consistent
with this finding. Planting new trees may be a quantitative
compensation for loss, but has nothing to do with preservation.
Secondly, the report errs in its statement that any other location chosen
for such a lot would require removing the same significant number of
trees. 'The adopted Como Park Master Plan shows this lot to be located
on the west side of Beulah Lane, instead of this proposed east side
location. To the west are the pony rides, miniature golf and an old
concession building that is currently being used as a maintenance shed.
Although there are some good park quality trees in this area - as there
are in this grove slated for removal - the number of trees here is
certainly not as significant.
Furthermore, the report errs in its perspective of the significance that
park users have placed on these trees. The proposed parking lot will
take away from the very character that draws people to Como Park, by
displacing a mature thicket and canopy trees with a surface parking lot.
There are other ways of providing parking and access to the picnic area
that would preserve the existing vegetation. With this proposed plan,
preservation of this resource does not take precedence over
development, even though it's possible to do so using other less
environmentally intrusive designs.
31
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
3. Preseraation of unique geologic, geographic or historicaily
significant characteristics of the city and environmentalty sensitive
areas.
Please see page 30
K�a
�1� 7��
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planr,;,,g commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
3. Preseroation of unique geologic, geographic or historically
significant characteristics of the city and enaironmentally sensitiae
areas (cont.).
The report errs in not finding these trees to be significant from an
historical point of view. In the Master Plan, a copy of the Fred
Nussbaumer design map of Como Park (ca. 1891) shows a natural grove
of izees in the area of the proposed parking lot. Mr. Nussbaumer's
design is a slight modification of the original H.W.S. Cleveland plan,
dated 1889. Although the trees here today may not be the same ones as
were here at the turn of the century, their natural characteristic is
similar.
The report also errs in not attributing value to the trees from an
environmental point of view. Background information on the
condition of the trees in terms of how many are diseased and dying has
been getting better since this lot was first proposed back in Spring 1994.
In June '94 it was 90%, in January, 1995 it was 60% and in February 1995
it was 50% (Parks and Rec Division numbers).
Furthermore, the report ens in its assessment of this grove as a natural
resource. Wildlife in this area will not be preserved without this stand
of trees. According to Greg Juenemann, an expert on wildlife
management who has been employed at the DNR and 3M, and whose
recommendations have been adopted by the U.S.Forest Service for ail
national forests, states:
The fact that there are some dead and dying trees is, in fact,
desirable from an ecological standpoint. "Park quality trees"
which are often most highly desired by urban foresters, do not
provide the variety of habitat as that of a wild area with dead and
dying trees. Red-headed woodpeckers, for example - whose
numbers are way down - use dead and dying trees both for nesting
and for food as they feed upon the insects that i�-thabit such trees.
Current thinking suggests that removal of dead and dying trees
removes a reservoir for insects. When insects are deprived of that
habitat, they may escape into the larger environment to the
detrunent of healthier trees and other plant life.
33
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
3. Preseraation of unique geologic, geographic or historically
significant characteristics of the city and environmentally sensitiae
areas.
Please see page 3Q
34
��-h��
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically
significant characteristics of the city and enaironmentally sensitive
areas (cont.).
'i'his natural woods has several layers of canopy, which provides
migration and nesting cover for many kinds of birds. The woods
provide a nice mixture of trees - black cherry, hackberry, and
others - that provide a variety of foods. Often times, during
harsh weather, these trees will be the only food source available.
While there is an undergrowth of buckthorn, which is an
undesirable species, it can be eradicated by measures short of
cutting down the whole wild area.
I see several problems with the proposed parking lot. First, the
area and its landscaping will not be conducive to the
maintenance of wildlife populations. The trees that will be
planted do not offer nearly the wealth of habitat offered by the
woods as they presently stand. Virtually all dead wood will be
removed, taking away a food and nesting resource for a
declining species - the red-headed woodpecker - and other insect
eating birds. Hemerocallis, which wilt be ptanted throughout
much of the area, is attractive primarily to humans, not to birds
or other wildlife with the possible exception of hummingbirds.
An impervious parking lot, which prevents water from draining
into the soil, will diminish both worm and insect populations
upon which birds feed.
35
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically
significant characteristics of the cify and environmentally sensitive
areas.
Please see page 30
36
�1�J"h �i �l
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically
SigYLt ficant characteristics of the city and ettvironmentally sensitive
QYQQS (COttf.).
Furthermore, the report errs in taking into consideration that
environmental interest has expanded since the final adoption of the
Como Park Master Plan in 1984. Como Park is currently without the
benefit of an inventory of its geographic, historic and cultural features.
It is these enhancements that contribute to the unique character of this
historically designed landscape that was originally conceived as a key
element in the city of Saint Paul's park system. Since the Como Park
Master Plan was adopted, most restoration/preservation work has
taken place on sizable structures in the park. There are subtle aspects of
the paxk that should be taken into consideration as well. It is
imperative that such a survey be undertaken before any other new
development take place, including such a parking lot. Park and
Recreation staff have commented that there is a delicate balance in
Como Park. Certainly this is true from an environmental perspective.
We should have a clear understanding of what exists in the park before
we decide to alter or preserve it. Placement of the proposed picnic area
parking lot will once again alter the park before we know what we
have and how we want to treat it.
37
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically
significant characteristics of the city and environmentally sensitive
areas.
Please see page 30
38
��-���
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the plannulg commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
3. Preseraation of unique geologic, geographic or historically
significant characteristics of the city and enaironmentally sensitive
areas (cont.).
The report also errs in not taking into account other published city
documents that relate to the City's environmental issues. Although
the Parks and Recreation chapter of the City's draft comprehensive
plan has not been adopted, there have been technical papers published
by the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation
Commission that identify issues for updating the Parks and Recreation
element of the Comprehensive Plan. Some considerations in
Technical Paper #1 Open Space and Natural Resources in the Saint
Paul Park System (5/93) which relate to the proposed parking lot in
Como Park are:
• Open space is more specifically defined as "open fields, forests, and
lawns."
• Open space includes the "'preserve' type areas that are left in a more
natural state."
• Open space provides natural habitat for plants and wildlife,
modifies the urban environment and provides psychological
soothing relief, and influences the physical form and appearance
of the City.
• Open spaces should be protected, maintained or enhanced
because it is a lunited resource that is threatened by
increasing development pressures.
• Balancing resource protection and recreational demands is a
major issue for the City.
• Preserving and protecting existing trees and replacement of
old and diseased trees is essential to maintain a balance
continuum.
This wildlife area should be preserved because there are other design
aiternatives possible that are less environmentally intrusive.
Ki�
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF IZEPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
4. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through
reasonable provisions for such matters as surface water drainage,
sound and sight buffers, preserqation of views, lighf and air, and those
aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring
land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Drainage meets required
standazds. Existing vegetation to the west buffers the lot from
neighboring homes across Hamline Avenue.
40
G5-n��
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: SecEion 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the plannulg commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
4. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through
reasonable provisions 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 report errs in failing to conclude this site plan is not consistent
with this finding. Adjacent and neighboring properties are not only
neighboring homes. The report neglected to reiterate (as in Finding 3)
that this vegetation screens the picnic area from the conservatory
parking lot. This grove absorbs sound and is aesthetically pleasing to a
wider area of the park than just the land that it is situated on.
Removing this grove will remove an intimate area of the park that
compliments an intensive use area. This grove contributes to the
park's aesthetics, property value, comfort level (cooling shade) and air
quality (carbon-oxygen exchange).
Drainage may meet required standards for the parking lot, but there
can't be an understanding of what the area surface water run off needs
will be when the surrounding area has not been fully designed (i.e.
placement of amusement rides, picnic pavilion, etc.)
41
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
A. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed
deaelopment in order to assure abutting property and/or its occupants
will not be unreasonably affected.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The proposed parking lot
in 750' from the neazest private property and will not unreasonably
affect neighboring properties.
6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and
lacation, orientation and elevation of structures.
The site plan is consistent with tivs finding. 'The most important
energy conservation measure in designing a parking lot is to provide
shade for paved surfaces. The proposed lot would be landscaped with
50 new trees.
42
�-7u�1
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed
deaelopment in order to assure abutting property axd/or its occupants
will not be unreasonably affected.
This site plan cannot be consistent with this finding because the
arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities in and around the picnic
area has not been placed in a design context.
6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and
location, orientation and elevation of structures.
The report errs in assuming that the new, younger plantings proposed
in this site plan are part of a more energy saving design for Como Park
than which the current trees offer.
43
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
7. Safety and conaenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both
within the site and in relation to access streets, including traffic
circulation features, the locafions and design of entrances and exits and
parking areas within the site.
Staff from Public Works Engineering Section reviewed the site plan for
the pazking lot last November and found that it is consistent with this
finding. Public Works staff noted several improvements for auto
circulation with the proposed lot: the angle intersection of Beulah Lane
and Midway will be eliminated and the parking lot will be better
defined and no longer accessed from a through street. The proximity of
the east driveway for the proposed lot to the driveway of the
conservatory lot, mentioned by District 10, will not be a problem since
the new driveway will be for exit only.
Public Works staff also found that the pedestrian crossing at the traf�ic
light will be improved by eliminating the intersection with Beulah.
They did not find that eliminating the vegetative buffer would be a
safety problem for pedestrians.
!i]
�5�y�
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both
within the site and in relation to access streets, including traffic
circulation features, the locations and design of entrances and exits and
parking areas within the site.
The report fails to mention that there is currently a Como Park parking
study being done which wili address this finding. This site plan cannot
be consistent with traffic and parking needs of Como Park because there
is an unfinished study going on which has broad implications on how
traffic and circulation will be affected in Como Park. The scope of the
parking study includes:
Identification and evaluation of current conditions and future needs.
Outcomes:
• Identify of current parking demand and use by location, time, and
characteristics of users
• Develop current parking demand, in range context, for four typical
time periods (weekday, evening, weekend, and special event days)
• Analyze current conditions and parking demand in the context of
the current Como Park master planning framework
• Develop future parking demand including all planned facilities, in
a range context, for the four time periods
• Broad range of ideas and alternatives for current and future
parking including:
- investigate desirability, need, and safety of on-street parking
- research examples for parking/shuttle systems in public
recreational settings similar to Como Park
- investigate desirability, needs, safety, costs, and aesthetics of a
parking deck option
- locate and investigate suitability of potential off-site remote
parking facilities.
45
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4I19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the plann;ng commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both
within the site and in relation to access streets, including traffic
circulation features, the locations and design of entrances and exits and
parking areas within the site.
Please see page 44
�
�� ny�l.
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the plannutg commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic
both within the site and in relation to access streets, including traffic
circulation features, the locations and design of entrances and exits and
parking areas within the site (cont.).
• Develop a preliminary parking plan for the west side of Como
Park. This plan will clearly define items relating to routing, access,
continuity, aesthetic appeal, accommodating a wide variety of
users, minimizing conflicts, and practical implementation.
Outcomes include
• Recommend surface parking lot locations and sizes
• Recommend location, size, and provisions for on-street parking in
Como Park and remote parking outside of Como Park
• Recoinmend other alternatives as appropriate such as parking
deck, shuttle services, etc.
• Determine roadway, bikeway, and walkway changes for support
and access needs for the parking alternatives
The report also fails to consider other criteria as set by the City for such
a project. Sec. 62.108.(b)(4) states
For parking facilities, the city traffic engineer or planning
administrator may require submission of a traffic analysis as part
of the site plan application. Such an analysis shall include, but
not be limited to, the following elements: trip generation,
directional distribution, traffic assignment and capacity analysis.
Such analysis is being undertaken in the parking study for Como Park,
and yet it is not asked for in this site review process, nor is the City
waiting for the results of this study for consideration in this site plan
proposal.
47
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
8. The satisfactory aDailability and capacity of stornz and sanitary
sewers, including solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the
deaelopment.
Staff from Public Work Sewer Engineering Section reviewed the plan
for the parking lot last November and found that it is consistent with
this finding. The situation for storm water drainage is unusual since
the only storm sewer available is located 600 feet to the south in
Horton Avenue. 'The sewer drains to Como Lake as do most of the
storm sewers in the area azound the lake.
T'he system proposed by Parks would d'uect water from most storms to
an underground storage tank where it could infiltrate back into the
ground. During heavy rain storms, water that could not be
accommodated by the underground system would flow to Midway
Parkway and down the street ta the storm sewer in Horton and
eventually to Como Lake.
9. Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to
meet the aboae objectiaes.
The site is consistent with this finding. The plan calls for planting 50
new trees, 327 shrubs and over 2,200 perennials to compensate for the
trees that would be removed.
The proposed lot will uutially increase the amount of parking spaces in
the park by about 60 spaces. In the long term, the Master Plan calls for
closing Beulah Lane south of the proposed lot. 4Vhen this occurs the
total number of spaces in the lot will be roughly equal to the present
number of spaces in the existing lot and on the street in Beulah Lane.
!f3
�5 ��I �
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the plann;ng commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
8. The satisfactory aaailability and capacify of storm and sanifary
sewers, including solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the
development.
The report errs in finding that drainage may meet required standards
for the parking lot, bttt there can't be an understanding of what the area
surface water run off needs will be when the surrounding area has not
been fully designed (i.e. placement of amusement rides, picnic
pavilion, etc.) Furthermore, in addressing any drainage problems in
the area, sewer separation has not been done in the conservatory/zoo
area. This means that not only this parking lot eventually runs into
Lake Como, but that all the overflow waters from this area end up in
Lake Como as well. The report omits in noting if a solution to this
problem has been suggested as part of this process.
9. Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to
meet the above objectives.
The report errs in stating that according to the Master Plan a 205 car lot
is necessary in this area to provide adequate parking for the picnicking
area. Also, some other barrier (naturai or man made) will need to be
erected where this lot borders Midway Parkway as the current plan will
not prevent people from taking the shortest route to the conservatory/
zoo entrance, namely straight across Midway Parkway from where this
lot's proposed location is. Perhaps a wilding natural thicket with
canopy trees could be suggested.
49
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
H. FTNDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site
plan is consistent with:
10. Site accessibiIity in accordance wiEh fhe provisions of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger
loading zones and accessible routes.
The site is consistent with this finding. ADA standards call for four
accessible parking spaces for a lot of this size and these have been
provided next to an accessible route.
11. Proaision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the
"Ramsey Erosion Sediment and Control Handbook."
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Erosion control measures
and street sweeping will be provided as needed during construction.
50
q�-��i�
COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
H. FTNDINGS: Section 62.108(c) states that "in order to approve the site
plan, the planning commission shall consider and tind that the site
plan is consistent with:
10. Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including parking spaces,
passenger loading zones and accessibTe routes.
The report errs to note that the handicap parking spaces are located
furthest from the picnic area and closest to the zoo/conservatory area.
T'he purpose of this lot is to provide surface parking for the picnic area.
11. Proaision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the
"Ramsey Erosion Sediment and Controi Handbook."
Erosion control measures and street sweeping will be provided as
needed during construction.
51
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4/19/95
L STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1-11, staff
recommends approval of the site pIan.
52
�� � ��
COMMUNTTY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
L STAFF RECOMMENDAT`ION: The report ens to conclude that
based on findings 1-11, the recommendation should be to deny
approval of the site plan.
53
��-� ��
ERRORS IN PROCEDURES
PARKS AND RECREATION PLANNING, COMMUNICATION AND ACCOUNI'ABILITY
Parks and Recreation ened in establishing parameters for the design of this
parking lot without taking into consideration current environmental
thinking, the opuuons of citizens or even the goaLs of the Como Park Master
Plan. 'They spent money on a design and then on a construction contract for a
parking lot, and then said they couldn't change the design because it would
cost the taxpayers money. And all of this before the site plan was approved.
Parks and Recreation made a major procedural error in signing the contract
for the construction of the parking lot before the site plan had been approved.
This leads District 10 to ask, is all someone has to do in the city to get their
way, is spend money and then say you can't go back? One commissioner
asked during the Zoning Committee meeting "what are the implications of a
City staff person signing a contract before a site plan has been approved by
staff or by the committee?" 'These questions have not been answered to
District 10's satisfaction to date and need to be from a policy perspective.
Parks and Recreation erred significantly in not seriously considering District
10's concerns in the review process for this plan. In spring 1994, even though
District 10 opposed the design for the lot on the grounds that trees and green
space would be lost, Parks and Recreation never entered into dialogue with
District 10 about consideration of aiternative designs. Not until Parks and
Recreation realized that a public hearing with the Planning Commission was
going to be requested was there any dialogue, and then Parks and Recreation
was only willing to look at slight modification to the existing design instead
of other design options. These modifications were seen as a less than serious
attempt to decrease the environmentai impact.
A strong perception persists in the community that the Parks and Recreation
Division is insensitive to preservation issues. T`hey continue to refuse to see
the value of the stand of trees in the proposed parking lot area. This may be
understandable when you consider the same Division has also questioned the
significance of other historical sites in the park, such as the Conservatory's
frog pond and the picnic area's Craftsman style restroom building.
SAINT PAUL PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION & DISTRiCT 10 RELATIONSHIP
Any review that the Parks Commission did in regards to this project for
Como Park had no tie with District 10. Part of the activities called for in the
Administrative Code assigns the Parks Commission to hold joint meetings
with other groups of similar interest, and to conduct all business in such a
55
ERRORSIN PROCEDURES
manner as to encourage and utilize maximum citizen participation. Pazk
Commissioners knew about detaiLs relating to this parking lot project that
District 10 had secured from other sources. If District 10 had ben involved in
reviewing and commenting on this project at the predesign and planning
stage, there would have been an opporiunity to consider both sides in a fair
and open process.
PLANNING COMMISSIONS RESPONSIBILITY
The Planning Commission failed to save money by anticipating planning
changes and assist in developing lands more wisely as authorized in
Minnesota Statutes. Concerns raised about the need for a holistic park design
(including placement of the picnic pavilion, parking deck, movement of
amusement rides, and picnic area pazking lot and incorporation of present
parking study) were not acknowledged by a majorify of commissioners and is
not reflected in theix minutes.
The Planning Commission failed to conduct its business in such a manner as
to encourage and utilize ma�num citizen pazticipation. One
Commissioner's comment in the Zoning Committee meeting said "he is
frustrated because this issue should have been addressed last fall. He said
Disisict 10 did not come forward, at least to his knowledge until this spring
after the contract has been let, the plans aze designed,...." Another
Commissioner "hoped that compromise could be reached." But then went
ahead and said "Parks and Recreation wants us to vote on this today up or
down" without taking into consideration of what the community wants.
The minutes of the May 12, 1995 Planning Commission meeting fail to record
comments that commissioners made on behalf of the citizenry. All that the
the minutes say is "Some commissioners volunteered their reasons for
voting as they did at the zoning wmmittee meeting; some expressed their
hope for compromise." The following comments were transcribed from a
tape of the meeting.
Commissioner Wencl made comments about the draft of new Parks and
Recreation Plan. "I find it ironic. Objeciive 1 says 'To encourage protection,
preservation and regeneration of the city's open space and natural resources.'
The City recently forgave a large amount of bad loan dollars. T`he figure that
we are talking about here shouldn't break us one way or another. We need to
talk about policies that are important here. What we have here are people
willing to speak for those who have no voice."
56
�15= I �I�I
ERRORS IN PROCEDURES
Commissioner Geisser commented "Nobody here is speaking on behalf of
District 10. Is staff just suppose to be presenting the Parks Division side or is
staff suppose to be basically saying 'so this is what was resolved between the
community and between the city department dealing with a city park that is
public property', and I'm disturbed about this. I can't understand why."
Commissioner Treichel was concemed about there not being a level playing
field. "T'hey certainly came in late in the day, whether their reasons were
legitunate or not I don't think I have the skills to determine that. They said
that many of them did not know about this. That is both possible and in
some cases probable. They now are negotiating with a city department that
has far more expertise than citizens have - heaven knows I hope they do and I
trust they do. I think to now say in the middle of their meetings that never
mind, we're going to go with the city just makes the field not only unlevel
but makes it unpossible for the citizens to present their view point. From
what I heard I don't think the city is liable, but I haven't heard anybody say
'By golly, the city is going to go down the tube on this economically.' I think
there are all sorts of ways that we can extend this contract which of course
baffles me as to why we would make a major investment if in that spot all
we're going to gain is 2[parking spaces]. The other issue I call attention to is
the vehicular and pedestrian traffic and my understanding is that there is a
plan currently under study and once again, if we're coming into the middle
and we don't have a finalized plan as to traffic direction why are we planting
a parking lot that may force traffic to go a certain way. It seems to me we
reaily don't have answers to this....There are committees now working on
these issues and it seems to me it is not fair to the process to come into the
middle and we'll have another one of these things that we plop something
down in the wrong place that should not be there."
The Planning Commission failed to heed what we consider were important
policy issues presented to them in regards to this site plan review. One
commissioner said he was not in favor of the Planning Commission doing
the site plan for this project, and he wished that staff had dealt with this.
Another commissioner said this process "seems like torture." One
Commissioner said it's "always better for parties involved to settle this case -
parties have had ample time to settle this case." This comment was made
after citizens repeated said how they had not been allowed into the process
until the public hearing before the Planning Commission.
57
ERRORS IN PROCEDURES
'The Planning Commission failed to keep its review of the site plan in
accordance with the criteria set out in the zoning code. In fact, many
members became fixed on the fact that the contract had been let and only
addressed that point. There are five pages of Zoning Committee minutes
that almost entirely address questions associated with the contract. The City
Attorney's Office got involved and suggested that such questions are probably
interesting, but thaE is beyond the scope of what chazge of the zoning
committee would be." The "role of the Zoning Committee is to approve the
recommendations of staff or not to approve the recommendations of staff
based upon a fairly concise set of guidelines that are contained in the zoning
code. When he [City Attorney] reads the zoning wde he sees no mention of
whether or not the decision of this committee or the Planning Commission
might result in litigation affecting the City."
It has been argued that the money was allocated 2 years ago and should be
spent, that there is a contract let, and so that should be the end of the
discussion. The Planning Commission made a grave error in that it did not
consider their statutory responsibility and authority, mainly to save public
and private expenditures by anticipating changes, and assist in developing
lands wisely through comprehensive municipal plann;,,g.
District 10 would like to point out that the Planning Commission and the
Parks and Recreation Division seem only to be concerned about keeping fihe
contract for this pazking lot. Failure to see that locating this parking lot as
designed in this site plan, without having a full understanding of Como
Pazk's desi� needs today is a procedural error that will result in added costs
to the city, from a monetary, culiural, historical and environmental point of
view. It aIso is a slap in the face to Saint Paul's citizenry, as the Planning
Commission should conduct its business in such a manner as to encourage
and utilize maximum citizen participation. The Planning Commission and
its staff ened by failing to carry out this d'uective and instead, focused on a
monetary concern that wasn't even in its purview of reviewing site plans.
TFIE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF LLCINSING, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENL'AL PROTECI'ION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN'T
When this site plan was reviewed by staff in the fall 1994, the meeting was
denoted as a staff meeting and District 10 was never invited. It is more
difficult for the community to be part of a process when they aren't invited
into it.
58