HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-22-19635 0
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., July 22,. 1963
FY=6Q3'S2
Minutes of a meeting o£ the Common Council of the City Qf Rochester-, Minnesota, held.
in the Council Chambers, in the City Hall,in said City, .on July 22, 1963.
President Tingley called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P. M., the following
members being present: President Tingley, Aldermen B.ergstedt, Leonard, McCaleb, Thomas, Wilson.
Absent.: Alderman DeVries.
President Tingley stated that this meeting had been called for the purpose of having
a public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance and introduced President of the Planning & Zoning
Commission, Dr. A. B. Hagedorn.
DR. HAGEDORN then gave the following address':
As president of the Rochester -Planning and Zoning Commission, I speak for the
•
eight members -of this commission. We consider.it a special privilege to have this
opportunity to recommend to the city council the adoption of the proposed zoning
ordinance ---the third and most important step in implementing the comprehensive
plan for the orderly growth and development of our city. The first two steps have
already been adopted; namely, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land Use Plan. Without
zoning ordinance as proposed, little progress will have been made in our attempt -
to bring order to the inevitable growth of our city.
• The concepp of a planned community environment is not new. For many centuries
man has sought to meet the problems.created by the congregating together of groups
of people through some kind of a.plan. In our own history the present zoning
ordinance was adopted in 1936 --- 27 years ago. --At that time our population was
26,312. There were fewer automobiles and less industry. The authors of that
ordinance were the city engineer, Mr. Arleigh Smith, and the Mayor, Dr. William
Moore; and they had no special training or experience in city planning. Their
ordinance, however, was a very progressive step for the City of Rochester to take
in its day. But, whether we like it or not, our town has changed in size -and
character and, although a;great many improvements and modern innovations have been
instituted.in.our community, some of our laws and grdinances have become outmoded
or completely obsolete. Among these is the present zoning ordinance as you all
-well recognize, being faced each,meeting with. problems which may have been
prevented ---or at.least a rational solution may.have bgen,offered, if a properly .
comprehensive ordinance were in force.
The present ordinance has many weaknesses; time does not permit their full
enumeration. By the problems you have faced, you know them all too well.
1. Zoning was based on the existing land use at the time. There was no
vision for change or for_growth or for expansion.
2. The ordinance was primarily protective in attempting to prevent the more
glagrant abuses of urban land development, using minimum control. There -was no
-guidance.
3. The ordinance was not based upon an adopted long-range plan of land use
for the entire community. This is its major defect so far as individual property
owners and citizens are concerned. Most redening that has been established since
this ordinance was in effect has,been on a piece -meal basis. Spot zoning, a
- generally bad community practice, has taken place all over the city.
4. Protective features were inadequate to cope with the various changes in
building practices. The individual residential property owner has little or no
legal safeguard for his property.
.5. Development standards of this ordinance were not periodically reviewed
and improved to handle the changes in land use development and social and economic
•
changes which have come about.
6,. The ordinance does not establish a sufficient number of land use zoning
district.
7. _Ambiguous language in some instances has led to unintended interpretations
and confusion.
8. Land uses which are first permitted and regulated in,the Residential or
Multiple Dwelling District are also permitted in the Commercial and Industrial
Districts, but there.are no standards imposed regulating front yard, rear yard,
..side yards, building height., advertising signs, et cetera in these various zones.
9. There are inadequate land use controls: ,
a. There are no requirements for off-street parking.
b. No requirements regulating smoke, noise, light, vibrations, glare,
et cetera.
C. No standards regulating trailer parks.
d. No authority for community development projects for dwelling groups.
The ordinance which we are recommending -for adoption was prepared initially
.by a professional group of city planning engineers whose superior reputation is
based upon the successful adoption of their programs in other communities and
cities throughout this country. But, and this is most important, the original
ordinance they proposed has been modified and changed in numerous ways to meet
the needs and desires of the City of Rochester after many hours of study,
consultation, advice, and suggestions of the city planning commission as ac�holy,
Record of Official Proceedings of the- Common Council 5709
of the City of Rochester, Minn., July 22, 1963
1
•
1
1
•
1
city council members and each and every -department head>of our city government, including
the city engineer's department,, public works, police and fire departments,_ the school
administration, and- others along with various civic and non -civic groups and individual
citi-zens. In fact, anyone who was willing -to take time out.and visit one of the many
scores of meetings we have held hadan opportunity to express his ideas relative to this
ordinance. This study has been going on over four years and most concertedly the past
18 months. All of our meetings have,been open meetings and constructive suggestions were
always given careful consideration.
While community survival is possible if services and facilities are acquired and
zoned on a hit-or-miss basis, experience has amply shown that long-range planning helps
to assure more certain and more orderly development at less cost to public and private
interests.
Air is polluted by smog and uncontrolled industrial fumes, but there are ways
easily comprehended by all to alleviate this. Pollution of water can be controlled
trhough treatment of wastes that are dumped into streams and lakes, but coping with the
pollution of land is perhaps the most difficult problem of all, and the most difficult
to understand. .Pollution of land is brought about by man-made deterioration caused by
congestion, intermixed land use, lack of smooth traffic flow, and the intrusion of
nuisance -creating developments.into living areas, much'of this -by economic pressures,
either lack of business or too much business which frequently ends in indolence or greed
with total lack of concern for one's neighbor or the community as.a whole.
There will be times when the public interest will conflict with the interest of an
individual or a special group, but in a good plan these conflicts will be minimized.'
There is room in any community for all necessary and proper uses of property.
Through long-range planning and the application of sound zoriing,,subdivision regulations,
codes, setbacks, performance requirements, et cetera, the value of all kinds of
property is protected and enhanced.
A good -zoning ordinance is prepared to meet changing meeds; it is not inflexible.
Neither is it simply changed at the will of -individuals or groups without an open
hearing before a responsible governing body of the community.
We honestly and sincerely believe this ordinance as proposed fulfills the objectives
and ideals I have tried to present here tonight. I know it is.not a perfect ordinance;
as an individual, I do not agree with every aspect of the ordinance (but I acquiesced
to the will.of the majority in each instance in which I had disagreement). I am certain
we have not anticipated wll the problems that will arise with its adoption. I know it
is flexible and.it can be.changed when the valid need arises for its change. Some
remaining errors pointed out by critics of. the ordinance will be changed before
adoption. It does'.not-deny the -present use .of properties; it does not take away from
the individual his means for livelihood;-it.is not a means for changing -taxes; it offers
all the people equal protection; it is a good ordinance.
We, the Planning Commission, have faith that -this Council will continue as in the
past to give the ,City of Rochester the leadership necessary to the accomplishment of
goals the majority of the citizens -have set for our community. .
Dr. Hagedorn then introduced the other members of the Planning and Zoning Commission stating that
John Brengman, Joe Cooley and W. W. Hendricks were unable to be present but Mrs. Russell Ewert,
Walter Bateman, Gerald Thorkelson, and Kenneth Rohde would each speak on specific aspects of this
ordinance.
MRS. RUSSELL EWERT spoke on the low desnity areas of the City; she said roughly 85% of the City
is zoned residential, this is the area in which most of us should be interested since
-it covers 90% of our homes; at the present time our Zoning Ordinance has one area called
Residential, in the new proposed ordinance it is subdivided into three categories, R-S
Residential Suburban District; R-1 One -Family Residence District; and R-2 Ont to Four
Family Residence District. In the R-S District we hope to establish a pew kind of unit,
the -large sub -unit would allow a developer to build up a group of homep in large size
that would be preserved. Under R-S you could build one -family detached dwellings,
churches, schools and colleges, art galleries and similar cultural uses (located not
less than 25 feet from any other lot in any R-district, and cemeteries; public parks,
playgrounds, recreation, and community center buildings and grounds, golf courses,
country clubs, tennis courts, etc. all of a non-commercial nature and provided that
any principal building used shal-1 be located not less than 40 feet from any other int
in any R-district; nurseries, greenhouses and general farming, not including -animal
farms or kennels and provided that any lot or tract in such use shall not be less than
five acres in area and that any greenhouse heating plant shall be distant not less than
two hundred feet from every lot -line. In R-1 District you can build all R-S uses plus
onf-family dwellings, municipal, county, state and federal buildings but not including
warehouses,' storage yards and similar facilities. In R-2 District you have all the uses
in R-S and R-1 plus dne-two-three and four family dwellings, hospitals for human care,
sanitariums but not including those for the care of.epileptics, drug addicts, feeble-
minded, insane •or •contagions diseases. -
•
0
7z� Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., July .22, 1963
MR. WALTER BATEMEN stated that his assingment was R-3.Family Residence District- Medium Density
and R-4-Family Residence District -; High Density.: He said the ordinance .tells.you
what.you can do and -the map tells where you can do.it. In R-3.you may (1) do any
uses permitted in R-1 and R-2 districts (build a one -family house or a.four-family
house); (2) erect dwellings for.any number of families dependent on size of lot and
(3) erect apartment hotles, lodging houses and boarding houses for any number of
guests and include their necessary service. The following uses would,be permitted
only if specifically authorized by the Board•in accordance with provisionf of
Article 61 (Board of Zoning Appeals) such as community development projects, club
houses, fraternity houses, lodges, meeting house places for organizations (except
those for profitg convalescent homes, rest homes, hospitals; the owner may also
engage in certain accessory uses such as shops and services with entrances inside
the buildings and not outside advertising. The R-3 district also has setback
requirements of 25 feet front yard -and 8,000 square feet per lot (these re.quirments
are spelled out in table 23.04). He then cited that if you have a multiple dwelling
guest house located in the R-3.or R-4 district so it is permitted for use but your
yard is not as large as the minimum or the setback is not as much.as the new
•
requirement or you don't have an off-street parking lot, you are listed as non-
conforming. NON -CONFORMING USE as,defined in 13.47 is, the use of a building,
structure or premises legally esisting at the time of adoption of this orcinance, or
any amendment thereto, which does not conform with the use regulations of the
district in which located; any such.building, structure or premises conforming
in respect to use but not in respect to height, area, yards or courts' or distance
requirements from more restricted districts or uses, shall not be considered a non-
conforming use.
The R-4 District is also multi-family.but permits a higher density, as the map shows
they tried to include the existing buildings used for high density and also to
provide for growth in the area near the business district: In the R-4 district you
can (1) do anything you can do in R-1, R-2, or R-3 and you can also erect a clinic
and use the existing buildings for offices of certain kinds if you don't handle
merchandise and (2) if you get approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals you may
erect hotels, motels, tourist homes or office buildings and (3) if your other
buildings require accessory services,. you may include those in.your building
provided they -have inside entrances and limited outdoor advertising. The R-4 yard
and height requirements are in Table 24.03 and 24.04-and are designed to keep air
and•sun available to lower floor dwellings and to the neighbors. The Non -Conforming
thing seems to be what most people are concerned about, this applies to use not to
size of yard or lot or building; if you are non -conforming without side yard you are
not listed as a non -conforming use at all, you are going to suffer for lack of
parking space, etc. If -you are actually non -conforming as to use 'of your existing
buildings you can (1) petition for a zone change (2) you can continue to operate
as non -conforming usage until the building falls down, you can repair the building
so.it won't fall down and you can spend up to 50%'of market value.to repair., but
you will not be permitted to enlarge or substantially alter your building unless
you change its use to conformity; this does not mean that you can't repair or
maintain a building but you are limited to the cost of repairs. Signs in R-3 and
R-4. -Generally no display -signs are permitted in residential districts except
in existing signs which continue as non -conforming uses. Churches may have signs
and directional signs for churches; stores that are -there now can have signs;
professional offices and public buildings can have signs; also for sale or rental
signs can be displayed.
Off -Street Parking in R-3 and-R-4. There are some regulations in respect to off
street parking in the heavy populated area. Off street parking will be required ,
in every district, every single dwelling unit will require one place for one car.
The parking of cars on the streets is very expensive to the taxpayer and so we are
trying to get as much parking off the streets as possible. In the multiple .dwelling
zone you can use your rear or side yards for parking; the minimum parking area is
160 sq. ft. for the single dwelling and in the multiple dwelling the minimum is
1000 sq. ft. In the present ordinance there are only 4 possible districts- ,
residential, multiple dwelling, commercial and industrial. We are trying to change
this.to eleven land use districts and we expect these to be flexible, thus making
it easier for the Common Council-to.make zone changes. Mr. Bateman urged that the
Council give favorable consideration to the proposed ordinance.
MR. GERALD THORNELSON spoke on Non -Residence -Districts; B-1-Neighborhood Business.District and
B-3' General -Business District. Under the present zoning we have an area of
approximately 345 acres of commercial land, only about 52% is in commercial so it
is a small area but a very important part. tinder the new proposed zoning ordinance
this area will be increased slightly about 27.6 acres, it will still represent only
about 6% of the total area in the City of Rochester. The present commercial zone
in the City is just one zone,, it if is commercial it -is commercial. Under the new
proposed ordinance we will have 3 different categories_B-1 Neighborhood Business
District; B-2 Central Business District and B-3 General Business District.
B-1 area has been divided into two sub -districts B-la and B-lb. The permitted uses
in B-1 would be any local retail business or service establishment supplying
commodities or performing services primarily for residents of the neighborhood on a
day to day basis, such as B-la: groceries, meat markets, pharmacies, candy stores,
drug stores, barber shops and beabty parlors, self service laundries; clothes.
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., July 22, 1963
575-
u
Is
1
1
•
1
cleaning and laundry pickup stations, shoe repair and tailor shops, etc. and in B-lb:
super -markets, super drug -stores, fruit markets, liquor stores, mortuaries, banks,
building and loan associations, appliance and television "repair shops, electricians
shops,•plumbing.and heating establishments and similar uses.
B-2 the Central Business District is the downtown.area of the City, this area is bounded
on the east by the Chicago Great Western Ry. tracks to 4th Avenue SW -NW and from 1st
Street NW -NE to 4th Street SW -SE. This downtown central area includes about 68 acres
of very valuable land and the uses permitted are all the uses in B-1 plus major retail
stores, banks, finance companies, bars and restaurants, cocktail lo}nges, night clubs,.
theatres, pool halls, bowling alleys, etc.
The B-3 area or general business area represents the commercial areas Along the highway,
the motels and oil stations and then in the downtown area, the Central business area,
North Broadway business area east of the tracks, some of the area south of the business
district. -The businesses that you can conduct in the general district (and this is a
large area of about 228 acres) are all that are permitted in B-2 district plus laundries,
roadside stands, funeral homes and mortuaries, etc. He then cited a few of the baiic
differences -of the present commercial district and proposed commercial district (1) before
we had just one commercial zone, now we have more refined uses permitted in a given
area to make it a little more clear-cut when someone comes in to request a zone change
(2) off street parking is required which -I am sure most people will -agree is important
(3) open space is required in the B1-a district (4) each zone will have -'certain
regulations in regard to advertising, the purpose is to advertise the goods and services
sold on the premises rather than something down below or down ahead (5) the height limit
has been suggested in this zone, in the B-la and B-lb districts the regulations in the
proposed ordinance suggest 22 stores or 30 feet in height; in the B-2 district the
height regulations are same as B-1 and in the B-3 district the suggested restrictions
are no principal or accessory structures shall exceed three stories or 40 feet in height
(6) we also have performance standards and anti -noise regulations.
MR. KENNETH ROHDEspoke on the Industrial District or M-1'Light Manufacturing District and M-2
General -Manufacturing District and Flood Plain District. The uses permitted in M-1
are all the uses permitted in B-3 District plus the manufacturing and assembling of such
products as food products, pharmaceuticals, pottery, novelties, appliances, light sheet
metal products, television and radio stations, foundries, etc. In M-2 the uses
permitted are the same as M-1 district plus junk yards, railroad yard and ftdght
stations and other uses to be determined. The uses in the Flood Plain District are
agriculture including agriculture buildings and structures, nurseries, greenhouses but
expressly excluding farm animals; seasonal residential uses such as summer cabins,
camps and cottages, and Recreational facilities such as sports arena, stadium, golf
courses, fishing. lakes, parks, etc. He cited the main differences between the present
existing ordinance and the new proposed ordinance as (1) the -existing ordinance requires
no setback lines and the new ordinance does (2) the existing ordinance requires no off
street parking and the new ordinance does (3) the existing ordinance establishes no
limit on noise and nuisance and the new ordinance does (4) the existing ordinance
requires no rules on junk yards and the new one provides that if located not less than
200 feet from R district it shall be enclosed. He also urged that the new proposed
ordinance be adopted.
Mayor Smekta made an announcement that he had•received a wire from the Interstate Commerce)
Commission informing -him that the said Commission had ruled in favor of the Chigago Great Western
Railway and as of tomorrow the "400" would make -its last run. He said he was asking the Council
to go with him and as quickly as possible appeal this decision because he knew it would affect
all the citizens of Rochester.
President Tingley then called on people in the audience who wished to be heard and the
following people were each heard:
Mr. Leon Shapiro was present and stated that he would like to know how many maps of this proposed
zoning are going to be published -and continuously changed from day to day; how many times
has the 'zoning map been changed since 1960, I don't think the people know what is going
on at your meetings, they just hear the highlights of what is considered to be a good
plan for the growth of the City. I wish to take exception about the professional men on
the original committee, in the past years we have hired no professionals from outside and did not
at the time the original ordinance was adopted, I knew some of the men onthat committee
and thought they did a good job, I don't think there is anyone on the present Zoning
.Board that knows enough 'about proper zoning. He further stated that they -talk in one
area -about low density,- Dr: Hagedorn mentioned that there will be man made deterioration,
I think this ordinance will make it more so when they limit it as to what people can
repair, what it it going to come to. -I don't think the ordinance should be tossed out
in its entirety, I think it needs more change and needs to be looked at,further.
Minneapolis studied their zoning ordinance for 12 years. He then spoke to Mr. Thorkelson
U
F'✓ Amy
e Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., July 22, 1963 •
and stated that he talked about the commercial area being only about 5% of the
total acreage of the City, then why have the.maps cut off some of what is already
commercial if you need more commercial; you have made is possible for new shopping
centers to come in and dictate; if you want to keep the commercial in the downtown
area then why reduce this area. The only thing I would like to ask is that -this
committee, after it gets all the information together, please publish a map that
will be the final map so the people can be informed.
Mr. Richard Blondell stated that he has two pieces of commercial property which he is involved
in and wanted to know if you are going to zone him out because of the fire ordinance,
one of his pieces of property is leased and he inquired what he could do when He can
not rebuild and the lease is called. You talk of the use of land I think it is misuse.
My insurance rates are going up 25% on the frame and 50% on the masonry because the
insurance company has to pay off, they have no recourse to rebuild. Are the taxe"s
going down the -same as the valuation or our property? Are you -doing anything about
that? The Council has taken the first steps in urban renewal, you are forcing some
to keep up their property and the ones that want -to do it on their own are not able
•
to. Has this proposed ordinance been sent to Mr. Mondale for legal study? As far
as greed is concerned, I don't think most -of the people are greedy,,we want to make
a living and keep the property up and pay our share of taxes. This is the most
complex piece o6 material I have ever seen. Every time you do something you will
have to get a lawyer to explain it. One of the last papers stated that there had
been a group of men from I.B.M. and they were well impressed with the City and we
could well be proud of it, -we already feel that way about the City as it is. He
said the professional firm hired was from Cincinnati and he had been to Cincinnati
and could see why they need some help.
Mr. Willard Knapp of 73p - 5th Street S. W. stated that as he listened to the discussion, there
are two things he would like to ask about. It seems that there are two provisions
- that are not tied very closely -and could be dropped if they wanted to and this
- particular topic was ,(1) Provisions under Article 47.01 Neighboring and Community
Shopping Centers where they are asking applicants for proof of financial ability
and (2) in Article 47.020 to demonstrate the need for the proposed shopping center
and the proper Xocation. It seems to me that these two provisions could be dropped
without affecting the ordinance. The Government .of the United States and State and
County do not go into telling people,if they can go into business or not and I
think the only people asking these questions should be the Loan Company or the people
that make the loan but to actually tell people whether they can go into business or
not seems unconstitutional.
Mr. Kenneth Jefferson of 20 - llth Avenue N. W. stated that for some reason or other I have the
opinion that some of us are quite worked up over this ordinance and the only thing
that is bothering me, I have no axe to grind, I don't own a rooming house, I own a
home but am not concerned about changing it but I think everyone here tonight really
feels that we do need an improved zoning ordinance for Rochester. I do feel that
discussion whether or not we have half a dozen or ten different colored copies if
not relevant at all. I feel we all are very proud of Rochester whether we have lived
here 6 months, 6 years or a lifetime. I feel these fellows have acted An sincerity,
I don't feel they intend to force thid down your throat or they would%Tiave had the
hearing in the first place. I would like to thank the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the work they have done and for the work they will have to do to
come out with something that the Common Council can accept and find acceptable to
the citizens of the City,of Rochester. I would like to add that I don't think we
should take 12 years to get a zoning ordinance. He then asked the Council and
Planning and Zoning Commission to get together with representative of this group
of people and resolve some of these questions and come up with an ordinance. It
•
will not be done in 3 months and I do recognize the book as a sincere attempt
to start us on the road to what Rochester needs and I am sure everyone will be
heard and when we are through lets devise a workable means and get this ordinance
on the books as soon as possible.
Mr. T. M. McDonnell,•President of the Board of Park Commissioners, stated that he would like to
reiterate the remarks made by the gentlemen preceding him. He said he would like
to remind the people here of the tremendous amount of work done and time spent, in
perfectly good faith, to bringtD you an ordinance that is up to date. We all
recognize the fact that there can be some things that might be distasteful to a
few in the adoption of such an ordinance but to go forward as this City will do
it is necessary to update and -bring to the City a modern planning and zoning
ordinance. I hope that you all appreciate the work that the ladies and gentlemen
that have been charged with this responsibility have done for you and do not cast
aside lightly the things that have been done for you. I know the amount of effort
that has been put forth in preparing this for you. So I should say.an appeal to
you to support the working and findings of your Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Dale,Cravath.. I would like to say in regard to the Planning and Zoning Commission that they
have worked hard, this I know because I attended some of their meetings and I do
not wish to cast any aspersions on their integrity. But I do not think any of them
Record of Official ' Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., Ju v 22., 1963
C
•
1
1
E
1
own any property that will be affected by'this ordinance, you can paint a pretty picture but you
are forgetting one big thing Economica. I don't think it should be five men or the
Planning & Zoning Commission that should tell me how much should be spent in repairing
my property. I don't think they should have the power to do that; I don't think they
should be allowed to take a crayon and.draw a line on the map wherever somebody thinks
it should go. I don't believe any one or 5 men should have that power. I have never
talked t6 anyone from the City of Rochester that has not thought it was a beautiful
progressive. City, it will stand up with any City in the U. A. and I think that is
because the people'have been left alont to spend their money and improve their property
and I think we can still do this ourself -if we are left alone; do we have property
rights or don't we? If this is passed in its present form, which I don't believe it
will, your deed will not'mean very much and will just be another piece of paper. The
majority of the people in this room own property and I defy you to prove that this
will,not devaluate these peoples property. When you start putting on heavier restkiction!
when you require providing of parking, when they are not in the downtown district, you
are affecting the economy of the City. I think you are overlooking the majority of the
people. I think people have the right to say what they wanto to do about their own
property as long as they are not harming other people. You are forgetting the whole
economy of the thing when you say you can not erect new buildings. I was asked if they
meant to make it economically impossible to build new buildings and develop new property,
when building more buildings you give more people work. I'would like to mention the
fact that the Post Bulletin ran excellent service but their building just happens to
sit on the wrong side of the tracks for the hew ordinance and I don't think it could be
built under the new ordinance. We have one quarrel with the downtown area, it is a
commercial area, why should anyone on the outside of the area iave-to provide parking
when the downtown area charges for parking. A lot of these people are in the rooming
_house business and this is not just property to them, it is their livelihood. If you
are not going to let them remodel you are putting them out of business. If you have to
pay taxes, that have gone up double and triple, your income has to come up to meet them.
The taxes will have to come down because the valuation is going dorm. We have not had
junk yards in the past 50 years and the only reason it -is brought up now is because of
the new motel that is being built on that location. Trailer parks, I don't know of any
trailer park within the City. Don't let them•try to tell you that this will not affect
you personallybecause I tell you that it will. Anyone owning property is affected and
their property has been devalued by this proposed ordinance. It is a vital thing and
should not be put through in a hurry.
Mr. Jerry Ybnng - I have been to quite a few Council meetings and in the time that I have been
here I have seen the taxpayer more or less tromped on.' For instance the3rd Avenue S. E.
street improvements, the City Engineer has just trod over people and I think it is time
that the taxpayer is considered instead of the people outside of town. They make
speedways out of our streets, you have to make'a run to get across the street and I think
it is time to give the City back to the people. Anyone from I.B.M. are from out of town
and they use our streets. How does this affect the Planning and Zoning, it surety does
because we are the grops that pay the taxes and when -we come to collect they say they can't pay
that they pay them at home. On these maps I -have some property outside the city limits,
they don't want us in the City but still they take the opportunity of zoning us and I
think this is getting out of balance. I don't think it is legal in many ways but will
have more to say later.
President Tingley - I believe we are appreciative of the work done by the Planning & Zoning
Commission, we feel that their intentions were the best and that they have put in lots
of hours of hard work on this thing. There are many things about the ordinance that
does not meet with my approval and there are some things that are very good. It would
be a shame to throw away something that has cost the City so much money becauue of
several different things that we have taken exception to. There will be many hearings
before any action is -taken by the Council. It would be my suggestion that we get a
little more specific on some of these things and those items that we feel are obnoxious
get them down in black and white so we can take action on them. I would suggest that
another hearing be held in the not to distant future and in that time I hope the people
will write to us and list the things that do not meet their approval.
A motion was then made by Leonard, second by Bergstedt, that the next public hearing on the prop
zoning ordinance be wet for August 26, 1963 at 7:30 o'clock P. K. All present voted in favor
thereof. (Anyone with questions or suggestions were told to submit them in writing to the
Planning & Zoning Commission).
Mr. Willard Knapp suggested that perhaps after the ordinance is in its final form that
it be submitted to the voters of the City at the next election. R. V. Ehrick, City Attorney,
stated that the City Charter does not provide for the adoption of an ordinance by referendum vote
and the Attorney General has ruled that this may not be submitted for a vote and the City Charter
C
provides that the Council adopt such an ordinance.
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., July 22, 1963 •
FY=60262
Alderman McCaleb left at 9:00 o'clock P. M.
A letter signed. by Phil Meyer, Chairman of the Shrine Circus, requested permission
to hang a banner over the street between Dayton's and Woolworth's buildings,'starting Atg ust 1,
1963 through August 8, 1963 for the benefit of the Shrine Circus, was read.' Mr. Garnet Spring,
Bui&ding Inspector stated that'the line was available for these dates. A motion was then made by
Leonard, second by Wilson, that the request be granted. All present voted in favor thereof.
Alderman Leonard introduced a resolution reinvesting $120,000.00 of the permanent
Improvement Fund money, $100,000.00 of the Sinking Fund money and $30,000.00 of the Bridge Fund
money and $50,000.00 of the Sewer Fund money, which was read. A motion was made by Thomas,
second by Leonard, that the said rdsolution be adopted as read, and all present voting in favor
'thereof, President Tingley declared the said resolution duly passed and adopted.
Upon motion by Thomas, second by Leonard, and all present voting in favor thereof,
the meeting was adjourned.
Ci4 Clerk