More than a year of controversy over a proposed SuperTarget in Bloomington ended in the wee hours of Tuesday morning when Target withdrew its proposal after it became clear that City Council members would not support it.

That doesn't mean the store is dead, however.

Target's move to pull the proposal before the council voted on it means that the company could return with another plan for the 22-acre site, which it already owns.

"We pulled the application to continue the discussion on the long-term use of the property," Target spokeswoman Amy Spencer said after the meeting ended at 2 a.m. "We hope to continue discussions with the city ... and work with them on what the possibilities are there."

After Target's plans for the site near busy Normandale Boulevard and Old Shakopee Road became known last summer, city officials were inundated with e-mails, phone calls and letters from residents, most opposing the project because of traffic concerns. City officials called the project the most contentious in memory.

Monday night, about 300 people filled City Hall at the start of the meeting, spilling from the filled council chambers to a lobby and auditorium. More than 50 residents testified before the council, split in their opinions about the project.

During the six-hour public hearing, city planner Londell Pease explained why planning staff, the city engineer, the Planning Commission and a city transportation advisory group all recommended denial of the project. Pease said the SuperTarget, which would be the second-biggest store in the city, would overtax roads and needed to be nearer to a freeway.

The site, which is classified industrial in the city's comprehensive plan, is important to the city's economic mix because of the size of the warehouse and access to a rail line, Pease said. Officials said the city's property tax benefits from the Target development would add up to just 17 cents per resident per month.

But Target officials said the $40 million development would create at least 350 jobs, and they offered to pay for changes to roads to ease traffic concerns. They touted the project as pedestrian-friendly and showed sketches of green spaces and sitting areas that they said would be a big improvement to the weed-pocked blacktop and empty warehouse on the site now.

When council members finally took up the issue at about 1:30 a.m., the first hurdle for the project was whether to amend the comprehensive plan to reclassify the site from industrial to community commercial. A comprehensive plan is a city's land use Bible, and councils often are hesitant to make little changes lest they upset the development blueprint for the entire city.

City Manager Mark Bernhardson told council members that he believed land use in the area will change, whether it "be 10, 20, 30 or 40 years from now." The question for the council, he said, was whether it was willing to accept private money to redevelop the site or wait and do an in-depth assessment, as the city has for other parts of Bloomington.

Council members were hesitant about overruling the comprehensive plan, but just as concerned that a SuperTarget would hurt struggling smaller retail areas nearby.

"It's really hard for me to conclude that we need more retail in this area," said Council Member Steve Peterson. Council Member Steve Elkins agreed, praising Target for its proposal but adding that the plan featured few of the pedestrian- and transit-friendly themes the city has emphasized in recent development.

"In terms of the land-use mix in the city, I'm having real trouble with this," Elkins said.

When all six council members and the mayor expressed reservations, a Target representative jumped up and said the proposal was withdrawn.

City resident Krista Groff, who spoke on behalf of a group of about 300 residents who had dubbed themselves the "Accidental Activists" as they fought the development, said Tuesday she wasn't sure what to make of Target's withdrawal. But, she said, people who opposed the project aren't going away.

"It was like they knew they weren't going to get approval, but they wanted to hear every possible objection before they withdrew," she said. "I'm fairly sure they're coming back with another proposal. We'll take time off, but then will do what we need to do to stay involved and aware of what's happening."

Mary Jane Smetanka • 612-673-7380