Conflicting VisionS 04/06/04 The Mpls paper has editorialized [http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4706537.html, 4/6/04] that the Saint Paul City Council not approve the CVS Snelling-University proposal. The local paper [http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/8343706.htm] gave it much coverage on Sunday. We have not studied this issue especially close and really don't know all the details, but note two things with special interest. 1. The DPP coverage indicated that CVS has made changes to its established architectural style [or lack thereof] in other places while continuing to state that they cannot here. While we have never been convinced that designing development to "new urbanism" or transit makes long range sense in most cases and we have not been persuaded by some of the neighborhood's objections that we have seen, we do note that it is their neighborhood and their opinions do have a certain degree of validity. Thus, this apparent lack of candor on the part of CVS should make one a little leery about this whole development. 2. The proposal is dependent on the city's vacating an alley. Why should the council approve that the site plan is unacceptable to so many? This is not the same matter as determining that the Planning Commission erred. That would require that a fault or faults be cited. Not vacating an alley would merely require that the Council feel that it would not be the best public policy. Since it seems that CVS has not been exactly forthcoming in describing the extent of concessions it is able to make, maybe the Council should withhold its approvals on this matter so something else can be worked out. [For that matter: Even if CVS pulls out, how undevelopable can that corner be?] For those with further interest: CVS just bought a big chunk of the Eckerd chain. Related stories may be found at http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/8359260.htm and http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/8368034.htm CSP |