The URL can be used to link to this page

87-659 wHITE - C�7V GLERK PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PA U L Council /� CANARV - DEPARTMENT /��/ BLL£ - MAVOR File �O• �/ � �� 'o cil Resolution � Presented By � � �3� �� Referred o Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS , William Mitchell College of Law presented to the Planning Commission two proposed site plans for the con- struction of a proposed library addition and parking lot along Summit Avenue , which the Commission had authority to review pursuant to section 62.108 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, The Commission by its Resolution No. 86-21 , dated March 28, 1986 , approved t,he site plans , designated as "Alterna- tive A" and "qlternative B" , subject to 9 stated conditions including the requirement that the College submit a revised plan which meets those conditions to the Commission for final approval ; and WHEREAS , Site Plan A placed the new library addition adjacent to Victoria Street and on the southeast corner of the existing college building with proposed parking lots along Summit Avenue containing a total of 294 parking spaces and which site plan was dependent upon a zoning variance being approved so as to allow construction of the library addition within the required side-yard along Victoria Street ; and WHEREAS , Site Plan B placed the new library addition near Milton Street parallel to Summit Avenue on the southwest corner connecting the existing college building with the building housing its Legal Education Center with proposed parking lots along Summit Avenue containing a total of 241 parking spaces, and which site plan was not dependent upon any zoning variances ; and WHEREAS , The College ' s application for zoning variance was denied by the City Council in June , 1986 and the College proceeded to develop a site plan to conform to the Commission' s conditions ; and COUNCILMEN ' Requested by Department of: Yeas Drew NaYs �'' � / Nicosia [n Favor Rettman /i f Scheibel � Sonnen � A ainst BY Tedesco � Wilson � � Adopted by Council: Date Fo�m Appro by City Attor Certified Passed by Council Secret y � BY By, Approved by :Vlavor: Date _ Approve by ayor for Sub ssion to Council BY - - — BY � � �� `� WHEREAS , The College presented its site plan to the Planning Commission, which site plan was considered by the Commission at its January 23 , 1987 regular meeting, and the Commission, based on staff review, determined that the site plan met the conditions set forth in its resolution, No. 86-21 . The Com- mission' s approval is expressed in the letter from its Chairperson to Bruce Hutchins of the College and dated January 23 , 1987 . The letter contains three conditions : 1 ) that a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $100 , 000 be submitted to guarantee completion of landscaping, stormwater management facilities and other required improvements ; 2) that landscaping be installed as per "Phase I planting plan" ; and 3) that stormwater management facilities be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the Public Works Sewer Engineer; and WHEREAS , Jean M. Kummerow, 823 Portland Avenue , Saint Paul , Minnesota duly filed an appeal to the City Council from this decision of the Planning Commission contending that the site plan appro ved by the Commission was a new site plan from that appro ve d previously by the Commission and that this plan does not meet several conditions required by the Zoning Code for the preservation of historically significant characteristics of the city and the protection of neighboring properties ; and WHEREAS , Acting pursuant to the provisions of the Legislative Code and upon due notice to all affected parties , a public hearing was conducted by the City Council on April 9 , 1987 , for the purpose of considering this appeal and at which hearing the Council heard from all persons who wished to present testi- mony; and WHEREAS , The Council , having heard the testimony, and having considered the actions of the Planning Commission, the report of staff, and all of the documents presented at the hearing, does hereby RESOLVE , That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby find and determine : (1 ) that the Planning Commission committed an error in determining that the site plan, Plan C , dated December 22, 1986 , was the same plan as previously approved on March 28 , 1986 ; 2) that the proposed parking lot along Summit Avenue shall not be allowed to be constructed; 3 ) that the proposed library addition as set forth in the Plan C , dated December 22, 1986 , be and is hereby approved; and 4) � � �� ;� � �'� �=�� . � . � ��'� - �.� ._ �� ,�� ,_„ � � �,,�,� �.�. �4 Lo� � � �� .�- � �� 2 . � . ��;�7�.�� that the Council does hereby approve and grant the requisite vari- ances from the off-street parking requirements so as to permit the construction of the library addition as shown on said Plan C without the necessity for the College to provide additional off-street parking, based upon the following findings : (1 ) The plan approved by the Planning Commission on January 23 , 1987 is a different plan that the plan which the Commission appro ved on March 28 , 1986 , and therefore the Commission, on January 23 , 1987 committed an error of fact. The plan which w as approved March 28th, designated as Plan A, portrayed the library addition on the easterly portion of the College property, adjacent to Victoria Street , and the Commission expressed a desire that a variance be granted to the College so as to permit the library to be constructed within the required yard on the Victoria 5treet side. The variance was ultimately denied by this Council , and the library addition is designed to be con- structed on the westerly side adjacent to Milton Street. The number of parking places shown on the new plan differs from the previous plans which now shows 236 places. Plan A had a design for 294 places and Plan B was designed for 241 places . The location of the proposed driveways from the parking lot differs from Plan A and Plan B. Plan A had two driveways on Milton and Plan B had one driveway on Milton. The new plan does not have any driveways onto Milton but has two driveways onto Victoria Street. The new plan has a parking lot that is one row deeper than the previous Plans A and B. The parking lot fronts for 240 feet on Victoria in the new plan, as compared to 180 feet in Plans A and B making the new lot somewhat more visible to the residents on Portland Avenue. (2) The new plan does not meet several conditions required by the Zoning Code for the preservation of historically signifi- cant characteristics of the city and for the protection of neighboring properties. The proposed parking lot fronting on historic Summit Avenue is an intrusion and a visual blight in a national historic district , is inconsistent with the 5ummit Rvenue Planning Committee ' s recommendations of preserving the residential environment and making Summit the showcase for the city. 1fe � Ip ��1j'/ / � '`I��l � �� r' f � � /� ��/, �� " /� r�� -� �,,�, �,�-,�� Ij�,� � � / �,� ;� ; � �,,+� � ,c��' � :� �.�`" �� - � �� f, � �} Iti�� +, � � 3. � � ' D�' ..�� WHITE - CITV CIERK PINK - FINANCE COUI�CII �� n CANARV - DEPARTMENT G I TY OF SA I NT PA U L ,Sj BLIilE � �- MAVOR File NO. � Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date The proposed parking lot fronting on Summit Rvenue is an unwanted intrusion on the historic avenue, and is not consis- tent with the District 8 plans for the community. ( 3) There does not appear to be a need for additional off-street parking for the college ' s use, considering the amount '" of available off-street parking which can be shared by the college with the other property owners, including adjacent Churches and businesses. FURTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Jean M. Kummerow be and is hereby granted; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to William Mitchell College of Law, Jean M. Kummerow, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. 4. COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas p�eW� Nays � N icos'ra� �Rettman IIl F8V0[ Scheibel� � �Sonnen __ Ageillst B�� Tedesco i` �Wilson � MAY 7 - 1981 Form Ap ro d by City ttorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified P•ss d Council . r BY By � Approved by Mavor: Date � Appro ed y Mayor fo Submission to Council BY - --�-- BY � � � 1 `�t � `- �� (/�/ CITY COUNCiL STAFF REPORT �ILE #10076 l. APPLICANT: Jean M. Kwnmerow DATE OF HEARING: 3/17/87 2. CLASSIFICATION: Appeal of Planning Comm�ssion approva]_ of a site plan for William Mitchell College 3. LOCATION: 875 Summit Avenue 4. PLANNIRTG DISTRICT: 8 (Also borders on 16) 5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Wanns Subd. of Block 21, Summit Park Addition 5. PRESENT ZONING: R-2 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 64.206 and 62.108.3 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: February 26, 1987 BY: Larry � Soderholm and Tom Beach _= – —�s�� – ��=--=R===== A. PURPOSE: Appeal of the Planning Commission's finding on January 23, 1987, that a revised s'xte plan for William Mitchell College of Law for a new parking lot and library building meets all conditions required by its March 28, 1986, resolution granting site plan approval. The appellant contends that the site plan does not meet conditions required by the Zoning Code for preservation of historically significant characteristics of the City and protection of neighboring properties. B. PARCEL SIZE: The total William Mitchell site is 6.42 acres in size. (Approximately 600' on Summit by 450' on Victoria. ) C. EXISTING LAND USE: William Mitchell College of Law. The proposed parking lot and building addition would be in an area that is currently used for open space and a smaller parking lot. D. SURROUNDING LAND US�: North: William Mitchell buildings immediately north. The next block north is used by 2 churches and low density residential. East: Summit Avenue Assembly of God Church building and parking lot and low _ density residential. SoutY►: Saint Paul's United Church of Christ and low density residential. Grand Avenue businesses are 1 block south. West: Low densl.ty residentl.al. h;. �9f�JNG CQl)L: ��l'l'A"I'Oh: Sec�i.oi► 64�.21)b at.atea [I�HC tl►c� CiGy Gounci�! a1�H11 lie�v�: thc� powe�r Co l�eur and decide a��pue�la where it: ia nllegc�d by t}�e t�ppell.unt ttir+t there i� an error in any fact, p2'oceduYe or finding made by the Ylanning Commission. . .Such appeal shall be taken within 15 days after the decision appealed from shall have been adopted by the Planning Commission. Section 62.108, Subd. 3 requires that, in order to approve a site plan, the Planning Commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with: 1. The city's adopted Cornprehensive Plan and development or project plans foY sub-areas of the city. 2. Applicable ordinances of the Git;y of Saint Paul. 3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically significant characteristics of the city and enviranmentally sensitive areas. _,�-' - � . _ ��7�(�� File #10076 Page Two 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. 5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably affected. 6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation and elevation of. structures. 7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the locations and design of entrances and exists and parking areas within the site. 8. The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the development. 9. Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above ob,jectives. Section 62:108, Subd. 4 states that the Planning Commission may make such requirements with respect to the above matters so as to assure compliance with them. F. ZONING HISTORY: See attached chronology for the two-and-a-half year process of zoning review and plan revisions. G. FINDINGS; l. On March 28, 1986, the Planning Commission voted 14 to 1 to approve a site plan for a parking lot and law library for William Mitchell College of Law. Approval was subject to nine conditions dealing with setbacks, landscaping, lighting and design of the lot intended to minimize the effect of the parking lot on the surrounding neighborhood and protect the character of Summit Avenue. (See attached Resolution 86-61. ) 2. At the public hearing held by the Planning Commission William Mitchell presented a site plan calling for a parking lot extending along Summit Avenue all the way from Victoria to Milton Street. The plan presumed that the law library would be built along Victoria. (See attached Plan A. ) The College also presented an alternative plan which moved the library closer to Milton and had a panhandle shaped parking lot. (See attached Plan B. ) 3. The plan with the library on Victoria required a setback variance for the library. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted this variance but the City Council overturned the variance on appeal in June, 1986. Therefore William Mitchell went with the alternative plan showing the library closer to Milton. After the decision that the library would be built near Milton, Winsor Faricy Architects designed the library and also recommended that the panhandle of the parking lot be eliminated by making the rest of the lot on the Victoria side a little deeper froar Sumn:it Avenue. 4. One of the nine conditions required by the Planning Commission in March 1986 was that a revised site plan meeting all of the other eight required conditions be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. William Mitchell submitted its revised plan in December 1986, showing the library near Milton with a parking lot on the east half of the block. This plan was a modification of Plan B shown to the Planning Commission in March 1986. (See attached Plan C. ) 5. The Planning Commission reviewed this site plan on January 23, 1987. It determined that the plan met all the conditions required by its resolution of March 1986 granting site plan approval. (See attached letter from David Lanegran to William Mitchell. ) � , �� File #10076 Page Three 6. Jean Kummerow filed an appeal on February 6, 1987 of the decision by the Planning Planning Commission. The appeal contends that the plan they reviewed on January 23, 1987 is a new site plan and that this plan does not meet several conditions required by the Zoning Code for preservation of historically significant characteristics of the city and protection of neighboring properties. (See attached Appeal Form.) 7. To be strictly legal, the Planning Commission's decision can be appealed only on the following grounds: a. That the December 1986 site plan is a new plan, not a revision of the March 1986 plans, or b. That the December 1986 site plan does not meet the conditions listed by the Planning Commission on their March 1986 site plan approval. The original decision of the Planning Commission to approve a parking lot for William Mitchell if it met certain conditions was made in March 1986. The Zoning Code requires that appeals of Planning Commission actions must be made within 15 days. The appeal period for the Planning Commission site plan approval expired in April 1986. Therefore, the appeal can not be based on the question of whether a parking lot is permitted at William Mitchell, but rather on whether the Planning Commission erred in its decision that the site plan it reviewed in January 1987 meets all the conditions required by its March 28,1986 resolution. 8. The site plan reviewed by the Planning Commission in January Z987 is a revision of the plan previousaly approved in March 1986 and not a new site plan• Changes were made to the earlier plan. However, it is common for plans submitted to the City for review to go through revisions during the review process in response to zoning requirements, economics or other factors. The major change in the William Mitchell plan is that the parking lot now only fronts on Summit Avenue for half a block rather than the whole block. �` Staff believes this change is an improvement. It will allow the college to maintain a front lawn on Summit Avenue and give the library building a more substantial presence on Suaimit Avenue. 9. The revised site plan meets all the conditions required by the Planning Commission in its approval resolution in March 1986. These conditions include screening and depressing the lot, lighting and other landscaping. They were added to minimize the impact of the parking lot on Summit Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood. (See attached memo from Lawrence Soderholm to David Lanegran.) 10. The site plan reviewed on January 23, 1987 by the Planning Commission meets all of the conditions required by the Zoning Code, including those cited in the appeal. The conditions cited in the appeal are: a. "Prabervation of. . .hletoricully aignificant chsracterietics of the city. " (Point 3 of appeal. ) The design of the parking lot includes a number of features intended to minimize the impact of the parking lot on Summit Avenue. The parking lot will be set back 45' from the property line along Summit (70' from the edge of the street) . The lot will be depressed about two feet below the grade of the Summit Avenue sidewalk. A gradual berm and buckthorn hed e will screen thc� parking lot. Shade trees will be planted between � street and the lot and within the lot itself. The revised design of the lot will also lessen the impact of the lot since it will front on Summit Avenue for half a block rather than the full block as originally proposed. These measures go well beyond the norcual landscape requirements for parking lots to help minimize its impact and preserve the character of Summit Avenue. , ��7�� File #10076 Page Four b. "Protection of ad�acent neighboring properties for such matters as preservation of views and those aspects of designs which may have substantial effects on neighboring land use. The arrangement of facilities in order to assure abutting property will not be unreasonably affected." (Points 4 and 5.) Parking is a serious problem for the neighborhood around William Mitchell, particularly for Summit Avenue and the streets to the south, which are outside the Residential Permit Parking District. The proposed lot will significantly reduce this problem. The new lot will increase the total number of off-street parking spaces to 234 from the current 106. This translates to approximately 5 block faces in the neighborhood that will no longer have cars parked on them. The location of the entrance and exit to the lot will also help to reduce the impact of the lot on residential property. The entrance and exit will be located on Victoria across from Summit Avenue Assembly of God Church. Traffic entering the lot from Summit Avenue will not drive past residential property. c. "Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. " (Point 7) The traffic impact of the proposed parking lot has been reviewed by Public Works Traffic Section. They have concluded that the current plan is acceptable and will not cause traffic problems. The traffic volumes and number of turns at Summit and Victoria will be fewer than current levels at Summit and Dale. District 8 did ask the City to do a traffic and parking study for the area. In response the City did a ma�or parking study (Grand Avenue Parking Task Force) . The City Traffic Engineer decided that a ma�or traffic study was unnecessary since: (a) William Mitchell was not increasing enrollments or employment so the number of trips to and from the school would be the same with or without a new lot, and (b) a concurrent St. Albans-Victoria Traffic Study generated relevant data which supported his �udgement that the Summit-Victoria intersection could handle pro�ected volumes. City staff have recommended mitigating measures for a greater concentration of traffic and an increase in turn movements at Summit and Victoria. William Mitchell's December 1986 site plan directs traffic onto Victoria Avenue, which is a collector street with a stop light on Swnmit Avenue. Traffic is kept away from Milton and from Portland west of Victoria, which are local residential streets. Parking will be banned on both sides of Victoria between Summit and Portland to increase traffic capacity. In addition, a left-turn slot is proposed on Victoria at the Summit Avenue stop light. The Public Works Department is willing to make Portland east of Victoria a one-way street if the residents want additional traffic control. (See series of attached staff inemos and traffic consultant's letter. ) d. "Sufficient landscaping. " (Point 9) Landscaping on Summit Avenue as described above has been designed to protect the character of Summit Avenue and exceeds normal requirements. Landscaping on Victoria is less intensive but still meets the normally applied landscape requirements. The lot will be a 25' setback on Victoria. Shade trees, evergreens and an existing hedge will help to screen the lot. 11. William Mitchell must build a new library to meet accreditation standards set by the American Bar Association. The college hopes to have the library completed by 1989. 12. William Mitchell has a legal right to build a parking lot for its students and staff if it meets all the conditions for site plan approval. The Zoning Code specifically permits parking lots as a permitted accessory use for colleges. . � �� File #10076 Page Five 13. The Zoning Code requires the college to replace the 51 parking spaces that will be lost to the new library addition. The college must also make up for a small current shortfall of 25 spaces. So, the City requires that the college provide 76 additional spaces when the library is built. The college also has a legal nonconforming (grandfathered) parking deficiency of 221 spaces which the City does not require the college to provide. 14. The Kummerow's grounds for appeal contains no new facts or arguments that were not extensively debated during the planning process in 1984 to 1986 and considered by the Planning Commission when they approved the site plan in March 1986. 15. The parking lot is the result of an extensive planning process. The proposal was considered by two Planning Commission task forces, the Summit Avenue Planning Committee and the Grand Avenue Parking Task Force, as well as by the Summit-University Planning Council and the Summit Hill Association. After hearing extensive and divided testimony the Planning Commission approved the lot on March 28, 1986. 16. The parking lot is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Summit Avenue Plan, which was approved by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan, supports the construction of a parking lot for William Mitchell as "a practical solution to an area parking problem . . . fully within the legal rights of the college. " H. STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposed parking lot has been a difficult community issue. The Planning Commission and William Mitchell have clearly gone the extra mile to seek a solution acceptable to all parties. The process has gone on for two-and- a-half years. As a practical matter, the lot will help to relieve a serious parking problem in the neighborhood and increase the security of students attending evening classes. As an aesthetic problem, the lot has been reduced in size, halved in frontage, lowered in elevation, landscaped more heavily and lighted more sensitively to meet neighborhood fears for its impact on Summit Avenue. With the new library, the college will "turn itself around" architecturally so that it will face Summit Avenue with an appropriately scaled front facade, front door, front lawn and front walk, all of which are lacking in the present campus. As legal fact, the land is privately owned by the college. It is neither public open space nor required yard space. Off-street parking is permitted and even required by the Zoning Code. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 16 and staff analysis, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's determination that the William Mitchell plan reviewed January 23, 1987, meeta ell the conditlons required by the Planning Commisaion'a reaolution of approval granted March 28, 1986. � r ��JC� �� ATTACHMENTS TO WILLIAM MITCHELL STAFF REPORT 1 Chronology 2 Site Plans - Plan A showing library on Victoria presented in March 1986 - Plan B showing library closer to Milton with panhandle shaped lot presented in March 1986 - Revised plan C reviewed in January 1987 3 Planning Commission Resolution of Marcli 28, 1986 approving site plan 4 Letter from David Lanegran for the Planning Commission to William Mitchell dated January 23, 1987 5 Memo from Larry Soderholm on review of revised site plan and compliance with conditions of March 1986 approval 6 Appeal form filed by Jean Kummerow on February 1987 7 Discusion of traffic issues - 1985 parking study of the area around the college and Victoria Crossing done by Planning for the Grand Avenue Parking Task Force - Comments from Traffic Division of Public Works on parking lot site plan (October 1985) - Memo from Larry Soderholm on Traffic Circulation around William Mit- chell (February 1986) - Notes from a meeting of Planning staff with Bob Roettger and other staff of Public Works Traffic Division (February 1986) - Staff inemo on possible traffic control measures (February 1986) - A letter from Stragar-Roscoe-Fausch Engineers on the St. Albans Traf- fic Study and its impliations for the William Mitchell area (February 1986) - A memo from Allan Torstensoii to the Planning Commission on the impact of the parking lot (March 1986) - Comments from Traffic Division on revised site plan of December 1986 (December 1986) �:� ��r��y . � , WILLIAM wt'r�rr. PARI�IG IOT: 3/2/87 C�IJOLOGY OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION 9/26/84 William Mitchell files application for site plan review for 85 car Pa�'kincJ lot 11/14/84 Public meeting at William Mitchell to discuss parkirig lot plans. Attend�ed by City staff, college staff and neighUors 1/16/85 District a noias c�m�wnity issues meetir� to aiscuss �ot 2/12/85 District 8 votes to o�OSe lot and requests a traffic study be d�one 2/21/85 Zonir�g �annittee votes (4-2) to reccamnend clenial of site plan 2/22/85 Plannir�g C�anissioaz vates 6 moalth laywer to give tim�e to resoVe fssues 8/29/85 William Mitchell requests that original application be modified to permit a 250+ car parkir�g lat arid libraxy a3ditio�n 11/7/85 Memo frcaa Allen Z�orst.enson (Plannityg staff) on design guidelines for parkir�g lat 12/5/85 Joint meeting of Swranit Aver�we Plannir�g Coamp,ittee and Graryd Avenue Parkux� Task Force to discuss parki�g lat site plan 12/17/85 Swmpit Avenue Plar�tii.r�g Ccamnittee votes to oppose p2irking lot 12/19/85 Grar�d Averna�e Parkiryg Task Force votes to su�port parkir�g lot 1/30/86 Public meetiryg at Macalester headed by Uavid I�negran to discuss site plan (26 peaple atter�d accordiryg to sign-in list) 2/11/86 Plannirig staff ineets with Public Works Traffic Section to review site plan. Public Works believes that the lat will not cause traffic proble�ns. 2/12/86 M�eetirrgs at office of Winsor Faricy, pro�ect architect, to discuss and design issu�ea for parking lot. Attended by Mitahell staff, City ,_ 3/5/86 staff, arrhitects anci neighborhood repres�ztatives �� 3/20/86 Zoni.ng Oo�iunittee holds public hearir�g ar�d votes w�animausly to approve site plan sub�ect to conditions 1 ! � � I � . _ � � , _ i A , _ { { , _ j I � 1 ` � �" . � � ,` � . Gr�� 9 3/28/86 Plannir�g Ckea�nission appraves site plan (14-1) subject to nine oot�ditioa�s intended to protec�t neic�borhood arid S�mnit Avern�e 4/18/86 Board of Zonirig Appeals approves variance for setbac�c of proposed library froaQ Victori.a 5/22/86 Plannirr� Cc�monission adapts plan of Swmanit Aver�ue Planniryg Ckananittee but changes reaa�cwxrlation on Mitchell parking lot to support of lat 6/17/86 City �il overturns setback variance on appeal 7/25/86 Plannit�g Co�aoa�ission adopts report of Grand Averiwe Parking Task Foroe containir�g rec�r¢ner�dation for construction of William Mitchell parlting lo�t 8/22/86 Plannir�g �mnissioal apprwes Speci.al Condition Use Ppxmit for William Mitchell C�ollege. Penmit requires that oollege naast add add parkiryg per zcaning standards if enrollment graws 9/9/86 City Cwncil adc�ts repc�rt of SwYOnu.t Avenue Planniryg Ccenm�ittee as ameryded by Planning c�ar�issian containityg re�oocetome,��ciation of parking lat Fall/86 Revised plan for parkiryg lot ar�d library presented to District 8 at informatianal meetir�g 11/13/86 City Cau�cil ado�ts report of Grarid Averw�e Parlcir�g Task Foroe supportiryg a parking lot at William Mitch�ell 1/21/87 District 8 votes to approve plan for new library but to appose Pa�'kir�c! lat 1/23/87 Plannir�g �ranissio�n revie�as revised plan arid cl�:termines that it meets all c�or�ditio�s set in 3/28/86 ap��oaval 2/6/87 Jean I�neraw files appeal of Planning Cc�mnission decision 2 I j I I � � ; -. , : , . - � . � i , . y j � � . ,. � � �� i � i , ; . . _ � � i . . `•� �• ', � �' Mn��n �uan� r_r... .. � _ •------.., -. - . _ _ , �._ ...� .--•-o- , � . ,1 � .. .� l.. ._ _ . �� __.. . A � 1 i . i - - . I : . . � �� - � � . , � 1 � . � ' ; � � �� -� T-� � � ;.., ° . - . - , , � � __ . ; � � �'. � � Legal Education Center � � Y' !` - " i � \ . ,.-•, , .. . ;� � �� r'";r � \\ � � ', � � _ _ __ � , �. i � 1� I 1 I a/ � ' \�� ✓ �.. �'�L\� \ � �� ti-------- ------�-�-� I � i - r /N I \ ' :� I �� I� � � � , i � � I \ �" �` \ ---- �� I � I � � � ' � L � � � �' � � � , ,;,� � � � �_ c��;� � ` � , .— � _ \� , 1 � a ' ' � i i ' - � i , � � • ' I ` � ,o� 1'-�, � � �, , o� � 1 -� � ; / �; / / � / ! / ,' / / � : � � �\ � I � � s r / � , i � ;`/, � ,� �, • '1. / ` I, 1 •�� .~_i ��c f � Ny 1 1 � /� � /� /� �/ � 1 1 � �� 1 I I � � � 1 l ' I \ / \� � �� `�/ � • � 1 ,`.�\ � � � � �� ' 1 �� - � � � 1 �* 1 �l � 1 I �. � � � T �: i � J — � o ..-� i � , _ i � �\ �� M �.�� ; o ; J, -,� � � \ � % � X� � � I � 1 �- k y ,y / � � � 1, � �� .�� . . . . . �� N \ \� �, . ,� 1 � /� � � �,_ . 1 � q ----------- -- 7l � � I .1 ---- --- , 3 � I I�� , I � 3 �\ �,�"\ � I I --__._�� _-_ D `` �� \\ . \ � I � i�f ��' ---- � / �� ; ' t _5�',,� �"� �. �� ; i ;-- �-:.� r�- r��s �_ � , ' � � i_�_�._1, o � ' <-C a-. � -- � � /� y 1 �,•\ � � i �- � � ; i��. i �� yU �, �- -.�.�. ` 1 r j. ;.�.. - —- - --' '/� i � n �� — — Irl\ •� �' _-,_ -- �� ' � -� ��-� �5� �' �� .� � f15 � . ---- - �r- :--`_��--` � - - r-ia� �..�\\. � 1 n �� I j / '� �� m /» \ \ _L._ i I � i � � � � �� n -+--�---� � �__ �/ � � �i . ,I �►� .�� . � _ _ _� ;/'� � � � i .i. . . � .i t � p I 1 I' � : vh� ' r � r �� I ,,},�. .,q'1i ' ,J �1 � I � � ' ^ / � � � ,I � A t �' . � � i x��r � �� ' �� i ' ' �' `\� � ; I � �' �r � . , � � � , \ _ ��- -- - - -_ !':`d- -- _ _ --------- -�-- � ------ - -- - -- -- . _____ ___ __. . ... . I . _. __i�� / '�. � �.� ..�._.......�... � � North Victorie Street 1 --� _ �� - 1 �r -i ' s � ° � ��' q n m � a � 1 n » � • m 0� tr a 7t 3 = V' ; ° 3`.� w v �'c z � a c 0° � � i C� > � e� a o � o `m � � .' a �a > ` _ �� -�� •-� . � ' , ., r � V ��. � � � > �, � a � _ ,� � -i� �� v � J �' ; - � � « ; �. °� � f� "` �`o o �o � � —• " Q: � a+ � 1 � . — N � N � { i _.1 � �- N � � 31 � � Wo ` A A L .� � � � � ► ol r m D � �O m � �I O ' � � � n �' �; • � � • � � � m � , — T ' � �1��0—� �� ' � t�! . � � � . . � o D Miiton Street — , � o-,ob � !� . � :,p, � �n , . . _ ,. <<: � �v� °.��,� �` �`,N; ".� . � �, �- �' � /X �, ':$'�F �f� ��y. �J1,... I .� �� -��> �t ; �FFY$ : � � �. � k]£�� _ . ` ` ��' / � '� �� ; �� y� r/� I , '/ —� >.;: � _�• i ��.: � ,'s. � � —^ � T� y,�y,.. � � ; ' � V/ —J �5 � � �� :. C �,J s. ' ��, , �� i �:"t a�S� �;Y w7'+�.�w�ww++w ' I p� s: 2 � , '3 � 3�.#�j� ()f ;� � 3 ..E rt �_ i • � _:. ;; , .: ; 1 D � < m c� - � , a � � Q � _ _ y � _ — � r � � � � . Q ;�� O W � � � �"" ..;r cD N �O 1— � � m � � � � j � � �� _ p m Ox � � � ; T — � � � -� _ -• < --! � � a m -� � �' �- - � �t'� r (� � Z � �� --r— — � � � , — A 'm �n a � --,--- _, � � ,. a � � � _. � c� z �, -- ►— --�-- � _ r: _ n m -o � t— �.�'� � m � D3 � N m e = _ � � _ _ . �v � � Victoria Street � � o 0 S � � � a � � . . � � � � � ; . I r � ► { � � � � � .� . � �, ; . . � � . ; i � �� . � � �� ,�- � � , ; �.�. ! , ° ! , a , � � �_ ��:�: � : i . ��. . . , . � , � .n.�.i '� .i " . . , . , . . ' f !�}•4• . . I.'� . '�.: '�• ' � � .'1�i..1� ' ' , , ,iA��, �,•� ' . � v�,'�. � 'S'�,.1. ' �,. }_ ._ ; q � , �� a➢ W j, 3�� O M s � � � � t � ° � ( � � , ,Q . �3 N d F a `J � � �g ,— a o� '.��i � •� �-' � . ' �� ° � W� r � e s � � � � � za� .tSl � � ! � � � � � � ��{� � z° � ...� � a' � Y y� ��ti € = - � � p_ s . � d � _< '.�it� � � i � � V a c d� � �� NN�AH N NMN M H ' . �� , NpWnt�Ap� N�p W�yfAAfID N a�p . ' � �0�0 �� l7 N N'I+ Yf O A N CD �7 � � � � � � H I . � � a � � � . � � � � � a w 0 iT'� iL � � J � � �b � �� 1. ��°� .,,� , � � � � � a � o �< _�!, �� -�� _ _--_--� �� ^ ' J J J W � � W � v g< � � c� � C. w z � � ��,�---.- --- - -.- � z . ,�_a:� �__--_, .- —_ - - -_ -- -- ----- -_` . .___ _:_ :_ . . � . ' < ��us�nao�n Eunor� -�-�:_ � , .iu, ..-•..--• -------... - - — -- — ; .. ,;' ` `--�- -_----- ---=--_-- ---- � � � ,� W � , . �—___ � . . ; �� ; � -�. � �.., - - - ; C'3 ;.r , � . � �� . .t� ,� ;� s - :: , �., ,,. . . � ' H .�b,: .: =� W , � , . , �s � , � � x . .� , . � � � � � � � � ia�� t l_ ; ��, ,";�'--- � ��i�-� � , •:-4 , � ,.� ., .� . J � �'' ' -�',� ` �sy �� _ . .�,, : ,�� , � t • h � ' � �• �� 'i a. i •' : � —1 �MI>�.st�: :o.�i M � s�"f"�'.'� "+� �� S�y , icb� � � i A4+ i": � �t�' � r— _ �fq� / � "� N. . � 1 ,�. � � � .s v � .t .� i.: �� .h; yy�� .i•1 � � { .1• � }�t� a , `�. .... . ,,�;' I ..�,. . �' } i , ; �ti�. r +�. , r �. ;�. , .r. .�,.�. ��'�'y�y��, ,� � '� � .� ,;1f'� { � � n i� 1 r � n� — � � � �: 74 �nu,,.�,,� ��' . . . . V � . . � �� t�i.*� � +�. .r/- . , .. • I ' `)�f Y� �':�1 ! �j �'�^ I '� .�j '�;I'1' 1�� ry � �' ` - � . rt� '7; 1�� f L � �.. �.1 . i ., El�lllf �� ✓ 1�1� ..� . ' ." • • .•� ,� � `, �, !'f"d.—,_. � , wF �rj ?"l , ' i �� :','' k� "��".� '�,';� �, . f� � � � ,,,, . �I Y'�ryN::+�� t ,•�f_. _' _ ��"�" ' , ' � � ' ,,,1 `�• .F k� ` i' �l� ,., � < �`,� �1 � �s�3� t ' - � y, �Q W . �.,_ � ��, � - - - _ � ,� �� . � .-� � � � � �. � .. � , � :.� � � 1�� ', � r•. � . '� :,�^°; � ,.,= �� s � rl'9,.�� •�t��1YX,��!w ,� "� ��j.�� ,,� y�;s� �� .. -i � " } �P. y � �� 55�: � '•' 1 . .• � r'�R1f .�;r �'..i�„�'"��:; M �du`,��, ,.a �.��,p,.�� a�,�j . � ' .. � X . � '!1�16 1 ��1�'�{'rf�"+r, . �7 •,t�� . � �i �,�tL �. Eyb��3 �,T N � w� 7•`'� ,J � ` �/ '4.0 � � � � ' , � ?yJ��"��' ,��t � �A �y 'r �.,!!� „� . i ,� �7{t� � A��}6 �r.�, y � �F\� � ��. � ` ak� � q � • �[_� ' .'. , � , . � � � ��4 �% > �' k �', w{3-y i4` �'.. 'E� �� t � � ,, �1+'k11i,�,�1I � '�� , . � • �I ��,�a y,� �`� r11 �,_ . . �� g .- �,,�;';'-�a'"4'��, ±�± ' . � � --, � � . = M ��:� j �:. .; .., i ` ��'' ,a � , ' � — -_ � ,�� `fte�.� •au�,t �7 � I. ' � � _r " �-- � ' �_ f. � �1Pe4 �;Y f^x ' � ' ,5 . - �_� � � \\ \• �\ \ �� y��`�� q� f� , ' Z , ' � .. _ " ' \ \ '� �X („ � • � . .� y.�, rt f` J � � a . kl I 1, I I �x � _ �� ,�� F N� �� 1 J �C �— _—— �� , . . �• . ' i` r , 1•A i J � '� � � �� o � � �. �� ,;i 4 1 . . y '-�_ '.�� . — � � I � .... . '_. ."_ . 4 � - ..- .-. . ". . _ . . . _ i ' I S � 1 . ..� 1 . . .1-.. .I____ . .. _ . .__ . . --. 1 Ml '� .• � ` . ' - " _ .�. -_ _— _ ' ... � l.r ..... . .__ '__.__"_. .._._ ._ _ _ . .. . . ��.�+..�-�.��- ..�..>. � _,r.....�.....�... �.s� I . . . . � � 1�`�•' � � ��1�.. -. ..M.c .;Y� ' . .. .. . , . . ' . . ! ,i . . � . �. �� . � . . ,, ` , � ��5� - �-�' ` ��OU�tQ�J . • �i c�ty of sa�nt paul ' ' 'on resolution 1�'��1�h�l�l•l. . pianning comm�ss� file number, a6-21 I�C? �0�" �' F�a rch 28. 19 �6 �Qy�j date _- ---- - �- WNEREAS. Section 62.108. Subd. 3 of the 2oning Code requires that, in order to app�ove a site plan, the Planning Commission st�all consider and find that the site plan is consistent with: the city's Comprehensive Plan and sub-area plans; applicable city ordinances; preservation of historically significant characteristics; protection of neighboring property; safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian t�affic; the satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers; and sufficient landscaping, fences, walls. and parking �ecessary to meet the above objectives; and WHEREAS. Section 62.108� Subd. 4 states that the Planning Comnission may make such requirements Nith respect to the above matters so as to assure compliance with them; and WHEREAS, Section 62.108, Subd. 6 requires the applicant to file a performance bcnd or letter of credit. equal to the cost to install required landscaping, paving, screening and other conditions of site plan approval . before final app�oval of a site plan; and WHEREAS. the city's Comprehensive Plan generally recognizes Lhe need for , adequate off-street parking, the College Zoning Task Force recommended a total of 318 off-street parking spaces for William Mitchell College of Law, and the Grand Avenue Parking Task Force recommended development of the parking lot proposed by William Mitchell in order to help to solve parking problems in the Victoria Crossing/William Mitchell area; and WHEREAS. college parking is permitted as an accessory use on the William Mitchell property, and the parking facility can be designed to meet all applicable ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Summit Avenue Planning Co,�rr�lttee has recomnended that the S�'�lliam Mitchcll ca�Y:�s �e incle�ded in an exprn�{on of t.he H;sto!'it Nill District� and has recomr,�ended design guidelines regaro�ng loca��cr.. sc�ee:�in5, lighting, and landscaping for parking lots on Summit Avenue; and WHEREAS, the proposed parking lot can be designed to �easona5ly provide for • visual screening. preservation of views� and other nspects of design to assure that abutting property and/or 1ts occupants will not be unreasonably affected; and (continued) moved by. Mr. Panqal seconded by Nr, �;eman . in favor l4 . against__�___ . � , � � _ � ; , , , . ; : � � .�, , � . , _, E � � � � `._ _ _ _. I � � � . 1 : '` � } . , - \ �, \ , ' , • � . �,c �7-l�5�j , -� city of saint paui . planning commission resolution � file number a6-21 . . (�te Ma rch 28, 1986 WHEREAS. the t�affic engineer has approved the proposed site plan with the condition that the Traffic Division will Dan parking on both sides of Victoria and Milton between the proposed driveways and Summit Avenue; and WHEREAS, the sewer engineer has determined that adequate storm sewer capacity is available with the condition that the rate of stormwater discharge from the site shall be restricted to 10.7 cubic feet per second and that 15.500 cubic feet of on-site stormwater detention shall be provided; and WHEREAS, the design guidelines recommended by the Summit Avenue Planning Cortmittee state that the front yards of Sumnit Avenue institutions are not appropriate sites for parking lots, that parking lots should not form the setting for institutions on Summit Avenue� Lhat parking lots should ideally be located behind bulldings where they will not be visible from the street; and that parking lots on Surtmit Avenue should be set back at least as far as building facades (an average of 45 to 50 feet on Summit Avenue, 55 feet on the north side of Sumnit on the block east of William Mitchell and 90 feet on the north side of Summit on the block west of William Mitchell); and WHEREAS, the design guidelines for parking lots recomnended by the Summit � Avenue Planning Cortunittee state that parking lots should be screened from view from the street using materials appropriate for the site, that preferred • treatments include historic fences and walls, preferably used in combination with a hedge, and that changes in grade level to sink the parking from view are appropriate but earth berms are not; and WHEREAS. the design guidelines for parking lots recortmended by Lhe Sunmit Avenue Planning Comnittee state that lights should be 12 to 15 feet tall to _� � match the scale of the street lighting on Sunmit; and WHEREAS. the design guidelines recorrnnended by the Summit Avenue Planning . • Ca�r�ittee cail fur pinntir!g islai�ds to breo�. u� tt�e ek;�a+�;r of ieryN ;�a;-�:.ir�g � lots anb for shade trees to be planted between parking lots and the street and . in planting islands Nithin parking lots; '� NOW. THEREFORE� BE IT RESOLVED, Lhat the Planning Commission approves the site � plan proposed by William Mitchell College of Law and Summit Avenue Assembly of God Church for a parking lot on the William Mitchell campus along Summit Avenue between Victoria Street and Milton Street with the following conditions: � � moved by. Mr. Pangal , (continued) s��onded by M.�. Z i ema n _ in fav�or_ �_a___ � against�._ 7 � � . � f i . i . i , ; ` ; � , _ , ; _ ; i � � E !: I � � ; ° � , { , • ' � • l ( C � �. ; . �� .sy� city of saint pau! planning commission resolution file number 86-21 �te M3rch 2�, 1986 1. The parking lot shall be set back at least 45 feet from �Summit and screened with a buckthorn hedge; 2. A wide. institutional scale walkway shall be constructed through the parking lot between the college buildings and the Summit Avenue sidewalk to establish a strong visual and pedestrian connection between the college and Summit Avenue; the walkway shall be highlighted at its Summit Avenue end by an architectural gateway and/or distlnctive landscaping; the walkway shall also line up with a main entrance or other prominent architectural feature of the college; 3. The walkway through the parking lot between Summit Avenue and the college buildings shall be lined wlth shade trees and 12 to 15 foot high lights to match the character and scale of the traditional St. Paul lantern style street lighting on Su�nit Avenue; if this same lighting is determined by the college to be impractical for general parking lot lighting, higher lighting similar to the "Bethel" style cut-�ff fixtures currently in pince on the campus is acceptable for general parking lot lighting; the existing � � roof top flood lights mounted on campus buildings and shining toward Sunanit Avenue shall be removed or shielded to reduce glare; 4. The surface of the lot shall be depressed at least six inches; the portion of the lot east of the walkway through the parking lot between Summit Avenue and the college buildings shall be depressed as much as possible while maintaining surface drainage to the west; 5. Shade trees shall be planted between the parking lot and Sumnit Avenue and � in planting islands within the parking lot; � . 5. ?!:e ez!'th shall be co.^.*oured to Fro��ide �creer:ing along th.e b�5° ef :he hedge if a wrought iron fence on a brick base is not used in combination with the screening hedge; � 7. The rate of stormwater discharge from the site shall be restricted to 10.7 � cubic feet per second and 15,500 cubic feet of on-site stormwater detention shall be provided; (continued) � moved by, Mr. Pan9a1 ._ • �;�a�d by MS. Zleman in fav�or ,4 � against- � � � � I f ' � f , � � c �I � � � � c � �r `� � � ' , . I :� 5 ,; � � _ N : } �. � � F- �'. . . .. .. - • ( . ( . ( .- �� • , . ". Gd�-��--,-�5� city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 86-21 �tE? Ma r�h ?R. 19Rf � 8. The applicant shall submit a rev�sed site plan which meets these . conditions to the Planning Commission for final approval; and 9. The applicant shall file a performance bond or letter of credit. equal to the cost to install required landscaping. paving. screening, and other conditions of site plan approval . befo�e formal approval of the site plan � by the Planning Administrator; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLYED, that the Planning Com�nission recommer,ds that the college be permitted to narrow parking spaces f rom 9' to as little as 8 1/4' if the college so desires, in order to maintain the number of parking spaces in the 1ot while increasing Lhe setback from 25' to 45' and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recomnends that a variance should be g�anted to allow the location of the proposed library to be � moved toward Victoria in order to maintain the symmetry of the facade of the main college building and a strong connectlon between the main building and Sunmit Avenue. . . . . moved by Mr. Pangal • . ._.. _ s�econded by Ms� iema�,�,_._ in favor.�— � agairist___'__._ � � � i , } :1 � � � ; ; _ , _ , . .� ; , f F ; � _ i F , �; j ; � i _ i � . f , .� . (��r- �55 . �•``,.' �':. o � CITY OF SAINT PAUL � n�imi , DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT `�► __� �� a' � DIVISION OF PLANNING a 25 West Fourfh ShtN.Saint Paul.Min�esola 55102 �•.• 61Z-292-1577 GEORGE LATIMER � MAYOR January 23, 1987 Bruce Hutchins William Mitchell College of Law 875 Summit Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55105 RE: Review of the site plan (#1365) for the William Mitchell Law College building addition and parking lot expansion (plans prepared by Windsor Faricy Architects, dated 12-17- 86) Dear Mr. Hutchins: The Planning Commission approves the revisions you have made on the above referenced site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant must submit a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit good for two years in the amount of $100,000.00 to ensure completion of landscaping, stormwater management facilities and other required improvements. The performance bond and letter of credit forms are enclosed. Please complete and submit the form of your choice. Be advised that this condition must be fulfilled before any building permits are issued. 2. Landscaping shall be installed as per the "Phase I" planting plan (see sheet L-3 of the attached plan for details). In their "Phase II" landscaping plans, the college shall coordinate with Division of Parks and Recreation and the Public Works Department, since the sidewalk construction involves the public right-of-way. The College shall notify these departments prior to the "Phase II" construction start to review requirements for building in the public areas. : 3. Stormwater management facilities shall be constructed and operational as per the plans approved by the Public Works Sewer engineer. Existing storm drains to sanitary sewer must be disconnected. Contact Harvey Skow at 292-6005 for further details. �O _ � I I �' _ : , , _ ,__, _ _. _. ,. . . _ _ _ � �� . � j � � i i , � > . . . _ , _ : _ : _ . _ _ � r_ i .. f ' . ...i!..... ... . ". ... �:i . . . . � . .. � .� . ..�.�.� .. .. . . �`� �O✓�y : January 23, 1987 Page Two The attached memo by Larry Soderholm of the zoning staff eaplains the basis for the Planning Commission's decision. Sineerely, !� � Q,�,•_� „ David Lanegran Planning Commission Chairperson DL:rm Enclosure Attachment cc: Peggy A. Reichert Mayor George Latimer Councilmember Bill Wilson Greg Finzell, District 8 _�� MA rr.FD: Jan. 28.1987 � � � � ; I _' f _ ; ; __ ; ; . � j E ' I � ; I i �� E . s I P i . . ,y �/,r';�/7 (O J I r' s� �i� :,Of CITY OF SAINT P/1Ul INTER�EPARTMENTAL MEMOR/1NDUM DATE: January 16, 1987 TO: David Lanegran Planning Commission Chairperson FROM Lawrence Soderholm�� Principal Planncr - Z�ning RE: Review of the site plan for the William Mitchcll Law College building addition and parking lot capansion (plans prcpared by Windsor Faricy Architects, dated 12-17-86) On March 28, 1986, the Planning Commission approved the above rcferenced proposal with the provisioa that the Collcge submit a reviscd site plan meeting certaia design conditions. Comnarison to Conditions of A��roval � , Pursuant to this provision� on March 22, ]986, our office received the revised plan. 'The staff's commcnts on the rcvised plan are shown bclow. The scven design conditions contained in the Planning Commission resolution are listed with the staff's comments underneath. I. "Thc parking lot shall bc set back at least 45 fcet from Sumwit and screened with a buckthorn hcdge" This condition is clearly met. 2. "A wide, institutional scale walkway shall be constructcd through the parking lot . between the college buildings and the Summit Avenue sidewalk to establish a strong visual and pedcstrian connection between the eollege and Summif Avenue; the walkway shall bc highlighted at its Summit Avenue end by an architcctural gateway and/or distinctive landscaping; the walkway shall also line up with a main entrance or other prominent architectural featurc of the collcgt" Even though the wide walkway is defcrred to Phase II, the revised plan makes a much strongcr connection to Summit Avcnue than the previous plans. 'This condition is met in Phase II. 3. "Thc walkway through the parking lot bctwecn Summit Avenue and the college buildings shall be lincd with shadc trccs 3nd 12 to I S foot high lights to match the charactcr and scalc of the traditional Saint Paul lantcrn style street lighting on Summit Avcnuc; if this same lighting is dctcrmined by the coilege to be imprectical for gencral parking lot lighting� highcr lighting similar to the "Bethcl" style cut-off fixtures currcntly in placc on thc campus is Acccptablc for gcncrol parking lot � lighting; the existing roof toQ flood lights mountcd on campus building and shining toward Summit Avenue shall bc rcmoved or shielded to reduce glare' 1 � � � � f � � . ', { i . , , ;, ; _ _ � . . � '; I � ; ; f � ; , , , , a.;,�',' i � � _ ; � �� , � � � � � v ' , .. � ��7�� January 16, 1987 Page Two � . The Phase II landscaping shows Japanese lilacs along the walkway and the type of lighting slong the welkway is not specified. Since the placement and length of the sidewalk have changed from the previous plan, the lilac trees are acceptable if the college prefers them to shade trecs. The College's architect says that the walkway lighting will be similar in type, scale, and quality to the Summit Avenue lights, but the specific design will be chosen to match the details of the new library. The staff regards this as appropriate and within the intent of the condition. Bruce Hutchins of tt,e College says that their architect will meet with zoning staff to identify which rooftop lights need to be shielded or removed, and when. 4. 'The surface of the lot shall be depressed at least six inches; the portion of the lot east of the walkway through thc parking lot between Summit Avenue and the college buildings shall be depressed as much as possible while maintaining surface drainage to the west" This condition is clearly met. The revised lot is depressed about two feet below the grade of the Summit Avenue sidewalk. S. 'Shade trecs shall be planted betwcen the parking lot and Summit Avenue and in -_. plantiag islands within the parking lot" , This condition is clearly met. A large island divides the lot in halves aad there are four small islands. 6. "The earth shall be contoured to provide screening along the base of the hedge if a wrought iron fence on a brick base is not used in combination with the screoning hedge" The buckthorn hedge will be placed a foot below the crown of berm on its Summit Avenue sidc to avoid a "see through" zone at the base of the hedge. 7. "The rate of stormwater discharge from the site shall be restricted to 10.7 cubic feet per second and 15,500 cubic feet of on-site stormwater dctention shall be provided" Harvey Skow of the Public Works Department says that the stormwater management plan appears to be acceptable. He is doublc checking the engineering calculations � with the college's engineer. The final opinion will be given to the Zoning Committee on January 22, 1987. $taff Analvsis The Summit Avenue Plan, which was adoptcd last September as part of the Comprehensive Plan, recommends granting permits for William Mitchcll's parking lot with conditions-tit� mitigate negative aesthctic impacts on Summit Avenue. The Summit Avenue Plan acknowlcdges oppositipn to the 1ot on the part of some residcnts and thc Summit Avenue Planning Committee� but thc Planning Commission found that "the proposed tot is both s practical solution to an arca parking problcm and fully within thc lcgvl ri�hts of the College." The Grand Avcnue Perking Task Force recommcnded last winte� that thc William Mitcheil parking lot bc built. • 13 i I � � ; � � . � � ; `I . ; , j � ` ; i � ; _ � ; � •, i � E � � � �i t.. � � ;. . _ : : _ . ; , � 1, , , � ��7-�J`� . . January l6, 1987 Page Three , The College was issued a special condition use permit by the Planning Commission oa August 22, 1986. Based on 1985 enrollments, the College is 246 parking spaces short of meeting the current Zoning Code rcquircmcnt. Of thc shortfall, 221 spaccs are . grandfathered in as a legal nonconformancc and 2S spaces are legally required to be provided. They don't need to be provided, howcver, until they reach a trigger point at 35 spaceslegally deficient. A summary of the parking change shown in the revised site plan is shown below: � Off-Street Parkin� Snaces � Existing currently: 106 Proposed During Phase 1: Existing lot with minor changes 130 New lot �,$� Total Phase I 31] Proposed for Phase II: Existing lot, spaces retained SS . � Ncw lot � Total Phase II Z36 � , The Phase II Plan, thcrefore, provides an incrcase of 130 spaces over the existing parking. Of these, 25 spaces are lcgally required; so 105 can be "held" and applied to cnrollment growth for three years after thcy become recordcd in the special condition use permit. After three years, under the Planning Commission's procedures, the surplus spaccs would be counted as required spaces that rcducc the level of legal nonconformance (the grandfathcred 22l spaces). The Phase I Plan shows a greater, but temporary increase in off-street parking of 75 spaces. The Planning Commission recognizes that th�se spaces will be lost in Phase II. If Phase II is built within thrc� ycars after the Phasc I spaces bccomc recordcd in the special condition use permit (probably winter, 1988), the 75 spaces can be removed with no special Planning . Commission action. The reviscd plan is a significant, positive cvolution from either of the two alternative plans prescntcd to the Planning Commission last ycar. The evolution has two basic causes. First. the Collcge's application for a variance to build the library along Victoria was denied, , leaving thcm with the Milton-side library site. Sccond, they dccided to retain a front lawn for thc library building and move the parking proposcd on this lawn to the rear of the Victoria-side lot. The staff prefcrs the rcviscd plan for the following reasons: 1. The College will. architccturally, "turn itself around" so that its front door, front facade, tront lawn, and front walk face Summit Avcnue. 2. A Summit Avenue front lawn with characteristic scAlc and relationship to institutional buildings is bcing crcatcd on th� wcst half of the block. � ��f' � . � � � � , ; �+ � ; ; ; . ; ; k � f I . . � ? 1 � � � � i . � . � C � _ _ � � . ' , , � . ��7��`l� January 16, 1987 Page Four 3. Only half of the block facing Summit Avenue is taken for parkiag, instead of the whole block as proposed before. The lot is depresscd deeper to mitigate the obtrusion of parking on Summit Avenue. 4. Traffic is directed onto Victoria Avenue, which is a collector street with a stop light on Summit Avenue. The entrance and exit for the lot are across from a church, not across from homes. Traffic is kept away from Milton and from Portland west of Victoria, which are local residential streets. Parking will be banned oa both sides of � Victoria betwecn Summit and Portland to increase traffic capacity. In addition. a • left-turn slot is proposed on Portland at thc Summit Avenue atop light. The Public . Works Department is willing to make Portland east of Victoria a one•way street if the � residents want additional traffic control. � Staff Recommendation Z'he revised site plan is consistent with the seven design eonditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission in March, 1986. Development of the lot is recommended in the �'� Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the College's apecial condition use permit. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the site plaa subject to the following conditions: l. The Collcge shall submit a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit� good for two years, in the amount of S100,000.00 to ensure satisfactory completion of . stormwater management facilities and landscaping improvements. 2. Landscaping shall be installed as per the "Phase I" planting plan (see sheet L-3 of the attached plan for details). Ia their "Phase II" landscaping plans, the college shall coordinate with Division of Parks and Recreation and the Public Works Department, since the sidewalk construction involves the public right-of-way. The College shali notify these _ departments prior to the "Phase II" construction start to review requirements for � building in the public areas. 3. Stormwater management facilities shall be constructed and operational as per the plans approvod by the Public Works Sewer engineer. LS:rm �� _ `� � � � b , ( � � � � � � ' � � � � t . � I i i } ; ` i � , � k . _ . I . , � . � , � � : ��, ° ' !`�� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL � ZONIN6 OFFICE USE ONIY CITY OF SAINT PAUL ��n�� F i 1 e #� �is�. Q o'O Application Fee � —/� Tentative Hearing Date — s— 1 App 1 i cat i on i s hereby made for an Appea 1 to the Ci i"I�V l�0(,a 11C►�,,, under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section ,Z� , Par graph of the oning o e to appeal a decision made by the Board o�ng Appeals � Planning Comnission on 'Lt3 , 19�. Zoning Administrator (date of decision) _ Planning Administrator _ Other A. APPELLANT Name Jean M. Kummerow Oaytime phone 33g-8467 Address 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. Zip Code 55104 6. DECISION BEING APPEALED Zoning file name William Mitchell Parkin� Lot Zoning File � I 365 Property Address/Location 865 Summit Avenue Legal description Lots 1 to 30, Block 21, Summit Park Addition C. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Use additional sheets if necessary. ) (Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Comnission.) SEE ATTACHED If you have any questions, please contact: • 0�-`�� App cant's signature St. Paul Zoning Office 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street �� Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102 Dat y agent (298-4154) g�82 �� f , � � ; _ � . :� , ; � , � � � � � � �. G ' , ; i. ' , ( � : .•. _ i i i �' �. � i , . ! . � � � ' � � , � . ��' ° " �0 � s GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OF PROPOSED PARKING LOT ON WILLIAM MITCHELL'S SUHII�IIT AVENUE This is a new site plan because it shows a different location for the parking lot and the library. We are appealing the site plan review because we do not feel an adequate consideration of the requirements of 62. 108 subd. 3 was given. Therefore the City Council should consider those requirements. Particularly, points 3,4, 5,7,9 are inadequately addressed. Specifically 3 . Preservation of historically significant characteristics of the city. - Parking lots as front yards on Summit Avenue, a boulevard nationally recognized for its architecture, are not appropriate uses of land. - The parking lot would be located in a national historic district. - The Summit Avenue Planning Committee opposed the lot as a violation of the plan's goals of preserving the residential environment and making the street a showcase for the city. They argued that the parking lot would be permanent, whereas the parking problem might be a temporary effect of Victoria Crossing's current popularity. It also said that residential permit parking and use of church lots a block or two away would be a better eolution than paving another large parking lot in the neighborhood. 4 . Protection of adjacent neighboring properties for such matters as preservation of views and those aspects of designs which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. - The neighboring land uses are largely residential. Summit Avenue is an avenue of homes not parking lots. This lot substantially alters the residential character and design features of the neighborhood and Summit Avenue. This is particularly true should there be commerical use of the proposed parking lot. - Other institutions in the neighborhood particularly the Summit Avenue Asaembl� of God have indicated long range plans to acquire reeldential propertiee adjaoent to their properties and perhdpe alter them into parking lots es well. This encroachment must stop now. . , ) � � , � � .�, i'��; �� // l. `r�(C)�1,.�� 7 '+ j � .. ... . . �; � � '( r � � � � . . . . �.��.I .. . . . - ... .i + �. :..� . . . . . ; i �. . . . . . . . � . . � .. �_ � . �. �. .. : .: � �i . . . . . .. . .. . .. . ., .� i i ` t 4 4 , ( k ` � � : �� ; � � � � . . ' . � .�.�e . . ." . ��✓� � 5. The arrangements of facilities in order to assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonabley affected. - Residential properties surrounded by parking lots are negatively impacted. There will be an increase in high density lighting, noise, and air pollution due to the parking lot and parking congestion all on one corner of land. - No consideration of the decline of neighboring property values has been given especially recognizing the already high density of existing parking lots in the neighborhood. - St. Paul Tomorrow emphasizes the importance of neighborhood appearance recognizing it as a deciding factor in choosing a neighborhood. Large expaneive parking lots do not enhance the appearance of a neiqhborhood and attract people to settle in a neighborhood. 7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the site and in relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the location and design of entrances and exits. - District 8 requested a comprehensive traffic study which has not been conducted to date. The traffic issue has been addressed in a relatively minor way but ��iiiz not ��-h � substantial study. It is clear the lot would subetantially increase the traffic in one concentrated area, that is increased congestion at Victoria and Summit. There are a number of existing parking lots in the neighborhood which would spread out traffic if used for Mitchell parking. 9. Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls to meet the above objectives. - Landscaping is especially lacking and therefore inadquate on the Victoria side of the property. The - __ proposed lot does not appear to be adequately screened. i � q�:t �,��,' '�L! „� , , �' �r�r< � ,�, � �� -� f . : : s � _ �. : , _ . _ I f. _ . .. . � �. . _ I i ( , � j . : �: i � , _ . . _ _: .. . : _ :: . _. � ; : i : : f ' ��1� �'��k�� J�j�d� ��'.. `�r �.7 {�4hCJ �w�'�{hCr �W � YS�� 1(+IJ C� �i/rvc. � •� +-� . by C� t�r co�hc��I 'ih .Novc►�b� �C'�y` . �►��r r��r� wa� q�P��d ��--�5� Table 4: Adequacy of William Mitchell Parking Duriny Hours of Peak Parking Demand Parking Supply - Three Options Proposed Existing Existing By With Without William St. Paul ' s St. Paul ' s Mitchel�� hurch Lot Church Lot 454 �'' (3�5� 369 299 Ranked Monday 6:30 P.M. Demand (566 spaces) _112 -�� _lg� _26� Peak Hours Monday 7:3U P.M. (505 spaces) -51 - Ilo -136 -2U6 Tuesday 6:30 P.M. (458 spaces) -4 - 6 3 -89 , -159 Thursday 7:30 P.M. (451 spaces) 3 -5 6 _82 -152 Thursday 6:3U P.M. (441 spaces) 13 -�fG -12 -142 Tuesday 7:30 P.M. (426 spaces) 2� -31 -57 -127 Thursday 5:30 P.M. (4U1 spaces) 53 - 6 -32 -102 The current parking supply at William Mitchell-,- even with use- of-the -Saint - Paul 's Church lot, does not come close to meeting Neak parking demand. There is substantial demand for on-street parking along nearby streets on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday evenings. The 295 space parkiny lot proposed by William �4itchell , along with reasonable use of on-street parkiny on Summit Avenue, would supply adequate parking except for William Mitchell 's two peak demand hours on Monday evening. There would be no need for William Mitchell use of any on-street parking in addition to the parking adjacent to the campus except during the seven highest parking demand hours. Since people naturally tend to use parking closest to their destination, students will tend to use the proposed lot before most nearby on-street parkiny (if the campus parking lot is free) . Rather than having to coerce students to park where it is less convenient, they will happily park where it is more convenient. This will reduce the need for the existing permit parking zones and alleviate the need to expand them. The side-effects of massive parking restrictions can be avoided. �^ / r 1 r , 1 f �• lur�.►nq '�PP'� ba:c-c� o�l pv��•�i �:,�, f�1.`�`�cw►�r ot (7od lc'G oNd o4�- �'Lrar �C ��AY�C Y41 �1 e+� C.�(l;til�i. T.� ►�/1 IIIqN'1 I ��l.��r�l �O(� J �. 6G�� m� Qavl�e.� �vo��,I -�� u ��ow�cwfw� IGr9c,,r lo� 3, �a�� o� Pluc, qPprouP� �y P�a�tii►�y C�►r��ss;� ah �h�a�� 2�JS�6 . � 19 , � � ► . . i ` ' � i ; i b ; ;_ , 4 M { �� j � r � , �� ; , � , � � , � �o �(D�� ". The followi�ng table describes two options for supplyiny parking for Victoria Crossing. One option is the existing situation. The other option described includes use of the Saint Paul 's United Church of Christ lot and enlarging the parking lot next to Milton Square on Grand Avenue. Table 11 : Victoria Crossing Parkiny Supply and Demand (Al1 Four Buildinys) Exi•stin9 Proposed Existing Off-Street Parking in Victoria Crossing Lots 228 228 On-Street Parkiny Adjacent to Victoria Crossing Buildings 58 58 Enlarge Milton Square Pa�king Lot on Grand 0 28 Agreement to Use Saint Paul 's Church Lot 89 Parking Supply SUBTOTAL 286 403 Available On-Street Parkiny on Milton and Victoria between Summit and Grand 20 20 One-half of Available On-Street Parkiny on Summit between Chatsworth and Avon 0 65 Parking Supply TUTAL 3U6 488 Victoria Crossiny Peak Parkiny Uemand 633 633 Parking Shortfall -327 -145 About half of the 145 space shortfall under the proposed option could be accommodated on Summit if the parking lot proposed by William Mitchell is constructed. Employees could be encouraged to park on Summit, freeing up spaces closest to Victoria Crossing for customer parking and making it less likely that customers would seek parkiny on Lincoln. With parking on only one side of the street, virtually all of the on-street parkiny on Lincoln between Avon and htilton is needed to meet the parking demand of residents on Lincoln. A couple of large apartment buildings on -� Lincoln that have little or no off-street parking account for the bulk of this demand for on-street parking. The large apa�tment buildings on Grand Avenue, which also have very little off-street parkiny, add to the problem; there is not enouyh on-street parking on Grand Avenue to meet their demand and it spills over onto Lincoln. Any demand for parking on Lincoin generated by Victoria Crossing can quickly result in unreasonable congestion. There are two thinys that can be done to help prevent Victoria Crossing from creating excessive demand for on-street parkiny on nearby streets. Une is to reduce comNetiny demand for on-street parkiny. Summit Avenue is the only place where this is likely to happen, and the parkiny lot proposed by William Mitchell is the mUSt realistic op{�ortunity. The other thiny that can be done is to provide more off-street parking for Victoria Crossing. Expanding the Milton Syuare parkiny lot on Grand is one way to accomplish that, and an agreement to use the Saint Paul ' s Church lot is another. pq 2a � � ,, � � , . '�1; ' � ! f � - i , ; � ' ` l , . , i � . • • • • • • • • � • • • � • • � • • • • • • • • � • • � � • � • • • • • • • • • • • � � �� • • � � , � � • ° • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • � • � ^ � • � • � • • • • • • - • • ■C� . - • ' � � . '' . • • • • • • _ �� ' • • % • - - • • � � • • • • • u � � � • • • • � �, � , '„'' � � � o . d . , a . • __�.._____ � - ,� � • �. � � � . . , � � ,. , � . ��.� � V i_ ' � . , � . � � . . - ------- �i �+ � • � � � • � � � � • • � � ,� • • Cp� � � � � i � • S' � � • • � � • • • • • • • • � • • • • � • f • • • • • 1 � . � • • • � • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • � r . . � • . . . . • . . . � . . • � . . . . . . . . / � ' . , �.,��s� SITE PLAN REVIEW -�s Larry Zange' r 11Q4�.4ity .�tsl.��:�aaox� �^'�� °�,��'�� '!<;�'�;J;�JG DIV. - 4 DATE: 10/16/85 , r.�r��f Sr PA��D SITE PLAN NO: 1028 SITE PLAN DATE: 10/08/85 OCT 2 1 198� NAME: William Mitchell Parking Lot . , ADDRESS: 875 Summit Ave. (north side of Summit between Victoria & Milton) Remarks: Plan is acceptable provided each access driveway is clearly marked as the appropriate one way designation. � The traffic division of the City shall be notified a minimum of one week in adVance of the opening of the new lot as it will be necessary to extend the parking ban on the west side of Victoria from the existing limit to Summit Ave. ACCEPTABLE X UNACCEPTABLE . � (� REVIEWED BY: ` o-'v�. -_ � ' traff c eng neer ng attachment cc: Hartley Thomas 2L I � _ � � � r ; ; ' � � . i ; ; ' .: ` � �� • .1 ��59 C y� tO3 � r CITY OF SAINT P/1UL INTERDEP�IRTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: February 5, 1986 T0: William Mitchell Site Plan File FROM: Larry Soderholm � RE: Traffic Circulation Around William Mitchell Last Friday I spent an hour talking about the William Mitchell Site Plan and traffic in the neighbo�hood with Nancy Tracy. She said the staff had done a nice job of identifying the alternatives for parking locations for William Mitchell but that we had not done a yood analysis of the traffic alternatives. I agreed that the staff would do more detailed work on the traffic circulation. She and I identified a list of possible traffic control measures: (1) Status quo with permit parkiny enforcement; (2) More stop signs on Portland Avenue; (3) One-way streets on Portland Avenue; (4) Curb changes to restrict or channel traffic; (5) Chains across street duriny school szssions; (6) Cul de-sacs on Portland; (7) Minimize access to Portland Avenue from William Mitchell parking lots; (8) Change main entry at William P4itchell to Summit Avenue side; (9) Put a driveway from parking lot onto Summit Avenue directly; (10) Maintain small permit parking district on Portland Avenue between Victoria and Milton for the churches and resident parking on that block; and (11) Traffic control at Summit/Milton intersection especially 4:00 to 6:U0 P.M. weekdays. I ayreed to talk with Bob Roettyer about these alternatives. LS:ss - cc: /�A'llan Torstenson Larry Zangs � �( �-o w ovw ��n, �e �' � . ab�- q, �� " �1�' . x� , . � E � . . Y - . � .. ': �. I i � . � � ; � .. .. ��. � ! I � ... . �� ! .. .� �' , . � f' ' � . .. I . � - ... . � � , I � .. . . . . . .� � ,f , . �. .. � � � . .. . � � ' � . . ._.. '.� I . � , � Z.(II'� �uti�I o� YI�NMir7 st�r��t� � L� �a�cr►utW � r�, lors'b�hso+� J F r��r�c • ' �0�' o+I�s �fr,��c. C �, �o r,/ � �', 5-F,abh�e.) W Q� � F��' (� �EF`r 'r�� L�N ��f� Rt�w �-T Sv o��r �- Vi cTo R t J�- �D � � • (o`�" t,.��l� c o��.��ro�'�'�- ��rc�;L °I- � �r25� ( f �►� �-�v-e- �,, v�� a��iv� w� � � C�,,�,,,. �-. �d- °� V i cfa��a`. • ��t- � ��.5�--� —�c�.wc� �(�..,� w�1I � �— ��..o�� , ,�� ;`� � J �S f ► L T Ia,,�/a,rra� J • t�� v�,�.�,.�S /�,�,,�e�r- o� r / _ _ _p ��. / `6� (.-o�v�' �ov�-�( �`�'�l • c�.1 r(( U'�d�^!'�1�� — G v�i `�Q.u- %� `. `2`�-� "'�J Y�I GL C G( �/v�"''`� ��j� s � �y � c,� � `- p�p ��f�J�t v--�v'S �V'�- '�U w�n( � � � t�.�o�� , �,..-,o,� 7-�,�.. o,,�.�. �� .� �y� , � � • �� Y� c��.e. �� - ��5�� '" S�w��..� t' w i Gl,� �.�--o�� w OJ� �('2w�vl� ��y� ^ '�1 T — w� �- C �� au�w Gl�v-c-C��""' � �� Gl v'ro w c.�J v�� `�'o.� C v-e.e,v� `�- � V�-.Q- � Olw Trv�~� ��v�p✓ � `i J'L�� IL � y �-�.� vj��,fo.��a. -�-s�f, � � �- sl�os`E-e� j a.� � c �-� ss�� i� P • �e.�,"� �v�c.cc.e, �� G�J��ro�s ove� S��-� y� �-v.,,�� i��' � �a�I/�w ��vA cT�� L� � . :. � � � . � , ; � , , ' j , ; �� ; ; � � _ , � R` � - -•� '. �?. . . �---_ - -� A►k� To rs-b�.so►�, � � —- � Z�a� �= ��' POSSIBLE TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES FOR WILLIAM MITCHELL AREA I. No parking on both sides of Victoria and Milton between Summit and the exists/entrances to the new William Mitchell parking lot (sign and paint curbs) . . A. Would reiieve tcaffic congestion before and af.ter classes. B. Would encourage traffic to use Summit rather than Portland. II. Make Portland one-way west between Oxford and Lexington. A. Would keep people from using Portland to get from Lexington to William Mitchell . B. Extra stop signs on Portland would do very little to divert traffic away from Portland. 1. Portland already stops fo� Chatsworth. 2. The narrowness of the street does more than stop signs to divert traffic. III. Mark no parkiny zones 30' from stop signs and 20' from intersections by painting the curbs yellow where no parking zones are not otherwise marked at the corners of Summit and Victoria, Summit and Milton, Portland and Victoria, and Portland and Milton. A. Public Works would bill William Mitchell 10 cents/foot for painting the curbs. - - B. "No Parkiny Here to Corner" siyns could be installed at $60/sign, but signs not necessary because no parking 30' from stop signs and 20' from intersections is general city and state law. IV. Better enforcement of no parking zones and existing permit parking zones by police. A. Reasonably frequent random enforcement would be adequate to get compliance (not necessary to ticket every week) . B. May be possible to deputize people to do parking enforcement (Public Works employees and Police Reserve are deputized to do snow emergency enforcement) . 2s I . i ; . i i � :� _ _- , � ; . . . .. � � .. . , I � � � .�'� - �i � .. i .. '� . .� � I . � �_��' � ',:.I � � ,�. . � � ' - ��.� � �. . 1 i : I � { E N ._ . . f z�. ,� , a z. , ., ��7l�S� � STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEEftS TKANSPORTATIO\ •CIVIL�STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS � LAND SURVEYORS March 19, 1986 Mr. Allan Torstenson DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 25 West Fourth Street St . Paul, Minnesota 55102 . Dear A1 : • We have prepared the following comments in response to questions you raised in your February 13 letter concerning the traffic impact on Victoria at Summit and north of Summit due to the one-way designation of St . Albans and Osceola. In the St . Albans Traffic St�dy, we estimated that ,approximately 1, 600 vehicles per day would be diverted as a result of the one-way designation. We also estimated that about two thirds of this traffic would use Victoria and one third would use Avon. Since then, Avon was designated one way southbound south of Linwood. Consequently, most of � 1, 600 vehicles would be diverted to Victoria and a small number would find other routes . The following analysis assumes that all 1, 600 vehicles per day would divert to Victoria. The attached diagram illustrates the daily and peak hour impact of the diversion of traffic to Victoria. Our estimates show that of the 1, 600 vehicles per day diverted, approximately 840 vehicles would use the Summit/Victoria intersection, but only 390 would continue north on Victoria. The corresponding numbers for the peak period are 100 vehicles per hour at the intersection and 40 vehicles per hour north of Summit. The addition of 100 vehicles per hour at an intersection represent less than two arrivals per minute (or per traffic signal cycle) . 630'fwwclve Oaks Center, 15500 Wayzala Blvd., Wayzata MN 55391 (612) 475-0010 . � . _. - • -_ _ - - -- - -- --_ '. . ._._ - - _. . -i __.. � 1 . . � . . . . .� i i f , � ' � I ; i F I ; I . � � � � _ � � ` � i I j I �y • • . Y w '� D �=��y Mr. Allan Torstenson - 2 - March 19, 1986 It is important to note that with the completion of I-35E with ramps at Grand and downtown, closure of the northbound ramp at St . Clair, and the reopening of the Smith Avenue High Bridge, the number of trips that previously had used St . Albans to reach Dale will decrease significantly. It is our judgement that when these projects are completed, and traffic reroutes itself, the level of traffic diverted to Victoria will decrease. We have enclosed a copy of the St . Albans Traffic Study for your information. If you have any questions on this material, please contact us . Sincerely, STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. J 1 . ��/'l.y l''� � ' Peter A. Fausch, P.E. Vice President PAF:bba , , . Z� . . .. _ � -- (_. ... . . -f ; ; � � . , : ; , ; , � , , - _ : _ � _ � r . . � �' • ., C��-7�s IMPACT OF . ST. ALBANS TRAFFIC DIVERSION Q �_ . . � � 0 � U > 340 5 0 SUMMIT 450 DAILY TRAFFIC DI;VERSION a � � o � � � 40 • 5 SUMMIT 55 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DIVERSION .i'itc:n�t-itc►�c��F:-t•,��.c•�i. ��'. ' I,IINV1111M.IM.1N1111� � I�hl��l'M\'I�IIM� �10 f M(lVC O�4S CIMiEA�ISS00 NA�j�f�el VO w�NN[TpN4• y�MN(SO��517�' 1�111 175�0010 COMMISSION NO. Z� ._ + __ .. __ ., j __..._ _.. _ -- - � I � , � _ � . ; � � , ! � i � � � I , » � C��-�s9 �.�`'T' °';, CITY OF SAINT PAUL o � ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � iii�l lt ii � � �o DIVISION OF PLANNING • �� 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesou,55102 812-292•1577 GEORGE LATIMER % �f,,�- ' MAYOR (� (�(,'t ' V�IjJ� d �"'�� 1'v� , MEMORANDUM C�n��,y� � � {,L��i(,q,U,� 0�` March 21 1986 � DATE: , '�� T0: P1 anni ng Commi ssi on ' � �sPec,a�� 3 G, 3 �i � FROM: Allan Torstenson RE: Response to Memo from Residents of Portland Avenue Reyardiny Proposed William Mitchell Parking Lot The Zoning Committee, at its March 2U meeting, asked staff to prepare a written response to the points made in a memo to David Lanegran from residents • of Portland Avenue between Chatsworth and Milton regarding the proposed William Mitchell parkiny lot. The memo from residents of Portland Avenue is attached. The following staff response corresponds with the numbered main points in their memo. 1. Permit parkiny works best when there is adequate off-street parking nearby. The proposed parking lot would provide a convenient alternative to on-street parking. The proposed parkiny lot, along with on-street parking adjacent to the campus and the Summit Avenue Assembly of God lot used by the college, would provide almost all of the parking needed by William Mitchell ; there would be a demand for a siynificant number of additional parking spaces only two hours per week, from 6:00 to 8:00 on Monday evenings. Permit parking may still be needed on streets closest to the campus, such as the north side of Portland between Victoria and Milton. 2. Staff has recommended that a wrouyht iron fence on a brick base be required if the parking lot is set back only 25 feet from Summit Avenue. The college is unwilliny to construct a wrought iron fence and nas agreed to a greater setback instead. 3.a. In the view of the City Traffic Engineer, Bob Roettger, it is safer and more desirable to have access from Victoria and Milton rather than from Summit Avenue. In addition, access to the lot from Summit may detract from the parkway character of Summit Avenue. 3.b. The City Traffic Engineer does not expect the proposed parking lot to result in a need for a traffic signal at Summit and Milton. He has agreed to monitor conditions at the intersection. He is prepared to install a traffic signal at the intersection if it is needed: if there is excessive delay and congestion at the intersection and people go north on Milton to avoid delay in getting onto Sum�nit. ✓ 3.c. The City Traffic Enyineer plans to ban parking on both sides of Victoria and Milton between the proposed driveways and Summit Avenue in order to provide for Lhe increased turning movements that are likely to occur at those locations. The parking ban will provide space for people making left turns to wait without blocking thru traffic. Z� ! I f � � _ i . � , . _ i . i 1 . � i . � � _ , . i I 1 ! � � ,. � -, � ��-�s�' ✓ 3.d. The alternative location for a new library building on the western portion of the campus would provide a barrier between the present small lot and the new large lot; that may be an advantage of the western alternative. Providing a barrier between the two lots under either alternative may be a condition the Planning Cortmission wishes to impose. The City Traffic Engineer has stated that the narrowness of the street does more than stop signs to divert traffic. Portland already stops for Chatsworth and extra stop signi would do very little to divert traffic away from Portland. ✓ 4. The City Traffic Engineer, Bob Roettger, has reviewed and approved the proposed site plan. He is comfortable with the proposal from a traffic impact stand-point: the lot will not generate more automobile trips to and from the neiyhborhood that already exist. The proposed lot will tend to concentrate traffic somewhat more at the lot's entrances and exists. The Traffic Division will ban parking on both sides of Victoria and Milton between the proposed driveways and Summit in order to provide for the increased turning movements that are likely to occur at those locations. The City Traffic Engineer is prepared to monitor traffic conditions in the area and to take action, such as installation of a traffic signal at Summit and Milton, if needed. AT:ss � � ! , t i � � j _ ;,: . j ` � , � �� ; 4�7 � � � � � �� ,I�� i ' ` � i i + i r ,� . "+ ��5� SITE PLAN REVIEW �� Larr�. Zangs� ��:�.3��..�11 An�?4�,7�� DATE: 12/30/86 SITE PLAN NO: 1365 SITE PLAN DATE: 12/22/86 NAME: William Mitchell College of Law Parking Lot ADDRESS : 875 Summit Avenue (NWC Summit & Victoria) ��' Plan is acceptable provided all compact spaces, as well as the enter and exit only driveways, are clearly marked . There should also be included a painted white line centered on the exit driveway and the appropriate turn arrows . ACCEPTABLE X UNACCEPTABLE -- -.. �� -�.�� ____'_ �__;; ; REVIEWED BY: . _ . . 1�/ _.�_ � �� ,�,, _ � Rober`t L . Hamilton traffic engineering attachment cc : Hartley Thomas 3( � ' � � , � - � ` _ � ( � ; . t ; � ; � � I � - 1 _ ; � 1 I � � I � � � f • I i � . , � �iITY OF SAINT PAUL (i�—��°� '..... OFFICE OF THE CITY COIINCIL � M�bu�u��+e . . �INN�M '== Odte : • March 9, 1987 COMM (TTEE RE PORT TO = Saint PQU I Cifiy Council F R O M = C O ff1 ti1 lt�'�@ O h C i zv Oeve 1 opment and Tr�n:sportat i on CHAIR W i 1 1 i am �. :�i I son . :r 1 . Zoning Priorities (Committee recommends approval ) 2. EnterArise Zone 8 Eond (3N proAertfes) (Committee recommends acArovai ) • 3. Aoa��i�� !!:k.t�ann�ng Comm i a�,a i e�:�c i�f on (4fi►. i�`��°��=,Je�� Kurru�rc�w? =4�flrttte�e �ir�mends aca�� o�.�rercw acpeat ) - --- -- . -- -- `-4-: Apcea 1 of P 1 ann i na Comm i ss i on- - M i dway -- - Coalition - nonco�forming use 1309 -1311 Hewitt - Jonn Wil.son (Moved out of committee without recommendation) - � ?y =-r =� __... > �--= -. • „� - � r • � rn - . �., � _ ,_� . -5 .. ��- �-.j • f ri �...,7 CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL.MINNESOTA 55102 ,�» l: , . � �� -��j - ��°� �. . CITY OF SAINT PAUL �4� 1 �a l ��, OFFICE OF THE CITY A170RNEY 9, �� '' EDWARD P. STARR, CITY ATTORNEY ,;: n�IlillU� •_ • �� `��,��•�;>''� 647 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 5510? 612-298-5121 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR Fl!E� March 24, 1987 .• i:..,, i.,. i + ._ , • .,.,. _., .. Mayor George Latimer Third Floor City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota Dear Mayor Latimer: You have requested advice from the City Attorney concerning the scope of review by the City Council of the appeal from the Planning Commission' s January 23, 1987 action in granting final approval to the site plan for the William Mitchell parking lot at 875 Summit Avenue. Attached is a copy of the Planning Division' s staff report to the City Council , including copies of the Planning Commission' s ' actions and the appeal filed by Jean M. Kummerow. The facts are that the College intends to construct a library addition . to its existing campus , and presented a proposed site plan for Planning Commission review and approval . The Planning Commission, on March 28 , 1986 , approved the site plan and imposed nine conditions , including a condition that a revised site plan which meets these conditions be submitted to the Planning Commission for final approval . The revised site plan was submitted to the Commission, and on January 23 , 1987 it was approved by the Commission. It is from this January 23 , 1987 action that the present appeal is brought to the City Council . The pr.Avision of the Zoning Code which establishes the Council ' s reviewing authority is contained in section 64.206 , which reads as follows: , "64. 206. The city council shall have the power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any fact, pro- cedure or finding made by the planning commission. . . . " The applicant, William Mitchell College of Law, is proposing to construct an off-street parking facility on a portion of its property. A parking lot zn conjunction with the college is a permitted use under the City' s zoning ordinances . The code requi�res that the applicant ' s proposed site plan be submitted _ � . � � ��-�.�9 Mayor George Latimer � Page Two March 24, 1987 to and approved by the Planning Commission, unless such approval is delegated by the Commission to Planning staff (sections 62.103, 62.104 and 62.108) . The Commission considered these nine factors and approved the site plan on March 28, 1986, and imposed nine conditions in approving the site plan. No appeal was taken to the City Council from the March 28 , 1986 Planning action as permitted by section 64.206, and therefore the decision of March 28 , 1986 is not subject to the current appeal . The present appeal deals with the Plannng Commission' s January 23, 1987 determination that the revised site plan meets with and complies with the conditions imposed by the earlier Commission resolution. Therefore , the Council ' s review is limited to examining the January 23 , 1987 Commission action for the purpose of determining whether this action was "an error in any fact, procedure or finding" . The appeal filed by Jean M. Kummerow sets forth the grounds therefor, which are that the Commission did not give "adequate � consideration of the requirements of 62.108 , subd. 3" of the zoning code . It is our opinion that the time to raise these objections was when the Commission reviewed and approved the � site plan on March 28, I986, and that these issues cannot be raised at this time. We agree with the Planning Division' s report to the City Council , wherein it is stated: 7 , To be strictly legal , the Planning Commission' s ` decision can be appealed only on the following � grounds: a. That the December 1986 site plan is a new plan, not a revision of the March ' 1�86 plans , or b. That the December 1986 site plan does ' not meet the conditions listed by the ' Planning Commission on their March 1986 site plan approval . The original decision of the Planning Commission to approve a parking lot for William Mitchell if it met certain conditions was made in March 1986. The Zoning Code requires that appeals of Planning Commission actions must be made within 15 days. , The appeal period for the Planning Commission site plan approval expired in April 1986. There- fore, the appeal can not be based on the question _ . . � , . � � �►-�� . Mayor George Latimer Page Three March 24, 1987 of whether a parking lot is permitted at William Mitchell , but rather on whether the Planning Com- mission erred in its decision that the site plan it reviewed in January 1987 meets all the con- ditions required by its March 28, 1986 resolution. In conclusion, the applicant William Mitchell College of Law may l.egally use its property for off-street parking purposes as that is a permitted use under the City' s zoning ordinances. The issues before the City Council are : 1 ) Whether the Pl.anning Commission committed an error in any fact, procedure or finding when the Commission decided that the revised plan submitted in December of 1986 was not a new plan, but was merely a revised plan; or 2) Whether the Planning Comrnission committed an error in any fact, procedure or finding when the Commission decided that the revised plan ' met with the conditions set forth in the March 28, 1985 Commission resolution No. 86-21 . Yo s very truly, ` � , J ME J. GAL As� stan City Attorney S :cg � Enci . cc : Councilmembers � �ity Clerk .�y� .ti u � �'� �: -c �� a �� n a �,� .' _ �; .A?- �. : °� z ti° �*1��. �.a�'d�r ��4 '�`� - y� !� � � � C+d��'��<jf� �„ � ;?� Q .: `ir g 3 �Jj L '� 't.' � e � ,1N 1 ,r �.:. r( t �1l� � j� f s :��3 Y_g ,, � �^' �� r'r.;' � �` � ' s a°�« 'S,. _ r i t x r� '' o „r` t �t� «� � f p )3; �'� (�s �� X� ' 1 ". r*. rJ � ,��.� o {k � �.' � { �. r�,�,rE, t�1 ; ,�. ° .,�Sr��"'�� Y�.'� �x i.xf' �:S df' ,� � iF � � X �,� i} • �` � J i * '- �(' #v`�4 �t y"z�:. ; ` � � t � .ES f�' rc ,�� p�',� § `~� � , s 9 t r ' ` { 1,,� �, .- - i�f �, F "� �i' f � �. ; � ' .�. �� .-��' >;h,t� . .:: ✓ � F 1 � .:y G �: 5 1 1 . ✓ ^' '' K t�,�� . F j f . V " ' '-�� Nf r � {y �r� s�� `° tifr �'*� d'.. � t •( •� ,'��t t '��. f ,/ '?�i� `r � } � �t A :\ '"� ' V ("',✓ f �i'.� '� 't f F ` ,� �^i i �� 7 , '� •. F ! � ! l � � '7 1' ,� � i , ° r.f x� . 2:�- � : � � i'� i t�� i 5 � �.:f � �. -� ,�,: r i �� '�a_Y� 1' - � �:. � f t � a• � {•.- 1 -� �� 1� � � y S�; F� �,,e F, �_ r � �.-1 ....I f N` L"`` ' �� ' r'�wv�S�,� , � ".( r�l.: 3s; �s � a � � t t k "\ /� t � �''; t t z � ,. � ti � _, a � ., ''�a � � �' � ,~ / s A k � �.. �� x � : � ; � ��4,r c' aKw_ � (,'F I� �,y�{ � � � �N�a �^ �, 1 n,f`f �� S h ,Y j � , i b' X ,�y a 1'�y�:. �.� r �. ' i � s �b. � A _��' .,' ,� � as�? �" 5 F � 1 7 � , r;� � . �',+.., ,.` '"' t.=..� 1 'S:: � ,i .: i { l :`� � �� .r � ., � +�:.�c ,n; $f x '+/ " "` . �. r �� i� -,: � :� �-`� 'i �. _�E � r ��" 'S i g f t .�' � `/ r tr �,•}J i t,I,�'� y � � �'� 4..t� y� `x �\� � '.'*� �:.fdr V £ f - .. � .1 � i i= s � 4.. �, j�' Y` � +- � f . fc: a +t5��. : � . `�`t $" �� '�� c ;:� �; > :fl �!� �Y� -� . f:�- ,�� 1 s . � � � y^` �. .f {' �.' '1. #;Y `�" "��' � k � � k +° r � � r �' � . � •. ,�'�" \ 4 ' r ,� � - .:� ,ai _ � �n ' i c , � �,+j � ��Jr �� t ' � r � � :- r� t$e•^ ��1 rF � `` ' 'w*�+`��,�� . � J} ` .r ,t', ��y �k z �- � �,`� ^yd ij '� � y� �� a°' ��s �� rs�q r.� �„� t F �t<� � ,q� .. � � �� t '+� � �� N� �� 1f� � �� ,f �- Y. y' �� %�Py �� i J�` � / K �i -� > "�4-i 4 � t �i�� k t �� F �e; � � +�e � � � '� , f'` : . F4 z y, � � r ��iGl�� 't� k �` '' �-' � � � '' `" -� .`i. �'�f�l��t c � �:'�` �^ 9 w �; �- � r,;:J '� k ."� fr ,�,� �: e �.; I � < r �''.. F u \..t W � k' � '�� ,� f .�` s t` a' �, d X � y.. �� S . � t �f_. 5 �,� / t ; A . � -' S : t�E' �; �L�/ �' c:: i y:_ 7 � wtY '�.� � '� v� t ,M { r �. t '. }�4� �� _ �3v 4" '� ) t '2 . � r F i V F :. l �., . 9 i �} r � b '�- s� � �e � Y�-. J 3 � .i �� fb 7' ^Y �6 ry : �' ,d, .i x ) '�� 'V . ; � �� r ` S � r , ( ,��,�y r� i Y 7 � ��` �`� ''V '"� � �'A�A�j4�'� - r - � �.- ✓: � � '-� !, .4 1 r �: . 4 .'� t 4 ... � �' `C,��'��5 !� � ` � �.�'��.� �� J �\rt r "� �� N� �� ::� �) �>' �r �$ ~�� / .:;1 � i- E , � ...i��l�� '�-.` �� r '41 .N � �+ �r:. 'f, x _� ttii �i� t k W � �� 7' \ ��i��4�, _� '1��.4 ��"�� `�:� : � la° a� -�'h°"� e (� � `� � ��y,� t � � r: + �� . .. ��..�� C��`r � � / ` :�' A �r � � :�� y�M4 ,�i ��Y��'' �+�� . �:A�� -�t �i .. � 'r�i ,�\ ;{Y`�� :a k ` � ��tkt .�r* �k " ° r !_'°' {"� �':.^ �:, �.f+' x 'a'� � �S ,l �\� + .�dKna t s �, � ip S eu <l '' i ' ,�� ,�/' k ,� � 5 r � � \\ 1. ' t �'"Z ,�Y '� � � V 4 � �� ._ 1 .^`„ a� , " t � � r ~ 7 � ��..sy �� "' r" -r r �� 1 ��- p �,� 1� Y�t � �'. � t ,' �? �q V 't< +�` � �� ' "vF��s �c�� - � �'%' � ,,�. `�-h p' �t' n r ; r !J`r� ' 4 -� .f+�+w � :. �N� �. t .` � �� I ' ✓`, v , � �� r � ti. ' � d t i � � �.c '�:� -. . � �. . .s- �d 1 � ' \ :"'� N 2 t�'�., � 1 z� i �, ^T � .a' r, i ! �� ✓ `h .l`'� t L.�'I z,,1 x �:� E - � � � ° y � �t �' r i �- .�^ .; ;'Y � � / ak �� ?� **r i ��.� ' 1'��` �� ''� :�� r { �,� � � � � �i / ; '�'. � � ..-��"' ��6�� .t � �'f � M ' 1� ��r � +ib :,�ia� �k � 9�� r .i T ��.'� s, s ti.�� .,� s �t�� '�_� K y ti�: � �, �� ,�: � =)�. r� � L. 4'� �o. Yr �� .� / ,-. � .� � � � i a z+ �.7f �' �� .J .ir� .�. � -ix i� �' � �`� ��`" �� D �?�b f " i�' n n-� � \� ��;. �� 1 - ��. :l"Qt�{� .�:}3�, +c. �, /' � _I s r � A #�f r .. � �_ � Z . '� t �. '� �5 T,. ' : _ .��. � �� +. f \ ,.r ,;; �` uf � !' 'Tl-. �d ap' �s �� t:, ,� � -�t � -_s�J -�. .� � �`� y\z.� �' ��,(" v�• ;� ��y 1 -"rY !:� {i : �.. r }' ��'� .�. � '` t .`� Y �.� '1 r �1, ! r � r'; � ��:j� �` � � >> �txY '�-6 {;� Y� � - �� R � � .:S k; 1 �' � `t� y,,. 'q*Y ::�! .� '{„� � _ -,4 -t:ti r F . � a,, S � ,. �' ; � `3� �} ' x! { �'. k � ! \'�S ...� :i w �`{ �. 'C �y.:v x s-t y''� t: v`C , '`�i i I r;�L/ �.i 1 S � a"� r �� r s x { ,.a. �` � ^k 1 ' � � :^{f t z'1 �J`Y i , � ti � � f,".. t� ; a � �� a '� a� � � -�t ` i r . e ; r J ..� : � ' r ' � f . x � "".� �i� '� �n� ° (�`'' a q � r`r \ r" ,� � ��+� o � �+ � � g�7 �„ � '"`� t .4 >�' ' , t 'x }9 a s� T � �� :i - 1� ` �' � ,. ," y �'' � W �..- �+ ,J i .,.; Ir'.. 'w � / � � 1 '., - r � � r �' j M1'. � ; �. ,� , • � � �3 '� 3 � � 1l =-� � � '� . � 'S; �k � � � Y: -i ��>l �Tf ''i °-�/ � _';� � �8 � t ti,J% �.� �;� ;, 5 �t:w � ; � � k �„�, . � ,�, ; , y � -�� , , � '�,� �,° K',t e r 'y '�ti �'�\ ..' � �� r ,.� �, �� 3 1��_. 'f ?�{ � ''.• x y � �. E� ' �,- t�. � � i ' �'� �s _ � �'. � F �t1: � 4 ' ,�.,, :.;� < � .M1 y� ; � + '�` f r�'° �i � �' `` t-` i� a f' 'i�f � �.� x�� o �. F r , r ,,< �'{ / r 7•'l �� r� � � �n . <,i, f - � . ka�. } 7 ;d � � ' � � �l . .' 1� �'- r � ; . � .� 4� '��` % t , �` _ ,� ' §4 � :1 { � i y. � : 1�, � �� ` r -r ` �*.��: . �� `� r -"-C � 3 �. � �`F � z *�� =A `-� a + 1 ` L� �:'x� a 4. r� x �f � a � � � �' �u,. ' i :-c, � T ��- i � ' } �� l �'t`,;1 !r , 3 � � ="1�`a� '� ':- `� �' 71 t ti q.r�'. .. '� � �� t �^"at ;��",� � �., t .. �; # {.. �'+a tp P'Y� <. "t r� � M lif "'� '�.� t'. , `�. � r w bN Y �r.+ '�i �� r l r �y 1 -�`s �-� ��ti:.�' '�. �� , � �� r5��,�r _,� �'�t� � . � .:. S} . . vrt'_;ti i a?s w�1 �!�'" t _ �. � - t n � 1 ��. � i = � �� ) �a - i� . y � '�y� � ':y� , d'�} F i � r � ��. "�� -`�k . �' � 'k � �� i l�E 'Y' � / �d�a° ^A �, �� t v -� �� T ly�:: f,, r �'y�i� r: � ��., , y.. �.d � h,�.' �� _ � t ;:/i u�� , �a,. �' . -".�� ) 1 . _ : x � � l :o t '' � � ` '�a w *:...."� ��a��. Y' * �-� ,.Y � ) �.. L r : .1 � "f c 4:.- -��.1�.- 1 '"; ' t • . h � _. ; . I ' � � �yQ� � �.i � : r�-, ( . ' , ' � °R `� a / ?4 �� .�e � �� .: �/ � , �t .� i �.r*,-+ .` a a rFC ; �. xi� _, r^ _ t;•.' : ka . i +�� f I `�v c}�'y; x� x`'. �� i`. v ; � � ��T / *`�'i +�� n� '��. � � � � � v✓tC-�� .� t � �.N y ��' � - "' :�� 's'^C , �,. � � , ; � -'' `b =9 �.i � , �:r " � � �?,�' '� � a ;� , A 7h ' � �"- 1 :i w'� t' �`�+ic � �:`y t F' xl , � � x!k !1" �t � �" � '+�'� z"1 1 /` ` ,�.� 7 '� � �� r .` �. �' _ ati �� '� � ��v � � � r �� e. -'��. '. r . r '�� . A t� , �. `. � 6 . . '4 .�'� � r . ,� � • ; : ,� t �,� � 1 �S :� � � 2k ��< < � 'q[4 � � :: ,� �,� ., 1 � .,�. --u �. � �.y a' x� �� °,r 3, � �_ ,,� � te r�`L J ti � 1 `� '�'E . t � � � � � �A � ° ro I 'e' q � } > i 71Y4r'�A't � A a �'��` �.s � � � :� � � .� k ��y.."x � `� ��.. ; F�,n �,�'� �m� ., ,i„�,t .'`� 3:. �1 �' i + !{ '�1 � -�' t �k 1 ;T � - . 4.' ,i ':�� }i t� `�'': '�r :�f.�-f� t `l .Y�-�� s s �•l � .. � �� w i �L ��. 1 �.;. �17ats/ ! . a :� �. � 1 r� ,S �'1'i 'h �jiK; ""e � y� r a . t , � �'� ! ' r '�4x a�„ : , � � \ � � '' '�.r i� "z� � - �� .7 "`Y ) i F �1 � .. 7 ) � i y.� _ i �� . � �. �,� �,� y1 . � � ., �; �� . a F . ti � J � r �t �"k yy� �h. �AY...�Fv' . .:: .. ..:��`. . .tiA_e - .�.' h3'+'.:-� „..:_rf n ( ... ��! . •.......�.i ... .i� .JiI.�.�V:A._,4 , ...c _ ... a... �.t`�r��v;1: /. .. ti.w.3 r= �- ... ...1 i:: � p x �C " �m°d ` �s r � - � , a ^ � " S a" . { a�.� ': y 14y .; �''y+ � ' { 4P �k'# .. i ' � r f t � i �. .� '�#i � � �f� c e'�: �) � . � l �/�.'�I . S� Z � i� 1( .y}` '�A �r { 7 - i- � 1 , tM:�f,�i ! �' a r A 2 " �'"a��G :; �'� .}�,�k x'.�� .� � � � � _ !�'1 K �.� °b�� F�;t �` �`� '� �{� ��r 4 ^ F �:{�M��; \+�� \ ( j, '�� r �i>:��„�4�.j. ��r r 3'.��f � ��\ xr�J k `f a .*tiY.... t ' � � ,i .? r � �� ' t , r.... � ^ .��_ 1 r ,;, �� t :-{t�3 �f�Jt� �k� Y F'. h� px:.� F , � .� ; ; � 1� x g e � t.a i �; t ��t ''t � �e' �, v�sa S � . �pya� IA,4 �5- �� .' .� r: � ' 4 � ,� A .�� , , ' +- s�'.e vd t 'F�a°r e bt �3 � , . � °� � � / � �y�sy'' . 5 . �. Y �� ✓ � I � . y , �k t �` �� i � t � R,� � r �.l��' � � � .� � � � N f '' ' �� d . �'� , � �, r , .� 4 � o� v „� % � i 'r ,, � -+ �1 � � � '1,` r, r7 q a s , 11 '4. . r) '�` �t e � r � �.i 'I ]i.�� +%' � � �� I�' � ��' �. ' � !q 3��uj � ; 1 3� �� fr � � .k r . + r � � ��, '� .��C 1� �" � � ( '�:� *#H� W }�y y t t �� C a� �" � � d t 1 � i?� � . } _ � ' f� j- �F '�t i- 1� s t r ? � 1 ,.� f' �� f h ,�" t ��,a � � .r ,r � � � � '. ��a k x ,,� R � � _+rJ' L t � ] � ti�t , 4 t ,. � . x�.� � fr a � ' ' � t `"a�+-�[t��` �'�� ;� �� ( '� l � �, ''�4 �Y ,{ � � � �'4� : �' t `4 n'L�r ��/�' r �d } 'r� � ''� s;f �" +``'9 Y �" ,y.`r h. ,4� 1 y r .,7 t ��x a �j .a r �i� . 1 tJ E . � � "� �' . ��. �"�{'J f+At � .. ! � �. � F� r n 3 �� . li� �.gt '�:V n r Y t ��:t t � 't � � ��`.y�• y �'f�,�iA! �� ti �Y� ,y�4,p S y .�V-(1?� � f{� ': �� a Sr '{ 1 �M , d } ti .- �' �� °� f .r d �,� 7 � � � t ��}�'a�, �� ' r f.l�'-: .',�` ��- ` �, � � i � + �' $i .:A a.,�t1' 1 , ,;� � :� ts�� ,@,�Z � ��} \`�� yM�z,��,�it; �� ti n� .}.' rr i A �.�� , _�f � { � N, J �� x�� ,y. f . 1 a� -_. s �4 j,,.j F � �� I l'. 1 t ��k � t � - �V�'F�u � Y�.� f �� y t"Y� � �+ .ti l�n�,. �'� � " '" a .y , �� Ke'�1 1 .l -:,� r"�,ni:,. +°��;/'t �'{ i�� f .�':�+,.✓�; k t � � .�_r 17�� 1 � � � : r� � y�n � . �r � � �� i r!1 � � ��T c.: � t � i�� '�� ;1 a '.� F 3 � � k d� ��,4 f � � S i,( �` @��" f. �; �r � �� f - Ik i � � � � � � ��J � - j{1 s t l., o � u, i �� ! �'� � i ..,��r , v ) y � i � � , � �� t �, �. �� i��,} , ��.�,� , �� d' + ; ,-- ''7� �� q �,�a � i'r a .�s r �. � -�< i � �,�`�t ` S � �t '�. � � , '�: � .�r �� -� ':� �b�.;,. �. ! Q ' � � � 1` r �, � , a i � o � a <l� r j �� f �� °' `�; }r r�' ��ti � t � 'v�. «�,E .� �h �r a.. � °,�� r a, �.., f lr '�� y � ..�. . k � }.� i f�� "' � �.. ��] 1y i �H :x f + y� i �� i� i Y.� � � , ��' � � � Y� 1 ,f ty, � � f:f F 5 k � ' � r , � •t��. � �1' E '�� k d `i�i X �' j a r�! s' - f „ } �,. � a � �k i r " '��? � 1��,� g w�� 1 j � � lr.� T p � r r �� -g��F r ir � _ �7f�1�� iilff � �.�,� �' L � �� ,� - ..i a 1 'k�� t �j f rr e 1 �3� � ' '1 f F i�1.+L[� ��Y,'�,-�� i;� r . � y'' -t v � ._ i ,��a : `"� \t ' t.+ fi � � ; f� 4�� f'1 , u , J '� # i v � r a� w - r.K � - �.�;� -� � ��- � � :: � r � �i ' � �.t ' �- a.�� I ;�{s y�' Y1L � + -i ,.� � L �.i / + � " > `! � �ii / j z � . � - ft t t F:.� �` �, Z � .j�,; � f �` � 7 �, i I �, � �. �. r�G s ,k �t � "��{ �� k�� '�� 1 1 .;� ' f �.� �s � r 9' �� 5; l . � d 3 s�F:{ � �'� �°� �, n i � � '7s��' c � ' �''l.wt �' t�. d �'� �� r � '� �;4� � '�r' �. { ,' r ";� , � ., .a i . _ a , � r,4�'�t�5�•�.: �, � ,� � ��r k � � , �4 i i� � .r�t ��,'f'"� '�� '� , `�,�, p v � s i � ��t v�^,d� .'. �1 �c. '`,.: F �•.� \ } 5 R r '. s r v 1 i � Y.. ♦ ..' ,,' � i i.S f _ ^ ;. r L 4 .Ki 7 fi� � �I} i � r i �,. �� '_�.t �; ��r� . r � ' , - k �� '� 1 ' .�'��'�" �.��``�,�c� � ' �� +�V�.,� ° r �`' �,t ; �� r �d,�� :r v1 � ��;,q� � ��`,�p; �':. .. ��iasrt ; �� I�`�► ,��:, , �, , �;. � �', y�� . y� , . ''�?� ,, �� i � � `, ' +.�`i''�—'w;:"5��r�e� i�""�� ,,�.��a �F�. � +4 a�� ;-`,��x�:r ,t� � r?t f S��N`� '� y� " � ' k ' x � V� �:: �� f .��> + 1.: � ` i Y' . J ' ;�A �� ) %7 i.'��'�v y��i,a �t +" �� ..i �� - ,� � . . � .� � ��,77� rir�� t �/ ��1 t. � i �-.. > ,.r t _ p.f! �- ,� ti.� �t- � '�:: �' -I / 2,P � F y �> v � . r �r1 q� i �� . ��s �. � r t 'Y� 3 3 �i a'��. v � .,, .f- ��y�. � .. !�. y"� y a�. +L ?t' � x�1 '� i �-r c � � +��-� `�( 1Y i '� ,�� '�, !`` r. t` t,. ;� � .� �;.', � S � � t ,� . f r:�:w� (. �;.t t a�..r t� ti � �� € ��l�, �',"��: � �� A � y ,� y;'� f 1 l}:� `' Yy',�,fi * . � � ./ 5 �:h .SZ; �� :. � � I , ) :.� '�� `i� � � �. Y -1{ t , �, .:1 '� 1. � d .: i � ..� � �. � �f,11 � �� T v , :r �� -,� .� �� '7`.� x� �� 1 �� { � ,�, /� � � � � "'� � � �� t �r��` � " ° � r:.- a /J � .� � �� > , � '� �-� �d X ��>l � ' '�y � s�� f�� „F.�� : � � " swq�,� �r' �i �� ,.k�A�ii�±t�,n�,�''�,�G3i'_ �r << y�� . � t-� � � .. � .d ,�i�� f"�.� � �'. � � ��'K ;,� � �. pa 1� �F � i 1' ��►'�`�i�s' .:i�f "r 1 � F � i �" ;' � � �� .� < (it; x? a,""F �: ; � r 7 � � � F47,� � . , � � r ' i „ r � a 1 �'F i ,�. �; d.-`3 } - � ;i. ! �,�'� p S' +, _ � �F .' i� � �w � � � • - �r ,�, �;y �� ,�� _y . � � �� q� �;��: t," �. .� 1' i s �_ '� " •+ ;s �f'� � .��,y4�' ��f 4 � .IP i6 G� �"�{ _ � �� , .. � �'. . �� i •s_r x - r .x v. A � \ �� s {' a : = 5 V+� Y t , �Irb,� 1 £ �� +1'! :C�., �1 i � { . � •t � .. } ��( � 1 j .� �A �' �,'e � a ,.' � /- ` � � , � � r` � r ��, U. l�. f .`�- �-�.� �d � �' i i A a �. �-� , ;a��, t�h..�� :�_�j 2 � �F� : '' °- ��j �' 7� ��" �:� � �l � � ir • r � t ,j��t� j� j : �,E � . �`�,� �_� �� fia�b r�, �' l ti . �(1 � i:. ��t � . i{ 3_'i .� 4 i �( i � , ,� i,� � �} - ,�� ''� 1� ,Y y . � � k��g* : � dq � � w �' tw .' ay�� ' � �� ,. /� ;�. 'P, ��'}�� `l' 7 � = �� / � '� � � ;�� t 1 �p � .� � �� 'r t° � �'+ 4y ' 7� Y' � ,�� F��-` � ;.r 1 F� �X. � � ` � .+a✓ � � �� : S . �'L+. v � r 1 l :I ` ' 1 j� �: . �. . .'�"� ;d�f � � �r�� Z a .�� , �ti t _� � ,: � � , .,� �. r ,�: ��,�z � �� , � ; � ��< , � � � � .z� { � 4 �� t � r ° 1 1. � e � � r ' - i ' . r � + I �'� ' �.�� , _ . ` �'�; ; k ,. . 7 i a `:� n � 'w. !�+ � - ��t r � .� C �.� 'tir� �' AL '` � �� y� ry w � � � ' 1� 'i � r I �t? � �� s J' f y � . , .y j . ; � � % �.� x �'E t t ' ,y� ' . � i� . � r X�.�, +�, ��? � ;r �� C 1T^� fi .} ti �� J� ��n � � � r � � � r i� "kt '� �_. � '� ,� �� t � �� d � - J ; ,� - { t�� , +a , � r t n ��,F ��: �r! � y d "��y, y r, � ; u �� ' r y� k y � i�� ,� .,�� l� �� ,� ; �d �` t � 1 -� ,� �� i � � '��f T f�' � � r 1 r ' � � � �_� y �� $ , x '�JF Lr 8 d a ,•� � � � j{ i�1; � � a� ��.1 e.`�!� y x � � r y�. y�� [�j r r �� .t�- �tk �ka �i •. �k .j` �c� �'( i ,: � -< � � � ' . + `ti i �,� < . +. �� ; �r 1 "� a. • 1l 1 � � ,y` �y- y' +� n 4 k �.F � i Y� � � y . r � �- 1"� 1 � Y�a t 1 � �' �> �^. , a I:;� '� ? ��*t � �� y ��, �4 � '�x � y � sr,�3�' 1 ' ,. t, � � � 9 � a'i � . 7 f v �,�:( j�,�, � � � F - ., .�� , t Y '� / � 1, � .�� -� Ik ;i,�r ; � §�, a� � .z. t k� �� r .�' � . � � f i h i ':-t i :/ �! � } /" . � ; t t , .� s a:�• t ti�ti i , k �J � �� : � � .\ { ,�F a�. 7 �� ' r � : � r� o ' r � � 4.,t {e-+'ir�� J � y4r � Y .� � r :� �� x�r �. r r �i•t' k, i �. ` '.r i" �.�. �'�� . � .�' � h- : � � a � tJ-. �� , .,.;t , � S� ` k s � �' � '� �� '�; , � � - t � ��.�, _� �'} ,� . �,i.� vl t '�a � 1� i ✓ r ( ; �rf�� i 5�;, , �- c ` � . 4-i ��r >`� � :i ydi �ij ;�y >?. . � �� ` r I _ �.I ?�, ,r� t��;�° '*+i .� :�t �'''�-" y;. '�„� , , _� J :,p `4 k w � �, � 1 . . ^ .; \ ,. y{�� + 4= t�p .. A � , 4�� t �c 3 ,�� ir -��' � ;l t :t �' k��r. � � �� ! i�. ,�j � r 1, r�( �� r� '� .. �i � . _ l . !' •/# � 1 � t Y - : �� . 3� � � � �� 1 h .� s.e� �' j,� 34 � � ��,1 'KV � _ � �y- �,� .� q ��s �,-�, � �yl 4 ` ��j�r. , \ � 4 , b'�'n 'w�:�e '��✓Y .w.51'�};„ �, � �..A � F � �� : � i . %?,� t . r z'.� f`� '�� p } ' � �. p i � , �{ '�` �t -�:�f �� .-t C a '�7 i � t i � '� d .�t '� wx / ' � � � �� t � ',� :r � � L.� �,�,.. l � ..y,. � ��'1� y �� t } ' r�" F�� r� { �:W �r � ,': � k._ � �� , 7 a� _ i a ' � , y �re i . > � £., q� � Y � �r � E��'i._ yac��'�a�' r -_ k �� r td �yk 'l � � .�� -Z. �'� �'� � �� i � "� � �� la��: t�' �� v '��-a� r 1 � 't � lt%�; F� - 1 x.. 1 tx � ? i . i �C�' � �3 r��, � � d's} : � � ��i �.s+ 3�< rf 1 � f �i � ��- i �� 3� w�, �y� ��Sr y'�� .7� (�.`, �'� � �� . � ��. ��y�' j ,-v �,� r� s�'• F �.� � � i= �,,.,7 . �:- i' �t u .�� 4 � /�{:.j :� ..?� � �'��X� }��"� ! � (,� � �^` ��i'�S � �L�' " � � :4 d r, t�%jj � '��' ,� .' i �� . t :� '�✓ _ � ��.,` � _ � d;�� t r � f eJ `;� � s 3 f �� 1 r f;t � r R4 + _ 1^' .,) ,� �t� t nt ,��'x;" }S� K - f��'� y�.� � � i� _.. $ 3- �. � S5j �� , ?.'�y � k' 3� � Y }t � �e�,, l ' y y� ��Y � .-� 4 � ��C� „1. q ;g t} r,r- 1 �'�a :�� a .� :i� e z �. � � i �' �g`�'�t ". ''� ��^r + 'S � .'� ��; ..v �.z 7,�e .��?�.��2�'._�'.a�a,.s::�../FrE�� . , _ ,u;��. �':�'� .. ...�..,..,...�,�..i.�. �.�ii;�_oA�:, '� � .....`;�tt .�'�e� .asa3�..i�!.p� '... �4��a�. .� . � ��t/� �- �-��' __ -+�,�, �"^^� �"�^� "�-J �� . G%� 1C��1 . � �C�� C� D�t�� s�Pporzt' t� !�� I s�^w V 4 . .. . �� wl «�.�►�vh� � .��C� . . �10�y'�.�j� �'44�, .Q,�•� P �6� � . � .�.�� e-vv� w�:�• i� s 2� � . r�� . � ' «- ' ��{�l� T`-��ll�t'� . , , t , ��**o, GITY OF SAINT PAUL ��' ` `��'�—��' .~ '; OFFICE OF THE MAYOR -,';j ,,�, r IIII,I�I'u c ' � 347 CITY HALL "'� SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102 GEORGE LATIMER (612) 298-4323 MAYOR - April 2, 1987 Council President Victor Tedesco and City Council Members Seventh Floor City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55].02 Dear President Tedesco and Members of the Council: I support the proposal of William Mitchell College of Law to build a new law library and parking lot. As -you know, the Planning Commission approved a � revised site plan for the library and parking in January. Some neighbors appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council and your public ' hearing on the matter is set for April 9, 1987. The community has not come to a consensus on this parking proposal despite sincere and protracted efforts by many people. I have received correspondence and heard arguments from both sides. I want to explain my position to you. My decision to support the college is based on three considerations: 1. Consistency of citywide policy toward colleges; 2. Clear need for William Mitchell parking and the design quality of the proposed lot; a�d . 3. Scope of the legal question before the City Council. Let me discuss each point in order. Consistent Polic,y Toward Colleges Saint Paul is blessed with ten colleges that attract many young people to our city, contribute to our economy, and enrich our community culturally. We all subscribe to the value of higher education for our city and our society. We want our colleges to be successful and recognized institutions. But, as City officials, we also subscribe to the value of neighborhood preservation. When these deep values come into competition, we are faced with difficult decisions. On land use matters� City government plays a major role in finding the right balance between higher education and rieighborhood preservation. I think we can play our role best by establishing ordinances and ground rules in advance so that conflicts can be managed fairly as they arise. ��N . , City Council � a 7��J`� April 2, 1987 -- - Page Two � ' In February, 1986 the City Council� with the Planning Commission and my recommendations, adopted the College Zoning Study to revise our off-street parking requirements for colleges and make them enforceable through special � condition use permits under zoning. At St. Thomas and other colleges� the City is requiring colleges to meet off-street parking standards by bui.lding lots and moving cars off the streets. At William Mitchell, if this parking lot � proposal is denied, the City would be forcing them to do the opposite -- to move cars from parking lots onto the streets. I don't think it is reasonable for the City to apply zoning standards one way at St. Thomas and the opposite � way at William Mitchell. The College Zoning Study set sound policy to reduce college parking spillover into neighborhoods and the City should stick with the . policy. In September, 1986 the City Council, with the Planning Commission and my recommendations, adopted the Summit Avenue Plan as a chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan recommends that the City grant permits allowing the William Mitchell parking lot provided that extraordinary setback and landscape requirements are met. The Planning Commission determined that the lot was "both a �practical solution to an area parking problem and fully within the legal rights of the college." It is true that the Summit Avenue Planning Committee had opposed the lot in their draft of the plan. However, the Planning Commission chose the position of the Grand Avenue Task Force, which had recommended in favor of the lot, and flagged the Planning Commission's position very clearly in the Summit Avenue Plan they submitted to the City Council. In November, 1986 the City Council, again with the Planning Commission and my . recommendations, approved the Grand Avenue Parking Task Force Recommendations. The report supported construction of the parking lot by William Mitchell and the reversion of the St. Paul's Church lot to shared commercial use to relieve � some of the parking spillover south of Grand Avenue. Thus, the City adopted three separate policy documents last year encouraging William Mitchell to build the lot that is now before you on appeal. Pro�osed Parkin� Lot: Need and Desi�n Everyone who drives on Summit Avenue in the evening knows that three blocks are parked on both sides with William Mitchell students. The Grand Avenue Parking Task Force, which studied the William Mitchell-Victoria Crossing area in detail, found that the college has peak demands for 550 spaces and routine demands for 400 spaces. Currently, the college has 300 spaces in their own lot, the Assembly of God lot, the St. Paul's Church lot, and on-street spaces adjacent to the campus. So, the college is currently deficient by 100 spaces most evenings and by 250 spaces at peak hours. The parking situation will grow worse. The library will displace 69 spaces from the existing on-campus lot. The Zoning Code requires the college to . replace these. In addition, the St. Paul's Church lot, which has 70 spaces, is , used on a short-term lease, and the Grand Avenue Parking Task Force recommended that this lot reaert to commercial use. • City Council � ��_�s� April 2, 1987 Page Three The zoning staff tells me that the lot the college proposes to build is as carefully designed as any lot they have ever reviewed. The new lot has only slightly more frontage on Summit Avenue than the existing lot where the library will be built. The new lot is depressed two feet and is screened frorn Summit by a gradual berm and a hedge and has evergreen trees at the corners. There are trees in the lot and trees around the lot. The lawn area in front of the parking lot is just as big as the lawns east of Victoria; the lawn in front of the library is bigger than the lawns west of Milton. I conclude, that the lot i� needed and is designed to be acceptable on Summit Avenue. When the plans are built, William Mitchell will make a stronger contribution to Summit Avenue than it does today. Le�al Scope I asked Jerry Segal in the City Attorney's office to clarify for me ,just exactly what question, legally, is before the City Council. His letter is attached. He first makes the broad, simple point that William Mitchell may legally use their property for a parking lot because it is a permitted use � under the Zoning Code. He goes on to make a more technical legal point that the Planning Commission made two decisions about William Mitchell's proposed site plans, one in March, 1986 and the other in January, 1987. Only the second decision, made in January, is under appeal. In March, 1986 the Planning Commission approved a parking lot. They imposed nine conditions� including one that the college submit a revised site plan meeting all the other, c}esign-related conditions to the Planning Commission for final approval. This first Planning Commission decision, which gave the lot fundamental approval, was not appealed. In January, 1987 the Planning. Commission made the second, narrower decision that the revised site plan met all of the conditions set the previous March. Legally, the basic question before the City Council is whether or not the revised site plan meets or does not meet the nine conditions (which are - contained in the zoning staff reports you have received) . The arguments in the neighborhood appeal don't address the plan revisions or the nine conditions; instead, they attack the fundamental approval granted in the March decision, for which the appeal period has long since expired. To uphold the neighborhood appeal, the City Council either would have to find that the Planning Commission made an error by accepting the current plan as a revised plan instead of declaring it a new plan, or else would have to find that the Planning Commission made an error by deciding the plan in fact met all nine of the conditions it set in March. On these two questions which legally are before the City Council, it is my judgment that the Planning Commission made the right decisions. ' City Council � 0 7 �� April 2, 1987 - � Page Four � � In conclusion, it is my role as Mayor to speak on behalf of broad, citywide interests when difficult decisions are made. Our city is honored by the college's plan to build the Warren E. Burger Law Library on Summit Avenue. The � City's plans reeognize that Summit Avenue is an avenue of institutions as well as residences. I think the William Mitchell College of Law has� put forward a good, responsible plan for the development of their campus. On the appeal, � please vote to uphold the Planning Commission. Very truly yours, � . , rg Latim r Mayor GL: Attachment cc: �David Lanegran, Planning Commission Peggy Reichert, Planning Division � Jerry Segal, City Attorney's Office James Hogg, William Mitchell College of Law Jean Kummerow, Appellant Greg Finzell, District 8 Ruth Armstrong� District 16 Alma Joseph, Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association .'~ . l:f� ��/ ��. I I`� �r , ,�!�.�• ., � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL #'' '-'- OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY : :°: �; ��►�� .: - :. i10i! ,�� EDWARD P. STARR, CITY ATTORNEY '�• - '•a, .... �` 647 Ci�y Hail,Sa�ro Paul.Minneso�a SS10: 'bm.�.ofi"'' ------�_._ 612-298•S�_7 GEORGE L^TIMER � :----- M11YOR '/ � � . i�� '��_� `C_T.r�. r�G � March 24� 1987 MAR Q 41987 3j �� Mayor George Latimer MAYOR'S OFFICE Third Floor City .Hall Saint Paul , Minnesota Dear Mayor Latimer: You have requested advice from the City Attorney concerning the scope of review by the City Council of the appeal from the Planning Commission's January 23� 1987 action in granting final approval to the site plan for the William Mitchell parking lot at 875 Summit Avenue. Attached is a copy of the Planning Div.ision's staff report to the City Council , including copies of the Planning Commission' s actions and the appeal filed by Jean M. Kummerow. The facts are that the College intends to construct a library addition to its existing campus, and presented a proposed site plan for Planning Commission review and approval. The Planning Commission, on March 28� 1986� approved the site plan and imposed nine conditions� including a condition that a revised site plan which meets these conditions be submitted to the Planning Commission for final approval . The revised site plan was submitted to the Commission� and on January 23, 1987 it was approved by the Commission. It is from this January 23� 1987 action that the present appeal is brought to the City Council . The provision of the Zoning Code which establishes the Council ' s reviewing authority is contained in section 64.206, which reads as follows: "64.206. The city council shall have the power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any fact, pro- cedure or finding made by the planning commission. . . . " The applicant� William Mitchell College of Law, is proposing to construct an off-street parking facility on a portion of its , property. A parking lot in conjunction with the college is a permitted use under the City's zoning ordinances. The code requires that the applicant's proposed site plan be submitted - . . �:�� . - Mayor George Latimer " " -_ _ Page Two March 24, 1987 to and approved by the Planning Commission, unless such approval � is delegated by the Commission to Planning staff (sections 62. 103, 62.104 and 62.108) . The Commission considered these nine factors and approved the site plan on March 28. 1986, and imposed nine conditions in approving the site plan. No appeal was taken to the City Council from the March 28, 1986 Planning action as permitted by section 64.206, and therefore the decision of March 28, 1986 is not subject to the current appeal . The present appeal deals with the Plannng Commission' s January 23, 1987 determination that the revised site plan meets with and complies with the conditions imposed by the earlier Commission resolution. Therefore, the Council 's review is limited to examining the January 23, 1987 Commission action for the .purpose of determining whether this action was "an error in any fact, procedure or finding" . The appeal filed by Jean M. Kummerow sets forth the grounds therefor, which are that the Commission did not give "adequate consideration of the requirements of 62.108, subd. 3" of the zoning code. It is our opinion that the time to raise these objections was when the Commission reviewed and approved the site �lan on March 28, 1986, and that these issues cannot be raised at this time. We agree with the Planning Division's report to the City Council , wherein it is stated: 7 . To be strictly legal , the Planning Commission' s decision can be appealed only on the following grounds: a. That the December 1986 site plan is a new plan, not a revision of the March 1986 plans, or b. That the December 1986 site plan does not meet the conditions listed by the Planning Commission on their March 1986 _ site plan approval. The original decision of the Planning Commission to approve a parking lot for William Mitchell if it met certain conditions was made in March 1986. The Zoning Code requires that appeals of Planning ; Commission actions must be made within 15 days. � The appeal period for the Plaruzing Commission site plan approval expired in April 1986. There- fore, the appeal can not be ba5ed on the question _. _ � � . �= ��.�9 . Mayor George Latimer � - Page Three March 24, 1987 of whether a parking lot is permitted at William Mitchell , but rather on whether the Planning Com- mission erred in its decision that the site plan it reviewed in January 1987 meets all the con- ditions required by its March 28 , 1986 resolution. In conclusion, the applicant William Mitchell College of Law may legally use its property for off-street parking purposes as that is a permitted use under the City' s zoning ordinances. The issues before the City Council are: 1 ) Whether the Planning Commission committed an error in any fact, procedure or finding when the Commission decided that the revised plan submitted in December of 1986 was not a new plan, but was merely a revised plan; or 2) Whether the Planning Commission committed an error in any fact, procedure or finding when the Commission decided that the revised plan t with the set forth in the March 28, 1986 Commission resolution No. 86-2 . Yo s very truly, � � J ME J. GAL �� Ass stan City Attorney r " ' S:cg Encl . cc: Councilmembers City Clerk .. �' .s ��-1�,� I � � • � � ' WILLIAM 1�ZITCHELL � - College of Law � ��C �� mn.n�a,.no� MV6 f.lqf.f. w..r.ro.. . �LR L IR�cMP6 � � ��M�� . . " 1 iw�e • • wnwt�►oo.�e �.��.,., y�1 .rr►� _�, .... � ��o.r�r�u�w ^' *'+t� �' -� �� 1/ �• � .. - - � rm�++ac w.�.v�..�. 1 � r• •,•m�m�� ' ' �� I1 � 1�` � s�.....o..� f. � N�u�noas i�' i •••• �..,..� � !!i �:m »iii��tii i ll��i I�I1: .� wRiMMC�Mi[H �—r. f■ � � '' t/• � � /Y�lr�rOul� � � • _' � 1 � RM��lhEl1NL3E� ' � � .� ,y� ' � w �: ►VM<AJ.�7� (wrSwtwOw� . _.� . � i��s'��^..�.- � '_'- �+ - .• � -w�►rf•1 �,�, i-,�:. '+`��'�n. . - �� r..r �1�.��iR - •,.+�.f�.=.•_� '"� -."%r!"•-.�a.��::�.:�-`' ,�;1rr .�_ •�r`"iG'n° ��,�. ��s�:�.:.- .. , ��' „�,s:'�r'"3n!'i.,�.�,�� ` -.sa�.,'�"9��..e-. �!c'd"''�. ri.w�srnann 875 SUMMIT AVENL'E ❑ ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55105 O (612)227-91�1 � uavo�cnwu.i ci..� '„°��N�^ ,_�,,._ March 19, 1987 �.��„�,,�,�� J � 10�OMIDE MK71[Y �.�cr.�r w..r.a�.. rsa.M��a�ao. ( �O'�L��Ol.'� - ��RU M�D ��E�� The Honorable Kiki Sor.aen �[�[fT L R�OOI1is `°"""'"' The Honorable James Scheibel Yfyaw If11Ly�N (V�t�DM.il[Olti �� The Honorable William Wilson �.,..�w,� �s�wm The Honorable John Drew �i'� � ,..��e....�.�. °°`'"°"°LL The Honorable Chris Nicosia ► � 4TMIlr K�Ali�i�06T l�Va�.REAG� ��K�°^ The Honorable Janice Rettman �..� �,.`°'"'n;.0""`° The Honorable Victor Tedesco �AR w� j 7 �� ►��D City Hall a1un�s wux� �'��,�.M St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 MAypR ►S O 'C � TM�.�E~�.m Dear Members of the City Council : �7W�MM��t IID�.NYR��WI[iMl\ 10.r�lU[�LY.1GE71 . "'"'"""°""° ` Following two and a half years of work by the City staff, by �� ""`�`"°"� the College and its architects, and following many meetings qWDM M�S MVFS L[[ll[Y �.:�`a`"`a°" with task forces and other interested groups, the St. Paul R�LLT.LL�D plannin Commission a ��-«� g pproved in March, 1986, by a vote of 14 �� """"""` to 1, a site plan for William Mitchell College of Law �k�,�. including the proposed Warren E. Burger Law Library and , parking lot. The Commission imposed nine conditions and asked for an opportunity to verify compliance with those conditions by the College. In January, 1987, the Commission verifiec3 that those conc_tions had been met. The parking lot, which wonld bring on-campus parking up to 234 spaces, was requested by the Summit Avenue Assembly pf �� Cod Church �ointly with the College. The City staff report noted that "the Planning Commission and William Mitchell have clearly gone the extra mile to seek a solution acceptable to all parties." An appeal against the Planning Commission decision was filed in February, 1987 and a hearing was held before the City Development Committee of the City Council on March 9. The Committee allowed the appeal in part . The resolution � adopted approved construction of the Library but denied the � parking ac:t request. In place of the parking lot the . � o�--�� Members of the City Council March 19, 1987 Page Two Committee tasked the College with a good faith effort to locate 51 additional parking slots on College property away from Summit Avenue, that is on the Portland Avenue side. The College urges that the Council reject the appeal and leave stand the decision of the Planning Commission. Its reasons are as follows : . The parking lot is urgently needed both by the College and by the Summit Avenue Assembly of God Church. It will make a substantial contribution to alleviating a serious parking situation that extends not only around the College but also across to the adjacent Grand Avenue business district . . Construction of the parking lot and library are supported by the St. Paul United Church of Christ (directly across Summit Avenue from the College) as well as by the Summit Avenue Assembly of God Church. . Summit Avenue is an avenue of churches and colleges as well as of houses. There are many parking lots on Summit Avenue, all required by these institutions which constitute an important part of Summit Avenue life. One of those parking lots already exists on � Summit Avenue on the College ' s property. Construction of parking lots is a necessary incident of operating these institutions--construction of adequate on-site parking is a requirement under the zoning ordinance adopted by the City Council last year . . . The appeai wa5 no� presented an a timely basis--as pointed out in the City staff inemorandum to the Council, the Planning Commission gave its ap��roval to the parking lot in March, 1986--an appeal, raising questions of historically significant characteristics and environmentally sensitive areas would have to have been brought in April, 1986--the resolution adopted by the City Development Committee thus lacks the requisite foundation. . � � + ��1 �� - Members of the � City Council March 19, 1987 Page Three . The College, the City staff, and the Planning _ Commission have considered all input and suggestions and the compromise solution approved by the Planning � Commission represents the best accommodation of all interests. The facts arid arguments presented in the , appeal are not new--all have been considered previously by the City staff and the Planning Commission. . As noted in the report of the City staff, the College has a Iegal right to construct the parking lot as requested. . The compromise solution approved by the Flanning Commission leaves much of the grassy space in place including the whole area lying between the new Library site and Summit Avenue. The new Library will have the advantageous effect of "turning the college around" and making the primary entrance face the Avenue . . The College is an important asset to the community, . an asset which will be substantially strengthened by the Warren E. Burger Law Library--the parking lot will provide adequate access for those who wish to use the new resource, visitors as well as members of the College community. . In the opinion of the College, the proposal to force 51 more parking spaces on the Portland side of the property will not work . Your sincerely, ��'� J mes F. Hogg President and Dean JFH:wp 2072M/00838 cc: Mayor George Latimer .�--r---- � �'��0.�/� ��S�� 9 51 E. Hawthorne Ave:�+ ��,� , St. Paul, NII�T 55106 � March 21, 1987 � �- 'tiG.` The Honorable George -Lattimer � 7th Floor, St. Paul City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. � St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Mayor Lattimer, �_ We enjoy watching the City Council in session on Cable TV. We are proud to have such a .fine mayor and body administering the affairs of our city. Now we come to you on our own behalf with an urgent request: On March 26, 1987 , at 10 AM at the St. Paul City Council Meet- ing the subject of a parking lot for the ��Tm. Mitchell School of Law and Summit Ave. Assembly of God, will be discussed. The Law School and our church, Summit Ave. Assembly of God, have an agreement to build::__ a parking lot on Victoria and Summit Ave. The Planning Commission has given approval for this cite. Both of us are members of Summit Ave. Assembly of God Church and have attended for over 30 years. Now we are both retired. Our church has grown, and parking has become a big problem. Many of our congregation are also older people, and we find it most diffi- cult to find a place to park. Sometir.tes for the Sunday morning and eveninc� services we have to park several blocks away and it is quite a hazard for us to walk to our cars, especially in bad weather. The parking lot in question is desperately needed. Please approve the permit for us to go ahead and construct it with the tVm. Mitchell College of Law. We are most rateful to ou for your help in this matter. ��E�'E��.LD �. � MAR y� i987 '/%, � �ri�, �it. Menke and Rhoda Menken � � MAYOR'S OFFICE � - . , _ _ _ , . _ � _ . . , . _ _ , . _ _ _ . . � - - � - _. .. _ - , . - _ -- . _ . . .. _ _,. _ • - - - - - . . ... _.. .. . . _ _ . . - .. . _ . • � _ - _ � .. ---. : . .. - • --- - .._ . _ , . .__ ---- � - . . .. � - _ - . .. - •- - � .. _. � ._ � . . . . _. ._. . . . - ._ .. - - -��-�� _ , . _ .. . _ _ . _ _ _ _. _ ._ _ , 1 __._.. _ _ ._ _ . - - _-- _ - . . _. . _ _ _ _ . _..,. .r . . . - . .-- � _ - - . _. : : _ _r��-_ _ ___ -� _�_ . . .. �. _ .. . ..- • .. - -=..��r'''�-�'�J�_�.... . .. . . .' • _. .. .. � . _" ' .. � � . - -. '. . .. • .. . . ._ - � . _ r.�._� . '. - . . L _ . . _ _ _.__. . " ' ' --° �� L- _ _, ... . � . _ . Q�.�, �-�� -- . . - � , �3 a 6 -� �, . � 0'�� ° i - � � _ - . � ' � ' .�-� . - . � � � _.. _- -�: _ .. �� - � __ . _ . .: -- _� _ �� ,�'� -� �� -_ .- _ . . _ - � " . _ ' V f � . �-�. _ ... ._ _- . - .... _ - r i� . _ . . _ _- -.s= _- �� /!�'2 �' . _. _ - _ '.. .. � r � �1��'�-�� . �e-� .�%�`�'�- � ; \ 4� � ' ��.-� � � �� . � ° . d��- � . � o,Q . -� ,� � , " . . ,e�„��v�z' _ . - � �� o� � �� n .. . - _ L� .... -,..� . ._:< . _._ - � � - . . _- f�� ,�. - � _ � --- . �r. . . -. �-.. f . _.. , _. . �. ._ "_ ., �J j ._,'Y� � � . RECEIY�D �'�� _ �� - _� � . . , _ MAR 3 0 )987 �� -:.. � . MAYOR'S OFFICE -� ` �� . _ ' .. � . .. - . . . f: .. _ . - . - _. - . . ..- _ . � _ . . . _.. ..: _ . � -, . _ � '� _ ., _ _ _ �. . : _ _ . - _ - - � � , _ _ _ k .. . _ --_ -�,. -r �°��. �_- - �:'_, '' ' _A -:' ; ,, . . ,': � - .. :. . . .... ..:. ._.> �. . .,.,� ._;:: -`�-� � -� � -- - - . ��: . - M1 . . �, _ , �' .. :� .� ...: '. . .: .'. - - �� .: �- . 1 ... (-� �s' � - • 349 South Pascal St. j� �., ]' � �� St. Paul , MN 55105 l��l �� -�;<< ��-- ' March 26, 19.87 �' . MAR w 71981 �� MAYOR'S OFFICE Mayor George Latimer 7th Floor, St. Paul City Hall - 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul , MN 55102 Subject: April 9, 1987 City Council Agenda Item: Proposed Construction of �Parking Facility - Summit Ave. and Victoria St. Dear Mayor Latimer: I respectfully ask for your personal support and approval at the April 9, 1987 " . St. Paul City Council meeting for the construction of a badly needed parking . facility at the intersection of Summit Ave. and Victoria St. in St. Paul . This � facility is to be constructed on property owned by the William Mitchell School of Law, and will be used jointly by the law school and the Summit Assembly of God Church across the street. Although I don't live in the immediate neighbor- � hood, I feel that I have a valid concern and interest in seeing the parking project approved. I am among hundreds of people, who, many times a week, must � use "on street" parking on Surronit Ave. and surrounding streets. This creates an almost constant danger to us when we must exit our vehicles and then cross busy streets to get to the law school or church. "On street" parking also has created a danger to traffic flow on Summit Ave. and surrounding neighborhood streets. Your support and approval of a parking facility would: 1. Confine most pedestrian and vehicle activity into one area. 2. Ease traffic congestion on Summit Ave. , Victoria St. and adjacent streets. 3. Provide safer traffic flow on Summit Ave. , Victoria St. and adjacent �treets. 4. Provide greater pedestrian safety, by confining parking and pedestrian traffic to the same side of the street upon which the law school and church are located. I am sympathetic with the concern of some residents adjacent to the proposed parking facility, that the facility would negatively impact the historic and aesthetic value of the Summit neighborhood. I understand that the archi�tect for the proposed parking facility has incorporated plans to ensure that these historic and aesthetic features are honored and preserved, and that the end result will be a blend of progress and aesthetic preservation. I thank you for thoughtful consideration on this issue. Please write, or call me at (6 699-9064 or (612) 441-3121, extension 229. S�i ncerel � � � � � J D. Bolduc - . _ .--:-.---?--------_<.: -- -. . . . _ . -- ._.. . ._.--�-.--_----_ � - - - . . --- . .T-�__._... .. . =�---_-.---..a-,�.-a-_._.-- �;;:: _ _ -- _ - _ . ..._. �� ' �_ -. •�� .;�. - ,�. �- - --- , ..��-�� - _ -_�:��.=---___... -_ . _ .. _- _._ _ � � �� s �� .- a_____ ��s 7�. �=�--�..�. , - �� z�� .. �s�/,3 - .,i� �1...� �.._.�z�cp�1�� '� �/�f�- G Fs� ` �{ ..�Lc",`��a� _�.,s��--E- ��—�'`� •.''` ' -:_� t� (: '� L�F�'wei��.I��_„F�r�t�-C�^E�ry ' , !��_�_ �C-t-�..-t��_s..��t _��'-•° _t z �-��*-C.i ;_ ,•--C-c.a�t�'s-C CE-4 � `�".'--�..i�-�-�I�l-C1r'-+-�� !' ."�- ` �i ` �i !� � � �--� ,%_-E"E"-.'��^'_...c.-c._.�� i-'� �I--��.e.C�. ��"� �{�, •ti .... / / a. �J �� :��t1'-C'��-�--f'"��'�.��,,, ��- � � . !-u u- � ---�� c-u--1� �-�-�' `� --�/ / �-C'v<� s-ru-Z- �'-ri� �-�-s--✓L�--j� �.��'-.-GL�/�.` / l�t��-...�� t.-�-e T-t:--t'�' !�_.-r-C..�e?!�� _.�:� -1-�.E� �-�� {__:it'`'. � / -�-�--�-�-�y �-� a �-+�r,-� _/ �ZC.�.�ctil_ !f r.-r.�il�c.-✓/ .�.��.�rs'�c:.s� �C�Lt� C`�1'e'� ��riL'_/ � � ��L , d J �'✓+-t_t✓'�L:�'.�G!-:t L�•^ /L��C,!-'a<<� �f_E-"-�!�_-! L� 1�:.G,K�[..- �-C�tf � � /.:�- ll.st�sE:.y--�'-�.�*k � � �.-��ZL�-[_.t:o� ;j.tt-�T✓—�� G-r.�.�� l" �c�' CG�C�C�1{i�✓ . - -*`��4�'� .�l"�.!-tc �� c.s� ✓1-�-i^� � �ft�� - . . o ✓ � '�. ��C'�,'�-�rd ��-G. LQt-c- .�G-�c-L.G�C1�-�d�tycF ij��-��,s Lt� r •. /��-� ' _ '7� V � � / i/ � �/� �L�-t�� G��d �!' /?2tPz��'-��7' � _ �� _ � -� ''�- ��G��-��'-G�C..�� -� �! 1124G�Q� - RL CE,�VED `� .�� MAR 311987 ��-u-� �- �� L � .Jd�_ _ " - MAYOR'S OFFICE � - - k~ �` �•_� • ', _ �.. ' .1� ..�+,��• � �1�-�_L ' �•�� '.a.°..� .� . �4� - �! ' �,F1',r-y � - _ ,y; . �_ .. . _ �,_ .. . . , -: - -_ .:��' � _.. , ".-` -.. ..:.,�:--_• .._,....• _- - .. y. .,. ... - "�...�-- �...� :':�'•. ��.�'..`� ...-:. _.� - - -' l�.-'R'� y .. � _ .... . . .. . ..` . .. _ - � �. r ��.. .:z �_.,�"�4.�'�., /�,�, � � . r � �A�_�_ �'�-� y.� �.��+. ±�" . 6 7 (O� i �_«J, .} J A'. � �~.�.F�� (•I f } �j�, .�. ; F! � , G� S� .� / ��Vvr F ��i.• '�'�� jw ;'� �� V ��'� - ,�,�j �:�. �� .,: _ :-_ p �1. _j,�r ��"�`�. , . _ ;A ' ' ��f ; . . "� un�tEa chu�ch o F c1��i st�<� �_�aa� � . .�. •r� �w 'w'.� 4 j-.�� xt��,:�'� }r" " _ M• `�• ' �-�C!YC.i � � -� ;, �' �`.' . 900 SUMMIT /1VENLIE aE. . SAINT PAUt, MINNESOTA 55'105 224-5809 . March 12, 1987 �-;_ ♦ . � � .,L...ti'.�1,�� • � ,. :; . .. _ _ �`C� �-" The Honorable George Latimer ••- - ,;�� --- City Hall � i.��,'`��;,� � St. Paul, MN 55101 � � Dear Mr. Mayor, � �� ' t urch CAUnci 1 t� By action of St. Paul s United Church of Chris Ch on March 10, 1987, we wish to inform you that the Church Council voted unanimously in support of William Mitchell College of �.aw's mo�ified plan for a Law Library and parlcing lot that have been approved previously by the Planning Co�ission. As a neighbor in the greater Grand Avenue and Summit Avenue aress, the Church Council feels that the needs of William Mitchell Col- lege of Law for parking will be greatly alleviated by allowing the p modified plan to be adopted and become a reality. This modified � plan is just one piece of the puzzle to solve the needs of residents, merchants, and otheY commercial and non-profit interests in the Grand-Summit Avenue areas. As you are aware, St. Paul's Church has made our Church lot available to both William Mitchell College of Law and to the patrons of the Grand Avenue area stores in an effort to assist in alleviating parking problems. . While we certainly respect a citizen's right to appeal, the Church Council believes that William Mitchell College of Law has gone through extraordinary efforts to resolve as many problems as possible. Your support for the denial of the appeal of the modified plan is important to the long-term vitality of Grand and Summit Avenues. Best wishes. . Sincerely, � �_ �� urtis Loew � President, Church Council On Behalf of the Church Council cc: John Drew Victor Tedesco Kiki Sonnen William Wilson Janice Rettman James Scheibel Chris Nicosia ' • f�J f � �, ` • V G � `�U / �.r � �.. � � � . L.,w o��E$ - � HvASS,V�TEisr�.rr & Kix� � �-�w�::�„ Cw.se�.ee T.Hv..ea crwarenEn � P,osERr a7. ISiNO Surrs 21� 3 FawNK J. H�amve 100 Soims FTs�n�Sria�r REED K.MACKEAtZIE Tet.ErtrpNE�33_pg01 RtCw.wn A.Wj''•�Me.Jn. MINNEApOLIb. MINNESOTA SS4OL qREn,Cpae 612 Cw.rat.ES T.Hvw,ss.Jn. CY.RY S7CNEKIlVO � SI WEipMAN N�.ARK A HAiySERO . RE79RED � � . Larrnn.J.TFCS�e ROBERT tI.KINO,JR. - MICMAEL W. UNOER � Joxra Enrsu�ua n.�.�v March 20, 1987 RECEIYED HONORABLE GEORGE LATIMER Mayor, City of St. Paul MAR 2 3 �987 347 City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Mayor Latimer: MAYQR�S �FF�C,E I am a graduate of William Mitchell College of Law and the current president of the college 's alumni association board of directors. The purpose of my letter is to urge you to support the law school in its application before the St. Paul City Coun- cil to construct additional parking facilities on the college grounds. As you might know, the college long has been attempting to obtain City Council approval for new parking facilities. These parking facilities are necessary in part to accommodate patrons of the Warren E. Burger Library addition that the college plans to build. In case you did not know, the fundraising campaign for the Warren E. Burger Library has very broad based support in the Twin Cities and Minnesota legal and business communities and, in- deed, in the national legal community. For example, there is a national fundraising committee that is comprised of several �for-� mer American Bar Association presidents and former cabinet mem- bers of past presidential administrations. In case you have not had the opportunity to see the plans for the proposed library ad- dition, let me assure you that they represent what will be a very significant addition to the law school and to the general St. Paul and surrounding communities. I understand that the law school, in conjunction with neigh- boring churches, long has been attempting to solve a difficult parking situation in its neighborhood. The proposed new parking facilities are the effort of painstaking design work and reflect , an intelligent and functional solution both to the parking problem in the neighborhood and to the esthetic concerns of the Summit Avenue residents. Further, the plan is a result of many, many months of public meetings and hearings and much public � input. . � . - . �a ' '�� - - . _ _� HONORABLE GEORGE LATIMER . '�, , March 20, 1987 . _. . Page Two �� Please do whatever you think is appropriate to support the law school 's plan for additional parking facilities. Thank you. � Very truly yours, � ROBERT J. KING, JR. RJK:dme cc: Bruce Hutchinson - William Mitchell William Wilson - St. Paul City Council Janis Scheibel - St. Paul City Council Jahn Drew - St. Paul City Council Kiki Sonnen - St. Paul City Council Janice Rettman - St. Paul City Council Chris Nicosia - St. Paul City Council Victor Tedesco - St. Paul City Council � f`�../�.--f_-''_-i-1,•��i ' .��`�?i� L , �� 1 Ay� , �T-RC�— SANBORN &�GRAYSON - v • � � ��,'� � _� �)f�. Y.�.�..t9.°'�t- , 201 MIDWEST FEDERAL BU{LDING 3% �i.�_ 50 EAST FIFTH STREET � � p.�/ /�Q ST.PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 t� �^�� BRUGE W.SANBORN IoECEwSEO1 TELEPNONE 222-3784 RICHARO A.GRAYSON /rREA GOOE 612 ' March 17 , 198? The Honorable George Latimer Mayor of the City of Saint Paul 347 City Kall St . Paul , Minnesota 55102 Dear Mayor Latimer : As a resident of 965 Summit Avenue for over 16 years , I endorse the proposed parking lot of thg William Mitchell College of Law ( formerly Our Lady of Peace High School ) ; I also support the decision of the Planning Commission for the proposed lot . William Mitchell has always been a good neighbor ; it has the greenest grass and well - shoveled walks. It is unfortunate that its students drive cars, but that is reality. Getting some of those cars off of the street will help. I would also suggest some form of limited on-street parking so that Surnrnit Avenue residents will not be the only ones who bear the brunt of the parking problems . With some restrictions , possibly more students would use various church lots where plentiful parking is available. . While we- all hate to lose that great expanse of green, the law sehool does own it , not the neighbors. Accordingly it should be used in any legitimate manner that the School ' s Board of Trustees deems fit . This matter has been debated for too long already; the parking lot should be authorized immediately. /^; Ver trul ► yqu�s , \ r./ Richard A. Grayson • RAG/ev ' ' ��`�� . The present plan calls for building the nea library on the western half of the block,across the ends of t�o easting buildings.The 10A/ MONDAY,MARCH 30. 1987 library,to be named for St Paul nativr and former U.S.Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E.Burger�would face Summit across a formal plaza.It would be designed to complement t6e main ��• classroom building—the former high sc600l.Maet everyone seems JL iVl�1J�� to like the library plan. • The main on-campus parking area w�ould be to the east,in front 0 ISPA�CH of the classroom building,an area now covered with grass and trees.This parking lot would be set bact 45 feet from Summit, depre.ssed,hidden and divided by trees and shrubs and illuminated � BERNARD H.RIDOER. ,ee3•�e�s by lights similar to those on Summit Tbe parking lot ia B�rnard M.Nidd�r.k. COIIttOVP.I'Sl�. John T.N�nry �mn�n EmsrNw Mark Na01er Ttie�•Paul Planning Commission has approved the college's Presid�nt i PuDlish�r Manaflin9 Edita building and parking plans,but a City Couacil committee,acting on .an�n.FMnp�a w.F.c.��o an appeal from the neighborhood,recently recommended Senior Vice Prosid�ntiEdita Aasociats EditaiPM a��g�e��approval.The matter will be before the Mary E.Junck K�n Dottor Sema Vie�PnsidsntiC»n�nl Manspa Aaaxiate EditoriF�stures full council in a couple of weeks. o.�..n ho..0 a�,�e c.a,►k Objections involve the loss of gi�een space,the inappmpriateness E�cecut�ve Edita Editwial Paps Edita Of tllttlln a Summit Avenue front ard into a 8 y parkiag lot and � contentions that the school'sparking needs�ould be addressed . without t6e lot—if it entered'mto shared-parking space � agreements with more neighborhood chmches and if business LAW COLLEGE PLANS � places on Grand Aveaue(just a block away)would do more to ease the parking pressure they generate. ACCVtable� balan ��azguments have some validity,bnt they are not pivotal. � C e i And they put the college at the mercy of others.Given the college's ! willingness to build the most unobtrusiveparlung lot on the avenue, • • it seems to us proper to try to solve the college's parking problems for views, vehicles .0°�e college campns. :,o��,`"'� '✓� :�r, ' . ummit Avenue is a street of stately homes,churches, .�.,-,-� ,-.-��f` . � • --.__ :. -�. colleges and...parking lots.Right;there is something , � r• jarring about that last.But the churches and the colleges ; �' ' } '� � ? , ! s� �wn aad other Summit Avenue institutioas need close-in parking �,.�.'-'� " --------------�-- '�`� and have paved land to provide i�Some of the parking solutions are � �:; _--_�:;.�-�:-.� ._ -� . ugly and degrade the avenue. '=.:�:<. ° '' � `.��_-: .D � �fiT A building-parking proposal by WQliam Mitchell College of Law, �r�o--�- '�.� ��;�,-e—.•- :�;--- ..:-��< however,strikes us as a reasonable compromise betweea the - conflicting demands of automobiles and aesthetics.It warrants citq Architect's sketch of William Mitchell's planned new li- approvaL(No compromise is ideal:better they would provide brary. View is from Summit. Landscaped parking, not de- underground parking and leave the green alone,but cost and,we're �picted,would occupy lower right quarter of scene. told,geology make that impractical.) . William Mitchell CoUege of Law occupies virtuallp all the blxk surrounded by Summit and Portland,Victoria and Miltoa Long- time residents know it as the former home of Our Lady of Peace High School and related buildings.The law school is used most _ heavily at nighk All its students aze commuters.There is on- campus pazking,shared parking with aeighborhood churches aad street parlung. Street parking creates tensions with residents and blocks-away parking of any kind presents safety problems for night students. The college first presented a parking plan in the fall of 1984,but the desire for more on-campus parking increased sharply after a student was shot while walking to his car a few blocks from William Mitchell a year later.College proposaIs have changed significantly over 234 years of dealing wit6 citq officials and neighborhood organizations.The need to build a new library also � has entered the equatioa _ ��. . . — Th� Pcap�r�;uorks oF Scaint Paul, 1nc. . � - � � .� � ��-/� a��. �G �� . _ , � ; . � . .� � - � . � . � :��.:1.e jy�n� ; . n , '�.i .��,�° _ . �� ;, � . -, ;�✓ �G' . , �� . �,a,o .�t,ca�%.� -�u ��u�u�f� l��Gr�,�.. �.� �'��i� '-,,`.�,� , = . -� �n_ � 1r�� ,��/�� s �y� �, . .� , :, , . � �r�;l �h�� .,% �.�.n�� r�� . , . _ c, `�5 � -��G� �� c,�� ' �� , �`� �� u� �'�� J�c ' . , ��u:c.� ��.,� � - �- ��-7� G�n� .r� �� _ . � ' `��j� ��t. G� _ , ..�/y1.(��:�,r�v2� �� a-�C.C. �2t� �,,1�,� c�� . . o� �4 �2� l?,c�c. � ' � . , � _ ;�f , , . . � . � . - .,r � .� . '. , ' � , ' ' � . ��"7 // , . � � ' � ; . ._ ll� _ . • . � � . . �_ . . .. � - � . e � . .. � . � . .- , .. . i ' . . . . - - . . ... �, ...... .. . . , . . . :. " � � �-� . ' � � . ' -_ . . � . . . � . -- .. . ._ , - .. , a - . ,. �l " _ 7�. , .S.". t�� t ..�.. _ '.a' .. , r _ . �i. } . . . , .... , .__ . . .. .. . . . 'r . . , . . . ..�:: . ..r .. .. . ._.. � �._. . � -. , . .. • ' , -� . . A. � ._� . . .,. �,.. . . ..' �, . � 400 SEL9Y A1%E..5T.PAUL.#AINNESOTA SS t 02 • �12).227-08 � � ", r ` , q y . .. F '.�. ... ' ♦ ,f f '� � . � . . �. . .�: �.r { '�••'• . ''�.� . ...r ' 4 C� . , _ �TY�� JT � . . r., , .� . ' . .'..- • � �w;a.�. :'� . . ... :�. .�.. .,'�t• .I". ��-. . . . �i.� :. . . ' _ µ . . � ,' _ A 1 h y J _ �::_ .�i.::�.� ,.._�..r....�, .�e�y� ..ivl,•_.�s-_�..!. � ' ':��. :..�:�r:Jlt_... ..._., .. Ki-... .r.__.. _...«.. .......��c... .5�..�.r. ..t. �..:.__,.t�.�,�.��_�.�.._i....��a.�.i.��r"iw.4a:sY,a...•. . . . . _ _ . ... }� _ . Y � '' (� ll /-(D`J�� - March 5, 1987 City of St. Paul City Development and Transportation Co�unittee _ To the Committee: Portland Avenue currently bears a substantial amount of through traffic between Lexington Avenue and the William Mitchell College of Law. As residents and parents we are concerned both for the safety of our children and the quality of our neighborhood. We feel that the speed and volume of this traffic is already too high and that the proposed parking lot on the William Mitchell campus will not alleviate, and may in fact worsen the situation. We request that the Committee act to postpone any construction on the William Mitchell site until the traffic situation can be rectified in the following ways: 1. Put 4-way stops at all Portland intersections between Lexington and Victoria (Oxford, Chatsworth, and Milton) . 2. Encourage the use of Summit Avenue by the erection of a green- arrow for left-turns from southbound Lexington onto eastbound � •Summit. 3. Erection of signs at all intersections noting no parking within 30 feet. In addition erect signs warning, "SLOW - Children at Play". � , .` �;�-�'�.s9 . March S, 1987 - page 2 Other alternatives to be considered are: 4. Making Portland 1-way westbound between Oxford and Lexington, . similar to what has been done on Lincoln Avenue. 5. The construction of traffic barriers such as diagonals, choke- points, or speed bumps. These actions will help to strengthen the residential nature of our neighborhood and to improve safety for our children and all who use the city streets. Respectfully, � �, � � ' �i,�.,c c;�.,f:;o l�' C�/ ,, �K� J . 1 ��a,c,� QS�.� . �-��,-.�? _ , ��c. Cy,�t-1��'� 9l�/ �a��a�� , - � �� .�j � �1 P ��. �� y �� . GC�S Pc��a-►-L�C.. � � ' r � �r� . �..,..��--- � �, y �ti� �� _ 'C z �� ,..�,� . . � � �/�� D� , �� _ �� `7� . yv� t� 2-t�-�D - � . y ,-- �� - ��° � , _ •� • . , � ��y�� . 9�� /� -- ��., - y Y� �� l � � :�U� u�%��' �� . �.�--�� a-_ : :f�'�, �--- � � � �� ; - �:�� . ,� . , . � . �� . ��l . �� . l �/" �l �-� 13�� , ��? � � 3 0 �a 2r��-NV ��" ��ti��'v�,.��%�'�^,�c. ��.5"�Ozf�� G�r�2 . ' /%� •�LC�- �`� y J';., /''�' J,�:. E�.c:.� , 4t-!��" . �":t�:i.�, r_•,t...._. . . i � � ��s �� summit hill association ? April 1987 Victor Tedesco, President St. Paul City Council City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Sir: On January 23, 1987, the City of St. Paul Planning Commission determined that the revised site plan #1365 for the William Mitchell College of Law' s proposed parking lot satisfied the conditions set forth in its conditional approval on March 28, 1986. The Summit Hill Association/District 16 Planning Council has closely followed and participated throughout all facets of the parking lot process and the related Grand Avenue Parking Task Force. While District 16 will not formally join in appealing the Planning Commission approval of the revised site plan, we mu�t express our strong reservation and concern over a number of major issues which we feel have not been adequately addressed. On June 18, 1986, the Summit Hill A�sociation members of the Grand Avenue Parking Task Force wrote the Planning Commissir�n indicating that District 16 had reservations about the William Mitchell parking lot site plan but felt there might be some benefit to the serious parking problems in the William Mitchell/Victoria Crossing area. It is still not clear to District 16 how much of the current parking problem can be solved by the proposed lot. Indeed it� location on Victoria, just north of Summit AvenuP, may present additional traffic problems. There is no indication that use of the lot will be integrated into the school' s scheduling so that the lot r_an be fully utilized by students throughout the entire C�RJJ schedule. District 16 believes that any attempt to resolve the William Mitr_hell parking problems, with its necessary effect on Grand Avenue parking problems, must not just mean more blacktoped space, rather it must involvP better information on the dimensions of the problem as well as a better utilization of available parking resources in the immediate vicinity. One interesting alternatiue included converting Milton Avenue between Summit and Portland into a parking lot t� minimize the college' s use of its open space for Farking. summit avenue ramsey � e � district 16 aJe J 5 �� N Q�ea a return address: 928 lincoln ai�ue, saint paul, minnesota 55105 G��-�J`� -2- . The proposed addition of a parking l��t on green SpBCP on Summit Avenue has evoked an understandably stron� riegative reaction. District 16 strongly believes that any such alt'.P irnFrovement at the rollege approved by the Planning Commission must be more consistent with the scenic and historic character of Summit Aven�ae. Earlier parking lot proposals by WMCL grovided for additional architectural harriers to more effectively screen the propo�ed lot from Summit Aven►.�e. Distrir_t 16 strongly suggests that the city cnuncil direct the college to seriously consider the best pos�ible screening of the lot to red+are its detrimental impact on the character of Summit Avenue. This might inelude a brick wall arid wrought iron fencinq simil�.r to the work done at the Governor' s mansion. At the very least, Summit Avenue de�erves this quality treatment. William Mitchell is also discussing a grogosed library addition to the college in the next few years. District 16 feels that the additional facility will clearly add further pressure to the current parking problems. To meet these needs the college has a responsibility to ensure that its faculty, staff and students make the best use of available parking resources. District 16 suggests that any expansion of current parking facilities on the colle�e site requires the college to reevaluate its need for the lot to the south of St. Paul ' s United Church of Christ. As noted in District 16' s July 18, 1986 letter, that lot was leased to the college, was under-utilized and was a strategically located lot in an area of high parking demand by patrons of Grand Avenue businesses. Recent experience would seem to indicate that making that parking lot available for general area needs would not impair the college and would help to relieve some of the parking gressure. District 16 must take this opgortunity to thank the college for its attempts to cooperate with the neighborhood on this parking lot issue. They have been very patient throughout this extended process, a process that even now is not conrluded. We appreciate and respect the ' college for its efforts to be a good neighbor. While District 16 doPS not formally join in thP appeal from the January decision of the Planning Commission, it must reaffirm its eoncern that a number of major issue, have not been adequately considered. While there is an obvious and pressing need to resolve parking problems in the vicinity of the college and Grand and Victoria, any attempt to simply provide further blacktop parking spaces, whether on Summit Avenue or anywhere in this histarically significant area, must be undertaken with the greatest of caution following a complete consideration of all of the available resources and alternatives. ' cerely, � a ac F. S ' olm, Chair Zoning an Land Use Committee Summit Hill Association/Di�trict l.6 Plannirig Council ce. City Council members District 8 Planning Council �.: .:.f -�-�.�5� ;., �� :� .�:;� -CITY Of SAINT PAUL � ' � INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM L�ATE: April 9, ?987 � Z�O: Members of the City Cb�u�cil F�+t: Ta� Soderholm�� SUBTFJCr: Willi�t Mitchell Pz�rking Alternatives Sir�ce the City Developmerit and Transportation Cc�omittee m�eetir�g on MaYrh 9, 1987, several alternative approaches to Willizan Mitchell's parking needs have been discussed. Ca�u�cilnan wilsoaZ ask,ed me to s�mnarize them. N�m�ber of Ing�act on Alte.rnative �� Neighborhood Spac�es Streets 1• �� 124 E�cisting situatioa� (Besides c�1s lort, oollege u�es 30 spaCes at Assembly of God ar�d 70 spaves at St. Paul�s.) 2. Site plan approved by 236 112 fewer cars on Plannirig Ooampissio� �� (4 blxk faces) 3. P�tlar�d "paz'king cou�t" 102 22 more cars cn . st.reets 4. North Iawns Alternative A 108 8 mor� cars on (with Pbr'tlar�l parkinc! ooK�rt) streets 5. North Iawns Alt.ernative B 138 14 fewer cars on (with Portlarid parkincl oo��rt) streets 6• Mi.lton Street Alternative 32 37 more cars on (a1�) (net in�ease) other streets 7. Pbrtlar�cl ar�d Milton Street 78 9 fewer cars on Alt.ernative.s (net ir�ease) othet st.zeets � IS:rnt � �7 �� MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOUNDED IN 1849 Fort Snelling Hislory Center,St. Paul, MN 5511 I • (612)726-1171 April 8, 1987 Mr. Victor Z�edesco, Council President St. Paul City Council Roocn 719 City Hall St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear President Tedesco and Members of the Council: It has came to our attention that the St. Paul City Council is considering a proposed parking lot develog�nt on the Our Iady of Peace School (William Mitchell Law School) property � Stumdt Avenue. Slu�mit Avenue is, of coK�rse, one of the state's mc�st notable streets. It's historical significance has been recognized through the designation of the sectioa� frocn the St. Paul Cathedral to Lexington Avenue as part of a district listed on tY� National Register of Historic Places. Like many historic districts, the importance of the area is based on the quality of the individual builclings as w�ell as on the overall character. For this reaso�, w�e believe that it is important to evaluate any proposed changes in the area with respect to potential effects on the historical integrity of the district. In our opinion, replacing the expansive lawn space in front of the Our Lady of Peace School Building cauld have an adv+erse effect on the district's historical character. We urge yau to consicl�ex the matter carefully. Sincerely, � Dennis A. Gi�nestad Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer D�AG:dmb . � ; ; ��/�COJ�/ PETITION We, the undersiqned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell College of Law's proposed PARKING LOT ON SIJrIIrIIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission'B site plan approval. Name ddress / ,S n�r! � � ..2'� �� 3 ��:G� �� -��, �� a�� e�� i� �-n�..��p� �.� , ��4-t7 E? � w�-(�G.,rla. t�ulZ.-, , i�, ar� �.a� lf �c= -- ' -� . �,,.--_.__ i'3 �/ �.Z 'y?�:V � A � � �� l; � ., . ; ; ��.!� t / t.-.-t_C.. � L� �'V Z�-z�z-->�- L � - �-�f. :'� • , ;� � . . . 1 ; , , �"i .�,,,,_m._._ , _... � . � , .. , , , � __.. � � !'� ` , . ✓ . �J� ", r,,.�t-,- (~' �- � : - G� � 'L� 2�-< �' /'/1— �6� ��@�t��A � For more infornaation call 221-0202. Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 � �� PETITION We, the undersiqned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell Colleqe of Law's proposed PARKING LOT ON SZJI�IIKIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's eite plan approval. Name ddress �`� l�3 .S�: `C.�., �� . ' . � � �� . �-��.. a "/�'��. � :Z 2 �r�-�� -�`2 Gj� �v.s.�C� �� c�� \o�`� 5 �.� �� n. � o %/� �; �v3g Sr"� G� � �� , � � � , -;� G � .-_� � �v�rn� � � � -� �_ � �;�� _ ��--0-� � � 0 � u..r�n1��" � . �-�-,�`�,-�r�c.e .,�. D � -C. / o� 9 .s f_l n� � r' �v¢, /�� ^, ` , e � /Y(�i�.�Z.c � G�-Q-�-- i�a� TQihi,�e e-� �2c For more information call 221-0202. Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 Cr ��-��`� We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell College of Law's proposed PARKING LOT ON STJNIlKIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's site plan approval. Name Address j � �9 3 �t`�� 'a%r.� S3`7d� �. -, ��- �t.,.� `r'3 =,� e.�., v �r� sf- f �s%c.,� t� � J 1 J �� - � � � � s�UG � 3� ��ne^n u�o�C�(. S�, .1�. �(o ��.�. �q7 '� � � � �d 6 , ' « �5�. .�� ;��b c� � � � � � �� For more information call 221-0202 . Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 .� � ��-�s� We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell College of Law's proposed PARKING LOT ON SUNII�IIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's site plan approval. Name Address �.��'J ��/� �Ce%rr»-,�-C7ac.c�-� �5��- `C��a�c�.L� ��` �G�c�-C �c�fC�`� � � �3 3 � cv-, �� ,r�`�u Y 53�1Q-j, �o� �. � 4ti� P - � g '1 b�Ti-�J� rq�L S /D _ �� .��o� �� -S,� � � � � � �.-. �� i r' " `� v , �s' �'�d � � '� '� S s�� << � � � /7 � � �> > - � �re.e n b r,r'er -I�ome t,c,, 7 t`' Sfre�et- For more information call 221-0202 . Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 .� � ��-�.�� PETITION We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell College of Law'e propoBed PARKING LOT ON SZJNIIrIIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission'e site plan approval. Name Address , � � <-- ��, z z�S'3:�' � L�� r�s-s l r� ,c�Y. l�o, � z�� -8o7c ��K"`" '�'1- � _ -S�b �- � �6.5—su.�.�,�- I� Zzz—Zov� �1'�, 3 f��i�v' `�- 2`z.�''7 6 ��-.S��.�-� � a..��-� 'S� r- oL p�� - , �, �-_ � - . a - ? ,� s.Y . � .� �a�-3�� , , � j� `%vi i�f�% Z � `7 5� S—� . / a -�. � -z�� 2�- � For more information call 221-0202. Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 �- ��- �s� We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell College of Law's proposed PARKING LOT ON StTNIl'�IIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's site plan approval. Name Address !Y Z d Z z. S �� 6'4C�2, t � � 1�1le . S l�3d ��-� � 3� � f � � � �� k��c�� I��e . �5�— . � ' � � �S� ��.��,. ,�� 3 � �o � � . �� 7� �� s�� - �. l�� s� �d�� -�e �t P�}�nti ss�a� /U�� X�►U�� _ 1 gL � p�.�.��,�Q �U�� _��1�?,��0� � (f�lS� �"� � l (/C!'W Lw � � �Ld�►r.Q..-� 2 a` 1 � �/4'�l9-�i�,._� ��'e �T r/ �u.I, � //�/�/. S S�G.T z � d. �� V ,s��a� � (� . � g�- l��.-�� i�l S� - ��,�.�r : M�v 551� For more information call 221-0202. Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 � ��-�s� PETITION We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell College of Law's proposed PARKING LOT ON Si11�IIrIIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commiasion's site plan approval. Name ddr ss �1/'tx C �( O� . - � i �� /i.,, �;� �� ¢J S , � � 1sz � �� / !� � � �� 1c�.� �� c�a,U l 1 s� ��-�.��.r� G�, � � � �� -- (�--�� -�_�.�-�.� � , , i � , �.L�:��E r��-�ti��_�� =��:�- ��,�� L�� - � � For more information call 221-0202. Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 �� 5� We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell College of Law's proposed PARRING LOT ON SiJ1�II�IIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's site plan approval. a e dd ess 1�c G�, �� I � �� 1 (�(.�t=.��% �(�' � �iG�-2 � 1 � ��7 �'�{ , � '> i"G� � � � � -� . . �-�-f l � , � . � �� %��.�-- �- �.� -- �y� , ' `_. . � T -��t � s �=� � � �� i�� k �� t �9� 7i 9 �� 1�� . �� U:.� V� � I'�'. � � �a`�-� 1�-1 q 3 �.t.d--t �-( �°� �,�- � Y�� i�R 3 ��e � . � e � i r 1 � �-�iu rt� � ��` � ..G��!'1ii72-� - �7Z/ �� For more information call 221-0202. Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 q�' �7-�s9 We, the undersiqned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell Col lege of Law'B proposed PARKING LOT ON STJrII�IIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission'e Bite plan approval. Name Address �___�C-''�.v1 �7L'%r5-c'6'1 `?�7� �tr ��rri�'�" J� ��a�.� �S�C-S Al�?, �-'�1�sGH ��t� SUV�G1.�--�� ST�� S�S'(O�4i � f �,n,n ��e.l�xn 1�15� �ul�e�t �� aaal �1� �,�.{-, �_��'�,-� 7�' ln s )/h/�� ---�-�--_ ��i°� ^ I�(.�`�2- a��-I-; ��P�v-t� �- �tL 5��D� �� r�n��1� �57 ��--�� - ��1.__ �� 1 p:t�'►no�� to� L��V iLlr��l��}• p A �,� ��1�� , � �� , - � `�i� U�`� � .�.�//� ` cs7�o �t� lt c �� ,n d -�' ob , -_�-- -� ��`�� J" ;, �.� �-< .L! I��/� S'o� O y�y r ;j D � � ��. ° � S?` � 5 �1oj � `� �:c�. /D,5 - - -/a J �� G� �o� � � �� " .��o� °rn. . � . �� s� � For more information call 221-0202. Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 �� We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell College of Law's proposed PARKING LOT ON SUNII�IIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's site plan approval. Name Address ��!l l?/�9� _/ �i'.S �i vGi 9� �'� �1 !'Li �vi✓� �---� �� 1 � � �.� - � � ��3 - t � � �-�, S � w�.u.,••- �l�3 ��tic� �e. _ S S i�� LC �— / G Gs � � . c � ! I�3 S ` � �3 l� I <%tr �1'lau, � c,k_ �t h�� 55 — � �� ` �-- �' � s��_____ w — - J ,�/ 'J � vL/� ��S l a� " � .5,5 1:0 � - v c �� - ��y�� , . .s�--y�� _ .� ,�� (o p o s��c� S5''/o� For more information call 221-0202. Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 �� We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell College of Law's proposed PARKING LOT ON SUNIlKIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's site plan approval. Name Address � � � � ��-n� �,Q , a`C� G �G �1 �d For more information call 221-0202. Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 �--d /'"l0�3f We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell College of Law's proposed PARKING LOT ON SU1�II�IIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission'e site plan approval. Name Address �-- ��, � �,� �� - �/ �--26 ,�� .5��.-� ,��, � 1 b�Y"l t (,,Lt/� Mr n n ' � .3 �6��r �,� ��{� /L1/'�.' � '� �ti �`^"`� �-�1 1-.�' �v'- �i2J? _ f>�=� � ;� c.� ��/ � '� � S �`/G� ? . �' �m�u u f` �, f� �`t��- ��o � l e-z � �, �. �� . ��/�c�` i ,' �- t��-L�-�..�._ ,9vf � St �'��- S��a y. ' �� eW e � _ v r� a 3 �'�� -e _ � I � S� 1 0 For more information call 221-0202. Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 G� �7-�s9 We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to the William Mitchell College of Law's proposed PP,RKING LOT ON STJNIlKIT AVENUE. We urge the St. Paul City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's site plan approval. N me Address o� C�Z TG�=u-� ��'�� c�3� �/'�� . ,� _ - __ � . ' __� �Z� For more information call 221-0202 . Return petition to 823 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55104 !�,' s�.� �r i rr.r �°� !ml"i� � �`l+�„"� v,t- �� `;< �` y ry � ��raR �r p �� i „� ; !� '� ' ,�;t 1 �{�¢ {�� d * .4 � =��1 � '. � 4. .. '^,�+ � k �+ W �. .s�F 'r k.'.4 .� tL;. � , ty�, +� y �`� � �AC f .r�a : k 1 �.s9,�`+ y,:1 y -.i 4� .,� �. i\;4 ♦ I �.-.�� d 4, �r � r�. �i��F r �:L _.�t i'�t �4'�; f� 0. ,, t 3 'c � r �t��'c �R � /� 4..k `k�63 Y � � � N '�T.. � 'l .� a�"�I , � ) J- � d��: �,, 1 7� " p j�� { '�'; � ! , t t y> 'rt r �> ( : j .�F r �� f y r� xd �� i• �J ^tt � � d F s� rl , � ` :� { \r �,� i � �'t ✓ ' � ! �Y .y �• i : a �� :� � 1 .: y.�, 4 f�'. ,� � � .:� `+�. ��3.C� ^wP ��" ' �.� \ Ti r ��. � r °'t ,. t� 4 a L '\ �e.F ` �r � �t ,_: � :, �fi F. i �i;,;'�a �ui � � � .� � �� i:�� `' vy :. y l.`i� . �. �� / :' .t ,:.t ✓ k � } (+ }��'ti'. . 4 M +� /", �'e ti .�. [ . i� '.� j �.ln,. � `f,� C t t:�� , r � y { � r�� ., j7' 'a �,. . F i ; � �, 1 �l> ,�a;'d' � 1 9;��5 � y��A r o-.t � ;;tir � r '�''� �ru � i `� � � '�a + `'7 k�� y •, ; r � �t ;�> '� . � �'' r 7 ,t' S- `� F"'�C f i f1 �+ Y 1 � ' �, ,�3f � '�3 n Vt I . V � 3. �'K �� 1� ;�Y,f �14 �f^t � � } . � ':t � �p� titi; �� i,t t i'� 1 f „ y; ,.t ra, , � a f �. �` 7�� r� � " � ti. n; . �� r '�� F ��- Y ;:� ?�a "'t f r �� e f f - y ;�� i � .3� � � f: ; ` 3, �a ; � ' �� N' �' r�t� �rf� ��a `� a r P't• .,, t .�f . ;�� ;i * _� � � �.5�,p j- - � �.. J i . � .J?c - P' ,' \ i, '� ��r�� 'i�'�'� � �-�7�r � x�-� 4 �y�� / f � �� a � i � ..,'q #:`a � r l ��?,- s ','y �r� �iSN,-� ��yl l ��"± �)j�'�. r �W � J t t:� �'I'� ��'� t �, L ��f ,+ g � ra�Ct . ., h+� E ! �; A��f f '..+4 1�f •. 'la1�t t� ti t � � � *`�j i ,a �F �l r 3 ;fk-� ��j� �1.'� � .1 i', � � �.� ir l�/ .{ �� `��s �' � k �., . t 7 �.q 3 � �w f > >i r; '� '�f. �t l� � . t i e?,� y �`- t�1 S�� F l �! � � , �p£ 6 ..- �P>� -: �r'Yfi '�s N : 1 �� ..� t �� ° 4 p � � '. t r �� i � - i ) . h � ��, � � :, 1 � •�3. �.. 1'- � i � ��. �' rt�i;�,y `.: �4 � *S ti�, a`� { � f �a 4 . -'e Ft . t�'�Y�'�• t.�+�r�v. 1 � .. � � , rq' ,�' � `� .y K �'' �. #�z $ y. .i 4.,..� �, - �,, s..c f�'' 1r yk�.�' 1�.1 ira:� ff�� '� r� -tt V�!' ,�: F `�, 4^ t <'. f `I( �� .� r � �' r' ,, �,.Ti� �� , tl � ..,�i ��-£�.� .: y ' N x i G } �, ��w A t �S� � 1 � � t. �'� �� 4 . � � ✓ f t��' r V ° 5 t �'' �� K �i r � � 'a ' ..'-w±� 1 �'�I „+ f��tt!L`f _ �., � �..- � i �s .;�� fly 4 �� I. r .4 r j��`.� `�^� : �y 3 i�, t s""�'v�. > r }��. � �:� � ,:v i�`- r r ` / � � P J ��.�!` ;�r � y �� t ��I� � � A l'i 1� �,,'e `"i �. # i� ('' ':{ �- v� � E.A n {�,� r a�` J �t� K ��' y �r � � f F � � �. s a ; � �-�.y� � r� ,1 � �,-"��` '�'!� �,1 r+t.a �t y r 2 r � a o-:. r � �, `. u ,'. � f�i� ( 'W �t ti 'A s ^ 7 '.t� ,- y ��.,f � t� 3' � � ry $ ;� � r . � �qJ�,��V `�'rh jl\ } ` !': f �� F� ::� y l N��r��' %YU eij 'c ` r_ k � �, ;1�, �;` �} �'��r�� _.�i1� x��"Y �[ �� Y , � � �� 'S $ y � � � J 1 �,.l,� � ��-i t '}#� ..� � t . ��A".i2 �� . . "' .1' `,�+ ��i�� _ � � t J ,� ��'� �;.i � � ��1 ^� � � � .s� u �� > a.� ' �Z � 3',� � , �! p / � � ��`'' c r�� , �}� � �� M1 -' � ;i r � ��, � �� « ��r �; s�� i �d� �`�>�� ' 4� �`� ' b�1�-+ ° - ( �' �, '��' � �- �; ,�, " � y. , � ...� �g � , r. s � � �,.I� Y �.aHi�" �r .;�� t 1'tu� �� , �f�.�� G' r� tt�� ., 1 � J i 1 . A -1 ' �t L "�' ,i �" .!a J f j,� .� F .,� �.:�.+, r � x� .r � v � � ( � f/ .�" y �'t �` t �r�� ti ' S1' �' �''�,j�4 t s r " t� �� ,y _ rt � �a ti �'� :-•, }l ��.�` � .�'� �`d �, t } r,�� `� �i i h 'F,,7�` ?. n` ) a.. k� d { ,- �,�_,�" t� �a-4 14.. ,ex t'� i � � t" 1 f` - � �. .� �i� t„� 1.:. ? . �, � f ' � b'� � �.�1 i ,�{� ��;' �Cf .+ 1 ' .� �r ��.H ' }��1 j`. J X ,Y �, ` � y .:�y \ �, *J`N,�i,F ;,. � € � � ,. , { , I'k r F �� , :.� � , 4 ( F' � � a @ w� � � � �t� �z x 1 �� s � ��it Fp �i. � { �� ; n �Y.� � .^� �a b^�'�. � � � �* 1' �r� �i �� .:� �� ;�a � ?'� `:. s r'$` '�t � fi, ..�rY,' �l:� r . b ,.CF� �. t.. t w;�,� '� � x . � � � s� � � r � r � 2^ �� r...� � � s ,� a y; �- � <- k � 1 -�, z � � �+ - y -X'i s . � � c��,r r � � 'T-�� t � t r�i i � �''�� '��, �l� �.� � y,�� r : �" r �'� �'� �' .. t � '�� +e� P f =�.� '� .. 4 ��ir�" �.,� Y,t�� G n �e� ,�� f �( �. ,..� � y y � t � r `4� { ,'1 ' �,/yY � � �. Y �' J Y a,! :•N t( / y.}`��:, +r 4��.� Ft i� p�; r F i, �f\' ye..a. `�� i �' . �f"!wt 1,F�t� q!.{ ^cw.' �"t,,T��"� A � �.� �4'��. � >��.4 �. d q °� �g' 17r r �.Y K♦ �'��'� �,y`� �r;�% '�7 , L �^ � � � .��. d ` 7� �, P� \ � +',g„� `( � '. ��F \� �% �'i.p+1! � ~� � r5� '� II` �^ /� :>i 'f !,�' !�°.s �t S jE� ":ne Y' . 4 k ai� , � 1� y ...a '�5n '. �,��i. � 0. "�d ,yF � y '. 'c i. � � �,'� .p��. 1 '.ss",'J��r� ' -f�� i . .� ,�: k � .�s#f f �?°� 3 i 1'a � �. � { �} � �'c t i � c �. J, ' � f , 'Ej^�S F � y e z��t.t� 3*� �; .� �y?r .�3 a�; t r ��7 ,,,� � .. �. ,�,�,,,�,� �'�. .. " �'. ''� , , '� � � ` 'C a x'A�.F f' f L A ��m: � �s� ,t� ��'- 1, .J! �. �e.1 ; �* � '�,r 4 �,�, � ,� j i�Y ( .,�-`�� • . "�s{! .: S%�.{ t� .,_ j k��-.. � 9 �'�~ .� ' i�{ ;.y� � � +�� "� J �,�Y d��. ! e ; a G ;l' �ra 1 . '`�^ . �i.( F.. � 'A t"''"� t i. �'� � '. :, �,� �.. ` r t �� ' _ �f"c A ��y`� -'� . ,�y� e �^+ "FS; .r ,3�` :..�` �iy � �.'� ��+��. '�� \fr��, 5 �� .��- � •�r s �. y�,1i r+ _"��i 4i �`�_ ,r .�; � �� +��,,p,,F � ��, ro > � H�-. � 1 �P�Y� �� 'a .k�C. ' /��'" a � k J �� [ . s .��,` . . . i�g } ?`�`�'� ��, �' `� � � R"� � �r� �'ir��iLT�7F, r i:o `�` ��1k +a �F �� y � t �iLrf�) �, } a' �� t Tr� p �`��flil�ii�� F��G ^iIaA1 _ i: • � ',�. 'k � :t; "Rw -k �� `��'.' a1�5'V��. rv Y'� l � .� �� /`�d��'�P�Yr�l 3 �" , ��'" x ,, � � �. `Y J '� � ��L� ` 'Y ° # �}� ` Iti'2 f�� + r f��/ k ,r � ..�� ' �' ,� ^' ; �c� � �' � 5 e T � � x � �> > : �}° ?F �'�� r`c k .ti '� t �� ;. F�F'�� y }> r� .,1- r }�:�� : Fi '� � p 4`-��t XaF ` ,� 3 r�. e i:� � �s- � ;;.1 �,r -'� � 4'�-\. �� y;:!. � 1 F � Yf '�� .� :_�1 I Y �,�.. yk � t" Y,, � � z L� �� .) 1 �3��) 1 E xy � t �5� } J� � � x J , �t C' Y +� �jr a a'F a � #c� '`� t '" /. �S �'? 'M'� �,-��t' � '+ '��4 a i �`Y � (� �t I,��[} i� �.i.t{Y �� ' �� 3 ' .t F'� �j -1F�rR�'��,�a i�� "."R�k .�. �"�xY"� ;�' r T $ �� y��'� j1 y k� jS` t 4 � ,. � � `�. , r�' �� `. ..� G e : � ,�:. fl� �.'j � k i� y t + q x' .'i . .:.„'' . L r # {` � ,� f�,� �� + � h•, 7� �. a t K �v � , � " . . '3 x �q,� 4T. �' ��.�' r�{'� y � )� °>: py . � �•'+- .. r�� ''�' � k, i. < �" � '� � 5 `� � y ��^'`� Y {t�° Y� .r�,a P�'P� � � t f" � . .. �{ ,� � .;, w � �." h �� t t "ti x - i# t �.�. :.� . � ��1'" ,� � � � �:^a c �? dn d, l t � y `�;r i t �?�'4E �� y .r�4 .� �.r e'_€�1 ��.; � . ,�.r '�,. ' a� � �- � � t. .� �$� F w � t'�a �. '} �K ;' � a �,��` Hq :��'f � a.o i � �{.E��y ��, � �' k�'rX�� r < +� d ' �� r �� }� 4 � ( � T l 'rY� ,�-c` ' � t c�'�• �� #��i� � �^ ,t ¢ k�# ��' tt�� 9 f Jc�� e�+ ' �. _ ��,i a n; F"�� 'fi`'� t �!;t � "r'i �""`� � � c.,`: . % .i 'f .'S Y Q 0.'h�.. � {.: ! f � ,�� `1^ , r �. � S ' i i� � �j a . • �� '". � � � � r��,s ' �' ;* tt�ffA�� y� r �� ! � '�+� ti k t F9�-c� � n��p•,� 5 �'� 'ij� i d y� t ' t �Y`� .t�� s�'�a�4"`:t , : w � �• �� Y� ` r � k .�,�t` �j � �r J^ N `�� 4, ;n .tr�� . f x { E�'. �p. :. {( r .�." ,. + . .r �. 2 f x ia ;��4 � ��`� & � „ a � i ' � �'4 x' r � y J� l s � � ` ;>, t^��'. Y �. F ��P i I }r� r r � F. �F �� '�o-. h � �.� °F �� .. ': ��'^ �� '� ,.�!r "�l�� U � 'i � �! �`t� k� ��. �` a:�, i x s � t I ��* 1 � Z � \t ;� ; � „�,. a ' �'. � . � yi �' ��', �' �F � ��t'f �t'� � ' f'..� 1 �•f�� `�, � 3 '. _ . C � '_� i . �I i� ^.ky� � 1 .i7 r a � n�L }. .� �-3� }.a9��` r'°!u y, :1: r c .`}t � r,� "1 - �akr� �� .,} �, �tl_ I i �( tr d '��`i x', �t s��s y �� . � s ��e ,� a . �,�k A r�C ,4 � i.� ( � ; � 3;. p.,. i�w ;i ��: �� ;A h _l� n R i. � �• �i„rt �` �r t: �C�'� � A 4f, ` f 1` q"`.� ��} ' � \ `��rt �3'y�Cr,: �� ..,! '.+�k ` °� t�: 1 i ��.�-x� �, ..� !'� �r f r"�+i '� - r kt'� �.��d' `� 1 y 2 Sa (, � �., a/ P` F � -<�•�, 3(� _N� � i x �� : �� s �� -.d L � i.:_� � �� ti� . ii: s ��. x ��4�0"��3��. '��. [ yst 'J �.r ��.� , . � ..� r . r t ,k C ��" ^+: - t -`� �, � P. X.�r r �SS i Y " e�.F F ' 7� '��t, � �:. ; � g��4�G` h �: { % .� � �, k� �.G .. E 4 r i � f� 1�.� R t � � � f n .�a� 5� �:'� k` .t -. 3�e , , a e� t S�q � �� r i �� ' I r � 3 f. . ��1 c ;�� . a 1 �> �� _i x , � x • � '� �`a '�:� � � ,r y ��/ � t3 ��,..1 G �� l.� .��rF� ��r"'�3�; �' -, i �" r . ., �,� � i � a,. � �� f� ,,t � � � � � �! �s � �� i ,� � � , �'t' �F ,� �: l x�'. y.�} . � �` �� 3�� d `�-�t a`�� r`! V i � a�y�� . T �� r_�'4"' �1..� �{�� c� Y �'� �� dr ��S � �,�{�� '-�� ''', .��" � r r a �j� �'�4 t � �� T a �w4{, � ,� ¢�< ��"�.x �Yl��-F -3` i'� :.� ^'}��r'� w�� ,� fi l ; j � �:x'�1��I.:i�F �f �. k r j:, l � i � �.: �€t k.J� d�'��V` a b.�? � �' , � '� � r�. v"e;'4s.'��w! . ��x �r � � � i�� '�'j"a ti � �-� `�4y t�r-:��<<' 1� Plt�F�j��i5� � � 1� �i` -•JMe ` r� �-, i� ' '��;. � r+ � s-t •t i i s �i ' s y�� ' � �, , , �,�.�� ,Y� ,� � � # >:�: � p � ,r,� � y � �, , ,; ,� f� � r '� ,� d't �{ p� �..: � " . ,J, f; v a �a Yl..�`i.�,�. ''. `Y �Xt� : .,� � .: ,��, r': .c rr +:�� F� �,��1 V �: � - � 4 t 7s � 4��y "�, - . � i"` r�� 1 ` t� � '� � • � y:P ^ : � � i L ��i yy� r �. � � �! �. } �'k . � � �y } q �-� . 1 1^ .. �.a'�M 1�Y g � { `V 1 �R '1 � �� '' '� � � � �� C��I��J' #1r �' � ' �°r� r -� ,r w'+�..�`�.. f � � r � .� f 1 .. r^r��`��t� i . ,�- .h ��.m ��i � v '! u': � .i: . . i. ,> � � `_ .{ ;� ` i i � „, r �, • ?�� , ��f s � � t�t �; .� �, � � `b n L. .. -. P r � at n� 2'., �Y� ✓FO �f�. � � ;. c � ,,r: .: ',� ,� ( c�.. � � t: ,n,t �� ,�.,r i�' ..rF . 1 �`r' � � E � , ,� x-; � � � l; �` "it �,,srr ��`"y�i � { ) ,. � ' '� ' , i !":l- 1` �I � � , 'f �.? x �� ' t;' _;"�,�^! Y"?' �F 't � �r� �' r �;�� ti , �Pa µ�� ;; t �, fi +�f �� ' � .�r� �� `�``�i �' � "L'�`� �. �:.a �.�_ _ a a td" t p� y r -"s 1 . ,�� i .�, -(4 �E;i l �h � �.r. ✓ � , Q:..� a i � � �� 1: �' q '� � , ��z�a `;� >. � y' �r '� �' ,� . �R.� 1 ? � i �4s , +� .'�� = �� ..� ��' f� � �� tV,+•� � '- r y�`) � \��% � f` � � 9\ ,.,q J� � /,� f {l .'4 / � M�:A �t .#i�� i 'S n�,f � 1 � h t 'r,�, rr/i ;, r t .Z �� y, � � �� '� � �`�r1 ��;��t.,� � � i _�K r � t � ��'.f- � _ Y '-� � 1 � �, � i ; . .� t a` �: ��#� ; ;}� i .i � ,�v 7 : s �, j` $��-�}:� d e-` r�i'. �. r� � �� t `' ' a':� S"_ �3 � u f E r ) �.�''�`f C ^� 4 �f. iy i -k�` � ° R` N � 1 f 'W ¢:; � ' �z ' �'�` 4 .'-� y�Y F t � - � ; '� n� n �{'C� �P ! { ! { � rj', �1 r 2 k 7�" 'Y� S # � 2. ' J,� 'i.. f"�� 1 �� y b � '1 1` S �{�r 1 : } � � �. �� Y �gI Y 4 t"� F.� � °•i fi^ �1 �� ) �� f,�� . ''iT�� '� �t�" i�� Lt F�� , n-7 � �� .d X �� ',�„'�c� '�'�� f � r . �r ar � �" � f,�� .A �� 1;; � -4 �i'z+� : ,� � �, �-. � � � f ��" '$ r; � � �'t` � r k' ,c1 i x ,t�; �, �+ , �`i�, ;( 't �' Y- ry�� z �. �ir'`" i r �%r �V''��:: � � i �- 'F( a {-�' .• �/ � 4.�� ,4 j a d�:5 J �j5` ' i: a��3� '�.y'z ' � 'y � � .r t fi� 'v 4 j9, n rl N: � �� l-d-. �8 . V 4 � ' , �: � S: 'f , ,y`� �5 M1 � �. ' [" .� 1 v�.�,�, (1l��'. Y�� j�. �i' �f�a - �V � y �..:. t rY, � � .� F� €°. �,�,��, �:e4 : Y•`. �� k ;9 '7 � t #• �.:. � 3� �� ' 11� . J 1 ��, -, }� .r� i �t � � d � , � � V 4".� . r � »s � ,�Y /; ` ��ti ti �, t_ �Y �x '� r� y�3 5 • � � /.� i a '.r a � e t i r vi .• f a � .�-� L . c �- �. i '`� ;v p j y` ' r .� T `� e`pl rA Y '� �"� � � � , I x . ^y, y �.'�°! �r ..:� r� � � : ., � l .."}ti� ( ro �J , ./' � ��C:� �� > p" �l L"�'� �ft ��h, '.� s 1;� i y P : S i' � \..: b� � i� -.�` �t�r l S .-: � :'f A c�, I= �'� �;:.y� �` k�,+I t" ; �l"' �s�+.� �-��R� � �J� -^�.. '�;' t��. 1� d >,�, � � �. Y.. i ; �/ #'� � � s , �;�}�xf'i��_.a � � :'� 4;� i �y5, y� �,�1� ,t r'`t:°� t x i'��? � ,y i % � .:'�t �. '� )�: i�'��: � 1� . � . ��%� . r'�. , , f ., � �{ �,e t �" !' , d�• g {' 0 �:;-�y F't_ r � � �,�;1 � , l,� ey' y er s r, f x.. 'r` , �' . ` � � � �� t : � r ,�• �,. . i s a � 4 � � r ��u , t �e,..""�[ �.�� ,�.:�� .. �� . ,� '��. "� � 'V°� . � "� �;,,�., � �xti ,.t�� j.�� .�� ¢ f .�, . � �r ..-.r•�-.._. ,�a` a��h�' . . s_�s.-,�.. . .. �� ,- �:�., �. . C�r. . �` �, <., , . .. s.. �.r.�i-;9�� . � . �:° �,��:�_ �� _ �:0;�� l �.:� CITY OF SAINT PAUL INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: April 16, 1987 T0: A1 Olson Jerry Segal FROM: Larry Soderholm��J SUBJECT: William Mitchell College of Law Site Plan Appeal I �ust received A1 Olson's request that the city attorney draw a resolution for council action on Jean Kummerow's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving the William Mitchell College of Law parking lot. As stated in the letter, the motion is incomplete in one important respect. As I understand it, the first part of the motion said that the Planning Commission erred when it found that the plan submitted by William Mitchell in December, 1986 was a revision of their plan approved in March, 1986. Instead, the December, 1986 plan was a new plan because of the major changes made since the March, 1986 plan. This is a point Councilman Wilson emphasized to me after the hearing and decision. I think it would be appropriate to incorporate this part of the motion into the resolution prepared for the City Council. LS:rm cc: Councilman Wilson � �n a �,; _ ` �� ' CITY OF SAlNT PAUL . _ ��i�.. ,,o,�� _"'� '=`'�- OFFICE OF THE CtTY CtERK =; a; s+ � �� ,.Q� ALBERT B. OLSON, CITY CC.ERK ,.• - �� ••• r' 386 City Hall,Saint Paul.Minnesota 55102 4 ��rTttaaa�`c � . GEORCE Li1TIMER 612-296-4231 MAYOR April 9� 1987 Mr. Ed Starr' City Attorney Room 647, City Hall� Dear Sir: The City Council today held a public hearing to consider the appeal of Jean ICummerow to a decision of the Planning Commission relative to the William Mitchell College of Law site at 875 Sunmit Avenue. Following the public hearing, the following motion, as amended, was adoptec3: Motion to grant the appeal, support construction of the " "- — Yibrary and provide tha� an alternative parking plan be submitted to meet the minimum requirements of the zoning standards for colleges and that the parking not be located on Summit Avenue. Prior to adoption the previous motion was amer�ded to grant a parking variance. Will you please prepare the proper resolution implementing this action. Very truly yours, Albert B. Olson City Clerk ABO:th . cc: Eslanning Staff, Zoning Section � . �.�- �.;.::r�� - -:-- .- ,��...�...__._.. ;x.�.,.,.,��v�wy.... ,.._.__w.,�»,.�.��.,.�. _ � .�. �.�.�..�...�-,..�.,R.R.,..,�,,,.�.�,,,:� _ WHITE - CITV CIERK ��-- ��/ PINK - FINANCE GITY OF SAINT PAUL Council G rn"��/ BLUEQV - MAPORTMENT File NO•- ,J �`�V'��, . . uncil Resolution Presented By � � o�i� � ti Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, The Paul Planning Commission approved a site plan for a surface pa. ing facility at William Mitchel� College of Law adjoining Summit A nue; and ' WHEREAS, this decisio was appealed to the ty council by Jean Kummerow stating that the Planning Commi ion had erred in its decision and that the ite plan prese ted was significantly different than the one ori inally appro d; and WHEkEAS, on May 7, 1987 th St. aul City Council voted to uphold -the appeal and to g ant variance to the required off-street parking; and 4VHEREAS, on May 12, 1987 the C ' ty ouncil voted to reconsider its decision of May 7th and to d it al ernative resolutions; and WHEREAS, the City Counc ' 1 previou y had requested William Mitchell College of Law o present a 'nalized plan for the law library and parking f ilities togethe and this has not been submitted to date; an WHEREAS, the Colle e Zoning Task Force Re rt indicates that William Mitchell ollege of Law is required to provide 158 parking spaces u der the current ordinances, with a current deficiency of 34 paces; and WHEREAS, the xisting parking facility can provide t least 75 spaces; and WHEREAS, the College Zoning Task Force established that ere are parking deficiencies at Hamline University (229 spaces ort) , COUNC[LMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Drew Nays Nicosia ln Favor Rettman Scheibel Sonnen __ AgBitiSt BY Tedesco W ilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Vassed by Council Secretary BY sy� Approved by Navor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � BY - - — BY _ _- - - - - -- - -_ _ - - - - - ------- -- - - - -- - - - - N�HITE - CITV CLERK �� (�1/� PINK - FINANCE COUnCII CANARV - DEPARTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAITL File NO. �� BLUE - MAVOR Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Macalester College (287 spac s short) , Concord' a College (101 spaces short) , and the College of St. Thomas 16 spaces short) ; and WHEREAS, parking ramps provide an oppo tunity to assist in meeting parking shortfalls and re a etter use of limited surface parking space; and WHEREAS, Recommendation 6 of the Col e e Zoning Task Force Report as adopted by the City Council sta s t e following: " The City should act'vely e lore available creative financing me hanisms to aid colleges, universities, and s inaries in inancing the construction of need parking facil ' ties. St. Paul ' s post econdary instituti s are a unique and trea red resource of t e city, contributing mu to its quality of lif The City should riously consider deve ing alternative fin ncing mechanisms that will aid ' parking facil ty construction to help these institutions and the neighborhoods around them continue to prosper and thrive. The City has allocated s gnificant resources to promoting downtown p king development; it should now consider directing some of these resources to the neighborhoods of the city. " COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Drew Nays Nicosia ln Favor Rettman Scheibel Sonnen __ Against BY Tedesco Wilson Adopted by Council: Date Form Approved by City Attorney Certified Vassed by Council Secretary BY By� Approved by Mavor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council sy _ _ — sy � WHITE - CITV CLERK / �� I PINK - FINANCE COUI�C11 y+ /,,�j BLUERy - MAVORTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAUL File NO. 07�'�"'! Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, this option has not yet been thoroughly explored for William Mitchell College of Law or fo any of the other colleges, universities or seminaries that a e identified as having a parking shortfall; and WHEREAS, city policy should be to d 1 w' each of these institutions in a like manner so that he ' stitution and area residents have a clear idea of what to ex t; and WHEREAS, college, university and semin y parking problems must be dealt with on their own merits and ann t be looked upon as a way to solve parking problems for ot er la d uses in the general vicinity; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that a working committ e, composed of representatives from area colleges, universitie and seminari s, the Chamber of Commerce, area foundations d the Plannin Commission, be appointed to explore options or financing of campus parking facilities and to make reco endations to the C uncil within �9---,3 � days on providing financial assistance to college including, but not limited to William Mit ell for parking ramp cilities; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Cit of St. Paul will assist in his study by providing staff and ' entifying possible sources of funding to assist in meeting park ng needs; and be it further RESOLVED, that the C ncil of the City of St. Paul here delays action on the ap al of Jean Kummerow until said study is completed and reviewed by the City Council and the William Mitchell College of Law. COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas DfeW Nays Nicosia ln Favor Rettman Scheibel B Sonnen __ Against y Tedesco Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY B}� A�pproved by :Navor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By - - — BY C ,� f . �� • � �7-��5�( �`v> `�� '_. ST. ' PAUL CITY COUNCII. `j � ` PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ZONING - To: Property owners within 350 feet; ' Representatives of District 8 and 16 FIL E N 0. 10076 PAGE P U R P 0 S E � An Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a site plan for William Mitchell College of Law for a new parking lot on Summit Avenue and future building expansion. L O C A T I 0 N 875 Summit (William Mitchell College of Law school site - North side between Victoria & Milton) PETITIONER JEAN M. KUMMEROW HEARING Tu��a,�, March 17 1987 lo:oo A.M. . Citv Council Cham�iers, 3rd Floor City Hall - Court House QUESTIONS Zoning 298-4154 �. (Tom Beacli) Contact the Zoning Section of the Planning and Economic Development Department, Room 1101, City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, St. Paul, MinnesoLa 55102 Legal Description: Lots 1-30, Block 21 , Summit Park Addition NOTE: This Appeal will be reviewed by the City Development and Transportation Committee on March 9, 1987 at 1 :30 P.M. , Room 707, City Hall Notice aent 2-20-87 . , � � • �- (,� �'7-�.s� - � s -r. � Pau � c Y cou�vci� �� :� PUB� IC HEARING NOTICE ��:, `' ; ZONING �' �� °` �:,�- �W:. � t ., : ri � �. �� . � � q h � � � <<� �-� To: Property owners within 350 feet; _ � Representatives of District 8and 16 FIL E IV 0. 10016 PAGE PURPOSE � An Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a site plan for William Mitchell College of Law for a new parking lot on Summit Avenue and future building expansion. L O C A T I 0 N 875 Summit (William Mitchell College of Law school site - North side between Victoria & Milton) PETITIONER JEAN M. KUMMEROW �vs a 6 9 0•oo A HEARING io:oo A.M. . Citv Council Cham ers, 3rd Floor City Hall - Court House tioh �S s i 1 C� GouNc� G aw s Q U E S TID N S Zoning 298-4154 �. (Tom Beach) Contact the Zoning Section of the Planning and Economic Development Department, Room 1101, City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, St. Paul, Minnesoia 55102 Legal Description : Lots 1-30, Block 21 , Summit Park Addition '�js �'NCG'fi�h NOTE: This Appeal will be reviewed by the City Development and Transportation ' ' �' �e� �OY Committee on March 9, 1987 at 1 :30 P.M. , Room 707 , City Hall �S s�� I$� . C� �.ouhci I h�a �iK oh G�lill�awt I'�itca�li Notice sen[ '-z z�v� �G � '• ` I � $ 1'1QS PC��I V�.SC�1 cNG1 � ori �nqll Sc"� -�or S f 17( '� r , �, s�. Pa�r ic ks � �o �''h�Ys�► , 1`1q r�G� �� q t �o. �o . C Mar�h i7 �- Y � r r � w��ct1 �� S� i�+( ah ��+ �tay / --w�1iC�1 i5 na � a 9aod dp 'tOr � � .�...� Y r r Gh i�c.on�e�i�vicc �-�h�s M�a h�ve, c.auscd , So1' y � Y Y * (�1` �'t� �/ .S �. PAUL CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ZONING � � MEETING RESCHEDULEO FROM MARCH 26, 1987� `T0: Property owners within 350 feet; Representatives of District 8 and 16 FIL E N 0. 10076 PAGE ��., �... 'K r'`�1�J An Appeal of the Planning Commission' s decision to approve a site plan for William Mitchell College of Law for a new parking lot on Summit Avenue and future building expansion. LOCATION 875 Summit (William Mitchell College of Law school site - North side between Victoria & Milton) PETITIONER ,EAN M. KUMMEROW HEARING Thursday, April 9 , �9s� io:oo a.M. Citv Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall - Court House Q U E S TIO N S Zoning 298-4154 (Tom Beach) Contact the Zoning Section of the Planning and Economic uevelopment Departmeni., Ruom li�,i, City riail r,iyzex, 25 W. 4th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Legal Description: Lots 1-30, Block 21, Summit Park Addition This meeting has been rescheduled once more because some Council Members will not be able to attend the previously scheduled date. Again, sorry for the inconvenience. Notice sent 3-20-87 . ' � �7 ��-� � � ST. PAUL CITY COUNCII. PUBI.IC HEARING NOTICE ZONING - To: Property owners within 350 feet; FIL E N 0. 1365 Representatives of Planning Districts 8 & 16 PAGE P U R P 0 S E Consider revised "compromise" parking lot for William � Mitchell College of Law with 140 cars (instead of180 proposed previously) and a setback of 100 feet from the Summit Ave. sidewalk (instead of the 45 feet proposed previously) . LOCATION 875 Summit Avenue P E T I T 10 N E R The City Council voted on May 1�, 1987 to reconsider their action on Jean Kummerow' s appeal of William Mitchell ' s s�te nlan. The Council wants testimony on the '"compromise" plan. HEARING Tuesday,, May 26, i9s� �o:oo A.M. , Cit Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall - Court House Q U E S TIO N S zoning 298-4154 �Tom Beach) Contact the Zoning Section of the Planning and Economic Development Department, Room 1101, City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, St. Paul, MinnesoLa 55102 - -., - �- ,� Notice sent 5-15-87 '� � � \\ � � � ST. PAUL C COUN I ��' � C L �, �� PU6LIC HEARING NOTICE � � ZONING ' " � ��, , �' - To: Property owners within 350 feet; � Representatives of Planning Districts 8 & 16 FIL E N 0. 1365 � PAGE P U R P 0 S E consider revised "compromise" parking lot for William � ' Mitchell College of Law with 140 cars (instead of�80 proposed previously) and a setback of 100 feet from the ;' Summit Ave. sidewalk (instead of the 45 feet proposed previously). � I LOCATION � 875 Summit Avenue P E T I T 10 N E R The City Council voted on May 26 to lay over consideration of the s te lan to stud other o tions for colle e parking. H E A R I N G �'hursda� ,7une 25, 1987 3:00 A.M. � Cit Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall - Court House Q U E S TIO N S Zoning 298-4154 T (. om Beach) Contact the Zoning Sectinn of the Planning and Economic Development Department, Room 1101, City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, St. Paul, Minnesoia 55102 Notice •ent � L � f File #10016 Page Two 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. 5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably affected. 6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation and elevation of structures. 7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the locations and design of entrances and exists and parking areas within the site. 8. The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the development. 9. Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above ob�ectives. Section 62:108, Subd. 4 states that the Planning Commission may make such requirements with respect to the above matters so as to assure compliance with them. F. ZONING HISTORY: See attached chronology for the two-and-a-half year process of zoning review and plan revisions. G. FINDINGS: 1. On March 28, 1986, the Planning Commission voted 14 to 1 to approve a site plan for a parking lot and law library for William Mitchell College of Law. Approval was sub�ect to nine conditions dealing with setbacks, landscaping, lighting and design of the lot intended to minimize the effect of the parking lot on the surrounding neighborhood and protect the character of Summit Avenue. (See attached Resolution 86-61.) 2. At the public hearing held by the Planning Commission William Mitchell presented a site plan calling for a parking lot extending along Summit Avenue all the way from Victoria to Milton Street. The plan presumed that the law library would be built along Victoria. (See attached Plan A. ) The College also presented an alternative plan which moved the library closer to Milton and had a panhandle shaped parking lot. (See attached Plan B. ) 3. The plan with the library on Victoria required a setback variance for the library. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted this variance but the City Council overturned the variance on appeal in June, 1986. Therefore William Mitchell went with the alternative plan showing the library closer to Milton. After the decision that the library would be built near Milton, Winsor Faricy Architects designed the library and also recommended that the panhandle of the parking lot be eliminated by making the rest of the lot on the Victoria side a little deeper from Sumn:it Avenue. 4. One of the nine conditions required by the Planning Commission in March 1986 was that a revised site plan meeting all of the other eight required conditions be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. William Mitchell submitted its revised plan in December 1986, showing the library near Milton with a parking lot on the east half of the block. This plan was a modification of Plan B shown to the Planning Commission in March 1986. (See attached Plan C.) 5. The Planning Commission reviewed this site plan on January 23, 1987. It determined that the plan met all the conditions required by its resolution of March 1986 granting site plan approval. (See attached letter from David Lanegran to William Mitchell. )