The URL can be used to link to this page

87-1672 WHITE - CITV CIERK PIIY.'L .�- FINANCE � COUnC1I � CANARY - aEPARTMENT G I TY OF SA� NT PAU L / HLUE - MAVOR. Flle NO• � "� �� Council R sol tio Presented By ._. Referred To ommittee: Qate Out of Committee By Date WHEREA5 , the St. Paul Sem'nary School of Divinity has. applied for site plan approval or the construction of a resi- dence, administration, commons a d chapel facilities on a seven acre campus located on the so theast intersection of Summit Avenue and Mississippi River B ulevard in the City of Saint Paul ; and WHEREAS , the Planning Co ission of the City of $aint Paul by its Resolution No. 87-96 dopted August 28 , 1987 , approved the si�ce plan subject to six cond' tions ; and WHEREAS , District 14 Comm nity Council , 320 5outh Griggs Street, Sain� Paul , Minnesota, appealed the approval of the site plan by �he Planning Commi sion to the St. Paul City Council alleging tha't the Planning C mmission committed an error in allowing buildings to be cons ructed in excess of 40 feet in heigh't as that would constitu e a violation of the St. Paul Zoning Code ; and WHEREAS , -cne Planning Co ission's approval of the site plan including buildings to e erected in excess of 40 feet in height was pased upon a wr ' tten opinion of the City Attorney that the provisions of Sectio s 65. 230 through 65. 234 did not re�trict the heights of bui dings on the bluffs within the River Corridor to 40 feet in he ght if the uses of those buildings were for colleges , seminaries a d universities ; and WHEREAS , the City Council has conducted a public hearing on October 8 , 1987 to consid r whether the Plannix�g Commission committed any error in appro ing the construction of buildings in excess of 40 feet in he ' ght by the St. Paul Seminary and the City Council having co sidered the Planning Commission' s findings and resolution, the report of staff and having heard COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays � [n Favo Against BY Form App ve by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY gy, Approved by Wlavor: Date Appr ved y Mayor Eor Submission to Council By BY _ _- - - -- _ _ - ---��- �e-�ft -��-�-��De��-0�r� ---- - ----- --- -. -- wNiTE - C��r Cl6RK -- - --- �'=°E°R`T E"' C I TY F SA I NT PAU L Councii �i OIUE -MAVOR FllC �0• ✓ � /� j�- � lJ Coun il Resolution Presented By .� Referred To Commi ttee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS_ thA c�- n�--- ^- --' WHITE - C�TV CLERK COl1RC11 PINK - FINANGE GITY OF SAINT PAITL File � NO. �7-�� 7�` CANARV - OEPARTMENT _ BLUE - MAVOR . ' Counci Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date all interested parties on this atter, does hereby RESOLVE , that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby find and determine that the 40 foot maximum height limi- tation for structures on the roperty within the River Corridor does apply to seminaries , co leges and universities ; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that t e City Council , acting pursuant to Section 65. 650 , does hereb modify the 40 foot height limi- tation contained in Section 5. 233 so as to permit the St. Paul Seminary to construct a esidence , administration, commons and chapel facilities , the h ight limits of the structures to be as set forth in the a tached elevation drawing, which drawing is marked as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by refer- ence ; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that th City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the Di trict 14 Planning Council , the St. Paul Seminary, the Planning Administrator, the Zoning Admini- strator , and the Planning Commis ion. 2 COU[VCILMEIV Requested by Department of: Yeas �p Nays Nicosia � [n Favor Rettman Scheil�el � Against By Sonnen V3eida � �01/ i � '�87 Form Appro by C' Att ey Adopted by Council: Date Certified P , oun '1 �e+' tar By B}, 4 �� ';".�' ' !� � Approv d by ayor for Submission to Council A►pprov Mavor: D e By By Pu��.!��F�A 0. {��',' � � 1987 ti. � . �.`` . . . . rc,.. ` ' � �O �� DEPARTMEN ' � � CONTACT � C�—l�'72 PHONE 1 . DATE �Q,��r�� Q, � � , ASSIGN NUMBER FOR ROUTING ORDER Cli All Loc tions for Si nature : : Department Director Director of Management%Mayor Finance and Management Services Director � � City Glerk Budget Director City Attorney , HAT WILL BE ACHIEVED BY TAKING ACTION ON THE ATTACHED MATERIALS? (Purpose� � � Rationale . ,.: `-��' '�� ._ � � � �� . ^ ;. � . �� : w� • COST BENEFIT BUDGETARY AND PERSONNEL IMPACT ANTICIPJ�TED: `�f �INANCING SOURCE AND BUDGET ACTIVITY NUh�ER CHARGED OR CREDITED: (Mayor's signa- ture not re,- - Total Amount of "Transaction: guired if under. ' � �10,000) Funding Source: /�! �V Activity Number: . TTACHMENTS List and Number All Attachmen . Q,EPARTMENT REVIEW CITY RTT�NEY REYIEW es No Council Resolution Required � Resolution Required? �Yes N�;. y„Yes No Insurance Required? Insurance Sufficient?` Yes �N�:� Yes No Insurance Attached: (SEE •REYERSE SID FOR INSTRUCTIONS) ' Revised 12/84 - C��'7 J��;�'.�'-' ' °�`'�- CITY OF SAINT PAUL sti �~0 ''� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY �o � i� ;r iiii�i ii n �= �;m EDWARD P. STARR, CITY ATTORNEY �''"�,,;,'°•mz�.`�" 647 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 612-298-5121 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR November 3 , 1987 Mr. R1 Olson City Clerk 386 City Hall Re : St. Paul Seminary Site Plan Dear Mr. Olson: Enclosed please find resolutio requested by the City Council whereby the City Council finds that the 40 ft. maximum height limitation for structures on pr perty within the River Corridor does apply to seminaries , colle es and universities and further, whereby the City Council would mo ify the 40 ft, height limitation for the proposed St. Paul Se inary facilities. The height of the proposed buildings whic are in excess of 40 feet are shown on the Exhibit A (dated 1 -2-87) , which plan was prepared and submitted to me by John R uma on behalf of the St. Paul Seminary. Any questions regardi g the proposed height of build- ings shown on Exhibit A should be referred to Donna Drummond of the Planning Division. Yo s very t ly, i J� M J S G �ss sta City Attorney JJ ! �cg Encl . cc : Council Members Donna Drummond �.- - - -- ,r.>:�:x'�.. /'ii:::�::i::`:;:•:• ,t'::•:;�:.::�-:::.;a:•::.. /.-:::::;�::�::::::�R:::::'y�;�i':�::�:. i�.;�.;�::R::�:::•>::::y:::::r�::::'::•. i i � i o E. z AK_ti1EW R I NGE WER 5. 13- G P ES E 2 E T ) �.`:��ti:.%.'_iz�':��'"''%`';`r%.%i2�:<�...'.....'':';'.:'• � Z �'�t ::.>.-� f,.:•�.i:•::�i:!•i:•,i:iii:.:�;v'�'�ii:•::):�:�::-'-'-'ii::i::i::?i i�:... ��:�i:�iii:i::;:•,:;i::;{.j..'.":�:':�::i:'::'i::i:::�::�i:-T:-:�i:<= � !Mi�1.;.:;J l..:.:.:::.. .. ......."'...::............:.................... ZIO' D/Z' AVER.e.4E N7. S.E.TOWER'1.:5:::.>:.>:.>::.:::;.::::;::;;::"::::±::.:'�::<�::::�:�i::::::;,::�:::;:%�i:�::�::. F.=i:=;:�i:;;:::;::::�i:�i::r:�.`�R;�:•i:i:�i:�i:�r':�:;��i::�:''2; i - _ :�:5:%i:::i�i::2:i�i:•:;'::::?::::::::::j:::;::i:::::�::�::�:�::> � ..::�>:-::�:::::•r=••x.r:�::�:r:t•::•:::�:��>:�:::�a::•::::::�:. .::•:::::::::::::•:: =:=:_`�::�r;:�::�::�i::::�i:�i::;�:�::�P:':::':::<:�::�::;:::�:` 207-Ioy2� EAVE .::::::::•;::<:•;:•:::•::•::.. ..................::::•::::::.:.�:::.:;�:::-::r - :,�;y. ;Xae�N:bae�»f};y}ueo ..._'— — - ::�L:�::~'o"::`:�:::..w�w -._ ___ __ 0 2 i �::;��?i::.%y;i:�:s«'vi:.x;.:v.+.:.:w..�_ �::::°...........::::::::•:::::::::::::::::.:.: ............... .. _ _ -'-........ �:::.;-:::::::::::s:::::....................:... .............. ......"'...............•::::..::.;;:cx:a>:::::u .......;.........:::: ........:........::::• .................:::. .....................'-.. ................ �:::::::::::.�::::::-'...:::::.::::::::::•:::::: ;:::::::::::::::.. ............................:................:. ::::::::.�:.::::::r•.......... a:c:�>:�:r:>rr::;:n>::�x.::;;;o:•:.:::�::�:;a;::a;::- :.r....... _� - -:>S:v....:. :?:Y:... .............................:..:.::........... .................::. r ?:;`:'y'•:::: '[�'v'?..... :�t:�>�x ��3>k::3::;: ::a,,;.;: �:>:<:#�;>�:�::->i:�:�:<�>#:�i:�:��i . .._ �:;c:��-.;:::�:iY;�;;:i�;:':�:z� � :::::::::::::::::o:... -:::5 Y.�S......... . T .n:.................::. ::::�:14:'.-0:{i:?::iii:{ti�:< ii:{}ij::%:�v. . . :ni:iniii:;i::�•::::. i:.;i}::{n}:y; +1,.'v'{vf:X.:':iiti^Yi. .}}\f? i•i:i.;t,:.:• � :i}.a.i.i":::i::vi:i+ii:i::i:i:{^iiiii:i4:jC::;:;:j H ri:{C:i�:•:-:::;•;:}�'X::^!�. _ �{iYi::iii:i<i?�� i'�wu3'.'�i:Gi:•:i' �:f•v::::w:::::::::::::.:.� � :�i$'r:iiTl�:^$i?:iiv�i.�r. � +::k%�i:f�':�':-:'ii:'?i:'. .;r}., ..:S.�iii::iSii:i�ii: v Z•i'"auiii:t�:$:riii::i:v�:4� LL� •i:Liii:4:::iiiiiii:{.i 3 _ _ `- 0 E:�:"i;?3;;''''�._�.`'`�'"� F- � :;�:y�i'ii:;�= ul --— cSYSiL. i� ii�.::;:;`::;i:::;:�..,....�» J1 �SiY�::.8:i��?;:%;:y:r::?:::i3::::::::::=�:::�::::?:°.=::i;3:;i- — ty- ............................................" ..............::::.�::::.:•:::::::::::::::::::::. ............ -:::::::::•:;�::::::::::::::�::::::::::::.�::::. ::.:..:.i:: ;::}�:;: v ,a.�:.:[:t;?ii:';'';'';r:i:;::yY::?:i:.��i<i:�i:�:i'�' ..........::v:::::::::::::... ........ .. :::::::::........ ...:::::::::�::a::.i::::::.�::: ................::... .................. :•:: ..........................................::::. . ..:::::::::......... ..::::::::. �� ::::::::::::::.. .... .................................:::.. �.,::. ::::��.. �::•::::::::::::::::::::::::::•::::::::::::�::: ._—'_"_.�... xo:::y_ ....::... ......:c>:a:::::as::;;:.;�:::::•::::::::::::::::. .. _-___ . .:.:::::..:..:..,.. '-'-''-""- ..x.,:..f-:.:.�.....'i?':.::s i i . :::}2�:.�i;;t�i?:=3i3:.`;:;;:;;%?;:::::::3:::i$:'tBFi':'<:::t•:::ai::'-' - IGS-D� aVERS..GE 6 DE :a::.r.>+>:::::�»+:»:.:::<::y.=--.- 2 ..::�w�° .:._ :.:.t:':..::�i:�:�:�::�:�i:�:?�i:�:�i::�i::�::�n[:�:�:;i:fi:';.y.:`:''°;i;'i:;[;'"[:�[;::::2::::$:n::�:�i.='::�:=:�:.;:.;:.;`}::':kt'"{.i:::;':;:;.;::�:::;�:�::;::;''"'<:�[.;;'<t:�:::i.::�i:�i:�>ii::;';.;;:;:2•::i;:;:;:;::_:;;;:�::i:?�:ti:�:i:?��::;:<:�:;i::"t;:i:rEt�>::i`:�::i::�i:''::?i;i:�::ii:�iSi2�:':>::i:;i.;2:...:i:i:;_..i:y::::c:::::.:}2:.;it.:::i:"::':�i::�:<�::�:�i::;:;:t::..<i'�S';`•:i:;::i'::rji>:�i::;::;i;:;::::::;;_''::;::' .::::::...... i .:. .:::;:o::n;:. :�::::::::::....:.. ... -::::.:•:..::::•:::::�::: `. ':'�:::i:;R::i f .:=:::f: ......... ......... .......::::::::::::::::. .........:<�>:�i::::.�:::::.�._:. �:.::. ... :.....:::>:�>:..:::::s: �:Ri:t i't:>3':::3:�i::::�n:.•'�:=::i:::-::i:�iiii;;ii::::::�;i:t±:i:�;3:i:'::'[�SiS:33:::t�;::i:%ti5:ii:�i:''{.::33i::i:$:ii:3;i:�i%�ii:t=:�:i:=i;::fi;�:r::c:3ii:YG:S::%�:::;:�:;::3:i.`:�::3i3::�i;:�3:;::j'i:!>::S:it:;::%=:�:��. _ ��::�:�:;t�::::.::::..::.'iSi'i;:i::::;;;`�:.�:i.�.;;;:;:;?yi::.>�.�.�.�'.{i:i-:-;:':::?i::i:�:??i:�3ii?i'iS:;:;:;:;�;:;Si:;i:;;�:ii:::;:<.;s:::.?r::_,i_;=�;�'::�::'y':;:. ..... . ......; ..... �:::�::>:�:::: ..... ...... .....::•.: :::�:::�:-;'i:�::�:�:�::: ....... .......... .... .....:.. .::::::::::::::....�;. :..::::::.:: .:::�::::::::. ...::._ ...::':'::�.:::.... .....:::. .:.�.....:.�.•. �:::-: ''�:f: ::: �:_:::::::�. ........ .:•::: ........ . .......:::...... : .;�i:�i:�:;:�>:�iii:: ::�>:�::�:::�;:�::�>:�::2�:�>::;:;y}:;_':::::::ri:�:;:;�:�i�:�:k;:+;':�:�:�: .;�::�::�::�:�:�;:a:::�: ...... .::�: ................ .:::::::::::::::: ..::.�. ................ . ................. ................. ::: ...... ................ ................. . - ...::. ................ . ........:::::::::. ' . , ' � �� -�-. /(� �� RID6E L1A1E- EXIST. DORMITORY� 2Zb�-yZ� " L-RIDbE L�h1E -EX15T. ADMI�.116fRAT101.1 ZZD�-2%Z � `-AVEIUGEHt S.W.TOWEK Lt'1� -bh� � � � ' i -�OWGR-�5.��✓.� � PEAK-1JEW RESID°_1.IGE TOWERlS�W) 22G-1�`Z 1� TOWER(U.} -...� -�AvERO.GENT.�.1.ToWE.IC LIO�-4h' PFJ.K-{.IEW RESrDE.1JCE 7owE.R(�l.) ,, 223��OvZ� �� i El.VE ZI�'-2.%Z' � 1 � RDOF -tiIEW RESIDEUGE� �5 v I � ,�� ' ' ; , �.'�i �"[. � �i � o �.4 13+ FLQ7R 195'_iori � � ; v �-� ' � ii a� 3 RD FLCOR ie7'-z'r1' . — - t: �� = i _ �i �� '�' u j m 3 2 tiD FLOOF 17D'-�.h � /�.. �� o _ v - I ,� .3,� ~ I "�IGHGST GRO�6� t6q�-t� _ � vi f zT P.L�P+ iG�'-ioil" � - �i - AV�+1AG=GRG.^► IG3 -BX2 _ .� � � • �R 5 1 -G — B _N � � R .�.Schl� �Z FO u N D Fi.O� G i - ` u O � OD'� .5 � S� T 8 5 Rk 1 LOSVE G I - i:;�;;i:;�:''-?yi`:`.'�'�'�`�.'�:>°';?:::"�`..3:i±:;`.:i<:::`'%':i`?;i�:i=:'�;�i�i�ii#�i::�:.,- - _. . i:i::::;:o`i�i:;�;�i`i�ii�i�;?':i�>3?i:$?:::;i:... :�: ;�.i:;::ri:>:. ��:::::�: C:=:�:y:�5::::�'::{::`'^i:iSi:;:::;ii:;;;`::`ii:i::�>i:�::::::::::�:i:;::tS:ii:+iiii:::;i3:'<::6::.i:;3''<':�;:=`:i�:Si':;�:?;�S:i%r:;::��;�iS;ii:;::;:iS:::;::yto:y::..... ..:2..:.;;:�i':Y•.�::ii::�S::Sii::Y:�;3:::iii:?j:iif[;:Yi:<::r�rii%:33i:2�i:�Si:t;:3i3:YO:i:::$::c;;::�i:�`ti3:[=::<t�ii3i::i:;i;::t�:::;fiiir:�i::::ft:�:ti:::+�:;t;vy ii:;`:�;::;:iSii;:ii:::2;;;::::£S::i;::;::�::5:::::::::::::: .................::.... ............... * •::::::............................... ......:::::::�::::::::::::::::::::•:::: ........ ........ ........ ........::::::....... .:::::.:.....: y::::� ........ .......::::. ...::::: ....... ....................:::n...........::::::::::::::::.:...................................... ... .........::::::::::::::::}:n.:::: �v:::::.v..:y::::::....... :::::...:::::��...........::::::v.....:..s::::::::......::.::::............yi:iii::.�:.....:::::............................................................... ..... ..... ........ ................. :....................... ni?i:ii:iiiii::ii:iii:iiiii:.::::..... :::::::.....:::.:.....::::......:......... .................... :::::...................:::.................:::::: ...v........v.......a�........ '::':: . ..........::::w:n�....-:::::wi?i}iii:..,-.: ........::::....: ..... �. ..::::.y::::�:..... ... . _...."_'"'"""""'"""'"'.v.......'"".......................ii+f:'iiii}i}::•:nv.... w;,-....:::F:::::::.�::::.::::::::.:.�:::! .:• .i::::.niv::� . ..._._.. .......__ .......................................ii�'�:..._. . _ ................. .... . .. ... . ._.. ..... ._..... ...... . NORTH ELEVATION �av�s��-�_�= =cT z�inG �/ARIATION 3Y Ci'�'! CUJti1G�= - . � p,V,dLV710N OF �-T�R S.1987 GRISWOLD RAUMA EGGE OLSON ARCHfTECfS Residence Administration and Chapel Facilities The Saint Paut Seminary P30 Interchanae Tower 600 South County RoaC 10 School of Divi nitj� f`�}� �] Minneac�tis, Mirnesota `_SC26 (612) 54<-277) � � St�111�mcL� ��,� h. I /� � �� z-�� y /: , �-` � ��.. / i. ._. �- J�T'o CITY OF SAINT PAUL S'�,� ♦ ��o � �o �� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY �� 11111111111 r% '�� 1°'-�!°° �� EDWARD P. STARR, CITY ATTORNEY ,m �'`�r„��•^•m,,�`'`� 647 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 612-298-5121 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR November 6 , 1987 Mr. Al Olson City Clerk 386 City Hall Re : St. Paul Seminary - Plann ng Commission Appeal . Dear Mr. Olson: I had prepared and sent to you the resolution approving the modification of the zoning code height limitations for the buildings to be constructed by the St. Paul Seminary and the resolution had attached to i copies of Exhibit A showing the height of the proposed buil ings . I have now been presented with a revised plan, and a k that you substitute the revised Exhibit A to the resolution. The revised Exhibit A will be identified as Exhibit A, w' th the date 11/5/87 in the lower right hand corner. � _� Thank you very much, and if you have any questions please feel � :� free to contact me. ; �-: Y Yours very truly, �'� � � , J GAL As�ista t City Attorney i � 1 J�JS :cg �� Encl . cc : City Council Members '...� Donna Drummond, Plannin Division \ � � ��- ��-��.� RIDGE VuE-EXISt DoR►�f�ToRY� ZZO�-D�� , = RIDbE UNE -EXP57. ADMIU167RAT10Al .Z7-D�-2�y�� `•avERAGE.HL s.w.TowE.R ZN�-D%s' . _ � y�K_uEW RESIDEIJGE ToWER GS.W.) ZZG�Z�fl�, TOWERIu•� �, l.VERA66NT.AJ.tOWE1C LID�'G/L �Ed,K-{,lEWRE5IDE{JL£TOWtR(�1•)',, 1Z3�'I��s�; EI.vE Z��'-2�' RoOF -IJEW RESI�F.►JGE-1 LOS�-ZV : �!. ". . - : .c_-�.- __._._� - �- p � . .'. .. .> _. N5�-10�''L� . ' ?Cili FI-Q7f5 _ _ � . . � � 0 -- - -_ __ ID1�_Z� ; �O . i � `° •: 3.FD_.FLGt7R.__ ._- v �. _ -_ - 1 i: � - . .; - - - 17D��l.� 1� � � W � 2_NO FLOOR -__-.. � � � _ .� � t 3 � 3 i��'_+�:y_:.:.. ! -g�SrG. tfoti=.qlri.� i � vi -]s7_E�LGDA :_ _ _ _ �. . :..;. :�.r.o..:Sr';.:,, • .- ,. . ..h. . J�VEf�O:GGGRA�D6 G�S-8X1;. . . ' ::.:.: .;.��: •.'' •. OC. �5�-D�i�.-.----' �e,ouN�r-t,a�ott(a,as�n�.►'� ►�'-�h' ;,�,�'<;��, f:�'••�' '�`•:• .� �sr_r�u _ . .. . ;�.,.. ' �:::.��:�;,.• •:,:�;%��'r•:• • - - • ' �.�;'.••� ..Y v f s••:c� �:; ��t•�6' �i�.� - ;��.� � �>�•r�• � `>�`-"` i :�J, r}f t . _ " � " � � NORTH ELEVATION , . ��fl-m-��=�� __ . _. . � 3LAIIA7IDK�`I-CCOC-CDUUGI� � -- - ------_ ___�I7aN37F�JCSD_C£Yi��987 ��E��,�� Residence Administration and Chapel Facilities The Saint Paul Seminary 830 IntercAange Twer 60U So�th Cumty Road 18 School of Divinity �St.i.homas MinneaDa»s+ MinnesOta 55426 (612) 544-2777 � /0/30�67 ' 1l�S�g7 � � � I �� C,�"�y/ ST. PAUL CI COUNCIL PU6l.IC HEA ING NOTICE � ZO ING - To: Property owners within 350' ; FIL E N 0. 10209 Representatives of Districtsl3 M and 4 PAGE �. PURPOSE Appeal of a Plannin Commission decision to grant site plan approval to the St. Paul Seminary for construction of residenc administration, co ons, and chapel facilities. L O C A T I 0 N 2260 Summit Ave. ( outheast corner of Summit Ave. and Mississippi River lvd. ) P E T I T 10 N E R DISTRICT 14 COMMUN TY COUNCIL �f E A R I N G �ursday, October 8 1987 9:00 A.M. � Cit Council Chambe s, 3rd Floor City Hall - Court House Q U E S TIO N S Contact Donna Drum ond (228-3365) or ponna Datsko (228-3395 of the Zoning Sect'on of the Planning and Ec�nomic Development Depart nt, Room 1101, City Hall Annex, , 25 W. 4th Street, S . Paul, MinnesoLa 55102 Legal Description: On file. --, � ;� . ✓ Notice •ent 9-25-87 - ;., � "l -�'� �'�. . 4�y�tTt ot O,8 CITY OF SAINT PAUL ` �__;_�„� ; DEPARTMEN OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ro �o' DIVISION OF PLANNING 25 West Fourth Streef,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 „s• 612-22&3270 GEORGE UTIMER MAYOR AZ OZSOI7 City Clerk's Office 386 City Hall October 6, 1987 Albert Olson, City Clerk Room 386, City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #10209 - Saint Pau Seminary Site Plan City Council Hearing: October 8, 1987 Last week you received a packet of information regarding this appeal (appeal of a Planning Commission decision app oving the Saint Paul Seminary site plan) . The materials in the packet refer o a City Attorney's opinion dated May 15, 1987. A copy of that opinion was nadvertently left out of the packet. It is attached to this cover memo for yo r information. Please excuse any inconvenience t is may have caused. Sincerely, ��Yv�v°l� �wanv�Q� Donna Drummond City Planner DD:ss Attachment . ; � . � ' ' �;�� ` � � �7-iG �� ' � �-��:�' � CITY OF SAINT PAUL ;<<<,t, ..-.,,. _•' �� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY . �e . , $� 'ni�nw .� �.; ��!!t�!�1�� :- . EDWARD P. STARR. CITY ATTORNEY ,. , ,. ,... . 647 Cit� Hall. Saim Paul.!�linnesota 5510? ...:•.` .. . 612-298•51?1 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR May 15, 1987 , � Ms. Peggy Reichert Deputy Director for Planning 1100 City Hall Annex • Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Reichert: This is in response to your r quest for legal opinion regarding height standards under provisi ns of the City' s River Corridor zoning provisions. The questio which you ask is : QU STION � Does the height restricti n on principal uses per- mitted in an RC-3 River C rridor Urban Open Overlay District (Sections 65.232 and 65.233) apply to principal uses permitted ubject to conditions in ' Section 65.234, such as c lleges, universities and seminaries? PINION The Zoning Code is made of ch pters 60 through 67 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code (see s cticsn 60.100) . Chapter 60 contains the zoning district classifi ations, which defines the districts and what uses may be permitt d in each of the districts. Chapter 65� River Corridor regulatio s, establishes further restrictions ' on uses of land within t e city, and establishes additional districts which are placed over the districts established by Chapter fi0. These River Corridor districts are thus called "over-lay districts" . Colleges � universities and . seminaries are uses permitted in all � residential. districts , except for the RM-3 district, as a "principal use permitte subject to special conditions" and the special conditions a e set forth in section 60:413(6) , as follows: (a) - Principal access o said site shall be directly from a major thor ughfare as designated on the major thoroughfar plan. � � �7 - i� � �- Peggy Reichert Page Two � May 15� 1987 (b) No building shall be clo er to any property line than a distance equ 1 to the height of the building, or 50 feet, whichever is greater. _ ` (c) The boundaries of the i stitution shall be as defined in the permit a d may not be expanded without the prior appro al of the Planning Com- mission. (d) The institution shall ot exceed by more than 10 percent the student enrollment, staff and employee size and/or d rmitory bed levels identified in the perm t unless required off- street parking is prov ded and approved by the Commission. (e) For institutions exis ing as of the date of adoption of this ordi ance amendment liy the City Council , the Pla ning Commission shall issue special conditi n use permits , which permits shall establi h the boundaries, existing off-street p rking� student enroll- � ment, staff and empl ee size and dormitory bed levels. In the ' ssuance of special condition use permit , the Commission shall . follow the procedure set forth in Section 64. 300 provided that mailed notices of a hearing to owners of record of property within 350 feet of t e proposed campus boundaries shall no be required. � Uses permitted in the RC-3 R ver Corridor district are set forth � in section 65.230 through 65.234 and permit all those same . uses which are allowed in the underlying zoning districts as established in chapter 60. Therefore, if a college , university or seminary were located n a residential district, it would be a permitted use subjec to special conditions as set forth . in section 60.413(6) �nd to whatever other restrictions were set forth in Chapter 65. Section b5.�234 pertains o those uses permitted subject to special _conditions in t e underlying zoning districts, and this section reads as foll ws: • Peggy Reichert . Page Three May 15� 1987 65. 234. Principal uses pe mitted subject to special conditions are those specifie by the corresponding underlying district as estab ished in Section 60. 301 to the extent that they are ot prohibited by any . . other provision of the Zonin Code. They are subject to standards specified in th corresponding under- lying district section and t those specified in , section 65.400 et seq. Such uses will be permitted only upon application and issuance of a condition al u e permit by the planning commission. The height restriction to whi h you refer in your letter is contained in section 65.233, and it is our opinion that it applies only to those uses p rmitted in the underlying zoning districts which are classifi d as "permitted uses" and does not apply to those underlyi g uses which are classified as "principal uses permitted sub ect to special conditons" . Our opinion is based on the read'ng of section 65.234, above � and of section 65.232: . - 65.232. In an RC-3 Ri er Corridor Urban Open overlay district use of t e land, location and erection of new buildings or structures, and the alteration, enlargement a d moving of existing buildings or� structures f om other locations or districts shall conform t those specified uses and standards of the corr sponding underlying district as established 'n Section 60.301 to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other • provision of the Zoning ode. In addition, per- mitted uses shall be sub ect to the followin applicable standards and those in Section 65.400 et seq. (Underlining ad ed) . The "following applicable st ndards" are set forth in section 65.2.33: 65.233. Standards f r urban open uses. Subdivision 1 . Develop ent shall be limited to 40 � fee�- in height. Subd. 2. The developm nt of new and expansion of existing commercial an industrial uses shall only be on lands wh ch are on the landward side of blufflines. - . �7 - /�" � � Peggy Reichert ' Page Four May 15, 1987 Subd. 3. Mining and extract on operations shall not be permitted. It is our opinion that these �s andards apply only to "principal � uses permitted" in the underly ng district, not to those us�� . which are classified as "prin ipal uses permitted subject to special conditions" because th above-underlined language does not also appear in section 65.2 4. Therefore, it is our opinion that the standards for urban open uses , contained in section 65.233� apply only to "principal uses permitted" in the underlying zoning districts and are no applicable to "principal uses permitted subject to special onditions" . College, university and seminary uses are classified as "principal uses permitted subject to special conditions" and therefore the 40 foot height limitation in section 65.233 is not applicable to those uses. Very truly�yor,t�s, _ . • '� � . , • ,Y ,/ i .r-i�'r� . .. �.�%`� � .��'�� . ''EbWAR�`�TARR ' Ci Attorne OME J. L � s istant City Attorney EPS:JJS:Cg cc : Mayor Latimer � ' Councilmembers Jan Gasterland City Clerk . ' . _ ��- /� 7� + with thc standards for Ctoodway co ditional t�ses set forth in Section 65.213. (4) Waste treatment and waste disposal facilities that conform to the standards for flood fringe uses may be permitted and shall conform to the following provisions: (a) No new construction, additio . or modification to existing waste facilities shall be permitted within th floodplain unless emcrgency plans and proccdures for action to be t ken in the evcnt of flooding are prepared, filed with, and approved by the Minnesota pollution control agency. The emcrgcncy plans and proced res must provide for measures to prevent introduction of any polluta t or toxic material into the flood waters. � (b) There shall be no disposal f solid waste materials within the floodplain. (As amended: Ord. 17116, Mar. , 1984.) �65.230. RC-3 River Corridor Urban Open Dis rict. 65.231. Intent. It is intended that lands and aters within this district shall be managed to conscrve and protcct the existing and pot ntial recreational, scenic, naturai, and historic resources. Open space provided in the op n river corridor is for public use and the protection of unique natural and scenic r sources. The existing transportation role of the river in this district will be protected. 65.232. Principal uses pe�mitted. In an RC- River Corridor Urban Opcn overlay district, use of thc land, location and erection of ncw buildings or structures, and the alteration, enlargement and moving of existing bui dings or structures from other locations or districts shall conform to those specifie uses and standards of'the corresponding underlying district as established in Sec ioa 60.301 to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other provision of th Zoning Code. In addition, permitted uses shall be subject to the following applicable s andards and those in Section 65.400 et seq. 65.233. Standards for urban open uses. Subdivlsion l. Dcvelopmcnt shall bc li ited to 40 feet in height. Subd. 2. The development of new an expansion of existing commercial and industrial � uscs shall only be on lands which are n thc landward side of blufflines. ' SubdivisIon 3. Mining and extraction operations shall not be permitted. (As amendcd: Ord. 17116, Mar. 22, 1984.) 65.234. Princlpal uses permitted subject to spectil condttions. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions are thos specified by the corresponding underlying district , as established in Section 60.301 to th extent that they are not prohibited by any other provision of thc Zoning Code. They are subject to standards specified in the corresponding underlying district se tion and to those specified in Section 65.400 et seq. Such uses will be permitted only up n application and issuance of a eonditional usc permit by the planning commission 65.240. RC-4 Rtver Corridor Urban Dl ersitted Distrlct. � _ 65.241. Intent. It is intended that th lands and waters in this district be used and developcd 107 � ��--� �� - �� _= o. R°` *. \'�---�----°' CITY OF SAINT PAUL 4 � � a ��w ; DEPARTMENT F PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT `v� �� a DIVISION OF PLANNING �� 25 West Fourlh Street,Saint Paul,Minnesofa 55102 612-228-3270 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR September 29, 1987 Albert Olson, City Clerk Room 386, City Hall . Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #10209 - Saint Paul eminary Site Plan City Council Hearing: October 8 1987 PURPOSE: Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to grant site plan approval to the Saint Paul eminary for construction of residence, administration, commons, an chapel facilities. PETITIONER: District 14 Community C uncil PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Appro e (8-6, 1 abstention) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomme ds approval with six conditions as listed in the Planni g Commission resolution. SUPPORT: None OPPOSITION: District 14 Community C uncil, Merriam Park Community Council, and 5 individuals spoke aga nst approval at the Planning Commission public hearing. Dear Sir: On July 24, 1987, the Planning Co ission held a public hearing on the application for site plan approval by the Saint Paul Seminary. Four representatives of the Seminary sp ke on behalf of the application. Representatives of the District 14 and Merriam Park Community Councils, and five other individuals, spoke in pposition. The Planning Commission referred the site plan to the Zoning Commi tee for a recommendation. The Zoning Committee, at its meeting on Augu t 20, 1987, voted 5-3 to recommend approval. On August 28, 1987, the Planning ommission voted 8-6, with 1 abstention, to approve the site plan. , �� 17� -�1lbert Olson September 29, 1987 Page Two On September 11, 1987, the District 14 ommunity Council filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The P1 nning Commission's decision to approve was based partially on an opinion from he City Attorney, stating that a 40 foot building height restriction found 'n the RC-3 river corridor overlay district (in which the Seminary is loca ed) does not apply to special condition uses (which the Seminary is) but only t permitted uses. Several components of the proposed construction would exceed 0 feet, with the highest point being 56 feet. In its appeal, the District 14 C mmunity Council states that the City Attorney's interpretation of the Zoning Code is incorrect, and that the property is subject to a 40 foot buildi g height restriction. The appeal is scheduled to be heard by he City Council on October 8, 1987. Please notify me if any member of the C'ty Council wishes to have slides presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, �0'frw�,��'�"''�""""�°I Donna Drummond City Planner DD:ss Attachments: 1 Appeal to City Council y District 14 Community Council 3 City Council public hea ing notice 4 Memo to Zoning Committe from Donna Drummond analyzing issues raised at the Planning ommission public hearing 12 Planning Commission res lution and minutes 21 Original Planning Commission staff report 31 Area zoning map , APPLICATION FOR APPEAL ZONING OFFICE USE ONLY CI�Y OF SAINT PAUL File � I D2U� Application Fee 3 � Tentative Hearing Date 1 .�� Application is hereby made for an Appeal to the under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the oning Code to appeal a decision made b the Board of onin Appeals RECEIVEC� -� P�anning Commi sion on A��g„�t ,R , 19�• _ Zoning Adminis rator (date of decision) Planning Administrator SEP 111987 = other A. APPELLANT DISTRICT 14 COMMUNITY COUNCIL 698-7973 Name Daytime phone Address Zip Code Ss�n� B. DECISION BEING APPEALED Zoning �file name Site Plan, st. Paul Semina y Zoning File # 1431 Property Address/Location Legal description C. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Use additional sheets if ne essary. ) (txplain why you feel there has been an error i any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, r an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Plan ing Comnission.) apply to special condition uses such as t e St. Pau1 Seminary. The city attorney's opinion is an incorrec in erpre a ion o e . d at the same manner as in the River Corrido overlay district and have always been interpreted to also apply to the speci 1 condi ion uses w i h follow that district's If you have any questions, please contact: ��'� pplicant's s gnature St. Paul Zoning Office 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street 9-11-87 Saint Paul , Minr�esota 55102 Date City agent (298-4154) _ __._ .._w---..___.__.__._.. - - g 82 , / � �`�� h��,.� 1Q,2.�. � .... , f ; .. , � � , :. . � �; .... . ; � i � � . . i �: . �,. � . . . � ; i � � � � � �� :; ,,. . , i d �` 1� 7� . . ;. listing of permitted uses. It is improba 1e that the zoning code would intentionally provide for more restricti ns in a permitted use than a special condition use. B. Even if it would be determined that, due o the way the text of the zoning code is orqanized, that the River Corrido overlay district height restrictions do not apply to special condition uses, i would not (as the city attorney said) be arbitrary and capricious to add an add'tional cor3dition requiring a 40 foot �eight limit as it would be reasonable f r the Planning Commission to have imposed the same restrictions on a specia condition use as the code clearly imposes on a permitted use. RECEIVED SEP 111987 ZONING Z �g�8G FI L'� 1°—�.9— a � � , � �� . i ; � � � � ( � �� ; � � �� a ; , i ; � , ; I � i �� . � �� . j� ��' ��''i .�..� . . �. _ ` 1 . , .. .. i .... ',� , � ST. PAUL CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARIN NOTICE ' ZONIN � To: Property owners within 350' ; FIL E N 0. 10209 Representatives of Districtsl3 M and 14 PAGE P U R P 0 S E Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to grant site plan approval to the St. Paul S inary for construction of residenc administration, commons, a d chapel facilities. L 0 C A T I 0 N 2260 Summit Ave. (southeas corner of Summit Ave. and Mississippi River Blvd. ) P E T I T 10 N E R oISTRICT 14 COMMUNITY COUN IL H E A R I N 6 �ursday, October 8, 1987 9:00 A.M. • Cit Council Chambers, 3rd loor City Hall - Court House Q U E S TIO N S Contact Donna Drummond (22 -3365) or ponna Datsko (228-3395 of Lhe Zoning Section f the Planning and Ec�nomic Development Department, Roo 1101, City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Legal Description: On fil . Notice ��nt 9-25-81 3 _ � ( I _ ! � ,. . . � . ; ; ( ! ; ! '" � � ` ( �, F . � � ; . � � . _ � , . � ��:�� :. -; � ;,:�� - � . �7 �- �� • 4♦+a�T� 0.•,� . � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL ` � � DEPARTMENT OF PLA NING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT r� �o � DIVISION OF PLANNING �•.• �S Wat Fowlh Stre�1,S�M hu�MMnesWa 551�2 NZ-Z2&3�70 GEORGE UTIMER MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: August 13, 1987 T0: Zoning Committee � �FROM: Donna Drummond, Planning Division� • RE: St. Paul Seminary Site Plan Review #14 1 Introduction The Planning Commission held a public hearing uly 24th on its site plan review of proposed new facilities for the St. Paul Se inary School of Divinity. There was a significant amount of .testimony by both eighbors and representatives of the Seminary, and much discussion by Planning ommission members. This memo will .identify and analyze issues raised during the public testimony, provide `- �,_ related information on the St. Thomas special ondition use permit and College Zoning 40-Acre Study process, and present deci ion alternatives and a staff recommendation. Major Issues Raised During Public TestimonX These are the four ma,jor issues that were rais d during the public hearing: 1. Visual impact on the river corridor; 2. Nature of the affiliation between the Semi ary and the College of St. Thomas; 3. Delaying approval of the site plan until t e College Zoning 40-Acre Study is completed; and 4. The applicability of the 40 foot River Cor idor height restriction. A summary and analysis of each is given below 1. Visual impact on the river corridor. Summary: There is a fear that the propos d development will have a � �� negative impact on views from the river, he Minneapolla riverbluff, and Mlssisr;i��pi flivc�r ric�ulc:vt�rd, ln violi�t:ion oi� the intent af the River Corridor plan and ordinnnce. � � � � � � i � , I - ► � ; ., t _ , , f - . : � = � �; . _� � , � . ; �� . � . � . . � • . _ i�' � . � 'Zoning Committee � August 13, 1987 � . • Page T�ao Analysis: The primary intent of the Rive Corridor ordinance is to protect views of the riverbluff from the river, a though the visual impact of development on the opposing riverbluff an within the river corridor area being developed is also a concern. Slide taken from the Minneapolis riverbank indicate that the proposed deve opment would not be visible during the summer, since the existing adm nistration building, which is 2 feet higher, is not visible now. The ext nt to which the facilities would be visible during the winter is unclear. Slides also indicate that the development would be marginally visible f om the Minneapolis riverbluff, and would have much less of a presence th n many existing residences and . institutions along the river. The visual impact from Mississippi River • Boulevard will not be significant given t e 300+ foot setback that will be maintained and the heavily wooded nature f that setback. In fact, the proposed plan, by going higher, actually elps preserve the setback that contributes so much to the character of t e River Boulevard at that point. If' lower building heights were imposed, t e large setback would necessarily be infringed upon to accommodate the same building square footage. 2. Nature of the aff liation between the Sem nar and Colle e of St Thomas. Summary: Several speakers questioned the autonomy of the Seminary from St. Thomas, stating that the Seminary is now alled the St. Paul Seminary School of Divinity of the College of St, omas. The implication is that St. Thomas is really "calling the shots", and if that is the case, the entire project should be delayed until t College's special condition use permit is approved. .. Analysis: It is staff's understanding t at the Seminary's academic programs are joined with those of the Co lege and together are administered ' by the St. Thomas College administration as one academic program. However, the Seminary retains its own board of di ectors, ownership of its separate 7 acre campus, and is responsible for th overall spiritual education of its students in preparation for the prie thood, which is a function distinct from the academic component. I is clear that the purpose of the proposed facilities will only be to hous Seminary students and faculty, and provide administrative offices and a chapel for the Seminary, not to provide classroom or other dormitory spa e that could conceivably be shared by College of St. Thomas students or sta f. Seminary students will go on to the St. Thomas campus to attend class s. No constructive purpose would be served by delaying consideration of t e site plan until all of the St. Thomas issues are settled. It is diffic lt to conceive how the proposal could or would be changed as a result of what is decided regar.ding development of the St. Thomas campus. 3. Dela in site lan a roval until the Co le e Zonin 40-Acre Stud i completed. 5 t ' � i � . ` �,� � . . . .. . � ' � . . , .. . - ,.-. .�.._ � . .., .. ..�i .," , � �.. � . . . � . . � . _ I ;, � � I � '• ';:: � . . �� -- �� Zoning Committee August 13, 1987 , , Page Three Summary: A few individuals have suggested that approval of the site plan be delayed until this 40-Acre Study is com leted. The study will recommend changes to the way the Zoning Code regulat s colleges, universities, and seminaries, and wil.l definitely include a ecommended height restriction for college campuses, where there is none ow. The assumption made by those who suggest a delay is that some cha ge made to the Zoning Code will -- ,\ subsequently require a change in the plans the Seminary has submitted. Analysis: As discussed in the staff repor on the site plan review, staff has not contemplated recommending a genera college height restriction that would prevent construction of the Seminary project (which would be 56 feet . at its highest point) . The Summit Avenue lan, adopted late last year; • recommended that a survey of college, univ rsity, and seminary building heights be conducted and that a height res riction be established consistent with currently prevailing heigh s. Such a survey was done, and it indicates that the first and second tal est buildings on a majority of the campuses in St. Paul are between 60 a 80 feet tall. It should be noted that an appropriate height limit has not been discussed formally by the St. Thomas ad-hoc committee nor by the Planning Commission as a whole. In response to specific neighborhood conc rns, other Zoning Code amendments have been considered for possible inclusi in the 40-Acre Study. These include: building or student density res rictions, increased setback requirements, access or location requirem nts for parking ramps� maximum distance requirements for stadium and the ter parking, revised parking requirements, definition of college use, tc. In almost no instance would any Zoning Code change that has been cons dered or suggested,if it were to become law, require the Seminary to modif its plans in order to meet a new requirement. The single possible excepti n would be the height restriction, assuming a restriction lower than 56 feet was approved by the City Council and Mayor. Again, given the existing character of St. Pau� campuses, staff feels that a height restr ction of 56 feet or lower would be inappropriate. No clear purpose would be served by delay ng site plan consideration until the 40-Acre Study is completed if there a e no zoning code changes that would directly affect it, and it could be considered an unreasonable delay. 4. �,,.p,licability of the 40 foot hei�,ht limit Summary: This was the primary source of oncern for the neighborhood representatives testifying against the si e plan. As proposed, the Seminary's� building heights would exceed 0 foot, in violation of what the neighbors feel is a 40 foot height restri tion imposed by the River Corridor ordinance. A legal opinion fro the City Attorney states that the 40 foot height limit found in the RC-3 di trict applies to permitted uses, but not special condition uses, which the Seminary is. 6 �. � � .,;., I :;� ; � � , ; : ; , __ � � � � ; � i E . ; ; f � : . . � _ ! � � � �1 ; . . � , .. : � ; ; " . :! :':,, � . I � ; .�.��: � �Zoning Committee August 13, 1987 , . Page Four Analysi�: The concern expressed by neighb rs appears to have lesa to do with the actual construction of the Semina y plan as proposed� and more to do with concern about setting a legal prec dent that would apply to the St. Thomas property on the balance of the bloc . Neighborhood representatives are fearful that continued enrollment grow h at the College of St. Thomas will result in: a. Increased traffic congestion and noise ` b. More students living in the neighborho d� resulting in an increase in . properties owned by absentee landlords and a decrease in maintenance of • properties; and c. Pressure to convert residential proper ies to business uses to serve the growing student population. Many believe that this will lower propert values, drive out families, and significantly change the character of the neighborhood. The concern regarding the applicability o the 40 foot height restriction implies that if the limit does not apply o the St. Thomas property, the College will have a "blank check" to deve op as it pleases without regard for its impact on the surrounding neighbo hood. The neighbors feel that the height limit is the only control in p ace that might inhibit St. Thomas' enrollment growth by restricting he actual amount of physical space that could be built to accommodate dditional students. This is true to some extent, however the Zoning Code a endments under consideration may be able to address these concerns in a mo e direct fashion than by arbitrarily restricting building heights o 40 feet or less on a large institutional campus where many existing uildings are 50-70 feet tall. �� To put the 40 foot height limit in some p rspective, it should be noted that of the four River Corridor overlay z nes (RC-1 - Floodway; RC-2 - Flood Fringe; RC-3 - Urban Open; and RC-4 - Urban Diversified) , only the RC-3 district has any specific height lim t at all. Uses in the RC districts are subject to the height restr ctions specified £or them in the underlying zones. The 40 foot limit for ermitted uses in RC-3 only applies if it is more restrictive than th height limit in the underlying zone. The RC-4 district, which is most similar o RC-3 (in which the Seminary is located) , is also found on bluffs, mostly near downtown and along West Seventh Street. Despite the fact that it is also located on bluffs, the RC-4 district has no specific height rest iction. In addition, the 40 foot height restriction in the RC-3 district i coupled with a setback requirement of only 40 feet from the bluf line. A building could clearly meet the 40 foot height and 40 toot setba k requirementa and be quite vlsible from the rivar. In contrast, the Seminary pro,ject, which would be 56 foet ut its higtioa� point, would be se back approximately 560 feat from the bluffline. 7 � ' I r,�, . i i ,'.�., f , ' ' 1 ' � _ � ' 1 . � � f , � . .�:, :� � ` i ` 1 C , ,. . , � .; r , k .`.`. _ �7 �� , . Zoning Committee August 13, 1987 Page Five " � t o d e o S d • c d Background information on the St. Thomas permi and accompanying 40-Acre Study is given below to provide additional informati n on issues that some feel are closely associated with development of the Sem nary campus. St. Thomas Special Condition IIse Permit: St. omas will be issued a permit by the Planning Commission to establish a campus oundary and monitor compliance with parking requirements, ,just as nearly eve other college, university� and seminary in the city has been issued a permit. However, last year the College approached the City with the concept of expan ing the special condition use , ' permit beyond this to establish a framework p an for the future development of the campus. This plan, which was to be 3oint y agreed to by the City and St.� Thomas, would establish a campus boundary, an expansion area, rules for orderly expansion of campus uses into the expansion a ea, and requirements by area for setbacks, heights, and access points (parking ramp locations) for the entire campus. The concept behind establishing the xpansion area (bounded by Cretin, Summit, Cleveland, and Grand) was to define a long-term boundary for the College that would create a logical link betw en the two campuses and confine St. Thomas' growth to that area. The College had agreed in principle not to purchase additional properties in the neighbo hood outside this area. A tliree member St. Thomas ad-hoc committee (G ry Park, Dave McDonell, Gayle Summers) was appointed by David Lanegran to s udy these issues and maka recommendations to the Planning Commission. preliminary permit draft developed by staff was circulated for public review last December. Public discussion of the draft continued through th end of March and many serious questions were raised about the impact of co tinued St. Thomas growth on the neighborhood. As a result, the Planning Div sion staff� with the help of a consultant (Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch) began a st dy of potential traffic� air, noise, parking, and residential impacts that could result from additional enrollment growth at the College. This study is currently underway and should e completed in a month to six weeks. Results of the study will be used by the St. Thomas committee to develop its recommendations for the College' permit. The committee will also � ,, use the study results to decide on its reco endations for the College Zoning 40-Acre Study, which is described in more de ail below. College Zoning 40-Acre Study: This study wa begun at the same time that work on the St. Thomas permit began. The purpose is to consider zoning changes designed to address issues that have arisen egarding future development at St. Thomas and the other college, university, a d seminary campuses in the city. A wide range of possible zoning amendments ave been suggested and considered. These include requirements related to: a. Student or building density; b. Building height; c. Increased setback; 8 � :� � � :�. k - , � � �� ; � �I _ , -; . � } � i � � } � , ; I ' � ! ; � � . � r ..... , Zoning Comoiittee August 13� 1987 , . Page Six d. Revised parking standard; e. Minimum area size for new College uses not including expansions) ; f. Locating dormitories within a campus bo ndary; g. College uses as permitted uses in B-2, -3, and I-1; � h. Access requirements for parking ramps; i. Maximum distance to required parking fr m stadiums; ' j . Definition of college use; and k. Increased Planning Commission discretio to review college special cpndition use permits. The St. Thomas committee will make recomme dations to the Planning Commission on both the permit and 40-Acre Study after conducting public meetings to discuss the study results and their prelim nary recommendations. Decision Alternatives There appear to be four possible decisions that the Planning Commission can make regarding the Seminary site plan revi w. They are: 1. Acce t the Cit Attorne 's o inion that the 40 oot i ht lim do not a 1 to the Seminar a d a rove the s te lan a be n o e with all requirements. i� Aside from the 40 foot height issue, th site plan clearly meets all other zoning code requirements. The Planning Comtnission has before it a formal opinion from the City Attorney stating hat the 40 foot height requirement in the RC-3 district applies only to pe mitted uses, not special condition uses. The opinion is based on a very c reful reading of the code and is the interpretation that the City Attorn y feels is most legally sound. Putting the legal question aside, there is concern about the actual visual impact of the development on the river orridor. As was stated earlier, it appears that the visual impact will be inimal. The proposed plan would preserve rhe large setback from Mississ ppi River Boulevard and will add to the architectural character of Summit A enue because of the interesting site plan concept and grouping �of build ngs. 9 � ` � ; + � . ` . . , �, . , I � � : �! . ; _ : �. � , , . : � � � � � ��i � _ � `� ; � ; l * . _�� , • . �7- I�� , , Zoning Committee August 13� 1987 Page Seven • ' The opposition of the neighborhood to the lans of the Seminary stems largely from the concern about "losing" t 40 foot height control for the St. Thomas campus if the restriction is f d not to apply to the Seminary. Given the amendments under consideration s �art of the College Zoning 40- Acre Study� it appears that there are mor straightforward and logical methods to minimize the negative impacts f St. Thomas' growth on the neighborhood than through an across the b ard 40 foot building height restriction. 2, e ct the C tto 's io d e a v b non-conformance with zoning requirements. , ' This decision would require the Planning ommission to purposely ignore the advice of its legal counsel. This type o decision involves certain legal risks. Jerry Segal can best advise the Z ning Committee on the wisdom or lack thereof of pursuing such a course of action. If the decision to deny were upheld, the Seminary would be forced to develop a plan with a larger building footprint that would encroach in o the large setback area that is preserved under the existing plan. 3. e ect t e it tt n 's o i io ut a t a o � modif cation of the 40 foot hei ht restri t on. `` Again, there are certain risks involved i ignoring legal counsel. If this decision was made, a second decision to g ant a modification of the height restriction would appear to be reasonable It would help preserve the setback area, and allow construction of t e pro�ect as envisioned by the architect. The facility has been designe to provide residential, office, and chapel facilities for a small communi y of priest candidates, faculty and staff. There would be no evident neg tive impacts on the neighborhood in terms of traffic, noise, air quality, eighborhood character, or quality of views. 4. ela actio o s t a u ti t e u r v First, it will undoubtedly be many months before these issues are resolved, and such a delay could be considered unre sonable and would serve no constructive purpose. Second, it is dif icult to conceive how the proposal could or would be changed as a result of hat is decided regarding development of the St. Thomas campus. ird, it seems highly likely that whatever the Planning Commission decides, it will be appealed to the City Council. There seems no sense in delayi g a decision if this is the case. i� fD j I ; � �. , � � . � . . � ti � ° I �� :`�-% # ? � ; t: � � � � . ., I � � � i � � �. �� '. �� ! . , � , Zoning Committee - August 13, 1987 Page Eight ' Staff Recommendation Based upon the analysis given above, staff rec mmends that the Zoning Committee accept the City Attorney's opinion and recomme d approval of the site plan to the Planning Commission. It seems ill-advised to delay approval of one project because of objections that the neighborhood ha to other pro�ects that may be proposed in the future. A process has been es ablished to resolve the issues� associated with the College of St. Thomas. Th t process should be allowed to run its course. The Seminary pro�ect should n t be held hostage to that process. DD:ss cc: Mayor George Latimer Lee Ann Turchin, Mayor's Office Councilmember Kiki Sonnen Councilmember John Drew Jerry Segal, Assistant City Attorney .Father Charles Froehle, St. Paul Seminar St. Thomas Ad-Hoc Coma4ittee (Gary Park, avid McDonell, Gayle Summers) Kathie Tarnowski, District 14 Community ' ouncil . Jo Haberman, Merriam Park Community Coun il , Dr. Charles Keffer, College of St. Thoma ; � � ;� ;•� ; � • � ,, ; � . . . �.� 4.' . . �- � � 1 � , !�(. � �.I � _ � . . � . `�.i � ... � . � �.i �. . � . '. .i � ' " f � . ., V . .., ,. � . • . , � city of saint paul planning commission resolution f ile number $�-9 6 � Ciate A�QUSt Zs . �9R� WHEREAS, Section 62.108, Subd. 3 of the Zoning ode requires that, in order to approve a site plan, the Planning Commission sh 11 consider and find that the site plan is consistent with: the City's Comprehens ve Plan and sub-area plans; applicable City ordinances; preservation of his orically significant characteristics; protection of neighboring prop rty; safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic; the satisfact ry availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers; and sufficient lands aping, fences, walls, and parking necessary to meet the above objectives; and WHEREAS, Section 62.108, Subd. 4 states that th Planning Commission may make such requirements with respect to the above matters o as to assure compliance with them; and WHEREAS, the St. Paul Seminary School of Divini y has applied for site plan approval for construction of residence, administration, ommons, and chapel facilities on its 7 acre campus, located southeast of the interse tion of Summit Avenue and Mississippi River Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the residence portion of the new facil ties will include 96 single rooms, 11 faculty apartments, and 1 guest apartment fo a total maximum occupancy of 108 persons; in addition; estimated occupancy for t e administration building is 54, and the maximum occupancy for the commons/chapel at one time is estimated at 300 ' persons; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the o erall special condition use permit for the Seminary at its July 24th meeting�which established the campus boundary and procedures for monitoring compliance with Zonin Code parking requirements; and WHEREAS, the project is generally consistent wi h the Comprehensive Plan, which recognizes the important contributions that ins itutions make to the City; and WHEREAS, the project will be set back approxima ely 300 feet from Mississippi River Boulevard, 97 feet from Summit Avenue, 50 feet rom the east common property line with St. Thomas, and approximately 70 feet fro the south common property line with St. Thomas, and in no instance will the buildi g height exceed the setback at these locations, thereby meeting the setback require ent of 50 feet or the height of the building, whichever is greater; and (continued moved by ANFANG seconded by r►.�z �L h L x _ in favor.� against 6 Abstained 1 �a. ; ( ' :;; j '" :;� ;. ' ,i• '� �i �'. � i � ( � � � � � ; i 4 r � � t { � - ` ..�. f � c�'7— /� �� Page Two WHEREAS, heights of seminary buildings are in irectly regulated through the setback requirement� and there is no specific height requirement for colleges, seminaries, and universities, although one wi 1 be proposed as part of the College Zoning II 40-Acre Study this fall; an WHEREAS, the tallest portion of the pro�ect w 11 be towers of 56 feet, and staff has not contemplated recommending a hei ht restriction as part of the 40- Acre Study that would have prevented construc ion of this pro�ect; and WHEREAS, the building site is located in the C-3 River Corridor district, and • construction must meet all applicable require ents of the River Corridor ordinance (Sections 65.234 and 65.400) , but n t including Section 65.233, which restricts development to 40 feet in height fo permitted uses, not special condition uses (which a seminary is) ; this is according to a legal opinion from the City Attorney dated May 15, 1987; and WHEREAS, despite the fact that the 40 foot height limit does not apply, the spirit of the ordinance, whose primary intent is to protect views of the riverbluff from the river, would not be viol ted by this construction, based on visual evaluation of the site from the Minne olis riverbank and the comparable height of the existing structures, the 560 f ot setback of the proposed construction from the bluff, and the heavily ooded nature of the setback; and WHEREAS, the project will not negatively aff ct any unique geologic, geographic, or historically significant char cteristics of the City or environmentally sensitive areas, although co struction will require demolition of the current administration building, desi ned by the Cass Gilbert architectural firm and built in approximatel 1900; however, the Planning Commission believes the project will be more architecturally significant than the administration building, and will add mo e to the character of Swnmit Avenue because of the unique site plan desig and arrangement of buildings; and WHEREAS, the project will not reduce the exi ting setback from Summit Avenue, will maintain a 300+ foot setback from Missi sippi River Boulevard, and will be similar in scale, though larger in scope, to the existing buildings, which are 44 and 56 feet tall, thereby not unreasonabl affecting the views, light, and air currently enjoyed by owners of neighbori g properties and/or their occupants; and WHEREAS, the new driveway from Mississippi R ver Boulevard must be 26 feet wide '_ at the property line, be constructed to City standards, and be coordinated with the City's reconstruction of Mississippi Riv r Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the traffic loop in the parking lot at the southeast corner of the project must be enlarged to a 50 foot minim diameter, storm and sanitary sewer plans must be submitted to and approve by the Public Works Department, the- applicant must discuss water systems req irements with the Water Utility prior to building permit application, and an additional fire hydrant must be added as specified in the staff report; and (continued �3 � � ' .� .,, i , � - r .-, , ; _ j, _ e i � 4 I� � . � � , �.. ; I _ f i � � _, _ ... ., _..� . � . � ., . . Page Three WHEREAS, the Seminary is in legal compliance ith Zoning Code parking requirements, which require 71 spaces, and w ich are provided through the 31 spaces on-campus, plus an additional 120 spac s allocated for its use by the College of St. Thomas through the affiliatio agreement; and WHEREAS, proposed landscaping is adequate, g en that trees will only be removed to accommodate the footprint of the ew development and sodded areas �_ will be replaced where disrupted by construc ion; �� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Pla ning Commission approves the site plan submitted by the St. Paul Seminary to c nstruct new administration, residence, commons, and chapel facilities, s b�ect to these conditions: 1. The new driveway to be constructed with a cess from Mississippi River Boulevard must be 26 feet in width at the property line and must be constructed to current city standards und r a permit issued by the Department of Public Works. The construc ion and exact location of the driveway opening must be coordinated with the Parks and Recreation Division's reconstruction of Mississippi iver Boulevard. 2. The traffic loop in the parking lot at th southeast corner of the project must be enlarged to a 50 foot minimum di eter to provide an acceptable turning radius. 3. A stormwater management plan (with the el ments described in Finding 12 of the staff report) and a sanitary sewer plan must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Wor s. 4. The Water Utility must be consulted prio to building permit application to discuss water systems requirements. 5. An additional fire hydrant must be insta led where the proposed waterli�e� enters the east side of the south reside ce building. 6. The parking spaces assigned to the Semin ry on the St. Thomas campus that are needed to meet the Seminary's parkin requirement must be clearly signed, and these spaces may not be doub ecounted as meeting St. Thomas' parking requirement. l� � � � � � i � - ; . ' � �� i ; - � ; � . .�. � : � . _ .�� , � � : �. ; C-� � : ��a►nn i�� Cornrwiss i o� l�eci'�n, /rlinwt�s 'Tk l ay , 19 8 7 . y IV. ZONING COMMITTEE - PUBLIC HEARING ' St. Paul SeminarX Site Plan Review The Vice Chair opened the public hea ing. OM TION: Ms. Morton moved that one i em from the Zoning Committee be considered immediately after the pub ic hearing--Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity's request for a s ecial condition use permit. Ms. Zieman seconded the motion which ca ried by a voice vote with Dr. Indihar abstaining. Dr. Indihar indicated that because e is on the Board of the Saint Paul Seminary he had been advised n t to discuss or vote on these two matters. Donna Drummond of staff said the Se inary had submitted a revised site plan earlier in the week with lower heights. Using slides she pointed out that there were only two buildi gs on the site at this time--the chapel and the administration build ng. She said approval of a special condition use permit is not necessary for approval of a site plan, the Seminary has the right to continue to operate and construct new facilities at that location whe her it has a permit or not as long as conditions are met. She showed v ews of the site and the site plan with the buildings arranged around courtyard, and noted the towers were reduced to 62 feet, 2 feet low r than the peak of the present . administration building, although 1 0 feet closer to the River Boulevard. She stated that a 40 ac e study was underway which would _- include recommended heights for col eges, universities and seminaries, but said at this point staff was no contemplating recommending a height restriction which would eli 'nate this pro�ect. She summarized staff findings and said staff reco ended approval sub�ect to five conditions. In reply to questions posed by mem ers she said 120 parking spaces were allocated for the use of the eminary on the College of St. Thomas's, that additional building on this campus were not contemplated to her knowledge, and that the proposed towers would be closer to the River Boulevard tha the existing heating plant chimney which is 70+ feet. Mr. Horak point d out that if at a future date the Seminary wish to construct additio al buildings they would have to submit a plan for approval. Alma Joseph, 365 Summit, president of the Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association, which wa formed as a result of the Summit Avenue plan, spoke first. She sai this plan, approved by City Council, states that the Seminary s the one campus that presently has a height limit and no building tal er than 40 feet shall be built, commenting that this applies only o the western portion of the campus. Tom Nolan, a trustee of the St. Pa 1 Seminary in charge of the long range planning committee, said the site plan was the result of 4 or 5 years of study and the plan they a e recommending will take care of their needs for the foreseeable fu ure. Mr. Dimond asked how the x �S•' � � ,� I � ,. � I I .t `4 � � i • k , ,,� ..4.: . ... . ; � � . �_ .. � d'7 �/� �� :�; � �-� (� . ,;:., �::; '�� Seminary�had involved the community in their process. Mr. Nolan said .;::� they had met with neighbors earlier this year to discuss the plan. In ��, reply to Ms. Judge he said that lay people. can take seminary classes which now take place on the campus wned by St. Thomas College. Mr. '�;; Anderson asked if the affiliation a reement with St. Thomas was a long term.one and Mr. Nolan replied that it was forever. - , ; Father Charles Froehle, rector for years with administrative `�' responsibility, said the Seminary w s founded in 1894 and the building ;r'� pro3ect was consistent with past ef orts to retain maximum open space, '' they would remove the old administr tion building which was not a . �r;� classic build�ng, and that 7+ acres would be retained as the St. Paul Seminary carporation, which was aff liated, but not merged� with the �...`; St. Thomas Callege. He asked appro al as soon as possible. In reply to Mr. Dimond's question, he said t at as plans were developed �;.; neighbors were invited to meet with staff to see what they were planning and voice their comments� nd they met with districts 13 and ' 14 early in the summer. Mr. Christ nson clarified that the current building (64 feet high) would be re laced with buildings 48 to 50 feet �' high with towers approximately the eight of the existing building. , In reply to Ms. Tracy's question F . Froehle said the Chapel would be the centerpiece and their intentio was to have Mankato stone on the `', new buildings, which would not be e same as the chapel but would �' harmonize with it. ;�.; Tim Quinn, attorney for the Archdi cese and for the Seminary, introduced John Rauma, of the arch tectural firm of Griswold, Rauma, :� ` Egge and Olson, who referred to th descriptive materials that were ;:', �`': distributed, which included the el vations from the north and the site _ plan itself. He said to preserve he grounds of the site the buildings would cluster around the chapel, which would be dominant, and that the additions were consis ent with the environment. He answered a number of questions reg rding the site plan. Ms. Zieman �� said the site plan handed out indi ated "future additions." Mr. Rauma :.�`� stated this was to advise the Semi ary, which did not want to be boxed `�� in, where to add facilities if the were ever required. :,.� °°� Bill Heap, 1841 Dayton, President f Merriam Park Community Council, asked that the site plan be laid o er because it was difficult to separate issues--special conditio use permits, boundaries and �'� parking--and said they were missi g the heights, setbacks and t��: ingress/egress He said the commu ity has not had an opportunity to � review the special condition use ermit for the Seminary� that the :�� June meeting of District 14 was t e first formal presentation of the site plan, and that Fr. Froehle c e to a Merriam Park meeting the following week. Kathy Tarnowski� C.O. for District 14� said the Council opposed the site plan bec use it does not adhere to the 40 � foot limitations and expressed co cern that a special condition use '� � permit did not precede the applic tion for site plan. Mr. Heap said District 13 at its June meeting o posed the site plan because of the 40 foot height limitation in the iver Corridor and no special condition use permit had been iss ed. Mr. Christenson asked how much .}!' time the district council needed nd Mr. Heap said they would need ;,. until mid-fall and that St. Thoma and the Seminary should be handled together. ��:t:i' � � . !c. I� ; ,, ,.°r f�'.�, ' `• ` ' t 1f�.. ��7 ��'� 'a �" t .. ' � � .� . � ��:�. ! ,:_� �' ,k�� !� k}-�a� i�.�5 � �a� �r � n��; N )^ s hJ �ri�` !� ;� ;� �. � • j i ( I ' 1� ' . ' t • i. A��.1'q7 �F} , ��` + �-,' � ,�, '��• � ��'4 � � .Yr ' �F� 7� �.. . �1 � f � e q r':� i �e�1..IIM4 �� i' i 1 ' 1 . ) � � ! .� . �� . �.� � f],�'�a a�' ,,b Y �( P 1� i . I� �t� I .J' � 4 �'r:z � � ¢^.4. • � t.. " � a � y 1 •, '.. , x . � .s4. �., �1�- ��jR E �. -.r� #i.' �' A � t � �'�:�i `-'y t �� . ��, � I.y, t y:'� � �� . i I�� y � .�., ! ��7 1 �. � � � . . + �-� ,.; f � }r r1�r��.. 5.�+.� .�. i� � i�. � } 4F�:: � t � � l 4 1 , ti t -!" • k r,� . p . �. -.�� { .. � :I t � �._r .. i . � � � +i .f ' y � � r :� �� .. i �. �� { I�r� i A.r � 1 � �y,�r �ti .,i�. �a�r . � �; i � .Irv � � r�' qa 1 i } t i t n�1��..° i • .�r f 1 �I� }�y�I �� y"�1 .' i x 1 �. �� •� V � AI�� j F I ',.. : i i V i a � ;„ � i, i c u �� . � . �i'� � ` � i t�...�r �� '� i � . �� ..i. � ;'. ,�',t r n�� t � � M �' ; � � • .�{ 1 1.Y ��i ,� •.. �� ,-,� r ' � �.cr � „ ��' $� �i`� rt .�:i i .,- 1 �+ ; y ,_a t ��i tt �� '� � �i 1 .�GJ� ;� ��." i �i�'h I'!{� i'ci a�i r i C, ' . ,� : { I:i,�.�e §� i,. �p � '` �.�: � ir . i t �(. �I� ^f !'ti 1 � { . i `y t r�:F 'N'' 9 �'� ' i /�� P�� 1.. , , �,��7�; � � A ' '' . ) � � F� � 1��` ',. yX.� 1' � �` .�. � n A ,� � . 't' � ir �i �� I 1.- '! wNr' uy�r . �' i �-i �I�� E�M�ai ;r j�`.. � � ''�9 �.��i .� � �t�t��ir�i ,��,^i � � �,� :i i i � �{' I�. iQ�x� R i I yt-� in 1 rt�� r1 � . ;Y � �: f�'7i;G : i. 1 : ,:'� *�� i:ii il A��'c� i . i'�� j' - � � f � i � . 4��.�'k� ��i: i i f '� � � �� r.�fi �Ili at .4 i .+. �':� �1, a�- � �i � � ��,, !� t�.:�� ; 7 �,� � . � � � 4 t f y�., • !�'1�s {r �•i • j ,i.' i `� � �� h i . �i�y�� -'ti� {�t�i' � r 1.-�...!�.*�L`i,.e��,�'S �. � i r . � ' y r'? ��.,.� � 1! �'�� i : , �,� ! � . , ' � a. S�S,i; y` f�� ' �' ,'�r i t � i � �...ii '�u 'j�� .+�� . . , .�/i:� # s.1�=M1+�'1 � . � , t.: I. i.�� !�; ,� t'. � � . �� , �i. � y� n.. •�' f. ;;'i � � 'i� �� :i� ' .' �- . � . , a. � �. � � ,� + ..: A t�- `+a � �� ' ` . d . R! �!' ' • . x':,I f � ..� C .ip. i .. � . � . - . . � �. � �� ;.y1� w�p�. . 1 1 .. D �� . . " � i „4 4� kUtf4 f .+, . �� !• . . . 1 � i{ I� 1 . . . . I r I r' � .Ai. r , � . :,Y � � ' � i,i� ,± �}, . " . �'� ... ' � .-1 J �y-A A', . ��... � .. f 4',,�� t�i ..I . 1' 1 . . .. . � . . ., ,. . � � . __ �1..C:w J . . . . ' . � . .. � t'.. / ♦ �• ` .1.. � ' Gayle Summers, 2258 Goodrich, said she had served on the River � . Corridor task force that developed the River Corridor Ordinance and Plan and the intent of the eask fo ce was that the entire river _ corridor be protected by restricti g buildings to under 40 feet and said the Seminary was notified tha their property was included in the river corridor. She expressed con ern about setting a precedent. She -''�� asked that the matter be laid over until there was a final design, the ...; ' `;; river corridor heights go to a tes and the zoning text amendments are �:1 completed by the Planning Commissi n. �;:.�� ' Ray Faricy, 2225 Summit� commented on meetings with neighbors in - February at which the neighbors in icated no opposition to the project except concern about heights. He aid they were told the plans would be brought back to the architects or review and two months later a representative said the regular bu ldings would be approximately 50 ��s feet� and commented that they were taking down one building that is in :�,:: excess of the height limitation bu plan to build three structures all '�� of which are in violation of 40 fe t. He said he disagreed with the "• City Attorney's interpretation of he River Corridor Ordinance. In ��?'' reply to Mr. Anderson's question h said an attorney for the college �• , ;:;� rendered an opinion in 1986 that e river corridor restrictions did ':�;, not apply. ��.�� John Judge, 2241 Summit Avenue, s wed slides pointing out various .,''� buildings which could be seen fro the Minneapolis side of the river including the old administration ilding, the smoke stack and other buildings on the college campuses. Some of the pictures were taken �:;;;:!" from the Lake Street bridge and M . Van Hoef commented that the ;.;. concern was the view from the riv r. Mr. Judge expressed concern `;� about changing the Saint Paul sky ine. �: r r: ;•,, �'.: Kathleen Vallenga, 2224 Goodrich, said it was not up to the Commission ,;. �?? to decide whether it was right to vary from 40 foot limitation, the i�;; River Corridor Study had decided he right height. She cited an ` opinion from the State House of R presentatives Counsel� who did not �F� think current City Attorney inte retation was necessarily correct. ,.; ��'� She said she thought the plan was good but may set a precedent and �'';f asked the Commission to postpone heir decision because there was not '``i enough information to make the de ision today. , ,, '(;�; � Dick Clemens, head of the Semina 's building committee� said they had ';; spent $75,OOO .to assess needs of he Seminary in the last 18 months, i:�; that he had never talked to anyon at St. Thomas regarding the plans �� but had seen an opinion from the ity Attorney's office regarding the ;�'�i 40 foot -height limit. He said th y have made every move consistent ',��,- � with codes and law and would like to take advantage of construction :�`•r weather to save dollars. He also pointed out that there was no way to {,,'j. :�;;: fit the old administration buildi g to present needs. He asked for early resolution of the matter. r. Clemens said they have changed the site plan several times to ti hten it down and said the plan �,';;` received today was the final one. In reply to Mr. Dimond he said the `;�r opinion from the City Attorney c e as they were proeessing the plans '�;'� about the middle of May of this y ar. Mr. Quinn, attorney, said he "�'• had advised Fr. Froehle earlier i the year that in his opinion the , I� t , ;};. � . .t � : F 1,: :.[Z ti.k. : f 1 �� .. f .i. � � �Y� 44 � � .1 t�. t {� �i ..� � �+'`o;t �.Lr r i r i ' ( � •',� ��¢��v j'�1� �.��; .;f �..'4 r 'i ' .. ��. �-, � � � �f�T'd: t � -. � .. i �� "::,jf�t,�$ � -i � �'�' � ��.: x'f '. �1� —�,� � .:t � , f� {�. J� -�^.��4�rt i � � + ,,� a � ' ' 'f Il 1� ��,�.: Z _S ' ' 2 ,��.i � .` % *;.R �7 }� t �:'' ,' r �i ,�:.� T � . _ ,. ...i.� .. .�� .�. �.. :� _;.' ,; ' . `, �,i: ` t '''z' 1 ��,�,��i.�.x < °.''•.. t !� ,�.�1- . . . x �.�� ..• t � � ,`� '' �,��. :: l . ... �: �s�..�i a�: �-.4. ..S . . . ,,. .. . ._ •.� � :: . .•.� � y..�'r,t � �r_ � s _r.{: n,.� , .�: y, i..`. , . k�� .. i tt 2� p y.� . � . "` 'i r r!� _.t'�,x t :� , ry ..' a, .i� � � .�.��,n t i r �� . , x . A . . �.:t H .n�tii�ir •�y�ty�.'�� i: � �• ,r�.i.. i� ��. i i s � llui � ..a.? � . • : t . r i r , r,: �xi ''`i:•x` i. F a�°�lSp �._ i� �. : 1 i�r.r ,• � ��,i.�'� '�� _.:' ^ t >� t .r r� �f�° i'� I xY i. i ,� �. a s i • s � ,t � � ''�r i i.' .�i"� � ��.�j�a��'#1 F' ; f��4 t �� .x: t�� .�4,��-� � ,1�� 1� '�. t .� 3 3 �;�„ a' ' � � �i-�' � . ! ei � :� i� 1 . ' � !�. v 7� �iz ■� �� . , � i.'.. 1 ��.��, � � .�'�h' ��,��r'M1� .� ,��r ' f.t�t �c�*�y�'�� .��sl�;� ! + F� r� i t 4�t � ' =..� c ak � Ic�- � �•� y � � . • f rr'��. � NM i �. i e�" , .. � r . � � � t' r, .��{�{y l . � ��r� F,,S>>> 4�g �- r A' t� ��r �c. + �. � �.' � �� i P 3�r�� . u I�.. r$�, 1 � l� $�Y ; „,� .a k: - K �� ,. f i��F� r ��t �I S ' � i. . � � ,.�r �.:�� a,y�y� , i � . ' .S�x ,lC'i ��%Y4��r �i �',� . .i. i t .�.i�j � �� .r�'1�R 73"t..� � _�; . - . �l� _ � r ' i . .7 t�r�j%��.r 1:� � i Y. )A. f �...�F3�� s: � r•.. t j - t�'-1 � �`� t '�� '• 1� t .. •_� .'•� t<"k t'4 i � 4 .. . , � � ,, � `� � ;p� . x r �t � ��... . . , s, r. ��{�� 4 . . �-� .� � �2 � -� ; i�� `, i . . , � r ..� ' `�t ^� � � '.��,� ;, , ;�„ � , �,� . .. �tf ., . � -,, ..'� �{ �. ;�it. . . . . . .. : � ,' ,. ' t t i:'�Sf F h ` t: �'��i,� } � . � ,i a.�' �d � . . '�'� r�h�: a�f v 4 . f . ', � 1 � j' � 'I . . ! 't4f f 1 . . � ' i x . c :�� , z . . . � t + 4 v . �� . �.. . i.' i .,; i,k,��, ''•' � c .' r.. a ' �i' � ' ,"�° �. f + . i �.Le + � ��,� � ' ..y t ',.. _ y •..:. .,•.. : ,. . " , ... ",.. ,�� , i .... i ..aa. ...�.P�.^lt� . . ... . ,� :�: � �.- �� . � :�a ;�;:; `� river cor-ridor limitation did not a ply. No one else appeared and Mr. :,�� Repke moved the hearing be closed. The motion was seconded by Mr.� Levy and carried unanimously. OM TION: Mr. Levy moved to refer t matter to the Zoning Committee. .�' Mr. Repke seconded the motion. Mr. Levy added to his motion that the Committee report back within 30 da . There was discussion regarding `' the motion. Mr. Repke withdrew as econding the motion because of the � 30 day requirement. Vice Chair Tr ichel asked if she was correct in assuming that if the Zoning Commit e came back in 30 days stating - , they recommended that they retain e item because they want to do �'� some further research on the issue , that this would meet the intent ;� ; of the motion. Mr. Levy agreed. r. Park seconded the motion. Mr. Levy restated the motion to refer e matter to the Zoning Committee '��:. which will make a recommendation t accept or reject the site plan at '_..� the last meeting of the Planning C mmission in August. The motion carried with 10 in favor, 4 agains , and 1 abstention. VI. ZONING COMMITTEE :.;; .,. Sa t au Se inar chool of 'v' t - # 0 - Request for Special :�r Condition Use to establish a campu boundary and monitor compliance t'� with Zoning Code parking requireme ts. (2260 Summit Avenue - Zoned R-2) .�. A1 Lovejoy said there was no prese tation by staff and that it would make sense to act on the special c ndition use permit today to give ';" guidance to the Zoning Committee w en they consider the site plan ,: application. '' MOTION: Mr. Christenson said the ommittee recommended approval of �' the special condition use permit s bject to three conditions included in the proposed resolution and so oved. Mr. Repke seconded the �i motion. In reply to a request for larification by the Vice Chair, Mr. Segal said that this is a special se permit for a particular piece of land identified as a Seminary, and St. Thomas will be designated as a ;; separate piece of land. Mr. Levy hen moved to table the matter, Mr. Dimond seconded. The motion to t ble failed with 5 in favor, 8 against and 1 abstaining. There w s further discussion and Mr. Dimond moved to lay the matter over for t o weeks and Ms. Tracy seconded the !� motion. The Vice Chair ruled that layover does not have priority over the motion under consideration. M . Tracy then moved to table this item for two weeks� the motion was seconded and failed with 4 in ;�` favor� 10 opposed and 1 abstention �� ;'?: After further discussion Ms.� Ziema called for a vote on the motion to ': grant the special condition use pe it. There was additional � � discussion. The motion carried wi h a vote of 9 in favor� 4 opposed, and 1 abstention. :<;� '�` V. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ';,: e ard oad arner Road East C ass D aft S - Committee Report :'•;' and Adopt Resolution �;� X ;:� �� ;',:' _ �i � ' �-'.1�rG�� i�� i i � i . I �,.`i r i e � � i� s��. t}S d#�'}f� � �f� ! . � 7 ��i� b �;i�a � .. � � 1 ,! l.t� f .�i ��#,�x kr� � � � �.�r � r �! k � � � �• 4.I t�t�'1� .�i aa- i �� ' � .�. t $ �. s � � . r� . � �� i. 11 ylh��j�� .� a:.7 i n� i , { } ��1 � r.. 1 tr A �L , � . � ..!'� r : 4 I �X ��r t • R 1 � , � �f� I , ' `�'� EN� ��1 �' � � , � � ' � � K. ! P R � � �'�'� 1 V��,t��i�� ' � ��N ! y. .1 � .�� ,i� � f��; �If�S . Ir � 1�� , . ' I . ' { �y� 1l�� I 'r'jb ITUi. �� ` r�� .�:r � ` �; I 7 � ��'r .iy�rf i �� ,�li. .� � �.i � ��G� I! � � . � � �� r� � �:��4�N F � �i: ; . �,' �.�, ,- k �; t ' ��,�� M x i �. : x r ',:t �, ie 1} r f r� ` �� a I r � a i�q � � I � � ��1 . � � r„i i� '�'� 3 � '� . �, .'` � j ..Y fil +� � � . ti� . J i .�.�n i iM i��'7�'� i ��i 7� k i'� o , � i v 'i i � 7.��i`x v , , .. �.o �a . ..�n�f ..� �, .��+ . �!I 1. .7 �r� � s ' �. �w�r � ..� . 7 .��: t . Y�•;� . �.. � . . ��7 '� � �..� r � ,� a - '.1�r � .. �.�'� +�+iN��t iN 1�,�;:i N�F��i �3 1:,., �'.' � _�� `4 x.�Xw *„F,-. .'{. I.n � � ' r J�� !r� ^ r � �f .�c' +�. r; ` ' . � � f ! � RF�� .. s � ! r y. � � .�i ''• ..i � �q��r� �� t�� Y � ' � , � � x i��}�1 � �'•• �. 4.� � �i ,�,t' �{�:�� i � h ?� i x.�, � Sr ir�..: � t. � �.� �i r� r. �:4 � �, i ' r`� + , � '�. . ��,�'�� x } t S sr7 � � C,. i . �.' ,., ,.: , F ��t I �..,tr t ..1.t �� y �� r._!. � };� i ; r .� A�. , ) 1 C- � .''` . �� r � �' �� i ++�t *� i : }i.. , .�viq !''� ti:�.1 i�� k"��t r t� r , ' ' � _ '�i. ,}� ��. t r '} �4 '�+�d '�� '� � �rt��. < <. k < <��4t, � a,� -�i�. '.' .., � ':, r, �,'� �r��t:�`��.t F ' r� 7': :�: , _ {..�N�. t Y. _ 7 t. . , , . `i. �� ! �� r �fn°#`{ •�� /�. ;:P�'i� . i �� l'� w i�• � }. J r�:�f . i ;,:r y '� r � � ; • . . t; .... a y . �,� . •if . 4•' � . . ;.,!' .� t _� , . . . . ��, f'. . . . . l . y .�. 1 1 y � . -h� �. �� . �t �. �r�� . . � � - � ' ` �-r h� 4 '�i.x'�,� !� ,.�� , � ,�, � � r , • 1,'� � :�� h �k�r�� ; �'.� " � ��r j , ts� 't .'i h i...: .. . . � . P- r i�� F � � ., � i �.�' � � :�� . . ...'_ f � . i I � :� �-^� t , . � � . �'r . �'- �� "� � � . �i r. .� .� �..�...�!�s �« C,:'. � . �. � � -.., � �' .��: ' . _ � '..�.� '` '.-+��. �.f.t��.�i�� . . , � . _ � t . , ;, �7 -- /� i'�, i `� • � IV. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE t�°� e d ad a er oa ast C D s r ft � Mr. Love,joy explained that� since mee ings were being held which include David McDonell� Chuck Repke of the We t Seventh Federation, and others �' including NSP and the Riverfront Co ission, it was recommended this � matter be postponed until September Sth when more details would be �c available. t:, ��:;: District 4/5 Seam Scoping, Report ��''� ,� Mr. Neid said the Committee had revi wed the staff scoping report and :.,,�� determined that a separate redevelop ent plan was not needed, and �� supported the ideas of development o parcels and encouraging `.�`�i associations of business interests. � :,.A MOTION: Mr. Neid moved approval of he resolution endorsing the report .�;:; and directing staff to print and dis ribute it to district councils. Dr. Indihar seconded the motion whic carried by a unanimous voice vote. C'' I� :`:; V. URAP COMMITTEE �. ,�i 0 1R o 0 o Gud es e tn Chair Zieman said the committee had ompleted the guidelines� with a few �`; minor changes after two public heari gs. She said everyone seemed to '"' approve of the guidelines and thoug the plan would work. Mr. Neid said the Committee will meet on Sep mber 4 to adopt minor technical changes and have the draft guidelin s ready for the Commission to adopt '!;,,' on September 11. He explained that was financed by the City with �;i';' funds provided by the State for inn r-core neighborhoods•-$4 million '�,; available between 1988 and 1989 to e matched with CIB funds from the ,�' City. He pointed out that aging co dition of housing, median income and rate of unemployment within census racts were criteria taken into 'i' consideration and the guidelines re ommend development of public/private '�.;; , partnerships. , `�; P�A��in' C'om��ss�o /rJe�t��J N►inktes — �w, .a8, l9�'? VI. ZONING COMMITTEE 'i�: a u e ina c oo D v te ev w- Committee Report and Adopt Resolution - - .:A ' " Ms. Morton said the Committee by a plit vote of 5-3 recommended the . `�; Commission accept the site plan as resented sub,ject to conditions listed in the proposed resolution. -;� Donna Drummond of staff identified nd discussed four ma�or concerns: 1) ,•; visual impact on the river corridor (which staff felt was negligible) ; . 'f: 2) whether the Seminary is indepen nt of St. Thomas (the academic programs are merged but the Semina has its own board� retains ownership of the land involved, an is responsible for the spiritual " education of the priest candidates) ; 3) whether site plan approval should be delayed until the Colleg Zoning 40-acre study is completed (no zoning amendment under discuss on would affect the pro�ect with the _ exception of a height restriction nd staff has not contemplated ;;' recommending a restriction that wo ld prevent construction of a 56 foot �:� ,2'' �9 �, . ; , _ . . - - , . .. . . :. . ...r.._ . r . , . ��k t:.��'i , ; ; +�.�ti.,��y .� � �' r' � S i. ��' l,..�r �+x.T�'��y � �� . � � � i+� � .� R i..�;,� ��i �e ��' � � �:i j~ �.�i �b��'�{.�� 1 t_F 3 i .. j .�� 'r� r :� i : , �� i rr �:iF-k�� 1..- , �.. 4 .+��'' .. . �• � tt' �f! ?(ii.�, �1' �. F.�. �y. � .p �F��'�'t 2 :,� Y f ' 1 :Y4 . f {:♦ DL��6't�.: i . L�.. .i. � � '�� t .Z�'� (. _ 1 r i 7 a�: Fl� f '�.. r t�P:? �, ` i .';1 a �.w' 1�r�' a.G y,Yt� ��' i 1 � ( t .� L ! y ' .:� x J ��t L.�t ' I �<.�� ;.� � .t �.�4 . .L � ��i:l�',y�1 . I �.. � 'r [' •t f G�r 1 �'�� # '_� t . � :. � � t 1 i��'b 1 yj��,�Ii.h A ; J,ry4�.I-�i 1 � i �t�°� _ x t j � � � �n: i� �t's. �� .r :( � . � j :t � r f ti r r J � I�}. �F � t. •I 1 . f- �•A 1 r �, �,p 1 �rjM .... ' �-,' . .� d,�b i�.:.� �.1� .' .�.. �� H �R 5 '.�� Y 4;y. i ..' . � , ., � ; ., �tr ... �.. .� : . .y,�. t r'i, p i� '!� liAL.� � N . '� i ' ' _3 1. u'Y� .��''�' Y� �...�t� X �.,. t ', ��{ 1 �. 'rj f� .Y�y��, .'�F"�, � ,,�Cl .i . .�l !'� • 1 l 1/� � Y . .�t1' 1 ) T„4�_. � ' �'1 " '��Ir�I� ..�ty'�y tt,.J 1 � �� "' 1 . t'.� � ',.. �'` �` t L�fl.ti�t�� .. ` :.. `� ..�I� t � �'�1 : i i uY�ia '� . � �� . i. �-�. 1 � �:�I,�.:. � .;"�'� :;. •.� 1j��3�ti� �� a� �s1'� c , , - � ' ,' ' ` i � k.#, rrnr�yyy..�;��+ ��{ . � �+ :� �p � ,,; � � i � : � ��r t�y� ��, r F�. . .r � } ..� r�*!� .�i'� . i .,,I � .1 f �' .i�yi 'i �: r t'�E. _�''�r9 i t � � .. t ' ' 4 I � x� T f ��y�`i �. r i � . ' � ��' �' 4 »t.�.�1�xh �.-.'. < 1. : .. .t : �.- / .�.' a ��i�1 t�1 . � ' '.. T W n��. .,4 4� ytx� , ,��.. t �7� ! � ��. �.i '.:; ..�.... i . . ;tY' �•..i '.' t '' • . . . . ✓ !'r': �.�; y��:� � � '. 1 .� ;r • : .�� , �i: ;;`x � �:; � ' � �' � �'1A' . . : ` +A.... � Q� .I. � t.: • T �_.1' � � . 1 t� .'.:7 'S: ' . ' . . � �1� .. !`` 1'.:C �.,, . 11' � �f t � - 1 � � V jI�r =t . � � , .S' �� bJ l 'l . *Y:• � /�P'r� � ,. . l 1. � �� , ` z,�A - - t t �•,' . . � ' �[ � ., .. . 1 ..i, '� 54�N�'! C : . :k� a' . • a,— 4� •-; . s'..•.. . i . .. • o- _ �:1 . r z. .Y.c . � „ � tower) ; and 4) the applicability of e 40 foot River Corridor height '� restriction (City Attorney's opinion states that it doesn't apply) . She ;�.: said there were four possible decisi ns: 1) Accept the City Attorney's % opinion that the 40 foot height limi ation does not apply and approve the pro�ect; 2) re�ect the opinion a d deny approval for nonconformance �,'� with requirements; 3) re3ect the opi ion but grant modification of the height restriction; and 4) delay unt 1 St. Thomas issues were resolved� which will be many months. She indi ated that whatever decision is made will probably be appealed to the Cit Council, and said staff ;`I recommended approval of the site pla and acceptance of the City Attorney's opinion. �i i`' Mr. Dimond said there was the issue f intent, which was to whether this � ! � parcel should have been covered by t e 40 foot height restriction� there .. was never any discussion to exclude t, and the error was in writing the law. Ms. Judge said she supported M . Dimond, three people on the River Corridor task force had told her it as always the intention to keep �'' heights at 40 feet. She pointed out that parking along the side of the �'• Chapel would be in full view from S it Avenue with a'setback of approximately 100 feet� and from th River Road to the top of the tower would be 100 feet. Ms. Judge said e 40 acre study and the College task force report should be complet d before action is taken on this matter. Mr. Levy said the Summit A enue Study indicated that for the St. Paul Seminary there should be n building over 40 feet. ' Rick Wiederhorn of the Riverfront o fice said that during development of the River Corridor plan and ordinan e the matter of seminaries and the river corridor from Lake Street to ort Snelling was given relatively little attention because there was o intent to change the overall area� _ and the specific area discussed was from Ford Parkway to 740 River x�� Drive. He said the intent of the p an and zoning ordinance was in response to the state's requirement fox critical area boundaries. . Three ob3ectives were established fcr con rolling sites: to protect the view from the river up� views from acros the river and the integrity of the area. He said he did not think the 40 foot height limitation was ��` absolutely necessary to keeping the integrity of the river. In response � ' to Mr. Ferderer he said the group i entified views fro�a the river and from trails. Attorney Segal said e opinion of the City Attorney's office was that the 40 foot limit es not apply to this property at all. �"�; �Q�,Q�T: Mr. Anfang said it was in ppropriate to hold this pro3ect , hostage because of what might occu on another parcel of land� the pro,ject was removing a building th t was over 40 feet and replacing it with a number of buildings of less r height. He moved to adopt the proposed resolution. Mr. Ferderer seconded the motion. Mr. Neid moved to amend the resolution by adding sixth condition in terms of Seminary parking spaces being assigned, mar ed and not double counted Ms. Maddox seconded the motion. Mr. Anfang a cepted this as a friendly amendment. Mr. Dimond then moved to table the matter until the College task force report and 40 acre study were comp eted. There was no second. . .:: Mr. Anfang's motion to adopt the r solution with the one amendment ' �.: carried by a roll call vote of 8 i favor, 6 against and 1 abstention. :,: �i 2a , • .. . _._ ... .. _ . . . . �� -.. ' _� � y f ��f�k� '..�a�.� ...i . . � :� a x'.Y r�� .�. t i i i. S - r �rta ryt�'� � � r .i � i� l.�lt�J i ��r j'��q ' t- i .:r 7� �� ,+�,� ,i.�.� , �, y ; i � � �� 't ;�� y ;ry�,�--{, ��7 C t, . � . f: �� : i s,��!'i . t � '� �1'i i ��'.r�i9 � . kx � � w t�'��K(`�Y'�r�; � r.� � !;' i' � � � �: � f � T ��N�'�`�� ; , 1��, f l y .. . I �• I � � y 1 �I'- 1 ttir' ! t 1 ��i� �r d y . � � i ;ti ' it � µa 9 � i ' : i 1 •�' j+,.'r � p f� �.. � "•+ :t i �r� � �;'� � tt�t�y i �- a . � , ' ' .. 1 t .�d��s� ,�:�� a�� . .� ��,� � ,t , a � '� � � �` � i � a � .E� ��'��t�tl� 'AY � N��'� I '. .:11 t ' i 3 4 t��' ��t t ,^R�� { K T f x Y �y � � ' �IC� i It r . ��?`` n A iF��r ��;�.z � ��{�. � i �.:�; i � i i�;° `Y�9y?�ai=i . , 4. : � ,. . � . '�� . � �� I�Yf �,� � t�4 i' i . i ;�� ,�� '1 � ,�,F '�. � -/.�_dli�, r. . �i� , z . A� ��.1�.�.f �� r J � . � ` •;a '' c' ��r Sw � �� " �� 1 a� � r � :�� q� .�, ��i � ' ',. { .n . ��1 �a ��' ��Y 7.7 . 1 �!��t��T �fi i�; % : I •1 � i -� �i .'S�.i i x5�. ° � ._�i� � ; r : �� Z:i�a R�� i.,� ��''i �� i�.�� . . � � .;'x y �,ti:i��i�� ' � rd. !.-1 r � �fP ,�� 4� � � ' `�. . ' � �. � � � y� t. � �.�� ` . '� :�I� tlry�f '�.�1�� 4�ir�:�� l� � i. . 1 �y , 4 ..�.�5 �� .'� � ��.:, ��M- � ..a � H��: ��.1.: �i Y � '' �, F ...� i't..�..t�R�t 'r', •''� ..�� c ,'':, ��,�(�N�ttl�-��'4�' A' A� `� ' i� � . 7 ��M � 1.. :y N .� .. ...4� � ' ' { iR �4a 6 !'"' i r .: i x � t �� ', x �. .�.ka + .. � �. �� ..��q�.r � � . � �� ;� � fy�� 'y;�.�. � � �n. ' �� i +.g �' � J " . � �,� .. At �'�� ( -I�I T� (� � .. , .. . . �`�. } �"ii�4. . � { � � � �'� �h � ' . . ' , ]� . � �.,'l r�Y.l.' � . . . � . . .t' -.i�i r �'r '. Y R: : . 4.� , t . . .F4 y _ . +. a . 1 l ,.a� lfl� �.•1 � ° t `y 2,j ! 7 � .4 � . i �� g�� ! ��• . - �� ."� . � i r. �. g-J i ' . , 1j�' 1 k � , �1. . ' � � ,E ? . � . �.��. • .. ' .l� . . 4.�.��.l� ... . ..� � . .. ' .. � . • - . . . • . . . � �1.w. ��_.1��z�'. �� . .. . .. . �� `� lrv �� Pi.E�NNING COMMISSION TAFF REPORT FILE #1431 1. APPLICANT: St. Paul Seminary School of Di inity DATE OF HEARING: 7/24/87 2. CLASSIFICATION: Site Plan Review of Resid nce, Administration, Commons, and Chapel Facilities for the St. Paul Seminary. 3. LOCATION: Campus is located at the southe st corner of Summit Avenue and Mississippi River Boulevard. 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 14 (also borders 13 - erriam Park) S. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 1, St. Pa 1 Seminary Addition . 6. PRESENT ZONING: R-2 Z NING CODE REFERENCE: 62.108, Subd. 3 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: July 23, 1987 BY: Donna Drwnmond A. PURPOSE: Site plan review of residence, ministration, commons, and chapel facilities for the St. Paul Seminary School of Divinity. B. PARCEL SIZE: 7.08 acres. C. EXISTING LAND USE: Seminary campus. , D. SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Low-density residential across S it Avenue. East: College of St. Thomas campus. Me ium and low-density residential in next block. ' South: College of St. Thomas campus. Lo -density residential in next block. West: Mississippi River Boulevard and r verbluffs. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 62.108, Su d. 3, requires that in order to approve a site plan, the Planning Commiss'on shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with: � 1. The city's adopted Comprehensive Plan nd development or pro,ject plans for sub-areas of the city. 2. Applicable ordinances of the City of S . Paul. 3. Preservation of unique geologic, geogr phic or historically significant characteristics of the city and enviro entally sensitive areas. 4. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for such matters as surface ater drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light nd air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on eighboring land uses. ' S. The arrangement of buildings, uses an facilities of the proposed : development in order to assure abutti property and/or its occupants will , not be unreasonably affected. 6. Creation of energy-conserving design t rough landscaping and location, orientation and elevation of structure . 7. Safety and convenience of both vehicul r and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in relation to access st ets, including traffic circulation features, the locations and design of entrances and exits and parking areas within the site. 8. Satisfactory availability and capacit of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions to any drainage p oblems in the area of the development. 9. Sufficient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the ' above objectives. a� , File #1431 � Page Two Section 62.108, Subd. 4 states that the Pla ning Commission may make such requirements with respect to the above matt rs so as to assure compliance with them. . . F. ZONING HISTORY: Since August, 1986, the P1 nning Commission has issued eight special condition use permits to existing c lleges, universities, and seminaries in the city to establish campus boundaries nd monitor compliance with parking requirements. , Permits for three institutio s remain to be issued, which include the St. Paul Seminary, the College of St. T omas, and the School of the Associated Arts. The Planning Commission will consider the S minary's overall special condition use permit on July 24th, the same day it is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this site plan. Although the site plan nd special condition use permit will ' be considered concurrently, approval of the permit is not a necessary prerequisite for approval of the site plan, according to Jerry Segal, Assistant City Attorney. The Seminary has existed a d operated at the same lo'cation for nearly 100 years, well before the City beg regulating seminaries as special condition uses. Therefore, the Seminary h s the right to continue to operate and construct new facilities at that locat on regardless of whether it has a permit, as long as the required conditions for seminary special condition uses ' are met along with other applicable buildi g and Zoning Code requirements. The purpose of the permit is simply to establi h a campus boundary and monitor compliance with parking requirements. G. FINDINGS: 1. The St. Paul Seminary has applied for site plan approval for construction of residence, administration, commons, an chapel facilities on its 7 acre campus, located southeast of the inter ection of Summit Avenue and Mississippi River Boulevard (see attac ed Exhibit B) . The new complex, as proposed, includes four main building ections (1 administration, 1 commons, and 2 residence sections) , plus two to ers, all interconnected and built around a three-sided courtyard to the outh of the existing St. Mary's chapel (see attached Exhibit C) . The resent administration building would be razed to accommodate the new constr ction. 2. Building area, including the chapel, w uld total 89,440 square feet on all . floors (residence - 58,039 square feet administration - 13,792 square feet; commons - 7,144 square feet; energy ce ter - 860 square feet; and existing . chapel - 9,605 square feet) . The resi ence sections will include 96 single � rooms, 11 faculty apartments, and 1 gu st apartment for a total maximum occupancy of 108 persons. Estimated o cupancy for the administration building is 54, and the maximum �ccupa cy for the commons/chapel at one time is estimated at 300 persons. 3. The Seminary does not need approval of its overall special condition use permit for this project to proceed wit site plan review (as explained in "F. Zoning History") . However, the P1 nning Commission is scheduled to consider the overall special condition use permit for the Seminary at its July 24th meeting, when it will also h ld the public hearing for this site plan review. 4. The proposed new building construction is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which recognizes t e important contributions that ' institutions make to the city. Althou h they pay no property taxes, institutions employ many city resident and provide important services and facilities (p. 34, Land Use Plan) . Th District 14 Plan specifically recognizes the St. Paul Seminary as a integral part of the community (p. 10, District 14 Plan) . The Summit Ave ue Plan recommends that a height limit for college campuses be added t the Zoning Code and it also asswnes that the Seminary is subject to a 40 oot height limit found in the River Corridor ordinance. These two issues are discussed more fully in Findings 6 ' and 7. 5. The Zoning Code requires that buildin s on seminary campuses have a setback equal to fifty feet or the height of he building, whichever is greater. The proposed development meets this r quirement since it would be set back approximately 300 feet from Mississip i River Boulevard, 97 feet from Swnmit Avenue (which is the setback of the e isting chapel) , 50 feet from the east a File #1431 Page Three common property line with the College o St. Thomas, and approximately 70 feet from the south common property lin with the College. In no instance would the building height at these loca ions exceed the setback. 6. Heights of seminary buildings are indir ctly regulated through the building setback requirement. There is no speci ic height limit as long as the required setback can be met. The media heights of the various building components are: administration buildin section - 15 feet; residence building sections - both 41 feet; tower sections - both 56 feet; commons building section - 1 story (no height i feet was indicated because there . will be no visible exterior elevation) ; and existing chapel - 44 feet. (See vertical elevations on attached Exhibit D.) Although there is now no building heigh limit specified for colleges, ' universities, and seminaries, a 40-acre study that is currently underway (College Zoning II 40-Acre Study) will nclude a recommended height regulation for these institutions. The 40-acre study recommendations are scheduled to be considered by the Plann'ng Commission concurrently with the College of St. Thomas special condition use permit sometime this fall. It should be noted that staff has not cont mplated recommending a height , restriction that would have prevented c nstruction of the proposed Seminary project. A survey of college, universi y, and seminary buildings conducted by Planning staff indicates that the fi st and second tallest buildings on a majority of the campuses in St. Paul ar between 60 and 80 feet tall. The Summit Avenue Plan recommended that th's type of survey be done and that a height restriction be established cons'stent with currently prevailing building heights. 7. The building site is located in the Ri er Corridor RC-3 Urban Open District. The proposed construction is in compli nce with all standards and criteria for deve�pment as specified in the Ri er Corridor ordinance (Sections 65.234 and 65.400) . Section 65.233 of the ordinance restricts development of permitted uses in the RC-3 district to 40 feet in height. Some neighborhood representatives contend t at this requirement applies to the Seminary property, which is a s ecial ondition use, not a permitted use. , According to a legal opinion received rom the Office of the City Attorney, dated May 15, 1987, the 40 foot height restriction applies only to permitted uses, not special condition uses. The efore, the 40 foot height restriction does not apply to the Seminary's build ng project. However, at the time the . Summit Avenue Plan was developed, staf believed that the 40 foot height , limit did apply to the Seminary proper y and the plan states so. (See excerpt attached, Exhibit E. ) Despite the fact that the heigh� restr ction does not apply, the spirit of the river corridor ordinance, whose pr mary intent is to protect views of the riverbluff from the river, would n t be violated by this pro�ect. ' • a. Visual impact from the river. Slides taken from the Minneapolis iverbank across frorn the Seminary property indicate that the new dev lopment would likely not be visible . frorn the river. No buildings, inc uding the 70+ foot tall heating plant � smokestack on the St. Thomas porti n of the campus, are visible now from the Minneapolis riverbank. The he ght of the current administration building from the median elevation at its base to the ridgeline is 64 feet. The height of the tallest t wer proposed would be 62 feet using the same method of ineasurement, a ecrease of 2 feet. Given that the - closest portion of the new constru tion would be set back approximately 560 feet from the riverbluff, and he existence of tall, mature shade trees (typically 60 to 80 feet) in the area between the construction site and the riverbluff, it seems highl unlikely that the new buildings would � be visible from the river. b. Visual im act from Minnea olis blu f. From the Minneapolis riverbluff sl'ghtly north of the Seminary property, � a small portion of the ridgelines f both the chapel and present administration building are visibi now. This appears to indicate that from this one angle a small portio of the ridgelines of the new buildings would perhaps be visible from the Minneapolis bluff in the summer, just as the existing buil ings are. � �'7 -- /G 7�2. File #1431 Page Four c. Visual im act from Mississi i Rive Boulevard. The visual character of Mississippi River Boulevard will be relatively unaffected by the project, given t heavily wooded nature of the Seminary property and the 300+ foo setback that will be maintained. The site plan helps preserve this char cter because the higher building heights allow the project to have smaller footprint, thus preserving the extraordinary setback and wood d nature of the campus. If lower building heights were imposed, the large setback with its parklike nature � would be necessarily infringed upo to accommodate the same building square footage. 8. The project will not negatively affect any unique geologic, geographic, or historically significant characteristi s of the city or environmentally ' sensitive areas. As explained in Find ng 7, views from the river and riverbluff will not be significantly a fected. The construction of the facility will require the demolition o the administration building, which was built in approximately 1900 and de igned by Cass Gilbert. However, , staff believes that the proposed new c nstruction will be more . architecturally significant than the a ministration building, and will add more to the character of Summit Avenue because of the interesting site plan concept and grouping of buildings. It should be noted that the Nominations Committee of the City's Historic Prese ation Commission (HPC) is developing a proposal to create an historic distr ct along Summit Avenue from Lexington Parkway to Mississippi River Boulevard which would include the chapel, but not the administration building on the Seminary property. The boundaries of . the proposed district are recommended n the Summit Avenue Plan. The full HPC will consider the proposal this fa 1. If approved by the City Council, the HPC would have the authority to re iew any proposals for demolition of or construction of new structures in t e historic district. 9. The project will not reduce the existi g building setback from Summit Avenue and will maintain a 300+ foot setback rom Mississippi River Boulevard. Although larger in scope, the complex f buildings' will be similar in scale to the existing chapel and administrat'on buildings, which are 44 and 56 feet in height respectively. Therefor , the project will not unreasonably affect the views, light, and air curre tly enjoyed by owners of neighboring . properties and/or their occupants. 10. The project as proposed would have veh"cular access from the interior of the adjacent St. Thomas campus, from Summi Avenue, and from Mississippi River $oulevard. These access points alrea exist, however the Mississippi River Boulevard curb cut has only been used or service and maintenance vehicles in the past. The new driveway �o be c nstructed here must be 26 feet in width at the property line and must be constructed to current City standards _ under a permit issued by the Departme of Public Works. The construction and exact location of the driveway ope ing onto Mississippi River Boulevard � should also be coordinated with the City's Parks and Recreation Division's reconstruction of Mississippi River Bo levard. 11. The traffic loop in the parking lot a the southeast corner of the project must be enlarged to a 50 foot minimum iameter to provide an acceptable turning radius. 12. No stormwater retention areas or dime sions of manholes and pipe connections are indicated on the site plan. The pplicant shall be required to submit a stormwater management plan and also a sanitary sewer plan to the Department of Public Works as a condition of sit plan approval. The stormwater `; management plan should show: ' a. The routing of stormwater to any e isting or proposed catch basins; b. The ponding areas; and c. Discharge rates for the ponding ar as. 13. The applicant must contact the Water tility prior to its building permit �� application to discuss water systems equirements. av � �. File #1431 Page Five 14. The Fire Department requires that an add'tional fire hydrant be added where the proposed waterline would enter the e st side of the south residence building. 15. The Seminary is currently in legal compl'ance with Zoning Code parking requirements, which are based on the num er of students, employees, and dormitory beds. As of fall semester of 986, the Seminary had a parking space requirement of 71, which it meets ith the 31 existing parking spaces on campus and an additional 120 spaces a ailable for its use on the St. Thomas campus through the affiliation ag eement with the College. The proposed project would increase the numb r of on-campus spaces from 31 to 62, an increase of 31 spaces. 16. Proposed landscaping is adequate. The e isting wooded landscape will be retained to the maximum extent possible. Removal of trees will occur only when necessary to accommodate the footprint of the new developraent. Sodded � areas disturbed by construction will be estored. A private landscape plan will be developed for the inner courtyar , which will not be directly visible to the public. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 hrough 16, staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to the following c nditions: 1. The new driveway to be constructed with ccess from Mississippi River Boulevard must be 26 feet in width at t e property line and must be constructed to current city standards u der a permit issued�by the Department of Public Works. The constr ction and exact location of the driveway opening must be coordinated wi the Parks and Recreation Division's reconstruction of Mississipp' River Boulevard. 2. The traffic loop in the parking lot at e southeast corner of the project must be enlarged to a 50 foot minimum d'ameter to provide an acceptable turning radius. 3. A stormwater management plan (with the lements described in Finding 12) and a sanitary sewer plan must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. 4. The Water Utility must be consulted pri r to building permit application to discuss water systems requirements. � 5. An additional fire hydrant must be inst lled where the proposed waterline would enter the east side of the south esidence building. as � � .�-lr F• �•' '`�� f',� '~ �'' �.� '• ,�• �' I'.� �'1!-y ' l' r�.� r . �. � -�^ ;,,; .,��_�� ,,�• �f� �, f: ,.�� .� �:� � . ,�, o Exh� �t- Pt r .. r,� � ; F� � � Z ., . �^. � ,.. � � � - . �� ' � sT r � '� ' �•� '� �! + '% �' �•` `� � ~ f,;, f,�:�! I�O't�� r?, `�,!!� f; ^j � �, : �� O W , �• . s �.,, r' C;�.�`''s `., r� � (r ^f►, � ,.� !^� r, ,. � i � ; ' r � � i V � �.., `. + r'� ° � i i i ; � I I ^ �. � ' I 1 � � � � � � d 4 � � � I .,, �. i i � , i , . - . �•• � P-�2 ' � .. _, i . PAUL SEI�/NARr � C� b O` �O O O O� � �� O� I � I I � I t � � 1 I , ' I I I I I 1 , � - 1_ , � . �� ° � � oo GRAND " � �„ ��s �23� o 0 0 0 �� j I i `�'� - _ i- s I i � � ' - � � i � i � � — o 000� ;0000 ci b �o y. __ _.' �. . l �� . � '� O IO, O. O ,O�A � �O'000�0 ^ ` � � � I � ST PAUI � I � i ! ; , � , � '�� SEMINARY , : � ---�-� � 1--0 , ? � ; i ; � ' ' , ; � � i ' � ; � r � o m� o ¢ : ¢'o � o,� �o,o! r GOODRICH � -�rO -�I --_Q o 0 0 0 0 0�0 0 0 0 0 0 0�o q Q o,o� o � o �o o 'oo , o ; , , . � o--�__ ��7 - L__ _ � _i_ .. _. � , � � � , _')� -_�'_ 1,--,--.- - � _-- _, i 'Q� � , ; � - ' � O O ' O� O; ;�� Q � � � O 'O' 10 O O I _ , _ , . � i O O 000 OO O 0�00 O O - _ . _=t;��__;o FAIRMOUNT 9_ � ��- � o :o�o�o 0 oio • a d� b ; ;o 0 0 o Q o 0 0 ooa�.o �oo.o � , , , � , :� pT� `� � _ _ � I � i i_; _ > ' .'. �_' _ ._ � � � , . i : � � O � . Q � I ;•- -• --r - T� � T._._, ' ^' i � i � � ) �� p O O O�O�O;O� O ' ' � ' ' ' , , � � Q ,O OO OO OO.O, O O� ' : O � , , • � �_ — P INCETON ► � ' _. o 0 0 0 0�0�o;o; oio o; o;oio ;o; o,� o - � �} ' o i°,ib � b � o . o � - ,. �' AREA AP ; � APPLICANT � � LEGEND , -- -- ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY PURPOSE - s� t� ��'4h �CVIe� , C�CLLI.d SUBJECT PROPERTY O ONE FAMILY PLANNING ' ` DISTRICT �� FILE N0. � � � � ¢ Tw0 FAMILY �� ; ; DATE � ��' � MULTIPLE FAMILY ' • • n COMMERCIAL , SCALE � 1°= 200� NORTH � � � �NOUSTRIAL MAP N0. SAINT PAUI. PLANNING 80ARD �b V VACANT IS/� ' �xh�b�+ 6 s�+� � . ' � Re��e,a #iy3l � � � � � �, � N f�..� � o a (�_ N � Uf � G�� b L � �� V\J N � a n°. �u, � � _) U � � � , � anuand u��a�� butx.zed � W^ � V y � .�. ^�7 g' � � � ( 4; a i.. o � N � .. u � 'b bp E� U b� pp a� �e A•� � � .,�� G M J w� � y�a~i � � C C�i G' V ��,,•b a' � e ., V G� �"� >�i ; I �iYG� � � * C � O b0 � u+ 1 O .0 .,, ��Q � O ' , a U ,., q � z a � � I � �, � �a � � �,' � � ~ - - - � rn � � � � � t��:`�' C4 x � Iy � � � �Cai � .�a�i � f � �� „ ~�� / � � I � -�r^� ( p �C�(79[• �?� / `� ..C � a � � � �-- � rn � -.,°a�� N C„>C� -� G7 pd--� � a� � �� ' '�1`;% � �� r � � � ro �.��i.��a�a�is�a■ a� J ��' ;I a; �n a' —` iO � � �� °' a�i � i �� r) �� a N � I . ;� .� �' � Irr- --_,�_-- .�.� � � ,� � �� b � �. � � Q� , .t°`"o � � _1 � � "� Irtl [� � 0 y I4 � T�. ' � -z c i = Q = �' � > ' — o a ' ; .... � � o � f _. o� � � - V +' = f �- a � � �� b � � � � . pasna�nog �an�� ddrss�sscy� - .. � w � 0 , a� �� ° �`o _ _ �- �� _ �--'.�a�11Id1 SS 1 SSl J,y �, _ --___ - __.- --- -- c11 . . � . o �,: 5 5 � � _ r: •a�,. . ' ,.1' , r a. i , r i. . i'.. . . x �.; � ' ,. - i � , � .. . � � . , ` ._ "'�r.. : . � . , � , � . ,� - .� :.,r� �;'�� ' � � . . , >y� , ' . ; � t �ti,'. ' � � ' . . , . . � . t 4 �- i. ', � � ' . , . . � � � �,..�� . �. . � ��I .' 7 1`'. ' . , . ' . . � . . . . . . .1'� '; . . �)�. . . . . . . . � . . �S �k . ;. ' . . ' � ,� .��..' � ' . . ' . ' ' . '.1 , .. �., . .. . . " � �'� ' . . 1 � . . . � '1 .. . i . ..•j 1..1 '`, . .. . , �� ' 1 ' ,. ' , f� ..I ' 1 �f' , . � I ,. � . ' . �. ' •.1� � . . - � ' . . � �'� �:�1 . � ' . ' , r., . 1 ��t - . . ��'. . �� '..I I . ; . • � , �, . �.� I '', . . . �d � . � � � ., � . . . . '.t. � .�.�1 ' � . � . - , . �. . .f� �1.� t. . . . . � , . , . � ..� � . � � . � , � � 't: . . . . • }I j ' '. t , . � .. � � '+ L . 'r � . . . .'. . . ... . . . . . . . �.. . . _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ , : ,. : �, _ ,_ _ .._ . _. _ _ _ .. . _ - _ . , �� ._ _.. .-:: - - - _ . . �.. . ;. ..:� .. . _ _ ,. . . ._.. -. . ". '= - };. :> '_'�. ' �' .'(. ,'�." ' �- :::`.�.' ' wrt• . :•' ..- _ .:..•. �� -.. ' .' . ..'_.. _ . . . , '.. _ . '[ . ;- _ � _ . ,. . . . ....:..._� _.;.. .._ . .._...�.�.� �. t.�� _ - _. '1 . ' .". ' "" ' '" - :•' _ �.:.. . .. .�_..... . _ .. . .. ..i-_."' - "' :.'' . �' _ . � . . . • _ i..•. .� . .� ' � .•. v_ . ._ � - . - - ' ' .._"' -....'_ � .�_ . . •-.: _ .- _ .. _ . - . - - . . .. . . _ ...�. _ ... � . _.. . " ."_i " ': .__ • . �' -.�. .. �.• � � .. _� . _. . . .. .. . ,� ._' �_. � � .:_.'�. �.�. �.• .V. . _ f^ � , - _ Exu�pt f�d,� S�.«��t qv�.Pl4� . � £x �b;r � - �- - _ - . - _ i9ab . � _ - ., ._ Insert 1: - -� . "16. Limit Lhe hei ht of colle e buildin s. The : � � � C t s ou amen the on n Code to esta sh a �- -� _ . . _. �.. w ..., o,�ti* m t nr r_n eae u n S ' �I - . , - . . � . ._ _< . _. w, EXh'�'� C 5�� P�An�� ew � IS�3� M . \ I � I I__ I / N i� � . ' � 1 i �.� � \ � � /� / nM / /�� .�� \ � �' _ �� j � � � �� `� � � \ � l �, 1� � � � /% �/ �� /� �� 1� � �/�: �— i �� I � � � _ I� � � I l i/�� ;�i�� ,,� � � �il � l II � I I / / / � II � � � ��\ � � � � � i � I � 1 � � 1 I / � �„ �x�,. ��- ; � � - 1 I � � , , � � � � i I � � I I ( i � �� ^� ��' '�� \ t � 1 � ,.�� _ � ► I � �� I 1 1 � � � �� ,-;� / � �` \� \\ 1 � j � �� l �\ 1 1 � � � \�\�\�\� � ' .I � � /�_ �'�� I � � \ I I 1 � � . i _ ` �� ► il ��► �`, � ,� , � , � � � ; � ► , ,, i � � i � � I t i � i i I ;��'� i � 11 �� > > � � � � � � � � � � � I � � ► �� 1 i � � � i �� l � , � � �1 � � I � � �11 �� I � � ,I � � : � I � � 1 I� �� (� � I 1 � 1 � \ � \ � 1 � 1��3y'? ' � I I � � � � I 1�/ � � � \ � � � �a �rA , -,.jll � 1 '�I � � � � I � �II � � I � , � � x � - � ► � �� lt� �,»�� ( I �� / 1 I � - ; � � i � fiti � .« / �� ,( � � '' ` ' \ ` � � � I � � _tjj � �� / . r � � � 1 � � � � �j 1 I � I � I �1 I � ► jiii � �� I � li . W � �� "�'� �'� � \ �� I � � � � � � � � � I I ,� � I I 1 I I I � � � � I � � � � � � a i I 1 1 \ � �� I I11 � � ► I � 1 � 11 �� I � i , � i ► i ,� � � r I , � , � � , � , � � i,�� . > r �1 1 I � I I 'I ,� 1 \ 1 I1 ( � \� ��(� 1 rilu � I � �\\\��coM�,a., � � ` I I� I I I � 1 I 1 I \ \ � \ IDUILDIAIG � � � �� . � � � i i i i� �j i I�� i � i ` ; ' �� ri h 1�1.j� � � I 11 � i � �� 1 � � I � � i % � � � � � � r� � I I 1 1 � II I I i I � � i � I l � l i,� i, � I ��,,� \I ; �` � � � � �� l� I ��T i �.� / � ( (� \ � � � � � \ \ 1 \\ j �j � � ��o �� ( � � \ \ / � � � 1 � 1 1 � / II I r' , I II i � � i �A � ' iii � i � i ' � i � � ��W 0 ' I 1 ' I I[.6. 1 " NE� � , � ; i � �i�� `I �\ \` � i �' �` � i� � i � ; .. � ' _ ' � ' , J � \ I \ �� 1� ��1 �� 1 ' � � � � � , 1 � � � � � ��l `�� ,1 �� . � R�� ,, � � � � 1 1 \ 1 � I 1\�1�11 11 �� „ 1 � �\'� �\\�\\ ��1 ) � \ 11� \�`�` , , , � ''� \ � �. ��. � %�_ � 1 � �� \ ��\ i � � �� wW � � � I \ To ��T�� . / \ �— 1 1 i , � �s � � � I i ��l��`\\�.� � ; . . ---�— ;---;e°�-� 1 � � � � � � ; , �\` �� ; ��\�\ ,I�w \ r � �jw� I '�� i I � (� \ � \\ \ \ � 1 � _ � I � ii �i�� ► ��Ji � ; ( � � � i � `, � `, `� � � ' � �i� � y � `R�.,�,� ;. � � � I I II I � � � � � ��I , � jx � �N� � ; � �'I � � I � II � � I � ; � \ � IIII� , I � .�,uoa., � I �� I � 1 \ � �I,� I � \ � i � � � \ � � I 1 ► I I'�j�� I 1 �,.: i � � � � � � �� i � � �;;��i;� . � \ I `' � • , \ I 1 I / /// �'I I I I Ll(I�11AJ6 UDRAR`( 1 ��/ I I I I I I \�I ' �(\I \I �I � � � il ��l� � � � � � � � \ \�� ; � � 1-\ � � � 11�� ,I � � � G/ ��RALLR��RaJ N.1�UL4lT ��-- /�y� Z • �"� " C. �.. ,�.... � ., .� � •`� �,•., .: .', ' `, :� `•> 1" � ,� • �` O f a�D°'aD�y �` �,C' �•., %• �. '� �,, , r, ^ . < <- :• O F— : f, .; � 0 W �",� � R..,. C .. '•-. � �`' � C� � '� �' � f•'^ ' • � f'•�, ' �`�'' � O Q � C' �.�+ � '� �: t•• �. 4+ �'� ' � � �,� • � �.� �'�' �' � � � : :, . ., C� � V �, . � '� �:,, ��f^, �, � ,` � ► ; � , ' i i �' A,�1r- ��l�: � ' r�'+, .,. t i I � i i I � I � O . � , w �, . I d o i� �.: �; � � � p• � �i i� 4� O� 4 � �� i ;•3 �•• E�� .y �. f• . � � � � . ••, �: � �, – ;p�^��'• ! _ . - ,,. � f•.� .... " • �-• `� �- _ . ... ,_ , �� • •' �w• �S T. PAU SEM/NAI�' � � � � i�. r i . .. I � .^��,�.. t � ,,� � � , � Q � .. v � � � f~ � ...� ` � � •.. . � r ,�. :, � ��i _ �� ; . r :. ! .. 1 �♦ . , ` . . � S �� `• • ' ..� • � • � . •w �• a � � . � �� . . I ! � � � � � C .. r. ' �J J, � �-� .�.' .. ` L.�I . f j .L'ti • � o. 'f� � � 1 � w ��• . . �"� •,� •�/ � , � � . O �� 1 ' t, ' �� r i- �'j �: � ^� � '.� .. .. � � .' .+� . • �. 'i r,;� •: :� -• ,.� � �, ' , , �� j ,� ,• �� n r . ... . � � � O . .j . , �... � . '� � �.-�'.. Goodri � . �� , r; '' � �� - °-._. ,' ---a o 0 0 0 ;0 , 0�0 �0 0 � 0� c � o; o� o o Q , '✓ `' ,'� �. . _ 1� �' �l 1��_�._..i._. _ �._i _._ __.__ � � � � � '� ' o �� - - - �- -- - --� - - , • , , - - : ., � .. -- , -_ . � � � -1 _L_. . . "�T T . _� : � _ - - - � -'� �T- , � _ _I_� �_' L ____ �-_ AREA MAP � APPLICANT .�I.S�r�� ' `� LEGENp . • — — ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY C � � � � SUBJECT PROPERTY PURPOSE C� h ^ J � O ONE FAMILY PLANNING D ` � T V �OU hL 1 DfSTRICT � O,Z G ¢ TWO FAMILY ' � FILE N0. I � 1 I ' OATE � Q �� MULTIPLE FAMILY ' • � n COMMERCIAL ' SCALE � 1��= 200� NORTH � �� NDUSTRIAL MAP N0. SAINT PAUL PLANNING BOARD V VACANT �1 � 3 . ::; � . d . . _ _ � � _��.1�-� \ �- �. U a.,..�S �7, �� .�y SO� � � CITY OF SAINT P UL INTERDEPARTMENTAL ME ORANDUM DATE: October 5, 1987 T0: City Council Members FROM: Peggy Reichert, Planning Divi ionG�!�jr� � RE: St. Paul Seminary Height Issu On Thursday, October 8, the City Coun il will hear the appeal of the Planning Commission ' s approval of the site plan for St. Paul Seminary expansion. As you cons der this issue, you should be aware of the attached letter from he College of St. Thomas . Dr. Keffer, College Provost, indicate that St. Thomas will not consider any decision on heights at t e Seminary as setting a precedent for St. Thomas . This lette is significant because one of the neighborhood objections th t we have heard to the Seminary issue is not necessarily the height of the proposed building itself, but that it would se a precedent for St. Thomas . Please be aware that the Planning Div sion agrees that the Zoning Code needs to be revised to set a hei ht limit on college buildings in residential zones wherever they ar located throughout the City. Proposed revisions to the code are included in the attached 40-acre study. This study has just b en released for preliminary discussion. The staff recommendation is a 70-foot height limit for campuses of 5 acres in size or mo e and 40 feet for campuses less than 5 acres in size. In additi n, it is recommended that within 400 feet of the bluff line in he River Corridor, college buildings be restricted to a 40 foot eight. The proposed Seminary expansion would meet these recommende new standards (it is more than 500 feet from the bluff line) . age 3 of the draft report explains the rationale for these staf recommendations but obviously • these will be the subject of extensiv community discussion. PR:da Attachments .. _ . , _ . _. :i �_ - : .. ( r �. , <,:� ��i,� ..�, _ . c. � 7� ,�� S AF F �� COLLEGE ZONING II 40-ACRE STUDY October, 1987 Division of Planning Department of Planning and Econ mic Development City of St. Paul 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 228-3365 - �� - . . �7- i� �a TABLE OF CONTENTS ae INTRODUCTION � Background 1 Summary of Recommendations 1 Organization of Report 2 RECOMI��NDED ZONING CODE CHANGES 1: Building Heights 2 2: River Corridor Building Heights 4 3: Student Density S 4: Planning Commission Discretion 8 5: Parking for Stadiums, Sports Arenas, Theaters 9 6: Location of Parking for Stadiums, Sports Aren s, Theaters 11 7: Definition of College, University, Seminary 12 8: College Uses Permitted in B-2, B-3, and I-1 13 9: Location of Dormitories 13 . 10: Minimum Area Size for New College SCUPs 15 11: Rezone Grand Avenue Lots Owned by College f St. Thomas 16 . .. �� FIGURES AND MAPS Pa�e Figure 1: College and University Campuses in St. Paul: First and Second Tallest Buildings 3 Figure 2: Selected St. Paul Colleges, Universities and Se inaries: Enrollment Trends 1970-1986 20 Figure 3: Density of Students/Acre for St. Paul Colleges and Universities 21 Figure 4: Auditorium and Stadium Seats at St. Paul's Colleges, Universities, and Seminaries 22 Figure 5: Rental of Facilities at St. Paul's Colleges, Universities, and Seminaries (excluding St. T omas) 23 Map A: Proposed 40 Foot Height Area for St. Thomas and St. Paul Seminary Campuses 19 Map B: Zoning Map Showing St. Thomas Properties to be Rezoned 25 Map C: Large Area Map of St. Thomas and St. Paul Seminary Campuses 26 October 2, 1987 COLLEGE ZONING II 40-ACRE S UDY (not yet reviewed by City Attorney's ffice) INTRODUCTION Back�round I� 1985, the St. Paul Planning Commission undertook a 40-ac e study af Zoning Code issues ` related to the regulation of non-profit higher education insti utions in St. Paul. The Planning Commission's report, approved in November, 1985, ecommended that special condition use permits be issued for all existing higher educa ion institutions in the city to establish campus boundaries and monitor compliance with p rking standards. Zoning Code amendments giving the Planning Commission authority to is ue permits for existing institutions were approved by the City Council and went int legal effect in March, 1986. As the Planning Commission began issuing these overall spe ial condition use permits, it became aware of additional issue areas that needed to be ad ressed in another 40-acre study. Specifically, there is a fear that the nature of some of the ci y's colleges and universities is changing such that the activities on these campuses are beco ing increasingly incompatible with the low-density residential neighborhoods they are loc ted in. Although these institutions are widely acknowledged as tremendous assets t the city, the Planning Commission has perceived a need to reduce, through Zoning Code changes, the negative impacts on neighborhoods that can result from them. This report analyzes these issues and recommends a series o Zoning Code amendments and property rezonings to implement needed changes. (The info mation sources that were drawn upon for this study are briefly described at the end of this eport.) These study recommendations are the preliminary recomme dations of the Planning Division staff. They have not been reviewed or approved by the St. homas Ad-hoc Committee, a three member group appointed by the Planning Commission that will make its recommendations on both the 40-acre study and St. Thomas special condition use permit to the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission. Summary of Recommendations , The Zoning Code amendments recommended include: 1) Establish a maximum permitted height for new camp s buildings: 70 feet for campuses S acres or larger, and 40 feet for campuses less than acres; 2) Require that special condition uses in the River Corr dor Urban Open District (RC-3) be restricted to 40 feet in height within 400 feet of t e bluffline; 3) Establish a maximum permitted density of 100 stude t units per acre for a college, university, or seminary campus in a residential zone; 4) Increase Planning Commission discretion in reviewi g applications for new or expanded college, university, or seminary special co dition uses by allowing consideration of broader standards relating to impa on the ad joining community; 1 S) Require that stadiums, sports arenas, and theaters on c llege, university, and seminary campuses provide their own parking as required by the Zoning Code if they have 1,000 seats or more, or, for facilities with less than 1,000 sea , if they are not used primarily for student or school related functions; 6) Require that parking provided for theaters, auditoriu s, stadiums, and sports arenas on college campuses be located within 600 feet of the cility's main entrance; 7) Add a definition of college, university, and seminary : a) define the types of facilities typically found on these campuses; and b) to imit the amount of commercial activity that may take place to 25 percent of the opera ing hours of any given facility; ' 8) Allow college, university, and seminary uses as permit ed uses in the B-2 and B-3 (neighborhood commercial) and I-1 (light industry) dis ricts; 9) Require that dormitories in residential areas be locate within a campus boundary; 10) Require a minimum area size of three acres for new c llege, university, and seminary special condition use permits in residential zones; and 11) Rezone to residential use four lots on Grand Avenue wned by the College of St. Thomas so that they may be included within the cam s boundary to be established by St. Thomas' special condition use permit. 12) (Possible parking amendment - depends on consultant' recommendation.) Oraanization of Renort The report presents a brief description of each of the reco mended Zoning Code changes, a discussion of the reasons for the change, and proposed ame dment language or maps showing property to be rezoned. Language to be deleted from the C de is dashed through; proposed new language is underlined. RECOMMENDED ZONING CODE CHANGES RECOMMENDATION 1: ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM PE TTED HEIGHT FOR NEW . BUILDINGS ON A COLLEGE, NIVERSITY, OR SEMINARY CAMPUS IN A RESIDENTIAL ONE, SPECIFICALLY, 70 FEET FOR CAMPUSES S ACRES OR ARGER, AND 40 FEET FOR CAMPUSES LESS THAN 5 AC ES. Discussion The Zoning Code as currently written does not contain a h ight limit for buildings on college, university, or seminary campuses in residential zo es. Height is indirectly regulated by the required building setback, which is 50 feet or the h ight of the building, whichever is greater. For example, a building could theoretically be 30 feet in height if it is set back 300 feet from the public right-of-way. A height limit for ampus buildings would help insure that new buildings are similar in scale to existing b ildings and are at a scale appropriate to an institutional use in a residential setting. 2 . �. � �` �G �°� The Summit Avenue Plan, approved by the City Council in 986, dealt with the issue of college building heights since there are five campuses that f ont on Summit Avenue. The plan recommends that a survey of college, university, and se inary building heights be conducted and that a height restriction be established consis ent with currently prevailing heights. A survey of the first and second tallest buildings o each campus was conducted for this purpose. The results are given below: Fi gure 1 = Co 11 e9e and Un i vers i ty Com uses i n St. Pou 1: First and Second Tall st Buildings . Building Height 100 99 ( 95 90 �� 90 85 g� � 80 78 I 75 � 72 70 70 70 70 65 65 6 60 55 53 51 50 48 45 40 40 35 .�_ 30 - - - - _ od`I o;� de� ��0 oj� �'� tie� o�� g � yo^ �or o;� ec �o� 9< �d� �er pov+> >d� ,��;��reo 1 d` �5�0� ��Q �+00��i M 1�oe9 v� ,�os` � e� 5. � 5� s '�� o� e�' C,� g� ` v10 5ti ' I' 5°' ��°�,c,�•��,��o o�� e�r��o`�`��5ti�Q.'g�t.�re� ��tire�� o��o�o��o�d�� I! �. G G ;I I School and Building Name '�' r. Salid bar equals tallest compus building. i Cross-hatcfied bar equals second talle�t b]dg, i' Diogona] bar third tallest <St. Thomas only). '�' !�i As the graph demonstrates, five buildings total on all of th campuses exceed 70 feet at their highest points. However, the actual Zoning Code height of many of these buildings is less � than the height indicated since the Code's definition of bu'lding height measures height not to the highest point, but to the deck line of mansard roofs nd to the midpoint between eaves and ridge on gable, hip, and gambrel roofs. Unfortu ately, this definition of building height was not provided when the colleges were asked for t e building height information. Therefore, the heights indicated on the chart could possibl be reduced by S to 10 feet to fit the Zoning Code definition of building height, depending pon the design of the building. Given the above information, a height restriction of 70 fee for most of the campuses would be reasonable because it would allow construction of build ngs that are generally consistent with prevailing heights. However, for smaller campuses, t ose less than S acres (a standard city block is 4.1 acres), building heights should more closel match the heights of surrounding uses. Maximum building heights for most resi ential areas of the city (single- family through multiple-family RM-1) are 30 to 40 feet. F r campuses less than 5 acres in size, the maximum height of buildings should be 40 feet. 3 - . . � �-- /� 7a r Am ndmen L n Im 1 m n R mm nd ti n 1 A. Amend Section 60.413 (6) pertaining to the regulation of colleges, universities, and seminaries as special condition uses in the R-1 throug R-4 zoning district to add a building height limit as follows: (6) (�J N il in hall x 7 e in h i h f r m e fiv r r lar r nd i in h 11 x d 4 f e in h i h f r am 1 s th n fiv r . RECOMMENDATION 2: REQUIRE THAT SPECIAL CO DITION USES IN THE RIVER CORRIDOR URBAN OPEN DI 'TRICT (RC-3) BE RESTRICTED , TO 40 FEET IN HEIGHT IN A Y AREA WITHIN 400 FEET OF THE BLUFFLINE. Discussion Currently, there is a 40 foot height restriction for permitte uses in the RC-3 district, but no specific height restriction for special condition uses. How er, they �subject to any height restriction specified for them in the underlying zon (this interpretation of the RC-3 requirements is given in an opinion from the City Attorne dated May l5, 1987). Nearly all special condition uses have a height restriction specified f r them in the underlying district, with the exception of colleges, universities, seminaries, and hospitals (and as stated above, a 60 foot height restriction is recommended for larger colleg campuses as part of this study). Residential uses generally have height restrictions ranging rom 30 to 50 feet, and office and industrial uses (outside of downtown) have height rest ictions of 30 to 75 feet. However, most office and industrial uses can exceed the h 'ght restriction if the setback is increased. Given that there are currently a large number of special c dition uses that could be constructed to heights in excess of 40 feet in the RC-3 dist ict, this study recommends that heights for special condition uses in the RC-3 district be re tricted to 40 feet in height for any area that is within 400 feet of the bluffline. This will provide a sufficient buffer to protect views from the river, and yet will allow building h ights as normally regulated in those RC-3 areas that are more than 400 feet from the bluf line. Specifically, for the College of St. Thomas and St. Paul Seminary property that s in the River Corridor RC-3 district, this requirement will restrict building heights to 4 feet in the area specified on Map A (p. 19). Areas of the two campuses outside of this 4 0 feet buffer area would be restricted to 70 feet in height as recommended earlier in t study. ' The recommended amendment language also would exclud any river gorge less than I50 feet wide from the definition of bluffline for this specific requirement. The St. Thomas campus has a small gorge that extends approximately 450 f et into the campus from Mississippi River Boulevard. If the 400 foot buffer area w s measured from this gorge bluffline, it would extend far into the campus where there are already many existing buildings over 40 feet tall, which are not now visible or m rginally visible from the river. It seems more reasonable to measure the 400 feet from the m jor bluffline directly on the river. Pro osed Amen ment Lan u t Im lem n R c mmend i n 2 A. Amend Section 65.233 pertaining to standards for ur an open uses and Section 65.234 pertaining to principal uses permitted subject to spec al conditions in the RC-3 Urban Open Space District to require that special condition ses in RC-3 districts be restricted to 40 feet in height for any area within 40 feet of the bluffline, as indicated: 4 65.233.Standards for Urban Open Uses. Subdivision 1. For nrincinal uses nermitted. d velopment shall be limited to 40 feet in height. r rin i 1 s s rmi u ' t e i 1 n i i n v 1 m nt sh 11 b limited 40 f in hei for n r within 4 fee f h 1 fflin x ludin riv r or 1 h n f wid . 65.234.Principal uses permitted subject to special con itions. Principal uses permitted subject to special con itions are those specified by the corresponding underlying district as establish in Section 60.301 to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other pro 'sion of the Zoning Code. They ' are subject to standards specified in the corre ponding underlying district section and to those specified in Section' 2 n 65.400 et. seq. RECOMMENDATION 3: ESTABLISH A MAXINNM PE MITTED DENSITY OF 100 STUDENT UNITS PER ACRE OR A COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY, OR SEMINARY CAMPUS IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. Discussion The Zoning Code currently allows colleges, universities, a seminaries to be located in the city's lowest density single-family residential zone. That t is is so is largely a result of historical development patterns. Many of the city's college were established over 100 years ago in areas of the city that were open countryside. Low ensity residential neighborhoods subsequently developed around them. When a zoning code was adopted in 1922, it was written to recognize this fact, that colleges, universities, a d seminaries were located in low density residential neighborhoods in St. Paul. St. Paul is s mewhat unique among cities, both in the number of colleges, universities, and seminaries tha it has, and in that its Zoning Code allows these uses in low-density residential areas. In years past, the coexistence of colleges and residential n ighborhoods in St. Paul has generally been harmonious. This was because most of the olleges could be characterized as having stable, relatively small, resident student population on large, low-density campuses that provided welcomed open space in the neighborhoods. In recent years, the relationship between some of the colle es and their neighbors has become strained because of climbing enrollments, more students c muting to campus instead of living on campus, and the addition of evening and weeken programs. The graph in Figure • 2 (p. 20) shows enrollment growth patterns for some of the larger schools in the city. As the graph demonstrates, the College of St. Thomas, William Mi chell College of Law, and to a lesser extent, the College of St. Catherine, have undergone significant enrollment growth since 1970. Listed below is the percentage change in enrol ment from 1970 to 1986 for St. Paul's colleges, universities, and seminaries (those for whi h data was available): 5 96 Change in Enrollment . 1970-1986 College of St. Thomas + 19396 William Mitchell College of Law + 12496 College of St. Catherine + 8896 Hamline University + 5496 Luther Northwestern Seminary + 2496 Concordia College + 1696 Macalester College - 1696 St. Paul Seminary - 2596 � Source: Minnesota State Higher Education Coordinating Bo rd For the neighborhoods surrounding the schools, increases in enrollment have generally resulted in increased traffic congestion and on-street parki g; more students living in surrounding neighborhoods leading to an increase in absent e landlords and a decline in property maintenance; and simply an extension of the hour of activity on a campus so that more of it occurs in the evening and on weekends when mo t residents are home. It is notable that the two schools with the highest enrollment gr wth have generated the most complaints from the surrounding neighborhood about traffi congestion, on-street parking, and other negative impacts associated with increased activi y levels at the schools. The amount of activity occurring on a college campus, if al owed to increase indefinitely, can reach a point where it ceases to be compatible with low or medium density residential areas. For this reason, a density restriction of one hundred student units per acre of campus is recommended. For calculation purposes, a full-time stud nt would equal 1.0 student units and a part-time student 0.5 student units. (Part-time studen s are on campus fewer hours and are less likely to live in the neighborhood.) The defini ion of full and part-time students would be that used by the state Higher Education oordinating Board, to which all post-secondary schools must report their enrollment. A density standard of ]00 student units per acre can be jus 'fied by analyzing the current zoning of St. Paul's college campuses, the maximum residen ial density allowed in each zoning district, and average densities of residential areas in St. Paul. A majority of the campuses in St. Paul are zoned single-family residential (R- or R-3) and the balance are zoned for duplexes or townhouses (RT-1 and RT-2). The o y exception is the St. Paul Technical-Vocational Institute, which is in a multiple-famil residential zone (RM-2). The table on the next page indicates the maximum number of h using units per acre allowed in • each zoning district, and resulting number of persons per a re (which assumes occupancies of 2 or 4 persons per unit; the median number of persons pe occupied housing unit in St. Paul in 1980 was 2.06 persons). 6 - , d'�--/� �� -_ - _ - ,� Persons/Acre _' �, ��. Zonint� District M xim m ni A r (assume 4/unit) - -- -- R-1 4+ 16 - - R-2 6 24 - - - - R-3 7 28 - R-4 8+ 32 - �_ RT-1 14+ 44 RT-2 (2 bedroom) 13+ 52 (assume 2/unit) RT-2 (1 bedroom) 19+ 38 .: �- � - RM-1 (1 bedroom) 24 48 _ � RM-2 (1 bedroom) 36 72 :�� °�" :��-' RM-3 (1 bedroom) 72+ 144 ;�;;p,.F:�;ti�:.�- �"=;'_ �=`r;;::;� �.::�';°,��;:r �; , `i In addition, a survey of the density of six repres ntative single-family and duplex residential areas throughout the city revealed th t the average density of resident population �""'' for these areas ranged from 11 to 17 persons per cre, excluding streets and alleys (1980 � � Census data). � � As this information indicates, the maximum den ities allowed by the zoning districts in which nearly all St. Paul's colleges, universities, nd seminaries are located in (R-1 through RT-2), and the actual average densities of single family and duplex residential areas are � significantly below the density restriction of 10 student units per acre proposed here. - Further, the density standard does not take into ccount faculty and staff, and other non- � credit students and visitors coming to the camp s. For these reasons, a density standard of . 100 student units per acre does not seem unduly restrictive or unreasonable. � The concept of restricting the density of popula ion (students) based on land area (campus � size) is common in zoning and housing regulati . For example, the Zoning Code regulates the number of dwelling units that may be built n a given area of land (as explained above). ' � � � � The Housing Code then regulates the maximum number of persons that may be housed in a dwelling unit of a given size. Both of these reg lations support the specific purposes for which the St. Paul Zoning Code was adopted, w ich are found in Section 60.101. These _ stated purposes include, among others, the follo ing statement, "(9) To avoid undue congestion of population": A density restrictio for students directly supports this stated purpose as well. _, _- � , -::� A student density restriction would also suppo t two additional stated purposes of the ��'�•�-_�_>_: Zoning Code, "(6) To conserve property values; and (7) to protect all areas of the city from '��`:• -� harmful encroachment by incompatible uses." s enrollment increases, the amount of :,.�.:..:.:...: ;_::; '�"'`°'''''`''�`�'' activity and noise, automobile and pedestrian raffic, and number of parked cars increase, ,�f. ....f.�.. - - both on campus and in the surrounding neighb rhood. Many neighborhood representatives ;�.=;�x.:°...;:_;�.;::�; believe this has had an adverse impact on the alue of properties around the College of St. ��:;F _,�, _� Thomas. A real estate analysis conducted in 1 85 by a consultant hired by the College was inconclusive as to whether real estate values h ve been affected. The analysis looked at home sales within 2 blocks around the St. Tho as campus for 1975-1985 and compared appreciation of property values for those pro rties with average appreciation of homes in � -� - the Macalester-Groveland and Merriam Park eighborhoods over the same period. The � consultant concluded that the presence of the ollege has not had any measurable effect on the market value or marketability of homes i the immediate area around the College over � � - the 10 year period. However, a further analy is of the data by neighborhood representatives _ - _ seemed to indicated that most homes near the College experienced greater than average �� appreciation from 1975-1979, and below aver ge appreciation from 1980-1985. 'This implies that enrollment growth at the College has ha a detrimental impact on property values near _ --- � r •�.�;��. - the campus in the most recent five years, when most of the nrollment growth has occurred. Although different canclusions have been drawn from this ame study, it could be said that a student density restriction would possibly support and cer ainly not be contrary to the stated purpose of conserving property values. A student de sity restriction would also support the other stated purpose of protecting all areas of t e city from harmful encroachment by incompatible uses. Enrollment increases t at result in increases in noise and activity levels, pedestrian and automobile traffic, and umber of parked cars can reach a point where the institution, because of these negative imp cts, ceases to be a use that is ' compatible with low or medium density residential uses. Imvact on Existin� Colleaes. Universities, and Seminaries ' Figure 3 (p. 21) shows current student densities for all of St Paul's colleges, universities, and seminaries. Both William Mitchell School of Law and the S hool of the Associated Arts currently exceed the density standard of 100 student units er acre. If this restriction becomes law, both schools would require a modification of he restriction to increase their enrollments further. This procedure, which requires a publ c hearing at the Planning Commission, seems reasonable since both are characterized y rather small campuses and neighborhood complaints about negative impacts generated y the two schools. The only other school that is even above the 50 student uni s/acre mark is the College of St. Thomas, which is at 74.2. How many additional students St Thomas could add to its enrollment under this formula depends upon the mix of ful and part-time students added. St. Thomas' enrollment as of Spring 1987 (students actually ttending the St. Paul campus) was 3,998 full-time and 2,888 part-time students, which equ ls 6,886 students or 5,442 student units. Under the proposed restriction, St. Thomas c uld have 7,330 student units on its 73.3 acre campus (includes Seminary property). If enrol ment growth occurred only in full-time students, total enrollment on the St. Paul campus ould equal a maximum of 8,774. If growth occurred only in part-time students and the num er of full-time students remained constant, total enrollment could equal a maximum of 10,66 students. Pr Amm m � n Imlmn R mmn in A. Amend Section 60.413 (6) pertaining to the regulation of colleges, universities, and seminaries as special condition uses in the R-1 throug R-4 zoning district to establish a maximum permitted density of 100 student units pe acre (full-time student equals 1 student unit, part-time student equals 0.5 student unit ), as indicated: � Th in i ti n h 11 n x e d n i f 1 0 en nits er acr A f 11- • ime t n h 11 ual n l n ni r - im nt h 11 ual n -h If f n ni D fini i n f 11 n art- ime s ud nt h I1 hat used h Hi h r Ed i n or in tin B rd of he tat f Minnesota. RECOMMENDATION 4: INCREASE PLANNING CO SION DISCRETION IN REVIEWING APPLICATIONS F R NEW OR EXPANDED . COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY, OR S MINARY SPECIAL CONDITION USES BY ALLOWI G CONSIDERATION OF BROADER S1"ANDARDS REL TING TO IMPACT ON THE ADJOINING COMMUNITY. 8 � . . . �7 _ /� 72 Discussion As currently written;the Zoning Code requires that four c nditions be met for approval of a college, university, or seminary as a special condition use. hese conditions relate to building setback, access, parking, and boundaries. If these conditions are met, the Planning Commission must approve the special condition use. A use uch as this can have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood in ter s of traffic, noise, types and amounts of activity, and building scale. Because these imp cts can vary significantly, the Planning Commission should be given the discretion to det rmine whether or not there will be significant negative impacts associated with establishm nt or expansion of a college, university, or seminary special condition use and to make decision based on that assessment. The language recommended below for insertion into the co e would give the Planning Commission this discretion, which is analogous to the discr tion it already has under Section 60.543 (4) in reviewing fast food restaurant special conditi n uses. Many cities allow consideration of these types of general standards for all sp cial condition uses. r Am ndm n L n ua t Im lemen R mm n i n 4 Amend Section 60.413 (6) pertaining to the regulation of c lleges, universities, and � seminaries as special condition uses in the R-2 through R- zoning district to add the following standard: (6) (g) The establishment and operation of the instit tion shall not result in any condition inconsistent with the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the adjoining community. RECOMMENDATION S: REQUIRE THAT STADIUMS, PORTS ARENAS, AND THEATERS ON COLLEGE, U IVERSITY, AND SEMINARY CAMPUSES PROVIDE THEIR WN PARKING AS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE IF T EY HAVE: A) 1,000 SEATS OR MORE; OR B) FOR FACILITIE WITH LESS THAN 1,000 SEATS, IF THEY ARE NOT U ED PRIMARILY FOR STUDENT OR SCHOOL RELATED FUNC IONS. piscussion The Zoning Code as presently written is unclear as to whet er stadiums, sports arenas, and theaters located on a college, university, or seminary camp s are considered primary or � accessory nses. On many campuses, small auditoriums, the ters, and gymnasiums are used mostly by students attending class lectures or seminars, stu ents giving musical or theatrical performances primarily for other students and faculty, or or intercollegiate or intramural sporting events that draw relatively few spectators. It is a propriate that these types of uses be considered accessory, and that the overall parking requi ement for colleges, universities, and seminaries covers them since the users are mostly stud nts and faculty. For larger stadiums, arenas, and theaters, particularly thos of 1,000 seats or more, it is less likely that the facilities would be used primarily by the st dents and faculty of the institution, and more likely that events scheduled in them ould attract the general public for whom spaces on the campus would not have already be n provided. Because of this, facilities of this type should be required to provide their o n parking as specified in the Zoning Code. (Theaters and auditoriums: 1 space for ever 5 seats plus 1 space for every 2 employees; stadiums and sports arenas: 1 space for every t ree seats or six feet of benches). 9 However, it is conceivable that there may be some instances w ere a facility smaller than 1,000 seats would cause a neighborhood parking problems, and other instances where a facility larger than 1,000 seats would not cause a problem. A example of the former might be a college film society that routinely showed movies of inte est to the general public, similar to the activities of a for-profit movie theater, and the ollege theater had no additional parking provided for it. An example of the latter ight be a large football stadium that attracted a big crowd only a few times a year fo certain football games. In the first case, it would be reasonable to require additional par ing to meet a demand generated by people who were not covered by the overall coll ge parking requirement. In the second case, it would be unreasonable to require addition 1 parking to meet a demand generated only a few times a year. � The recommendation as written would require facilities of 1, 00 or more seats, plus those of less than 1,000 seats that were not used primarily for student r school-related activities, to provide parking as required by the Zoning Code for those use . As worded, this would allow the City the discretion to determine whether a smaller theate or stadium needed its own parking, yet would require outright that a larger facility pro ide its own parking. If a 1,000+ seat facility were proposed by a college, university, or seminary, and the school felt it would be used primarily by students and faculty or only infr quently for large groups from ` outside the campus, it could apply for a variance from the re uirement. By constructing the parking requirement in this way, the burden of proof to dem nstrate parking need would be the City's for facilities under 1,000 seats, and the burden of roof to demonstrate lack of parking need would be the school's for facilities of 1,000 or ore seats. It is appropriate to require that the parking be automatically required for larger facilities unless it can be proven that it is not needed since the impact on a neighborh od of a large facility with inadequate parking is much greater than that of a small faci ity with inadequate parking. This requirement would provide further flexibility because f the way that parking requirement compliance for colleges and universities is moni ored on an annual basis through the special condition use permit. If a theater, audit rium, or stadium of less than 1,000 seats was, over the period of a year, to shift its use fro primarily student or school- related functions to non-school functions, and was creating n on-street parking problem, off-street parking could be required for the facility for the ubsequent year. The school would have the choice of adding additional parking or redu ing (or eliminating) the non- school-related activities. This should apply to existing facil ties as well as any that may be constructed in the future. Figure 4 (p. 22) shows the number of auditorium and stadiu seats located on St. Paul's college, university and seminary campuses. As the table ill trates, most facilities are under � 1,000 seats in size and most do not cause neighborhood park ng problems. One obvious example of a larger facility that schedules events of genera public interest and occasionally creates neighborhood parking problems is the 1,800 seat O'S aughnessy Auditorium at the College of St. Catherine. Other notable facilities in excess f 1,000 seats are the football stadiums at Hamline, St. Thomas, and Macalester. It could e argued that a variance of the parking requirement for these football stadiums might hav been appropriate had parking been required when they were constructed, since there are 1 rge crowds at these stadiums only infrequently. Pr o d Amendment Lan u Im lement R mm n i n Amend Section 60.201, "A. Accessory use, or accessory." to clarify the definition of theaters, auditoriums, stadiums, and sports arenas as accessory uses, s indicated: 60.201.A Accessory use, or accessory. A use which s clearly incidental to... 10 � . . . �� /� �� An accessory use includes, but is not limited to, the f Ilowing: (13) h r u i ri m tadium r r s r n 1 n 11 niv r i r min r m u nl if i h 1 han 1 n i rim ril ihe students. facultv. and staff of the school. RECOMMENDATION 6: REQUIRED PARKING PROVI ED FOR THEATERS, AUDITORIUMS, STADIUMS, A D SPORTS ARENAS ON COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY, AN SEMINARY CAMPUSES AND OTHER LARGE PARCELS OF AND MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN 600 FEET OF THE FA ILITY'S MAIN ENTRANCE. � Discussion _ The Zoning Code cvrrently requires that parking provided or non-residential uses be either: (a) on the same zoning lot, (b) in a P-1 Vehicular Parking istrict, or (c) within the same district as the principal use and within 300 feet of the buil ing it is intended to serve. 'The intent of this requirement is to make sure that parking pro ided for a particular use is close enough to it so that it is used by those it is intended to serv . These requirements work well for most situations, but for llege campuses, which are considered to be one zoning lot, or for other large parcels o land, it could result in a parking facility a quarter of a mile or more away being co nted to meet the parking requirement for a new stadium or theater. Unless facility sers were forced somehow to use the parking provided, they would tend to park in the closes available spot to their destination, which would often be a city street. To preven this from occurring, this recommendation would require that parking required for a y theater, auditorium, stadium, or sports area be located within 600 feet of the building's ain entrance. Six hundred feet is the average length of a residential bloc in St. Paul. Six hundred feet is recommended as the maximum distance between a parking acility and final destination for commercial areas in a respected urban design text called i nin by Kevin Lynch (Second edition; MIT Press, 1971). No recommended stand rd could be found for parking facilities serving institutional uses, although the behavior f persons parking and then walking to a destination could be assumed to be somewhat imilar for both commercial and institutional uses. An actual example that could be considered to support a 6 0 foot standard is the location of the main parking lot on the College of St. Catherine in rel ion to the main entrance to the • College's O'Shaughnessy Auditorium, which schedules man events of general public interest. The walking distance between this parking lot and main e trance is approximately 900 feet and it has been reported by numerous neighborhood obser rs that during special events the large lot is half-full and the streets directly north of the c mpus across Randolph Avenue are filled with on-street parking. Although building and p rking facility design and location could affect the perceived attractiveness and will' gness of persons to park and walk distances greater than 600 feet, such a standard will elp insure that parking facilities . will be close enough to be used by those they are intended o serve. Pro d Amendmen Lan u e o Im lement R omm nd ti n 6 Amend Section 62.104. Off-street parking facll[ty standar s and design, Subdivision (3) Parking facllity locatlon: non-residential, as indicated: 11 Off-street parking for other than residential use shall be eithe (a) on the same zoning lot nd wi hin f f h uil in i i in n rv m r fr m h m in n r nce f h uildin t the n re in f h ff- r rkin 1 (b) in a P-1 Vehicular Parking District, or (c) within the same district as the princip 1 use and within 300 feet of the building it is intended to serve, measured from the nearest point of the building to the nearest point of the off-street parking lot. RECOMMENDATION 7: ADD A DEFINITION OF COLLE E, UNIVERSITY, AND SEMINARY TO DEFINE THE TY ES OF FACILITIES TYPICALLY FOUND ON THESE AMPUSES AND TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF COMI��RCIA ACTIVITY THAT MAY TAKE PLACE TO 25 PERCENT O THE OPERATING HOURS � OF ANY GIVEN FACILITY. Discussion The Zoning Code currently does not have a definition of coll ge, university, and seminary, although a short definition is given in Section 60.413 (6), whe e they are first listed as a special condition use in the R-1 through R-4 residential distri ts. A more thorough definition, to be added to the definition section of the Zonin Code, will further clarify what colleges, universities, and seminaries are considered to and will limit the commercial use of campus facilities to no more than 25 percent of the op rating hours of any given facility. A survey of colleges, universities, and seminaries in St. Paul as conducted to determine the amount of non-credit classes and seminars, special events, an rental of facilities that occurs. The results are given in Figure S (pp. 23-24). All of the scho ls surveyed rent school facilities for a fee to groups that conduct activities ranging f om high school tournaments to wedding parties. Clearly, campus classrooms, meeting areas, and sports faciliti s serve as a valuable resource for diverse organizations and groups within the community. his type of activity is certainly appropriate and reasonable. However, these activit es can be considered commercial in nature. Commercial uses, because of their hours of activity, traffic i pacts, and parking needs, are considered to be incompatible with residential uses and are t erefore segregated from residential uses in the Zoning Code. If commercial use of ca pus facilities begins to constitute a significant portion of the use of any given facil ty, it ceases to be compatible • with residential uses. In addition, required parking on colle e campuses is based on the number of students and employees. The requirement provid s for a reasonable number of campus visitors as well. It does not provide for significant se of facilities for commercial purposes that generates significant parking demand over an above that generated by normal campus activities. For these reasons, a limit of 25 pe cent of the hours of activity of a given facility for commercial use is proposed. Pro ose Amendment L n ua Im 1 men R mmend t n 7 Amend Section 60.203 C to add a definition for college, uni ersity, and seminary, as indicated: 60.203. C. ll universit r s min r An insti u i n ! r s - n r u ation ublic r rir te ff rin r in ener 1 hnical r r li i uca ion n n er d f r r fi whi h r e in uildin s wn or 1 a e b h in it i n f r mi i tr tiv nd f ul ffi es 12 1 sr m I r ri h ls i r m t ur h 11 li r ri n n f ult nter thl i f il i s rmitori fr terni i nd s r ri ie ut n ncl in 11 r r de h ls r t f r r fit and not in ludin he se f n uildin a i m r ther f itit f r mm rcial ur oses whi h i efin s ! r-f r nt I n n- h ol ns red r f r m re h n 2 er n f h er tin h r f he facilitv in a calendar vear.l RECOMMENDATION 8: ALLOW COLLEGES, UNIVER ITIES, AND SEMINARIES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE B- AND B-3 (NEIGHBORHOOD CONA�RCIAL) AND I-1 (LIG T INDUSTRY) ZONES. � RECOMMENDATION 9: REQUIRE THAT DORMITORI S IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS BE LOCATED WITHIN A CAMPU BOUNDARY. Discussion - Recommendation 8 Currently, non-profit college, university, and seminary use are only allowed as special condition uses in residential zones and as permitted uses in the downtown business zones (B- 4 and B-5). Many of the uses associated with colleges, uni rsities, and seminaries, such as classrooms, student activity centers, parking facilities, etc., are similar to uses currently permitted in the B-2 and B-3 neighborhood business zones. Among the uses permitted now in these zones are business schools, non-academic colleges, an trade schools operated for profit. There appears to be no significant difference in terms of 1 nd use and impact on adjoining properties between non-profit colleges, universities, and se inaries, and for-profit business schools, trade schools, and non-academic colleges. Therefo e, it is logical that the non-profit institutions be allowed as a permitted use in the B-2 and B- neighborhood commercial zones along with for-profit schools. In addition, all B-3 permitte uses are allowed in the I-1 (light industry) zone, so non-profit colleges, universities, and sem naries would be allowed uses in I-1 along with for-profit schools. In order to protect the ex sting character of development in these zones, college, university, and seminary uses shoul be subject to the same area, bulk, and yard setback requirements established in the Cod for these zones, rather than the requirements found in residential zones for these uses. Recommendation 8 also affects parking. The general parki g requirement for colleges, universities, and seminaries is based on the number of stud nts, employees, and dormitory beds. To determine compliance with this requirement, ann al monitoring of student, employee, and dormitory bed levels at each of the schools i needed. Annual reporting of this information to City staff is a required condition for c leges, universities, and • seminaries as special condition uses in residential zones. M nitoring of parking standard compliance will be just as difficult for these uses in the B- , B-3, and I-1 zones where they would not be special condition uses. To insure parking stan ard compliance in these zones, each school should be required to annually report changes i students, employees, and dormitory beds to City staff as a r uir d ndi i n f r a rmi in the B-2, B-3, and I-1 zones. Another parking issue that needs clarification is the lack o a specific parking requirement for business schools, non-academic colleges, and trade schoo s. Since they are very similar to academic colleges, universities, and seminaries, the parking equirement for them should be expanded to include business schools, non-academic colleges and trade schools. The only exception should be barber and beauty schools, for which a eparate parking requirement is already specified in the Code. 13 , �`� -/� ��2 A final impact of Recommendation 8 that must be conside ed is the effect on the regulation of fraternities, sororities, and dormitories. Currently, the ode allows these uses on a campus or within 250 feet of a campus property line. The ntent of Recommendation 8 is to allow college uses in business zones, but not to allow group student housing to locate near it in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the Cod should be clarified to allow fraternities and sororities only within 250 feet of a campu boundary as defined in a special condition use permit issued for a post-secondary institutio in a residential zone. Further, group student housing, such as dormitories, fraternities, an sororities, is not an appropriate use in conjunction with colleges, universities, and seminari s in neighborhood business or industrial zones, and should be specifically excluded from hese zones. Discussion - Recommendation 9 The last paragraph above does not refer to dormitories wit in 250 feet because Recommendation 9 of this study is that new dormitories be required to locate within a campus boundary only. Currently, dormitories may be loca ed on campus or within 250 feet of the campus in an adjoining residential area zoned RT-1 r higher. Dormitories are typically a more intense use than any type of permitted resi ential use they may be located next to. Also, students should ideally be close to the classro ms and other support facilities they use on a daily basis. For these reasons, dormitories sh uld only be allowed within a campus boundary as defined in a special condition use per it issued for a post-secondary institution. Pr ose Am ndm n L n e Im 1 m nt R mmen a i n n 9 A. Amend Section 60.532 pertaining to principal uses per itted in the B-2 zoning district to add the following new permitted uses and to renum er clauses (g), (h), and (i) as indicated: (2) All retail business, service establishments du ion in ituti n or processing uses as follows: (a) through (f) - same. (g) oll e niv r iti n minaries n h r h in i u i n f hi h r le rnin lic and riv te ff ri ur e in en r 1 hni al r r li i ti n nd n t r f r fi bu x ludin rmitorie r ther r s d nt h in . . (g) (� Mail order houses. (�) () Physical culture and health clubs and r ducing salons. (i) (� Food catering establishments. B. Amend Section 60.533 pertaining to required condition for principal uses permitted in the B-2 zoning district to add the following required c ndition: (3) olle e niv r itie and eminari n t er d f r r fit n usin ss ch ols non-ac d mi c Ile e n r e ch ol o er ed f r rofit m t annuall re ort o th 1 nnin admini trator h num er f tud nt n m lo e as ia wi h he in i i n te min m li n wi h arkin reauirements. 14 All B-2 permitted uses are also permitted in the B-3 z ne, and all B-3 permitted uses are also permitted in the I-1 zone, necessitating a cha ge only to the B-2 section. C. That Section 62.103, Subdivision 6 (2) (1), setting fort off-street parking space requirements for colleges, universities, and seminarie be amended as follows: (1) College, university,or seminar i h 1 n- mi 11 r r hooL One for every three employees and members o the staff and either one for every three full-time students not residing on ampus or one for every three part-time students, whichever is greater. D. Amend Section 60.423 Subdivision (2) pertaining to p incipal uses permitted subject to special conditions in the RT-1 zoning district to dele dormitories as a special condition use and to clarify the required condition f r fraternities and sororities: (2) Fraternity and sorority houses s�d-�e��rt�e�ie which are located on or within 250 feet of ��re-�reeFes��ope�t�-�xe�#��ka�so ol. � cam�us boundarv as li h in he ial n i i n ermi f r 11 niv r i r seminarv. E. Amend Section 60.204, Section 60.206, and Section 60. 19 to clarify the definition of a dormitory and add definitions for fraternity and sor rity houses: 60.204 Dormitory. A building designed for or used a s�roun living quarters for students of a �ri�g�h-se�ool, college, universi y, or seminary, organized and owned by, and located on the camnus of a high school, college, university, or seminary. �g�or�-tao�e�des��f�E�ei�3t -a��s�orit�-kot�ses. 60.206 Fraternity House. il in r li in ar r f r n s f lle e niver i r min r wh r m m er f a fr rnit h h n ffi i 11 r niz h 11 niv r i r min r 60.219 Sorority House. A uildin sed r livi u r rs f r tudents f 11 niv rsi r emin r wh r m m r f r rit hat h s e n ffi i 11 r co niz d he c 11 niv r i r minar RECOMMENDATION 10: REQUIRE A MINIMUM LOT SI E OF THREE ACRES FOR . NEW COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY AND SEMINARY SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMITS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. Discussion This recommendation would require that new, free-standin college, university, and seminary uses in residential areas be a minimum of three a res in size. An average city block is approximately 4 to S acres in size. There is no min"mum lot size requirement now. This requirement would apply either to a new college, univ rsity, or seminary first establishing itself in the city or to an existing institution t at wishes to establish a satellite campus. A new special condition use permit would be issu for each such use. An existing institution wishing to expand its current camp s would have to apply for a change in the campus boundary as found in the overall per it for the institution. In this case, the area that would be added to the campus would no need to be three acres as long as it was contiguous to the existing campus. l5 The intent of this recommended change to the Zoning Code is to prevent an existing or new institution from buyi-ng a few lots in the middle of a reside tial neighborhood and using them for college, university, or seminary purposes. This rec mmended change would also have the effect of requiring an institution to apply for an e pansion of its campus boundary in its overall special condition use permit when it wished t expand college uses around an existing, traditional campus instead of getting individual s ecial condition use permits for those uses, as has been done in the past. The result will be clearer and more logical process. Of course, this proposed change would not preclude a colle e from owning additional property anywhere in the city and using it for a use normal y permitted within the zoning district is is located in. For example, a college could own a warehouse in an industrial zone and use the warehouse for any use allowed in that zoning d strict. The principle also applies to any apartment building or other type of housing a colleg may own. The use of the housing for college students is permitted if that type of ho sing is an allowed use in the zoning district. r Amm m � Lnu Im Imn R mmn i nl A. Amend Section 60.413 (6) pertaining to the regulation of colleges, universities, and seminaries as special condition uses in the R-1 throug R-4 zoning district to require a minimum lot size of 3 acres, require that all property ncluded within a campus boundary be contiguous, and to re-letter clauses (c) th ough (e) as indicated: c) (New clause c establishing a maximum bui ding height as proposed in Recommendation 1.) (e) (i� The boundaries of the institution shall be s defined in the permit, oc nsist f 1 hr r n 11 r r in d in h rmi h 11 �onti�uous. The boundaries and may not e expanded without the prior approval of the Planning Commission, i n m m �d ci 1 �ondition use nermit. (e) (New (e) establishing a density restriction s proposed in Recommendation 3.) (d) (, The institution shall not exceed by more t an 10 percent... (g) (New (g) increasing Planning Commission iscretion proposed in • Recommendation 4.) (e) (� For institutions existing as of the date of doption... RECOMMENDATION 11: REZONE TO RESIDENTIAL U E FOUR LOTS ON GRAND AVENUE OWNED BY THE CO LEGE OF ST. THOMAS SO THAT THEY MAY BE INCLUD D WITHIN THE CAMPUS BOUNDARY TO BE ESTABLIS ED BY ST. THOMAS' SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT. 16 , f. . ��-i� �� Discussion The Planning Commission has been in the process of issuing overall special condition use permits for the city's existing colleges, universities, and sem naries, as is explained in the background section of this report. One purpose of these per its has been to establish appropriate campus boundaries for these institutions. Consi eration of an appropriate boundary for the College of St. Thomas led to the realizatio that four lots owned by the College must be rezoned if they are to be included in the ca pus boundary established by their special condition use permit. The four lots are on the orth side of Grand Avenue in the block bounded by Grand, Finn, Summit, and Cleveland. (See Map B, p. 25.) The current zoning of the lots is OS-1 (office-service), which does not p rmit college uses. Rezoning of the lots to a residential zone, where college uses are permitt d subject to special conditions, ' is necessary if the lots are to be included within the St. Tho as campus boundary. Rezoning to RM-2 (multiple-family) is most logical since that is the p evailing zone along Grand Avenue between Cleveland and Cretin Avenues. The larger question is whether the campus boundary establi hed for St. Thomas should include the four lots needing rezoning. The College owns n arly three-quarters of the block, which includes the Christ Child and McNeely classroom bui dings. (See Map C, p. 26.) These buildings have long been used by St. Thomas for academic urposes. The other properties on the block owned by St. Thomas have generally been acquire within the past five years and have been used for office purposes, surface parking, and re tal housing. All of these properties, while not considered part of the "traditional" ca pus, should be included within the campus boundary established by the special condition u e permit because they are contiguous to the traditional campus and function as part o it. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. S, permits the Cit of St. Paul to rezone property without obtaining a consent petition if an area of 40 acres r more has been studied, and the obtaining of a consent petition is impractical because of the excessive number of consent signatures that would be required. In this case, the area tha was studied is all of the property owned by the College of St. Thomas in this area, w ich equals approximately 74 acres. The number of properties within 100 feet of both th property to be rezoned and contiguous property under the ownership of the College, is 28, rendering the obtaining of a consent petition impractical. Pr os d Amendment L n a e o Im lem nt R mmen a i n 11 A. Amend the zoning classification for the following pro erties on the zoning maps of the City of St. Paul, Sheet No. 17, as incorporated by refer nce in Section 60.301: • 1. Rezone from OS-1 to RM-2: a. 2117 Grand Avenue - Groveland Addition; South 60 feet of Lot 16, Block 1. b. 2115 Grand Avenue - Groveland Addition; South 60 feet of Lot 17 and of west one-half of Lot l8, Block l. c. 2109 Grand Avenue - Groveland Addition; East one-half of Lot 18 and all of Lot 19, Block 1. d. 2091 Grand Avenue - Groveland Addition, Lot 23, Block 1. l7 RECOMMENDATION 12: (Possible parking requirement a endment - waiting for _ consultant's recommendation.) Information Sources Used for 40-Acre Studv Research In preparation for developing the recommendations for this 40-acre study, a significant number of information sources were used. One of the most important sources was Public Technology, Inc's (PTI's) Answer Service, a research servic to which the City of St. Paul subscribes. PTI's Answer service has access to over 700 dat bases, including data bases of national and regional newspapers, bibliographic data bases hat index planning and public administration literature, and various other information so rces. Staff requested that PTI research how other cities regulate college and university us s, and any research that has been ' done on the effect of colleges on adjoining neighborhoods. In addition to these data bases, PTI contacted the following organizations to request any a plicable information on these subjects: American Association of State Colleges and Univ rsities; International and Municipal Parking Congress, Urban Land Institute, ICMA own and Gown Consortium; National League of Cities; and other members and subscrib rs of PTI's services (which includes other municipalities). The American Planning Association's Planning Advisory S vice (PAS) was also contacted for assistance. PAS sent copies of zoning ordinances from ther cities relating to the regulation of colleges, and also several studies done on the conomic impact of higher education institutions. A request for information and assistance was sent out to ot er cities over the Local Government Information Network (LOGIN), a computer-ba ed communication and information network to which many cities across the count y belong. The system contains a data base of information on what other cities are doing to ddress various problems, and allows members to request assistance from other cities that ay be facing similar problems. Finally, staff conducted a telephone survey of six other cit es (Cleveland, Boston, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Providence, RI and Cambridge, ) to find out how they regulate colleges and universities. The net result of this research was the discovery that little or no research has been done on: 1) the impact of colleges on neighborhoods; and 2) potentia regulatory methods to address those impacts. As was stated earlier in the study, St. Paul i somewhat unique among larger cities in both the number of colleges and universities it has and their location in low density residential neighborhoods. For these reasons, there are few good models of how other cities • have dealt with the problems and opportunities that this co bination can represent. l8 / t , • •` ' •. ` LAr• ! , ' *i�'! �� ,�• �� t�s�'a�� f .:� `�`• „• - ., � �,- , �<. .. r , ��_�-,. , ��. ... �� ? ' '� � �'�� ,�'�'�: %�';, � ,�r', �,�.� �'�` Me� � n .R:t - *d �� w�'�� ` ' �, l `�r�^ I� ��.. n� w. • '' ��y ,i�� ' � } , .. '�J r.K. r . �' '�,��r�y, �` _ -r.�§tJrM�� ...� � - �� '�� f ` � •��.�•, ` '� �1 . ,�} � �� r��y� 'f`,� ��4��,��y��,'��'�r°��,� ��`~� ,�� '';� t �'�i : ,.,�, F' �/�� y 4 ii 1: r �` ' !�•r• <� ,f`.,�"�r , ti � 1_ s � �M y> �t �j� � � �� p � t,i!!` q� � ' �;4'� ,�� eJ � �c�'� ,7�'�� •+/ti�'Ff� J }"' � �. r� �aax�;��r i. � . �-��f�,r� .a��,�� '� ,y�,��, ♦ •� • F r+� ;�,ti,'�``".��. - .�;�yF`,��'�y��'.''E '�� j�i�' '� ;��R�'±f�� :�a � -t� '"��,�';p� .,f�. �� 5�: � �• ��''E'• �; °� �,:-� .�'.,,;..... �:�, � J' � _. ,.�'. r �*t �^.� ?�l�;i�� 'FI'�ti3.f� � �: r�':. :�'�irt�d+�.W►�;�t,, , y�� .':t'• .� ' .�: ;� t� �" �+n. '�i �'�-' .,�� '''M�►':rE� �`� s � ,4'`� � �;' . � �;. Ys Y '� ,r�. '•%�r ,�I�r�� i�,��.1�• .�'�.�'�jr��,�i � �# y�� . / •.`,�+i� �s!..' �; �G�`,3 , ,r� �;' , �, �'�.�'�" � r� , �' < � t�Y�; • + � �''• ■ • �• i � � } ,fs ,� • .�� ' r �± �� .� '�i •�` ► d'�'i� ��- . ?; ��pj,�' �.'r 'a � � tv�+,�,iii ' �ry�,�,,�, � .� � '�;�. 'ti�. .�t�' � �j �' �� fi� '��. �( /� 1�e t �y �,�, yyy,,, . ,� e;�� I ��-,�+�,t ,� � f�� , , ' �C�'�� :; f• 1i � .�,�,��'� d�;��f�r�A�''��"�� i�� j.r,�, ' ��t�°h� tdr .�s' S ��i • • � �� •�� ' 6 '� ^,� �: �;�',,��'��'��f� � . � ��,�'; � �, '°J�, r °t�c'� ;r4i �1 � + ' ..y • � ' . a � � �• "'s� ± . � .� t �� _�," ` r!1 1..� k ,.N, 4s ��+ ��, y�;•¢y �j � .! =� Y' �x �y' �,.�, �.:�. �f�. �,,,��,=�. , ��• < �; '�'�. �_�_�l� �t"7;::: �-� 4�- ��t�" �. �f� � � '��,. ..1�'; '` t ;��t�,�,y.'�f�,i�.r�. . .,��'7j�.�'T t yy� �%.,,aF � � ,i�.j� ��4�•'� � �� a7R" �v�� 11A' 1,�rY!R, r i: �J �6�r� .�' .. ,�,, : +� �W7�J.{Y � .,`�� y�,Yj� N �r, h."-._rfi�+��i �a1�, �►. �;�. � •��} ��r n��'Y`1R :.'?. � ,rx f.,�ti� t;�T�SR�'.�,�'��r� ef �i '� ;�.�,y�''. �y�' -,M. + '�?- •' ' �`''; ' � ' !.r ' i ..�`_�:-/� ,� .�. � ,;��y �� `f. . *�,',�. yr ,r •�=_ �, I741 �� . ��1�' .;i ��rp- � A� .t+ . {: �Ll� !7 �.�'-�� ?�7� ��,,� .��;'. ��'1�f L�� !�"� '��'�j� ��'R,��iA� �+�'!��`,�•'.�'S�r� {, .�.�� Q�f`.±��.��. ti .0 �'.� t�. ♦ r ' �Wa.�� f �` � �� y �' , e'' � � , �, � � �� S�r t�.,�+�.r� w � +er�,.� ��'•�,.�`'� • �s�1F�,,i , .+ , R • �'�'w i ,,.� x rt��`�., � f�f�,,,��'�i,� :�' ��:��y� !k�'4F�k+*J(, ��,j�fa�•}��r�" _ f's�� 1r��'N�.�,�''r. �� . �-��`i+ai�r�: -,� 1 ��.y�r� ��.l3Y '! � !Ym1' y / '' '�.�"' Mc. ,� '�^�{' ' � �.�,� .!�!' ° � ��ti � F . .. . �+. ,,,� ,�',, y{,�. ��}l' ,� P; ' {�: "y�,� `',,.," �(� .v� y! , �y . "��}, ,j''� , �^+f.,,. yt�M4". a y ti• {T�`; �r�^ ` ��f�y��'�• . �� L �I.A� � � �� .�k � 1r � if � '�!j�1�� .-7 !I� �/��' F +, SN1�, y�7 �� ' .S}��'�. � i.�j:' �� ' }�{,'��,��`�,I.�� -! . .t� 0! ,"t'�,�� ' � � �� . �r '`�9•�.s ai '��Si-� �:: ' ��. �t;'t r n F'� �� " ♦�l•`M+n' �1� �' i�"s'i��Y` ��'`'�` ►' ��}� r �' i ,y� Y ��"f�� .c r+ ;ss ,- '� ,�� t ' i` � ..��1.i�i� �J,''��y`'a'�►�� yJYf •Jj;_ ' �`!1 �' `7 .�..� � � �s. �' �,f • � "r �' � �;,;�,' `;� rr►�I ��,y��µ ,,'T? ,� � C��'^ �14�` `j �e*� �ri,` �•��y'��l,-�y)�y��y�� %t' •• }��'4, •+��y� `�T"' � � �t • � �•��`*f-��y� a r A7 .J `7Aa... ,� �C;_�� N'✓"" � .�,� � '7 �l1) :.� . . .:J\�'� �� -►...'.a�i t-,�.-��y��:. '1��<�• '•� R J�„ �� f �}e� � �. !r�'��., A�.�,'y! ��i:•...w *y�� j�� +�. i.��./'�� 1 t� *,r�-fJ` . 1 s�� " t ' , ��i"..�' .r�� ;.iI7'P ��.1"�. � 1� J�MA�f�w L�� /1.` }S{J��4•.'-s} , •, •� .;• +�j+7rrt rI_� �� . � � �� a •rT�i '�. �7e��`.��. , , ��4�� t ��r�t: �w{� -:��i�� .�a�Av' �f^� �f ��. J1 1 w 4f��, !n'/}A � '!�� l �� - +.(�C �� '+ -t� � �I�, ��fi'`�.�rl`� '�;'Y�.�..� ''[; ` r'�`�.'�� . ��Ji►��,� ;1�'�/�►! ��•s`�•� �ti�f� ..,�. • �; ,�'' � � _ �b y R, � ��R-� .�I�} �4...�.� . I T.Y�O� . ��R'' CJ�7�'' � �r �� f � y� ��+. �- �, / r� ! ,� :: �i�' �+?Y;� ;6.1 � , ' �i:�'��I�`1`�-'� �?'i►'��r`y'a - � g'� H:: ��i� • �rt ' ��.�,��'��+�';IFrt. . �,' �Y� �.!� _.�'°�`r r'i ��a� . � i� e . + �''}� � ,c'� � _t;� �- .� �I:► t.l�.i .�,y f. .w t A' ��r �� t� `� � �♦ �YY�'�' T . -�•4 {ri' / �4' if'� Li.,, s I�1-: i k �� ti �-I r,-� ,t �fi�!' �'��A •r .'` �� '!��' .\ �!��R�d�i1, ��{•6.� 5��...�iv i 1�'�A:�4`:o;�• '��„ �� - !!'�b� y Mt��.�•� .. .i.:� �J +�~�� i AP'•��•r�" : 4 ��.� 1� .�+'. F � �-�5�7�' r�' P�. �ti � '�'S�'7 `r� �� -i' - ^�w�� '�� _M�4F c� �1.i� , �4 ( f '��j�1/}� �q� �`il��r�)K,. �� c�i �c`.r 1 �M+.�. . I 7•'�'.k �`+r fir.. y � _�,, �},y� ��I M�(f t�� lt*r� `1�'. �s�. !�'`. .? M�jf.�.�r,:'J '+!'1�/ •'�'. . �' ;�-a• ` ,�... '� ` - • Y'I r��1 L^T .' � � ` .f�+�A� �`� i -' ; �" �i� �4��1i i��9��R (��lry- �'c`� � '� ¢ �� lk ��;}�"1- �#��►,�fr.` .o'Ga , .r�P1�iw�f�� -� ^� ��.; ti � �y. - 4�,.-rir �. �!'+�,,,�� ¢ �'c 'A ,,y� `:1' h :l` ,�r� ��N`r��`` J._o...,11 NY.Yd '1► . r �rL�� • w� �•z°*R�.�i' ''�. ��-:��"',F+G`�' yt s��i'.•h��,#`,•'rY�w��}�_�� 4^i%4�';T � � �� y, � � .� ,� w, �..��'• �, �. ' fi�{y�`� �4�SJ �{. .�.�. ..r• � .. �*I• f Jc�'Q ' C?} ��'1 R `` 1r' � � i�� '�# �� ''� V ?�� .�{�s F '�•�w�'�' ��„� � 1 �i�1µ��i � �'��'i �� '.�,�" c.�•+:' -j1 Y�'7�� r`��•��. a. ;j�wt'4R�:. �� '' ✓�1 ny._� . � t�� Y�' � �{� r Y �♦ } j f a�_,�t !y � a%► �k if�T. . : � ��. .u�:� � �t.c.f �e� S^' •P �S f�� ; �i�'�L'i'��;j'.. rr:S' t.� ,u�r•- �ry� s d , � ,' �• � r.. f , � l• 4,'� k.� - T1l r R .:i �. �� .t q'-�{� ''� ��,',l,�, �t,7�Z� �,�c�!'V�' ,' • �� '+ �i `R}.�'►w;��+z �r� ♦� •,�.//�yi`" J!_ 5► , �:s�► fA'�`��-�;'�*,�r,N'T�� #r�:,,,R"��''�,.� , �! �.�, `� .!��y'�1}4.1-t _ /F '�� -��.I•�, � .c.�.�..� Y'�. ��. ,. f:.i. � ,��Q L i: ,,.±}�"��+ �`�t� :��'�i '� •r_' F.h ��, t��Y��'y�. T'9�• � .,� � + r t. �I *��/ j ��y/'►?� �l,j�.� � � ,.l �.y:,. L��:c��.r j��{t •�;' )yr�f�'f:t��.��f�y.��'�e�?',��:��.3�.n�' - f�'i � , .r� r'd` �11r� ar. . i�`�,r , � •�'~ 74`'�. . ��'��/ �� ` .�� . �A`".1�..li�r!, ,�' �� '. �/f.�L' tir �� •� � � 9{ i�' �I'�'. .:i'.• �,,_�' �r �V 1� '�` . 9r ��`�j�r,rr�,f�y Ft�7•��f r' •:7#,�,C�X r '��'. �i4�i��i i Z ? ��'�� .�� ,� � r. k„ ' .�.; �, ' .''' �'4�p 't" -: �': �: ,► � �'�� 'rk r�.., { � �,� ` '�i�' ;, �- '-., ,� ,.,%�''�c.,. ; �"'';��. r � • t i� ,�.f�,C�j eL �`_�:`'1°ht �... .fn o+�► ' �►j'A�'.� �sf"��1,! '� � � .T Y _-�, ''ri � � �`�-�� y �- Figure 2 � ' � a c � ; � ' � i � I � i .� � o � .--, . � � .� F , � ; � U � , a I � I •� I �: � r-+ Cn '-' � •.-, � � . W (p H , � � ~ \ : � f 1 1 � � � \ ; � i 1 � � � ' I � �, � � ld"� � � • I > ,� : , � , � � f---� � � , i , Z � ' � O ; � � � cv � : � � c� Cn O� : I ( , ; cr, � W � �, ; I ' i ( W � � :I � i o W Q t� '� � � °� J ~ -O � i � .-. _ O � � , ' ; i W L I; i tC0 U � ~ � I i � � � � �I ' ' � � Q N � I � i cn o , �. .., � . + , °� a r--� l•. � , � �-- � � �'. ' i b- w ' � � ' ' � �' � � / : � , rn O W � � � : � ` � rn � .�, w � '' _ �- J � u c� v I . �� o �, � W � a J � , i N I ' � w � � � � �, i . i� 1 , � o0 C � ,,� i� m OJ �__1_--��..L_.�.._J. � _L.�_._1 ---�.��.__L_._l_. Gl � U O C7 O C� O U O � � "�' O O O O O Q O •� •r+ '�� U O O O O O O � �-> � h (D L.f� 'V' C� N �--+ C7 fL'_' N �� o O O (n U 2� � . . �'� _/� �� Figure 3 � � a ., � ., N Y p E Y � Y Y y M N Y il N f. �-1 • �1 Q Y M C v1 b N O� .� P .H �f ED ED , v 'O h 'CJ Y N T �a . Pl N O CD O .-I .� a � L .� O n V1 �e a PI N N .y a ,� a .� .� e N � O .� U � a A .-1 N H o a a F A �0 ✓ O M � V N � r p, ..� � H p � � .+ o .+ ao o .�+ a .-� o a o N N � [� a ao ao o� � r a �n t� a V � I ED Cp O N rl .-1 O - 7 � � � � � ,� � N N O� .-� ,d � a � � a' a � o b � a� d � a � " m � fi � � p, ,a �n a ao �n a v ao n .-i a „� v ,y F af �n o� o� a� vf �o o n n y � 1 �-1 N O� v1 �O �O OD �O O » .a ^� � � .i M YI ri e�l r1 � .� a 7 '^ b O � �' N V � O � ` O .-� � � U y � u ao � a � C � v� m q p, i � �n o �o � en ao G en ao rn n �n a p � ..i 6 �n o ao ro 7 n a ..� c� �o w� a a a� „� . � r .-� .� .-� ao R a � �o .r �f v� n o� n v� yi N � a� .-� . - ..� a � . � . . . q y i o o .� �o w a e. a .� .a � .i a � i t-� w a • e ...� � ..� a+ o � N � q �n .+ a a a o a .d p i W � N O O W R +� W W � M n , u � M ,L; 'd h .a V .d M vl � � ` Y ++ M a q � .0 C � W � ° a � - c� ,+ e V U N N 1�1 'C7 A 8 • • .-1 N ED P OD CD .N � � M • • • � .a u Y X N LL • o v �l .i �O �n .-i �I �1 id O W � N .i M n .� n "� ' b f�' A U Q +a M � � d d N N O� � � C '.+..' M 'c1 0. v1 O � ~ .� O ,G C 0. a0 �D '[ N V � � U A < N a h w o .�+ � w • � a ►� .0 o n G 7 a+ u v •a �o ++ 'O � A ++ N N +' �i .-r W O M N / a+ O A 2 Y Y C o o u .-� 6 .a u ..+ u ++ Z .G .a i� ++ � o a e .+ o .� o c� � m �o .+ � u b o .c .� .+ a � .c u a p u N w a a a q u o u ..+ x e+ d d q -+ .+ o � � a a r. N O O a .-I U ',s q +1 .a /0 U ,1: +� .• .0 o a� .� a+ • •.� C � 8 u � u • • 6 ef U n H +i +� N C +� F �E tC O � Y Y Y •• N f, t, Z '� N "r1' 'J.�' � C: ,T�. U .-1 N N fA �1 Y V M V y M ep . . . . . . . . . . p . .� .ti N t+1 a v1 �D 1� OD P O O �y .-1 N 21 � � Figure 4 Figure 4: Auditorium and Stadium Seats at St. Paul s Colleges, Universities, and Seminaries School Auditorium/Theater Seats StadiumjArena Seats Macalester 1,060 (concert hall, 5,000 theater, chapel) St. Thomas 882 (OEC auditorium 7,592 (stadium, arena, and Foley Theater) gymnasium, pool) St. Catherine 1,800 - 0'Shaughnessy 270 400 - Jeanne D'Arc Hamline 952 (2 facilities) 4,000 Concordia 852 (recital hall and 690 chapel) Luther Northwestern 250 215 St. Paul TVI 620 -- William Mitchell 266 -- St. Paul Seminary 300 (chapel) -- Source: Individual schools. 22 _ _ _ _ _ . __ _. , , i '! figure 5 (p. 1) ; � ,/ : �. //� � . �� O 0. w � '^�(% �� Y O A A � 1�. Y Q Y �I • Y . . . M 0. V 0. • C �� 1�. '. a N O � 0 r o o m w ► - q o w o O � -� � Y A 1 .� � r y o i u �O u .1 • N O �1 q N w . • / I n'1 M n .1 ■ Z U Z . ��.. . . ' Y 'i • .1 A T, � . . M Y J • V • • 9 . � ' � y ii q - Y �o • e� � .. M Y a • pl Q U 1 9 • N 1A q M • .-1 . • +� N • .d • � . O ? 0. Q M w K ` . . M 8 O W O • 7 N Y V < ' � ^„ O O • N W Z Y � = 1,� . , y �C W M .'t • O O d .� • �.' U M Y M Q • O Y W Y Z T. I ��' 8 tl p O A u M O A U S A �:��'; p 'O � W o ^ � A • • • '� . NI 'O O - � M1 A � 6 V � • 'O � � .I �� H pq • V M q 1 .1 M F B � .. ��, 1 . W � �1 1 O 1 'O Y O P1 < � b ' , I i . � Y T � O � N 1 � � N M ' 1 .I� � y �I .1 N V YI el r1 Ii '1 ..i • .a i` A} ,,.li' w � � n �� K ,��t1. v w � - . i 7 s� � u �o --r'..,t' K w . . W � ��,: �. r°`i m � n � �!: • -1'', + V � N � s�_ . � • � n � .��..,. y y A '1 N O MI 1.'', i.:i. � � . I Y ti � �' G�� d .. .. .. .. " ��'. i � s w o c ' I, ' 0 0 o a a w .y N Y �r1 a � O t.��' . i +� M � � � � N Y p� ;�', tl N ? M 0 � � '. '. . .l� O 0 � U' 1 Q Z W Q . . , .. D Q ,[ m o " a � � H o .y .+ o o u a a�� A b O + • u � w �n p� Y � I m r � � � . 't'.e'� Y m " . . .1 P Q = 1 '� O � a q 1 . � • G t� �o � W � . � . m 6f '. '. � .� .. .. .. '. .. � . p P .y = m1 p p Q w s O Ll s w � p G ,,, ,,, .. .. . • •� N P1 W �'i ✓i e� e� Fl N e� N n O vl . � y � N � G q f .a' a '�� .I. w P N � N 1 V W Li 7 W G 3 Q S 2 I q ' p 1 O .1 rl N .y vl % �ff % vf .� .1 a 'n O� aD . Y .� ' . .: ;�, .; ,-. . = , � .. M ' �� . C�l�� . . •,R F�+ y 2 �j . � + 1 w °n W „� � s o � s o a a � � � .� .-i N �e % X .. n .� .+ � y A: '� � M � a s -� � �� . o . , . � � : e � w .. .� a � V M Y � M O P w • M Y �' . . � > 7 W • • • Y ..1 . �j � u Y A A � ��: w r w p w • w w p A � , � ��•i�,' p' W O 00 Q Y f Y M Y OC Y Y 10 e Y . . .t . M tl N N M {I M Y {1 M � 7 M M . Y +1 V Y V M .-1 +� Y y N ..1 �I • ri M O 7 . ( . F M M Y W Y < V Y P Y < Y W M < 17 W Y �. W p Y O q q A H b tl F F M Y q • F N N u � ` 1 � ' � +� tl 0. O O Y O Y O M M O Y O • O • • Y {r q E N f) U O F 7 U OI O F = V F 1+ O 0. .d - � ,1.. Yr. �..�. ��.J , . � .. i. � • Y � '�' M ^� � � . • Y N M M l. i � ' ;-� .. M Y l7 . .� I b � M M '.1 M M i � r: I � � O tl d S V i.'1 ' '1 U ,C M � • ' �. M M ' O O 7 O 6 N . � . �.:i ' �. U U ri $ 3 a , . ' � ' �h, .�'J � , � .. 23 ., ; , 5. ,,� ,' � . t _... _ _ -. ' �'`� ' Figure 5 (p. 2) �' .� A - �1' p p 1 : � . 0 0 i : w ' . M .i • M Y • 0. � � 8 Y O C Y Y 8 Y • u u C F • o �O ' ': � q 8 1. . . 4 8 �� .i�.� � o a , . -�.i: o u o . . i ,' .i' � w - + J` + I ;:. N µl � �y . � M ' I ' ' O .+ O . �. 'l' a M i . . ,�.'i ';... r ' ' � q ' : � •.�1 ro . " ' . 7 � � ' ° . .�.•r' K H . . . W p� . , . �I'. �' �1 •� � q . . �� . Y a w . , . 'f�. '. � � � . . . C {! '. �� e ' .. . ' Y . N H � { tl N fV � � � , � �". - . � 3 O M i v 3 � . 0 N a ri T N N YI �.' V � 1 M N � � • • V M • ' Y Y� ' C , �J' . " M p �n .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ' '' ,° , 0 o w s q w s s w p o ti o , . O O � v v N R 0 V , D 0 V .� .�1 .1 N .y N N .-1 .� .-I wl A 8 .G • . .,. F y �e ly ►� � Y • ± Y � y M tl � Y N � � y � M • N O O . ' � � Y fi .G p W � . L� m n h O � 1 r r • F � �:�.•` .-i P � 7 Y w l7 • M . . �' ` ,y �y y p F 6 n1 M M tl Y . p ^ ^ ^ 9 h / O M Y M ' ; U �D � 1A fA Z • O u � A q . . � • � � � 1 1 � � � 1 � . U • � 8 � • P '� U' 1 L7 W = R Z W 7 W C 7 N 0. 0. U . ' . M Z .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • q Y M .y .� K . M M �O �-1 Cp pp �-1 �y I1 q �y M i OI 1� 0 0 O p y lJ e O � � K '� b N B � X O 7 Y N � 4 � � Y 7L 7 A W 'I1 h � a 0.' W w .a V O 4 0. O O Y U < �{ � . E" it 6 V O w n q ' . � w < u 7 m 7 a � O O O � Y r'. � 0.' P tll Z IA � Y M vl 'V .-1 � N " o0 o w s s c q s w p a s c � Y e w a a � e y T o .. .. .. .. ' . � ? O �O rl oD tn N .-1 .Y N N e�l .� �f N m 7 Y N tl F N C 7 �/ M � A m .a O M W y M M +a q ' M • p y O N ' 1� �I Y a O B 7 Y w - . N V i� .� 'O 1. � �- Y .1 .1 f� Y �•.�[ ��p��i4• w � F e M 'O A � �'•. .-.Y. � Y O q A �+ • Ja C ' p� N V A .a 0. q � Y .� . � P � � � r� 1 � �+ .�. � � • .d � Y M W al G W V 2 G W 3 W G S • tl Y 6 .� i 7 . . o ..- .. o r � r . v � O �G O � i .-1 rl �I '1 '1 PI W 01 O F O H 'O ' YI 01 v� �y M M • M M A �I M 1� M Y Y ti � � � ' " s A o m � x � � ° u a w w e fi � p w ' r • 0. Y Y a n o n e o � y a � :��j' w N a a U N �+ , ' M � w � r • M 7 tl • . I .� „ M • w w M Y O B � �.�� • M M 8 C M M + .± i7 Y . � � M G • • Y M M M M � •• / 8 • M N q .fi O N ) � � � Y Y w • 7 a0 P M B O • ti Y ' . ,', M D 'O � • N Iq O N M O M ti tl M � ' W +� H U M tl Y A > M q '�;• � W Z � p o U 14 Y • • M • Y {L � W ✓ • Y Y • f7 M M Y ' -,{, • M N G M N M {7 • a M M V {'i Y Y� � . M � ..1 Y • .1 • • Y �1 .i Vl .� �p Y Y M tl .a f �: W Y 0. fi Y W M F .� B M {' I^.'7� • Y 8 9 F O 4 fY • � f7 B F tl C • q F 8 w F e.� U ,tl 8 d � ? A 9 O T� u • O O O • +� N � • O O� • u 7 .+ i V q u . O U 1-� U U 'Y q f� N F F Z� = a • W F. w fi �1 a r �. i f ` Y � '� ` ..�i I M M � Y � . . .� M . ;�.�. Y Y . ' I � '�. V � � V � V .� . . . '.'1 . e u � o a � r ci w m = � � �� 1i . . . I � . ,. . ,. . . 24 , ' , '!' i� 4 . . _ , _ , -*.._ i _ Y; �� v v I v n v� v � S7. THOMAS COLLEGE � Ma p B � i i j � -� � i �I ' � I i I � � � � I �- �f i I I I � � I Ii Q � � � � ��O � � � I t � � � �, . � � I I I ♦ J � � _ . i i ! ; �CHR/ T' /G � ' i � , i OOOOOj � 00� I � �� , � , � ' O O O i O� � �J O � 0 I � � � I � � 1 I i I P� f i3 � , i I � i i � ' � � �� iP I i I � � � i I 1 � ,� � �' � � � I � i i � �c � � � , I � ' � 1 � O O O •• V' C . 00p O O O 00 , � � � p ° A E. � C�r4�, , , , - � �, � � , 2� �3� � � ; � O P �. -: � '�O , i , , 000 Q � ' , C� ' � � , � � i � � i � �'' I Zr p i 2�3 i C� � � ( i� I � _ � , ( � i I I z � i � � � � I �� O 000 Q � �O O ¢ OCOO ¢ 00 0100 O ¢ 00 � O OC - - -- - - -� ----��- - - -- .. ---- , . .. , . . . � _ � AREA MA 6 APPLICANT Co Ile�e Zon�n� � yD-f�cr'� LEGEND study ZONING DISTRICT BOUN�ARY � SUBJECT PROPERTY PURPOSE �ezov►in ONE FAMILY PLANNING D:STRIST TWO FAMILY FILE N0. ' � Se �. Is 19d7 MULTIPLE FAM1�Y DATE - P- 1 O • �► n COMMERCtAL SCALE� 1��= 200� L NORTH� � �` �N�USTRIAL . MAP N0. 25 l ? 4ZS SAINT PAUL PLANNING BOARD V VACANT i r. � Ma p C �� o �o� C � � Existing Land Us St.Thomas� . ��■� Traditio.nal Campus Boun ary COLLEGE OF ST.THOMAS BUILDING I�Y ,�� i ';• '��'. �1,�� r�!`�f i ' ��'�'� -�� r�`.'..�_. ; l. Aquinas Hall(A)'0 21. 2171 Grand° ��•,�'1 T j � ! � ' 2. Albertus Magnus Hall(M)' ,. Student Aparunents ,�� . _ _ 3. O'Shaughnessy Library(S)'0 22. The President's House° , 4. O'Shaughnessy Educaaonal 23• Alumnf House(AI-Ip i o - > Center(E)' 24. 30 FiM° � � ��u�vc S. Murra�•Hall(MH)' English Department ,' 6. Faculn•Residence(FR)'0 Wri[ing Center � �j ;�` /' 7. Chapel'0 25. 32 Finn° ' �� 8.John Paul Il Hall(JP)'� � Admissions � � 9. lreland Hall(IR� Public Affairs � -- / � 10. Saint John Vianney Seminary 26. 2119 Grand° �'/ Residence(SJV)' Graduate Programs in Business � , l l. Irish American Cul[ural Institute Communications - \° j� (UC� 27. 2115 Grand . '• ��j �_ --- �sw�w��c 12. Ca[holic Digesc Building(CDp 28. 2093 Grand° ' J� l3• Doa'ling(DO)' Intemational Eduration � � I ` l4. Brady Ha11(BR)' 29• 2091 Grand° I �D � l5. Physical Planc Headquarcers(PL) 30. 2084 Grand � � � �, � o and Heating Plant' 31. 2080 Grand � - �) , �(� : 16. O'Shaughnessy Stadium'0 32• 2076 Grand � i,� ,J� -� L 17. Physical Education and Ac[ivities 33. McNeely Hall(MCp " Building(PE)' 34. Christ Child Building(CC)' ��,� Schcenecker Arena 35. Chiuminatto Hall(M�lp •�`��p `-� `-�' 37 Coughlan Field House 36. 44 North Cleveland(44p ��;/ II,�� 1°'°n""'""' l8. Foley Theater(FT) Graduate Prognms in Managemen[ � �� ✓ 19. O'S h aug hnessy Ha l l(O S)' 3 7. 2 0 5 7 Port lan d(5 7 p � �f�� '3a 20. 2I75 Grand° __��-/!_�� v � Studen[Apartmencs =i,- �..1 �I �: as �; � � SIMMIi AV[ I � � ,� _r-�-- �� . � j � � -; � � ; � _ �j � �� . St. Paul - �� S z, , Seminary !��' �■ � ' Ca111 US . GRAND AV[. 7 ZB � P '��n' I � �PP"' ►"^a4c '°'� 3�� (- , � � ��\ ^7 'U U�', a -;b bC tti:ontd• � �'� \ I _ � �- --; ' 'n� THE S NT PAUL SEMINARY BUILDING KEY �� jLJ��: (�1 \J� � 1. Loras 11° S. Grace Residence° U��L� ��• Stude t Residence 9. Brady Cencer'0 ��";! ' �:� • 2. Conv n t° 1 0. Cretin Residence° •��„ :'� 3. Byrn Residence'0 11. Heating Plant° � � �a_=1 4. Tenn' Courts' 12. Library° r`�, . -- � �� 5. M thy Recreation Building' 13 Administration Buiiding° � 6. Gara es' 14. Sc.Mary's Chapel° � 7. Binz fector�' � , •Access blc to handicappcd � • °Not ac essible to handicappcd •oPut' y accessible to handicapped C��oyy�� --, r-� �� 26 J 111 - -, - , -_._._� _._�____._......_ : 4 _ _ �c�y- �� -� _..t_ . � :s ��'� � � ; Research Depa tment o"°"°` Minnesota House of Repr sentatives Carole Pagones Steohrn O Hinte �ssouate O�rector 600 State Off�ce Bwldinq, St Paul.AqN SStii Leura O Kadwell Thomas M Todd Kathryn�amp >� (612)296fi753 Lna f larson legal Serv�ces Coordinator •�tary�ane�rhnrrrz loel i M�chael Stevrn B �ISS .. Orborah K McKniqht Semuel W Rankin Karen hl Baker Bonnir C; Rrsnick � lames D Clear� JUne 19� 19g7 Emdy Shapiro Garv R Curne .�ta�k Shepard .�tohamed Eldeeb iimothy E Strom Patncia Q Dalton L�nda 5 Tavlor KerN Kin�ev Fine lohn Williems .blarsha Gronseth Oouqlas$ Wdcon lohn Helland Lung-fai Wong TO: Representative Kathleen Vellenga FROM: Linda S. Taylor, Legislative Analyst ;;; RE: Mississippi River Corridor Building Restrict ons : You asked me to look into building restrictions for t e College of St. Thomas along the Mississippi River corridor. At this point, rom the information I have gathered, it appears that the issue of restrictio s is not resolved but is � being discussed. 8ackground � In 1976, pursuant to :\Ainnesota Statutes, Chapter 11 D, the Governor declared the �'Nlississippi River corridor a critical environmental ar a. Along with this designation were standards and guidelines to guide e ch community affected� to - establish a required plan. This plan for dealing wit the civer corridor had to be approved by the Environmenta! Quaiity Board and then finally adopted by the community. Enforcement of any restrictions in the lan rests with the community. The only ongoing state role is that the EQB approves changes and occasionally reviews plans, especially on complaint t at requirements are not being met. St. Paul adopted an EQ6 approved plan. That plan llows any permitted (by other zoning rules) use subject to a 40 foot height limitat'on on buildings... There is, however, a specific provision for colleges that al ows any permitted use subject to special conditions. The college provision does not specifically mention the 40 foot height restriction. The St. Pau Attorney's Office has issued an opinion that the restriction does not apply to a college. This opinion is not accepted by everyone. � Meanwhile, a St. Paul ordinance requires special co itional use permits for all colleges. None of them had a permit because they 11 pcedate the ordinance. The St. Paul Planning Commission rectified this by i suing permits to each. of the colleges. The permit for St. Thomas is not yet approved and the commission has established a task force to address the problems associated with the ,� '. - ar�3- -u ..��, ,_ , w. - ..,._��__...__. . .._. ___.L...�. - ..__ .. . . . . . . . _ . t ` . - _- / . ' � tearch Department . Vlinnesota House of Representa ives . June 19, 1987 Page 2 � college's plans to build on he old seminary campus. Th task force, then, will . be directly confronted with the issue of appropriate hei ht restrictions in the final special conditional use permit. The task focce, and ultimately the planning commission, have several options: 1. They could decide that the river corridor height res riction does � apply and therefore must be made part of the final permi , despite the St. Paul Attorney's opinion; 2. They could decide that the height restriction does t apply but then use it as a guide in setting the height restriction in the f nal permit; 3. They could decide it doesn't aQply and then set a ight restriction lower or higher or set no height restriction at al1. I am not convinced that the St. Paul Attorney's opinion is correct, although it appears justifiable. I think the opposite interpretation, that the 40 foot height restriction applies to S� Thomas, is equally justi iable on the grounds that the specific restriction applies broadly and was as likely as not intended to apply to the provi�ion governing colleges even thoug it is not related. Tf�e broader provision is not specifically limited only to pro erty not owned by a : cotlege. � � Summar . This issue has yet to� be resolved. The St. Paul Planni g Commission has fairly broad discretion in resolving it. However, there is a chance that if it decided to impos no height restriction or one that arguably violates the original standards and g idelines of the Governor's designation of the river corridor as a critic 1 area, the state (EQB or perhaps even the Attorney General) might then hav some role in setting a height requirement. It also appears that there eYists forum, the task force, to which the community, the college, or other interest persons should address comments and opinions as to the final resolution of th issue. It is very unusual for the state to become involved, ei her administratively or legislatively with what is, at heart, a local zoning land �use decision. In this case there is some indirect state involvement but the ssue remains essentially a local one. �"� l� 7�- 823 Portland Avenue St. Paul, 1�Il�T 55104 October 7, 1987 To Whom It May Concern: It should be noted that membera of e Summit Avenue Planning Committee (I was a member) discussed in detail, height restrictions for college buildings 1 cated in residential areas. We agreed that the zoning co e should be amended to include a 40 foot height restriction for new buildings or additions. We specifically picked 4 feet so that this dimension would correspond to the he ght restrictions in the River Corridor Zoning District. Lar Soderholm, of PED, further explained that the St. Paul eminary was already restricted to a 40 foot limitation s nce it is part of the River Corridor Zoning District. In oth situations (residential areas and the River Cor idor) , a 40 foot height restriction was desired by members o the Summit Avenue ' Planning Committee. That recommenda ion was printed in the January 1986 Summit Avenue Plan. Members of the Committee worked very diligently for a period of several months and held public heari gs on many issues. I believe the recommendation on height restrictions represents community wishes and should be adher d to when qranting building permits or approving site p ans. Sincerely, John M. Loban r x�`�4� � ��a: 't�mr�!' t �- +� � � �< � �r i� s ' � �, �',� � � ;-'� �*",w r °{k` .z '�}� ' '�`x � Y;u� � � t� ''• ��3 k�^� � ! � 1� '�;� t'+''�. •�,� �' ,t� a� �� ;ti °v- ' � �.'�,�.. �.,ra�:. �.�* �� '� � �r a : � �� -��.r'�`F�,�`�n�7••��,. ° _ F � ��+�� Y'� ,a �`� �� ( t ' ,. .r -��, ' ..,f':„ +�..�'r.'. y��', t� �4,t.�'� ��.�t ,.a�i� �. u �N fi � � J � ? i y� � i � ; ,� k �� f�i� ��., 3� � �.,,� 3 r� ' �°`-f+�ac3+_ :� .,��Q�y��^'�t��r, {-"�..� �C�sF�i'.� �: _�r �. E � �'�Ss,r �.�,�1 ��y'�� .• i'3 9eP.. 1q ,��` A-:� 3 alvf'�.��f�y l..v,. � cl s. '�7' . a{.. ��. i, t .ror�1�a i. x, ..�. '.F 3�7 a .r '..:. �€r,�� to-� �. �` s,a �' �� i � j a iY �`i 1 ,�. �M �7 =vt .,E +1 a.�� sr� ��e,y��.�, � ��y � r , ,�,�.� .7Y� M. �,3�'•j�' . , s '1Y Y�^� �.{�. #S��i�' xy� �`. „ •i. y r YP +! � � _ -.x,; u,, ;y_�� p y:.. r y L: t � x�a�'��Y� �y l < }� s �' �! J f� � '� 7 f X • '�• �,t y�.�- �,, y`� L \: € � � :a^'f�''1';t �6��:a l _— '� v. ' x'*�.il,I',�q f 1�� 1 '"a:"3� a�� .. ,7'�Y`r�� r :j.,°�`S'"4 '�. '� �;+�'3 -.7I �� - r �+ S'' , �� q� � 1y.*� "' `1 `��: i • -x� ��5.� f �,:..i t*r y'� ��y. . } � ';`y� .�r l��(i+ 4 �.'�� "t= "��,e,,i� �. . �`+�4c�'i�'4 ��. �t. � �� s .�^ .�(` .:iC�: ,r� s } �j � '�- "`� � z `� �'��L � ' i ;t`� 4 f . ,s., � - � �g. , j � ,� �� .�t�y,p �. p��a � r i t, ^� � J" A. �. �', f�°`G y�"��' F,�°: �r f.� �.n _, a.� ". ��' �-_ ��°� t ! �` rv.,:� �� '��•c-a��. �`. Y� _ . ar, .wl'. �4°�'�`c ' h� �,�.. �4 ��.. � 3.§_ � �"'� l (.*TY��S.. 'd�;ry,'" +.� _ J1 � e .- !k�'`f�� -2 � T's y:,� y s-�!.';} � ',; `�� 4 � t � ,,�K�r�t. f F z.�; t t v . �i,f.�; " c,r� 'X�E�� : - :. ,� �.�,�,t� -. -'. �1�. � � ♦ f �y t �a` �� .. � �ir � i.��yK�,,^ �+v�,., �.�p�y, �!� - ., �� t` . ...s�x � � ��.'`'��}}x3 '+-r .�"�� - " y� s ti' N��;. �.�" �'�i� C.}�'. ��{�� .R� . i '� . � {a�"� +ly{ �i��' ��' ��fLi,�.# .1 �.� .l �:� � ��I . ��' ' � � 1 t�A• �,� 'r'4��,�� .�--0Y Y!.� :� �� , �`�c'�i ��' �,•Y`�4�j' y � �yI i y'��'. �_ � t ' � - f�,, �'»�+Y .>''`�..anwrlw.� } ��fi w mi Y4�. t ,p�ps�,iY �� Fr y4�v� .; b �y ��'' .r '� � r �`3 F'.7�' �zi �t.; �.. '� � ' .� - f -� � � �'�`i'-. r�i �'� '.,.~ r„ . ..cA° � � � .. ". '��.d �',�r ;� ;� � � � ^ti.. w. •�' �� :s' .,r,� ,.__.,� .,,�;; r ^¢�� . � ��s „�� f Y � � i Y� . 3�'.F'a�. , . �r# -�� v'�re'� s ,c�o '�� 2�" ,.iy�, �a• �� -�C. . �}, � , i' - � �y .. ,�' �k "�`�� . .. `t,°;;?�t�,,.`�,.'�w' .�, r t�'�� ,s �� '`'� f. .�.. � �, \� \ .. � '�� 7: _ � � � �� :i�1 �'�' ' {_'r1 ,cF j'a...1 .7`.1. ..�� y ,�... t F "�yS� :'v'��j`. /.3� l. ' r-- . d�. �. • Ief.�r �r J' ! `� �T` '�� '�t ' "'s ' �+' � �`. ' ' �`�'' � �at-��-- '+��_�` . � o_�� Ys ~��,- ��t.u.��sy�: 1��.,.,�� -�� y , ~t�T.sY' �, �( 's -�� 1� Z�. 1 . ��,:� '" ��/��{��i/� , � �4'�' � _� t� +-�� 'e��a �+1yqW� ..y�_ � �i9C'�� .� .�� a: iSV .. x ��.;x�`-56i�# .•,�r ,� y t.�I .w •�yr -'t.` �aw,'...gr �,,,,},�yda� ��sl� �'� c'� y*:��as��t >Syj� 1 ; �`=+."�,'�.,� r��- .s^•aG�1+1,�►,� y,g;. <1.� : � � .'�.:'��' , � . �, -r�'�+�t . ,Y ..rr�.�11��r "�- ..Y` .! ��`��,�,,�� ♦. �;�y� �t�.. " i �` � C. �y_1 tr � �. ;^+ ,�y+ •i Yi y�,+�i`. 4 � ,, r .. `: � 1 ."5,['j`:1�. .~!I .�.} � ;.a{�� b.. .�' q� j � � _ �� '• ff � ^'� i �`� y� `t. ��°: ��;,� '` �' ��.; �-dt�'i+t _ �i° �,� p�.�! � i ±, � �s� �`�,f' ' ��Ck•.Ss.y .'� � r�c , . �� 4 �. � :r a,�'_ �''1 :r` ,j� .�� ,ar i' ; �: �� ' z,�� _- � :��` .q. � ._s'�`4+,�f�� :� � . ,. .-v, y�'� �_.�j �'�1 ��` � :. - �� a� . - .` • � � . ,�'e•^4.� a�J��C� , �i. i � .��^P:- . . { � �! -i� � ' ��.{� ,y�' y�j�,,��,�, - . '�;�'.�,*�9 . "� � �.'� ��w4� ��.; �,.�1 t�...�,� �� !� I �g'�q' +�°- �M'wy/5�F w�"'G1;�4�,.c. ��.F' � � ��.�!�F,�zy"�Y ��'. �' `��Jp � ' t .�g �� x�y� �� -}'�t �.e X`�+,,,�.•L ,� ;a' F l �4 � ��M�' �1��,,�— §�r� .i�� }wi'/ .�y . ieas ai'�' Si`°*.�,�'S�`� ��Y� tK� , ��j �'+ � �. ��.,?,E�!'�t'�.:,w � .�e9v��`L��t-.��;'- �' F �<e � z,��rt �r-'�� .3 � .ta e��i y.`�.., e � ,`� 1� � � � '�` �' e��t�t�� :r rSY�''�,a,y�„""�„�`�3�� {9- ;t[' .��y � -S' y �� ,y� - � i;i �'�>�t- �,x�' j�� 1 ft �'4 [ � i �'i�' �'.t�'�'� .. , . . . �� -, � ,r . �, �� , ` ; .,�, � ,., i� � � �� , , ._.... . .__... \ . .�� -! y�y'� �' fl ?.' ..l *'C •� �' � s �� . f�� K�5��i y'�! �P �� i � a�y '� � � x +� z * � '�,� � S * y�.'�',{�. � �v,�• � *. pf ��, ;1i t� _�'��.�`$lt,f. �d,��4 +�1�4'��'�o �ry � ' .r' 1 At '�y m""'�1 +," .t �� •.� :; t �L�,.'iY .�! p '.t ��:'V�l��,;�1�`�+�oSS *� �-" � 4�,��t�k�'+i: •� ' �5�� y a �r �P tL� � r� a��' ��. • �� ", '�°rt�"t�2t�y�'" a�r .a��'s=�' � , } '�,.� � � �'�kla,�'�+wfib-_`� '�a��...�,'.�y;`. �b�"�.r`, ' t . a r'F .'ar. Y " 4_,,,,�:tA •�yiL�' xyy,.a�3-Q'� ��.��,�. '► '�'-.�r � ; t �t r��r �t i.� �w,tyA. �d � �1�' r: �� 1' 1 �' �4 1� 5y�}� . � $ I�.'A h � ',a�� ti._Y^*�� • � - �• _ � 4: � i # ;j� s,.�r q." �`fr i •r,��'^~.�� t � �' '�" �; � �� `.. �i �,��`..� •�� 1 s�.A ?.�r.,�"� �- .v ti�If��s �`e�. ,� ..�� t "„`. '�� .'�a:,li.� u 4+�: ` � X'�'; 7� �.. y � rt � . �� _ . .. � � 9' r� iT �-,'Y'� .♦ 1•' � � ;d h s '' '� k � i ��' �I:: ` :+� {��I 1 1 �. w.t I"iA 7 � 1V s , �� „i •.�s_ � � L'� •�� :�r