Fact Sheet: How Would 5-Story Buildings—And Another Grocery Store--On Grand Avenue Impact the Neighborhood?

Fact Sheet: How Would 5-Story Buildings—and Another Grocery Store--on Grand Avenue Impact the Neighborhood? There are many factors that make Grand Avenue inappropriate for such an intensive uses. The current proposed development by Lunds Byerlys at Avon and Grand Avenue—and the precedent it would set for the many other vulnerable sites along East Grand such as that at Dixie’s—with its mass and intensity of use would have lasting negative impacts on both Grand Avenue and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. It Would Violate the City of St. Paul Zoning Code Anything over 3 stories is prohibited by the East Grand Avenue Overlay District. This zoning overlay district was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 2006 and was incorporated into the City of St. Paul Zoning Code Article VI, 67.600. It was the result of a recommendation that was incorporated in the last Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan, and was a reaction to and repudiation of the Oxford Hill Condominium development at the corner of Oxford and Grand, which many residents felt was too tall, too massive, and contributed significantly to traffic and parking congestion in the area. This needs to be respected and enforced: Height is limited to 3 stories and 30 feet for commercial buildings; 3 stories and 35 feet for mixed use residential and commercial buildings; and 3 stories and 40 feet for residential and institutional buildings. As a result of what happened with the Oxford Hill building, the code further specifies that there will be no additional heights allowed for setbacks. The maximum building footprint is to be no more than 25,000 square feet and total building size, above ground, of 75,000 square feet. Design must follow those for T2N zoning. The area of Grand Avenue covered runs from Oakland Avenue to the east to Ayd Mill Road to the west. The only way that this can be overruled is through variances for height, building footprint and size, and rezoning from the current B2. These require a full public process involving the Zoning Committee of the Page 1 of 10 Planning Commission, Planning Commission recommendations and approval, and City Council approval; the latter can be appealed to Minnesota District Court. Criteria for variances, per Sec. 61.601 of the code, require that these findings be met: (a) The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. (b) The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (c) The applicant has established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provision, that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the provision. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (d) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. (e) The variance will not permit any use that is not allowed in the zoning district where the affected land is located. (f) The variance will not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. (g) The application for a historic use variance under title IX, city planning, at section 73.03.1 of this Code, as authorized by Minn. Stats. § 471.193, subd. 3(6), shall be granted only to a property that is a locally designated heritage preservation site and the use variance is the minimum needed to enable the property to be used in a manner that will have the least impact upon its historic character and the character of the surrounding area. It Would Be Detrimental to the Character of the Neighborhood Neighborhood character is central to the appeal of Summit Hill. People move to areas like Summit Hill, first and foremost, because of its unique and historic character. They appreciate the neighborhood feel and sense of community that lower density brings. People meet their neighbors by walking the shaded sidewalks and visiting on front porches and lawns. Tall buildings looming over back yards, reducing privacy, blocking light and creating shadows, will destroy what makes this neighborhood appealing and desirable. Multiple floors with closed doors lining long corridors do not promote community. Other considerations include: This is a predominantly residential neighborhood which already has ample housing. This site has been a 1-story commercial building with an adjacent parking lot for as long as records exist, limiting the amount of traffic and parking demand it can generate. It is surrounded on three sides by residential uses: o Single family/R2 to the north on Summit, which is also part of a local historic district; o RM2 and RT1 to the west on Avon, with condos and single family; o B2 with two floors of rental apartments above a single floor of retail across the street; o R4 on Lincoln Avenue across the alley to the south of Grand Avenue. The burden of increased traffic, parking demand and overall congestion due to developments of this size with a much higher intensity of use would be felt particularly acutely in a residential neighborhood such as this. This is a historic neighborhood. Directly to the north is Summit Avenue, a locally-designated historic district created in the 1980s to protect the integrity and preserve this treasure that attracts visitors from all over the world. Similarly, the areas directly to the south of Grand Avenue are national- and state-designated historic districts, with protections in place to preserve the unique character of these homes. And, Grand Avenue, itself, is a state-designated district. Across the entire neighborhood, 2-3 stories is consistent, other than the 6-story condominium at Grotto and Grand Page 2 of 10 which was built in 1981 when a gap in the zoning code allowed something like that to be build, and the 4-story Oxford Hill development which also took advantage of gaps in the zoning code that the East Grand Avenue Overlay District closed. It Would Worsen the Traffic, Parking and Pedestrian Safety Issues Along Grand Avenue and In the Surrounding Residential Areas, as well as create additional infrastructure burdens Large-scale developments will exacerbate existing parking shortfalls. Back when the proposed Lunds Byerlys site housed Knowlans, this block had other uses which were more service-oriented and less intensive in use. Even then, the last parking study by the City of St. Paul, done in 1992, found there was a parking deficit of over 1500 parking spaces on east Grand Avenue between Dale and Milton streets. Since then, the block between Grotto and Avon has seen increases in the number of more intensive restaurant/food and beverage businesses (e.g., Red Rabbit, Hyacinth, Caribou, Brasa) reflecting the greater trend of people eating out. However, parking, if anything, has gotten worse, with all off-street lots dedicated/reserved for customers of those businesses and even fewer on-street parking spots due to more curb cuts, bus stops and intersection limitations. In addition, residential permit parking, which was introduced in 1992, limited the overflow parking from Grand Avenue businesses that was creating a burden for residents in the blocks predominantly south of Grand, resulting in one of the largest permit parking districts in the City of St. Paul. It affects 431 households, with over almost 600 annual resident and guest parking permits issued in 2017. It is in effect along Avon between Summit Avenue and Goodrich, as well as along Lincoln Avenue between Milton and Dale streets, plus parts of Grand Avenue between Milton and Avon streets. Thus, unless there is sufficient underground parking to accommodate Lunds Byerlys employees, customers, apartment renters and their guests, parking will become even more difficult. Currently, Lunds Byerlys has said it is looking at: 69 units of rental, ranging from studios to 3-bedrooms, with 1.25 parking spaces allocated per unit for a total of 87 spaces. 80 parking spaces for the store. They said they'd need 25 spaces for employees, but it wasn't clear if that was included in the 80 spaces or separate from or above that number. A potential 20 "extra" spaces, without being specific or answering direct questions about what those would be for. At one point, when someone at the March 18 listening session brought up the residential permit parking on Avon, they said that those could potentially make up for some of those spaces, suggesting that they'd ask the City to vacate parking to some degree on that block. It's unlikely that Lunds Byerlys would be able to control non-store or residential usage in that location, especially during peak hours. In addition, even if 1.25 spaces per unit covered the needs of residents, it does not account for their guests, service or tradespeople, and other visitors. It is likely that those people would be parking on surrounding streets. Making the parking more questionable for this development, look at other underground parking in the area calls into question the developer’s ability to provide adequate parking. The 2-story mixed use building at 700 Grand has 53 spaces under a 21,000 sf building, and Trader Joe's on Lexington has 54 spaces under a 14,000 sf building (although it is unclear if that parking area extends beyond the building Page 3 of 10 footprint or not). Given that, it seems doubtful that L/B could construct 167-187 underground parking spaces on two levels under a 24,000 sf building. Also of note is that Kowalski’s, a smaller store at 20,000 sf, has 154 spaces and Mississippi Market, at 7,100 sf has 75 spaces for the store and the small tenants on its second floor.

Load more