Snelling-Midway CAC Meeting Summaries

December 3, 2015 Meeting Summary

The Snelling-Midway Community Advisory Committee (CAC) met for the first to discuss the future of the 34.5 acre Snelling-Midway site.

The CAC is comprised of 24 community members who represent various stakeholders involved in the redevelopment of the Snelling-Midway. Their role in the project is to serve in an advisory capacity for City staff and elected officials and also to help communicate any progress back to the stakeholders that they represent.

The purpose of the inaugural meeting was to allow the committee members to introduce themselves, to learn about what their role as committee members will be in the overall process, to learn about some of the existing plans and community engagement work for the site, and to share what their biggest hopes and concerns are for the redevelopment of the Snelling-Midway site.

Existing Plans

Before Snelling-Midway was announced as the future site of the MLS stadium, there were a number of plans and studies already in place to help guide the future redevelopment of this area. The new stadium was not a factor in any of these plans or studies; however, much work already done is still applicable to this project and can potentially be enhanced by a project of this magnitude. The plans and studies introduced to the CAC were:

• The Snelling Station Area Plan (2008)
• The Strategic Storm Water Solutions for Transit Oriented Development (2013)
• The Snelling-Midway Smart Site Report by the Urban Investment Group (2014)
• Last mile to the Green Line—Snelling Walkability Report (2014)

Community input to date

The Union Park District Council had two community meetings prior to the first CAC meeting. At the CAC meeting representatives from the Union Park District Council gave the committee members an overview of their outreach work thus far and discussed their role in the redevelopment of the Snelling-Midway area. The district council has not taken an official stance on the project, but they are working to ensure that meaningful community input is heard and that this input informs the redevelopment of Snelling Midway. Their initial outreach focused on existing services, missing services, and desired services and uses. They also gathered input on their constituents’ hopes, fears, and the potential of the site. Some of the key themes that resulted from their outreach were: traffic and parking impacts are a concern, stadium uses aside from the MLS games are desired, crime and security are a concern, and the creation of new services in conjunction with the retention of desirable existing services is something that should be paid attention to (Big Top Liquor is an example of a popular existing use and a movie theater is a use that they want included in the new development). (See Union Park District Council Executive Summary for full list)

Identifying the hopes and concerns of the CAC

At the end of the meeting City staff also asked the committee members to share what their biggest hopes and concerns are for the site. Their responses were written on a sheet of paper and then they were asked to vote for the top three ideas that they supported. Some of the common themes that arose in regards to their hopes for the site pertained to the overall development of the site, walkability, entertainment, and processes/programming in all stages of the development. The two most popular hopes were that the site developed into a walkable area for kids with safe crossings created on both University and Snelling Avenues (6 votes), and that area features activities for before and after the games that can be enjoyed by people of all ages such as bars/restaurants, cultural activities, and a town center area (6 votes).

Some of the common themes that arose in regards to their concerns for the site, again, pertained to the overall development of the site, outreach efforts, effects on the existing community, and processes/programming in all stages of the development. The two most common concerns were that outreach and community input wouldn't be received from all part of the community, just those with the loudest voices (8 votes) and that new development wouldn't serve the needs of the existing community (8 votes).

The vote totals and topics can be found below.

Hopes

Hopes by general category

Concerns

Concerns by general category

December 17, 2015 Meeting Summary

The Snelling-Midway Community Advisory Committee met for the second time on December 17, 2015 to listen to presentations and discuss the following topics: current land uses and ownership, site access, public transportation networks, zoning, Saint Paul’s sustainable building policy, the environmental review process, the tentative timeline, and an activity.

Current Land Uses and Ownership

The 34.5 acre superblock has two property owners for the entire site, RK Midway LLC and the Metropolitan Council. RK Midway owns 7 parcels of the 8 parcels in the superblock which together are approximately 24.5 acres, and the Metropolitan Council owns a parcel on the southwest portion of the superblock which is approximately 10 acres. The prevailing land use within the RK Midway portion of the superblock is retail, with some food services and office uses also located within their portion of the site. The 10 acres owned by the Metropolitan Council are currently vacant, but will be the future location of the new MLS Stadium.

Site Access

The Snelling-Midway site is situated adjacent to two major thoroughfares in Saint Paul, University Avenue and Snelling Ave. There are roughly 36,000 daily automobile trips on Snelling Avenue and 15,000 daily automobile trips on University Ave. Locally and nationally there has been a declining trend in daily trips utilizing automobiles, including on both University Ave and Snelling Ave. Public transportation ridership has doubled on the University Ave corridor since the inception of the Green Line LRT however, Public Works staff could not say conclusively whether or not this was the determining factor in the decline of automobile trips on this corridor.

The redevelopment of the Snelling Midway site could potentially necessitate changes to existing infrastructure and also the creation of new infrastructure. The preliminary plans call for connections to the existing street grid and creation of new blocks within the 34.5 acre site. During this portion of the presentation Spruce Tree Drive was identified specifically as one of the access points for the site that will potentially become an east-west oriented street connecting Snelling Ave to Pascal. Public Works staff also identified some of the potential impediments to any changes to the street network, such as the lack of jurisdictional authority to make changes to Snelling without approval from MnDOT, and the need for Snelling to remain a truck route because of the parkway designation of I-35 E.

Public Transportation

Three representatives from Metro Transit gave an overview of the existing public transportation options currently serving the site and the status of the new “A line” bus rapid transit (BRT) corridor being developed on Snelling Avenue. The site is currently served by the light rail (LRT) Green Line and the 16 bus route on University Avenue, and the 84 and 21 bus routes which run on Snelling Avenue. The new BRT A Line will run primarily on Snelling Ave, from the 46th St LRT Blue Line station in Minneapolis to the Roseville Transit Center. It will have many characteristics that differentiate it from the existing local bus routes and make it more akin to Light Rail. Some of these characteristics of the BRT line are the following:

• An increase in the frequency of service. The Bus will run every ten minutes as opposed to every 30 minutes for the existing 84 bus route.
• The stations will be a half mile apart which will result in faster trips compared to typical bus routes.
• The BRT line will have transit signal priority.
• Tickets will be purchased at the station platform as opposed to on the bus, allowing people to board and exit the bus faster.
• Station platforms are designed to allow 60 ft buses during special events.

The members of the CAC voiced a number of concerns about the current public transportation system serving the area, specifically in regards to safety and crime at the light rail station and the convergence of multiple modes of transportation at the intersection of Snelling and University. There have been a number of accidents involving LRT trains since it opened, and some members of the CAC indicated that they felt the Snelling Ave Station was particularly dangerous because of the amount of vehicular traffic and the design of crosswalks. Community members have observed pedestrians jumping over the bollards and chains in order to cross University Ave. at segments where there are no crosswalks and platform entrances; as one committee member stated “people take shortcuts because there are no shortcuts.”

Criminal activity at the light rail station was another concern voiced by members of the CAC. There is a perception that crime is occurring at this station which could dissuade potential riders choosing to take light rail to access the site. In response to the CAC members’ concerns, a spokesman from Metro Transit said that there are over 100 full time officers in the Metro Transit police force who can respond to any criminal activity occurring at any transit stops. Other potential strategies for improving safety that were mentioned by the Metro Transit spokesman were improving the signage and the verbal warning system at the platform.

Zoning

The 34.5 acre Snelling-Midway redevelopment site is zoned T4, Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District. The T4 zoning district is intended to provide high density, transit supportive, pedestrian friendly, mixed use development. The traditional neighborhood zoning districts differ from other Saint Paul zoning districts in a number of ways, which include:

• Using floor area ratios to regulate the size of buildings.
• The zoning district is more permissive in terms of the mix of land uses that are permitted within the district.
• There are more design standards.
• There are no off-street parking requirements within a quarter mile of University Avenue.
• The zoning district encourages the creation of a master plan for parcels held by the same owner which together are over 15 acres in area.

When the T4 zoning district was created there wasn’t any consideration of a potential stadium at the Snelling-Midway site, and as a result a stadium is currently not a permitted use in the district. The most likely course of action is that the City will consider amending the zoning code to make Outdoor Sports/Entertainment a permitted use in a T4 zoning district.

Some of the members of the CAC inquired about how the billboards would be regulated in the area, how the illumination of signage for the site will be regulated, and permitted uses in the T4 zoning district.

• Under Sec 64.420 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code advertising signs are prohibited in any zoning district in the city. Therefore, no new billboards would be permitted as a part of this project, however, the code would allow for some alterations of the existing billboards near the site. Sponsorship signs at sports facilities are exempt from the advertising sign prohibition.
• Illuminated signs and signs with dynamic display would be permitted and illumination of such signs would be regulated under the provisions of Sec. 64.503 and Sec. 63.116. Under Sec. 64.503 exterior lighting in any Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District shall not exceed 1 foot candle 4 feet from the sign and under Sec. 63.116 outdoor lighting shall not exceed 3 foot candles from the nearest residential district boundary.
• The permitted uses in a T4 zoning district can be found in the table 66.321.

Saint Paul Sustainable Building Policy

The Saint Paul Sustainable Building Policy applies to new buildings that receive more than $200,000 in public investment. Although the stadium itself will be financed exclusively with private funding, this policy may apply because it will eventually be a publicly owned facility. Some of the approved standards for non-residential projects are LEED, Green Globes, and compliance with the Minnesota B3 guidelines. There are currently 30 projects in Saint Paul that comply with this policy.

Environmental Review Process

Environmental review is required for any stadium with a seating capacity over 5,000. For stadiums with a seating capacity of over 20,000, the municipality where the stadium is located can elect to either complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Alternative Urban Area Wide Review (AUAR).

Because of the tentative timeline and nature of the project (which includes the stadium and related development) the City will most likely chose the AUAR process, as it can completed faster than the EIS and also allows consideration of multiple development scenarios. From start to finish the AUAR process can typically take 270 days, however, there is some flexibility in this process which can shorten the timeline. As a part of this process, there will be a minimum of two public comment periods.

Tentative Timeline

The tentative plan is for construction to start on the new stadium by the summer of 2016. The tentative timeline is following:

• December – March: Plan development (stadium and master plan) and environmental review
• April – May: Planning Commission review and public hearing and public comment period on environmental review
• June: City Council public hearing and decision

Public Life and Community Character Activity

Overview and Results

The CAC provided input and voted on how public life and community character is experienced and expressed through programming, architecture and public art for both game days and non-game days.

Methodology – The CAC responded individually to the question in a round-robin format for both game days and non-game days. The responses were scribed and CAC members voted with 3 dots on their top choices for each topic. The following are the results of the conversation with the dot voting in descending order showing the most votes first. A number of CAC members commented that they don’t think there should be a distinction between game days and non-game days.

NON-GAME DAYS 
Festivals, special events, farmers markets, 2 CAC responses (8) 
Architecture – surprise, small cafes, small store fronts (7) 
Local monuments & public art, history & culture (7) 
Easy access for shopping (4) 
Covered walkways to shelter from weather - Bryant Park in NY City (4) 
Promote & host local entertainment (3) 
Active uses in public spaces (3) 
Pedestrian, convertible streets (3) 
Gold Medal Park (small park) (2) 
Enjoyable in winter & accessible (2) 
Outreach to local creative businesses (2) 
Game & non-game place – blur lines – all days place, 5 CAC responses (1) 
Invites the casual stroll, experience in daytime & night (1) 
Public art (1) 
Soccer team promotion (1) 
Regularly scheduled events (1) 
Covered yet open spaces 
Interactive spaces integrated 
Outdoor events & festivals

GAME DAYS 
Pedestrian-only areas, 2 CAC responses (9) 
Spaces that invite people to linger (8) 
Opportunities for live art & street art (5) 
Millennium Park in Chicago, a combination of uses (5) 
Day & night lighting experiences (4) 
Clear wayfinding (4) 
Flexible seating options (4) 
Public art that is engaging (3) 
Attractions like main streets (2) 
Tailgating (carless) (2) 
Multiple spaces, variety of activities (2) 
Gathering – before & after games (2) 
Dining/eating (2) 
Music (2) 
Interactive spaces (1) 
Light art

Snelling-Midway Redevelopment Site – Principles for New Development

Results from the 12/17/15 Community Advisory Committee Meeting

January 7, 2016 Meeting Summary

On January 7, 2016, the Snelling Midway Community Advisory Committee (CAC) met to see the design teams’ conceptual approach to the site, to discuss their reactions to what was presented, and to get an overview on the jobs workgroup that is being created as a part of this project.

Site Context

A significant portion of the presentation was focused on the contextual considerations that have influenced the development of the master plan for the site thus far. The designers examined the site on multiple scales, with the intention of developing the underutilized parcels in a way that helps knit the surrounding neighborhoods together and creates a development that is responsive to the context in which it is being created. This analysis included examining the site on a regional context, a neighborhood context, the public transportation network, for site access, and for site visibility.

To demonstrate the extent of the site, five graphics were shown that overlaid an outline of the site onto well-known locations in the Twin Cities and Lansdowne Park in Ottawa. An outline of the 34.5 acre site was overlaid over Downtown to illustrate that the area which will be redeveloped is equivalent to roughly 12 squares blocks of downtown. This same outline was also overlaid onto 4 different existing open spaces to show how these open spaces would fit into the Snelling-Midway site and to determine an appropriate size for the new open spaces that will be incorporated into the master plan as its being implemented.

Public Input

Representatives from Minnesota United and the design teams have been incorporating the feedback they have received from the November 30 community meeting, the Community Advisory Committee Meetings, and outside groups to develop a master plan for the Snelling-Midway site that is aligned with the aspirations of multiple stakeholders. As a result of the feedback that they have received thus far they have developed a list of community-related considerations that are informing their work on the master plan, and have created design principles based on those considerations. The five design principles that have been established to guide the master plan and subsequent development are the following:

• TOD – Pedestrian First (walkable neighborhood)
• Amending the street grid and urban fabric
• Emphasis on public open spaces
• Mixed-use
• Sustainable stormwater management

Specific Design Elements

Examples of specific design elements were shown that will be incorporated into the public space within the new development and create the landscape typology for the site. The elements presented are the following:

• Formal plazas
• Softscapes
• Hardscapes that have active uses and seasonal events
• Urban spaces with food and other programming
• Boulevard streetscapes
• Pedestrian first streetscapes
• Curbless streetscapes
• Sustainable landscapes

Stadium Comparison

A number of domestic and international soccer-specific stadiums were analyzed to determine desirable attributes that can be incorporated into our stadium. Some of the features of the example stadiums that were highlighted, and viewed as desirable, were having green space adjacent to the stadium, a dynamic and active neighborhood around the stadium, and a partial roof covering for light/noise abatement and weather protection. A section overlay comparing the profile of the proposed soccer stadium with existing local stadiums was shown to illustrate how the stadium will compare in stature to other local stadiums and the extent of the partial roof covering that will be part of the stadium design.

The desired outcome:

• A great stadium for the sport, the players, and the fans
• An exciting area to live, work, visit, shop, and enjoy
• An enhanced, dynamic and progressive community
• A catalyst for continued improvement in our lives
• A cornerstone for the future of the world’s sport in Minnesota.

CAC breakout tables and discussion highlights

Following the presentation by the design team, the CAC discussed their reactions to the plans at three breakout tables. Each table was asked to respond to three questions:

1. Layout: What do you think about the street layout and public space sizes and attributes? Does the internal transportation, bike, pedestrian and public space network and the connections to the surround areas work with how you will come and be here?
2. Programming: Are the programming and uses described attractive and useful for your constituency/community? Are they meaningful culturally and fun for all four seasons?
3. Inviting and attractive: Can you see yourself living, working and playing here? Is it inviting, safe and cool? Does the places described feel like home, a Friday night out and a Saturday outing

The following are highlights from each table:

Table One

• Discussion around the north-south orientation and why stadium was situated on the interior of the site.
• There should be a mix of housing choices for people with varying incomes.
• How will community access to the site work?
• Outdoor dining options should be available.
• Should feel like home.

Table Two

• Graphic showing the 12 blocks downtown was good for envisioning how the site would work and the possibilities for development.
• A refuge/staging area should be provided for the people using public transit.
• The placement of the stadium seemed good.
• Highest density buildings should be near the stadium with the density being gradually reduced as it encroaches on the existing streets.
• Having the stadium partially below grade would make at grade entrances possible and could make the scale stadium more in keeping with the surrounding development.
• A land bridge across 94 could be used to increase the amount of open space and knit together the surrounding neighborhoods.

Table Three

• Walkability and the excitement that streets can be used exclusively for pedestrians during events. Many of the members indicated that, despite living in close proximity to the Midway shopping center, they have never walked to the stores there because of the current auto-oriented layout of the shopping center.
• New pedestrian infrastructure should feel safe and incorporate features such as pedestrian scale lighting into the design.
• There should be a good variety of parking options. Some on-street parking should be available in addition to new parking ramps. Structured parking should be wrapped with active uses.
• The site should be a mix of uses that allow it to function as a regional destination.
• The new development should be forward-thinking and truly urban. There should be a good mix of uses and unique architecture within the development. The new development should avoid a suburban look and feel.

Jobs Workgroup

The Department of Planning and Economic Development has created a jobs workgroup for the site that will focus on jobs and business retention, the relocation of existing businesses within the site or to another location in Saint Paul, employment transitions, and the attraction of new businesses. This group will draw on partnerships that were formulated during the construction of the Green Line to promote new employment opportunities and maintain existing jobs.

February 4, 2016 Meeting Summary

The Snelling Midway-Community Advisory Committee met on February 4 to listen to presentations on the January 26 public input results, to hear a presentation on the Union Park Midway Center Committee report, to hear about the status of the environmental review AUAR, and to have small group discussions.

January/February Public Input

At the January 26 public meeting, we asked the public to provide feedback on eight topics. The vote totals and written responses from the January 26 Community Meeting and Open Saint Paul can be found here.

Union Park Midway Center Committee Report

In 2015, The Union Park District Council created a steering team for the Snelling-Midway site and began gathering public feedback from neighborhood residents. Eric Molho, the chair of the steering team, presented the significant findings from their outreach and the Midway Center Community Visioning Report.

Environmental Review: Alternative Urban Area-wide Review

As a part of the redevelopment process the City will be conducting an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). An AUAR is a type of environmental review which analyzes the potential effects that the new development will have on the environment, and identifies strategies to mitigate those effects. Environmental review is required for any stadium or entertainment facility with a seating capacity of over 20,000 people, and is typically done in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement. The City elected to conduct an AUAR because it allows exploration of multiple development scenarios, and the cumulative effects of the Snelling-Midway redevelopment as a whole, as opposed to just reviewing the impacts of a single project.

The City has begun work on the scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), which is the first step of the Alternative Urban Area Wide Review process. The scoping EAW identifies scenarios that will be examined, relevant issues, and the level of analysis in the study. The City is anticipating publishing the Scoping EAW on February 22.

The following items will be evaluated as a part of this process:

• Cover types – before and after evaluation
• Permits and approvals required for the project
• Existing land use, plans, and zoning – project’s compatibility with area
• Geology, soils, and topography
• Water resources - surface water, groundwater, wastewater, stormwater, water appropriation
• Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes
• Fish, wildlife, plant communities, sensitive ecological resources
• Historic properties
• Visual impacts
• Air - stationary source emissions, vehicle emissions, dust and odors
• Noise
• Transportation - traffic, parking, transit, bicyclists, pedestrians
• Cumulative potential effects

It is anticipated that the AUAR process will be completed in July 2016, provided that there are no unexpected delays in the tentative timeline that the City has established.

Notes from Small Group Discussion

Tim Griffin of the Design Center asked the CAC to weigh in on what they had been hearing from the community, whether there were questions that needed answering or additional information that would be useful, and whether there were groups that might benefit from targeted outreach. Note that these are comments/questions/ideas from the CAC members and are intended for discussion.

The following summary is a compilation of responses from individual CAC members and therefore not necessarily representative of all CAC members:

• I like the make-up of the CAC but would like to bring the discussion to more people of color; Spark It tool; Residents at Skyline Towers; Little Africa businesses; church communities; schools (conversations at lunchroom tables to get youth perspective).
• A CAC member was asked at Open House meetings why there isn’t an opportunity for Q & A at open house meetings.
• Mobilize high school and college-aged kids. Young ages have a lot of creativity (maybe tap Mayor’s Youth Commission, Joy of the People South St. Anthony youth group).
• Do we want Snelling-Midway to be a youth-centric area given how youth tend to behave?
• The Midway Chamber of Commerce is excited about the proposed project and anticipated activity in the area. Believes the area is safe and is excited to remake the area. He doesn’t hear negative things about the area as some CAC members mentioned.
• Be specific when talking about safety concerns in the area. Is it about safety crossing streets? Crime? There is a very old perception of crime in the area. There may be more crime than in other areas of the city but is that a function of the fact there simply are a lot more people here (crime goes on everywhere but maybe on a lesser scale because there are fewer people in other areas)? Social media can spread fear.
• Physical safety at the intersection (travel safety) is essential. How do you address perceptions about the issue of safety? What about the question of race and perceptions?
• What about gentrification in the neighborhood? Even after redevelopment Snelling-Midway should be a place that is still affordable to live and for businesses to serve the people who live there now and in the future. Little-Africa businesses are an example.
• Maybe have someone from the Police Department address the CAC about crime and safety.
• This is a large investment in the area. It will be an improvement to the fabric of the city. It will encourage investment in the surrounding neighborhood.
• Corporate development and concerns about transparency. Perception that things are happening behind closed doors. Need specific information forthcoming to overcome this perception.
• Development of the entire site will not happen overnight. It will occur over time. Community investment is needed to make it what we want it to be. If we want nice things we have to be willing to pay for them (tax dollars).
• CAC members would like to receive information by email or via project website prior to meetings so they can come prepared to discuss. Doing this would allow more time for discussion.
• The potential need for longer meetings once information becomes available was discussed and CAC members seemed open to the idea. Possible meeting dates beyond March, to review progress on the site plan and environmental document, were considered.
• Is there a way to have email conversations among the CAC? Concern was raised about keeping the CAC conversation very open and public to maintain transparency.
• Need to be aware of expectations and what the CAC impact can be.
• Dr. McGuire said he was available to meet with CAC members to talk and answer questions. The CAC should be a conduit to share and spread information.

An open house will be held once the draft Master Plan is available.

The site plan that was presented did not show building massing, but it does show that retail space will be developed on the ground floors of each building with the other uses such as office, residential, and hotel, on the upper floors of the new buildings. Structured parking will be placed within the interior of each new building which will be wrapped with active uses.

Streets and Sidewalks Key Points

• A new street grid will be developed within the site that will connect to existing streets in the surrounding neighborhood. The street widths will vary throughout the site, and will be anywhere from 70’ to 90’ wide, with a minimum of 15’ foot sidewalks.
• The new buildings that front Snelling Avenue will be set back to accommodate the enlargement of the existing sidewalks to a minimum of 15’.
• Shields Avenue will be developed with two bike lanes, forming a new connection with designated bike routes on Pascal Avenue and Aldine Street.
• The new streets are not intended to be heavily traveled thoroughfares.
• The traffic signal will be moved from Spruce Tree Avenue to Shields Avenue.
• It will soon be determined whether or not the new streets will be curbless.

Open Space Key Points

• Roughly 4.7 acres of new green space will be incorporated into the new development.
• The main green space north of the stadium will also be used as a drainage area.
• Roughly 2.3 acres of the new development will be a new surface parking lot with permeable pavers known as the Pascal Green.
• The Central green space could potentially be built at the same time as the stadium and will not be City-owned.
• The design team is exploring ways to potentially use the Midway Square as an ice rink in the winter.
• New green spaces will be “intelligently utilized” i.e. private use/rental of the open spaces will be carefully considered.

Small Group Discussion

Following the presentation of the site plan, the CAC members broke out into three smaller groups to discuss their reactions to the presentation. The discussions were loosely structured around three questions:

1. What are your initial thoughts?
2. Does the layout fit with the neighborhood and urban village vision? Consider the size and location of the green spaces and buildings, streets and pedestrian paths.
3. Can you imagine living, working and/or playing here? Which one or all, and what is attractive about it?

The following list is compiled from notes taken during the small group discussions at the three tables: 
Note: These comments are solely from members of the Community Advisory Committee.

Table One

• Liked that stadium is in the middle of the development. Worried that placing the stadium closer to Snelling would over power the site.
• Liked the general layout of the site.
• Would the grid be completed in the first phase of development? We need more information about phasing from the design team. Typically we would not construct the grid without a project to build to.
• The grid layout will have a significant impact on existing businesses. Interested in learning more about how the phasing will work so existing businesses can remain if they want to.
• What portion of the grid is the City going to be funding? Need more information about the amount of tax money that will be required to build out the grid. Have people been approaching existing businesses and asking them if they want to stay? Concerned that rent increases could possibly price them out.
• Concerned that we will end up with a soccer stadium and nothing else. Does City have a contingency plan if further development does not happen?
• What exactly is the City committing to for this project? It would be helpful to have up-front costs.
• Observation that with larger visions parts of the plans can be dropped over time.
• Whose job is it to recruit new businesses? United Properties and RK Midway have been talking to potential new tenants in the development.
• Who exactly are all the parties involved and who is all at the table? It seems like we (the CAC) are not hearing from everyone. It would be helpful to have RK Midway and S9 at the meetings.
• The plan looks really pretty but wondering about how pedestrian queuing for public transit and parking will work. Concerns about parking and pedestrian flow were not alleviated with the plan.
• Excited that the plan doesn’t have any stand-alone large parking ramps. Like that structured parking is wrapped with active uses. Shared parking should be pursued. There is tons of parking within a mile of the site. Neighborhood will be concerned about where people will park without more information.
• If parking is not available people will park in the neighborhood.
• Need a clear vision of where parking will be.
• If there isn’t enough parking can all the new uses be adequately accommodated?
• Concern about the CAC has been asked to do without having more specific details.
• What could potentially be cut out of the plan? How do we manage expectations?
• Streetscape improvements along the Green Line are a good example of what the City has delivered in the past. Would help to have more concrete examples of what will be delivered.
• Need a contingency plan if development does not occur as planned. What will happen if site isn’t developed?
• With the North and South stadium orientation how will tax exemption now work? Will offices that are shown on the Metropolitan Council’s property be tax exempt?
• Concerned about how site will be integrated with surrounding neighborhood. Could streetscape improvements be extended into the surrounding neighborhood?
• Like the green space fronting University Ave.
• Like that the hotel is placed next to the stadium.
• Assumed that activities would take place near the stadium on the hardscape. There should be some willingness to allow use of space and pop-up events. Too many restrictions on the use of the open space would not fit with the culture of the Midway.
• Who decides who has access to public spaces?
• Will the spaces be too exclusive? Should be operated like a public park.
• There will be multiple interpretations of the plan presented. What level of detail will be needed in the plan that is submitted to the Planning Commission for site plan review? Victoria Park, West Side Flats, and the Ford Plant are examples of other master plan developments in Saint Paul.
• Likes that every component of the plan has its green space incorporated into the design.
• Pedestrian focus is apparent in the design of the site.
• It’s hard to tell how far the setback will be in front of the cinema (northwest corner of the site closest to LRT green line station).
• Pedestrian queuing at Target Field is a good example of how we should handle moving all the people who will be using transit for the games.
• Moving the traffic signal to Shields Ave could potentially make pedestrian queuing more difficult because of the location of the BRT transit stops.
• Glad that residential uses are included in the development.

Table Two

What are your initial thoughts?

• We should encourage specific uses like a movie theater.
• How can the City be more proactive to ensure the realization of the vision?
• Like new signals on Snelling and Pascal.
• Sidewalks need enough room for all modes and cafes etc.
• Curbless street design good for snow removal.
• Attention paid to first floor space, phasing is important; diversity of spaces is important.
• Pedestrian movement and queuing is important.
• Affordable housing? Must be included in new development.
• Retail/active uses throughout the site are a big plus.
• 20 ft ceilings on retail may raise costs.
• No cookie cutter development. Variety is important.
• Visual signal of the Rainbow and Big Top demo is strong.
• Like the curbless/wider streets and the location of the green spaces.
• Developer friendly – will encourage investment.
• The movie theater is a plus.

Does the layout fit with the neighborhood and urban village vision? Consider the size and location of the green spaces and buildings, streets and pedestrian paths.

• Scale is important; it’s T4 for a reason. Internal circulation is also important.
• Traffic speed is important; design needs to have traffic calming features; lane widths.
• Should be compatible with the neighborhood vs recreating the neighborhood.
• “Suburban village” does not adequately re-establish the grid.
• Diversity of building types/styles is important.
• Connectivity in site is good. It doesn’t have to be a 90 degree grid.
• Suburban vs urban street grid.
• Diversity of buildings is good.
• All new development feels different; phasing may help with variety; need to push diversity.
• Bicycle network is important; within the site and the connections to the site.
• Corner of Snelling and University is critical.
• Higher density is good.
• Good utilization and integration of entire site.
• No drive-throughs.

Can you imagine living, working and/or playing here? Which one or all, and what is attractive about it?

• Yes
• Ice Skating
• Soccer
• Transit
• Theater
• Mix of restaurants –more choices – family friendly.

Table Three

What are your initial thoughts?

• What happens to existing businesses?
• Hope that there are plans to retain businesses.
• Like the mix of uses shown on site plan.
• Jobs/businesses working group is working on business and job retention. Will there be more or less small/locally owned businesses? What will change in the amount space allocated to small and local business?
• Hoping for something more than parking at Pascal Green as a way to connect to the neighborhood south of the interstate. The southern end seems like the back door of the development rather than a front door for the neighborhood to the south.
• The neighborhood to the south wants more for the people who live there - access to amenities.
• South end seems like a dead end no man’s land.
• Encourage pedestrian flow from the south. Inward facing point of site – not outward like rest of the site.
• Not visionary at some corners.
• Worried about Pascal as an edge –Walmart/Cub not permanent – we should build for what we want, not what is currently there.
• Need for maintaining view shed of stadium.
• Pascal Green – land banking? Developable long term?
• May not be developable due to contamination.
• Lack of structured parking seems inadequate for game day.
• Appreciate that it’s not a sea of parking.
• Pedestrians – Snelling will be more walkable because of the size, buffer from traffic, and trees.
• How can Pascal feel better?
• Like that park is privately funded/maintained – it’s hard to fund parks - so good.
• Concerned about union jobs that could be lost with privately owned and maintained parks.
• Like street grid.
• Like parks and the link between retail and stadium.
• Would like more dramatic entrance to and from LRT.
• Diagonal flow of people from Snelling/University to site/stadium – Design for pedestrian behavior.
• Concern about game day pedestrian traffic from Snelling stations. Redesign for better/safer access.
• Living wage ordinance/City money in project. Not privatizing some things and exploiting workers.
• Park may not be in the best location to serve as the gateway to site – corners may be better designed – but like the grid.
• What input has the City had? Station area plan shows something similar but didn’t anticipate the stadium.
• Engineering isn’t the only tool for pedestrian safety.
• Transportation safety – Mode locations/split.
• Potential redevelopment that can come from this development. (Walmart/Cub)
• Building heights/massing –Dominance of stadium? Office buildings?
• Would like to see buildings with unique designs. If we get something like “Shops at the West End” then it would be a failure.
• Urban village vs fortress. Inward development/ Outward development. Are the right-of-way widths comparable street widths within the surrounding neighborhoods?
• Vintage – Jury still out on if it has an Urban Village Feel – or more of a fortress.
• Exterior design – is it distinctive – unique – not just brick - something interesting?

Does the layout fit with the neighborhood and urban village vision? Consider the size and location of the green spaces and buildings, streets and pedestrian paths.

• Stadium a good anchor for site.
• Site seems smaller now with other development surrounding the stadium.
• Feels a little wide open – not quite as tight as a London stadium.
• Important to plan for green space now to support stadium use.
• People will park at Walmart, Target, Spruce Tree or remote spots and take LRT.
• Bike access good – Dedicated through the site.
• Curious about future property lines.
• Stadium has to be largely on Met Council property.
• Design guidelines – Incorporate into master plan to get at interesting, distinctive, unique.
• Some old buildings have great architecture in neighborhood –Past life on Snelling/Rice along University.
• Blend with bookstore more than stadium or vice versa?

Can you imagine living, working and/or playing here? Which one or all, and what is attractive about it?

• Would play – Dinner – shopping.
• Live? Depends on where. Yes near the park but not near the hotel and businesses there.
• Would visit/play/games/ office.
• Hangout and work in the offices.
• Space for pets/dog walking? It’s not hard to imagine living here.
• Kids – Want it to be kid friendly – but not sure – depends on Pascal Street.
• Kid friendly north of hotel but not on the southern portion of the site. If infrastructure is there – yes. 8 to 80?
• As younger couple with no kids – yes.
• Empty nesters could live here.
• On the boarder of being a cool – a place to live – Turf Club – stadium – restaurants.
• Don’t want it to be like LA live (entertainment). Want it to be more urban village. One block away doesn’t seem to fit surrounding neighborhood.

March 3, 2016 Meeting Summary

At the March 3 CAC meeting., the Master Plan and the stadium concept were presented by Bill McGuire. The following are the key points from his presentation.

Master Plan Key Points

• The rendering showing the massing are depictions of the maximum potential density. The renderings are intended to show what the site could look like 10 – 20 years in the future, but the future build-out will depend on demand. The plans are conceptual until tenants are ready to commit to be in a specific space in the development.
• RK Midway is currently working on the transition of existing businesses. The west side will be developed first because that’s where developable parcels will be initially available.
• Showing the maximum building heights and density will help with the AUAR and traffic study.
• Interest from potential tenants was expressed after master plan and stadium renderings were released.
• The street around Midway Square and Victory Plaza was included in the master plan so it can be closed off during games and to help with vehicle circulation within the site.
• Public art in the central green space should be big.
• Road shown north of Champions Plaza is highly unlikely because it is too close to St. Anthony Avenue.
• The Snelling sidewalk and boulevard will be widened to accommodate pedestrians and other street design features.
• There will be a useable bike route along Shields.
• Stormwater management planning is in early stages. The team is exploring possible locations for stormwater management features.
• New plantings and embellishments along the freeway could help spur similar improvements along the whole freeway.

Stadium Design Key Points

• Stadium design is intended to be progressive and forward-thinking. It should have an international feel when complete.
• The stadium “skin” is a PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene) mesh.
• The mesh will handle sound similar to any enclosed structure. The metal roof will also help keep the sound contained.
• The Mesh has a 25 – 50 year life cycle and will be maintained by the team.
• The base of the stadium is concrete with Minnesota stone accents.
• Height of the stadium is about 70’.
• The soccer field is 16’ below grade.
• Roof covers the majority of the seating but not all of it. Covering all the seating would add 10 million dollars to the budget.
• LED lighting will be used in the stadium’s exterior PTFE mesh to illuminate the stadium at night.

Notes from Small Group Discussion

Following the presentation by Bill McGuire, the CAC broke out into two tables to discuss their reactions to the plans presented.

Table One

• Concerned about queuing for the LRT platform and ability to pay before getting to the platform.
• SRF should conduct a study examining the pedestrian queuing questions.
• Concerned about the timeline – when will we know about the development of the street grid and landscaping – six months? There are still too many unknowns.
• Not sure if SRF is studying physical changes that might be needed at the LRT platforms.
• City will want more information on phasing but knows that it will be market driven and sequential.
• Understands that there is a correlation between station area plan and what’s contemplated and planned.
• Over time things will evolve as you go – the pedestrian management approaches for Target Field, the Vikings, and Xcel have evolved with experience.
• Residents in the Midway want to know the specific details now – not three years from now.
• How the layout relates to the existing structures.
• There are still phasing questions.
• Mitigation may require police management of traffic – transportation plan is needed.
• Suburbanite concerns about where they will park.
• Parking article in the press on all the parking within a mile that is unused on weekends – evenings. They should take advantage of existing parking.
• People will fill streets up with parking – Spill over is a concern – could lead to permit parking?
• Zone parking? No prefer that people be allowed to park 18 days a year on the streets surrounding the stadium. Trash/noise is more of a concern.
• What are the year-round uses for the stadium?
• Need an on-site police station.
• Likes the landscaping next to the highway.
• Generally supportive of all of the plans provided.

Stadium

• Beautiful. Gorgeous. Better than existing modern stadiums. Good with the aesthetics.
• Perimeter/fan experience – vague so far. Two entrances – up steps and look down on bowl – entrance to Snelling too.
• Video of stadium feel/entrance would be nice. A simulation would be nice.
• Pedestrian queuing still isn’t addressed with design.
• Light/noise
  • If LED lights are used then they will be focusable which is good.
  • The stadium covering doesn’t seem like it will contain noise, but it’s good that stadium is in the center of the site between Pascal and Snelling.
  • There is already a lot of ambient noise from traffic.

Master Plan

• Victory Plaza could go in without taking McDonalds?
• Who has access to open space and when? Hours? Security? Roving bands of teens a concern. Public and private? How will it be managed? Police annex facility?
• Like the size of the open space.
• Road inside a road at Midway Square? It allows circulation without having to exit onto University. Get rid of it.

(The following two CAC member comments were submitted via email)

• The site plan does not provide a clear visual connection from the light rail stations to the park and stadium. I think the setback of the cinema could be enlarged in order to create more plaza-like continuity between the northwest corner of the site and the park. Other members of the public have told me that it's important to them that there be a clear connection between the train and the stadium through the park and I don't believe this plan demonstrates that quite yet. I understand that increasing the setback could be problematic in that it reduces the buildable area and may therefore increase the height in order for it to "pencil out", but I think an increased setback is important given the heavy reliance on transit for this area.
• I think the only building that feels out of context with the neighborhood is the 290 foot tall office tower on the northwest corner of the site. I support the proposed heights everywhere else on the site.

Midway Square

• There will be more pedestrians trying to cross University Ave at Simpson to access the new park.
• Concern about safety of transit users at the intersection – every day and game days. Lots of police presence needed.
• The development west of the stadium may have push back from residents who fear tall buildings shading them.
• It will be too loud for residential development at Snelling.
• Housing is better on the east side.
• Hotel – want one in the Midway again.
  • The location of the proposed hotel on the east side of the site is better from a noise perspective
• Pascal and Shields bikeway facilities are important.
• The vision for the scale of new buildings is something that seems like it can’t be supported by the market now, but I like the vision.
• All positive talk from Midway Chamber members.
• There will be higher rents to come with development. Not sure how some existing businesses will be able to remain.
• Potential office tenants seem to be intrigued but a long way off. Folks want to be in the North Loop or Bloomington.
• People don’t think about Saint Paul as an option – Maybe as construction of the stadium begins there will be stronger interest.
• Retail will be absorbed more easily than office. There may be a market down turn before it takes off.
• 8 story timber frame building has been constructed in MPLS north of the stadium.
• Stadium is a big catalyst.
• Pascal green/parking site – Unlikely to be developed for a long time. – Good for parking space to serve the stadium. VIP parking.
• Multi-purpose parking at Pascal Green will be available for other uses when it’s not game days.
• More engagement with RK Midway desired at the community meeting on March 15.
  • CAC wants to know if what they are saying about concerns is being heard by RK Midway. There is still time for sharing ideas. Buy-in is important. Trust.
• Does everything fall in line with current zoning?

Table Two

• This will be the densest development outside of downtown. We have to take advantage of this opportunity to create higher densities.
• This is an opportunity to significantly increase the tax base.
• Stadium not as tall as some people thought.
• Will mesh trap particulates and discolor?
• Capturing light/noise is important.
• Fireworks/noise cause for concern.
• Active façade along Simson and Snelling Place is important.
• Activate Simpson and Snelling Place.
• Site needs to be approachable from all sides.
• Design is great.
• Activate stadium façade with exterior uses.
• Residential density is always hard. Need to seize this opportunity to add density if possible.
• High-rise residential only works for ultra high-end development.
• No parking requirement but financing requirement may be an issue.
• People are fearful of height.
• Fears of gentrification – affordable units are important.
• Growing population is also important.
• Increased population in the area would benefit businesses.
• High density is realistic for the kind of site we want.
• This isn’t a place where single family homes are across the alley from the new development. It’s a good place for increased housing density.
• Phasing the development is important.
• Moving away from large surface lots.
• Single family housing not immediately adjacent. Plans call for high density/height.
• Green space and re-establishment of grid are very important.
• Getting people to and from transit is important. Queuing.
• Hopefully people will not leave right away which will help with transit demand.
• The bones are important.
• Don’t want faux urbanism. Want authentic urban Hamline Midway feel.
• If it looks like Block E we fail – If it looks like the West End we fail. How do we mitigate that.
• We could do things with signage and other features to make it feel urban.
• Think about what works for urban authentic feel and learn from it.
• What do area business owners want? How does the feel of the surrounding community change?
• We need to think about entire station area; how can we off-set potential gentrification?
• Is it possible to have new modern stadium and still keep feel and affordability of the neighborhood? This conversation needs to happen.
• Who is going to lead the charge to create/preserve affordable housing?
• The committee will end soon. Who is responsible for ensuring long term affordability?
• As infrastructure is built out can the city use our leverage to get things like affordable housing?
• Will the stadium have active uses when there aren’t any games? – will there be street life on the southern portion of the site?
• Is there a place for street vendors and a farmers market?
• We need to study other cities and the effects that other stadium developments have had.

View the summary of open house feedback.

S9 Presentation Key Points

• In response to concerns expressed at the March 15th community meeting about the scale of the proposed office buildings, John Clifford from S9 talked about the possibility of doing a shadow study. The design team is confident that there will not be any single-family homes adversely affected by shadows cast from the buildings because the site is oriented on a north-south axis.
• In response to a question about the number of stories in the proposed office buildings, John Clifford gave a breakdown of the probable ceiling heights for each of the uses.
  • 18’ ceiling heights for ground floor retail.
  • 12’ ceiling heights for parking.
  • Office ceiling heights will be between 13’ – 14’
  • 10’ ceiling heights for residential uses.

The number of stories in each building will vary based on the mix of uses within each building.

• Parking will be one floor below grade for the retail establishments; and will be on floors 2 and above for other uses. The following ratios were used to determine the amount of parking that will be developed on the site for some of the different uses.
  • 3.5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of retail
  • 2.5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of office
  • 1 space per dwelling unit
• Parking demand for the different uses peak at different times of the day which will help alleviate traffic on the site. Parking management will be key for handling parking on a daily basis and during events.
• The office parking will be used as a reservoir to handle parking during events.
• Off-site parking is also being considered as a way to handle parking during events and during peak demand. There is a large amount of parking infrastructure available along the Green Line LRT.
• Lansdowne Park in Ottawa is a stadium development that S9 Architecture designed which has 800 parking spots available on site without the supporting infrastructure available in Saint Paul. The stadium has a similar seating capacity and has been successful in managing game-day travel demands.
• There are about 7 acres of existing commercial development on the site now. The master plan has allocated about 12 acres for future development. The new development will be denser then the development which is currently on the site.
• Members of CAC had questions about the level of density that will need to be achieved in order to “break-even” on the investment that the City is making for new infrastructure.
  • The committee expressed a desire to get figures showing the assumptions that are being made about the amount of development that will occur.
  • There was discussion about tax increment financing being only one of many tools that the City has to spur development.
  • With 18 million dollars of money being invested in infrastructure – how do we know what we will get? – net benefits?
  • Based on the assumptions that are being made about the amount of development that will occur - what is the timeframe until the City breaks even on its investment?
  • What are the boundaries of the TIF districts being used to fund the development of the new infrastructure?
• Members of the CAC had questions regarding the prescriptiveness of the master plan presented. E.g. what if someone wants to build an office building off of Pascal?
  • The master plan will set the guidelines for development such as the scale of buildings and widths of sidewalks. Details like the locations of uses can be interchanged but the urban design of the site will be dictated by the master plan. The master plan is meant to be flexible to allow for fluctuations in the market and changes in demand.
  • The master plan would regulate things like the amount of window area on the first floor of buildings, the amount to space allocated to different uses for the whole redevelopment site (not block by block), the scale of the buildings in the different locations, parking ratios, minimum floor area ratios, and building design standards.
  • The underlying T4 zoning district also has design standards and maximum/minimum floor area ratios that will regulate new development on the site.
  • Major changes in the master plan would require a public hearing for things like variances of the design standards or a public hearing at the planning commission for major amendments to the plan.
  • Members of the CAC requested information on other master plans that have occurred in Saint Paul, in order to give the committee members an understanding about how the original concepts were presented and how the plans were ultimately implemented.
  • Members of the CAC had questions about what happens if what is built isn’t consistent with the concept plans presented. Are there alternative plans that have been considered?
  • What happens if development doesn’t occur at the scale presented? What is the minimum level of density that is needed to see returns on the public investment? The master plan shows the maximum potential development on the site. The CAC expressed an interest in knowing what the minimum level of development would be.
  • There needs to be public engagement to be part of the second phase of development. If the master plan is not implemented, there may be a need for a new master plan.
• The programming and ownership structure of the park space is still unknown. The park will not necessarily be publicly owned or operated, but it will be privately developed. The deal regarding operations and maintenance will probably be similar to Gold Medal Park in Minneapolis.
• Members of the CAC asked about the purpose of the street on the east and north side of the central green spaces. Committee members didn’t like the idea of having to cross University and then having to immediately cross another street to access the site.
  • Having the street around the central green space will provide a hardscape for uses like food trucks or a farmers market. These types of uses cannot occur on the grass because of the damage that will occur.
  • The street also helps provide circulation and eliminates the need to exit onto University to move within the site.
  • The street will also provide on-street parking for the “shops on the green” until the site and more parking options are further developed. The street can be closed off for events.
• The possibility of an ice-rink is a direct response to the feedback that has been received.
• Having first, second, and third places all located on the site along with the level of density will make this an exciting urban destination.

Stormwater Presentation Key Points

• The City is creating a comprehensive stormwater plan to try to get ahead of new development on the site, and to try to achieve stacked social, environmental, and economic benefits with new stormwater infrastructure.
• There has been outreach at the community events and also at a stormwater workshop with members of the technical advisory committee in order to determine the stormwater management approach that should be used on the site.
• Feedback from the community meetings and stormwater workshop showed a preference for an open water feature and using stormwater infrastructure to help create a sense of place.
• The current stormwater management strategy is to use a district-wide shared infrastructure approach with “green fingers” throughout the site.
• Specific types of infrastructure that people showed a preference for are being integrated into the master plan.
• The City is trying to leverage various partnerships to create stormwater infrastructure which is above standard infrastructure.

AUAR Update Key Points

• The comment period from the scoping EAW ended with the majority of comments coming from other government agencies.
• The scoping EAW has established the assumptions that will be used in the AUAR processes going forward.
• The traffic study will be based on assumptions about the level of development that will occur on the site.
• Mitigation strategies are currently being developed based on the assumptions of the scoping EAW.
• Some of the potential mitigation strategies include the following:
  • A parking management plan and tying game day tickets to parking
  • A travel demand management study/strategy
  • Police to help with traffic control
  • Changing entry points for cars and buses
  • Moving street lights