98-1067��5�17 � � ( �I �°/�
RESOLUTION
OF SAINT PAUL, MINIVESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Council File # f 0 ' �V�O
Green Sheet # �L �� L �
Committee: Date
2
3
4
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
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien, on behalf of Alexandra and Associates LLC, in Zoning File
Nos. 98-231, 98-223 and 98-236, made the following applications to the Saint Paul Planning
Commission: (1) site plan review pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.108 [Zonirtg File
No. 98-231]; (2) modification of the river conidor provisions contained in Saint Paul Legislative
Code § 65.650 [Zoning File No. 98-223]; (3) variance from the strict application of Saint Paul
Legislative Code § 61.104(b) pertaining to setbacks for shuctures [Zoning File No. 98-236], all
for the purpose of constructing within the City's River Corridor District a 42.5 foot high parking
ramp with a 15 foot setback from abutting properiy having a residential zoning classification.
The subject property is commoniy known as 2751 Shepard Road. [Please see Zoning Files
numbers 98-223, 98-231 and 98-236 for the legal descriptions of this large pazcel of property];
and
WIIEREAS, on September 11, 1998, the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Planning
Commission] conducted a public hearing on the vazious applications after having provided notice
to affected property owners and wherein all interested persons were given an opportwuty to be
heard;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, decided to approve each application, subject to conditions, under separate resolutions as
follows:
A. In Zoning file No. 98-231 [Site Plan Review], the Planning Commission made the following
findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-56:
°(1) Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The site plan is consistent with a11 applicable ordinances if the River Corridor
Modification for maYimum height and the Zoning Variance for setback are approved.
(2) The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-
azeas of the city.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepazd Road Dauern Street Small Area Plan
which was adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan on
November 16, 1993.
�'�
2 - The plan encourages the owner of this site and the properiy to the east of Davern
3 to "consider building a parking deck or some type of pazking shucture (perhaps
4 incorporated with another use) that could provide pazking to Unisys, if needed, as
5
6
7 -
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
well as provide pazking to a new development."
The vision of the pian is "atiractive office and/or light industrial development to
create a visually appealing gateway into 5t. Paul along Shepard Road." The
location and size of the ramp is intended to allow future office development along
Shepard Road.
The plan recommends that development should be "sensitive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commercial area". The ramp will meet
tl�is recommendation if the north wall is kept to no more than 30 feet high acxd
landscaping is added to soften the appeazance of the ramp from adjacent
residential property.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings massing should be configured to avoid
long unbroken facades." The location of the ramp is consistent with this finding
since it would allow another building to be built in the future to the south that
would screen the ramp from Shepard Road.
(3) Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically significant chazacteristics
of the city and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site's location overlooking the
Mississippi River is geographicaliy significant. Locating the ramp at the north
portion of the site so that the south portion can be developed as an office building
responds to the characteristics of the location.
(4) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for
such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of
views, light and air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
(5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in
arder to assure abutting property andlor its occupants will not be unreasonably
affected.
The site plan is consistent with this finding if the north wall is solid to screen light
and noise from the adjacent residential property. The location of the new driveway is
also consistent with this finding: it would be in the same area as an existing driveway
to minimize the impact on the adjacent residential and to encourage more traffic to go
to directly to Shepard Road rather than traueling on Davern.
Page 2 of 7
/ � � �;
, ,
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation
and elevation of structures.
The site plan meets current standards and is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both vehiculaz and pedestrian traffic both within the site
and in relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the locations
and design of entrances and er�its and parking azeas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The plan has been reviewed for traffic
safety by Public Works staff. They approved the location of the driveways and found
that Davern could safely handle the increased traffic that wouid be generated by the
ramp.
(8) The satisfactory availabiliiy and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including
solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the development.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for sewers and drainage. A condition
of site pian approval should be that the applicant submit a more detailed plan for
review and approval by Public Works staff
(9) Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above
objectives.
The site plan does not show sufficient landscaping. A condition of site approval
should be that the applicant submit a landscape plan, showing su�cient landscaping
on the east (Davern Street), north and south sides of the ramp, for review and
approval by LIEP staff.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this fmding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and Control Handbook."
The site pian does not contain any information on erosion and sediment control. A
condition of approval should be that an erosion and sediment control plan is
submitted far review and approval by LIEP staff.
Page 3 of 7
� �= �0�7
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The modifications is consistent with the general purposes of the standards contained
in this chapter and state law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and
programs.
22 The purpose of the 40 foot height limit is to prohibit tall buildings that would be
23 visible from the river. The ramp would meet the intent of this provision since it
24 would be only 2.5 feet higher than the permitted maximuxn height and the ramp
25 would be set back over 300 feet from the river bluff line."
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
B. In Zoning file No. 98-223 [River Corridor District Modification], the Planning Commission
made the following findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-54:
"1. By reason of exceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter would
cause undue hardship and strict conformity with the standazds would be unreasonable,
impractical and not feasibie under the circumstances.
An entire level of parking would haue to be eliminated from the ramp in order to meet
the 40 foot height limit. Eliminating an entire level of parking would create a
hazdship because this parking will be needed in the future to develop the remaining
portion of the site.
2. The modification will not resuit in a hazard to life or property and will not adversely
affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the
natural environment.
C. In Zoning File No. 98-236 [Setback Variance], the Planning Commission made the
following findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-55:
"1
2.
The properiy in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions
of the code.
The applicant wants to reserve the south portion of the site, along Shepard Road and
overlooking the Mississippi River, for future development of an office building.
Shifting the ramp south to maintain a 65 foot setback from the north property line
would severely limit space along Shepard Road for future development. The ramp
cannot be built taller to provide the same amount of pazking on a smaller foot print
because of height restricrions.
The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The properry is unique because it overlooks the Mississippi River and is subject to the
design standards of the Shepard Davern Sma11 Area Plan. Both of these factors
suggest that any future development should be located towazd the south side of the
property along Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of
the property.
Page 4 of 7
�8-ld��
�
2 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
3 consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfaze of the inhabitants of
4 the City of St. Paul if conditions are attached to the variance.
6 The intent of the zoning code in requiring large setbacks from residential property is
7 to protect adjacent property owners from the unpact of industrial uses. In tYris case,
8 the adjacent residential properry can be protected from light and noise from the ramp
9 if the north wall of the ramp is solid and is made amactive and comparible with the
10 surrounding neighborhood through the choice of building ma#erials and landscaping.
11
12 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
13 properiy, nor will it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding azea or
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
unreasonably diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the properry in the district where the affected land is
located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primazily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the pazcel of land.
The request for variance is based primarily on a desire to fully develop the properiy in
a way that takes advantage of its location overlooking the Mississippi River and is
consistent with the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan."
WIIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Melvin
Spiegler Properties, L.P., on October 8, 1998, duly filed with the City of Saint Paul an appeal
from the determination made by the Planning Commission and requested that a hearing be held
before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission
relative to the applications of Alexandra and Associates LLC; and
VJHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208 and upon
norice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on November
12, 1998, where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council having heard the statements made and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the recard, the minutes and resolutions of the Planning
Commission, does hereby;
RESOLVE, that the appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties, L. P. be denied as no error as to
any fact, finding or procedure of the Planning Commission in this matter has been shown; AND,
BE IT
Page 5 of 7
9 g- l D�7
1 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul affirms the decision of
2 the Plamiiug Commission in this matter with respect to the River Corridor Modifications as set
3 forth in Pla.nniug Commission Resolufions No. 98-54 and that the Council of the City of Saint
4 Paui adopts as its own the findings of the Planning Commission; AND, BE IT
6 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul �rms the decision of
7 the Planning Commission in this matter with respect to properiy line setbacks as set forth in
8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-55 and that the Council of the City of Saint Paul adopts
9 as its own the findings and determinations of the Planning Commission as contained in its
10 resolution No. 98-55, provided, however, that such variances are fiu-ther expressly conditioned
11 upon:
12
13 a. It being expressly determined that tlus variance is not granted
14 or effective unless the conditions as set forth in Planning
15 Commission Resolution No. 98-55 aze fully complied with;
16 and
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
b. The Councii being aware that the location of the properry line
is in dispute and the subject of litigation, the additional
condition of the variances is effective only from the property
line wherever that might be determined to be by judicial
resolution or settlement of the parties to the dispute, and that
the appiicant for the variance shall construct any improvements
to the ramp solely at its own risk.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul affirms
the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter witl� respect to Site Plan Review as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-56 and that the Council of the City of Saint
Paul adopts as its own the findings and determinations of the Planning Commission as contained
in its resolution No. 98-56, provided, however, that such variances are fiuther expressly
conditioned upon:
That such site plan approval is expressly conditioned upon, and is not granted until,
the following plans have first been reviewed and approved by the indicated City staff
or agencies:
.�
l:�
The final plan for site utilities and storm water management by
the public works staff;
The final plans for:
(i) Erosion and Sediment Control;
(ii) Landscaping along the East, North and South sides of the ramp; and
(iii) Lighting for the ramp, including light should be directed down and not
toward the residential buildings to the North of the ramp, by the staff of the
office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection.
Page 6 of 7
9 �- ��� 7
�
2
3
4
5
AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shali mail a copy of this
resolution to Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P., Alexandra and Associates, L.L.C., the Zoning
Admuustrator, and the P12tming Commission.
Adopted by Council: Date ��`�
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By:
Approved by May ' ate
By:
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form Appro by City Attorney
BY: �IIr L" k/J/YUi—"�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
DATE INRIATED
council
11-25-98
Councilmember
MIIYBER FOR
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
GREEN SHEET
oEr�airdrowECtae
� � - ta��}
No 6229'7
u�n�auum
a,vcouc..
❑ arcwTrowtr ❑ arcarnK _
❑ iMRNtlGLiERNCFiOYt ❑ RMMIl�LiEM1V/KCT6
❑ W1bR(ORAl9afqMll ❑
(CLIP ALl LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Finalizing City Council action taken November 12, 1998, denying the appeal of Melvin
Spiegler Properties LP to a decision of the Planning Commission approving a parking
ramp proposed by Park N Jeti at 2751 Shepard Road.
PLANNING CAMMISSION
CIB COMMITTEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
ffY_1�::i�I�lay
}ias this PeBONfirm everworked undar a conFrect for Mis departmeM?
YES NO
Has Mie DeraoNfirtn ever been a dlY emDbYee7
YES NO
Does this persoNfi�m possecs a sldll not normellyposseasetl by a�ry curtent city empbyee7
YES NO
Is this persoNfirtn a tarpHetl vendoR
YES NO
�lain all ves ar�srers on seoa2te sheet aM attach to areen sheet
�'. ��� �� A",��-�' t, � e � , � g C
�ei'ti+e `_. S�iL�-v`�,±.. "�:st,�T
�a��y� �' � �99�
AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION
COST/REVENUE BUDIiETED (CIRCLE ON�
�UNDIN6 SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER
YES NO
CouncilFile# �(�- �067
QRlGlNAL
Presented By
Referred To
�
�
2 Wf�REAS, Gerald Trooien, on behalf of Alexandra and As ociates LLC, in Zoning File
3 Nos. 98-231, 98-223 and 98-236, made the following appiications o the Saini Paui Planning
4 Commission: (1) site plan review pursuant to Saint Paul Legisl ive Code § 62.108 [Zoning File
S No. 98-231 ]; (2) modification of the river corridor provisions ntained in Saint Paul Legislative
6 Code § 65.650 [Zoning File No. 98-223]; (3) variance from e strict application of Saint Paui
7 Legislative Code § 61.104(b) pertaining to setbacks for s ctures [Zoning File No. 98-236], all
8 for the purpose of constructing within the City's River nidor District a 42.5 foot high parking
9 ramp with a 15 foot setback from abutting properry ha ng a residential zoning classification.
10 The subject property is commonly known as 2751 S epazd Road. [Please see Zoning Files
11 numbers 98-223, 98-231 and 98-236 for the legal scriptions of this large parcel of property];
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
WHEREAS, on September 11, 1998,iEhe Saint Paul Planning Commission [Planning
Commission] conducted a public hearing the various applications after having provided notice
to affected properly owners and wherei 1 interested persons were given an opportunity to be
heard;and
WHEREAS, the Planning ommission, based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, decided to approve eac application, subject to conditions, under sepazate resolutions as
follows:
A. In Zoning file No. 98- 1[Site Plan Review], the Pianning Commission made the following
findings of fact as set fo in its Resolution No. 98-56:
���
The
RESOLUTION
CITY
PATI., NIINNESOTA
Committee:
ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
plan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if the River Corridor
�tion for maximum height and the Zoning Variance for setback are approved.
(2) � e city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-
areas of the city.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepard Road Davern Street Small Area Plan
which was adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan on
November 16, 1993.
GreenSheet# 62247
q�- Ib�`I
- The plan encourages the owner of this site and the property to the east of Davern
to °consider building a parking deck or some type of parking structure (perhaps
incorporated with another use) that could provide parking to Unisys, if needed, as
well as provide parking to a new development." ,
- The vision of the plan is "atiractive office and/or light industrial evelopment to
create a visually appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepaz oad" T`he
location and size of the ramp is intended to allow future offic development along
Shepard Road.
- The plan recommends that development should be "sen tive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commerci area". The ramp wiil meet
this recommendation if the north wall is kept to no ore than 30 feet high and
landscaping is added to soften the appearance of ramp from adjacent
residenrial property.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings m sing should be configured to avoid
long unbroken facades." The location of ramp is consistent with this fmding
since it would a11ow another building to e built in the future to the south that
would screen the ramp from Shepard ad.
(3) Preservation of unique geologic, geogr hic or historically significant characteristics
of the city and environmentally sensi ' e areas.
The site plan is consistent with ' fmding. The site's location overlooking the
Mississippi River is geographic ly significant. Locating the ramp at the north
portion of the site so that the s uth portion can be developed as an office building
responds to the characteristi of the location.
(4) Protection of adjacent neighboring properties through reasonable provision for
such matters as surfac water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of
views, light and air, d those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land es.
The site plan i consistent with this finding.
(5) The arran ment of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in
order to sure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably
Th site plan is consistent with this finding if the north wall is solid to screen light
d noise from the adjacent residential properiy. The location of the new driveway is
lso consistent with this finding: it would be in the same area as an existing driveway
to minimize the impact on the adjacent residential and to encourage more traffic to go
to directly to Shepard Road rather than traveling on Davern.
Page 2 of 7
ct�- l
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation
and elevation of structures.
The site plan meets current standazds and is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both veluculaz and pedesirian lraffic bo�thin 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 site plan is consistent with this fmding. The plan has bee reviewed for traffic
safety by Public Works staff. They approved the locafion o the driveways and found
that Davem could safely handle the increased traffic that w uld be generated by the
ramp.
(8) The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm anpT sanitary sewers, including
solutions to any drainage problems in the azea of th�development.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan r sewers and drainage. A condition
of site plan approval should be that the applic t submit a more detailed plan far
review and approval by Public Works staff
(9) Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls an�azking necessary to meet the above
objectives.
The site plan does not show
should be that the applicant
on the east (Davern Street),
approval by LIEP staff.
i t landscaping. A condition of site approval
a landscape plan, showing sufficient landscaping
and south sides of the ramp, for review and
(10) Site accessibility in accor ce with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), including p ing spaces, passenger loading zones and accessibie routes.
The site plan ]s cons' tent with this finding.
(11) Provision for ero on and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and ontrol Handbook."
The site pl does not contain any information on erosion and sed'unent control. A
conditio f approval should be that an erosion and sediment control plan is
submi d for review and approval by LIEP staff.
Page 3 of 7
��'-lo��]
B. In Zoning file No. 98-223 [12iver Corridor District Modification], the Plamiing Commission
made the following findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-54:
"1. By reason of exceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter
cause undue hardship and strict conformity with the standazds would be unr�
nnpractical and not feasible under the circumstances.
An entire level of pazking would have to be eliminated from the ramp ' order to meet
the 40 foot height liznit. Eliminating an entire level of parking wou create a
hardship because this parking will be needed in the future to deve p the remaining
portion of the site.
2. The modification will not result in a hazard to life or prope and will not adversely
affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or ainage channel, or the
natural environment.
3. The modifications is consistent with the general
in this chapter and state law and the intent of ap
programs.
s of the standards contained
staze and national laws and
The purpose of the 40 foot height limit is to ohibit ta11 buildings that would be
visible from the river. The ramp would m t the intent of this provision since it
would be only 2.5 feet higher than the pe itted maximum height and the ramp
would be set back over 300 feet from river bluff line."
C. In Zoning File No. 98-236 (Setback V:
following findings of fact as set forth in its
"1. The properhy in question
of the code.
the Planning Commission made the
on No. 98-55:
be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions
The applicant wants to serve the south portion of the site, along Shepard Road and
overlooking the Miss' sippi Rivez, for future development of an office building.
Shifting the ramp s th to maintain a 65 foot setback from the north property line
would severely li it space along Shepard Road for future development. The ramp
cannot be buiit ler to provide the same amount of parking on a smalier foot print
because of h 'eht restrictions.
2. The plig of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to his properiy, and these
circ tances were not created by the land owner.
T properry is unique because it overlooks the Mississippi River and is subject to the
esign standazds of the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan. Both of these factors
suggest that any future development should be located toward the south side of the
properiy along Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of
the property.
Page 4 of 7
a �, �06�
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfaze of the inhabitants of
the City of St. Paul if conditions aze attached to the variance.
The intent of the zoning code in requiring lazge setbacks from residenfial pro�erty is
to protect adjacent property owners from the impact of industrial uses. In tJiis case,
the �
adjacent residential properiy can be protected from light and noise fro e ramp if
the north wall of the ramp is solid and is made attractive and compati e with the
surrounding neighborhood through the choice of building materials d landscaping.
4. The proposed variance will not unpair an adequate supply of li and air to adjacent
properry, nor will it aiter the essential chazacter of the surroun g azea or
unreasonably diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that i not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district w ere the affected land is
located, nor would it alter or change the zoning c�ist ' t classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primazily o�f a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land. �
The request for variance is based pr
a way that takes advantage of its lo<
consistent with the Shepard Davern
�n a desire to fully develop the property in
�verlooking the Mississippi River and is
Area Plan."
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions o Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Melvin
Spiegler Properties, L.P., on October 8, 1998 duly filed with the City of Saint Paul an appeal
from the determination made by the Pl ' g Commission and requested that a hearing be held
before the City Council far the purpose o considering the actions taken by the said Commission
relative to the applications of Alexandr and Associates LLC; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant t Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208 and upon
notice to affected parties, a public earing was duly conducted by the City Council on November
12, 1998, where aJl interested p sons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City ouncil having heazd the statements made and ha�ing considered the
application, the report of f, the record, the minutes and resolutions of the Planning
Commission, does here y;
RESOLVE, at the appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties, L. P. be denied as no errar as to
anq fact, finding r procedure of the Planning Commission in this matter has been shown; AND,
BE IT
Page 5 of 7
c��-(o��
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul afFirms the decision of
the Plauning Comrnission in this matter with respect to the River Corridor Modifications as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 98-54 and that the Council of the City of Saint
Paul adopts as its own the findings of the Plauuing Commission; AND, BE IT
FURT'HER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul affircns the dec" ion of
the Plauning Commission in this matter with respect to property line setbacks as set fo in
Planuing Commission Resolution No. 98-55 and that the Council of the City of Sain aul adopts
as its own the findings and deternunations of the Plann�ng Commission as contain in its
resolution No. 98-55, provided, however, that such variances aze further express conditioned
upon:
a. It being expressiy determined that this variance is not
or affective unless the conditions as set forth in Plann
Commission Resolution No. 98-55 aze fully complie
and
b. The Council being aware that the location
is in dispute and the subject of litigation, t
condition of the variances is effective onl}
line wherever that might be deternuned
resolution or settiement of the parties t tt
the applicant for the variance shall c stn
to tkie ramp solely at its own risk.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
the decision of the Planning Conunission in i
forth in Planning Commission Resolution
Paul adopts as its own the findings and d er
in its resolution No. 98-56, provided, h ev�
conditioned upon:
1. That such site plan
the foilowing plans
or agencies: f
a. The
thei
�
property line
com the property
� by judicial
dispute, and that
any improvements
1�f the Council of the City of Sa3nt Paul affirms
i`s matter with respect to Site Plan Review as set
98-56 and that the Councii of the City of Saint
inations of the Planning Commission as contained
, that such variances are fiutlaer expressly
val is eapressly conditioned upon, and is not granted until,
first been reviewed and approved by the indicated City staff
plan for site utilities and storm water management by
works staff;
final plans far:
(i) Erosion and Sediment Control;
(ii) Landscaping along the East, North and South sides of the ramp; and
(iii) Lighting for the ramp, inciuding light should be directed down and not
towazd the residential buildings to the North of the ramp, by tke staff of the
office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection.
Page 6 of 7
i
a
3
4
5
6
��- �°�`l
AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this
resolution to Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P., Alexandra and Associates, L.L.C., the Zc
Admiiiistrator, and the P1Tnning Commission. ,
Requested by Department of:
By:
Adopted by
Adoption C
By:
Approved
By:
�il: Date
ied by Council Secretaxy
MayOr: Date
Foim App ved by City Attorney
B .��G./�M�1'�'� �l- Z �J -��
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
C'rb� �
CITY OF St�INT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
November 24, 1998
Nancy Anderson
Council Seeretary
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
OFFICE OF TS�', CITY ATTORNEY
Cdayton M Robinson, Jr., CityAnorney
Civil Divtsion
400 Ciry Ha11
I S West KeZlogg B1vd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55702
Telephone: 6A 266-8710
Facs�mile: 65I 298-56I9
Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a parking ramp at
2571 Shepard Road
Zoning File: 98-282
Council Action Date: November 12, 1998
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul
City Council to deny the appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P. of the Planning
Commission's decision to approve consmxction of a parking ramp West of Dauern and North o£
Shepazd Road at 2751 Shepazd Road.
Would you please have this resolution placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest
convenience.
If you haue any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very huly yours,
� ���
eter Warner
Assistant City Attorney
f���.li�'st7
�L`�ais°"? `�r^� 9a .?, ...
�;�?�_ � � ����
Enciosure
�� - �0�7
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
October 27. 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
OFFICE OF LICEN5E, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Roben Kessler, Director
B UILDING INSPECTION AND
DESIGN
350 St Peter Streu
Suite 310
Saint Pau1, Minnuaia 55102-ISIO
Zs
Telephone: 612-266-9001
F¢csimile: 6I2-266-9099
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Thursday,
November 12, 1998 for the following zoning case:
Appellant: Melvin Spiegler Properties LP
File Number: 98-282
Purpose:
Location:
Appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve a parking ramp proposed
by Park N Jet.
2751 Shepard Road
I have confirmed this date with the office of Councilmember Harris. My understanding is that this public
hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you
will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Please call me at 651-266-9086 ifyou have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Beach
Zoning Section
• rrxsraun*•
- ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIIHG ' . "
The Saint Pau1 r City' Council wiIl condvct a publ3c- hearing on Thursday.
November 12. 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-
Court Honse to rnnsider Ehe appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties LP to a decision of
the Planning Commission.to approve a parking ramp-proposed by Pazk N Jet at
2751 Shepazd Road. . , - "
Dated: October 28. 1998 � , � , _ __" _ _ �
NANCYANDERSON ' - . '
fsssis4ani City Cbuncil Secretary
- (Oatober 3Q, 1995) � �
9� oo� 7
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
In accordance with the Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 85
dealing with establishing the schedule of water rates, the Saint
Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing for the proposed
water rate charges for the year 1999 on Thursday, November 12, 1998
at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, 3� floor City Hall-Court House.
Dated October 6, 1998
Shari Moore
Deputy City Clerk
(October 9, 1998)
��1°`-.<._...�_.�_. . -. r:r
��� � � ��,
�.� r � ;'�F,�s
•� CITY OF SAINT PALTL
'�, Norm Coieman, Mayor
November 3, 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
OFF[CE OF LICENSE, I�SPEC'I'IOYS AYD �/��
ENVIRONMEYTAL PROTECTIO�
Roben Kessler, Director
LOWRY PROFESSlONAL Te[ephone: 612-266-9090
BUILDING Facsimile: 612-266-9099
Suite 300 672-2669724
350 St. Peter Street
Sa'rnt Paut, Mimesota 55102-1570
RE: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a parking ramp at 2571 Shepard Road
Zoning File 98-282
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
A public hearing at the City Council has been scheduled for 11/12/98 to consider the appeat described below.
PURPOSE: To consider an appeal filed by Melvin Spiegler Properties LP of the Planning Commission's decision
to approve consh of a parking ramp west of Davem and north of Shepard Road in the parking lot of the US
• Bank Building (the old Unisys Building) at 2751 Shepard Road. The ramp is proposed by Gerald Trooien for
Alexandra & Associates LLC. The ramp would have 4 levels (one at ground level and three above) and 996 parking
spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved the following zoning actions with
conditions:
Setback Variance The parking ramp would be setback 15 feet from the north property line of I S feet (a
setback of 65 feet would be permitted without a variance) (Approved 13-I-1)
The north side of the ramp would be set back 15 feet from the north property line shazed with the apartment
buitdings owned by Mr. Spiegler. Mz. Trooien wants to build the ramp as far north as possible on the site in
order to preserve the southem portion of the site which overlooks Shepard Road and the Mississippi River for
future development. Mr. Spiegler states in his appeal that there is no hazdship unique to this property that
justifies the variance and that locating the ramp this close to his property would have a negative impact on the
apamnent buildings. Mr. Spiegler also states that the property line shown on the site plan is not correct and
that the ramp is actually set back only 8 feet from the property line.
2. River Corridor Modification The parking ramp would be 42S feet high (40 feet permitted without a
modification) (Approved 11-3-1)
The ramp would be 42.5 feet ta11 to altow for a 4-level ramp (one Ievel at grade and 3 above). Mr. Trooien
stated that he needs 4 levels of parking to provide enough spaces for his long term plans to develop another
office building on the site. Mr. Spiegler states in his appeal that there is no hardship to justify the
modification, that it would result in a hazard to life and property and that the modification is not consistent
with the general purposes of the river corridor requiremenu and state law.
3. Site Plan Review (14-0-1). The site plan for the parking ramp was approved with the details of the
• landscaping, lighting, and storm watei drainage to be approved by staff. Mr. Spie�ler states in his appeal ihat
the site plan is not consistent with applicable ordinances or the Shepazd Davern Small Area Plan and that it
would have a negative impact on his and other nearby property.
Conditions were attached to these approvals:
- The north wall of the proposed pazking ramp must be solid to screen noise and light from the adjacent
property and constructed of material that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
- Sufficient landscapin� must be planted on the north side of the ramp to reduce the visual impact of the ramp.
ZONING COMIVIITTEE RECOMIVIENDATION: The public heazing was held at the Plannins Commission.
No hearing or vote was taken by Zoning Committee.
STAF'F RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval with conditions. In addition to the conditions
approved by the Planning Commission, staff recommended that approximately 70 pazking spaces be eliminated so
that the north face of the ramp could be reduced in height to 30 feet.
SUPPORT: The applicant and his attorney spoke at the public hearing
OPPOSITION: The appellant, his attorney and a member of the Hi„vhland Area Community Council spoke at the
public hearing. The Minnesota DNR sent a letter.
This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on Thursday, 11/12/98. Please notify me if any member of
the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sincereiy,
�` -
Tom Beach
cc; City Councilmembers
Attachmenu
Appeal applicatfon
Letter from District 15
Planning Commission resolutions
Planning Commission minutes
Planning Commission staff report
Site plan and location map
page 1
page 11
page 13
page 19
page 26
page 33
\ J
�
u
Z20'd �J�l
s..xT
►.nsi
� �i
�OAAR
APPI.1CA7iON FOR APP�e1
jJcpartmrnt of Plcnning and Ernnomic Dcvelopmcnt
Zonixg Scc'ion .
1100 Cky f7a11 Anrtc
25 fi�crt Fonrih Sa�t
s�nr p� .3tx ssloa
266-6589
o2-ic�/
APPELLANT � Name �elvin Spiegler Properties, L.P.
AddresS 176 �1or h SnPlline Av�n i� 4� itA 995
C;;y S�. Paul S2. M�Z'.�p S�ina Daytime phoneiaSii a;-as 2
Gerald Trooien For Alexandra. & Associates, LLC, Ri er
PROPER7Y Zoning File Nar'�e , � „�,,,, a „ , revie�v
LOCATEON Address(LoCd6on 2�51 Shepard Road
S[. Paul, MN
TYPE OF APPEAL: AppLcation is hereby made for an appea! to the:
❑ 3oard of Zcnirg Appeals �C�ty Coundl
� 206, paragraph a of Ute 2cning Code, to
under the provisions of Chapte; 64, Section
appea adgcisian made by the Planning Commission
�/ll/98 resolucions passea zoning: - ; 98 98
on 9/24/98 esoht ��nG mai�a� , 19_. Fie number.
(dateotdects�n) Planning Commission nesolution 98-54' 98-55; 98-�
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you fea! there has been an errur in any requirerrtent,
pemit, dedsion cr refvsal made by an administrative offidai, or an error � fad, pr3cedure ar
finding made by the Boarcf of Zoning Appeafs or the Ptannirg Commission.
(Please 5ee attached)
RECEIVED
OCT 81998
ZONING
Attach edd2�onal sheat rf nec°•.ssary)
Apolinnt's sigra:ure (See lasc paae of a�cachmPnrl D.�e Ct.y agent
_' �' J _�-���'_ � �,: ,- i 1 7k,1J 1� _� ,i1 i 7 :��iL' : c�. : �: CCG � i. : �r`
GROUtiDS FOR APPEAL
Appellant Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P. ("appellanP'), 176 NoRh Snellin� Avenue,
Suite 225, St. Paul, Minnesota, asserts that the PIannin� Commission erred in grantin� a river
corridor modification, �rantin� a setback variance, and approving a site plan review for the
applicant, Gerald Trooien, for Alexandra & Associates, LLC, ("applicanP') concemin� a
proposed four-level parkin� ramp to be built on the propeRy located at 27�1 Shepard Road.
Appeliant owns property abuttin� applicant's propefty.
The grounds for appe[(ant's appeal are listed below.
1. Enoneous Grantina of a River Corridor Modification.
The Plannin� Commission erroneously granted a ricer coaidor modification.
�
The City of St. Paul Zonin� Code provides that a river corridor modification may be
�ranted "where it appears that by reason of esceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of' .
the river corridor requirements "would cause undue hardship and strict conformity with the
standards would be unreasonable, impracticable and not feasible under the circumstances." St.
Paul Le�islative Code § 65.650(a). The applicant seeking a modification has the burden of
provin� that the modification will not result in a hazard to life or property. Id. The Minnesota
state statute grantin� municipalities authority to zone provides that "undue hardship" means "the
property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the
official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the lando«�ner, and the variance, if granted, wilt not alter the essential character of the
locality." Minn. Sfat. § 462-357, subd. 6. The state law also provides that `economic
considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the propeRy
exists tmder the terms of the ordinance" Id. The above standards must be met before the City •
may grant a river corridor modification.
Z
qg -�c�7
• The Plannin� Commission erroneously found that these conditions had been met by the
appticant. Firs[, the Commission erroneously found that there �vere exceptional circumstances
present that �vould cause undue hardship to the applicant if strict enforcement of the river
corridor requirements �vas mandated. The Plannin� Commission found that one level of parking
wouid have to be eliminated from the appiicant's proposed parkin� ramp in ordzr to meet the 40
foot maximum hei�ht limit imposed by the river corridor requirements. This fact does not justify
a findin� of undue hardship. The elimination of one level of parking on a proposed four-level
parking ramp does not constitute undue hardship under the applicable laia because the property
can still be put to a reasonable use if the ramp is constructed with one less le� el of parkin� as
allo�ved by the of£cial controls. See Minn. Stat. § 462.3�7, subd. 6. The applicant can satisfy
the 40 foot masimum hei�ht reqtiirement of the river corridor ordinances ���]Zile puttin� the
� propzrty to reasonable use by buildin� a smallzr parkin� ramp. As Commissionzr Gordon noted,
�rantin� the modification simply makes an other�vise profitable parking ramp an even more
profitable ramp. Such economic considerations alone do not constitute an undue hardship
justifyin� a river corridor modification. See Minn. Stat. § 46?3�7, subd. 6.
Second, the Pianning Commission enoneously found that grantins the river corridor
modification will not result in a hazard to life or property. The proposed parkin� ramp �vili result
in a hazard to nei�hborin� property because the placement of the ramp �4ill prevent the use of
gara�es located on appellanC's borderin� property. The hei�ht and location of the proposed
parking ramp �vilt resuit in the accumulation of large aniounts of sno�i on the appellant's
property, which wi11 adversely� effect flle stnictural inte�rity of the gara�es and �cil1 prevent the
appellant from makin� reasonable use of that portion of his property. The Plznning Commission
• failed to consider fliis impact on appeliant's property in erroneously granting the river corridor
modification.
�
The proposed parkin� ramp will also result in a hazard to nei�hboring propeRy because .
of the increased traffic in the area. The ramp would add a ne[ total of 7�0 parking spaces to the
applicanYs proper[y, resultin� in a vast increase in the number of vehicles traceling to and from
the area. Despite this fact, neither the applicant nor the Plannin� Commission conducted a traffic
study to detern2ine the extent of the impact of this increased traffic on the area. �Vithout such a
traffic shidy, the Plannin� Commission simply does not have sufficient eaidence to conclude that
the applicant has carried its burden of showing that the modification will not result in a hazard to
life or propeRy.
Third, the Plannin� Commission enoneously found that the river corridor modification
was consistent «�ith the �eneral purposes of the river corridor requirements and state law, and the
intent of applicable state and national la�vs. The Commission's decision fails to provide any
justification for this finding. The Commission states that the purpose of the 40 foot maximum �
height limit is to prohibit tall struchires that ���ould be visible from the ri�ec The Commission
correctly notes that the proposed parkin� ramp �vould be 2-1/2 feet higher than permitted under
the river corridor requirements. Ho�ce��er, the Commission then implies that this is close enou�h.
The Plannin� Commission does not have authority under the constitution or any statute or
directive to rewrite the City's ordinances to provide for a maximum height of 42-1l2 feet.
Appellant also notes that both the Hi�hland Area Community Council and the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources objected to grantin� a river corridor modification to the
applicant. Both �roups a�ree with appellant's position that denyin� the modification will not
result in any undue hardship to the applicant. The Depariment of Natural Resources stressed that
the proposed ramp «�ill be visible from the Mississippi River and the opposite shoreline. The
Hi�hland Area Community Council expressed concem about the firturz inte�rity of the •
nei�hborhood. The Council explained that they do not oppose development of the applicant's
� �
�i�-�o�7
• property, but that the nei�hborhood and City would be better sec by development that
conforms with the zonin� code.
2. Enoneous Grantine of Setback Variance.
The Plannin� Commission enoneously granted a setback � aaance to allow the
applicant's proposed parkin� ramp to be constnicted �vithout conforming to the zonin� code's
required setback of at least 6� feet from flie north property line. The Plannin� Commission
based its �rant of this variance on its understandin� that the setback ��ou1d be IS feet from the
nortli property line. The appellant is currendy involved in a lawsuit re�ardin� the proper
boundary behveen the applicant's property and his o�vn. If the appellant pre� ails in this lawsuit,
the proposed parkin� ramp would be set back only 8 feet from the north property line. Therefore,
appellant asserts tha[ the variance was erroneously granted based on the Planning Commission's
• misunderstanding of ���here the property line is achially located.
State law provides that a municipatity may grant a variance from ihe requirements of its
zonin� code "in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration." �iinn. Stat. § 462357,
subd. 6. This statute provides that "hardship" means "the property in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used tmder conditions allowed by the official contrals, the pli�ht of the
lando�vner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the
variance if granted �vill not alter the essential character of the locality." Id. State law fiirther
provides that "economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable
use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." Id.
The standards required for the grantin� of the variance were not met for the applicant's
• proposed parkin� ramp. First, the Commission erroneously found that the applicant's propeRy
could not be put to a reasonable use under the strict setback requirements of the zoning code.
� s
The Plannin� Commission's justification for this findin�, that the applicant �vants to reseri�e •
other portions of the parcel for fiiture development, does not support a finding of undue hardship
under the applicable la�v. There are many economically viable uses for the applicant's parcel of
land. As implicitly recognized by the Commission, a parkin� ramp could even bz placed in
anoYher location on the parcel in compliance tivith the CiYy's setback requirements.
Second, the Plannin� Commission erroneousiy found that the ptight of the applicant is
due to circumstances unique to his property and that these circumstances �verz not created by tfie
applicant. The Conunission's justification for findin� that the property was unique, that it
o��erloofis the Mississippi River and is subject to the desi�n guidelines of the Shepard Road
Davem Small Area Plan, are insuFficient for a findin� that the property is uniquz under the
applicable la�v. This is becatise the fact that the land o��erlooks the Mississippi Ricer and is
subject to the �uidelines of the Shepard Road Dai�ern Small Area Plan are simply not �
characteristics tmique to this particular parcel of property. Almost all property in that area of St.
Paul has similar characteristics. Further, even if these circumstances �vere unique, thz applicant
purchased the property knowin� that it �vas already zoned �o�ith the current setback requirement.
This sho�vs that the hardship of the setback requirement «�as created by the applicant and does
not constitute undue hardship allowin� for a variance. See Cattle Desi�ri and Derelopnient
Canpany v. City ofLake Elnio, 396 N.`V.2d 578 (Minn. App. 1986).
Third, the Plannin� Commission erroneously found that the proposed variance is in
keeping �vith the spirit and inten[ of the 2oning code and is consistent �cith the heaith, safety,
comfort, morals and �velface of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The Commission based
this findin� on the erroneous vie« that adjacent residential property can be protectzd from any
adverse consequences caused by the proposed parkin� ramp. As indicated earlier, thz proposed •
parkin� ramp will cause harm to adjoinin� property owners, includin� appellant. In particular,
��
��`�d�
• the proposed ramp's height and tocation wi11 cause sQUCtural dama�e to and grevent [he use of
the pazking garages on appellanc's propem•.
Fourth, the Pia.rutin� Commission erroneousty found the variance would not alter the
essential character oF the surrounding azea or unreasona6ly diminish es[abtisned propercy values.
Again, as exptained earlier, the granting of the proposed variance will d�^lage and prevent the
use of the parking �arages located on appztlant's property and witl fr.zrefore unreasonsbly
diminish the appellant's es[abtished value in his properry.
Fifth, the Planning Commission zcroneously found the appiicant's reques[ for a var,ance
is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income go�ential of the property. In
rzality, the setback variance request is baszd encirety on the applicant's desire to increase the
vatue of the parcel of property. Appiicanc wants the setback variance to build a larger parkin�
• ra.*np then permi[ted by the ordinance whi(e leaving room on the propeny for further
deveiopment ac the expense of causing damage and injury to appetlant's neighhoring properry.
This evidences a pamary desire to increase the income potential oF the prope .ry. As
Commissioner Gordon reco�ized, granting the variance simply ma_kes a profitable par'�;in� ramp
an even more profi[able ratnp.
3. Enoneous GrantinQ of the Site Plan Revie�v.
The Planning Commission eror,eously approved the applicant's site plan review for the
proposed parking ramp.
The City of St. Paul Zoning Code requirzs several factual findings to be made prior to the
aporocal of a site pian review. St. Paul Legislative Codz � b2.108. lhese izcruzl fmdings
include: (1) thz plan is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances; (2) tne plan is consistent
� with the project plans for sub-areas of the City; (3) the plan preservzs unique gzologic,
geographic or historically significant charactzdstics of the Ciry and environmentafly sensitive
� 7
areas; (4) the plan protects adjacent nei�hboring properties; and (5) the plan assures that abutting �
propeRy owners will not be unreasonably affected. Id.
The Planning Commission erroneo�siy found that the above requirements for the
approvat of a site plan review had been met First, the Plannin� Commission erroneously found
that the site plan is consistent with alI applicable zonin� ordinances. The site pian re�•iew does
not comply with all [he applicable zonin� ordinances because the hei�ht of thz ramp esceeds that
allowed by the river corridor requirements and the ramp is not setback far enough from the
abutting property. Further, as appeltant has demonstrated above, no m corridor modification
or setback variance should be �ranted to excuse this noncompliance.
Second, the Plannin� Commission erroneously found that the site plan is consistent with
tlte Shepard Road Davem Street Small Area Plan. This plan proeides that "buildings massin�
should be configured to avoid long Lmbroken facades." This requirement is not met because thz •
proposed parkin� ramp stnicture results in an unbroken facade on Shepard Road. The
Commission's hope that future development on the applicant's parcel of land �vill block this
vie�v does not chan�e the fact that the site plan review is inconsistent «�ith the Shepard Road
Davem Street Smail Area Plan. This is especially true because there are no definite fiiture
development plans for the applicant's parcel.
The Shepard Road Davern Street Small Area Plan also provides that the vision of the plan
is to provide attractive office ancllor li�ht industrial development to create a visually appealin�
gate�vay into St. Paul alon� Shepard Road. Althou�h the Commission expressed hope that the
proposed parking ramp would allo�v for future development fulfillin� this vision, the proposed
site plan does not fiilfill any of these objectices.
The Shepard Road Davern Street Small Area Plan further recommends that de� .
should be "sensitive to its impact on and relationship to the adjacent residential and commercial
. .
� -�or�
• area." The proposed ramp fails to meet this recommendation because the rzmp actually causes
harm to the adjacent residential area as previously explained.
Third, the Plannin� Commission erroneously concluded that the proposed parkin� ramp
would preser��e the geolo�ic, geographic or historicaliy si�nificant characteristics of thz City and
environmentally sensitive areas. The Plannin� Commission correctly found that the site's
location overlookin� the Mississippi Ricer is geo�raphically si�nificant. Ho�` ever, the proposed
parkin� ranzp does not presen,�e thz unique character of this area because, as the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources emphasized, the site plan allows for the constniction of a lar�e,
unsightly parkin� ramp �aith no definite future plans to block the view of this ramp from the river
or Shepard Road.
Fourth, the Planning Commission enoneously found that tlle proposed ramp protects
• adjaceut and nei�hboring properties. As explained earlier, the proposed parking ramp will cause
harm to nei�h6oring property by preventin� the use of the parkin� gara�es on the appellant's
property. Further, because no traffic study has been conducted to determine the extent of the
adverse impact of the increase in traffic caused by the proposed ramp, the Plannin� Commission
could only speculate that adjacent and neighborin� property o�vners would be protected.
Finally, the Planning Commission erroneousiy foimd that the proposed parking ramp
assures that abutting property o��ners will not be unreasonably affected. Again, this findin� is
not supported by the facts because the proposed parkin� ramp will unreasonably affect abuttin�
•
� �
property owners by preventin� the appellate and his tenants from usin� the parking gara�es •
located on the appellate's property.
Dated: October O, 1998 WINTHROP & �VEINSTNE, P.A.
BY: � �
Jeffrey R. Ansel, #-,`166224
Karl E. Robinson, �027404�
3200 Minnesota �Vorld Trade Center
30 East Seventh Street
St. Pau1, Minnesota 5� 101
(612) 290-8400
Attorneys for Appellant Melvin Spie�lzr
Properties, L.P.
STPI:469�60-1
f 1
l J
@
�
` �
� �/�`�
�
�F`IC�,Crr�T�D ��.S�,�J(,�� e0'ZLTZj
1978 �oad �anksaa�y. SaiKt �a�d '�l 5v�116
October 22, 1998
Gladys Morton, Chair
St. Paui Planning Commission
25 West 4�' Street
St. Paui MN 55102
Re: Trooien Variance
Dear Commission Morton;
��������
��� �� 199�5
� �
ti� _.-�'u
' .:\\ \.:
As you know, the Planning Commission recently had before it an application for two
variances by Jerry Trooien/JLT Properties. The Highland District Council reviewed the
minutes of the Planning Commission where the issue was discussed. Our board is
concemed over some of the representations made during that meeting and requested that
I write making you aware of those concerns.
• In the minutes it is indicated that Mr: Trooien appeared before our council regazding these
variance requests. This is not true. While he did come to a subcommittee meeting to
eaplain his intention to build the paziang ramp, at no time has he ever told either that
subcommittee or our Council about his request for these variances. In fact when asked
about variances at the subcommittee the 7LT representative specifically stated that there
would be no request for any variances. That was apparently either not true, or the plan
was changed so in fact, variances were necessary. JLT did not notify us ofthe request and
we heard about the request through LIEP who forwarded a copy of the request to our
office. Mr. Trooien was specifically invited to our board meeting where those requests
were discussed.
of why the vari
objection to the
variances.
He did not attend that meeting, nor did he contact us with an explanation
ances were needed. Neighbors did attend our meeting to voice their
variance requests. Our Council then voted to oppose the requests for
As you know, over a year ago, our Council requested, and the Planning Commission
supported creating the Shepard Davem Small Area Planl40 Acre Task Force and our
President serves as co-chair along with Commissioner Geisser. According to the minutes
of your meeting, Commissioner Geisser represented to the Planning Commission that the
Task Force supported Mr. Trooien's appiication for these variances. Our members on the
.
651-238-5138
�ax 651-248-v`134
1(
Task Force told our board that this issue has never been discussed by the Task Force, and �
at no time has the Task Force ever taken a position favoring these variances.
Qverall, our Council does not feel that the public process or the coaununity were well
served by Commissioner Geisser's representation of the facts. We are concerned that the
Planning Commission may have relied on these misstatements in making it's decision.
District Council's are designed to be an unpaz�tial community body whose task is to
balance the needs of competing interests within that community- business, property
owners and residents. All are treated equally, we listen carefully to everyone who comes
before us and we give careful consideration to every one who appeazs before us before
making our recommendations. St. Paul should be proud of it's longstanding tradition of
listening to it's residents. If this citizen participation process is ignored then the City as a
whole loses out.
Lastly, our Council is troubled by the fact that the Planning Commission chose to ignore
the written staff recommendation, the DNR's recommendation, our District Council and
the neighbors opposition in granting these variances.
S' e ely,
; � j�'�
�g 1�c�Gee
' Chair, �Eommunity Development Committee
Vice Chair, H'ighland District Council
cc:
Commissioner Ann Geisser
St. Paul City Council
Mayor Coleman
•
�
(Z
� 8 �o��
city of saint paul
! planning commission resofution
file number 9$-55
date September 11, 1998
98-236
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien for Alexandra and Associates has applied for a variance from the
strict apptication of the provisions of Section {6'1.104.b of the Saint Paul Legislative Code
pertaining to setbacks for structures from adjacent residential property in the I-1 zoning district
to permit a setback ofi 15 feet firom the north property line at 2751 Shepard Road; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on 9/11/98,
pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64205 of the
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Planning Commission based upon evidence presented at the public
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of
the code.
• The applicant wants to reserve the south portion of the site, a{ong Shepard Road and
overlooking the Mississippi River, for future development of an office building. Shifting the
ramp south to maintain a 65 foot setback from the north property line wouid severeiy limit
space along Shepard Road for future development. The ramp cannot be built taller to
provide the same amount of parking on a smaller foot print because of height restrictions.
The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The property is unique because it overiooks the Mississippi River and is subject to the
design standards of the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan. Both of these factors suggest
that any future development should be located toward the south side of the property along
Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of the property.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping witfi the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the
City of St. Paul if conditions are attached to the variance.
moved by Geisser
seconded by Faricy
in favor 13
• against 1 (Noidin)
1 abstention (Vaught)
13
The intent of the zoning code in requiring large setbacks from residential property is to
protect adjacent property owners from the impact of industrial uses. In this case, the •
adjacent residential property can be protected from light and noise from the ramp if the
north wall of the ramp is solid and is made attractive and compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood through the choice of building materials and landscaping.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate suppiy of light and air to adjacent
property, nor will if alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably
diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor
would it alter or change the zonirtg district classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
The request for variance is based primarily on a desire to fully develop the property in a
way that takes advantage of its location overlooking the Mississippi River and is consistent
wifh the Shepard Davern Smali Area Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paui Planning Commission that the
provisions of Section 61.104.b be hereby waived to allow construction of a parking ramp with a
15 foot setback from the north property line on property located at 2751 Shepard Road and
legally described on Exh+bit A; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan
on file with the Zoning Administrator, subject to the following conditions: •
1. The north wall of the proposed parking ramp must be soiid to screen noise and light from
the adjacent property and constructed of material that is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
2. Su�cient landscaping must be planted on the north side of the ramp to reduce the visual
impact of the ramp.
�
U
��
�r� i �7
• city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
fite number 98-54
date September 11 1948
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien for Alexandra and Associates LLC file #98-231, has applied for a
River Corridor Modification under the provisions of Section 65.65� of the Saint Paul Legisiative
Code, for the purpose of constructing a 42.5 foot high parking ramp on property located at 2751
Shepard Road, legally described on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on 9/11/98, held a public hearing at which all persons
present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appiication in accordance with
the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Pau1 Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented at the
public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
By reason of exceptio�al circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause
undue hardship and strict conformity with the standards would be unreasonable,
impractical and not feasible under the circumstances.
An entire level of parking would have to be eliminated from the ramp in order to meet the
• 40 foot height limit. Eliminating an entire level of parking wou{d create a hardship
because this parking will be needed in the future to develop the remaining portion of the
site.
2. The modification will not result in a hazard to life or property and will not adversely affect
the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channei, or the natural
environment.
3. The modifications is consistent with the general purposes of the standards contained in
this chapter and state law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and
programs.
The purpose of the 40 foot height limit is to prohibit tall buildings that would be visible from
the river. The ramp would meet the intent of this provision since it would be only 2.5 feet
higher than the permitted maximum height and the ramp would be set back over 300 feet
from the river bluff line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a River Corridor Modification to
allow construction of a parking ramp that woufd be 42.5 feet high at 2751 Shepard Road is
hereby approved.
moved by Geisser
• seconded by Kramer
in favor 11
against 3 (Gordon. Margulies, Nordin)
1 abstention (Vaught)
��
cityof saint pau!
planning commission resolution
fiie number 98-56
date September 11, 1998
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien for Alexandra and Associates LLC file #98-231, has applied for a
Site Ptan Review under the provisions of Section 62.108 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for
the purpose of constructing a parking ramp on property located at 2751 Shepard Road, legaily
described on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on9/11/98, held a public hearing at which all persons
present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuanf to said application in accordance with
the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact that the site
plan was consistent with:
(1) Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paui. -----
The sife pfan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if the Rivsr Corridor Modification
for maximum height and the Zoning Variance for setback are approved.
(2} The city's adopfed comprehensive plan and development or projecf plans for sub-areas of
the cify.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepard Road Davern Street Smail Area Plan which
was adopted by the City Councii as part of the Comprehensive Plan on November 16,
1993.
- The plan encourages the owner of this site and the property to the east of Davem to
"consider building a parking deck or some type of parking structure (perhaps
incorporated with another use) that could provide parking to Unisys, if needed, as
we!! as provide parking to a new development "
- The vision of the plan is "attractive office and/or light industriai development to
create a visualfy appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepard Road" The location
and size of the ramp is intended to ailow future office development along Shepard
Road.
moved by Geisser
seconded by Fa=��v
in favor 14
against
1 abstention (Vaught)
0
•
�
��
�'�� /b� `�
• - The plan recommends that development should be `sensitive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commerciai area". The ramp will meet
this recommendation if the north wail is kept to no more than 30 feet high and
landscaping is added to soften the appearance of the ramp from adjacent residential
property.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings massing shouid be configured to avoid
long unbroken facades." The location of the ramp is consistent with this finding
since it would alfow another buifding to be built in the future to the south that would
screen the ramp from Shepard Road.
(3) Preservation of unique geologic, geographrc or historical/y significant characferistics of the
city and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site's location overlooking the Mississippi
River is geographicaiiy significant. Locating the ramp at the north portion of the site so
that the south poRion can be developed as an o�ce building responds to the
characteristics of the location.
(4) Protection of adjacent and neighboring prope�ties through reasonab/e provision for such
mafters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring
land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
• (5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to
assure abufting property and/or ifs occupants will not be unreasonably affected.
The site pfan is consistent with this finding i4 the north waH is solid to screen light and
noise from the adjacent residentiai property. The location of the new driveway is also
consistent with ihis finding: it wouid be in the same area as an existing driveway to
minimize the impact on the adjacent residential and to encourage more traffic to go to
directly to Shepard Road rather than traveling on Davern.
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientafion and
elevation of structures.
The site plan meets current standards and is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian tra�c both within the site and in
relation to access streets, inc/uding traffic circulafion features, the locatrons and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The plan has been reviewed for traffic safety
by Public Works staff. They approved the location of the driveways and found that
Davern couid safely handle the increased traffic that would be generated by the ramp.
(8) The satisfactory availability and capacity of sform and sanitary sewers, includrng solutions
• to any drainage problems in the area of the development.
(�
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for sewers and drainage. A condition of �
siYe plan approval should be that the applicant submit a more detailed plan for review and
approval by Public Works staff
(9) Su�cient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above o6jectives.
The site plan does not show sufficient landscaping. A condition of site approval shouid be
that the applicant submit a landscape plan, showing sufficient landscaping on the east
(Davern Street), north and south sides of the ramp, for review and approval by LlEP staff.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with fhe provisiorts of the Americans with Disabilifies Act
(ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this inding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sedimenf confrol as specified in the ��Ramsey Erosion Sedimenf
and Control Handbook."
The site plan does not contain any information on erosion and sediment controi. A
condition of approval shouid be that an erosion and sediment control plan is submitted for
review and approva( by L(EP staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legisiative Code, the application for Site Plan Review to construct a
parking ramp at 2751 Shepard Road is hereby approved subject to subject to the condition that
the appiicanf must submit the foliowing plans: •
1. A final plan for site utilities and storm water management for review and approval by
Public Works staff.
2. An erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by LIEP staff.
3. A final landscape plan showing sufficient landscaping along the east (Davern Street),
north and south sides of the ramp for review and approval by LlEP sfafF.
4. A final lighting plan for the ramp for review and approvai by LIEP staff.
•
�
g8 ���
• Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Soulevard West
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, September, 1998, at
830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
•
Commissioners
Absent:
Mmes. Duarte, Faricy, Geisser, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and �Vencl and
Messrs. Gervais, Gordon, 7ohnson, Kramer, Margulies, McDonell, Nowlin and
Vaught.
Mmes. *Engh and Messrs. *Field, Kong, *Mardell, and *Sharpe
*Excused
Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Tom Harren, Larry Soderholm,
and Jim Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Deve(opment staff; and Tom
Beach from the Department of License, Inspection and Environmental Protection.
I. Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton had no announcements.
II. Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Ford announced that the City Council did approve the plat for William's Hill and the pawn shop
moratorium resolution is in effect.
Chair Morton pointed out the revised agenda.
III. PIJ$I,IC Y�EAFtII'IG: Gerald Trooien for Alexandra & Associates LLC, River Corridor
Modification, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review (Tom Beach, LIEP) "
Chair Morton read the rules and procedures for public hearings.
\I
Mr. Beach gave a short slide presentation and read the staff reports. He stated that Gerald Trooien is
proposing to build a 4-level parking ramp with 996 parking spaces. The ramp will be located west of
Davern and north of Shepard Road in the parking lot of the old i3nisys Building: Mr. Trooien has
renovated the old Unisys Building and U.S. Bank is in the process of moving into the building. Some of
the spaces in the ramp would be used by U.S. Bank employees; the rest would be used for airport
parking. To build the ramp, Mr. Trooien needs approval from the Plannin� Commission on three items:
1) a river corridor modification - the ramp will be 42.5 feet tall (the marimum height is 40 feet in a river
corridor); 2) a setback vaciance is needed - the ramp is proposed to be setback 15 feet from the noitt�
property line (the required setback in I-1 districts, residential property, is 1%z times the height of the
building or 65 feet, in this case); the requested variance is 50 feet; 3) a site plan review, required for any
pazking facility.
19
Commissioner Nordin asked how many parking spaces are required by the zoning ordinance for
the U.S. Bank building. Mr. Beach responded that the U.S. Bank will have more parking than •
what is required by code; approximately 1,100 parking spaces aze required by code.
Commissioner Geisser added that Mr. Beach ought to comment that an agreement was reached
with Mr. Trooien and U.S. Bank on hotv many parking spots Mr. Trooien was required to
provide. She recalted that number was approximafely 1,600.
Mr. Beach continued to say that the main reason the ramp is proposed to go on the north part of
the site is so future development can occur on the south part of the site which overlooks Shepard
Road and the Mississippi River. Mr. Trooien submitted a concept plan sho�ving one possible
arrangement ofthe site iffuture devetopment did occur.
Mc Beach stated that the staff report was out before the Highland Area Community Council had
a chance to meet. They have met since then and are recommending that the river corridor
modification and the variance be denied claiming a lack of hardship.
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Beach to amp(ify on why the district council is opposing. Mr.
Beach commented that part of it had to do with no otte from JLT showing up at the meeting to
make a case for the racnp, so they didn't see any compelling reason to grant a variance.
Commissioner Geisser interjected that her understanding is that someone from 7LT did appear at
the Land Use Committee meeting of the district counci[ to make a presentafion on the ramp.
Mr. Beach referred to a letter that was passed out from the Minnesota Department ofNatural
Resources. They are opposing the height variance. Their main concem is that the ramp not be
visible from the river or from the opposite shore of the river. They encourage the Planning •
Commission to deny the height variance; if it is not denied, they wou[d [ike to see the ramp
buffered by native vegetation on the south side and that run-off be minimized.
Mr. Beach read the staff reports approving the river modification to permit a heeght of 42.5 feet,
the setback variance to peanit a 15-foot setback with conditions, and the site plan with
conditions.
Commissioner Gordon read those portions of the Nl�i I DNR letter questioning the "hardship"
c(aim of the applicant and highti�hting a defcnition of "hardship;" and asking whether "the
applicant bought the property afrer the effective date of the ordinance provision from which the
variance is sought and had access to knowledge and information about ordinance requirements
prior Yo designing the development project." He asked Mr. Beach if he would address these
issues. Mr. Beach stated that the cunent owner bought the property withing the last two yeazs
and the river corridor ordinance has been in effect for the tast 15 years. In response to Yhe
hardship, Mr. Beach said that the applicant could build a ramp with the same number of spaces
by creating a bigger footprint, but a bigger footprint might hinder development on the rest of the
siie.
Commissioner Now[in asked if a traffic study had been done, and what is the net increase of the
spaces that will be created at that ]ocatioa. Mr. Beach replied that Public `Vorks staff had
reviewed the site plan but a traffic study by an outside consultant had not been done. The net
increase would be 75Q additiona( parking spaces.
•
2@
R g 1c�7
• Commissioner Margulies asked what the parking requirements would be if the proposed
additional development were constructed. Mr. Beach calculated that if it �vere an office
building, it would be one parking space for every 350 square feet. The concept building shows a
plan of a building of 80,000 square feet.
Commissioner 7ohnson commented on the ei�ht conditions of the MN DNR letter — that six of
those eight refer specifically to the question of undue hardship, and their interpretation of this
case �vould not necessarily present an undue hardship. However, he stated that the staff report
finds that strict enforcement would, indeed, present an undue hardship. Having worked for the
N1N D�IR and having written these review and comment letters himself, he is inclined to believe
that City staff, rvho are more familiar with zoning requirements, might be able to make a better
judgement of what, in fact, constitutes an undue hardship.
Commissioner Faricy asked if a filling station is still on the boards for future development on
the rest of that site. Mr. Beach stated that he did not knoFV what is planned for future
development on that site.
Mr. Ford asked if the bedrock condition of the site was not also a consideration of hardship due
to a condition of the site. In this case, one could not go down a few feet to take care of the extra
height. Mr. Beach confirmed that it tivould be very expensive to dig out the bedrock. Putting in
underground utifities has been expensive in this area for past projects.
Commissioner Gordon asked if it is known what, if any, future development is planned for this
� site. Mr. Beach stated that the applicant has not been specific about what that might be.
Commissioner Gordon commented that it is difficult to plan for future parking when one doesn't
know what requirements will be needed for the future.
The applicant, Gerald Trooien, owner of the •site, addressed the Commission. He stated that he
was at District I S meetings repeatedly and spoke very openly about what the plans are for now
and the future. Mr. Trooien spoke a little about future development possibilities for the rest of
the site and the area. Perhaps a service station will go in on the corner because Mr. Trooien
thinks that comer is an appropriate site for that. He talked about a hotel in the future for the plot
east of Davern, perhaps another of5ce site.
(The second side of the first tape is totally inaudible.)
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Trooien if the parking stalls allotted to the bank aze profita6le.
Mr. Trooien responded that the overall bank deal is proFitable. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr.
Trooien if the cars on the top floor would be completely hidden behind the outside wall. Mr.
Trooien said that on the new parking decks, one doesn't see the cars, even on the lower levels.
With respect to future development, Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Trooien if he could give a
more specific outlook, and could future development be an additional pazking ramp. Mr•
Trooien responded that there will need to be an additional parking ramp attached to future
development.
• Commissioner �Vencl asked how much higher each ramp floor will need to be to accommodate
the shuttle bus. Gerald Trooien replied that the floors of the ramp wi1S not need to be erected
any higher than normal for the shuttle bus.
�.
� �..�
CommissionerNordin asked Mr, Trooien to clarify that future plans for south oFthis proposed
ramp (the area behveen Shepard Road and the ramp) include a building, not another ramp. Mr. •
Trooien noted that was correct.
TESTIMONY
John E. Grcybek, 2330 St. Paut Avenue, representing Highland District Council, spoke in
opposition to the river modification (height) and setback variances. He noted that Highland
District Council has a stelfar reputation in the business community in working with them
and helping them with their developments. This particular area has been of major concern
and created much controversy in recent years because this is the last significant open space
in the Highiand area. More importantly, it's the adjacent neighborhoods and the fact that
it's adjacent to the Mississippi River Corridor, and that it is a major corridor to the City of
Saint Paul. He pointed out that the District 15 Council is not opposed to development of
this particular area. Mr. Trooiea has repeatedly said that ecoaomics is the most important
issue, basicalfy, what goes into his pockets. The Councit is concemed about the integrity of
the area when buildings, ramps, etc., are put up. The Shepard Davern Gatetivay Task Force
is very much concerned about what has been happening there and what will happen in the
future. Mr. Grzybek informed the Commission that when the Community Development
Committee of the Highland Counci( mef with Mr. Trooien and fiis representatives with
reaard to the site plan, they were not told that there would be a height variance or a setback
variance required for this particular structure. The Highland Community Council held a
public heariag on this September 3, 1998, and had inviied represeniaYives of Mr. Trooien's
office of which none appeared.
The Council is particularly concerned because there was no reason presented to the Council �
to grant these variances. Today, a 2'/: foot variance doesn't seem to mean a lot, but what
happens in the future? �Vhat do we do wifh the next developer who needs a vaziance of 4
feet? The Council's concem is if you give 2%z feet today, you are going to have to give 2'/:
feet tomorrow, or 4 feet tomorrow because everyone can give an economic reason as to why
a variance is required. We have standards for a reason, and the Highland Community
Council is asking that those standards be enforced. If these variances are granted, tomonow
the Planning Commission will not have a reason for not granting the 2%z feet or the 8 feet,
for the air conditioninJ unit, etc.
Regarding the I S foot setback variance, Mr. Grzybek said that the City needs to assure
adjacent property owners that they are not going to try to squeeze every inch to allow this
type of development to occur just for the sake of putting more dollars into either Mr.
Trooien's pocket or some other developer's pocket.
Mr. Grzybek noted that most peopie are in favor of more jobs in Saint Paul, but we also
need to look at the integrity of Saint Paul. 1Vhat makes Saint Paul so special? Why do
people want to stay in Saint Paul? Neighborhoods. Boulevards. Trees. Plantings.
Ambiance. Infrastructure. Landscaping is very importanf fo Saint Paul. Hertz, a national
corporation that has no ties to Saint Paul other than they do business here, spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars to put in natura( landscaping. Mr. Trooien won't do that because he
doesn't see the necessity of doing so.
•
� titi
q� 1���
• Mr. Grrybek continued to say that this area is not an extension of thz 494 strip. The
Highland Area Communiry Counci( thinks Mr. Trooien should dig to get the 2.5 height
variance. The setback variance was also opposed by the Council because no compelling
reason was presented. The City needs to keep the integrity of Shepard Road being the
gateGVay to Saint Paul, regardless of what happens there.
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Grzybek whether he attended the September 3`' meeting, and
how many people were there. Mr. Gaybek ans�vered that he did attend and approximately 25-
30 people were there. Three people spoke in opposition. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr.
Grzybek if the Highland Azea Community Council �vas opposed to any ramp on this site, or
opposed only to the variances. Mr. Grzybek responded that the Council has resigned to the fact
that some type of ramp is going to be built; they are concerned �vith how it is going to be built in
terms of inee[ing the standards of the City of Saint Paul. Comrnissioner Gordon asked if the
Council agreed to the ramp at this site without the variances. Mr. Grrybek stated that it was his
understanding that the Community Development Committee did vote on the site plan and agreed
to the location of the ramp, but they were not aware of any variances that were needed.
2. Melvin Spieoler, 4614 VJest 29`" Street, Minneapolis, addrzssed the Commission in
opposition to the variances. He stated that he built the adjacent apaRment buildings in 1960
and the garages in 1984. He thinks the Commission should be awaze that there is a lawsuit
pending. There is a discrepancy as to the ownership of the vacated alley right of way. Mr.
Spiegler has a quitclaim deed from Unisys, so he feels as though he owns the entire right of
way. Mr. Trooien's attorneys claim that Mr. Spie�ler does not own it. Yesterday afternoon,
• Mr. Spiegler stated that he was presented with a very substantial lawsuit over 8 feet.
Mr. Spiegler noted that he I+ked Mc. Beach's glan.
Patrick McGuigan, 200 Liberty Bank Building, Saint Paul, addressed the Commission
representing Mr. Spiegler. He wanted to make clear to the Pla�ning Commission that Mr.
Spiegler and he do not want their lawsuit prejudiced by the assertion that they stood in front
of the Planning Commission and said nothing, allowing the Commission to assume that
there's a 15 foot distance behveen the proported property line and the actual properiy line.
However the lawsuit is resolved, Mr. Spieglec wants the Commission to be very cSear that
the 15 foot setback being sought may indeed, be an 8 foot setback.
4. James Lockhart, 1800 IDS Building, Minneapolis, the attomey representing Mr. Tzooien's
company, Shepard Road Acquisition Company, in the pending lawsuit, addressed the
Commission. He stated that the status of title as it appears in the O�ce of the Registrar of
Titles, indicates that the properiy line is just as represented on the site plan. As it stands
right now, the garages that are located along the area encroach by 8 feet on the property
owned by Mr. Trooien's company.
Mr. Trooien returned to the podium for rebuttal commenting that Mel Spie�ler is one ofthe guys
that helped build this town. His company has no issue with Mel Spiegler. __..
MOTION Commissioner Geisser moved that the public hearing be closed; Commissioner
� Nordin seconded tl:e motion whic3r carrierl unanimously on a voice vole.
�5.
23
Commissioner Geisser noted ihat there is a small area plan in process in the Shepard Davern
area. She noted that there is much information known by the members of that task force that •
maybe the members of the district council are unaware of. This plan has 6zen is process for a
long time, and it should be known that Mr. Trooien moved the location of the intended ramp to
this site through a compromise; the Shepard Davern Task Force asked him if he would consider
moving it off the east side site. It was a neighborhood decision and a staff decision; it was
everyone's feeling that what tivould be best for the area and the city was that this ramp be moved
to the site that he has chosen. She added that it �vas also understood that there would probably
be an expansion of another office building in the front, and that cvouid be the showplace for
Shepard Road, not the ramp. The ramp would be covered by another building. The other thing
that should be known that the setback variance is being made because the land is zoned
industriat abutting a residentiat zone. IFthis tir•ere a commercially zoned parcel, he �vould not
need a variance. This proposal is a commercial development abutting a neighborhood.
Logically, Mr. Trooien doesn't need a variance. Regarding the river conidor variance,
Commissioner Geisser wanted commissioners to understand that just one or hvo blocks down
from Davern, the river corridor standards are not in effect.
Throughout this entire plan is a discussion of the entire area. What is spurrin� this on is the
airpoR espansion in sight. The real concern for this area on the part of thz City, is that the entire
area could be a sea of parked cars. This is why there is effoR to do a plan in this area that is
pleasing and economically sound for the city. The task force is trying to figure out the best way
to deal with alI of this land. She noted, too, that she was unaware that Mr. Beach was going to
recommend the half bay; and that recommendation is not atl of stafPs position. Staff supported
the full four stories on the ramp; they suppoR the north wall being solid or there be some sort of
architectural screen; they suppo�t general appropciate landscaping on a(I sides, with speci£c .
emphasis on Davern.
MOTIOti: Commissioner Ceisser moved approva! ojYhe river corridor modification;
Commissioner Kramer seconded t/ze motion.
Commissioner Gordon stated that he will oppose that mation beca¢se, as he reads the zoning
code, it requires a demonstration of undue hardship, and he doesn't see that demonstration has
been made. He understands from what he has read and heard that this �vould simply make an
othertvise profi[abie parking ramp into an even more profitable parking ramp, which is a
legitimate concern, but does not fall into the definition of undue hardship. The applicant bought
the land after the ordinance was put into place; he was aware of these requirements. He also
finds that the number of parking spaces required by the bank and future development on that
same site can be accommodated by a parking ramp without the height variance; and that the
purpose of the additional height variance is to accommodate parking from the airport. He just
doesn't think that meets the undue hardship standard; and the burden of proof is on the
applicant, and he doesn't feel that burden has been met.
Commissioner Nordin stated that she will also oppose the motion because of the same reasons as
Commissioner Gordon sta[ed. She shared another issue. She wonders if anyone has considered
stair towers and eievator towers that �vi(1 be on rivo comers of the ramp (southwest and northeast
comers). Those portions of the building wilt be 62 feet, 9 inches. There wifl be light poles, too.
Commissioner ICramer asked Mr. Beach to address Commissioner Nordin's concern. •
� L`{
�� ��� 7
Mr. Beach commented that the elevations shown don't show any staircases or elevators going
• above the 42.5 foot height because there will be no roof above the staircases and elevators aze
not required under the American's with Disabilities Act; the handicap spaces will be on the first
floor. If the ramp is ever connected to a building, then there wifl be different requirements for
elevators. Lights are not subject to height limitation.
Commissioner Nordin asked for clarification that the stairs would not be enclosed. Mr. Beach
responded that the stairs would not be enclosed.
Commissioner Vaught stated that he would abstain from voting because hz walked into the
meeting at the tail end of the public hearing.
Commissioner Nowlin asked if the parking ramp would be built if the Planning Commission
voted to approve a 3-story ramp. He noted that he is concerned as Commissioner Gordon that
there is no undue hardship. Ho�vever, this is an accommodation, and the footprint is where we
want it. He said he would like to make sure that the ramp is constructed in the footprint that is
planned, but at the same time, he thinks we need to wait and see what the plan is for the rest of
the property before the 4`� story is approved. Mr. Trooien replied that he �a�ill not build if the
Planning Commission does not approve the height variance.
The motion on tkeJloor to approve tf:e river corridor n:odification carried on a ro11 call vote
of II - 3(Gordon, Margulies, Nordin) with I abstention (Vaught).
MOTION: Commissioner Geisser moved approval ojtlae setback variance omitting
• condition #1 and amending condition #3 to read "Su landscaping must be planted on
11te noril: side of t/re ramp to reduce the visual impacl ojtlre ramp; " Commissioner Faricy
seconded the motion.
Commissionet Nordin asked if the Commission ever specifies the maintenance of landscaping.
Mr. Beach commented that the zoning code requires that the owner is required to maintain the
landscaping. It would not hurt to reiterate it in a condition.
The motion on the floor to approve tl:e setback variance omitting condition #I and amending
condition #2 to read "Sufficient fandscaping must be planted on the norlh side ofthe ramp to
reduce fhe visua! impact ojthe ramp" carried on a roll call vote oJl3 -1 (Nordin) with one
abstention (Vaughl).
MOTION: Commissioner Geisser moved approval of ihe site plan review; Commissioner
Faricy secanded t/:e motion whicl: carried on a voice vote (14) with one abstenlion {f�aught).
IV. Zoning Committee
In Commissioner Field's absence, Commissioner Wencl gave the Zoning Committee report.
#98-187 Zhuolina Ren - Sio variance to allow two free standing sie s within a required front
yard to allow a perpendicular sie to the street and height variance for an archway sign at 1033
Grand Avenue (Jim Zdon, 266-6559).
r 1
LJ
�,5
PLANIVING CObINIISSION STAFF REPORT
FILES # 98-223, 98-231 and 98-236
1. APPLICANT: Gerald Trooien for AIexandra & Associates LLC DATE OF HEARING: 9/11/98
2. CLASSIFICATION: River Comdor Modification , Setback Variance and Site Plan Review
3. LOCATION: 2751 Shepard Road (�vest of Davern beh��een Shepazd Road and Norfolk)
4. PLANNING DTSTRICT: 15
5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See file
6. PRESENT ZONING: I-2, RG2
ZODIING CODE REFERENCE: § 6�233.a, 62.1O8.c, 61.104.b
7. STAFF INVE5TIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 9/2/98
8. DATE RECEIVED: 8/13/98 DEADLINE FOR AC1'ION:
BY: Tom Beach
10/12/98
A. PUT2POSE: The applicant is proposing to build a pazking ramp with 996 parking spaces. To do
this he needs approval for:
- River Corridor NIodification The ramp would be 42.� feet high. A masimum height of 40
feet is permitted in the RC-3 (River Corridor Urban Open Overlay District).
- Setback Variance The ramp would be set back 1� feet from the north properry line. A
minimum setback of 1.5 times the height of the structure or 6� feet is rzquired in the I-I zoning
district from adjacent residential property.
Site Plan Review All pazking facilities require site plan review.
B. PARCEL: The parcel covers justunder 17 acres.
C. EXISTING LAND USE: There is a large building on the west half of the property that was
fomierly used by Unisys. US Bank is now in tfie process of moving into the building.
The proposed parking ramp would be located on the east half of the property nhere there is
current�y a parking lot. Part of the lot is used for a remote pazking lot for the Minneapolis-Saint
Paul airport «zth a shuttle bus sezvice n,nn;ng to the auport and the rest of thz lot is reserved for
USBank employees. USBank c�ill need all ofthe puking lot plus additionai pazking once it
occupies the entire building.
D. SUI2ROUNDING LAND USE:
Nozth: Apartments and other residential (RT-2)
South: Crosby Farm Pazk and Watergate Marina (R-I)
East: A remote parking lot for the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport (I-1)
West: A restaurant and office building (B-2)
E. HISTORY: The building and pazldng lot on the site were originally built by Unisys. The
building had not ben used since Unisys left several years ago. Mr. Trooien bought the property and
•
•
•
� �V
�'-�d�7
has renovated the buildin� o�•er the last yeaz. US Bank is moving into the building at this time and
eventually they will occupy the entira building.
• The site is located in the area covered by 1993 Shepard Road Davem Street Small Area Plan. The
plan calls for developing the area with "attractive office and/or light industrial de� elopment to create
' a visually appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepazd Road". The plan contains a number of
desi� guidelines and says that "these desi� guidelines should be enforced as part of the City's
rewlar site plan review process." Within the last yeaz, the City formed a necv task force that is
workin� on updating the Shepazd Da��em Plan.
Eazlier this sun�mer, Mr. Trooien submitted a site plan for a pazking ramp with 1200 spaces across
the street on the east side of Davern at the site of an existin� parking lot. That proposed ramp did not
require a River Comdor modification or a setback variance. However, staff had concems that the
earlier ramp was not consistent with the Shepazd Davem Small Area Plan. The Hi�hland Area
Community Council recommended that the ramp be located on the west side of Davem. A public
hearing was scheduled at the Planning Commission to consider the site plan but Mr. Trooien
withdrew the site plan and resubmitted the current site plan. This plan addresses most of the
concerns staff had �vith the eazlier ramp and moves the ramp to the �vest of Davem in response to the
Highland Area Community CouncIl's recommendation.
F. THE PROPOSED RAD4P: The proposed parking ramp would have 996 parking spaces. The ramp
�vould have four levels (one at gade and thzee above grade). It would be 42S fezt tall, measured to
the top of the �vall arotmd the top level (39 feet measured to the surface of the parking deck on the
top level). The driveway to the iunp «ould be on Davem in the same location as a drive�vay to the
esisting parking lot. The ramp would be finished in concrete and painted to match the USBank
• building. It �vould be open on all sides. The first level would have chain link fencing in the
openings to restrict access to the ramp.
There are currently approsimately 11 � 0 parking spaces in all of the parking lots on the US Bank
property. The proposed ramp would increase this number to appro�mately 1900 parking spaces.
(The ramp would have 996 spaces but would displace approximately 246 esistin� spaces in the
parking lot for a net increase of 7� 0 parking spaces.) Based on what the applicant told staff, it
appears that US Bank wotdd need about 600 of the spaces in the ramp. The remaining 400 would
initially be used for airport pazkin�.
•
The proposed ramp would be located on the north portion of the site so that the south portion of the
site, overlooking Shepard Road and the Mississippi River, can be developed in the future. The
applicant submitted a concept plan to show what type of building could be built in the southem
portion of the site. The ramp is desi,gned so that it could be expanded in the future to accommodate
more development on the site.
The ramp does not require an Indirect Source Permit &om the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
because it has less than 1000 parkin� spaces.
G. DISTRICT COIJNCIL RECO�INIENDATION: The board of the Highland Area Community
CouncIl will meet to consider this proposal on September 3.
� 27
FIPTDINGS AND STAFF RECO�iMEi�IDATION FOR RIVER CORRIDOR �fODIFICATION
H. FINDINGS: �
i. The proposed ramp would be 42.5 £eet tall measured to the top of the wall around the top level.
(The height of the surface of the pazking deck on the top level �vould be 39 feet «ith a 3.5 foot
tall wall.) The property is zoned I-1 which normally pennits a maximum hei;ht of �0 feet.
However, the property is also located in the RC-3 River Comdor Overlay Zoning District which
permits a ma�cimum height of 40 feet (Section 6i233.a).
2. Section 65.6�0 of the Zonin� Code authorizes the Plannin� Commission to modify provisions of
the River Corridor Ordinance if it meets the following findings:
a. It appears that by reason of ezceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter
would cause undue hardship and strict conformiry with the standards would be
unreasonable, impractical and not feasible under the circt�mstances.
This finding is met. An entire lecel of puking �vould have to be eliminated from the raznp in
order to meet the 40 foot height limit. Eluninating an entire level of parking �tiould create a
hardship beeause this parkin� will be needed in the future to develop the rzmainin� portion
of the site.
b. 77ae burden ofproofshall rest with the applicant to demonstrate conclusively to the
commission that st�ch modification rovi[l not restclt in a hazard to life or properry and will not
adversely affect the safery, use orstabiliry of a public way, slope or draina�e channel, or the
natairal environn:ent.
This finding is met. The modification will not result in a hazard or affect the natural •
environment.
c. `Modifications granted by the planning commission shall be consistent with the general
purposes ofthe standards contained in this chapter and state law and the intent ofapplicable
state and national laws and programs.
This findin� is met. The peupose of the 40 foot hei�ht limit is to prohibit tall buildin�s thaY
would be visible from the river. The ramp would meet the intent of this provision since it
would be only 2.5 feet hi�her than the permitted ma.�dmum height and the ramp would be set
back over 300 feet from the river bluff line so taat it should not be visible from the river.
I. STAFF RECONIMENDATION: Based on findings 1 and 2, staff recommends approval of the
modifccation to permit a maYimum height of 42.5 feet measured to the top of the ccaIl around the top
level of the proposed ramp.
•
�. L 4
FINDINGS AND STAFF RECObI�IEtYDATION FOR SETBACK VARIAtiCE
• J. FINDINGS:
q8-i��7
1. The adj acent property to the north of the proposed pazking ramp has four apartmznt buildings.
The apartment huildings are 2'/� stories tall. There is a row of gaza�es for the apartments atong
the common property line ben;�een the apar[ment buildings and the proposed ramp.
2. The proposed ramp would be setback 1� feet from the property line. The zonin� code requires a
setback from the north property line of 1.5 times the height of the ramp because ihe USBank
properry is zoned industrial and the adjacent properry is zoned residential. The ramp is proposed
to be 42S feet tall so the required setback is 6S feet . The applicant is requesting a variance of
�0 feet.
3. The Planning Commission may a ant a variance for setback if it makes the follo«zn� findings:
a. The properry in quesaon cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the
code.
This finding is met. The applicant wanu to reserve the south portion of the site, along
Shepard Road and overlooking the Mississippi Ricer, for future development of an office
building. Shifring the ramp south to maintain a 65 foot setback from the norrh properry line
would severely lirnic space alone Shepard Road for fumre development. The ramp cannot
be built taller to provide the same amount of parking on a smaller foot print because of
hei�ht restrictions.
• b. The plight of the land owner is due to cireumstances unique to his property, and these
circu»utances were not created by the Zand owner.
This finding is met The properry is unique because it overlooks the Mississipgi River and
is subject to the design guidelines of the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan. Both of these
factors su�gest that any future development should be located toward the south side of the
property along Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of the
property.
a The proposed variance is in keeping wzth the spirir and intent of the code, and is consistent
with the health, safery, comfon, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St.
Paul.
This finding is met if conditions aze attached to the variance. The intent of the zoning code
in requiring large setbacks from residential property is to protect adjacent properry owners
from the impact of industrial uses. In this case, the adjacent residenual property can be
protected from light and noise from the ramp if condidons are required that the north wali
of the ramp must be solid and that it must be made attracrive and compatible with the
surrounding nei�hbozhood through the choice of buildin� materials and landscapina.
d. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of lighr and air to adjacent
property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably
• diminish established properry values within the surrounding area.
The finding can be met if condirions aze attached to the variance. The proposed ramp would
be 42.� feet high and over 300 feet long. This could unpair an adequate supply of light and
�f' 2`�
air to the apartment buildings to the north and alTer the essential character of thesurrounding
azea. The impact of the ramp would be significantly reduced if a condition is required that
the top level of the north bap of parking must be eliminated so the hei�ht of the building at
the north wall is reduced to 30 feet. Doing this would reduce the number of parking spaces •
in the ramp by approximatety 68. (See attached drawings by staff.}
e. The variance, if granted, would not pemut any use that is not pemutted under the
provisions af the code for rhe properry in the district where the a„�'ected land is located, nor
would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property.
This finding is met.
f. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income
potenriaL of the parcel of Iand.
This finding is met. The request for vaziance is based primazIly on a desire to fully develop
the properry in a way that takes advantage of iu location overlookin� the Mississippi River
and is consisient with ihe Shepazd Davern Small Area Plan.
K. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1-3, staff recommends approval of the
variance to permit a setback of li feet from the north properry line, subject to the follocving
conditions which aze intended to minimize the impact of the ramp on the apartments to the north:
1. The north bay of pazking ramp (the north 60 £eet of tfie ramp} must be limitzd to a maximum
hei�ht of 30 feet to the top of the wall.
2. The north wall of the proposed parkin� ramp must be solid to screen noise and li�ht from the
adjacent properry and constructed of material that is compatible �vith the surrounding
neighborhood. •
3. Sufficient landscapin„ such as trees and vines, must be planted in the north setback to reduce the
visual impact of the ramp.
i
� ,o
98-�c�7
FI��AINGS AND STAFF RECO�I�tENDATION FOR SITE PLAN REV[EW
• L. FIYAINGS: Section 62.108.c of the zoning code states that "in order to approve the site plan, the
planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with" the findings listed
below.
(1) ApplicableordinancesoftheCityofSaintPaul.
The site plan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if the Rivez Comdor Modification foz
maYimum height and the Zoning Variance for setback aze approved.
(2) The ciry's adopted comprehensive pZan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the
CJly.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepard Road Davem Street Small Area Plan which was
adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan on November 16, 1993.
- The plan encoura�es the ocvner of this site and the property to the east of Davem to
"consider building a pazking deck or some type of pazking structure (perhaps incorporated
with another use) that could provide parking to Unisys, if needed, as well as provide
pazking to a new development"
- The vision of the plan is "attractive office and/or ligh[ industrial development to create a
visually appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepard Road" The location and size of
the ramp is intended to allow future office dzvelopment along Shepazd Road.
- The plan recommends that development should be "sensitive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commercial azea". The ramp will meetthis
• recommendauon if the north wall is no more than 30 feet high and landscaping is added
to soften the appeazance of the ramp from adjacent residential properry.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings massing should be configured to avoid long
unbroken facades." The location of the ramp is consistent with this finding since it
would allow another building to be built in the future to the south that would screen the
ramp from Shepard Road.
(3) Preservation ofunique geologic, geographic or historically significant characteristics ofthe
city and environmentally sensikve areas.
The site plan is consisient with this finding. The site's location overlooking the Mississippi
River is geoo aphically sia ificant. Locating the ramp at the north portion of the site so that
the south portion can be developed as an office building responds to the characteristics of the
location.
(4) Protection of adjaeent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for such
matters as surface water draina�e, sound and sight bz�ffers, preservation ofviews, light and
air, and those aspects of design which may have substanriat effects on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent ��ith this finding if the top level of the ramp is eliminated in the
north bay so that the ramp is 30 feet tall to the top of the wall along the nor[h side and the north
wall of the ramp is solid to block light and noise.
• (�) The arrangement ofbuildings, uses and facilides ofthe proposed development in orderto
assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably affected.
The site plan is consistent �ith this finding if the height of the north bay of the height of the
� 31
ramp is reduced along the north side and the north «'atl is solid to screzn ti�ht and noisa from
the adjacen[ residential property. The location of the new drive�cay is also consistentwzth this
finding: it would be in the same azea as an e�cisung driveway to minimin the impact on the •
adjacent residential property and to encourage more trafFic to go to directly� to Shepard Road
rather than traveling on Davem.
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and locarion, orientation and
elevation ofstn�ctures.
The site plan meets current standards and is consistent with this frnding.
(7) Safety and convenience ofboth vehicular and pedestrian traffic bath within the site and in
relation to access streets, including traffic circulation featzires, the locaaons and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent �vith this finding. The plan has been reviecved for traffic safety by
Public Works staff. They approved the location of the driveways and found that Davem could
safely handle the increased traffic that �vould be generated by the ramp.
(8) The satisfactory wailabiliry and capaciry ofstorm and sanitary sewers, including solurions to
any drainage problems in the area ofthe deveZopment.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for secvers and drainage. A condition of site
plan approval should be that the applicant submit a more detailed plan for rzciew and approval
by Public �Vorks staff
(9) Sufficient landscaping, fences, wa(Is and par�zng necessary to meet the above objecrives. �
The site plan does not show sufficient landscaping. A condition of site approcal should be that
the applicant submit a tandscape plan, showing sufficient landscaping on the east (Davem
Street), north and south sides of the raznp, for review and approval bp LIEP staff.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), incla�din� parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent «�th this finding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "RamseyErosion Sediment and
Control Handbook. "
The site pIan does not contain any information on erosion and sediment control. A condition
of approval should be Yhat an erosion and sediment control plan is submittzd for revie�v and
approval by LIEP staff.
M. STAF'F 12EC0�'IENDATION: Based on findin�s 1 through 11, staff recommends that the
plan be approved subject to the condition that the applicant must submit the folo�ring plans:
1. A final plan for site utilities and storm water mana�ement for review and approval by Public
Works staff.
2. An erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by LIEP staff.
3. A finaI Iandscape plan sho�v�ng sufficient landscapin� along ihe east (Dacem Street}, north and •
south sides of the ramp for review and approval by LIEP staff.
� 3z
•
•
�
a
�
��
o..
X
�'
_�
3 �
�
F r 3
� � �
'�S i � " ' ,�.�
? a ,"` _ —
._— - �_ -
aQ! � =-=��;; � s-
� r�
����
�° 6
=' � �"—�
�
..a
�—.� -_�___�_
��-� =V�
_ —''� - -�y-�1- - '
` f� �^` _ _ �_
=-�c� - =-f
= -- �� ---�_� = -
35 �
-- �3 ---- �
5; ,
u4 V
� I
, G � -�-�--
�� 1
133HM � � �
� I I
1
I�
� I
u I � I
i l I
1
I
I
�
� i�`� _ �
� �
- i
�- I I
� `;�w`'� �
. ,'! � ;`y � �
. �L f
i
�
,,,
Y �
� i
a
� � �
' � I
I
�
I
��J
u
�
S
�
�
>
�
V a P �
...i. iE , �;
�� i: a i i
�, b � ;i`; i �� {� , I
�� fji, � �� �
� la�k;::i: i��I
\ z 13,9 t EitE
\ ; i;; ;.al:`=%,!
\ � '7� �L/i�
� � \ W �:
�
��
W � �`�\
����.
a
<
W
j Y
i� J
J
Q
� �
s
N ��7�
Z T
� � O W
111 3 s Q
NF
�o
0�
'a
= a
?
N
W
�
J I
J
�
�
1
� N
Z
��
�W
��
m�
L
�X
0
0�
�
?
N
X
1 1 1 � t
i� a y
L
1
(
� �
� - 't-
�- `
I (
, • I c
i, �
�
i� � �
- ., �
�
� �I
�t��
���
i ��
J
3� 33
C(� -/4(�7
�
.�
�
�
�
0
�
�
�J'
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
�_ II
_ " js �V�d�l��:e
;i i
°��
�n
��
Q
�
Q
�.
��
z
�
lll �
n✓ iC.
�n
+��—
�9
1
,
�-1 i�
� r
�7 �
z �
t- �
��
' �\
' \
,\
.,0 �„'J'
�
���- 9� ls N � � nda
� � �� � ,
�—�—
t �
� OO=OG i' __ � _
� O =� � -
� �
� - � � �,�
� � _ _
°� / �� �
�'Q __ �=L __ =�_.�
_ � �,.. 1 ,_ ; �_�
(__
� �:,UV _� --�
r � �� - T — �
_ _ — � — �_� =�
-- t ,�� — �
-- - J
� -- - — Ill
_ �_-_ —_ `
= __- . —. ._ . _ —�- -= �v
— - -- ---- — -�
-- -- � —�-- F
t _ -_ �—_. —_��-�
�
-- — — ci
—. —�_ _
— - � _�—_ - __ f "
--' �
__ �� — �-
k
�
—�—_ _ �_ — ._ �-
' i - '
i '
wz
� a
E
��
�— O � --�
Z Z
t- �
�
w�
- � �
r ^ jV Z
[!i
3 �
tn
I — _—
f
� �.
Z '
_ � Q — , i
Z � �
�
� �
_3y� _
�Y
�_ j
��
_ ¢
y
Y"'
-- �
il
�
w
U
z
w
LL
Z
J
z
a
_
U
u -ar�od
�A 00 0 0
W
Q
� Z
0�
z�
F-
�
X
w
\ �V
�
\
�
�
C
�
•
�
x _ x —_ x .— x ' � '
� . � 3�'- - .
1
�� i��
�
•
•
�a �—
Cmi
i�u '
��
(o;'-
; W lf _ _ _
�
.,
,.
���
�„�,
�ri�
VU
u. <1
X
w!
l --�
� V
� �
�
�
�
�
�
>
�
� 3s
�
�
�
S
�
2
-�
s
-'�
�
V/
1 i
N
Cf f u �i
.n � U .O :O
� �u
\9 -
3 ' f> � � Gl
- `• m ' w� _
i i i r �
1
�� � i � ' �
w i w
U � U ! V
i � � i Q
1 O j f� 1 4
_ __ ;, ._
' � .
'�
��� �
� .S'IA
�9 ttl
7 l'1
i- 'i
��� W
iii
l'1
il r l'1
7 IY (]
r()�
m��R)
��
� �t
�,
�
� �
1 'V
� ` N
`{� __
Q --
�
3
y
� s
� �y
V
_ a
� S
�� c?
�
�
�
�
�
"_'�I
L
N
� .
�
�a
I ' � �
� ;
N 1 J I � �
Cl � u i�i i.�
.n O i O i O
� I I � � �
� �� ai a
? ; 9 � O j N
__ `-_ �
I t • �_
_ I' .
� �
I �
� � i, � i � �
w I �i ; ui
� U � U ' U �
i � � i B
� I A � Q �
''— _ ` _
� �I il l
I �
i -
� I li M �
'. I: _
� o
i� � y
�i �
f r ._
' 3
, �: ° _.
'�' � �
�!' � 3
--�
p �n s
- � -�
� y
.� O
i �'1 ��� ]� S
0'� Z ��
' �� �n W '-
i ! � ;� �-
. w� �
� u_
o �`
iv � �
z �� �
Q 'U
�
�
L
�'D
\i Y l'1 t
?WC] �'
)i�p] �
� �n .
ui��jj 3
�',' �
�
� 36
� - --
�
_ _. _��,�._._,�
•
� �
a
\ r
�
� 8 -i�6°7
�
�
_° � 0 1L
� ;
S �.\ � o
—� : ��-- — — —� — — � � f? � 2
—_ . _ — � v 'l .'r , �
^ i I, � � ~ � — — � �L' '�--
- - �;�'.,ij� � � 'L'�
g�� - _ = uS � O 1�1
' �� t ' � � =.4,_.' °;�,�_ -�� ; `� _t o n- �-
�:a � � � �/. p I 4 � °F � � � � � Y �
�ti I { , � q I —C> s = — m i �� ` � ..L
i �
I {
� I I
�
I I
�
`i
� �
i I
�
;
� �
Y�
I d
�I
I �
o � z
I
1
l
��� C� _ —3� s =;�T — � — �
'� —y_ ! �° $ y �"
�'s� Y — _ � K y' � �
-� ��=a= �� O � o
i e y i ,/ i r= i�� o � fl-- C� �
I a _ i �f --�=s��=_ g w `
� �
i � s �_z=__ _' �� s�
J I _ --1 � =- - - —F-a ,�ri o �
�i� '__- °�d O
� W��
� � � � 9(` �4 ' ' � � � 9 � �;
I � � I 8 � � �e� �, �� _ �`'
I � , I ! �� q - ~�
� I � �!�� � �' o
� � °� i. s � � ;� �;�.� `I,
i � �-- _��
i � �3€
�� a -- �
� — r= _'� � ��'�' � �
s �3��3H;� —� � Nw
� `
�
4 I
1 I � • � �
� , ' I
� � �
I I�I
� '—=� =� — —
. � �
\ � �
�,
�
�
H
� �
�
��
h
�
�
W
�
r
��
��
g�
N
W
�I
� �_
a I � � � B
LL_'__
I
-�t = � Od �
N —
• � o �_ \ � \ o � � O�aJ \
a r \ �.
� --
\ �
�\ .
3� t� , y� � $ ' ; � _� ga�� s £ �
Y � � ,.. �" � � �� W � � � � ��� ` �
.:3 3 3 ffi :,6�£: ° �a`_4 ��$.�'��� �.. e3", �a �
ill�'i�t�lll�
Iliillllll T
/
Y /
a :�
i�
e � � �
1 �
�
�
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1Q.
11.
12.
13.
�
17.
Stli IRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGFiWOOD
FiAZHL PARK HADE\T•PROSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE
DAYTON'S BLUFF =;,
,
PAYNE-PHAI.EN z ,
NORTH END '
THOtifAS-DALE
SUMMIT-LRv�IVERSITY
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE-MID WAY
ST. ANT"HOi'IY PARK
MERRIA2vi PARK-LEXhi'GTON HAMI.Ii3E-S\ HAMLINE
M.ACALESTER GROVELA-h'D
HIGHLAND
SUMMIT HILL 2
DOWNrOWN
ZON[NG F�LE
'.�s 3 8
CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO�I PLAN\'I! tG DISTRICTS
9� -� �
�
�
:.
� �. �
.' I
, ... .......
� .. .. ....
.. ......_ ;�
� � ... ..... • i - �-
��.. `• .. " � �j
� -„]`��
_ _'\ ` ��'
���' :�
\` �
..���
�� � ��
���. ,l I�
E I'��:
_�-`�;�){':�i ��`
_�;�; 1. �-
--- � �-
• _ �,:
�.� T1.� � i�:..- i�
���rl'Tz��
_�� � �r:T
_ �I�I�.����_
� ��
=°`��: �
°'--_-�_- _r�
__= - -
__= _
- �-_-�
'--�- �=-.
_� .
� �-� I�
1 ; 1 ��
L
„ �
_� I � �
u __���. V � , ` : i
=,, ;�: ..
� j
;;�,����;.�
.. s, �.. �
Ir� , -� J
!1 , ,'i`,< i-�= - •
� C t; ;7.: /,.`: ;,� �;
� ,_�,j _�i�` ..�
� ;; ,,: :_ -, .
/ �.. �
a-� �% � /
� 1`' I ;
�J%� � �,
, ,
�:�
, �: ,
x,.
H I GHLAt{ D
�
�
� • 8{ :
�
/�� /
DISTRICT 15 N - __. _ ,� '�-
Z'd 2
I Z�������� r���.� �—�
'�t 39
� a. "
: �-, -
n �
a ��..
n ^ !11
G •..���....
V
�
0
� � =J � ��
�� 6G ' sHea
� °f�E' G
l,e e� a� 8 v G
J 6i�•�jcJ �e�
o � G C /� ��'^��[>
�E� �}�.��'n6? �' e�`�
�, � c a U2 :��s� ���` 7�j 5 � �g c
�, ��;�, ��
�����
�_`
,
�
�n
f. °' C � `..
MORfC�tiE - --
� r a�i
� �� �
.E�on
V �/1
� ��^ ^o ��
n
�
� �1
P
P
-� C� n g�
e cs°
��
� 5`ea` 3 e�
�� w ��e� F3 �� �
���.c���'���'s E
'�Go'J%' c �
j� � n �� � � � ���� ��
� � c 9 '� r� �, fl� Fs s,
r'C� �� S �� p�,.+� `J �3 r? �J a�•''
x3�� n[; t'77 qV 9n ��G. a � �/
�h�J n �. _a nVa�3�.. ��.e
��� ��
Ri vER
�,� .: __..
�.C--� r.re.�'`E.'��.^.`E.��..oc�._ 'e.�r'
MAP,
="��r:�;'M_� '`�e�o
re C r G,.�..^�c.^:'rr E
_�
I
LEGEND
...--_.�� zoniny district t�ur�dz;y i
subj=d propa7y "norin '
0 on=_ lamily • � ^ comni<�..�
¢ rr�o (dmily + .�.,..,inJus;n :'
I
Y i
'u Q muitipl� la'nil, V va�2, I
�•-��•E�`..� L,�ct,���t.Y �''r1.-.
�'. :� .0 (:�'���'� �,.7:
• ':� J c£.�... i. .. r. n _ �� ' _ t -. .- ... . a .� c �� c� w r'�. . .
,�� v
'L b�
\ A 1°
I �
'� 91 Z
9 �
p 0
° ��
� �L
��
�
` .�1p'i v
/
� ��[iC�
� 3���
� n. c..
� a 9 e 4, P" f.
(•' iJ O cS �"p
- o
q fJ V G` CA�
F� 4�U
�J B�n �,
�� 4 3 o c+ ,� p� `�' Q`
! 9° b c �� ' � • �`�� J � O
J7Q�0°v�� �
0
� 9 � ��'� n �
F �,� � .3 n.
��a��� £���
� � a oP j-
�n' � �� � ��
� C �4� �o tj J 1
`i�O �'p° E
�
�� �e � d�
� 3 n C� �c � a
O �6 4' n ••
• ���o'"�"�°,"�"�°�°�"�°�°��f'I`I°I°�°'OR����°!�l°!°�
� QV E.
�NO �_�� �<<'� ��I O O O O O 00 A � 000 O 000�
_`. �,� �, �'`�°' I� I� I I� I Y�. � I � I�I I o:
(
��5�17 � � ( �I �°/�
RESOLUTION
OF SAINT PAUL, MINIVESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Council File # f 0 ' �V�O
Green Sheet # �L �� L �
Committee: Date
2
3
4
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
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien, on behalf of Alexandra and Associates LLC, in Zoning File
Nos. 98-231, 98-223 and 98-236, made the following applications to the Saint Paul Planning
Commission: (1) site plan review pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.108 [Zonirtg File
No. 98-231]; (2) modification of the river conidor provisions contained in Saint Paul Legislative
Code § 65.650 [Zoning File No. 98-223]; (3) variance from the strict application of Saint Paul
Legislative Code § 61.104(b) pertaining to setbacks for shuctures [Zoning File No. 98-236], all
for the purpose of constructing within the City's River Corridor District a 42.5 foot high parking
ramp with a 15 foot setback from abutting properiy having a residential zoning classification.
The subject property is commoniy known as 2751 Shepard Road. [Please see Zoning Files
numbers 98-223, 98-231 and 98-236 for the legal descriptions of this large pazcel of property];
and
WIIEREAS, on September 11, 1998, the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Planning
Commission] conducted a public hearing on the vazious applications after having provided notice
to affected property owners and wherein all interested persons were given an opportwuty to be
heard;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, decided to approve each application, subject to conditions, under separate resolutions as
follows:
A. In Zoning file No. 98-231 [Site Plan Review], the Planning Commission made the following
findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-56:
°(1) Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The site plan is consistent with a11 applicable ordinances if the River Corridor
Modification for maYimum height and the Zoning Variance for setback are approved.
(2) The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-
azeas of the city.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepazd Road Dauern Street Small Area Plan
which was adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan on
November 16, 1993.
�'�
2 - The plan encourages the owner of this site and the properiy to the east of Davern
3 to "consider building a parking deck or some type of pazking shucture (perhaps
4 incorporated with another use) that could provide pazking to Unisys, if needed, as
5
6
7 -
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
well as provide pazking to a new development."
The vision of the pian is "atiractive office and/or light industrial development to
create a visually appealing gateway into 5t. Paul along Shepard Road." The
location and size of the ramp is intended to allow future office development along
Shepard Road.
The plan recommends that development should be "sensitive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commercial area". The ramp will meet
tl�is recommendation if the north wall is kept to no more than 30 feet high acxd
landscaping is added to soften the appeazance of the ramp from adjacent
residential property.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings massing should be configured to avoid
long unbroken facades." The location of the ramp is consistent with this finding
since it would allow another building to be built in the future to the south that
would screen the ramp from Shepard Road.
(3) Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically significant chazacteristics
of the city and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site's location overlooking the
Mississippi River is geographicaliy significant. Locating the ramp at the north
portion of the site so that the south portion can be developed as an office building
responds to the characteristics of the location.
(4) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for
such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of
views, light and air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
(5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in
arder to assure abutting property andlor its occupants will not be unreasonably
affected.
The site plan is consistent with this finding if the north wall is solid to screen light
and noise from the adjacent residential property. The location of the new driveway is
also consistent with this finding: it would be in the same area as an existing driveway
to minimize the impact on the adjacent residential and to encourage more traffic to go
to directly to Shepard Road rather than traueling on Davern.
Page 2 of 7
/ � � �;
, ,
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation
and elevation of structures.
The site plan meets current standards and is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both vehiculaz and pedestrian traffic both within the site
and in relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the locations
and design of entrances and er�its and parking azeas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The plan has been reviewed for traffic
safety by Public Works staff. They approved the location of the driveways and found
that Davern could safely handle the increased traffic that wouid be generated by the
ramp.
(8) The satisfactory availabiliiy and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including
solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the development.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for sewers and drainage. A condition
of site pian approval should be that the applicant submit a more detailed plan for
review and approval by Public Works staff
(9) Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above
objectives.
The site plan does not show sufficient landscaping. A condition of site approval
should be that the applicant submit a landscape plan, showing su�cient landscaping
on the east (Davern Street), north and south sides of the ramp, for review and
approval by LIEP staff.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this fmding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and Control Handbook."
The site pian does not contain any information on erosion and sediment control. A
condition of approval should be that an erosion and sediment control plan is
submitted far review and approval by LIEP staff.
Page 3 of 7
� �= �0�7
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The modifications is consistent with the general purposes of the standards contained
in this chapter and state law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and
programs.
22 The purpose of the 40 foot height limit is to prohibit tall buildings that would be
23 visible from the river. The ramp would meet the intent of this provision since it
24 would be only 2.5 feet higher than the permitted maximuxn height and the ramp
25 would be set back over 300 feet from the river bluff line."
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
B. In Zoning file No. 98-223 [River Corridor District Modification], the Planning Commission
made the following findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-54:
"1. By reason of exceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter would
cause undue hardship and strict conformity with the standazds would be unreasonable,
impractical and not feasibie under the circumstances.
An entire level of parking would haue to be eliminated from the ramp in order to meet
the 40 foot height limit. Eliminating an entire level of parking would create a
hazdship because this parking will be needed in the future to develop the remaining
portion of the site.
2. The modification will not resuit in a hazard to life or property and will not adversely
affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the
natural environment.
C. In Zoning File No. 98-236 [Setback Variance], the Planning Commission made the
following findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-55:
"1
2.
The properiy in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions
of the code.
The applicant wants to reserve the south portion of the site, along Shepard Road and
overlooking the Mississippi River, for future development of an office building.
Shifting the ramp south to maintain a 65 foot setback from the north property line
would severely limit space along Shepard Road for future development. The ramp
cannot be built taller to provide the same amount of pazking on a smaller foot print
because of height restricrions.
The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The properry is unique because it overlooks the Mississippi River and is subject to the
design standards of the Shepard Davern Sma11 Area Plan. Both of these factors
suggest that any future development should be located towazd the south side of the
property along Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of
the property.
Page 4 of 7
�8-ld��
�
2 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
3 consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfaze of the inhabitants of
4 the City of St. Paul if conditions are attached to the variance.
6 The intent of the zoning code in requiring large setbacks from residential property is
7 to protect adjacent property owners from the unpact of industrial uses. In tYris case,
8 the adjacent residential properry can be protected from light and noise from the ramp
9 if the north wall of the ramp is solid and is made amactive and comparible with the
10 surrounding neighborhood through the choice of building ma#erials and landscaping.
11
12 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
13 properiy, nor will it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding azea or
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
unreasonably diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the properry in the district where the affected land is
located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primazily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the pazcel of land.
The request for variance is based primarily on a desire to fully develop the properiy in
a way that takes advantage of its location overlooking the Mississippi River and is
consistent with the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan."
WIIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Melvin
Spiegler Properties, L.P., on October 8, 1998, duly filed with the City of Saint Paul an appeal
from the determination made by the Planning Commission and requested that a hearing be held
before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission
relative to the applications of Alexandra and Associates LLC; and
VJHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208 and upon
norice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on November
12, 1998, where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council having heard the statements made and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the recard, the minutes and resolutions of the Planning
Commission, does hereby;
RESOLVE, that the appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties, L. P. be denied as no error as to
any fact, finding or procedure of the Planning Commission in this matter has been shown; AND,
BE IT
Page 5 of 7
9 g- l D�7
1 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul affirms the decision of
2 the Plamiiug Commission in this matter with respect to the River Corridor Modifications as set
3 forth in Pla.nniug Commission Resolufions No. 98-54 and that the Council of the City of Saint
4 Paui adopts as its own the findings of the Planning Commission; AND, BE IT
6 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul �rms the decision of
7 the Planning Commission in this matter with respect to properiy line setbacks as set forth in
8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-55 and that the Council of the City of Saint Paul adopts
9 as its own the findings and determinations of the Planning Commission as contained in its
10 resolution No. 98-55, provided, however, that such variances are fiu-ther expressly conditioned
11 upon:
12
13 a. It being expressly determined that tlus variance is not granted
14 or effective unless the conditions as set forth in Planning
15 Commission Resolution No. 98-55 aze fully complied with;
16 and
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
b. The Councii being aware that the location of the properry line
is in dispute and the subject of litigation, the additional
condition of the variances is effective only from the property
line wherever that might be determined to be by judicial
resolution or settlement of the parties to the dispute, and that
the appiicant for the variance shall construct any improvements
to the ramp solely at its own risk.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul affirms
the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter witl� respect to Site Plan Review as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-56 and that the Council of the City of Saint
Paul adopts as its own the findings and determinations of the Planning Commission as contained
in its resolution No. 98-56, provided, however, that such variances are fiuther expressly
conditioned upon:
That such site plan approval is expressly conditioned upon, and is not granted until,
the following plans have first been reviewed and approved by the indicated City staff
or agencies:
.�
l:�
The final plan for site utilities and storm water management by
the public works staff;
The final plans for:
(i) Erosion and Sediment Control;
(ii) Landscaping along the East, North and South sides of the ramp; and
(iii) Lighting for the ramp, including light should be directed down and not
toward the residential buildings to the North of the ramp, by the staff of the
office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection.
Page 6 of 7
9 �- ��� 7
�
2
3
4
5
AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shali mail a copy of this
resolution to Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P., Alexandra and Associates, L.L.C., the Zoning
Admuustrator, and the P12tming Commission.
Adopted by Council: Date ��`�
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By:
Approved by May ' ate
By:
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form Appro by City Attorney
BY: �IIr L" k/J/YUi—"�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
DATE INRIATED
council
11-25-98
Councilmember
MIIYBER FOR
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
GREEN SHEET
oEr�airdrowECtae
� � - ta��}
No 6229'7
u�n�auum
a,vcouc..
❑ arcwTrowtr ❑ arcarnK _
❑ iMRNtlGLiERNCFiOYt ❑ RMMIl�LiEM1V/KCT6
❑ W1bR(ORAl9afqMll ❑
(CLIP ALl LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Finalizing City Council action taken November 12, 1998, denying the appeal of Melvin
Spiegler Properties LP to a decision of the Planning Commission approving a parking
ramp proposed by Park N Jeti at 2751 Shepard Road.
PLANNING CAMMISSION
CIB COMMITTEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
ffY_1�::i�I�lay
}ias this PeBONfirm everworked undar a conFrect for Mis departmeM?
YES NO
Has Mie DeraoNfirtn ever been a dlY emDbYee7
YES NO
Does this persoNfi�m possecs a sldll not normellyposseasetl by a�ry curtent city empbyee7
YES NO
Is this persoNfirtn a tarpHetl vendoR
YES NO
�lain all ves ar�srers on seoa2te sheet aM attach to areen sheet
�'. ��� �� A",��-�' t, � e � , � g C
�ei'ti+e `_. S�iL�-v`�,±.. "�:st,�T
�a��y� �' � �99�
AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION
COST/REVENUE BUDIiETED (CIRCLE ON�
�UNDIN6 SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER
YES NO
CouncilFile# �(�- �067
QRlGlNAL
Presented By
Referred To
�
�
2 Wf�REAS, Gerald Trooien, on behalf of Alexandra and As ociates LLC, in Zoning File
3 Nos. 98-231, 98-223 and 98-236, made the following appiications o the Saini Paui Planning
4 Commission: (1) site plan review pursuant to Saint Paul Legisl ive Code § 62.108 [Zoning File
S No. 98-231 ]; (2) modification of the river corridor provisions ntained in Saint Paul Legislative
6 Code § 65.650 [Zoning File No. 98-223]; (3) variance from e strict application of Saint Paui
7 Legislative Code § 61.104(b) pertaining to setbacks for s ctures [Zoning File No. 98-236], all
8 for the purpose of constructing within the City's River nidor District a 42.5 foot high parking
9 ramp with a 15 foot setback from abutting properry ha ng a residential zoning classification.
10 The subject property is commonly known as 2751 S epazd Road. [Please see Zoning Files
11 numbers 98-223, 98-231 and 98-236 for the legal scriptions of this large parcel of property];
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
WHEREAS, on September 11, 1998,iEhe Saint Paul Planning Commission [Planning
Commission] conducted a public hearing the various applications after having provided notice
to affected properly owners and wherei 1 interested persons were given an opportunity to be
heard;and
WHEREAS, the Planning ommission, based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, decided to approve eac application, subject to conditions, under sepazate resolutions as
follows:
A. In Zoning file No. 98- 1[Site Plan Review], the Pianning Commission made the following
findings of fact as set fo in its Resolution No. 98-56:
���
The
RESOLUTION
CITY
PATI., NIINNESOTA
Committee:
ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
plan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if the River Corridor
�tion for maximum height and the Zoning Variance for setback are approved.
(2) � e city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-
areas of the city.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepard Road Davern Street Small Area Plan
which was adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan on
November 16, 1993.
GreenSheet# 62247
q�- Ib�`I
- The plan encourages the owner of this site and the property to the east of Davern
to °consider building a parking deck or some type of parking structure (perhaps
incorporated with another use) that could provide parking to Unisys, if needed, as
well as provide parking to a new development." ,
- The vision of the plan is "atiractive office and/or light industrial evelopment to
create a visually appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepaz oad" T`he
location and size of the ramp is intended to allow future offic development along
Shepard Road.
- The plan recommends that development should be "sen tive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commerci area". The ramp wiil meet
this recommendation if the north wall is kept to no ore than 30 feet high and
landscaping is added to soften the appearance of ramp from adjacent
residenrial property.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings m sing should be configured to avoid
long unbroken facades." The location of ramp is consistent with this fmding
since it would a11ow another building to e built in the future to the south that
would screen the ramp from Shepard ad.
(3) Preservation of unique geologic, geogr hic or historically significant characteristics
of the city and environmentally sensi ' e areas.
The site plan is consistent with ' fmding. The site's location overlooking the
Mississippi River is geographic ly significant. Locating the ramp at the north
portion of the site so that the s uth portion can be developed as an office building
responds to the characteristi of the location.
(4) Protection of adjacent neighboring properties through reasonable provision for
such matters as surfac water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of
views, light and air, d those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land es.
The site plan i consistent with this finding.
(5) The arran ment of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in
order to sure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably
Th site plan is consistent with this finding if the north wall is solid to screen light
d noise from the adjacent residential properiy. The location of the new driveway is
lso consistent with this finding: it would be in the same area as an existing driveway
to minimize the impact on the adjacent residential and to encourage more traffic to go
to directly to Shepard Road rather than traveling on Davern.
Page 2 of 7
ct�- l
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation
and elevation of structures.
The site plan meets current standazds and is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both veluculaz and pedesirian lraffic bo�thin 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 site plan is consistent with this fmding. The plan has bee reviewed for traffic
safety by Public Works staff. They approved the locafion o the driveways and found
that Davem could safely handle the increased traffic that w uld be generated by the
ramp.
(8) The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm anpT sanitary sewers, including
solutions to any drainage problems in the azea of th�development.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan r sewers and drainage. A condition
of site plan approval should be that the applic t submit a more detailed plan far
review and approval by Public Works staff
(9) Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls an�azking necessary to meet the above
objectives.
The site plan does not show
should be that the applicant
on the east (Davern Street),
approval by LIEP staff.
i t landscaping. A condition of site approval
a landscape plan, showing sufficient landscaping
and south sides of the ramp, for review and
(10) Site accessibility in accor ce with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), including p ing spaces, passenger loading zones and accessibie routes.
The site plan ]s cons' tent with this finding.
(11) Provision for ero on and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and ontrol Handbook."
The site pl does not contain any information on erosion and sed'unent control. A
conditio f approval should be that an erosion and sediment control plan is
submi d for review and approval by LIEP staff.
Page 3 of 7
��'-lo��]
B. In Zoning file No. 98-223 [12iver Corridor District Modification], the Plamiing Commission
made the following findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-54:
"1. By reason of exceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter
cause undue hardship and strict conformity with the standazds would be unr�
nnpractical and not feasible under the circumstances.
An entire level of pazking would have to be eliminated from the ramp ' order to meet
the 40 foot height liznit. Eliminating an entire level of parking wou create a
hardship because this parking will be needed in the future to deve p the remaining
portion of the site.
2. The modification will not result in a hazard to life or prope and will not adversely
affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or ainage channel, or the
natural environment.
3. The modifications is consistent with the general
in this chapter and state law and the intent of ap
programs.
s of the standards contained
staze and national laws and
The purpose of the 40 foot height limit is to ohibit ta11 buildings that would be
visible from the river. The ramp would m t the intent of this provision since it
would be only 2.5 feet higher than the pe itted maximum height and the ramp
would be set back over 300 feet from river bluff line."
C. In Zoning File No. 98-236 (Setback V:
following findings of fact as set forth in its
"1. The properhy in question
of the code.
the Planning Commission made the
on No. 98-55:
be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions
The applicant wants to serve the south portion of the site, along Shepard Road and
overlooking the Miss' sippi Rivez, for future development of an office building.
Shifting the ramp s th to maintain a 65 foot setback from the north property line
would severely li it space along Shepard Road for future development. The ramp
cannot be buiit ler to provide the same amount of parking on a smalier foot print
because of h 'eht restrictions.
2. The plig of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to his properiy, and these
circ tances were not created by the land owner.
T properry is unique because it overlooks the Mississippi River and is subject to the
esign standazds of the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan. Both of these factors
suggest that any future development should be located toward the south side of the
properiy along Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of
the property.
Page 4 of 7
a �, �06�
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfaze of the inhabitants of
the City of St. Paul if conditions aze attached to the variance.
The intent of the zoning code in requiring lazge setbacks from residenfial pro�erty is
to protect adjacent property owners from the impact of industrial uses. In tJiis case,
the �
adjacent residential properiy can be protected from light and noise fro e ramp if
the north wall of the ramp is solid and is made attractive and compati e with the
surrounding neighborhood through the choice of building materials d landscaping.
4. The proposed variance will not unpair an adequate supply of li and air to adjacent
properry, nor will it aiter the essential chazacter of the surroun g azea or
unreasonably diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that i not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district w ere the affected land is
located, nor would it alter or change the zoning c�ist ' t classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primazily o�f a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land. �
The request for variance is based pr
a way that takes advantage of its lo<
consistent with the Shepard Davern
�n a desire to fully develop the property in
�verlooking the Mississippi River and is
Area Plan."
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions o Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Melvin
Spiegler Properties, L.P., on October 8, 1998 duly filed with the City of Saint Paul an appeal
from the determination made by the Pl ' g Commission and requested that a hearing be held
before the City Council far the purpose o considering the actions taken by the said Commission
relative to the applications of Alexandr and Associates LLC; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant t Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208 and upon
notice to affected parties, a public earing was duly conducted by the City Council on November
12, 1998, where aJl interested p sons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City ouncil having heazd the statements made and ha�ing considered the
application, the report of f, the record, the minutes and resolutions of the Planning
Commission, does here y;
RESOLVE, at the appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties, L. P. be denied as no errar as to
anq fact, finding r procedure of the Planning Commission in this matter has been shown; AND,
BE IT
Page 5 of 7
c��-(o��
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul afFirms the decision of
the Plauning Comrnission in this matter with respect to the River Corridor Modifications as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 98-54 and that the Council of the City of Saint
Paul adopts as its own the findings of the Plauuing Commission; AND, BE IT
FURT'HER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul affircns the dec" ion of
the Plauning Commission in this matter with respect to property line setbacks as set fo in
Planuing Commission Resolution No. 98-55 and that the Council of the City of Sain aul adopts
as its own the findings and deternunations of the Plann�ng Commission as contain in its
resolution No. 98-55, provided, however, that such variances aze further express conditioned
upon:
a. It being expressiy determined that this variance is not
or affective unless the conditions as set forth in Plann
Commission Resolution No. 98-55 aze fully complie
and
b. The Council being aware that the location
is in dispute and the subject of litigation, t
condition of the variances is effective onl}
line wherever that might be deternuned
resolution or settiement of the parties t tt
the applicant for the variance shall c stn
to tkie ramp solely at its own risk.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
the decision of the Planning Conunission in i
forth in Planning Commission Resolution
Paul adopts as its own the findings and d er
in its resolution No. 98-56, provided, h ev�
conditioned upon:
1. That such site plan
the foilowing plans
or agencies: f
a. The
thei
�
property line
com the property
� by judicial
dispute, and that
any improvements
1�f the Council of the City of Sa3nt Paul affirms
i`s matter with respect to Site Plan Review as set
98-56 and that the Councii of the City of Saint
inations of the Planning Commission as contained
, that such variances are fiutlaer expressly
val is eapressly conditioned upon, and is not granted until,
first been reviewed and approved by the indicated City staff
plan for site utilities and storm water management by
works staff;
final plans far:
(i) Erosion and Sediment Control;
(ii) Landscaping along the East, North and South sides of the ramp; and
(iii) Lighting for the ramp, inciuding light should be directed down and not
towazd the residential buildings to the North of the ramp, by tke staff of the
office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection.
Page 6 of 7
i
a
3
4
5
6
��- �°�`l
AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this
resolution to Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P., Alexandra and Associates, L.L.C., the Zc
Admiiiistrator, and the P1Tnning Commission. ,
Requested by Department of:
By:
Adopted by
Adoption C
By:
Approved
By:
�il: Date
ied by Council Secretaxy
MayOr: Date
Foim App ved by City Attorney
B .��G./�M�1'�'� �l- Z �J -��
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
C'rb� �
CITY OF St�INT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
November 24, 1998
Nancy Anderson
Council Seeretary
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
OFFICE OF TS�', CITY ATTORNEY
Cdayton M Robinson, Jr., CityAnorney
Civil Divtsion
400 Ciry Ha11
I S West KeZlogg B1vd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55702
Telephone: 6A 266-8710
Facs�mile: 65I 298-56I9
Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a parking ramp at
2571 Shepard Road
Zoning File: 98-282
Council Action Date: November 12, 1998
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul
City Council to deny the appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P. of the Planning
Commission's decision to approve consmxction of a parking ramp West of Dauern and North o£
Shepazd Road at 2751 Shepazd Road.
Would you please have this resolution placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest
convenience.
If you haue any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very huly yours,
� ���
eter Warner
Assistant City Attorney
f���.li�'st7
�L`�ais°"? `�r^� 9a .?, ...
�;�?�_ � � ����
Enciosure
�� - �0�7
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
October 27. 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
OFFICE OF LICEN5E, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Roben Kessler, Director
B UILDING INSPECTION AND
DESIGN
350 St Peter Streu
Suite 310
Saint Pau1, Minnuaia 55102-ISIO
Zs
Telephone: 612-266-9001
F¢csimile: 6I2-266-9099
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Thursday,
November 12, 1998 for the following zoning case:
Appellant: Melvin Spiegler Properties LP
File Number: 98-282
Purpose:
Location:
Appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve a parking ramp proposed
by Park N Jet.
2751 Shepard Road
I have confirmed this date with the office of Councilmember Harris. My understanding is that this public
hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you
will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Please call me at 651-266-9086 ifyou have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Beach
Zoning Section
• rrxsraun*•
- ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIIHG ' . "
The Saint Pau1 r City' Council wiIl condvct a publ3c- hearing on Thursday.
November 12. 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-
Court Honse to rnnsider Ehe appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties LP to a decision of
the Planning Commission.to approve a parking ramp-proposed by Pazk N Jet at
2751 Shepazd Road. . , - "
Dated: October 28. 1998 � , � , _ __" _ _ �
NANCYANDERSON ' - . '
fsssis4ani City Cbuncil Secretary
- (Oatober 3Q, 1995) � �
9� oo� 7
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
In accordance with the Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 85
dealing with establishing the schedule of water rates, the Saint
Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing for the proposed
water rate charges for the year 1999 on Thursday, November 12, 1998
at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, 3� floor City Hall-Court House.
Dated October 6, 1998
Shari Moore
Deputy City Clerk
(October 9, 1998)
��1°`-.<._...�_.�_. . -. r:r
��� � � ��,
�.� r � ;'�F,�s
•� CITY OF SAINT PALTL
'�, Norm Coieman, Mayor
November 3, 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
OFF[CE OF LICENSE, I�SPEC'I'IOYS AYD �/��
ENVIRONMEYTAL PROTECTIO�
Roben Kessler, Director
LOWRY PROFESSlONAL Te[ephone: 612-266-9090
BUILDING Facsimile: 612-266-9099
Suite 300 672-2669724
350 St. Peter Street
Sa'rnt Paut, Mimesota 55102-1570
RE: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a parking ramp at 2571 Shepard Road
Zoning File 98-282
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
A public hearing at the City Council has been scheduled for 11/12/98 to consider the appeat described below.
PURPOSE: To consider an appeal filed by Melvin Spiegler Properties LP of the Planning Commission's decision
to approve consh of a parking ramp west of Davem and north of Shepard Road in the parking lot of the US
• Bank Building (the old Unisys Building) at 2751 Shepard Road. The ramp is proposed by Gerald Trooien for
Alexandra & Associates LLC. The ramp would have 4 levels (one at ground level and three above) and 996 parking
spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved the following zoning actions with
conditions:
Setback Variance The parking ramp would be setback 15 feet from the north property line of I S feet (a
setback of 65 feet would be permitted without a variance) (Approved 13-I-1)
The north side of the ramp would be set back 15 feet from the north property line shazed with the apartment
buitdings owned by Mr. Spiegler. Mz. Trooien wants to build the ramp as far north as possible on the site in
order to preserve the southem portion of the site which overlooks Shepard Road and the Mississippi River for
future development. Mr. Spiegler states in his appeal that there is no hazdship unique to this property that
justifies the variance and that locating the ramp this close to his property would have a negative impact on the
apamnent buildings. Mr. Spiegler also states that the property line shown on the site plan is not correct and
that the ramp is actually set back only 8 feet from the property line.
2. River Corridor Modification The parking ramp would be 42S feet high (40 feet permitted without a
modification) (Approved 11-3-1)
The ramp would be 42.5 feet ta11 to altow for a 4-level ramp (one Ievel at grade and 3 above). Mr. Trooien
stated that he needs 4 levels of parking to provide enough spaces for his long term plans to develop another
office building on the site. Mr. Spiegler states in his appeal that there is no hardship to justify the
modification, that it would result in a hazard to life and property and that the modification is not consistent
with the general purposes of the river corridor requiremenu and state law.
3. Site Plan Review (14-0-1). The site plan for the parking ramp was approved with the details of the
• landscaping, lighting, and storm watei drainage to be approved by staff. Mr. Spie�ler states in his appeal ihat
the site plan is not consistent with applicable ordinances or the Shepazd Davern Small Area Plan and that it
would have a negative impact on his and other nearby property.
Conditions were attached to these approvals:
- The north wall of the proposed pazking ramp must be solid to screen noise and light from the adjacent
property and constructed of material that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
- Sufficient landscapin� must be planted on the north side of the ramp to reduce the visual impact of the ramp.
ZONING COMIVIITTEE RECOMIVIENDATION: The public heazing was held at the Plannins Commission.
No hearing or vote was taken by Zoning Committee.
STAF'F RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval with conditions. In addition to the conditions
approved by the Planning Commission, staff recommended that approximately 70 pazking spaces be eliminated so
that the north face of the ramp could be reduced in height to 30 feet.
SUPPORT: The applicant and his attorney spoke at the public hearing
OPPOSITION: The appellant, his attorney and a member of the Hi„vhland Area Community Council spoke at the
public hearing. The Minnesota DNR sent a letter.
This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on Thursday, 11/12/98. Please notify me if any member of
the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sincereiy,
�` -
Tom Beach
cc; City Councilmembers
Attachmenu
Appeal applicatfon
Letter from District 15
Planning Commission resolutions
Planning Commission minutes
Planning Commission staff report
Site plan and location map
page 1
page 11
page 13
page 19
page 26
page 33
\ J
�
u
Z20'd �J�l
s..xT
►.nsi
� �i
�OAAR
APPI.1CA7iON FOR APP�e1
jJcpartmrnt of Plcnning and Ernnomic Dcvelopmcnt
Zonixg Scc'ion .
1100 Cky f7a11 Anrtc
25 fi�crt Fonrih Sa�t
s�nr p� .3tx ssloa
266-6589
o2-ic�/
APPELLANT � Name �elvin Spiegler Properties, L.P.
AddresS 176 �1or h SnPlline Av�n i� 4� itA 995
C;;y S�. Paul S2. M�Z'.�p S�ina Daytime phoneiaSii a;-as 2
Gerald Trooien For Alexandra. & Associates, LLC, Ri er
PROPER7Y Zoning File Nar'�e , � „�,,,, a „ , revie�v
LOCATEON Address(LoCd6on 2�51 Shepard Road
S[. Paul, MN
TYPE OF APPEAL: AppLcation is hereby made for an appea! to the:
❑ 3oard of Zcnirg Appeals �C�ty Coundl
� 206, paragraph a of Ute 2cning Code, to
under the provisions of Chapte; 64, Section
appea adgcisian made by the Planning Commission
�/ll/98 resolucions passea zoning: - ; 98 98
on 9/24/98 esoht ��nG mai�a� , 19_. Fie number.
(dateotdects�n) Planning Commission nesolution 98-54' 98-55; 98-�
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you fea! there has been an errur in any requirerrtent,
pemit, dedsion cr refvsal made by an administrative offidai, or an error � fad, pr3cedure ar
finding made by the Boarcf of Zoning Appeafs or the Ptannirg Commission.
(Please 5ee attached)
RECEIVED
OCT 81998
ZONING
Attach edd2�onal sheat rf nec°•.ssary)
Apolinnt's sigra:ure (See lasc paae of a�cachmPnrl D.�e Ct.y agent
_' �' J _�-���'_ � �,: ,- i 1 7k,1J 1� _� ,i1 i 7 :��iL' : c�. : �: CCG � i. : �r`
GROUtiDS FOR APPEAL
Appellant Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P. ("appellanP'), 176 NoRh Snellin� Avenue,
Suite 225, St. Paul, Minnesota, asserts that the PIannin� Commission erred in grantin� a river
corridor modification, �rantin� a setback variance, and approving a site plan review for the
applicant, Gerald Trooien, for Alexandra & Associates, LLC, ("applicanP') concemin� a
proposed four-level parkin� ramp to be built on the propeRy located at 27�1 Shepard Road.
Appeliant owns property abuttin� applicant's propefty.
The grounds for appe[(ant's appeal are listed below.
1. Enoneous Grantina of a River Corridor Modification.
The Plannin� Commission erroneously granted a ricer coaidor modification.
�
The City of St. Paul Zonin� Code provides that a river corridor modification may be
�ranted "where it appears that by reason of esceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of' .
the river corridor requirements "would cause undue hardship and strict conformity with the
standards would be unreasonable, impracticable and not feasible under the circumstances." St.
Paul Le�islative Code § 65.650(a). The applicant seeking a modification has the burden of
provin� that the modification will not result in a hazard to life or property. Id. The Minnesota
state statute grantin� municipalities authority to zone provides that "undue hardship" means "the
property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the
official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the lando«�ner, and the variance, if granted, wilt not alter the essential character of the
locality." Minn. Sfat. § 462-357, subd. 6. The state law also provides that `economic
considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the propeRy
exists tmder the terms of the ordinance" Id. The above standards must be met before the City •
may grant a river corridor modification.
Z
qg -�c�7
• The Plannin� Commission erroneously found that these conditions had been met by the
appticant. Firs[, the Commission erroneously found that there �vere exceptional circumstances
present that �vould cause undue hardship to the applicant if strict enforcement of the river
corridor requirements �vas mandated. The Plannin� Commission found that one level of parking
wouid have to be eliminated from the appiicant's proposed parkin� ramp in ordzr to meet the 40
foot maximum hei�ht limit imposed by the river corridor requirements. This fact does not justify
a findin� of undue hardship. The elimination of one level of parking on a proposed four-level
parking ramp does not constitute undue hardship under the applicable laia because the property
can still be put to a reasonable use if the ramp is constructed with one less le� el of parkin� as
allo�ved by the of£cial controls. See Minn. Stat. § 462.3�7, subd. 6. The applicant can satisfy
the 40 foot masimum hei�ht reqtiirement of the river corridor ordinances ���]Zile puttin� the
� propzrty to reasonable use by buildin� a smallzr parkin� ramp. As Commissionzr Gordon noted,
�rantin� the modification simply makes an other�vise profitable parking ramp an even more
profitable ramp. Such economic considerations alone do not constitute an undue hardship
justifyin� a river corridor modification. See Minn. Stat. § 46?3�7, subd. 6.
Second, the Pianning Commission enoneously found that grantins the river corridor
modification will not result in a hazard to life or property. The proposed parkin� ramp �vili result
in a hazard to nei�hborin� property because the placement of the ramp �4ill prevent the use of
gara�es located on appellanC's borderin� property. The hei�ht and location of the proposed
parking ramp �vilt resuit in the accumulation of large aniounts of sno�i on the appellant's
property, which wi11 adversely� effect flle stnictural inte�rity of the gara�es and �cil1 prevent the
appellant from makin� reasonable use of that portion of his property. The Plznning Commission
• failed to consider fliis impact on appeliant's property in erroneously granting the river corridor
modification.
�
The proposed parkin� ramp will also result in a hazard to nei�hboring propeRy because .
of the increased traffic in the area. The ramp would add a ne[ total of 7�0 parking spaces to the
applicanYs proper[y, resultin� in a vast increase in the number of vehicles traceling to and from
the area. Despite this fact, neither the applicant nor the Plannin� Commission conducted a traffic
study to detern2ine the extent of the impact of this increased traffic on the area. �Vithout such a
traffic shidy, the Plannin� Commission simply does not have sufficient eaidence to conclude that
the applicant has carried its burden of showing that the modification will not result in a hazard to
life or propeRy.
Third, the Plannin� Commission enoneously found that the river corridor modification
was consistent «�ith the �eneral purposes of the river corridor requirements and state law, and the
intent of applicable state and national la�vs. The Commission's decision fails to provide any
justification for this finding. The Commission states that the purpose of the 40 foot maximum �
height limit is to prohibit tall struchires that ���ould be visible from the ri�ec The Commission
correctly notes that the proposed parkin� ramp �vould be 2-1/2 feet higher than permitted under
the river corridor requirements. Ho�ce��er, the Commission then implies that this is close enou�h.
The Plannin� Commission does not have authority under the constitution or any statute or
directive to rewrite the City's ordinances to provide for a maximum height of 42-1l2 feet.
Appellant also notes that both the Hi�hland Area Community Council and the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources objected to grantin� a river corridor modification to the
applicant. Both �roups a�ree with appellant's position that denyin� the modification will not
result in any undue hardship to the applicant. The Depariment of Natural Resources stressed that
the proposed ramp «�ill be visible from the Mississippi River and the opposite shoreline. The
Hi�hland Area Community Council expressed concem about the firturz inte�rity of the •
nei�hborhood. The Council explained that they do not oppose development of the applicant's
� �
�i�-�o�7
• property, but that the nei�hborhood and City would be better sec by development that
conforms with the zonin� code.
2. Enoneous Grantine of Setback Variance.
The Plannin� Commission enoneously granted a setback � aaance to allow the
applicant's proposed parkin� ramp to be constnicted �vithout conforming to the zonin� code's
required setback of at least 6� feet from flie north property line. The Plannin� Commission
based its �rant of this variance on its understandin� that the setback ��ou1d be IS feet from the
nortli property line. The appellant is currendy involved in a lawsuit re�ardin� the proper
boundary behveen the applicant's property and his o�vn. If the appellant pre� ails in this lawsuit,
the proposed parkin� ramp would be set back only 8 feet from the north property line. Therefore,
appellant asserts tha[ the variance was erroneously granted based on the Planning Commission's
• misunderstanding of ���here the property line is achially located.
State law provides that a municipatity may grant a variance from ihe requirements of its
zonin� code "in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration." �iinn. Stat. § 462357,
subd. 6. This statute provides that "hardship" means "the property in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used tmder conditions allowed by the official contrals, the pli�ht of the
lando�vner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the
variance if granted �vill not alter the essential character of the locality." Id. State law fiirther
provides that "economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable
use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." Id.
The standards required for the grantin� of the variance were not met for the applicant's
• proposed parkin� ramp. First, the Commission erroneously found that the applicant's propeRy
could not be put to a reasonable use under the strict setback requirements of the zoning code.
� s
The Plannin� Commission's justification for this findin�, that the applicant �vants to reseri�e •
other portions of the parcel for fiiture development, does not support a finding of undue hardship
under the applicable la�v. There are many economically viable uses for the applicant's parcel of
land. As implicitly recognized by the Commission, a parkin� ramp could even bz placed in
anoYher location on the parcel in compliance tivith the CiYy's setback requirements.
Second, the Plannin� Commission erroneousiy found that the ptight of the applicant is
due to circumstances unique to his property and that these circumstances �verz not created by tfie
applicant. The Conunission's justification for findin� that the property was unique, that it
o��erloofis the Mississippi River and is subject to the desi�n guidelines of the Shepard Road
Davem Small Area Plan, are insuFficient for a findin� that the property is uniquz under the
applicable la�v. This is becatise the fact that the land o��erlooks the Mississippi Ricer and is
subject to the �uidelines of the Shepard Road Dai�ern Small Area Plan are simply not �
characteristics tmique to this particular parcel of property. Almost all property in that area of St.
Paul has similar characteristics. Further, even if these circumstances �vere unique, thz applicant
purchased the property knowin� that it �vas already zoned �o�ith the current setback requirement.
This sho�vs that the hardship of the setback requirement «�as created by the applicant and does
not constitute undue hardship allowin� for a variance. See Cattle Desi�ri and Derelopnient
Canpany v. City ofLake Elnio, 396 N.`V.2d 578 (Minn. App. 1986).
Third, the Plannin� Commission erroneously found that the proposed variance is in
keeping �vith the spirit and inten[ of the 2oning code and is consistent �cith the heaith, safety,
comfort, morals and �velface of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The Commission based
this findin� on the erroneous vie« that adjacent residential property can be protectzd from any
adverse consequences caused by the proposed parkin� ramp. As indicated earlier, thz proposed •
parkin� ramp will cause harm to adjoinin� property owners, includin� appellant. In particular,
��
��`�d�
• the proposed ramp's height and tocation wi11 cause sQUCtural dama�e to and grevent [he use of
the pazking garages on appellanc's propem•.
Fourth, the Pia.rutin� Commission erroneousty found the variance would not alter the
essential character oF the surrounding azea or unreasona6ly diminish es[abtisned propercy values.
Again, as exptained earlier, the granting of the proposed variance will d�^lage and prevent the
use of the parking �arages located on appztlant's property and witl fr.zrefore unreasonsbly
diminish the appellant's es[abtished value in his properry.
Fifth, the Planning Commission zcroneously found the appiicant's reques[ for a var,ance
is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income go�ential of the property. In
rzality, the setback variance request is baszd encirety on the applicant's desire to increase the
vatue of the parcel of property. Appiicanc wants the setback variance to build a larger parkin�
• ra.*np then permi[ted by the ordinance whi(e leaving room on the propeny for further
deveiopment ac the expense of causing damage and injury to appetlant's neighhoring properry.
This evidences a pamary desire to increase the income potential oF the prope .ry. As
Commissioner Gordon reco�ized, granting the variance simply ma_kes a profitable par'�;in� ramp
an even more profi[able ratnp.
3. Enoneous GrantinQ of the Site Plan Revie�v.
The Planning Commission eror,eously approved the applicant's site plan review for the
proposed parking ramp.
The City of St. Paul Zoning Code requirzs several factual findings to be made prior to the
aporocal of a site pian review. St. Paul Legislative Codz � b2.108. lhese izcruzl fmdings
include: (1) thz plan is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances; (2) tne plan is consistent
� with the project plans for sub-areas of the City; (3) the plan preservzs unique gzologic,
geographic or historically significant charactzdstics of the Ciry and environmentafly sensitive
� 7
areas; (4) the plan protects adjacent nei�hboring properties; and (5) the plan assures that abutting �
propeRy owners will not be unreasonably affected. Id.
The Planning Commission erroneo�siy found that the above requirements for the
approvat of a site plan review had been met First, the Plannin� Commission erroneously found
that the site plan is consistent with alI applicable zonin� ordinances. The site pian re�•iew does
not comply with all [he applicable zonin� ordinances because the hei�ht of thz ramp esceeds that
allowed by the river corridor requirements and the ramp is not setback far enough from the
abutting property. Further, as appeltant has demonstrated above, no m corridor modification
or setback variance should be �ranted to excuse this noncompliance.
Second, the Plannin� Commission erroneously found that the site plan is consistent with
tlte Shepard Road Davem Street Small Area Plan. This plan proeides that "buildings massin�
should be configured to avoid long Lmbroken facades." This requirement is not met because thz •
proposed parkin� ramp stnicture results in an unbroken facade on Shepard Road. The
Commission's hope that future development on the applicant's parcel of land �vill block this
vie�v does not chan�e the fact that the site plan review is inconsistent «�ith the Shepard Road
Davem Street Smail Area Plan. This is especially true because there are no definite fiiture
development plans for the applicant's parcel.
The Shepard Road Davern Street Small Area Plan also provides that the vision of the plan
is to provide attractive office ancllor li�ht industrial development to create a visually appealin�
gate�vay into St. Paul alon� Shepard Road. Althou�h the Commission expressed hope that the
proposed parking ramp would allo�v for future development fulfillin� this vision, the proposed
site plan does not fiilfill any of these objectices.
The Shepard Road Davern Street Small Area Plan further recommends that de� .
should be "sensitive to its impact on and relationship to the adjacent residential and commercial
. .
� -�or�
• area." The proposed ramp fails to meet this recommendation because the rzmp actually causes
harm to the adjacent residential area as previously explained.
Third, the Plannin� Commission erroneously concluded that the proposed parkin� ramp
would preser��e the geolo�ic, geographic or historicaliy si�nificant characteristics of thz City and
environmentally sensitive areas. The Plannin� Commission correctly found that the site's
location overlookin� the Mississippi Ricer is geo�raphically si�nificant. Ho�` ever, the proposed
parkin� ranzp does not presen,�e thz unique character of this area because, as the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources emphasized, the site plan allows for the constniction of a lar�e,
unsightly parkin� ramp �aith no definite future plans to block the view of this ramp from the river
or Shepard Road.
Fourth, the Planning Commission enoneously found that tlle proposed ramp protects
• adjaceut and nei�hboring properties. As explained earlier, the proposed parking ramp will cause
harm to nei�h6oring property by preventin� the use of the parkin� gara�es on the appellant's
property. Further, because no traffic study has been conducted to determine the extent of the
adverse impact of the increase in traffic caused by the proposed ramp, the Plannin� Commission
could only speculate that adjacent and neighborin� property o�vners would be protected.
Finally, the Planning Commission erroneousiy foimd that the proposed parking ramp
assures that abutting property o��ners will not be unreasonably affected. Again, this findin� is
not supported by the facts because the proposed parkin� ramp will unreasonably affect abuttin�
•
� �
property owners by preventin� the appellate and his tenants from usin� the parking gara�es •
located on the appellate's property.
Dated: October O, 1998 WINTHROP & �VEINSTNE, P.A.
BY: � �
Jeffrey R. Ansel, #-,`166224
Karl E. Robinson, �027404�
3200 Minnesota �Vorld Trade Center
30 East Seventh Street
St. Pau1, Minnesota 5� 101
(612) 290-8400
Attorneys for Appellant Melvin Spie�lzr
Properties, L.P.
STPI:469�60-1
f 1
l J
@
�
` �
� �/�`�
�
�F`IC�,Crr�T�D ��.S�,�J(,�� e0'ZLTZj
1978 �oad �anksaa�y. SaiKt �a�d '�l 5v�116
October 22, 1998
Gladys Morton, Chair
St. Paui Planning Commission
25 West 4�' Street
St. Paui MN 55102
Re: Trooien Variance
Dear Commission Morton;
��������
��� �� 199�5
� �
ti� _.-�'u
' .:\\ \.:
As you know, the Planning Commission recently had before it an application for two
variances by Jerry Trooien/JLT Properties. The Highland District Council reviewed the
minutes of the Planning Commission where the issue was discussed. Our board is
concemed over some of the representations made during that meeting and requested that
I write making you aware of those concerns.
• In the minutes it is indicated that Mr: Trooien appeared before our council regazding these
variance requests. This is not true. While he did come to a subcommittee meeting to
eaplain his intention to build the paziang ramp, at no time has he ever told either that
subcommittee or our Council about his request for these variances. In fact when asked
about variances at the subcommittee the 7LT representative specifically stated that there
would be no request for any variances. That was apparently either not true, or the plan
was changed so in fact, variances were necessary. JLT did not notify us ofthe request and
we heard about the request through LIEP who forwarded a copy of the request to our
office. Mr. Trooien was specifically invited to our board meeting where those requests
were discussed.
of why the vari
objection to the
variances.
He did not attend that meeting, nor did he contact us with an explanation
ances were needed. Neighbors did attend our meeting to voice their
variance requests. Our Council then voted to oppose the requests for
As you know, over a year ago, our Council requested, and the Planning Commission
supported creating the Shepard Davem Small Area Planl40 Acre Task Force and our
President serves as co-chair along with Commissioner Geisser. According to the minutes
of your meeting, Commissioner Geisser represented to the Planning Commission that the
Task Force supported Mr. Trooien's appiication for these variances. Our members on the
.
651-238-5138
�ax 651-248-v`134
1(
Task Force told our board that this issue has never been discussed by the Task Force, and �
at no time has the Task Force ever taken a position favoring these variances.
Qverall, our Council does not feel that the public process or the coaununity were well
served by Commissioner Geisser's representation of the facts. We are concerned that the
Planning Commission may have relied on these misstatements in making it's decision.
District Council's are designed to be an unpaz�tial community body whose task is to
balance the needs of competing interests within that community- business, property
owners and residents. All are treated equally, we listen carefully to everyone who comes
before us and we give careful consideration to every one who appeazs before us before
making our recommendations. St. Paul should be proud of it's longstanding tradition of
listening to it's residents. If this citizen participation process is ignored then the City as a
whole loses out.
Lastly, our Council is troubled by the fact that the Planning Commission chose to ignore
the written staff recommendation, the DNR's recommendation, our District Council and
the neighbors opposition in granting these variances.
S' e ely,
; � j�'�
�g 1�c�Gee
' Chair, �Eommunity Development Committee
Vice Chair, H'ighland District Council
cc:
Commissioner Ann Geisser
St. Paul City Council
Mayor Coleman
•
�
(Z
� 8 �o��
city of saint paul
! planning commission resofution
file number 9$-55
date September 11, 1998
98-236
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien for Alexandra and Associates has applied for a variance from the
strict apptication of the provisions of Section {6'1.104.b of the Saint Paul Legislative Code
pertaining to setbacks for structures from adjacent residential property in the I-1 zoning district
to permit a setback ofi 15 feet firom the north property line at 2751 Shepard Road; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on 9/11/98,
pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64205 of the
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Planning Commission based upon evidence presented at the public
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of
the code.
• The applicant wants to reserve the south portion of the site, a{ong Shepard Road and
overlooking the Mississippi River, for future development of an office building. Shifting the
ramp south to maintain a 65 foot setback from the north property line wouid severeiy limit
space along Shepard Road for future development. The ramp cannot be built taller to
provide the same amount of parking on a smaller foot print because of height restrictions.
The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The property is unique because it overiooks the Mississippi River and is subject to the
design standards of the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan. Both of these factors suggest
that any future development should be located toward the south side of the property along
Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of the property.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping witfi the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the
City of St. Paul if conditions are attached to the variance.
moved by Geisser
seconded by Faricy
in favor 13
• against 1 (Noidin)
1 abstention (Vaught)
13
The intent of the zoning code in requiring large setbacks from residential property is to
protect adjacent property owners from the impact of industrial uses. In this case, the •
adjacent residential property can be protected from light and noise from the ramp if the
north wall of the ramp is solid and is made attractive and compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood through the choice of building materials and landscaping.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate suppiy of light and air to adjacent
property, nor will if alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably
diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor
would it alter or change the zonirtg district classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
The request for variance is based primarily on a desire to fully develop the property in a
way that takes advantage of its location overlooking the Mississippi River and is consistent
wifh the Shepard Davern Smali Area Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paui Planning Commission that the
provisions of Section 61.104.b be hereby waived to allow construction of a parking ramp with a
15 foot setback from the north property line on property located at 2751 Shepard Road and
legally described on Exh+bit A; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan
on file with the Zoning Administrator, subject to the following conditions: •
1. The north wall of the proposed parking ramp must be soiid to screen noise and light from
the adjacent property and constructed of material that is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
2. Su�cient landscaping must be planted on the north side of the ramp to reduce the visual
impact of the ramp.
�
U
��
�r� i �7
• city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
fite number 98-54
date September 11 1948
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien for Alexandra and Associates LLC file #98-231, has applied for a
River Corridor Modification under the provisions of Section 65.65� of the Saint Paul Legisiative
Code, for the purpose of constructing a 42.5 foot high parking ramp on property located at 2751
Shepard Road, legally described on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on 9/11/98, held a public hearing at which all persons
present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appiication in accordance with
the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Pau1 Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented at the
public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
By reason of exceptio�al circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause
undue hardship and strict conformity with the standards would be unreasonable,
impractical and not feasible under the circumstances.
An entire level of parking would have to be eliminated from the ramp in order to meet the
• 40 foot height limit. Eliminating an entire level of parking wou{d create a hardship
because this parking will be needed in the future to develop the remaining portion of the
site.
2. The modification will not result in a hazard to life or property and will not adversely affect
the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channei, or the natural
environment.
3. The modifications is consistent with the general purposes of the standards contained in
this chapter and state law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and
programs.
The purpose of the 40 foot height limit is to prohibit tall buildings that would be visible from
the river. The ramp would meet the intent of this provision since it would be only 2.5 feet
higher than the permitted maximum height and the ramp would be set back over 300 feet
from the river bluff line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a River Corridor Modification to
allow construction of a parking ramp that woufd be 42.5 feet high at 2751 Shepard Road is
hereby approved.
moved by Geisser
• seconded by Kramer
in favor 11
against 3 (Gordon. Margulies, Nordin)
1 abstention (Vaught)
��
cityof saint pau!
planning commission resolution
fiie number 98-56
date September 11, 1998
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien for Alexandra and Associates LLC file #98-231, has applied for a
Site Ptan Review under the provisions of Section 62.108 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for
the purpose of constructing a parking ramp on property located at 2751 Shepard Road, legaily
described on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on9/11/98, held a public hearing at which all persons
present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuanf to said application in accordance with
the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact that the site
plan was consistent with:
(1) Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paui. -----
The sife pfan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if the Rivsr Corridor Modification
for maximum height and the Zoning Variance for setback are approved.
(2} The city's adopfed comprehensive plan and development or projecf plans for sub-areas of
the cify.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepard Road Davern Street Smail Area Plan which
was adopted by the City Councii as part of the Comprehensive Plan on November 16,
1993.
- The plan encourages the owner of this site and the property to the east of Davem to
"consider building a parking deck or some type of parking structure (perhaps
incorporated with another use) that could provide parking to Unisys, if needed, as
we!! as provide parking to a new development "
- The vision of the plan is "attractive office and/or light industriai development to
create a visualfy appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepard Road" The location
and size of the ramp is intended to ailow future office development along Shepard
Road.
moved by Geisser
seconded by Fa=��v
in favor 14
against
1 abstention (Vaught)
0
•
�
��
�'�� /b� `�
• - The plan recommends that development should be `sensitive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commerciai area". The ramp will meet
this recommendation if the north wail is kept to no more than 30 feet high and
landscaping is added to soften the appearance of the ramp from adjacent residential
property.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings massing shouid be configured to avoid
long unbroken facades." The location of the ramp is consistent with this finding
since it would alfow another buifding to be built in the future to the south that would
screen the ramp from Shepard Road.
(3) Preservation of unique geologic, geographrc or historical/y significant characferistics of the
city and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site's location overlooking the Mississippi
River is geographicaiiy significant. Locating the ramp at the north portion of the site so
that the south poRion can be developed as an o�ce building responds to the
characteristics of the location.
(4) Protection of adjacent and neighboring prope�ties through reasonab/e provision for such
mafters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring
land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
• (5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to
assure abufting property and/or ifs occupants will not be unreasonably affected.
The site pfan is consistent with this finding i4 the north waH is solid to screen light and
noise from the adjacent residentiai property. The location of the new driveway is also
consistent with ihis finding: it wouid be in the same area as an existing driveway to
minimize the impact on the adjacent residential and to encourage more traffic to go to
directly to Shepard Road rather than traveling on Davern.
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientafion and
elevation of structures.
The site plan meets current standards and is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian tra�c both within the site and in
relation to access streets, inc/uding traffic circulafion features, the locatrons and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The plan has been reviewed for traffic safety
by Public Works staff. They approved the location of the driveways and found that
Davern couid safely handle the increased traffic that would be generated by the ramp.
(8) The satisfactory availability and capacity of sform and sanitary sewers, includrng solutions
• to any drainage problems in the area of the development.
(�
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for sewers and drainage. A condition of �
siYe plan approval should be that the applicant submit a more detailed plan for review and
approval by Public Works staff
(9) Su�cient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above o6jectives.
The site plan does not show sufficient landscaping. A condition of site approval shouid be
that the applicant submit a landscape plan, showing sufficient landscaping on the east
(Davern Street), north and south sides of the ramp, for review and approval by LlEP staff.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with fhe provisiorts of the Americans with Disabilifies Act
(ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this inding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sedimenf confrol as specified in the ��Ramsey Erosion Sedimenf
and Control Handbook."
The site plan does not contain any information on erosion and sediment controi. A
condition of approval shouid be that an erosion and sediment control plan is submitted for
review and approva( by L(EP staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legisiative Code, the application for Site Plan Review to construct a
parking ramp at 2751 Shepard Road is hereby approved subject to subject to the condition that
the appiicanf must submit the foliowing plans: •
1. A final plan for site utilities and storm water management for review and approval by
Public Works staff.
2. An erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by LIEP staff.
3. A final landscape plan showing sufficient landscaping along the east (Davern Street),
north and south sides of the ramp for review and approval by LlEP sfafF.
4. A final lighting plan for the ramp for review and approvai by LIEP staff.
•
�
g8 ���
• Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Soulevard West
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, September, 1998, at
830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
•
Commissioners
Absent:
Mmes. Duarte, Faricy, Geisser, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and �Vencl and
Messrs. Gervais, Gordon, 7ohnson, Kramer, Margulies, McDonell, Nowlin and
Vaught.
Mmes. *Engh and Messrs. *Field, Kong, *Mardell, and *Sharpe
*Excused
Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Tom Harren, Larry Soderholm,
and Jim Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Deve(opment staff; and Tom
Beach from the Department of License, Inspection and Environmental Protection.
I. Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton had no announcements.
II. Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Ford announced that the City Council did approve the plat for William's Hill and the pawn shop
moratorium resolution is in effect.
Chair Morton pointed out the revised agenda.
III. PIJ$I,IC Y�EAFtII'IG: Gerald Trooien for Alexandra & Associates LLC, River Corridor
Modification, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review (Tom Beach, LIEP) "
Chair Morton read the rules and procedures for public hearings.
\I
Mr. Beach gave a short slide presentation and read the staff reports. He stated that Gerald Trooien is
proposing to build a 4-level parking ramp with 996 parking spaces. The ramp will be located west of
Davern and north of Shepard Road in the parking lot of the old i3nisys Building: Mr. Trooien has
renovated the old Unisys Building and U.S. Bank is in the process of moving into the building. Some of
the spaces in the ramp would be used by U.S. Bank employees; the rest would be used for airport
parking. To build the ramp, Mr. Trooien needs approval from the Plannin� Commission on three items:
1) a river corridor modification - the ramp will be 42.5 feet tall (the marimum height is 40 feet in a river
corridor); 2) a setback vaciance is needed - the ramp is proposed to be setback 15 feet from the noitt�
property line (the required setback in I-1 districts, residential property, is 1%z times the height of the
building or 65 feet, in this case); the requested variance is 50 feet; 3) a site plan review, required for any
pazking facility.
19
Commissioner Nordin asked how many parking spaces are required by the zoning ordinance for
the U.S. Bank building. Mr. Beach responded that the U.S. Bank will have more parking than •
what is required by code; approximately 1,100 parking spaces aze required by code.
Commissioner Geisser added that Mr. Beach ought to comment that an agreement was reached
with Mr. Trooien and U.S. Bank on hotv many parking spots Mr. Trooien was required to
provide. She recalted that number was approximafely 1,600.
Mr. Beach continued to say that the main reason the ramp is proposed to go on the north part of
the site is so future development can occur on the south part of the site which overlooks Shepard
Road and the Mississippi River. Mr. Trooien submitted a concept plan sho�ving one possible
arrangement ofthe site iffuture devetopment did occur.
Mc Beach stated that the staff report was out before the Highland Area Community Council had
a chance to meet. They have met since then and are recommending that the river corridor
modification and the variance be denied claiming a lack of hardship.
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Beach to amp(ify on why the district council is opposing. Mr.
Beach commented that part of it had to do with no otte from JLT showing up at the meeting to
make a case for the racnp, so they didn't see any compelling reason to grant a variance.
Commissioner Geisser interjected that her understanding is that someone from 7LT did appear at
the Land Use Committee meeting of the district counci[ to make a presentafion on the ramp.
Mr. Beach referred to a letter that was passed out from the Minnesota Department ofNatural
Resources. They are opposing the height variance. Their main concem is that the ramp not be
visible from the river or from the opposite shore of the river. They encourage the Planning •
Commission to deny the height variance; if it is not denied, they wou[d [ike to see the ramp
buffered by native vegetation on the south side and that run-off be minimized.
Mr. Beach read the staff reports approving the river modification to permit a heeght of 42.5 feet,
the setback variance to peanit a 15-foot setback with conditions, and the site plan with
conditions.
Commissioner Gordon read those portions of the Nl�i I DNR letter questioning the "hardship"
c(aim of the applicant and highti�hting a defcnition of "hardship;" and asking whether "the
applicant bought the property afrer the effective date of the ordinance provision from which the
variance is sought and had access to knowledge and information about ordinance requirements
prior Yo designing the development project." He asked Mr. Beach if he would address these
issues. Mr. Beach stated that the cunent owner bought the property withing the last two yeazs
and the river corridor ordinance has been in effect for the tast 15 years. In response to Yhe
hardship, Mr. Beach said that the applicant could build a ramp with the same number of spaces
by creating a bigger footprint, but a bigger footprint might hinder development on the rest of the
siie.
Commissioner Now[in asked if a traffic study had been done, and what is the net increase of the
spaces that will be created at that ]ocatioa. Mr. Beach replied that Public `Vorks staff had
reviewed the site plan but a traffic study by an outside consultant had not been done. The net
increase would be 75Q additiona( parking spaces.
•
2@
R g 1c�7
• Commissioner Margulies asked what the parking requirements would be if the proposed
additional development were constructed. Mr. Beach calculated that if it �vere an office
building, it would be one parking space for every 350 square feet. The concept building shows a
plan of a building of 80,000 square feet.
Commissioner 7ohnson commented on the ei�ht conditions of the MN DNR letter — that six of
those eight refer specifically to the question of undue hardship, and their interpretation of this
case �vould not necessarily present an undue hardship. However, he stated that the staff report
finds that strict enforcement would, indeed, present an undue hardship. Having worked for the
N1N D�IR and having written these review and comment letters himself, he is inclined to believe
that City staff, rvho are more familiar with zoning requirements, might be able to make a better
judgement of what, in fact, constitutes an undue hardship.
Commissioner Faricy asked if a filling station is still on the boards for future development on
the rest of that site. Mr. Beach stated that he did not knoFV what is planned for future
development on that site.
Mr. Ford asked if the bedrock condition of the site was not also a consideration of hardship due
to a condition of the site. In this case, one could not go down a few feet to take care of the extra
height. Mr. Beach confirmed that it tivould be very expensive to dig out the bedrock. Putting in
underground utifities has been expensive in this area for past projects.
Commissioner Gordon asked if it is known what, if any, future development is planned for this
� site. Mr. Beach stated that the applicant has not been specific about what that might be.
Commissioner Gordon commented that it is difficult to plan for future parking when one doesn't
know what requirements will be needed for the future.
The applicant, Gerald Trooien, owner of the •site, addressed the Commission. He stated that he
was at District I S meetings repeatedly and spoke very openly about what the plans are for now
and the future. Mr. Trooien spoke a little about future development possibilities for the rest of
the site and the area. Perhaps a service station will go in on the corner because Mr. Trooien
thinks that comer is an appropriate site for that. He talked about a hotel in the future for the plot
east of Davern, perhaps another of5ce site.
(The second side of the first tape is totally inaudible.)
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Trooien if the parking stalls allotted to the bank aze profita6le.
Mr. Trooien responded that the overall bank deal is proFitable. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr.
Trooien if the cars on the top floor would be completely hidden behind the outside wall. Mr.
Trooien said that on the new parking decks, one doesn't see the cars, even on the lower levels.
With respect to future development, Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Trooien if he could give a
more specific outlook, and could future development be an additional pazking ramp. Mr•
Trooien responded that there will need to be an additional parking ramp attached to future
development.
• Commissioner �Vencl asked how much higher each ramp floor will need to be to accommodate
the shuttle bus. Gerald Trooien replied that the floors of the ramp wi1S not need to be erected
any higher than normal for the shuttle bus.
�.
� �..�
CommissionerNordin asked Mr, Trooien to clarify that future plans for south oFthis proposed
ramp (the area behveen Shepard Road and the ramp) include a building, not another ramp. Mr. •
Trooien noted that was correct.
TESTIMONY
John E. Grcybek, 2330 St. Paut Avenue, representing Highland District Council, spoke in
opposition to the river modification (height) and setback variances. He noted that Highland
District Council has a stelfar reputation in the business community in working with them
and helping them with their developments. This particular area has been of major concern
and created much controversy in recent years because this is the last significant open space
in the Highiand area. More importantly, it's the adjacent neighborhoods and the fact that
it's adjacent to the Mississippi River Corridor, and that it is a major corridor to the City of
Saint Paul. He pointed out that the District 15 Council is not opposed to development of
this particular area. Mr. Trooiea has repeatedly said that ecoaomics is the most important
issue, basicalfy, what goes into his pockets. The Councit is concemed about the integrity of
the area when buildings, ramps, etc., are put up. The Shepard Davern Gatetivay Task Force
is very much concerned about what has been happening there and what will happen in the
future. Mr. Grzybek informed the Commission that when the Community Development
Committee of the Highland Counci( mef with Mr. Trooien and fiis representatives with
reaard to the site plan, they were not told that there would be a height variance or a setback
variance required for this particular structure. The Highland Community Council held a
public heariag on this September 3, 1998, and had inviied represeniaYives of Mr. Trooien's
office of which none appeared.
The Council is particularly concerned because there was no reason presented to the Council �
to grant these variances. Today, a 2'/: foot variance doesn't seem to mean a lot, but what
happens in the future? �Vhat do we do wifh the next developer who needs a vaziance of 4
feet? The Council's concem is if you give 2%z feet today, you are going to have to give 2'/:
feet tomorrow, or 4 feet tomorrow because everyone can give an economic reason as to why
a variance is required. We have standards for a reason, and the Highland Community
Council is asking that those standards be enforced. If these variances are granted, tomonow
the Planning Commission will not have a reason for not granting the 2%z feet or the 8 feet,
for the air conditioninJ unit, etc.
Regarding the I S foot setback variance, Mr. Grzybek said that the City needs to assure
adjacent property owners that they are not going to try to squeeze every inch to allow this
type of development to occur just for the sake of putting more dollars into either Mr.
Trooien's pocket or some other developer's pocket.
Mr. Grzybek noted that most peopie are in favor of more jobs in Saint Paul, but we also
need to look at the integrity of Saint Paul. 1Vhat makes Saint Paul so special? Why do
people want to stay in Saint Paul? Neighborhoods. Boulevards. Trees. Plantings.
Ambiance. Infrastructure. Landscaping is very importanf fo Saint Paul. Hertz, a national
corporation that has no ties to Saint Paul other than they do business here, spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars to put in natura( landscaping. Mr. Trooien won't do that because he
doesn't see the necessity of doing so.
•
� titi
q� 1���
• Mr. Grrybek continued to say that this area is not an extension of thz 494 strip. The
Highland Area Communiry Counci( thinks Mr. Trooien should dig to get the 2.5 height
variance. The setback variance was also opposed by the Council because no compelling
reason was presented. The City needs to keep the integrity of Shepard Road being the
gateGVay to Saint Paul, regardless of what happens there.
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Grzybek whether he attended the September 3`' meeting, and
how many people were there. Mr. Gaybek ans�vered that he did attend and approximately 25-
30 people were there. Three people spoke in opposition. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr.
Grzybek if the Highland Azea Community Council �vas opposed to any ramp on this site, or
opposed only to the variances. Mr. Grzybek responded that the Council has resigned to the fact
that some type of ramp is going to be built; they are concerned �vith how it is going to be built in
terms of inee[ing the standards of the City of Saint Paul. Comrnissioner Gordon asked if the
Council agreed to the ramp at this site without the variances. Mr. Grrybek stated that it was his
understanding that the Community Development Committee did vote on the site plan and agreed
to the location of the ramp, but they were not aware of any variances that were needed.
2. Melvin Spieoler, 4614 VJest 29`" Street, Minneapolis, addrzssed the Commission in
opposition to the variances. He stated that he built the adjacent apaRment buildings in 1960
and the garages in 1984. He thinks the Commission should be awaze that there is a lawsuit
pending. There is a discrepancy as to the ownership of the vacated alley right of way. Mr.
Spiegler has a quitclaim deed from Unisys, so he feels as though he owns the entire right of
way. Mr. Trooien's attorneys claim that Mr. Spie�ler does not own it. Yesterday afternoon,
• Mr. Spiegler stated that he was presented with a very substantial lawsuit over 8 feet.
Mr. Spiegler noted that he I+ked Mc. Beach's glan.
Patrick McGuigan, 200 Liberty Bank Building, Saint Paul, addressed the Commission
representing Mr. Spiegler. He wanted to make clear to the Pla�ning Commission that Mr.
Spiegler and he do not want their lawsuit prejudiced by the assertion that they stood in front
of the Planning Commission and said nothing, allowing the Commission to assume that
there's a 15 foot distance behveen the proported property line and the actual properiy line.
However the lawsuit is resolved, Mr. Spieglec wants the Commission to be very cSear that
the 15 foot setback being sought may indeed, be an 8 foot setback.
4. James Lockhart, 1800 IDS Building, Minneapolis, the attomey representing Mr. Tzooien's
company, Shepard Road Acquisition Company, in the pending lawsuit, addressed the
Commission. He stated that the status of title as it appears in the O�ce of the Registrar of
Titles, indicates that the properiy line is just as represented on the site plan. As it stands
right now, the garages that are located along the area encroach by 8 feet on the property
owned by Mr. Trooien's company.
Mr. Trooien returned to the podium for rebuttal commenting that Mel Spie�ler is one ofthe guys
that helped build this town. His company has no issue with Mel Spiegler. __..
MOTION Commissioner Geisser moved that the public hearing be closed; Commissioner
� Nordin seconded tl:e motion whic3r carrierl unanimously on a voice vole.
�5.
23
Commissioner Geisser noted ihat there is a small area plan in process in the Shepard Davern
area. She noted that there is much information known by the members of that task force that •
maybe the members of the district council are unaware of. This plan has 6zen is process for a
long time, and it should be known that Mr. Trooien moved the location of the intended ramp to
this site through a compromise; the Shepard Davern Task Force asked him if he would consider
moving it off the east side site. It was a neighborhood decision and a staff decision; it was
everyone's feeling that what tivould be best for the area and the city was that this ramp be moved
to the site that he has chosen. She added that it �vas also understood that there would probably
be an expansion of another office building in the front, and that cvouid be the showplace for
Shepard Road, not the ramp. The ramp would be covered by another building. The other thing
that should be known that the setback variance is being made because the land is zoned
industriat abutting a residentiat zone. IFthis tir•ere a commercially zoned parcel, he �vould not
need a variance. This proposal is a commercial development abutting a neighborhood.
Logically, Mr. Trooien doesn't need a variance. Regarding the river conidor variance,
Commissioner Geisser wanted commissioners to understand that just one or hvo blocks down
from Davern, the river corridor standards are not in effect.
Throughout this entire plan is a discussion of the entire area. What is spurrin� this on is the
airpoR espansion in sight. The real concern for this area on the part of thz City, is that the entire
area could be a sea of parked cars. This is why there is effoR to do a plan in this area that is
pleasing and economically sound for the city. The task force is trying to figure out the best way
to deal with alI of this land. She noted, too, that she was unaware that Mr. Beach was going to
recommend the half bay; and that recommendation is not atl of stafPs position. Staff supported
the full four stories on the ramp; they suppoR the north wall being solid or there be some sort of
architectural screen; they suppo�t general appropciate landscaping on a(I sides, with speci£c .
emphasis on Davern.
MOTIOti: Commissioner Ceisser moved approva! ojYhe river corridor modification;
Commissioner Kramer seconded t/ze motion.
Commissioner Gordon stated that he will oppose that mation beca¢se, as he reads the zoning
code, it requires a demonstration of undue hardship, and he doesn't see that demonstration has
been made. He understands from what he has read and heard that this �vould simply make an
othertvise profi[abie parking ramp into an even more profitable parking ramp, which is a
legitimate concern, but does not fall into the definition of undue hardship. The applicant bought
the land after the ordinance was put into place; he was aware of these requirements. He also
finds that the number of parking spaces required by the bank and future development on that
same site can be accommodated by a parking ramp without the height variance; and that the
purpose of the additional height variance is to accommodate parking from the airport. He just
doesn't think that meets the undue hardship standard; and the burden of proof is on the
applicant, and he doesn't feel that burden has been met.
Commissioner Nordin stated that she will also oppose the motion because of the same reasons as
Commissioner Gordon sta[ed. She shared another issue. She wonders if anyone has considered
stair towers and eievator towers that �vi(1 be on rivo comers of the ramp (southwest and northeast
comers). Those portions of the building wilt be 62 feet, 9 inches. There wifl be light poles, too.
Commissioner ICramer asked Mr. Beach to address Commissioner Nordin's concern. •
� L`{
�� ��� 7
Mr. Beach commented that the elevations shown don't show any staircases or elevators going
• above the 42.5 foot height because there will be no roof above the staircases and elevators aze
not required under the American's with Disabilities Act; the handicap spaces will be on the first
floor. If the ramp is ever connected to a building, then there wifl be different requirements for
elevators. Lights are not subject to height limitation.
Commissioner Nordin asked for clarification that the stairs would not be enclosed. Mr. Beach
responded that the stairs would not be enclosed.
Commissioner Vaught stated that he would abstain from voting because hz walked into the
meeting at the tail end of the public hearing.
Commissioner Nowlin asked if the parking ramp would be built if the Planning Commission
voted to approve a 3-story ramp. He noted that he is concerned as Commissioner Gordon that
there is no undue hardship. Ho�vever, this is an accommodation, and the footprint is where we
want it. He said he would like to make sure that the ramp is constructed in the footprint that is
planned, but at the same time, he thinks we need to wait and see what the plan is for the rest of
the property before the 4`� story is approved. Mr. Trooien replied that he �a�ill not build if the
Planning Commission does not approve the height variance.
The motion on tkeJloor to approve tf:e river corridor n:odification carried on a ro11 call vote
of II - 3(Gordon, Margulies, Nordin) with I abstention (Vaught).
MOTION: Commissioner Geisser moved approval ojtlae setback variance omitting
• condition #1 and amending condition #3 to read "Su landscaping must be planted on
11te noril: side of t/re ramp to reduce the visual impacl ojtlre ramp; " Commissioner Faricy
seconded the motion.
Commissionet Nordin asked if the Commission ever specifies the maintenance of landscaping.
Mr. Beach commented that the zoning code requires that the owner is required to maintain the
landscaping. It would not hurt to reiterate it in a condition.
The motion on the floor to approve tl:e setback variance omitting condition #I and amending
condition #2 to read "Sufficient fandscaping must be planted on the norlh side ofthe ramp to
reduce fhe visua! impact ojthe ramp" carried on a roll call vote oJl3 -1 (Nordin) with one
abstention (Vaughl).
MOTION: Commissioner Geisser moved approval of ihe site plan review; Commissioner
Faricy secanded t/:e motion whicl: carried on a voice vote (14) with one abstenlion {f�aught).
IV. Zoning Committee
In Commissioner Field's absence, Commissioner Wencl gave the Zoning Committee report.
#98-187 Zhuolina Ren - Sio variance to allow two free standing sie s within a required front
yard to allow a perpendicular sie to the street and height variance for an archway sign at 1033
Grand Avenue (Jim Zdon, 266-6559).
r 1
LJ
�,5
PLANIVING CObINIISSION STAFF REPORT
FILES # 98-223, 98-231 and 98-236
1. APPLICANT: Gerald Trooien for AIexandra & Associates LLC DATE OF HEARING: 9/11/98
2. CLASSIFICATION: River Comdor Modification , Setback Variance and Site Plan Review
3. LOCATION: 2751 Shepard Road (�vest of Davern beh��een Shepazd Road and Norfolk)
4. PLANNING DTSTRICT: 15
5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See file
6. PRESENT ZONING: I-2, RG2
ZODIING CODE REFERENCE: § 6�233.a, 62.1O8.c, 61.104.b
7. STAFF INVE5TIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 9/2/98
8. DATE RECEIVED: 8/13/98 DEADLINE FOR AC1'ION:
BY: Tom Beach
10/12/98
A. PUT2POSE: The applicant is proposing to build a pazking ramp with 996 parking spaces. To do
this he needs approval for:
- River Corridor NIodification The ramp would be 42.� feet high. A masimum height of 40
feet is permitted in the RC-3 (River Corridor Urban Open Overlay District).
- Setback Variance The ramp would be set back 1� feet from the north properry line. A
minimum setback of 1.5 times the height of the structure or 6� feet is rzquired in the I-I zoning
district from adjacent residential property.
Site Plan Review All pazking facilities require site plan review.
B. PARCEL: The parcel covers justunder 17 acres.
C. EXISTING LAND USE: There is a large building on the west half of the property that was
fomierly used by Unisys. US Bank is now in tfie process of moving into the building.
The proposed parking ramp would be located on the east half of the property nhere there is
current�y a parking lot. Part of the lot is used for a remote pazking lot for the Minneapolis-Saint
Paul airport «zth a shuttle bus sezvice n,nn;ng to the auport and the rest of thz lot is reserved for
USBank employees. USBank c�ill need all ofthe puking lot plus additionai pazking once it
occupies the entire building.
D. SUI2ROUNDING LAND USE:
Nozth: Apartments and other residential (RT-2)
South: Crosby Farm Pazk and Watergate Marina (R-I)
East: A remote parking lot for the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport (I-1)
West: A restaurant and office building (B-2)
E. HISTORY: The building and pazldng lot on the site were originally built by Unisys. The
building had not ben used since Unisys left several years ago. Mr. Trooien bought the property and
•
•
•
� �V
�'-�d�7
has renovated the buildin� o�•er the last yeaz. US Bank is moving into the building at this time and
eventually they will occupy the entira building.
• The site is located in the area covered by 1993 Shepard Road Davem Street Small Area Plan. The
plan calls for developing the area with "attractive office and/or light industrial de� elopment to create
' a visually appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepazd Road". The plan contains a number of
desi� guidelines and says that "these desi� guidelines should be enforced as part of the City's
rewlar site plan review process." Within the last yeaz, the City formed a necv task force that is
workin� on updating the Shepazd Da��em Plan.
Eazlier this sun�mer, Mr. Trooien submitted a site plan for a pazking ramp with 1200 spaces across
the street on the east side of Davern at the site of an existin� parking lot. That proposed ramp did not
require a River Comdor modification or a setback variance. However, staff had concems that the
earlier ramp was not consistent with the Shepazd Davem Small Area Plan. The Hi�hland Area
Community Council recommended that the ramp be located on the west side of Davem. A public
hearing was scheduled at the Planning Commission to consider the site plan but Mr. Trooien
withdrew the site plan and resubmitted the current site plan. This plan addresses most of the
concerns staff had �vith the eazlier ramp and moves the ramp to the �vest of Davem in response to the
Highland Area Community CouncIl's recommendation.
F. THE PROPOSED RAD4P: The proposed parking ramp would have 996 parking spaces. The ramp
�vould have four levels (one at gade and thzee above grade). It would be 42S fezt tall, measured to
the top of the �vall arotmd the top level (39 feet measured to the surface of the parking deck on the
top level). The driveway to the iunp «ould be on Davem in the same location as a drive�vay to the
esisting parking lot. The ramp would be finished in concrete and painted to match the USBank
• building. It �vould be open on all sides. The first level would have chain link fencing in the
openings to restrict access to the ramp.
There are currently approsimately 11 � 0 parking spaces in all of the parking lots on the US Bank
property. The proposed ramp would increase this number to appro�mately 1900 parking spaces.
(The ramp would have 996 spaces but would displace approximately 246 esistin� spaces in the
parking lot for a net increase of 7� 0 parking spaces.) Based on what the applicant told staff, it
appears that US Bank wotdd need about 600 of the spaces in the ramp. The remaining 400 would
initially be used for airport pazkin�.
•
The proposed ramp would be located on the north portion of the site so that the south portion of the
site, overlooking Shepard Road and the Mississippi River, can be developed in the future. The
applicant submitted a concept plan to show what type of building could be built in the southem
portion of the site. The ramp is desi,gned so that it could be expanded in the future to accommodate
more development on the site.
The ramp does not require an Indirect Source Permit &om the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
because it has less than 1000 parkin� spaces.
G. DISTRICT COIJNCIL RECO�INIENDATION: The board of the Highland Area Community
CouncIl will meet to consider this proposal on September 3.
� 27
FIPTDINGS AND STAFF RECO�iMEi�IDATION FOR RIVER CORRIDOR �fODIFICATION
H. FINDINGS: �
i. The proposed ramp would be 42.5 £eet tall measured to the top of the wall around the top level.
(The height of the surface of the pazking deck on the top level �vould be 39 feet «ith a 3.5 foot
tall wall.) The property is zoned I-1 which normally pennits a maximum hei;ht of �0 feet.
However, the property is also located in the RC-3 River Comdor Overlay Zoning District which
permits a ma�cimum height of 40 feet (Section 6i233.a).
2. Section 65.6�0 of the Zonin� Code authorizes the Plannin� Commission to modify provisions of
the River Corridor Ordinance if it meets the following findings:
a. It appears that by reason of ezceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter
would cause undue hardship and strict conformiry with the standards would be
unreasonable, impractical and not feasible under the circt�mstances.
This finding is met. An entire lecel of puking �vould have to be eliminated from the raznp in
order to meet the 40 foot height limit. Eluninating an entire level of parking �tiould create a
hardship beeause this parkin� will be needed in the future to develop the rzmainin� portion
of the site.
b. 77ae burden ofproofshall rest with the applicant to demonstrate conclusively to the
commission that st�ch modification rovi[l not restclt in a hazard to life or properry and will not
adversely affect the safery, use orstabiliry of a public way, slope or draina�e channel, or the
natairal environn:ent.
This finding is met. The modification will not result in a hazard or affect the natural •
environment.
c. `Modifications granted by the planning commission shall be consistent with the general
purposes ofthe standards contained in this chapter and state law and the intent ofapplicable
state and national laws and programs.
This findin� is met. The peupose of the 40 foot hei�ht limit is to prohibit tall buildin�s thaY
would be visible from the river. The ramp would meet the intent of this provision since it
would be only 2.5 feet hi�her than the permitted ma.�dmum height and the ramp would be set
back over 300 feet from the river bluff line so taat it should not be visible from the river.
I. STAFF RECONIMENDATION: Based on findings 1 and 2, staff recommends approval of the
modifccation to permit a maYimum height of 42.5 feet measured to the top of the ccaIl around the top
level of the proposed ramp.
•
�. L 4
FINDINGS AND STAFF RECObI�IEtYDATION FOR SETBACK VARIAtiCE
• J. FINDINGS:
q8-i��7
1. The adj acent property to the north of the proposed pazking ramp has four apartmznt buildings.
The apartment huildings are 2'/� stories tall. There is a row of gaza�es for the apartments atong
the common property line ben;�een the apar[ment buildings and the proposed ramp.
2. The proposed ramp would be setback 1� feet from the property line. The zonin� code requires a
setback from the north property line of 1.5 times the height of the ramp because ihe USBank
properry is zoned industrial and the adjacent properry is zoned residential. The ramp is proposed
to be 42S feet tall so the required setback is 6S feet . The applicant is requesting a variance of
�0 feet.
3. The Planning Commission may a ant a variance for setback if it makes the follo«zn� findings:
a. The properry in quesaon cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the
code.
This finding is met. The applicant wanu to reserve the south portion of the site, along
Shepard Road and overlooking the Mississippi Ricer, for future development of an office
building. Shifring the ramp south to maintain a 65 foot setback from the norrh properry line
would severely lirnic space alone Shepard Road for fumre development. The ramp cannot
be built taller to provide the same amount of parking on a smaller foot print because of
hei�ht restrictions.
• b. The plight of the land owner is due to cireumstances unique to his property, and these
circu»utances were not created by the Zand owner.
This finding is met The properry is unique because it overlooks the Mississipgi River and
is subject to the design guidelines of the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan. Both of these
factors su�gest that any future development should be located toward the south side of the
property along Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of the
property.
a The proposed variance is in keeping wzth the spirir and intent of the code, and is consistent
with the health, safery, comfon, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St.
Paul.
This finding is met if conditions aze attached to the variance. The intent of the zoning code
in requiring large setbacks from residential property is to protect adjacent properry owners
from the impact of industrial uses. In this case, the adjacent residenual property can be
protected from light and noise from the ramp if condidons are required that the north wali
of the ramp must be solid and that it must be made attracrive and compatible with the
surrounding nei�hbozhood through the choice of buildin� materials and landscapina.
d. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of lighr and air to adjacent
property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably
• diminish established properry values within the surrounding area.
The finding can be met if condirions aze attached to the variance. The proposed ramp would
be 42.� feet high and over 300 feet long. This could unpair an adequate supply of light and
�f' 2`�
air to the apartment buildings to the north and alTer the essential character of thesurrounding
azea. The impact of the ramp would be significantly reduced if a condition is required that
the top level of the north bap of parking must be eliminated so the hei�ht of the building at
the north wall is reduced to 30 feet. Doing this would reduce the number of parking spaces •
in the ramp by approximatety 68. (See attached drawings by staff.}
e. The variance, if granted, would not pemut any use that is not pemutted under the
provisions af the code for rhe properry in the district where the a„�'ected land is located, nor
would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property.
This finding is met.
f. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income
potenriaL of the parcel of Iand.
This finding is met. The request for vaziance is based primazIly on a desire to fully develop
the properry in a way that takes advantage of iu location overlookin� the Mississippi River
and is consisient with ihe Shepazd Davern Small Area Plan.
K. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1-3, staff recommends approval of the
variance to permit a setback of li feet from the north properry line, subject to the follocving
conditions which aze intended to minimize the impact of the ramp on the apartments to the north:
1. The north bay of pazking ramp (the north 60 £eet of tfie ramp} must be limitzd to a maximum
hei�ht of 30 feet to the top of the wall.
2. The north wall of the proposed parkin� ramp must be solid to screen noise and li�ht from the
adjacent properry and constructed of material that is compatible �vith the surrounding
neighborhood. •
3. Sufficient landscapin„ such as trees and vines, must be planted in the north setback to reduce the
visual impact of the ramp.
i
� ,o
98-�c�7
FI��AINGS AND STAFF RECO�I�tENDATION FOR SITE PLAN REV[EW
• L. FIYAINGS: Section 62.108.c of the zoning code states that "in order to approve the site plan, the
planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with" the findings listed
below.
(1) ApplicableordinancesoftheCityofSaintPaul.
The site plan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if the Rivez Comdor Modification foz
maYimum height and the Zoning Variance for setback aze approved.
(2) The ciry's adopted comprehensive pZan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the
CJly.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepard Road Davem Street Small Area Plan which was
adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan on November 16, 1993.
- The plan encoura�es the ocvner of this site and the property to the east of Davem to
"consider building a pazking deck or some type of pazking structure (perhaps incorporated
with another use) that could provide parking to Unisys, if needed, as well as provide
pazking to a new development"
- The vision of the plan is "attractive office and/or ligh[ industrial development to create a
visually appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepard Road" The location and size of
the ramp is intended to allow future office dzvelopment along Shepazd Road.
- The plan recommends that development should be "sensitive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commercial azea". The ramp will meetthis
• recommendauon if the north wall is no more than 30 feet high and landscaping is added
to soften the appeazance of the ramp from adjacent residential properry.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings massing should be configured to avoid long
unbroken facades." The location of the ramp is consistent with this finding since it
would allow another building to be built in the future to the south that would screen the
ramp from Shepard Road.
(3) Preservation ofunique geologic, geographic or historically significant characteristics ofthe
city and environmentally sensikve areas.
The site plan is consisient with this finding. The site's location overlooking the Mississippi
River is geoo aphically sia ificant. Locating the ramp at the north portion of the site so that
the south portion can be developed as an office building responds to the characteristics of the
location.
(4) Protection of adjaeent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for such
matters as surface water draina�e, sound and sight bz�ffers, preservation ofviews, light and
air, and those aspects of design which may have substanriat effects on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent ��ith this finding if the top level of the ramp is eliminated in the
north bay so that the ramp is 30 feet tall to the top of the wall along the nor[h side and the north
wall of the ramp is solid to block light and noise.
• (�) The arrangement ofbuildings, uses and facilides ofthe proposed development in orderto
assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably affected.
The site plan is consistent �ith this finding if the height of the north bay of the height of the
� 31
ramp is reduced along the north side and the north «'atl is solid to screzn ti�ht and noisa from
the adjacen[ residential property. The location of the new drive�cay is also consistentwzth this
finding: it would be in the same azea as an e�cisung driveway to minimin the impact on the •
adjacent residential property and to encourage more trafFic to go to directly� to Shepard Road
rather than traveling on Davem.
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and locarion, orientation and
elevation ofstn�ctures.
The site plan meets current standards and is consistent with this frnding.
(7) Safety and convenience ofboth vehicular and pedestrian traffic bath within the site and in
relation to access streets, including traffic circulation featzires, the locaaons and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent �vith this finding. The plan has been reviecved for traffic safety by
Public Works staff. They approved the location of the driveways and found that Davem could
safely handle the increased traffic that �vould be generated by the ramp.
(8) The satisfactory wailabiliry and capaciry ofstorm and sanitary sewers, including solurions to
any drainage problems in the area ofthe deveZopment.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for secvers and drainage. A condition of site
plan approval should be that the applicant submit a more detailed plan for rzciew and approval
by Public �Vorks staff
(9) Sufficient landscaping, fences, wa(Is and par�zng necessary to meet the above objecrives. �
The site plan does not show sufficient landscaping. A condition of site approcal should be that
the applicant submit a tandscape plan, showing sufficient landscaping on the east (Davem
Street), north and south sides of the raznp, for review and approval bp LIEP staff.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), incla�din� parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent «�th this finding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "RamseyErosion Sediment and
Control Handbook. "
The site pIan does not contain any information on erosion and sediment control. A condition
of approval should be Yhat an erosion and sediment control plan is submittzd for revie�v and
approval by LIEP staff.
M. STAF'F 12EC0�'IENDATION: Based on findin�s 1 through 11, staff recommends that the
plan be approved subject to the condition that the applicant must submit the folo�ring plans:
1. A final plan for site utilities and storm water mana�ement for review and approval by Public
Works staff.
2. An erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by LIEP staff.
3. A finaI Iandscape plan sho�v�ng sufficient landscapin� along ihe east (Dacem Street}, north and •
south sides of the ramp for review and approval by LIEP staff.
� 3z
•
•
�
a
�
��
o..
X
�'
_�
3 �
�
F r 3
� � �
'�S i � " ' ,�.�
? a ,"` _ —
._— - �_ -
aQ! � =-=��;; � s-
� r�
����
�° 6
=' � �"—�
�
..a
�—.� -_�___�_
��-� =V�
_ —''� - -�y-�1- - '
` f� �^` _ _ �_
=-�c� - =-f
= -- �� ---�_� = -
35 �
-- �3 ---- �
5; ,
u4 V
� I
, G � -�-�--
�� 1
133HM � � �
� I I
1
I�
� I
u I � I
i l I
1
I
I
�
� i�`� _ �
� �
- i
�- I I
� `;�w`'� �
. ,'! � ;`y � �
. �L f
i
�
,,,
Y �
� i
a
� � �
' � I
I
�
I
��J
u
�
S
�
�
>
�
V a P �
...i. iE , �;
�� i: a i i
�, b � ;i`; i �� {� , I
�� fji, � �� �
� la�k;::i: i��I
\ z 13,9 t EitE
\ ; i;; ;.al:`=%,!
\ � '7� �L/i�
� � \ W �:
�
��
W � �`�\
����.
a
<
W
j Y
i� J
J
Q
� �
s
N ��7�
Z T
� � O W
111 3 s Q
NF
�o
0�
'a
= a
?
N
W
�
J I
J
�
�
1
� N
Z
��
�W
��
m�
L
�X
0
0�
�
?
N
X
1 1 1 � t
i� a y
L
1
(
� �
� - 't-
�- `
I (
, • I c
i, �
�
i� � �
- ., �
�
� �I
�t��
���
i ��
J
3� 33
C(� -/4(�7
�
.�
�
�
�
0
�
�
�J'
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
�_ II
_ " js �V�d�l��:e
;i i
°��
�n
��
Q
�
Q
�.
��
z
�
lll �
n✓ iC.
�n
+��—
�9
1
,
�-1 i�
� r
�7 �
z �
t- �
��
' �\
' \
,\
.,0 �„'J'
�
���- 9� ls N � � nda
� � �� � ,
�—�—
t �
� OO=OG i' __ � _
� O =� � -
� �
� - � � �,�
� � _ _
°� / �� �
�'Q __ �=L __ =�_.�
_ � �,.. 1 ,_ ; �_�
(__
� �:,UV _� --�
r � �� - T — �
_ _ — � — �_� =�
-- t ,�� — �
-- - J
� -- - — Ill
_ �_-_ —_ `
= __- . —. ._ . _ —�- -= �v
— - -- ---- — -�
-- -- � —�-- F
t _ -_ �—_. —_��-�
�
-- — — ci
—. —�_ _
— - � _�—_ - __ f "
--' �
__ �� — �-
k
�
—�—_ _ �_ — ._ �-
' i - '
i '
wz
� a
E
��
�— O � --�
Z Z
t- �
�
w�
- � �
r ^ jV Z
[!i
3 �
tn
I — _—
f
� �.
Z '
_ � Q — , i
Z � �
�
� �
_3y� _
�Y
�_ j
��
_ ¢
y
Y"'
-- �
il
�
w
U
z
w
LL
Z
J
z
a
_
U
u -ar�od
�A 00 0 0
W
Q
� Z
0�
z�
F-
�
X
w
\ �V
�
\
�
�
C
�
•
�
x _ x —_ x .— x ' � '
� . � 3�'- - .
1
�� i��
�
•
•
�a �—
Cmi
i�u '
��
(o;'-
; W lf _ _ _
�
.,
,.
���
�„�,
�ri�
VU
u. <1
X
w!
l --�
� V
� �
�
�
�
�
�
>
�
� 3s
�
�
�
S
�
2
-�
s
-'�
�
V/
1 i
N
Cf f u �i
.n � U .O :O
� �u
\9 -
3 ' f> � � Gl
- `• m ' w� _
i i i r �
1
�� � i � ' �
w i w
U � U ! V
i � � i Q
1 O j f� 1 4
_ __ ;, ._
' � .
'�
��� �
� .S'IA
�9 ttl
7 l'1
i- 'i
��� W
iii
l'1
il r l'1
7 IY (]
r()�
m��R)
��
� �t
�,
�
� �
1 'V
� ` N
`{� __
Q --
�
3
y
� s
� �y
V
_ a
� S
�� c?
�
�
�
�
�
"_'�I
L
N
� .
�
�a
I ' � �
� ;
N 1 J I � �
Cl � u i�i i.�
.n O i O i O
� I I � � �
� �� ai a
? ; 9 � O j N
__ `-_ �
I t • �_
_ I' .
� �
I �
� � i, � i � �
w I �i ; ui
� U � U ' U �
i � � i B
� I A � Q �
''— _ ` _
� �I il l
I �
i -
� I li M �
'. I: _
� o
i� � y
�i �
f r ._
' 3
, �: ° _.
'�' � �
�!' � 3
--�
p �n s
- � -�
� y
.� O
i �'1 ��� ]� S
0'� Z ��
' �� �n W '-
i ! � ;� �-
. w� �
� u_
o �`
iv � �
z �� �
Q 'U
�
�
L
�'D
\i Y l'1 t
?WC] �'
)i�p] �
� �n .
ui��jj 3
�',' �
�
� 36
� - --
�
_ _. _��,�._._,�
•
� �
a
\ r
�
� 8 -i�6°7
�
�
_° � 0 1L
� ;
S �.\ � o
—� : ��-- — — —� — — � � f? � 2
—_ . _ — � v 'l .'r , �
^ i I, � � ~ � — — � �L' '�--
- - �;�'.,ij� � � 'L'�
g�� - _ = uS � O 1�1
' �� t ' � � =.4,_.' °;�,�_ -�� ; `� _t o n- �-
�:a � � � �/. p I 4 � °F � � � � � Y �
�ti I { , � q I —C> s = — m i �� ` � ..L
i �
I {
� I I
�
I I
�
`i
� �
i I
�
;
� �
Y�
I d
�I
I �
o � z
I
1
l
��� C� _ —3� s =;�T — � — �
'� —y_ ! �° $ y �"
�'s� Y — _ � K y' � �
-� ��=a= �� O � o
i e y i ,/ i r= i�� o � fl-- C� �
I a _ i �f --�=s��=_ g w `
� �
i � s �_z=__ _' �� s�
J I _ --1 � =- - - —F-a ,�ri o �
�i� '__- °�d O
� W��
� � � � 9(` �4 ' ' � � � 9 � �;
I � � I 8 � � �e� �, �� _ �`'
I � , I ! �� q - ~�
� I � �!�� � �' o
� � °� i. s � � ;� �;�.� `I,
i � �-- _��
i � �3€
�� a -- �
� — r= _'� � ��'�' � �
s �3��3H;� —� � Nw
� `
�
4 I
1 I � • � �
� , ' I
� � �
I I�I
� '—=� =� — —
. � �
\ � �
�,
�
�
H
� �
�
��
h
�
�
W
�
r
��
��
g�
N
W
�I
� �_
a I � � � B
LL_'__
I
-�t = � Od �
N —
• � o �_ \ � \ o � � O�aJ \
a r \ �.
� --
\ �
�\ .
3� t� , y� � $ ' ; � _� ga�� s £ �
Y � � ,.. �" � � �� W � � � � ��� ` �
.:3 3 3 ffi :,6�£: ° �a`_4 ��$.�'��� �.. e3", �a �
ill�'i�t�lll�
Iliillllll T
/
Y /
a :�
i�
e � � �
1 �
�
�
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1Q.
11.
12.
13.
�
17.
Stli IRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGFiWOOD
FiAZHL PARK HADE\T•PROSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE
DAYTON'S BLUFF =;,
,
PAYNE-PHAI.EN z ,
NORTH END '
THOtifAS-DALE
SUMMIT-LRv�IVERSITY
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE-MID WAY
ST. ANT"HOi'IY PARK
MERRIA2vi PARK-LEXhi'GTON HAMI.Ii3E-S\ HAMLINE
M.ACALESTER GROVELA-h'D
HIGHLAND
SUMMIT HILL 2
DOWNrOWN
ZON[NG F�LE
'.�s 3 8
CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO�I PLAN\'I! tG DISTRICTS
9� -� �
�
�
:.
� �. �
.' I
, ... .......
� .. .. ....
.. ......_ ;�
� � ... ..... • i - �-
��.. `• .. " � �j
� -„]`��
_ _'\ ` ��'
���' :�
\` �
..���
�� � ��
���. ,l I�
E I'��:
_�-`�;�){':�i ��`
_�;�; 1. �-
--- � �-
• _ �,:
�.� T1.� � i�:..- i�
���rl'Tz��
_�� � �r:T
_ �I�I�.����_
� ��
=°`��: �
°'--_-�_- _r�
__= - -
__= _
- �-_-�
'--�- �=-.
_� .
� �-� I�
1 ; 1 ��
L
„ �
_� I � �
u __���. V � , ` : i
=,, ;�: ..
� j
;;�,����;.�
.. s, �.. �
Ir� , -� J
!1 , ,'i`,< i-�= - •
� C t; ;7.: /,.`: ;,� �;
� ,_�,j _�i�` ..�
� ;; ,,: :_ -, .
/ �.. �
a-� �% � /
� 1`' I ;
�J%� � �,
, ,
�:�
, �: ,
x,.
H I GHLAt{ D
�
�
� • 8{ :
�
/�� /
DISTRICT 15 N - __. _ ,� '�-
Z'd 2
I Z�������� r���.� �—�
'�t 39
� a. "
: �-, -
n �
a ��..
n ^ !11
G •..���....
V
�
0
� � =J � ��
�� 6G ' sHea
� °f�E' G
l,e e� a� 8 v G
J 6i�•�jcJ �e�
o � G C /� ��'^��[>
�E� �}�.��'n6? �' e�`�
�, � c a U2 :��s� ���` 7�j 5 � �g c
�, ��;�, ��
�����
�_`
,
�
�n
f. °' C � `..
MORfC�tiE - --
� r a�i
� �� �
.E�on
V �/1
� ��^ ^o ��
n
�
� �1
P
P
-� C� n g�
e cs°
��
� 5`ea` 3 e�
�� w ��e� F3 �� �
���.c���'���'s E
'�Go'J%' c �
j� � n �� � � � ���� ��
� � c 9 '� r� �, fl� Fs s,
r'C� �� S �� p�,.+� `J �3 r? �J a�•''
x3�� n[; t'77 qV 9n ��G. a � �/
�h�J n �. _a nVa�3�.. ��.e
��� ��
Ri vER
�,� .: __..
�.C--� r.re.�'`E.'��.^.`E.��..oc�._ 'e.�r'
MAP,
="��r:�;'M_� '`�e�o
re C r G,.�..^�c.^:'rr E
_�
I
LEGEND
...--_.�� zoniny district t�ur�dz;y i
subj=d propa7y "norin '
0 on=_ lamily • � ^ comni<�..�
¢ rr�o (dmily + .�.,..,inJus;n :'
I
Y i
'u Q muitipl� la'nil, V va�2, I
�•-��•E�`..� L,�ct,���t.Y �''r1.-.
�'. :� .0 (:�'���'� �,.7:
• ':� J c£.�... i. .. r. n _ �� ' _ t -. .- ... . a .� c �� c� w r'�. . .
,�� v
'L b�
\ A 1°
I �
'� 91 Z
9 �
p 0
° ��
� �L
��
�
` .�1p'i v
/
� ��[iC�
� 3���
� n. c..
� a 9 e 4, P" f.
(•' iJ O cS �"p
- o
q fJ V G` CA�
F� 4�U
�J B�n �,
�� 4 3 o c+ ,� p� `�' Q`
! 9° b c �� ' � • �`�� J � O
J7Q�0°v�� �
0
� 9 � ��'� n �
F �,� � .3 n.
��a��� £���
� � a oP j-
�n' � �� � ��
� C �4� �o tj J 1
`i�O �'p° E
�
�� �e � d�
� 3 n C� �c � a
O �6 4' n ••
• ���o'"�"�°,"�"�°�°�"�°�°��f'I`I°I°�°'OR����°!�l°!°�
� QV E.
�NO �_�� �<<'� ��I O O O O O 00 A � 000 O 000�
_`. �,� �, �'`�°' I� I� I I� I Y�. � I � I�I I o:
(
��5�17 � � ( �I �°/�
RESOLUTION
OF SAINT PAUL, MINIVESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Council File # f 0 ' �V�O
Green Sheet # �L �� L �
Committee: Date
2
3
4
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
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien, on behalf of Alexandra and Associates LLC, in Zoning File
Nos. 98-231, 98-223 and 98-236, made the following applications to the Saint Paul Planning
Commission: (1) site plan review pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.108 [Zonirtg File
No. 98-231]; (2) modification of the river conidor provisions contained in Saint Paul Legislative
Code § 65.650 [Zoning File No. 98-223]; (3) variance from the strict application of Saint Paul
Legislative Code § 61.104(b) pertaining to setbacks for shuctures [Zoning File No. 98-236], all
for the purpose of constructing within the City's River Corridor District a 42.5 foot high parking
ramp with a 15 foot setback from abutting properiy having a residential zoning classification.
The subject property is commoniy known as 2751 Shepard Road. [Please see Zoning Files
numbers 98-223, 98-231 and 98-236 for the legal descriptions of this large pazcel of property];
and
WIIEREAS, on September 11, 1998, the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Planning
Commission] conducted a public hearing on the vazious applications after having provided notice
to affected property owners and wherein all interested persons were given an opportwuty to be
heard;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, decided to approve each application, subject to conditions, under separate resolutions as
follows:
A. In Zoning file No. 98-231 [Site Plan Review], the Planning Commission made the following
findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-56:
°(1) Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The site plan is consistent with a11 applicable ordinances if the River Corridor
Modification for maYimum height and the Zoning Variance for setback are approved.
(2) The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-
azeas of the city.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepazd Road Dauern Street Small Area Plan
which was adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan on
November 16, 1993.
�'�
2 - The plan encourages the owner of this site and the properiy to the east of Davern
3 to "consider building a parking deck or some type of pazking shucture (perhaps
4 incorporated with another use) that could provide pazking to Unisys, if needed, as
5
6
7 -
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
well as provide pazking to a new development."
The vision of the pian is "atiractive office and/or light industrial development to
create a visually appealing gateway into 5t. Paul along Shepard Road." The
location and size of the ramp is intended to allow future office development along
Shepard Road.
The plan recommends that development should be "sensitive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commercial area". The ramp will meet
tl�is recommendation if the north wall is kept to no more than 30 feet high acxd
landscaping is added to soften the appeazance of the ramp from adjacent
residential property.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings massing should be configured to avoid
long unbroken facades." The location of the ramp is consistent with this finding
since it would allow another building to be built in the future to the south that
would screen the ramp from Shepard Road.
(3) Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically significant chazacteristics
of the city and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site's location overlooking the
Mississippi River is geographicaliy significant. Locating the ramp at the north
portion of the site so that the south portion can be developed as an office building
responds to the characteristics of the location.
(4) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for
such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of
views, light and air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
(5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in
arder to assure abutting property andlor its occupants will not be unreasonably
affected.
The site plan is consistent with this finding if the north wall is solid to screen light
and noise from the adjacent residential property. The location of the new driveway is
also consistent with this finding: it would be in the same area as an existing driveway
to minimize the impact on the adjacent residential and to encourage more traffic to go
to directly to Shepard Road rather than traueling on Davern.
Page 2 of 7
/ � � �;
, ,
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation
and elevation of structures.
The site plan meets current standards and is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both vehiculaz and pedestrian traffic both within the site
and in relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the locations
and design of entrances and er�its and parking azeas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The plan has been reviewed for traffic
safety by Public Works staff. They approved the location of the driveways and found
that Davern could safely handle the increased traffic that wouid be generated by the
ramp.
(8) The satisfactory availabiliiy and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including
solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the development.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for sewers and drainage. A condition
of site pian approval should be that the applicant submit a more detailed plan for
review and approval by Public Works staff
(9) Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above
objectives.
The site plan does not show sufficient landscaping. A condition of site approval
should be that the applicant submit a landscape plan, showing su�cient landscaping
on the east (Davern Street), north and south sides of the ramp, for review and
approval by LIEP staff.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this fmding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and Control Handbook."
The site pian does not contain any information on erosion and sediment control. A
condition of approval should be that an erosion and sediment control plan is
submitted far review and approval by LIEP staff.
Page 3 of 7
� �= �0�7
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The modifications is consistent with the general purposes of the standards contained
in this chapter and state law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and
programs.
22 The purpose of the 40 foot height limit is to prohibit tall buildings that would be
23 visible from the river. The ramp would meet the intent of this provision since it
24 would be only 2.5 feet higher than the permitted maximuxn height and the ramp
25 would be set back over 300 feet from the river bluff line."
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
B. In Zoning file No. 98-223 [River Corridor District Modification], the Planning Commission
made the following findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-54:
"1. By reason of exceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter would
cause undue hardship and strict conformity with the standazds would be unreasonable,
impractical and not feasibie under the circumstances.
An entire level of parking would haue to be eliminated from the ramp in order to meet
the 40 foot height limit. Eliminating an entire level of parking would create a
hazdship because this parking will be needed in the future to develop the remaining
portion of the site.
2. The modification will not resuit in a hazard to life or property and will not adversely
affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the
natural environment.
C. In Zoning File No. 98-236 [Setback Variance], the Planning Commission made the
following findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-55:
"1
2.
The properiy in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions
of the code.
The applicant wants to reserve the south portion of the site, along Shepard Road and
overlooking the Mississippi River, for future development of an office building.
Shifting the ramp south to maintain a 65 foot setback from the north property line
would severely limit space along Shepard Road for future development. The ramp
cannot be built taller to provide the same amount of pazking on a smaller foot print
because of height restricrions.
The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The properry is unique because it overlooks the Mississippi River and is subject to the
design standards of the Shepard Davern Sma11 Area Plan. Both of these factors
suggest that any future development should be located towazd the south side of the
property along Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of
the property.
Page 4 of 7
�8-ld��
�
2 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
3 consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfaze of the inhabitants of
4 the City of St. Paul if conditions are attached to the variance.
6 The intent of the zoning code in requiring large setbacks from residential property is
7 to protect adjacent property owners from the unpact of industrial uses. In tYris case,
8 the adjacent residential properry can be protected from light and noise from the ramp
9 if the north wall of the ramp is solid and is made amactive and comparible with the
10 surrounding neighborhood through the choice of building ma#erials and landscaping.
11
12 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
13 properiy, nor will it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding azea or
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
unreasonably diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the properry in the district where the affected land is
located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primazily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the pazcel of land.
The request for variance is based primarily on a desire to fully develop the properiy in
a way that takes advantage of its location overlooking the Mississippi River and is
consistent with the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan."
WIIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Melvin
Spiegler Properties, L.P., on October 8, 1998, duly filed with the City of Saint Paul an appeal
from the determination made by the Planning Commission and requested that a hearing be held
before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission
relative to the applications of Alexandra and Associates LLC; and
VJHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208 and upon
norice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on November
12, 1998, where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council having heard the statements made and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the recard, the minutes and resolutions of the Planning
Commission, does hereby;
RESOLVE, that the appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties, L. P. be denied as no error as to
any fact, finding or procedure of the Planning Commission in this matter has been shown; AND,
BE IT
Page 5 of 7
9 g- l D�7
1 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul affirms the decision of
2 the Plamiiug Commission in this matter with respect to the River Corridor Modifications as set
3 forth in Pla.nniug Commission Resolufions No. 98-54 and that the Council of the City of Saint
4 Paui adopts as its own the findings of the Planning Commission; AND, BE IT
6 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul �rms the decision of
7 the Planning Commission in this matter with respect to properiy line setbacks as set forth in
8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-55 and that the Council of the City of Saint Paul adopts
9 as its own the findings and determinations of the Planning Commission as contained in its
10 resolution No. 98-55, provided, however, that such variances are fiu-ther expressly conditioned
11 upon:
12
13 a. It being expressly determined that tlus variance is not granted
14 or effective unless the conditions as set forth in Planning
15 Commission Resolution No. 98-55 aze fully complied with;
16 and
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
b. The Councii being aware that the location of the properry line
is in dispute and the subject of litigation, the additional
condition of the variances is effective only from the property
line wherever that might be determined to be by judicial
resolution or settlement of the parties to the dispute, and that
the appiicant for the variance shall construct any improvements
to the ramp solely at its own risk.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul affirms
the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter witl� respect to Site Plan Review as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-56 and that the Council of the City of Saint
Paul adopts as its own the findings and determinations of the Planning Commission as contained
in its resolution No. 98-56, provided, however, that such variances are fiuther expressly
conditioned upon:
That such site plan approval is expressly conditioned upon, and is not granted until,
the following plans have first been reviewed and approved by the indicated City staff
or agencies:
.�
l:�
The final plan for site utilities and storm water management by
the public works staff;
The final plans for:
(i) Erosion and Sediment Control;
(ii) Landscaping along the East, North and South sides of the ramp; and
(iii) Lighting for the ramp, including light should be directed down and not
toward the residential buildings to the North of the ramp, by the staff of the
office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection.
Page 6 of 7
9 �- ��� 7
�
2
3
4
5
AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shali mail a copy of this
resolution to Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P., Alexandra and Associates, L.L.C., the Zoning
Admuustrator, and the P12tming Commission.
Adopted by Council: Date ��`�
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By:
Approved by May ' ate
By:
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form Appro by City Attorney
BY: �IIr L" k/J/YUi—"�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
DATE INRIATED
council
11-25-98
Councilmember
MIIYBER FOR
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
GREEN SHEET
oEr�airdrowECtae
� � - ta��}
No 6229'7
u�n�auum
a,vcouc..
❑ arcwTrowtr ❑ arcarnK _
❑ iMRNtlGLiERNCFiOYt ❑ RMMIl�LiEM1V/KCT6
❑ W1bR(ORAl9afqMll ❑
(CLIP ALl LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Finalizing City Council action taken November 12, 1998, denying the appeal of Melvin
Spiegler Properties LP to a decision of the Planning Commission approving a parking
ramp proposed by Park N Jeti at 2751 Shepard Road.
PLANNING CAMMISSION
CIB COMMITTEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
ffY_1�::i�I�lay
}ias this PeBONfirm everworked undar a conFrect for Mis departmeM?
YES NO
Has Mie DeraoNfirtn ever been a dlY emDbYee7
YES NO
Does this persoNfi�m possecs a sldll not normellyposseasetl by a�ry curtent city empbyee7
YES NO
Is this persoNfirtn a tarpHetl vendoR
YES NO
�lain all ves ar�srers on seoa2te sheet aM attach to areen sheet
�'. ��� �� A",��-�' t, � e � , � g C
�ei'ti+e `_. S�iL�-v`�,±.. "�:st,�T
�a��y� �' � �99�
AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION
COST/REVENUE BUDIiETED (CIRCLE ON�
�UNDIN6 SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER
YES NO
CouncilFile# �(�- �067
QRlGlNAL
Presented By
Referred To
�
�
2 Wf�REAS, Gerald Trooien, on behalf of Alexandra and As ociates LLC, in Zoning File
3 Nos. 98-231, 98-223 and 98-236, made the following appiications o the Saini Paui Planning
4 Commission: (1) site plan review pursuant to Saint Paul Legisl ive Code § 62.108 [Zoning File
S No. 98-231 ]; (2) modification of the river corridor provisions ntained in Saint Paul Legislative
6 Code § 65.650 [Zoning File No. 98-223]; (3) variance from e strict application of Saint Paui
7 Legislative Code § 61.104(b) pertaining to setbacks for s ctures [Zoning File No. 98-236], all
8 for the purpose of constructing within the City's River nidor District a 42.5 foot high parking
9 ramp with a 15 foot setback from abutting properry ha ng a residential zoning classification.
10 The subject property is commonly known as 2751 S epazd Road. [Please see Zoning Files
11 numbers 98-223, 98-231 and 98-236 for the legal scriptions of this large parcel of property];
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
WHEREAS, on September 11, 1998,iEhe Saint Paul Planning Commission [Planning
Commission] conducted a public hearing the various applications after having provided notice
to affected properly owners and wherei 1 interested persons were given an opportunity to be
heard;and
WHEREAS, the Planning ommission, based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, decided to approve eac application, subject to conditions, under sepazate resolutions as
follows:
A. In Zoning file No. 98- 1[Site Plan Review], the Pianning Commission made the following
findings of fact as set fo in its Resolution No. 98-56:
���
The
RESOLUTION
CITY
PATI., NIINNESOTA
Committee:
ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
plan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if the River Corridor
�tion for maximum height and the Zoning Variance for setback are approved.
(2) � e city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-
areas of the city.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepard Road Davern Street Small Area Plan
which was adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan on
November 16, 1993.
GreenSheet# 62247
q�- Ib�`I
- The plan encourages the owner of this site and the property to the east of Davern
to °consider building a parking deck or some type of parking structure (perhaps
incorporated with another use) that could provide parking to Unisys, if needed, as
well as provide parking to a new development." ,
- The vision of the plan is "atiractive office and/or light industrial evelopment to
create a visually appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepaz oad" T`he
location and size of the ramp is intended to allow future offic development along
Shepard Road.
- The plan recommends that development should be "sen tive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commerci area". The ramp wiil meet
this recommendation if the north wall is kept to no ore than 30 feet high and
landscaping is added to soften the appearance of ramp from adjacent
residenrial property.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings m sing should be configured to avoid
long unbroken facades." The location of ramp is consistent with this fmding
since it would a11ow another building to e built in the future to the south that
would screen the ramp from Shepard ad.
(3) Preservation of unique geologic, geogr hic or historically significant characteristics
of the city and environmentally sensi ' e areas.
The site plan is consistent with ' fmding. The site's location overlooking the
Mississippi River is geographic ly significant. Locating the ramp at the north
portion of the site so that the s uth portion can be developed as an office building
responds to the characteristi of the location.
(4) Protection of adjacent neighboring properties through reasonable provision for
such matters as surfac water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of
views, light and air, d those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land es.
The site plan i consistent with this finding.
(5) The arran ment of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in
order to sure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably
Th site plan is consistent with this finding if the north wall is solid to screen light
d noise from the adjacent residential properiy. The location of the new driveway is
lso consistent with this finding: it would be in the same area as an existing driveway
to minimize the impact on the adjacent residential and to encourage more traffic to go
to directly to Shepard Road rather than traveling on Davern.
Page 2 of 7
ct�- l
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation
and elevation of structures.
The site plan meets current standazds and is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both veluculaz and pedesirian lraffic bo�thin 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 site plan is consistent with this fmding. The plan has bee reviewed for traffic
safety by Public Works staff. They approved the locafion o the driveways and found
that Davem could safely handle the increased traffic that w uld be generated by the
ramp.
(8) The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm anpT sanitary sewers, including
solutions to any drainage problems in the azea of th�development.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan r sewers and drainage. A condition
of site plan approval should be that the applic t submit a more detailed plan far
review and approval by Public Works staff
(9) Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls an�azking necessary to meet the above
objectives.
The site plan does not show
should be that the applicant
on the east (Davern Street),
approval by LIEP staff.
i t landscaping. A condition of site approval
a landscape plan, showing sufficient landscaping
and south sides of the ramp, for review and
(10) Site accessibility in accor ce with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), including p ing spaces, passenger loading zones and accessibie routes.
The site plan ]s cons' tent with this finding.
(11) Provision for ero on and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and ontrol Handbook."
The site pl does not contain any information on erosion and sed'unent control. A
conditio f approval should be that an erosion and sediment control plan is
submi d for review and approval by LIEP staff.
Page 3 of 7
��'-lo��]
B. In Zoning file No. 98-223 [12iver Corridor District Modification], the Plamiing Commission
made the following findings of fact as set forth in its Resolution No. 98-54:
"1. By reason of exceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter
cause undue hardship and strict conformity with the standazds would be unr�
nnpractical and not feasible under the circumstances.
An entire level of pazking would have to be eliminated from the ramp ' order to meet
the 40 foot height liznit. Eliminating an entire level of parking wou create a
hardship because this parking will be needed in the future to deve p the remaining
portion of the site.
2. The modification will not result in a hazard to life or prope and will not adversely
affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or ainage channel, or the
natural environment.
3. The modifications is consistent with the general
in this chapter and state law and the intent of ap
programs.
s of the standards contained
staze and national laws and
The purpose of the 40 foot height limit is to ohibit ta11 buildings that would be
visible from the river. The ramp would m t the intent of this provision since it
would be only 2.5 feet higher than the pe itted maximum height and the ramp
would be set back over 300 feet from river bluff line."
C. In Zoning File No. 98-236 (Setback V:
following findings of fact as set forth in its
"1. The properhy in question
of the code.
the Planning Commission made the
on No. 98-55:
be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions
The applicant wants to serve the south portion of the site, along Shepard Road and
overlooking the Miss' sippi Rivez, for future development of an office building.
Shifting the ramp s th to maintain a 65 foot setback from the north property line
would severely li it space along Shepard Road for future development. The ramp
cannot be buiit ler to provide the same amount of parking on a smalier foot print
because of h 'eht restrictions.
2. The plig of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to his properiy, and these
circ tances were not created by the land owner.
T properry is unique because it overlooks the Mississippi River and is subject to the
esign standazds of the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan. Both of these factors
suggest that any future development should be located toward the south side of the
properiy along Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of
the property.
Page 4 of 7
a �, �06�
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfaze of the inhabitants of
the City of St. Paul if conditions aze attached to the variance.
The intent of the zoning code in requiring lazge setbacks from residenfial pro�erty is
to protect adjacent property owners from the impact of industrial uses. In tJiis case,
the �
adjacent residential properiy can be protected from light and noise fro e ramp if
the north wall of the ramp is solid and is made attractive and compati e with the
surrounding neighborhood through the choice of building materials d landscaping.
4. The proposed variance will not unpair an adequate supply of li and air to adjacent
properry, nor will it aiter the essential chazacter of the surroun g azea or
unreasonably diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that i not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district w ere the affected land is
located, nor would it alter or change the zoning c�ist ' t classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primazily o�f a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land. �
The request for variance is based pr
a way that takes advantage of its lo<
consistent with the Shepard Davern
�n a desire to fully develop the property in
�verlooking the Mississippi River and is
Area Plan."
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions o Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Melvin
Spiegler Properties, L.P., on October 8, 1998 duly filed with the City of Saint Paul an appeal
from the determination made by the Pl ' g Commission and requested that a hearing be held
before the City Council far the purpose o considering the actions taken by the said Commission
relative to the applications of Alexandr and Associates LLC; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant t Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208 and upon
notice to affected parties, a public earing was duly conducted by the City Council on November
12, 1998, where aJl interested p sons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City ouncil having heazd the statements made and ha�ing considered the
application, the report of f, the record, the minutes and resolutions of the Planning
Commission, does here y;
RESOLVE, at the appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties, L. P. be denied as no errar as to
anq fact, finding r procedure of the Planning Commission in this matter has been shown; AND,
BE IT
Page 5 of 7
c��-(o��
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul afFirms the decision of
the Plauning Comrnission in this matter with respect to the River Corridor Modifications as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 98-54 and that the Council of the City of Saint
Paul adopts as its own the findings of the Plauuing Commission; AND, BE IT
FURT'HER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul affircns the dec" ion of
the Plauning Commission in this matter with respect to property line setbacks as set fo in
Planuing Commission Resolution No. 98-55 and that the Council of the City of Sain aul adopts
as its own the findings and deternunations of the Plann�ng Commission as contain in its
resolution No. 98-55, provided, however, that such variances aze further express conditioned
upon:
a. It being expressiy determined that this variance is not
or affective unless the conditions as set forth in Plann
Commission Resolution No. 98-55 aze fully complie
and
b. The Council being aware that the location
is in dispute and the subject of litigation, t
condition of the variances is effective onl}
line wherever that might be deternuned
resolution or settiement of the parties t tt
the applicant for the variance shall c stn
to tkie ramp solely at its own risk.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
the decision of the Planning Conunission in i
forth in Planning Commission Resolution
Paul adopts as its own the findings and d er
in its resolution No. 98-56, provided, h ev�
conditioned upon:
1. That such site plan
the foilowing plans
or agencies: f
a. The
thei
�
property line
com the property
� by judicial
dispute, and that
any improvements
1�f the Council of the City of Sa3nt Paul affirms
i`s matter with respect to Site Plan Review as set
98-56 and that the Councii of the City of Saint
inations of the Planning Commission as contained
, that such variances are fiutlaer expressly
val is eapressly conditioned upon, and is not granted until,
first been reviewed and approved by the indicated City staff
plan for site utilities and storm water management by
works staff;
final plans far:
(i) Erosion and Sediment Control;
(ii) Landscaping along the East, North and South sides of the ramp; and
(iii) Lighting for the ramp, inciuding light should be directed down and not
towazd the residential buildings to the North of the ramp, by tke staff of the
office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection.
Page 6 of 7
i
a
3
4
5
6
��- �°�`l
AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this
resolution to Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P., Alexandra and Associates, L.L.C., the Zc
Admiiiistrator, and the P1Tnning Commission. ,
Requested by Department of:
By:
Adopted by
Adoption C
By:
Approved
By:
�il: Date
ied by Council Secretaxy
MayOr: Date
Foim App ved by City Attorney
B .��G./�M�1'�'� �l- Z �J -��
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
C'rb� �
CITY OF St�INT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
November 24, 1998
Nancy Anderson
Council Seeretary
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
OFFICE OF TS�', CITY ATTORNEY
Cdayton M Robinson, Jr., CityAnorney
Civil Divtsion
400 Ciry Ha11
I S West KeZlogg B1vd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55702
Telephone: 6A 266-8710
Facs�mile: 65I 298-56I9
Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a parking ramp at
2571 Shepard Road
Zoning File: 98-282
Council Action Date: November 12, 1998
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul
City Council to deny the appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P. of the Planning
Commission's decision to approve consmxction of a parking ramp West of Dauern and North o£
Shepazd Road at 2751 Shepazd Road.
Would you please have this resolution placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest
convenience.
If you haue any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very huly yours,
� ���
eter Warner
Assistant City Attorney
f���.li�'st7
�L`�ais°"? `�r^� 9a .?, ...
�;�?�_ � � ����
Enciosure
�� - �0�7
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
October 27. 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
OFFICE OF LICEN5E, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Roben Kessler, Director
B UILDING INSPECTION AND
DESIGN
350 St Peter Streu
Suite 310
Saint Pau1, Minnuaia 55102-ISIO
Zs
Telephone: 612-266-9001
F¢csimile: 6I2-266-9099
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Thursday,
November 12, 1998 for the following zoning case:
Appellant: Melvin Spiegler Properties LP
File Number: 98-282
Purpose:
Location:
Appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve a parking ramp proposed
by Park N Jet.
2751 Shepard Road
I have confirmed this date with the office of Councilmember Harris. My understanding is that this public
hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you
will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Please call me at 651-266-9086 ifyou have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Beach
Zoning Section
• rrxsraun*•
- ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIIHG ' . "
The Saint Pau1 r City' Council wiIl condvct a publ3c- hearing on Thursday.
November 12. 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-
Court Honse to rnnsider Ehe appeal of Melvin Spiegler Properties LP to a decision of
the Planning Commission.to approve a parking ramp-proposed by Pazk N Jet at
2751 Shepazd Road. . , - "
Dated: October 28. 1998 � , � , _ __" _ _ �
NANCYANDERSON ' - . '
fsssis4ani City Cbuncil Secretary
- (Oatober 3Q, 1995) � �
9� oo� 7
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
In accordance with the Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 85
dealing with establishing the schedule of water rates, the Saint
Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing for the proposed
water rate charges for the year 1999 on Thursday, November 12, 1998
at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, 3� floor City Hall-Court House.
Dated October 6, 1998
Shari Moore
Deputy City Clerk
(October 9, 1998)
��1°`-.<._...�_.�_. . -. r:r
��� � � ��,
�.� r � ;'�F,�s
•� CITY OF SAINT PALTL
'�, Norm Coieman, Mayor
November 3, 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
OFF[CE OF LICENSE, I�SPEC'I'IOYS AYD �/��
ENVIRONMEYTAL PROTECTIO�
Roben Kessler, Director
LOWRY PROFESSlONAL Te[ephone: 612-266-9090
BUILDING Facsimile: 612-266-9099
Suite 300 672-2669724
350 St. Peter Street
Sa'rnt Paut, Mimesota 55102-1570
RE: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a parking ramp at 2571 Shepard Road
Zoning File 98-282
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
A public hearing at the City Council has been scheduled for 11/12/98 to consider the appeat described below.
PURPOSE: To consider an appeal filed by Melvin Spiegler Properties LP of the Planning Commission's decision
to approve consh of a parking ramp west of Davem and north of Shepard Road in the parking lot of the US
• Bank Building (the old Unisys Building) at 2751 Shepard Road. The ramp is proposed by Gerald Trooien for
Alexandra & Associates LLC. The ramp would have 4 levels (one at ground level and three above) and 996 parking
spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved the following zoning actions with
conditions:
Setback Variance The parking ramp would be setback 15 feet from the north property line of I S feet (a
setback of 65 feet would be permitted without a variance) (Approved 13-I-1)
The north side of the ramp would be set back 15 feet from the north property line shazed with the apartment
buitdings owned by Mr. Spiegler. Mz. Trooien wants to build the ramp as far north as possible on the site in
order to preserve the southem portion of the site which overlooks Shepard Road and the Mississippi River for
future development. Mr. Spiegler states in his appeal that there is no hazdship unique to this property that
justifies the variance and that locating the ramp this close to his property would have a negative impact on the
apamnent buildings. Mr. Spiegler also states that the property line shown on the site plan is not correct and
that the ramp is actually set back only 8 feet from the property line.
2. River Corridor Modification The parking ramp would be 42S feet high (40 feet permitted without a
modification) (Approved 11-3-1)
The ramp would be 42.5 feet ta11 to altow for a 4-level ramp (one Ievel at grade and 3 above). Mr. Trooien
stated that he needs 4 levels of parking to provide enough spaces for his long term plans to develop another
office building on the site. Mr. Spiegler states in his appeal that there is no hardship to justify the
modification, that it would result in a hazard to life and property and that the modification is not consistent
with the general purposes of the river corridor requiremenu and state law.
3. Site Plan Review (14-0-1). The site plan for the parking ramp was approved with the details of the
• landscaping, lighting, and storm watei drainage to be approved by staff. Mr. Spie�ler states in his appeal ihat
the site plan is not consistent with applicable ordinances or the Shepazd Davern Small Area Plan and that it
would have a negative impact on his and other nearby property.
Conditions were attached to these approvals:
- The north wall of the proposed pazking ramp must be solid to screen noise and light from the adjacent
property and constructed of material that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
- Sufficient landscapin� must be planted on the north side of the ramp to reduce the visual impact of the ramp.
ZONING COMIVIITTEE RECOMIVIENDATION: The public heazing was held at the Plannins Commission.
No hearing or vote was taken by Zoning Committee.
STAF'F RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval with conditions. In addition to the conditions
approved by the Planning Commission, staff recommended that approximately 70 pazking spaces be eliminated so
that the north face of the ramp could be reduced in height to 30 feet.
SUPPORT: The applicant and his attorney spoke at the public hearing
OPPOSITION: The appellant, his attorney and a member of the Hi„vhland Area Community Council spoke at the
public hearing. The Minnesota DNR sent a letter.
This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on Thursday, 11/12/98. Please notify me if any member of
the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sincereiy,
�` -
Tom Beach
cc; City Councilmembers
Attachmenu
Appeal applicatfon
Letter from District 15
Planning Commission resolutions
Planning Commission minutes
Planning Commission staff report
Site plan and location map
page 1
page 11
page 13
page 19
page 26
page 33
\ J
�
u
Z20'd �J�l
s..xT
►.nsi
� �i
�OAAR
APPI.1CA7iON FOR APP�e1
jJcpartmrnt of Plcnning and Ernnomic Dcvelopmcnt
Zonixg Scc'ion .
1100 Cky f7a11 Anrtc
25 fi�crt Fonrih Sa�t
s�nr p� .3tx ssloa
266-6589
o2-ic�/
APPELLANT � Name �elvin Spiegler Properties, L.P.
AddresS 176 �1or h SnPlline Av�n i� 4� itA 995
C;;y S�. Paul S2. M�Z'.�p S�ina Daytime phoneiaSii a;-as 2
Gerald Trooien For Alexandra. & Associates, LLC, Ri er
PROPER7Y Zoning File Nar'�e , � „�,,,, a „ , revie�v
LOCATEON Address(LoCd6on 2�51 Shepard Road
S[. Paul, MN
TYPE OF APPEAL: AppLcation is hereby made for an appea! to the:
❑ 3oard of Zcnirg Appeals �C�ty Coundl
� 206, paragraph a of Ute 2cning Code, to
under the provisions of Chapte; 64, Section
appea adgcisian made by the Planning Commission
�/ll/98 resolucions passea zoning: - ; 98 98
on 9/24/98 esoht ��nG mai�a� , 19_. Fie number.
(dateotdects�n) Planning Commission nesolution 98-54' 98-55; 98-�
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you fea! there has been an errur in any requirerrtent,
pemit, dedsion cr refvsal made by an administrative offidai, or an error � fad, pr3cedure ar
finding made by the Boarcf of Zoning Appeafs or the Ptannirg Commission.
(Please 5ee attached)
RECEIVED
OCT 81998
ZONING
Attach edd2�onal sheat rf nec°•.ssary)
Apolinnt's sigra:ure (See lasc paae of a�cachmPnrl D.�e Ct.y agent
_' �' J _�-���'_ � �,: ,- i 1 7k,1J 1� _� ,i1 i 7 :��iL' : c�. : �: CCG � i. : �r`
GROUtiDS FOR APPEAL
Appellant Melvin Spiegler Properties, L.P. ("appellanP'), 176 NoRh Snellin� Avenue,
Suite 225, St. Paul, Minnesota, asserts that the PIannin� Commission erred in grantin� a river
corridor modification, �rantin� a setback variance, and approving a site plan review for the
applicant, Gerald Trooien, for Alexandra & Associates, LLC, ("applicanP') concemin� a
proposed four-level parkin� ramp to be built on the propeRy located at 27�1 Shepard Road.
Appeliant owns property abuttin� applicant's propefty.
The grounds for appe[(ant's appeal are listed below.
1. Enoneous Grantina of a River Corridor Modification.
The Plannin� Commission erroneously granted a ricer coaidor modification.
�
The City of St. Paul Zonin� Code provides that a river corridor modification may be
�ranted "where it appears that by reason of esceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of' .
the river corridor requirements "would cause undue hardship and strict conformity with the
standards would be unreasonable, impracticable and not feasible under the circumstances." St.
Paul Le�islative Code § 65.650(a). The applicant seeking a modification has the burden of
provin� that the modification will not result in a hazard to life or property. Id. The Minnesota
state statute grantin� municipalities authority to zone provides that "undue hardship" means "the
property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the
official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the lando«�ner, and the variance, if granted, wilt not alter the essential character of the
locality." Minn. Sfat. § 462-357, subd. 6. The state law also provides that `economic
considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the propeRy
exists tmder the terms of the ordinance" Id. The above standards must be met before the City •
may grant a river corridor modification.
Z
qg -�c�7
• The Plannin� Commission erroneously found that these conditions had been met by the
appticant. Firs[, the Commission erroneously found that there �vere exceptional circumstances
present that �vould cause undue hardship to the applicant if strict enforcement of the river
corridor requirements �vas mandated. The Plannin� Commission found that one level of parking
wouid have to be eliminated from the appiicant's proposed parkin� ramp in ordzr to meet the 40
foot maximum hei�ht limit imposed by the river corridor requirements. This fact does not justify
a findin� of undue hardship. The elimination of one level of parking on a proposed four-level
parking ramp does not constitute undue hardship under the applicable laia because the property
can still be put to a reasonable use if the ramp is constructed with one less le� el of parkin� as
allo�ved by the of£cial controls. See Minn. Stat. § 462.3�7, subd. 6. The applicant can satisfy
the 40 foot masimum hei�ht reqtiirement of the river corridor ordinances ���]Zile puttin� the
� propzrty to reasonable use by buildin� a smallzr parkin� ramp. As Commissionzr Gordon noted,
�rantin� the modification simply makes an other�vise profitable parking ramp an even more
profitable ramp. Such economic considerations alone do not constitute an undue hardship
justifyin� a river corridor modification. See Minn. Stat. § 46?3�7, subd. 6.
Second, the Pianning Commission enoneously found that grantins the river corridor
modification will not result in a hazard to life or property. The proposed parkin� ramp �vili result
in a hazard to nei�hborin� property because the placement of the ramp �4ill prevent the use of
gara�es located on appellanC's borderin� property. The hei�ht and location of the proposed
parking ramp �vilt resuit in the accumulation of large aniounts of sno�i on the appellant's
property, which wi11 adversely� effect flle stnictural inte�rity of the gara�es and �cil1 prevent the
appellant from makin� reasonable use of that portion of his property. The Plznning Commission
• failed to consider fliis impact on appeliant's property in erroneously granting the river corridor
modification.
�
The proposed parkin� ramp will also result in a hazard to nei�hboring propeRy because .
of the increased traffic in the area. The ramp would add a ne[ total of 7�0 parking spaces to the
applicanYs proper[y, resultin� in a vast increase in the number of vehicles traceling to and from
the area. Despite this fact, neither the applicant nor the Plannin� Commission conducted a traffic
study to detern2ine the extent of the impact of this increased traffic on the area. �Vithout such a
traffic shidy, the Plannin� Commission simply does not have sufficient eaidence to conclude that
the applicant has carried its burden of showing that the modification will not result in a hazard to
life or propeRy.
Third, the Plannin� Commission enoneously found that the river corridor modification
was consistent «�ith the �eneral purposes of the river corridor requirements and state law, and the
intent of applicable state and national la�vs. The Commission's decision fails to provide any
justification for this finding. The Commission states that the purpose of the 40 foot maximum �
height limit is to prohibit tall struchires that ���ould be visible from the ri�ec The Commission
correctly notes that the proposed parkin� ramp �vould be 2-1/2 feet higher than permitted under
the river corridor requirements. Ho�ce��er, the Commission then implies that this is close enou�h.
The Plannin� Commission does not have authority under the constitution or any statute or
directive to rewrite the City's ordinances to provide for a maximum height of 42-1l2 feet.
Appellant also notes that both the Hi�hland Area Community Council and the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources objected to grantin� a river corridor modification to the
applicant. Both �roups a�ree with appellant's position that denyin� the modification will not
result in any undue hardship to the applicant. The Depariment of Natural Resources stressed that
the proposed ramp «�ill be visible from the Mississippi River and the opposite shoreline. The
Hi�hland Area Community Council expressed concem about the firturz inte�rity of the •
nei�hborhood. The Council explained that they do not oppose development of the applicant's
� �
�i�-�o�7
• property, but that the nei�hborhood and City would be better sec by development that
conforms with the zonin� code.
2. Enoneous Grantine of Setback Variance.
The Plannin� Commission enoneously granted a setback � aaance to allow the
applicant's proposed parkin� ramp to be constnicted �vithout conforming to the zonin� code's
required setback of at least 6� feet from flie north property line. The Plannin� Commission
based its �rant of this variance on its understandin� that the setback ��ou1d be IS feet from the
nortli property line. The appellant is currendy involved in a lawsuit re�ardin� the proper
boundary behveen the applicant's property and his o�vn. If the appellant pre� ails in this lawsuit,
the proposed parkin� ramp would be set back only 8 feet from the north property line. Therefore,
appellant asserts tha[ the variance was erroneously granted based on the Planning Commission's
• misunderstanding of ���here the property line is achially located.
State law provides that a municipatity may grant a variance from ihe requirements of its
zonin� code "in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration." �iinn. Stat. § 462357,
subd. 6. This statute provides that "hardship" means "the property in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used tmder conditions allowed by the official contrals, the pli�ht of the
lando�vner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the
variance if granted �vill not alter the essential character of the locality." Id. State law fiirther
provides that "economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable
use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." Id.
The standards required for the grantin� of the variance were not met for the applicant's
• proposed parkin� ramp. First, the Commission erroneously found that the applicant's propeRy
could not be put to a reasonable use under the strict setback requirements of the zoning code.
� s
The Plannin� Commission's justification for this findin�, that the applicant �vants to reseri�e •
other portions of the parcel for fiiture development, does not support a finding of undue hardship
under the applicable la�v. There are many economically viable uses for the applicant's parcel of
land. As implicitly recognized by the Commission, a parkin� ramp could even bz placed in
anoYher location on the parcel in compliance tivith the CiYy's setback requirements.
Second, the Plannin� Commission erroneousiy found that the ptight of the applicant is
due to circumstances unique to his property and that these circumstances �verz not created by tfie
applicant. The Conunission's justification for findin� that the property was unique, that it
o��erloofis the Mississippi River and is subject to the desi�n guidelines of the Shepard Road
Davem Small Area Plan, are insuFficient for a findin� that the property is uniquz under the
applicable la�v. This is becatise the fact that the land o��erlooks the Mississippi Ricer and is
subject to the �uidelines of the Shepard Road Dai�ern Small Area Plan are simply not �
characteristics tmique to this particular parcel of property. Almost all property in that area of St.
Paul has similar characteristics. Further, even if these circumstances �vere unique, thz applicant
purchased the property knowin� that it �vas already zoned �o�ith the current setback requirement.
This sho�vs that the hardship of the setback requirement «�as created by the applicant and does
not constitute undue hardship allowin� for a variance. See Cattle Desi�ri and Derelopnient
Canpany v. City ofLake Elnio, 396 N.`V.2d 578 (Minn. App. 1986).
Third, the Plannin� Commission erroneously found that the proposed variance is in
keeping �vith the spirit and inten[ of the 2oning code and is consistent �cith the heaith, safety,
comfort, morals and �velface of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The Commission based
this findin� on the erroneous vie« that adjacent residential property can be protectzd from any
adverse consequences caused by the proposed parkin� ramp. As indicated earlier, thz proposed •
parkin� ramp will cause harm to adjoinin� property owners, includin� appellant. In particular,
��
��`�d�
• the proposed ramp's height and tocation wi11 cause sQUCtural dama�e to and grevent [he use of
the pazking garages on appellanc's propem•.
Fourth, the Pia.rutin� Commission erroneousty found the variance would not alter the
essential character oF the surrounding azea or unreasona6ly diminish es[abtisned propercy values.
Again, as exptained earlier, the granting of the proposed variance will d�^lage and prevent the
use of the parking �arages located on appztlant's property and witl fr.zrefore unreasonsbly
diminish the appellant's es[abtished value in his properry.
Fifth, the Planning Commission zcroneously found the appiicant's reques[ for a var,ance
is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income go�ential of the property. In
rzality, the setback variance request is baszd encirety on the applicant's desire to increase the
vatue of the parcel of property. Appiicanc wants the setback variance to build a larger parkin�
• ra.*np then permi[ted by the ordinance whi(e leaving room on the propeny for further
deveiopment ac the expense of causing damage and injury to appetlant's neighhoring properry.
This evidences a pamary desire to increase the income potential oF the prope .ry. As
Commissioner Gordon reco�ized, granting the variance simply ma_kes a profitable par'�;in� ramp
an even more profi[able ratnp.
3. Enoneous GrantinQ of the Site Plan Revie�v.
The Planning Commission eror,eously approved the applicant's site plan review for the
proposed parking ramp.
The City of St. Paul Zoning Code requirzs several factual findings to be made prior to the
aporocal of a site pian review. St. Paul Legislative Codz � b2.108. lhese izcruzl fmdings
include: (1) thz plan is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances; (2) tne plan is consistent
� with the project plans for sub-areas of the City; (3) the plan preservzs unique gzologic,
geographic or historically significant charactzdstics of the Ciry and environmentafly sensitive
� 7
areas; (4) the plan protects adjacent nei�hboring properties; and (5) the plan assures that abutting �
propeRy owners will not be unreasonably affected. Id.
The Planning Commission erroneo�siy found that the above requirements for the
approvat of a site plan review had been met First, the Plannin� Commission erroneously found
that the site plan is consistent with alI applicable zonin� ordinances. The site pian re�•iew does
not comply with all [he applicable zonin� ordinances because the hei�ht of thz ramp esceeds that
allowed by the river corridor requirements and the ramp is not setback far enough from the
abutting property. Further, as appeltant has demonstrated above, no m corridor modification
or setback variance should be �ranted to excuse this noncompliance.
Second, the Plannin� Commission erroneously found that the site plan is consistent with
tlte Shepard Road Davem Street Small Area Plan. This plan proeides that "buildings massin�
should be configured to avoid long Lmbroken facades." This requirement is not met because thz •
proposed parkin� ramp stnicture results in an unbroken facade on Shepard Road. The
Commission's hope that future development on the applicant's parcel of land �vill block this
vie�v does not chan�e the fact that the site plan review is inconsistent «�ith the Shepard Road
Davem Street Smail Area Plan. This is especially true because there are no definite fiiture
development plans for the applicant's parcel.
The Shepard Road Davern Street Small Area Plan also provides that the vision of the plan
is to provide attractive office ancllor li�ht industrial development to create a visually appealin�
gate�vay into St. Paul alon� Shepard Road. Althou�h the Commission expressed hope that the
proposed parking ramp would allo�v for future development fulfillin� this vision, the proposed
site plan does not fiilfill any of these objectices.
The Shepard Road Davern Street Small Area Plan further recommends that de� .
should be "sensitive to its impact on and relationship to the adjacent residential and commercial
. .
� -�or�
• area." The proposed ramp fails to meet this recommendation because the rzmp actually causes
harm to the adjacent residential area as previously explained.
Third, the Plannin� Commission erroneously concluded that the proposed parkin� ramp
would preser��e the geolo�ic, geographic or historicaliy si�nificant characteristics of thz City and
environmentally sensitive areas. The Plannin� Commission correctly found that the site's
location overlookin� the Mississippi Ricer is geo�raphically si�nificant. Ho�` ever, the proposed
parkin� ranzp does not presen,�e thz unique character of this area because, as the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources emphasized, the site plan allows for the constniction of a lar�e,
unsightly parkin� ramp �aith no definite future plans to block the view of this ramp from the river
or Shepard Road.
Fourth, the Planning Commission enoneously found that tlle proposed ramp protects
• adjaceut and nei�hboring properties. As explained earlier, the proposed parking ramp will cause
harm to nei�h6oring property by preventin� the use of the parkin� gara�es on the appellant's
property. Further, because no traffic study has been conducted to determine the extent of the
adverse impact of the increase in traffic caused by the proposed ramp, the Plannin� Commission
could only speculate that adjacent and neighborin� property o�vners would be protected.
Finally, the Planning Commission erroneousiy foimd that the proposed parking ramp
assures that abutting property o��ners will not be unreasonably affected. Again, this findin� is
not supported by the facts because the proposed parkin� ramp will unreasonably affect abuttin�
•
� �
property owners by preventin� the appellate and his tenants from usin� the parking gara�es •
located on the appellate's property.
Dated: October O, 1998 WINTHROP & �VEINSTNE, P.A.
BY: � �
Jeffrey R. Ansel, #-,`166224
Karl E. Robinson, �027404�
3200 Minnesota �Vorld Trade Center
30 East Seventh Street
St. Pau1, Minnesota 5� 101
(612) 290-8400
Attorneys for Appellant Melvin Spie�lzr
Properties, L.P.
STPI:469�60-1
f 1
l J
@
�
` �
� �/�`�
�
�F`IC�,Crr�T�D ��.S�,�J(,�� e0'ZLTZj
1978 �oad �anksaa�y. SaiKt �a�d '�l 5v�116
October 22, 1998
Gladys Morton, Chair
St. Paui Planning Commission
25 West 4�' Street
St. Paui MN 55102
Re: Trooien Variance
Dear Commission Morton;
��������
��� �� 199�5
� �
ti� _.-�'u
' .:\\ \.:
As you know, the Planning Commission recently had before it an application for two
variances by Jerry Trooien/JLT Properties. The Highland District Council reviewed the
minutes of the Planning Commission where the issue was discussed. Our board is
concemed over some of the representations made during that meeting and requested that
I write making you aware of those concerns.
• In the minutes it is indicated that Mr: Trooien appeared before our council regazding these
variance requests. This is not true. While he did come to a subcommittee meeting to
eaplain his intention to build the paziang ramp, at no time has he ever told either that
subcommittee or our Council about his request for these variances. In fact when asked
about variances at the subcommittee the 7LT representative specifically stated that there
would be no request for any variances. That was apparently either not true, or the plan
was changed so in fact, variances were necessary. JLT did not notify us ofthe request and
we heard about the request through LIEP who forwarded a copy of the request to our
office. Mr. Trooien was specifically invited to our board meeting where those requests
were discussed.
of why the vari
objection to the
variances.
He did not attend that meeting, nor did he contact us with an explanation
ances were needed. Neighbors did attend our meeting to voice their
variance requests. Our Council then voted to oppose the requests for
As you know, over a year ago, our Council requested, and the Planning Commission
supported creating the Shepard Davem Small Area Planl40 Acre Task Force and our
President serves as co-chair along with Commissioner Geisser. According to the minutes
of your meeting, Commissioner Geisser represented to the Planning Commission that the
Task Force supported Mr. Trooien's appiication for these variances. Our members on the
.
651-238-5138
�ax 651-248-v`134
1(
Task Force told our board that this issue has never been discussed by the Task Force, and �
at no time has the Task Force ever taken a position favoring these variances.
Qverall, our Council does not feel that the public process or the coaununity were well
served by Commissioner Geisser's representation of the facts. We are concerned that the
Planning Commission may have relied on these misstatements in making it's decision.
District Council's are designed to be an unpaz�tial community body whose task is to
balance the needs of competing interests within that community- business, property
owners and residents. All are treated equally, we listen carefully to everyone who comes
before us and we give careful consideration to every one who appeazs before us before
making our recommendations. St. Paul should be proud of it's longstanding tradition of
listening to it's residents. If this citizen participation process is ignored then the City as a
whole loses out.
Lastly, our Council is troubled by the fact that the Planning Commission chose to ignore
the written staff recommendation, the DNR's recommendation, our District Council and
the neighbors opposition in granting these variances.
S' e ely,
; � j�'�
�g 1�c�Gee
' Chair, �Eommunity Development Committee
Vice Chair, H'ighland District Council
cc:
Commissioner Ann Geisser
St. Paul City Council
Mayor Coleman
•
�
(Z
� 8 �o��
city of saint paul
! planning commission resofution
file number 9$-55
date September 11, 1998
98-236
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien for Alexandra and Associates has applied for a variance from the
strict apptication of the provisions of Section {6'1.104.b of the Saint Paul Legislative Code
pertaining to setbacks for structures from adjacent residential property in the I-1 zoning district
to permit a setback ofi 15 feet firom the north property line at 2751 Shepard Road; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on 9/11/98,
pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64205 of the
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Planning Commission based upon evidence presented at the public
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of
the code.
• The applicant wants to reserve the south portion of the site, a{ong Shepard Road and
overlooking the Mississippi River, for future development of an office building. Shifting the
ramp south to maintain a 65 foot setback from the north property line wouid severeiy limit
space along Shepard Road for future development. The ramp cannot be built taller to
provide the same amount of parking on a smaller foot print because of height restrictions.
The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The property is unique because it overiooks the Mississippi River and is subject to the
design standards of the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan. Both of these factors suggest
that any future development should be located toward the south side of the property along
Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of the property.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping witfi the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the
City of St. Paul if conditions are attached to the variance.
moved by Geisser
seconded by Faricy
in favor 13
• against 1 (Noidin)
1 abstention (Vaught)
13
The intent of the zoning code in requiring large setbacks from residential property is to
protect adjacent property owners from the impact of industrial uses. In this case, the •
adjacent residential property can be protected from light and noise from the ramp if the
north wall of the ramp is solid and is made attractive and compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood through the choice of building materials and landscaping.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate suppiy of light and air to adjacent
property, nor will if alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably
diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor
would it alter or change the zonirtg district classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
The request for variance is based primarily on a desire to fully develop the property in a
way that takes advantage of its location overlooking the Mississippi River and is consistent
wifh the Shepard Davern Smali Area Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paui Planning Commission that the
provisions of Section 61.104.b be hereby waived to allow construction of a parking ramp with a
15 foot setback from the north property line on property located at 2751 Shepard Road and
legally described on Exh+bit A; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan
on file with the Zoning Administrator, subject to the following conditions: •
1. The north wall of the proposed parking ramp must be soiid to screen noise and light from
the adjacent property and constructed of material that is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
2. Su�cient landscaping must be planted on the north side of the ramp to reduce the visual
impact of the ramp.
�
U
��
�r� i �7
• city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
fite number 98-54
date September 11 1948
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien for Alexandra and Associates LLC file #98-231, has applied for a
River Corridor Modification under the provisions of Section 65.65� of the Saint Paul Legisiative
Code, for the purpose of constructing a 42.5 foot high parking ramp on property located at 2751
Shepard Road, legally described on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on 9/11/98, held a public hearing at which all persons
present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appiication in accordance with
the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Pau1 Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented at the
public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
By reason of exceptio�al circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause
undue hardship and strict conformity with the standards would be unreasonable,
impractical and not feasible under the circumstances.
An entire level of parking would have to be eliminated from the ramp in order to meet the
• 40 foot height limit. Eliminating an entire level of parking wou{d create a hardship
because this parking will be needed in the future to develop the remaining portion of the
site.
2. The modification will not result in a hazard to life or property and will not adversely affect
the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channei, or the natural
environment.
3. The modifications is consistent with the general purposes of the standards contained in
this chapter and state law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and
programs.
The purpose of the 40 foot height limit is to prohibit tall buildings that would be visible from
the river. The ramp would meet the intent of this provision since it would be only 2.5 feet
higher than the permitted maximum height and the ramp would be set back over 300 feet
from the river bluff line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a River Corridor Modification to
allow construction of a parking ramp that woufd be 42.5 feet high at 2751 Shepard Road is
hereby approved.
moved by Geisser
• seconded by Kramer
in favor 11
against 3 (Gordon. Margulies, Nordin)
1 abstention (Vaught)
��
cityof saint pau!
planning commission resolution
fiie number 98-56
date September 11, 1998
WHEREAS, Gerald Trooien for Alexandra and Associates LLC file #98-231, has applied for a
Site Ptan Review under the provisions of Section 62.108 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for
the purpose of constructing a parking ramp on property located at 2751 Shepard Road, legaily
described on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on9/11/98, held a public hearing at which all persons
present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuanf to said application in accordance with
the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact that the site
plan was consistent with:
(1) Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paui. -----
The sife pfan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if the Rivsr Corridor Modification
for maximum height and the Zoning Variance for setback are approved.
(2} The city's adopfed comprehensive plan and development or projecf plans for sub-areas of
the cify.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepard Road Davern Street Smail Area Plan which
was adopted by the City Councii as part of the Comprehensive Plan on November 16,
1993.
- The plan encourages the owner of this site and the property to the east of Davem to
"consider building a parking deck or some type of parking structure (perhaps
incorporated with another use) that could provide parking to Unisys, if needed, as
we!! as provide parking to a new development "
- The vision of the plan is "attractive office and/or light industriai development to
create a visualfy appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepard Road" The location
and size of the ramp is intended to ailow future office development along Shepard
Road.
moved by Geisser
seconded by Fa=��v
in favor 14
against
1 abstention (Vaught)
0
•
�
��
�'�� /b� `�
• - The plan recommends that development should be `sensitive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commerciai area". The ramp will meet
this recommendation if the north wail is kept to no more than 30 feet high and
landscaping is added to soften the appearance of the ramp from adjacent residential
property.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings massing shouid be configured to avoid
long unbroken facades." The location of the ramp is consistent with this finding
since it would alfow another buifding to be built in the future to the south that would
screen the ramp from Shepard Road.
(3) Preservation of unique geologic, geographrc or historical/y significant characferistics of the
city and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site's location overlooking the Mississippi
River is geographicaiiy significant. Locating the ramp at the north portion of the site so
that the south poRion can be developed as an o�ce building responds to the
characteristics of the location.
(4) Protection of adjacent and neighboring prope�ties through reasonab/e provision for such
mafters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring
land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
• (5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to
assure abufting property and/or ifs occupants will not be unreasonably affected.
The site pfan is consistent with this finding i4 the north waH is solid to screen light and
noise from the adjacent residentiai property. The location of the new driveway is also
consistent with ihis finding: it wouid be in the same area as an existing driveway to
minimize the impact on the adjacent residential and to encourage more traffic to go to
directly to Shepard Road rather than traveling on Davern.
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientafion and
elevation of structures.
The site plan meets current standards and is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian tra�c both within the site and in
relation to access streets, inc/uding traffic circulafion features, the locatrons and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The plan has been reviewed for traffic safety
by Public Works staff. They approved the location of the driveways and found that
Davern couid safely handle the increased traffic that would be generated by the ramp.
(8) The satisfactory availability and capacity of sform and sanitary sewers, includrng solutions
• to any drainage problems in the area of the development.
(�
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for sewers and drainage. A condition of �
siYe plan approval should be that the applicant submit a more detailed plan for review and
approval by Public Works staff
(9) Su�cient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above o6jectives.
The site plan does not show sufficient landscaping. A condition of site approval shouid be
that the applicant submit a landscape plan, showing sufficient landscaping on the east
(Davern Street), north and south sides of the ramp, for review and approval by LlEP staff.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with fhe provisiorts of the Americans with Disabilifies Act
(ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this inding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sedimenf confrol as specified in the ��Ramsey Erosion Sedimenf
and Control Handbook."
The site plan does not contain any information on erosion and sediment controi. A
condition of approval shouid be that an erosion and sediment control plan is submitted for
review and approva( by L(EP staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legisiative Code, the application for Site Plan Review to construct a
parking ramp at 2751 Shepard Road is hereby approved subject to subject to the condition that
the appiicanf must submit the foliowing plans: •
1. A final plan for site utilities and storm water management for review and approval by
Public Works staff.
2. An erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by LIEP staff.
3. A final landscape plan showing sufficient landscaping along the east (Davern Street),
north and south sides of the ramp for review and approval by LlEP sfafF.
4. A final lighting plan for the ramp for review and approvai by LIEP staff.
•
�
g8 ���
• Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Soulevard West
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, September, 1998, at
830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
•
Commissioners
Absent:
Mmes. Duarte, Faricy, Geisser, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and �Vencl and
Messrs. Gervais, Gordon, 7ohnson, Kramer, Margulies, McDonell, Nowlin and
Vaught.
Mmes. *Engh and Messrs. *Field, Kong, *Mardell, and *Sharpe
*Excused
Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Tom Harren, Larry Soderholm,
and Jim Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Deve(opment staff; and Tom
Beach from the Department of License, Inspection and Environmental Protection.
I. Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton had no announcements.
II. Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Ford announced that the City Council did approve the plat for William's Hill and the pawn shop
moratorium resolution is in effect.
Chair Morton pointed out the revised agenda.
III. PIJ$I,IC Y�EAFtII'IG: Gerald Trooien for Alexandra & Associates LLC, River Corridor
Modification, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review (Tom Beach, LIEP) "
Chair Morton read the rules and procedures for public hearings.
\I
Mr. Beach gave a short slide presentation and read the staff reports. He stated that Gerald Trooien is
proposing to build a 4-level parking ramp with 996 parking spaces. The ramp will be located west of
Davern and north of Shepard Road in the parking lot of the old i3nisys Building: Mr. Trooien has
renovated the old Unisys Building and U.S. Bank is in the process of moving into the building. Some of
the spaces in the ramp would be used by U.S. Bank employees; the rest would be used for airport
parking. To build the ramp, Mr. Trooien needs approval from the Plannin� Commission on three items:
1) a river corridor modification - the ramp will be 42.5 feet tall (the marimum height is 40 feet in a river
corridor); 2) a setback vaciance is needed - the ramp is proposed to be setback 15 feet from the noitt�
property line (the required setback in I-1 districts, residential property, is 1%z times the height of the
building or 65 feet, in this case); the requested variance is 50 feet; 3) a site plan review, required for any
pazking facility.
19
Commissioner Nordin asked how many parking spaces are required by the zoning ordinance for
the U.S. Bank building. Mr. Beach responded that the U.S. Bank will have more parking than •
what is required by code; approximately 1,100 parking spaces aze required by code.
Commissioner Geisser added that Mr. Beach ought to comment that an agreement was reached
with Mr. Trooien and U.S. Bank on hotv many parking spots Mr. Trooien was required to
provide. She recalted that number was approximafely 1,600.
Mr. Beach continued to say that the main reason the ramp is proposed to go on the north part of
the site is so future development can occur on the south part of the site which overlooks Shepard
Road and the Mississippi River. Mr. Trooien submitted a concept plan sho�ving one possible
arrangement ofthe site iffuture devetopment did occur.
Mc Beach stated that the staff report was out before the Highland Area Community Council had
a chance to meet. They have met since then and are recommending that the river corridor
modification and the variance be denied claiming a lack of hardship.
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Beach to amp(ify on why the district council is opposing. Mr.
Beach commented that part of it had to do with no otte from JLT showing up at the meeting to
make a case for the racnp, so they didn't see any compelling reason to grant a variance.
Commissioner Geisser interjected that her understanding is that someone from 7LT did appear at
the Land Use Committee meeting of the district counci[ to make a presentafion on the ramp.
Mr. Beach referred to a letter that was passed out from the Minnesota Department ofNatural
Resources. They are opposing the height variance. Their main concem is that the ramp not be
visible from the river or from the opposite shore of the river. They encourage the Planning •
Commission to deny the height variance; if it is not denied, they wou[d [ike to see the ramp
buffered by native vegetation on the south side and that run-off be minimized.
Mr. Beach read the staff reports approving the river modification to permit a heeght of 42.5 feet,
the setback variance to peanit a 15-foot setback with conditions, and the site plan with
conditions.
Commissioner Gordon read those portions of the Nl�i I DNR letter questioning the "hardship"
c(aim of the applicant and highti�hting a defcnition of "hardship;" and asking whether "the
applicant bought the property afrer the effective date of the ordinance provision from which the
variance is sought and had access to knowledge and information about ordinance requirements
prior Yo designing the development project." He asked Mr. Beach if he would address these
issues. Mr. Beach stated that the cunent owner bought the property withing the last two yeazs
and the river corridor ordinance has been in effect for the tast 15 years. In response to Yhe
hardship, Mr. Beach said that the applicant could build a ramp with the same number of spaces
by creating a bigger footprint, but a bigger footprint might hinder development on the rest of the
siie.
Commissioner Now[in asked if a traffic study had been done, and what is the net increase of the
spaces that will be created at that ]ocatioa. Mr. Beach replied that Public `Vorks staff had
reviewed the site plan but a traffic study by an outside consultant had not been done. The net
increase would be 75Q additiona( parking spaces.
•
2@
R g 1c�7
• Commissioner Margulies asked what the parking requirements would be if the proposed
additional development were constructed. Mr. Beach calculated that if it �vere an office
building, it would be one parking space for every 350 square feet. The concept building shows a
plan of a building of 80,000 square feet.
Commissioner 7ohnson commented on the ei�ht conditions of the MN DNR letter — that six of
those eight refer specifically to the question of undue hardship, and their interpretation of this
case �vould not necessarily present an undue hardship. However, he stated that the staff report
finds that strict enforcement would, indeed, present an undue hardship. Having worked for the
N1N D�IR and having written these review and comment letters himself, he is inclined to believe
that City staff, rvho are more familiar with zoning requirements, might be able to make a better
judgement of what, in fact, constitutes an undue hardship.
Commissioner Faricy asked if a filling station is still on the boards for future development on
the rest of that site. Mr. Beach stated that he did not knoFV what is planned for future
development on that site.
Mr. Ford asked if the bedrock condition of the site was not also a consideration of hardship due
to a condition of the site. In this case, one could not go down a few feet to take care of the extra
height. Mr. Beach confirmed that it tivould be very expensive to dig out the bedrock. Putting in
underground utifities has been expensive in this area for past projects.
Commissioner Gordon asked if it is known what, if any, future development is planned for this
� site. Mr. Beach stated that the applicant has not been specific about what that might be.
Commissioner Gordon commented that it is difficult to plan for future parking when one doesn't
know what requirements will be needed for the future.
The applicant, Gerald Trooien, owner of the •site, addressed the Commission. He stated that he
was at District I S meetings repeatedly and spoke very openly about what the plans are for now
and the future. Mr. Trooien spoke a little about future development possibilities for the rest of
the site and the area. Perhaps a service station will go in on the corner because Mr. Trooien
thinks that comer is an appropriate site for that. He talked about a hotel in the future for the plot
east of Davern, perhaps another of5ce site.
(The second side of the first tape is totally inaudible.)
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Trooien if the parking stalls allotted to the bank aze profita6le.
Mr. Trooien responded that the overall bank deal is proFitable. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr.
Trooien if the cars on the top floor would be completely hidden behind the outside wall. Mr.
Trooien said that on the new parking decks, one doesn't see the cars, even on the lower levels.
With respect to future development, Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Trooien if he could give a
more specific outlook, and could future development be an additional pazking ramp. Mr•
Trooien responded that there will need to be an additional parking ramp attached to future
development.
• Commissioner �Vencl asked how much higher each ramp floor will need to be to accommodate
the shuttle bus. Gerald Trooien replied that the floors of the ramp wi1S not need to be erected
any higher than normal for the shuttle bus.
�.
� �..�
CommissionerNordin asked Mr, Trooien to clarify that future plans for south oFthis proposed
ramp (the area behveen Shepard Road and the ramp) include a building, not another ramp. Mr. •
Trooien noted that was correct.
TESTIMONY
John E. Grcybek, 2330 St. Paut Avenue, representing Highland District Council, spoke in
opposition to the river modification (height) and setback variances. He noted that Highland
District Council has a stelfar reputation in the business community in working with them
and helping them with their developments. This particular area has been of major concern
and created much controversy in recent years because this is the last significant open space
in the Highiand area. More importantly, it's the adjacent neighborhoods and the fact that
it's adjacent to the Mississippi River Corridor, and that it is a major corridor to the City of
Saint Paul. He pointed out that the District 15 Council is not opposed to development of
this particular area. Mr. Trooiea has repeatedly said that ecoaomics is the most important
issue, basicalfy, what goes into his pockets. The Councit is concemed about the integrity of
the area when buildings, ramps, etc., are put up. The Shepard Davern Gatetivay Task Force
is very much concerned about what has been happening there and what will happen in the
future. Mr. Grzybek informed the Commission that when the Community Development
Committee of the Highland Counci( mef with Mr. Trooien and fiis representatives with
reaard to the site plan, they were not told that there would be a height variance or a setback
variance required for this particular structure. The Highland Community Council held a
public heariag on this September 3, 1998, and had inviied represeniaYives of Mr. Trooien's
office of which none appeared.
The Council is particularly concerned because there was no reason presented to the Council �
to grant these variances. Today, a 2'/: foot variance doesn't seem to mean a lot, but what
happens in the future? �Vhat do we do wifh the next developer who needs a vaziance of 4
feet? The Council's concem is if you give 2%z feet today, you are going to have to give 2'/:
feet tomorrow, or 4 feet tomorrow because everyone can give an economic reason as to why
a variance is required. We have standards for a reason, and the Highland Community
Council is asking that those standards be enforced. If these variances are granted, tomonow
the Planning Commission will not have a reason for not granting the 2%z feet or the 8 feet,
for the air conditioninJ unit, etc.
Regarding the I S foot setback variance, Mr. Grzybek said that the City needs to assure
adjacent property owners that they are not going to try to squeeze every inch to allow this
type of development to occur just for the sake of putting more dollars into either Mr.
Trooien's pocket or some other developer's pocket.
Mr. Grzybek noted that most peopie are in favor of more jobs in Saint Paul, but we also
need to look at the integrity of Saint Paul. 1Vhat makes Saint Paul so special? Why do
people want to stay in Saint Paul? Neighborhoods. Boulevards. Trees. Plantings.
Ambiance. Infrastructure. Landscaping is very importanf fo Saint Paul. Hertz, a national
corporation that has no ties to Saint Paul other than they do business here, spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars to put in natura( landscaping. Mr. Trooien won't do that because he
doesn't see the necessity of doing so.
•
� titi
q� 1���
• Mr. Grrybek continued to say that this area is not an extension of thz 494 strip. The
Highland Area Communiry Counci( thinks Mr. Trooien should dig to get the 2.5 height
variance. The setback variance was also opposed by the Council because no compelling
reason was presented. The City needs to keep the integrity of Shepard Road being the
gateGVay to Saint Paul, regardless of what happens there.
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Grzybek whether he attended the September 3`' meeting, and
how many people were there. Mr. Gaybek ans�vered that he did attend and approximately 25-
30 people were there. Three people spoke in opposition. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr.
Grzybek if the Highland Azea Community Council �vas opposed to any ramp on this site, or
opposed only to the variances. Mr. Grzybek responded that the Council has resigned to the fact
that some type of ramp is going to be built; they are concerned �vith how it is going to be built in
terms of inee[ing the standards of the City of Saint Paul. Comrnissioner Gordon asked if the
Council agreed to the ramp at this site without the variances. Mr. Grrybek stated that it was his
understanding that the Community Development Committee did vote on the site plan and agreed
to the location of the ramp, but they were not aware of any variances that were needed.
2. Melvin Spieoler, 4614 VJest 29`" Street, Minneapolis, addrzssed the Commission in
opposition to the variances. He stated that he built the adjacent apaRment buildings in 1960
and the garages in 1984. He thinks the Commission should be awaze that there is a lawsuit
pending. There is a discrepancy as to the ownership of the vacated alley right of way. Mr.
Spiegler has a quitclaim deed from Unisys, so he feels as though he owns the entire right of
way. Mr. Trooien's attorneys claim that Mr. Spie�ler does not own it. Yesterday afternoon,
• Mr. Spiegler stated that he was presented with a very substantial lawsuit over 8 feet.
Mr. Spiegler noted that he I+ked Mc. Beach's glan.
Patrick McGuigan, 200 Liberty Bank Building, Saint Paul, addressed the Commission
representing Mr. Spiegler. He wanted to make clear to the Pla�ning Commission that Mr.
Spiegler and he do not want their lawsuit prejudiced by the assertion that they stood in front
of the Planning Commission and said nothing, allowing the Commission to assume that
there's a 15 foot distance behveen the proported property line and the actual properiy line.
However the lawsuit is resolved, Mr. Spieglec wants the Commission to be very cSear that
the 15 foot setback being sought may indeed, be an 8 foot setback.
4. James Lockhart, 1800 IDS Building, Minneapolis, the attomey representing Mr. Tzooien's
company, Shepard Road Acquisition Company, in the pending lawsuit, addressed the
Commission. He stated that the status of title as it appears in the O�ce of the Registrar of
Titles, indicates that the properiy line is just as represented on the site plan. As it stands
right now, the garages that are located along the area encroach by 8 feet on the property
owned by Mr. Trooien's company.
Mr. Trooien returned to the podium for rebuttal commenting that Mel Spie�ler is one ofthe guys
that helped build this town. His company has no issue with Mel Spiegler. __..
MOTION Commissioner Geisser moved that the public hearing be closed; Commissioner
� Nordin seconded tl:e motion whic3r carrierl unanimously on a voice vole.
�5.
23
Commissioner Geisser noted ihat there is a small area plan in process in the Shepard Davern
area. She noted that there is much information known by the members of that task force that •
maybe the members of the district council are unaware of. This plan has 6zen is process for a
long time, and it should be known that Mr. Trooien moved the location of the intended ramp to
this site through a compromise; the Shepard Davern Task Force asked him if he would consider
moving it off the east side site. It was a neighborhood decision and a staff decision; it was
everyone's feeling that what tivould be best for the area and the city was that this ramp be moved
to the site that he has chosen. She added that it �vas also understood that there would probably
be an expansion of another office building in the front, and that cvouid be the showplace for
Shepard Road, not the ramp. The ramp would be covered by another building. The other thing
that should be known that the setback variance is being made because the land is zoned
industriat abutting a residentiat zone. IFthis tir•ere a commercially zoned parcel, he �vould not
need a variance. This proposal is a commercial development abutting a neighborhood.
Logically, Mr. Trooien doesn't need a variance. Regarding the river conidor variance,
Commissioner Geisser wanted commissioners to understand that just one or hvo blocks down
from Davern, the river corridor standards are not in effect.
Throughout this entire plan is a discussion of the entire area. What is spurrin� this on is the
airpoR espansion in sight. The real concern for this area on the part of thz City, is that the entire
area could be a sea of parked cars. This is why there is effoR to do a plan in this area that is
pleasing and economically sound for the city. The task force is trying to figure out the best way
to deal with alI of this land. She noted, too, that she was unaware that Mr. Beach was going to
recommend the half bay; and that recommendation is not atl of stafPs position. Staff supported
the full four stories on the ramp; they suppoR the north wall being solid or there be some sort of
architectural screen; they suppo�t general appropciate landscaping on a(I sides, with speci£c .
emphasis on Davern.
MOTIOti: Commissioner Ceisser moved approva! ojYhe river corridor modification;
Commissioner Kramer seconded t/ze motion.
Commissioner Gordon stated that he will oppose that mation beca¢se, as he reads the zoning
code, it requires a demonstration of undue hardship, and he doesn't see that demonstration has
been made. He understands from what he has read and heard that this �vould simply make an
othertvise profi[abie parking ramp into an even more profitable parking ramp, which is a
legitimate concern, but does not fall into the definition of undue hardship. The applicant bought
the land after the ordinance was put into place; he was aware of these requirements. He also
finds that the number of parking spaces required by the bank and future development on that
same site can be accommodated by a parking ramp without the height variance; and that the
purpose of the additional height variance is to accommodate parking from the airport. He just
doesn't think that meets the undue hardship standard; and the burden of proof is on the
applicant, and he doesn't feel that burden has been met.
Commissioner Nordin stated that she will also oppose the motion because of the same reasons as
Commissioner Gordon sta[ed. She shared another issue. She wonders if anyone has considered
stair towers and eievator towers that �vi(1 be on rivo comers of the ramp (southwest and northeast
comers). Those portions of the building wilt be 62 feet, 9 inches. There wifl be light poles, too.
Commissioner ICramer asked Mr. Beach to address Commissioner Nordin's concern. •
� L`{
�� ��� 7
Mr. Beach commented that the elevations shown don't show any staircases or elevators going
• above the 42.5 foot height because there will be no roof above the staircases and elevators aze
not required under the American's with Disabilities Act; the handicap spaces will be on the first
floor. If the ramp is ever connected to a building, then there wifl be different requirements for
elevators. Lights are not subject to height limitation.
Commissioner Nordin asked for clarification that the stairs would not be enclosed. Mr. Beach
responded that the stairs would not be enclosed.
Commissioner Vaught stated that he would abstain from voting because hz walked into the
meeting at the tail end of the public hearing.
Commissioner Nowlin asked if the parking ramp would be built if the Planning Commission
voted to approve a 3-story ramp. He noted that he is concerned as Commissioner Gordon that
there is no undue hardship. Ho�vever, this is an accommodation, and the footprint is where we
want it. He said he would like to make sure that the ramp is constructed in the footprint that is
planned, but at the same time, he thinks we need to wait and see what the plan is for the rest of
the property before the 4`� story is approved. Mr. Trooien replied that he �a�ill not build if the
Planning Commission does not approve the height variance.
The motion on tkeJloor to approve tf:e river corridor n:odification carried on a ro11 call vote
of II - 3(Gordon, Margulies, Nordin) with I abstention (Vaught).
MOTION: Commissioner Geisser moved approval ojtlae setback variance omitting
• condition #1 and amending condition #3 to read "Su landscaping must be planted on
11te noril: side of t/re ramp to reduce the visual impacl ojtlre ramp; " Commissioner Faricy
seconded the motion.
Commissionet Nordin asked if the Commission ever specifies the maintenance of landscaping.
Mr. Beach commented that the zoning code requires that the owner is required to maintain the
landscaping. It would not hurt to reiterate it in a condition.
The motion on the floor to approve tl:e setback variance omitting condition #I and amending
condition #2 to read "Sufficient fandscaping must be planted on the norlh side ofthe ramp to
reduce fhe visua! impact ojthe ramp" carried on a roll call vote oJl3 -1 (Nordin) with one
abstention (Vaughl).
MOTION: Commissioner Geisser moved approval of ihe site plan review; Commissioner
Faricy secanded t/:e motion whicl: carried on a voice vote (14) with one abstenlion {f�aught).
IV. Zoning Committee
In Commissioner Field's absence, Commissioner Wencl gave the Zoning Committee report.
#98-187 Zhuolina Ren - Sio variance to allow two free standing sie s within a required front
yard to allow a perpendicular sie to the street and height variance for an archway sign at 1033
Grand Avenue (Jim Zdon, 266-6559).
r 1
LJ
�,5
PLANIVING CObINIISSION STAFF REPORT
FILES # 98-223, 98-231 and 98-236
1. APPLICANT: Gerald Trooien for AIexandra & Associates LLC DATE OF HEARING: 9/11/98
2. CLASSIFICATION: River Comdor Modification , Setback Variance and Site Plan Review
3. LOCATION: 2751 Shepard Road (�vest of Davern beh��een Shepazd Road and Norfolk)
4. PLANNING DTSTRICT: 15
5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See file
6. PRESENT ZONING: I-2, RG2
ZODIING CODE REFERENCE: § 6�233.a, 62.1O8.c, 61.104.b
7. STAFF INVE5TIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 9/2/98
8. DATE RECEIVED: 8/13/98 DEADLINE FOR AC1'ION:
BY: Tom Beach
10/12/98
A. PUT2POSE: The applicant is proposing to build a pazking ramp with 996 parking spaces. To do
this he needs approval for:
- River Corridor NIodification The ramp would be 42.� feet high. A masimum height of 40
feet is permitted in the RC-3 (River Corridor Urban Open Overlay District).
- Setback Variance The ramp would be set back 1� feet from the north properry line. A
minimum setback of 1.5 times the height of the structure or 6� feet is rzquired in the I-I zoning
district from adjacent residential property.
Site Plan Review All pazking facilities require site plan review.
B. PARCEL: The parcel covers justunder 17 acres.
C. EXISTING LAND USE: There is a large building on the west half of the property that was
fomierly used by Unisys. US Bank is now in tfie process of moving into the building.
The proposed parking ramp would be located on the east half of the property nhere there is
current�y a parking lot. Part of the lot is used for a remote pazking lot for the Minneapolis-Saint
Paul airport «zth a shuttle bus sezvice n,nn;ng to the auport and the rest of thz lot is reserved for
USBank employees. USBank c�ill need all ofthe puking lot plus additionai pazking once it
occupies the entire building.
D. SUI2ROUNDING LAND USE:
Nozth: Apartments and other residential (RT-2)
South: Crosby Farm Pazk and Watergate Marina (R-I)
East: A remote parking lot for the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport (I-1)
West: A restaurant and office building (B-2)
E. HISTORY: The building and pazldng lot on the site were originally built by Unisys. The
building had not ben used since Unisys left several years ago. Mr. Trooien bought the property and
•
•
•
� �V
�'-�d�7
has renovated the buildin� o�•er the last yeaz. US Bank is moving into the building at this time and
eventually they will occupy the entira building.
• The site is located in the area covered by 1993 Shepard Road Davem Street Small Area Plan. The
plan calls for developing the area with "attractive office and/or light industrial de� elopment to create
' a visually appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepazd Road". The plan contains a number of
desi� guidelines and says that "these desi� guidelines should be enforced as part of the City's
rewlar site plan review process." Within the last yeaz, the City formed a necv task force that is
workin� on updating the Shepazd Da��em Plan.
Eazlier this sun�mer, Mr. Trooien submitted a site plan for a pazking ramp with 1200 spaces across
the street on the east side of Davern at the site of an existin� parking lot. That proposed ramp did not
require a River Comdor modification or a setback variance. However, staff had concems that the
earlier ramp was not consistent with the Shepazd Davem Small Area Plan. The Hi�hland Area
Community Council recommended that the ramp be located on the west side of Davem. A public
hearing was scheduled at the Planning Commission to consider the site plan but Mr. Trooien
withdrew the site plan and resubmitted the current site plan. This plan addresses most of the
concerns staff had �vith the eazlier ramp and moves the ramp to the �vest of Davem in response to the
Highland Area Community CouncIl's recommendation.
F. THE PROPOSED RAD4P: The proposed parking ramp would have 996 parking spaces. The ramp
�vould have four levels (one at gade and thzee above grade). It would be 42S fezt tall, measured to
the top of the �vall arotmd the top level (39 feet measured to the surface of the parking deck on the
top level). The driveway to the iunp «ould be on Davem in the same location as a drive�vay to the
esisting parking lot. The ramp would be finished in concrete and painted to match the USBank
• building. It �vould be open on all sides. The first level would have chain link fencing in the
openings to restrict access to the ramp.
There are currently approsimately 11 � 0 parking spaces in all of the parking lots on the US Bank
property. The proposed ramp would increase this number to appro�mately 1900 parking spaces.
(The ramp would have 996 spaces but would displace approximately 246 esistin� spaces in the
parking lot for a net increase of 7� 0 parking spaces.) Based on what the applicant told staff, it
appears that US Bank wotdd need about 600 of the spaces in the ramp. The remaining 400 would
initially be used for airport pazkin�.
•
The proposed ramp would be located on the north portion of the site so that the south portion of the
site, overlooking Shepard Road and the Mississippi River, can be developed in the future. The
applicant submitted a concept plan to show what type of building could be built in the southem
portion of the site. The ramp is desi,gned so that it could be expanded in the future to accommodate
more development on the site.
The ramp does not require an Indirect Source Permit &om the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
because it has less than 1000 parkin� spaces.
G. DISTRICT COIJNCIL RECO�INIENDATION: The board of the Highland Area Community
CouncIl will meet to consider this proposal on September 3.
� 27
FIPTDINGS AND STAFF RECO�iMEi�IDATION FOR RIVER CORRIDOR �fODIFICATION
H. FINDINGS: �
i. The proposed ramp would be 42.5 £eet tall measured to the top of the wall around the top level.
(The height of the surface of the pazking deck on the top level �vould be 39 feet «ith a 3.5 foot
tall wall.) The property is zoned I-1 which normally pennits a maximum hei;ht of �0 feet.
However, the property is also located in the RC-3 River Comdor Overlay Zoning District which
permits a ma�cimum height of 40 feet (Section 6i233.a).
2. Section 65.6�0 of the Zonin� Code authorizes the Plannin� Commission to modify provisions of
the River Corridor Ordinance if it meets the following findings:
a. It appears that by reason of ezceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of this chapter
would cause undue hardship and strict conformiry with the standards would be
unreasonable, impractical and not feasible under the circt�mstances.
This finding is met. An entire lecel of puking �vould have to be eliminated from the raznp in
order to meet the 40 foot height limit. Eluninating an entire level of parking �tiould create a
hardship beeause this parkin� will be needed in the future to develop the rzmainin� portion
of the site.
b. 77ae burden ofproofshall rest with the applicant to demonstrate conclusively to the
commission that st�ch modification rovi[l not restclt in a hazard to life or properry and will not
adversely affect the safery, use orstabiliry of a public way, slope or draina�e channel, or the
natairal environn:ent.
This finding is met. The modification will not result in a hazard or affect the natural •
environment.
c. `Modifications granted by the planning commission shall be consistent with the general
purposes ofthe standards contained in this chapter and state law and the intent ofapplicable
state and national laws and programs.
This findin� is met. The peupose of the 40 foot hei�ht limit is to prohibit tall buildin�s thaY
would be visible from the river. The ramp would meet the intent of this provision since it
would be only 2.5 feet hi�her than the permitted ma.�dmum height and the ramp would be set
back over 300 feet from the river bluff line so taat it should not be visible from the river.
I. STAFF RECONIMENDATION: Based on findings 1 and 2, staff recommends approval of the
modifccation to permit a maYimum height of 42.5 feet measured to the top of the ccaIl around the top
level of the proposed ramp.
•
�. L 4
FINDINGS AND STAFF RECObI�IEtYDATION FOR SETBACK VARIAtiCE
• J. FINDINGS:
q8-i��7
1. The adj acent property to the north of the proposed pazking ramp has four apartmznt buildings.
The apartment huildings are 2'/� stories tall. There is a row of gaza�es for the apartments atong
the common property line ben;�een the apar[ment buildings and the proposed ramp.
2. The proposed ramp would be setback 1� feet from the property line. The zonin� code requires a
setback from the north property line of 1.5 times the height of the ramp because ihe USBank
properry is zoned industrial and the adjacent properry is zoned residential. The ramp is proposed
to be 42S feet tall so the required setback is 6S feet . The applicant is requesting a variance of
�0 feet.
3. The Planning Commission may a ant a variance for setback if it makes the follo«zn� findings:
a. The properry in quesaon cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the
code.
This finding is met. The applicant wanu to reserve the south portion of the site, along
Shepard Road and overlooking the Mississippi Ricer, for future development of an office
building. Shifring the ramp south to maintain a 65 foot setback from the norrh properry line
would severely lirnic space alone Shepard Road for fumre development. The ramp cannot
be built taller to provide the same amount of parking on a smaller foot print because of
hei�ht restrictions.
• b. The plight of the land owner is due to cireumstances unique to his property, and these
circu»utances were not created by the Zand owner.
This finding is met The properry is unique because it overlooks the Mississipgi River and
is subject to the design guidelines of the Shepard Davern Small Area Plan. Both of these
factors su�gest that any future development should be located toward the south side of the
property along Shepard Road and therefore the ramp should be located to the north of the
property.
a The proposed variance is in keeping wzth the spirir and intent of the code, and is consistent
with the health, safery, comfon, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St.
Paul.
This finding is met if conditions aze attached to the variance. The intent of the zoning code
in requiring large setbacks from residential property is to protect adjacent properry owners
from the impact of industrial uses. In this case, the adjacent residenual property can be
protected from light and noise from the ramp if condidons are required that the north wali
of the ramp must be solid and that it must be made attracrive and compatible with the
surrounding nei�hbozhood through the choice of buildin� materials and landscapina.
d. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of lighr and air to adjacent
property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably
• diminish established properry values within the surrounding area.
The finding can be met if condirions aze attached to the variance. The proposed ramp would
be 42.� feet high and over 300 feet long. This could unpair an adequate supply of light and
�f' 2`�
air to the apartment buildings to the north and alTer the essential character of thesurrounding
azea. The impact of the ramp would be significantly reduced if a condition is required that
the top level of the north bap of parking must be eliminated so the hei�ht of the building at
the north wall is reduced to 30 feet. Doing this would reduce the number of parking spaces •
in the ramp by approximatety 68. (See attached drawings by staff.}
e. The variance, if granted, would not pemut any use that is not pemutted under the
provisions af the code for rhe properry in the district where the a„�'ected land is located, nor
would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property.
This finding is met.
f. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income
potenriaL of the parcel of Iand.
This finding is met. The request for vaziance is based primazIly on a desire to fully develop
the properry in a way that takes advantage of iu location overlookin� the Mississippi River
and is consisient with ihe Shepazd Davern Small Area Plan.
K. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1-3, staff recommends approval of the
variance to permit a setback of li feet from the north properry line, subject to the follocving
conditions which aze intended to minimize the impact of the ramp on the apartments to the north:
1. The north bay of pazking ramp (the north 60 £eet of tfie ramp} must be limitzd to a maximum
hei�ht of 30 feet to the top of the wall.
2. The north wall of the proposed parkin� ramp must be solid to screen noise and li�ht from the
adjacent properry and constructed of material that is compatible �vith the surrounding
neighborhood. •
3. Sufficient landscapin„ such as trees and vines, must be planted in the north setback to reduce the
visual impact of the ramp.
i
� ,o
98-�c�7
FI��AINGS AND STAFF RECO�I�tENDATION FOR SITE PLAN REV[EW
• L. FIYAINGS: Section 62.108.c of the zoning code states that "in order to approve the site plan, the
planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with" the findings listed
below.
(1) ApplicableordinancesoftheCityofSaintPaul.
The site plan is consistent with all applicable ordinances if the Rivez Comdor Modification foz
maYimum height and the Zoning Variance for setback aze approved.
(2) The ciry's adopted comprehensive pZan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the
CJly.
The site plan is consistent with the Shepard Road Davem Street Small Area Plan which was
adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan on November 16, 1993.
- The plan encoura�es the ocvner of this site and the property to the east of Davem to
"consider building a pazking deck or some type of pazking structure (perhaps incorporated
with another use) that could provide parking to Unisys, if needed, as well as provide
pazking to a new development"
- The vision of the plan is "attractive office and/or ligh[ industrial development to create a
visually appealing gateway into St. Paul along Shepard Road" The location and size of
the ramp is intended to allow future office dzvelopment along Shepazd Road.
- The plan recommends that development should be "sensitive to its impact on and
relationship to the adjacent residential and commercial azea". The ramp will meetthis
• recommendauon if the north wall is no more than 30 feet high and landscaping is added
to soften the appeazance of the ramp from adjacent residential properry.
- The design guidelines say that "Buildings massing should be configured to avoid long
unbroken facades." The location of the ramp is consistent with this finding since it
would allow another building to be built in the future to the south that would screen the
ramp from Shepard Road.
(3) Preservation ofunique geologic, geographic or historically significant characteristics ofthe
city and environmentally sensikve areas.
The site plan is consisient with this finding. The site's location overlooking the Mississippi
River is geoo aphically sia ificant. Locating the ramp at the north portion of the site so that
the south portion can be developed as an office building responds to the characteristics of the
location.
(4) Protection of adjaeent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for such
matters as surface water draina�e, sound and sight bz�ffers, preservation ofviews, light and
air, and those aspects of design which may have substanriat effects on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent ��ith this finding if the top level of the ramp is eliminated in the
north bay so that the ramp is 30 feet tall to the top of the wall along the nor[h side and the north
wall of the ramp is solid to block light and noise.
• (�) The arrangement ofbuildings, uses and facilides ofthe proposed development in orderto
assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably affected.
The site plan is consistent �ith this finding if the height of the north bay of the height of the
� 31
ramp is reduced along the north side and the north «'atl is solid to screzn ti�ht and noisa from
the adjacen[ residential property. The location of the new drive�cay is also consistentwzth this
finding: it would be in the same azea as an e�cisung driveway to minimin the impact on the •
adjacent residential property and to encourage more trafFic to go to directly� to Shepard Road
rather than traveling on Davem.
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and locarion, orientation and
elevation ofstn�ctures.
The site plan meets current standards and is consistent with this frnding.
(7) Safety and convenience ofboth vehicular and pedestrian traffic bath within the site and in
relation to access streets, including traffic circulation featzires, the locaaons and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent �vith this finding. The plan has been reviecved for traffic safety by
Public Works staff. They approved the location of the driveways and found that Davem could
safely handle the increased traffic that �vould be generated by the ramp.
(8) The satisfactory wailabiliry and capaciry ofstorm and sanitary sewers, including solurions to
any drainage problems in the area ofthe deveZopment.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for secvers and drainage. A condition of site
plan approval should be that the applicant submit a more detailed plan for rzciew and approval
by Public �Vorks staff
(9) Sufficient landscaping, fences, wa(Is and par�zng necessary to meet the above objecrives. �
The site plan does not show sufficient landscaping. A condition of site approcal should be that
the applicant submit a tandscape plan, showing sufficient landscaping on the east (Davem
Street), north and south sides of the raznp, for review and approval bp LIEP staff.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), incla�din� parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent «�th this finding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "RamseyErosion Sediment and
Control Handbook. "
The site pIan does not contain any information on erosion and sediment control. A condition
of approval should be Yhat an erosion and sediment control plan is submittzd for revie�v and
approval by LIEP staff.
M. STAF'F 12EC0�'IENDATION: Based on findin�s 1 through 11, staff recommends that the
plan be approved subject to the condition that the applicant must submit the folo�ring plans:
1. A final plan for site utilities and storm water mana�ement for review and approval by Public
Works staff.
2. An erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by LIEP staff.
3. A finaI Iandscape plan sho�v�ng sufficient landscapin� along ihe east (Dacem Street}, north and •
south sides of the ramp for review and approval by LIEP staff.
� 3z
•
•
�
a
�
��
o..
X
�'
_�
3 �
�
F r 3
� � �
'�S i � " ' ,�.�
? a ,"` _ —
._— - �_ -
aQ! � =-=��;; � s-
� r�
����
�° 6
=' � �"—�
�
..a
�—.� -_�___�_
��-� =V�
_ —''� - -�y-�1- - '
` f� �^` _ _ �_
=-�c� - =-f
= -- �� ---�_� = -
35 �
-- �3 ---- �
5; ,
u4 V
� I
, G � -�-�--
�� 1
133HM � � �
� I I
1
I�
� I
u I � I
i l I
1
I
I
�
� i�`� _ �
� �
- i
�- I I
� `;�w`'� �
. ,'! � ;`y � �
. �L f
i
�
,,,
Y �
� i
a
� � �
' � I
I
�
I
��J
u
�
S
�
�
>
�
V a P �
...i. iE , �;
�� i: a i i
�, b � ;i`; i �� {� , I
�� fji, � �� �
� la�k;::i: i��I
\ z 13,9 t EitE
\ ; i;; ;.al:`=%,!
\ � '7� �L/i�
� � \ W �:
�
��
W � �`�\
����.
a
<
W
j Y
i� J
J
Q
� �
s
N ��7�
Z T
� � O W
111 3 s Q
NF
�o
0�
'a
= a
?
N
W
�
J I
J
�
�
1
� N
Z
��
�W
��
m�
L
�X
0
0�
�
?
N
X
1 1 1 � t
i� a y
L
1
(
� �
� - 't-
�- `
I (
, • I c
i, �
�
i� � �
- ., �
�
� �I
�t��
���
i ��
J
3� 33
C(� -/4(�7
�
.�
�
�
�
0
�
�
�J'
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
�_ II
_ " js �V�d�l��:e
;i i
°��
�n
��
Q
�
Q
�.
��
z
�
lll �
n✓ iC.
�n
+��—
�9
1
,
�-1 i�
� r
�7 �
z �
t- �
��
' �\
' \
,\
.,0 �„'J'
�
���- 9� ls N � � nda
� � �� � ,
�—�—
t �
� OO=OG i' __ � _
� O =� � -
� �
� - � � �,�
� � _ _
°� / �� �
�'Q __ �=L __ =�_.�
_ � �,.. 1 ,_ ; �_�
(__
� �:,UV _� --�
r � �� - T — �
_ _ — � — �_� =�
-- t ,�� — �
-- - J
� -- - — Ill
_ �_-_ —_ `
= __- . —. ._ . _ —�- -= �v
— - -- ---- — -�
-- -- � —�-- F
t _ -_ �—_. —_��-�
�
-- — — ci
—. —�_ _
— - � _�—_ - __ f "
--' �
__ �� — �-
k
�
—�—_ _ �_ — ._ �-
' i - '
i '
wz
� a
E
��
�— O � --�
Z Z
t- �
�
w�
- � �
r ^ jV Z
[!i
3 �
tn
I — _—
f
� �.
Z '
_ � Q — , i
Z � �
�
� �
_3y� _
�Y
�_ j
��
_ ¢
y
Y"'
-- �
il
�
w
U
z
w
LL
Z
J
z
a
_
U
u -ar�od
�A 00 0 0
W
Q
� Z
0�
z�
F-
�
X
w
\ �V
�
\
�
�
C
�
•
�
x _ x —_ x .— x ' � '
� . � 3�'- - .
1
�� i��
�
•
•
�a �—
Cmi
i�u '
��
(o;'-
; W lf _ _ _
�
.,
,.
���
�„�,
�ri�
VU
u. <1
X
w!
l --�
� V
� �
�
�
�
�
�
>
�
� 3s
�
�
�
S
�
2
-�
s
-'�
�
V/
1 i
N
Cf f u �i
.n � U .O :O
� �u
\9 -
3 ' f> � � Gl
- `• m ' w� _
i i i r �
1
�� � i � ' �
w i w
U � U ! V
i � � i Q
1 O j f� 1 4
_ __ ;, ._
' � .
'�
��� �
� .S'IA
�9 ttl
7 l'1
i- 'i
��� W
iii
l'1
il r l'1
7 IY (]
r()�
m��R)
��
� �t
�,
�
� �
1 'V
� ` N
`{� __
Q --
�
3
y
� s
� �y
V
_ a
� S
�� c?
�
�
�
�
�
"_'�I
L
N
� .
�
�a
I ' � �
� ;
N 1 J I � �
Cl � u i�i i.�
.n O i O i O
� I I � � �
� �� ai a
? ; 9 � O j N
__ `-_ �
I t • �_
_ I' .
� �
I �
� � i, � i � �
w I �i ; ui
� U � U ' U �
i � � i B
� I A � Q �
''— _ ` _
� �I il l
I �
i -
� I li M �
'. I: _
� o
i� � y
�i �
f r ._
' 3
, �: ° _.
'�' � �
�!' � 3
--�
p �n s
- � -�
� y
.� O
i �'1 ��� ]� S
0'� Z ��
' �� �n W '-
i ! � ;� �-
. w� �
� u_
o �`
iv � �
z �� �
Q 'U
�
�
L
�'D
\i Y l'1 t
?WC] �'
)i�p] �
� �n .
ui��jj 3
�',' �
�
� 36
� - --
�
_ _. _��,�._._,�
•
� �
a
\ r
�
� 8 -i�6°7
�
�
_° � 0 1L
� ;
S �.\ � o
—� : ��-- — — —� — — � � f? � 2
—_ . _ — � v 'l .'r , �
^ i I, � � ~ � — — � �L' '�--
- - �;�'.,ij� � � 'L'�
g�� - _ = uS � O 1�1
' �� t ' � � =.4,_.' °;�,�_ -�� ; `� _t o n- �-
�:a � � � �/. p I 4 � °F � � � � � Y �
�ti I { , � q I —C> s = — m i �� ` � ..L
i �
I {
� I I
�
I I
�
`i
� �
i I
�
;
� �
Y�
I d
�I
I �
o � z
I
1
l
��� C� _ —3� s =;�T — � — �
'� —y_ ! �° $ y �"
�'s� Y — _ � K y' � �
-� ��=a= �� O � o
i e y i ,/ i r= i�� o � fl-- C� �
I a _ i �f --�=s��=_ g w `
� �
i � s �_z=__ _' �� s�
J I _ --1 � =- - - —F-a ,�ri o �
�i� '__- °�d O
� W��
� � � � 9(` �4 ' ' � � � 9 � �;
I � � I 8 � � �e� �, �� _ �`'
I � , I ! �� q - ~�
� I � �!�� � �' o
� � °� i. s � � ;� �;�.� `I,
i � �-- _��
i � �3€
�� a -- �
� — r= _'� � ��'�' � �
s �3��3H;� —� � Nw
� `
�
4 I
1 I � • � �
� , ' I
� � �
I I�I
� '—=� =� — —
. � �
\ � �
�,
�
�
H
� �
�
��
h
�
�
W
�
r
��
��
g�
N
W
�I
� �_
a I � � � B
LL_'__
I
-�t = � Od �
N —
• � o �_ \ � \ o � � O�aJ \
a r \ �.
� --
\ �
�\ .
3� t� , y� � $ ' ; � _� ga�� s £ �
Y � � ,.. �" � � �� W � � � � ��� ` �
.:3 3 3 ffi :,6�£: ° �a`_4 ��$.�'��� �.. e3", �a �
ill�'i�t�lll�
Iliillllll T
/
Y /
a :�
i�
e � � �
1 �
�
�
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1Q.
11.
12.
13.
�
17.
Stli IRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGFiWOOD
FiAZHL PARK HADE\T•PROSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE
DAYTON'S BLUFF =;,
,
PAYNE-PHAI.EN z ,
NORTH END '
THOtifAS-DALE
SUMMIT-LRv�IVERSITY
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE-MID WAY
ST. ANT"HOi'IY PARK
MERRIA2vi PARK-LEXhi'GTON HAMI.Ii3E-S\ HAMLINE
M.ACALESTER GROVELA-h'D
HIGHLAND
SUMMIT HILL 2
DOWNrOWN
ZON[NG F�LE
'.�s 3 8
CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO�I PLAN\'I! tG DISTRICTS
9� -� �
�
�
:.
� �. �
.' I
, ... .......
� .. .. ....
.. ......_ ;�
� � ... ..... • i - �-
��.. `• .. " � �j
� -„]`��
_ _'\ ` ��'
���' :�
\` �
..���
�� � ��
���. ,l I�
E I'��:
_�-`�;�){':�i ��`
_�;�; 1. �-
--- � �-
• _ �,:
�.� T1.� � i�:..- i�
���rl'Tz��
_�� � �r:T
_ �I�I�.����_
� ��
=°`��: �
°'--_-�_- _r�
__= - -
__= _
- �-_-�
'--�- �=-.
_� .
� �-� I�
1 ; 1 ��
L
„ �
_� I � �
u __���. V � , ` : i
=,, ;�: ..
� j
;;�,����;.�
.. s, �.. �
Ir� , -� J
!1 , ,'i`,< i-�= - •
� C t; ;7.: /,.`: ;,� �;
� ,_�,j _�i�` ..�
� ;; ,,: :_ -, .
/ �.. �
a-� �% � /
� 1`' I ;
�J%� � �,
, ,
�:�
, �: ,
x,.
H I GHLAt{ D
�
�
� • 8{ :
�
/�� /
DISTRICT 15 N - __. _ ,� '�-
Z'd 2
I Z�������� r���.� �—�
'�t 39
� a. "
: �-, -
n �
a ��..
n ^ !11
G •..���....
V
�
0
� � =J � ��
�� 6G ' sHea
� °f�E' G
l,e e� a� 8 v G
J 6i�•�jcJ �e�
o � G C /� ��'^��[>
�E� �}�.��'n6? �' e�`�
�, � c a U2 :��s� ���` 7�j 5 � �g c
�, ��;�, ��
�����
�_`
,
�
�n
f. °' C � `..
MORfC�tiE - --
� r a�i
� �� �
.E�on
V �/1
� ��^ ^o ��
n
�
� �1
P
P
-� C� n g�
e cs°
��
� 5`ea` 3 e�
�� w ��e� F3 �� �
���.c���'���'s E
'�Go'J%' c �
j� � n �� � � � ���� ��
� � c 9 '� r� �, fl� Fs s,
r'C� �� S �� p�,.+� `J �3 r? �J a�•''
x3�� n[; t'77 qV 9n ��G. a � �/
�h�J n �. _a nVa�3�.. ��.e
��� ��
Ri vER
�,� .: __..
�.C--� r.re.�'`E.'��.^.`E.��..oc�._ 'e.�r'
MAP,
="��r:�;'M_� '`�e�o
re C r G,.�..^�c.^:'rr E
_�
I
LEGEND
...--_.�� zoniny district t�ur�dz;y i
subj=d propa7y "norin '
0 on=_ lamily • � ^ comni<�..�
¢ rr�o (dmily + .�.,..,inJus;n :'
I
Y i
'u Q muitipl� la'nil, V va�2, I
�•-��•E�`..� L,�ct,���t.Y �''r1.-.
�'. :� .0 (:�'���'� �,.7:
• ':� J c£.�... i. .. r. n _ �� ' _ t -. .- ... . a .� c �� c� w r'�. . .
,�� v
'L b�
\ A 1°
I �
'� 91 Z
9 �
p 0
° ��
� �L
��
�
` .�1p'i v
/
� ��[iC�
� 3���
� n. c..
� a 9 e 4, P" f.
(•' iJ O cS �"p
- o
q fJ V G` CA�
F� 4�U
�J B�n �,
�� 4 3 o c+ ,� p� `�' Q`
! 9° b c �� ' � • �`�� J � O
J7Q�0°v�� �
0
� 9 � ��'� n �
F �,� � .3 n.
��a��� £���
� � a oP j-
�n' � �� � ��
� C �4� �o tj J 1
`i�O �'p° E
�
�� �e � d�
� 3 n C� �c � a
O �6 4' n ••
• ���o'"�"�°,"�"�°�°�"�°�°��f'I`I°I°�°'OR����°!�l°!°�
� QV E.
�NO �_�� �<<'� ��I O O O O O 00 A � 000 O 000�
_`. �,� �, �'`�°' I� I� I I� I Y�. � I � I�I I o:
(