HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-1963Record of Official Proceedings of the--Commorn Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., August 26,. 1963
6
cc
M
•
1
Minutes of a meeting of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, held
in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, in said City, on August 26, 1963.
President Tingley called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P. M., the following
members being present: President Tingley, Aldermen Bergstedt, DeVries, Leonard, McCaleb, Thomas,
Absent: ,Alderman Wilson.
President Tingley stated that this was another meeting in a series of hearings on
the proposed Zoning ordinance; he said it had been proposed to the City Council, they have had
several meetings and there were several meetings yet to come which he thought would beset
before any definite action will be taken. He also stated that no action would be taken tonight.
He then called for anyone in the audience that wished to be heard.
Mr. Robert Fetterman of 908 West Center Street was present and stated that in the new
proposed ordinance it shows that from 7th to llth Avenue Southwest west of West Center Street
a fence line was used as a dividing line to zone the property instead of a street; he said
since there is no street between West Center and 2nd Street Southwest part of the properties
owned by the same person are in R-2 District and part in R-3 District and he requested that
the Council or Planning and Zoning Commission consider changing this so the dividing line
would be a street.
The following letter was read and.ordered referred to the Planning and Zoning
Commission:
"To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Common Council
Rochester, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
We write you in regard to the proposed aoning ordinance for the.City of
Rochester. We refer in particular, to the proposed zoning, and consequently
use classification of real estate within the area bounded by Fourth Street
S. W. to Sixth Street S..W. on Second Avenue S. W.'and the east side of
Third Avenue S. E. between Fourth Street S. W. and Sixth Street S. W. This
real estate presently has a commercial basis for use and value purposes.
These purposes have attributed and combine to support the present tax base.
This base, as you know, is high. If the zoning ordinance is adopted, as
ppoposed, this real estate will lose its commercial basis for balue purpose
because the use of this real estate will no longer be conforming. It is
inconceivable that this real estate will be re -valued for tax purposes by
the city or county assessor once this commercial basis is removed by re -zoning.
The conforming use of real estate within a designated area maintains its
value while a non -conforming use basis goes down, all things being equal, yet
its value for tax purposes is not correspondently reduced. The tax base remains
the same while the sales price goes down.
This real estate has long supported and paid.taxes which commercial property
rightly bears. To now relegate this land to R-4, Multi Family Residence
District - High - Density - is in reality denying the property owners of the
right of a fair return on their lifetime investment which includes the'taxes
paid on its present commercial basis. -
The real estate to the east (First Avenue S.W.) between Fourth and Sixth
Street S. W. on First Avenue is presently -zoned commercial and it is so used.
We find it hard to justify designating such area R-4'under the proposed zoning
0 ordinance and the real estate to the east B-3, General Business District, which
permits as a conforming use the use of B-2,Central Business District. The
combination of the two uses adequately supports the use to which the real
estate in question is presently used. '
We respectfully request that the Common Council reconsider the area in
question and ask that it, in its wisdom, see the justification of our plea and
0
n
u
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., August 26, 1963
6.19. "
C
Lf
•
1
1
•
would be zoned different andwould be in mn- conforming use. He said the house was for sale for
$14,000 and they were only able to get $5,000 as a loan and they had gone to three different loan
companies. He said the loan companies felt that if the people cannot remodel or revamp and maint-
ain their property it will get in a run down condition and they did not feel they could give a
ten or fifteen year loan. He said the house in question was an old house and it was.not that
they did not think the value was there now, but.if they could do no repairing or remodeling the
value would drop in a hurry.
Mr. C. H. Bushey of 216 - 15th Avenue S. W. stated that he.was concerned with the
proposed zoning ordinance cutting down the commercial area in downtown Rochester; he said he
thought the way the clinic had grown in the past was an indication that downtown Rochester would
continue to grow. He said he thought the rules should be simple so people buying property would
know what they can do and the people living here would not be penalized.
Miss Nina Clay of 1149 First Street N. W. stated that she had rented at this location
for quite some time and could not see why the ordinance seemed to be against rooming houses, she
said her landlady had helped many people through a rough time; she said maybe some of them were
not kept up too well but she did not think that this applied to* the majority. She also stated
she had heard that some company wanted bo buy. the east side -of Broadway and fix it .up and some
one in authority would not allow it.
Dr. David G. Hanlon of 1020 - 10th Street B. W..was also present. He questioned what
action the Council was going to take after all of these hearings had been held. He said as a
former Alderman he could say the most important void was an ineffective zoning ordinance and
until some standard rules were adopted it could not be improved. • He said he had not studied this
ordinance but had complete confidence in those that are recommending it. He said he thought this
was a good ordinance and it still had -not gone so far that• it.could not be modified; he said he
thought those against it should be requested to give specific reasons why -they are.aga3.nst it. He
again questioned what procedure the Council was going to use after all these hearings had been
held.
President Tingley stated that these hearings were to give the Council information and
he thought they would be very -wrong to make a decision prior to these hearings. He said this is
not a small item and several hearings would be necessary and it was agreed to hold this in
abeyance for 90 days or more and over that time have hearings periodically. He waid his vote
would depend on how the ordinance would read after the hearings and what modidications were made,
he said as it stands tonight he would have to vote "no". He .said he hoped this ordinance would
come out in final form that they could all support. Many of the things we -hear at these meetings
will make a great deal of difference, we want to know what the people want before -we come up
with any policy on the thing. President Tingley -again requested that people bring in written
criticism on specific items.
Mr. Andy Towey of 903 - 36th Avenue-N. W. was present. He said after listening tonight
he also felt he was put in the category of not being able to improve houses after they are zoned
•
UORecord of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., August 26, 1963
FY--fi0Z52
and he felt people should be entitled,to improve.their_homes;_ he.noted.that a specific area was
zoned as.commercial outiside of the City.,and.when it was.brought in it was coned as cesidential
and when he requested to have it zoned as originally. -_commercial -,he was_told.that that would
be spot zoning and could not be done, he thought this should be changed._ He said he thought.that
there were some naturals to planning and'thought.they should be followed;' he said the south
entrance.to Country Club Manor was always planned_to be ccx ercial,.that he felt.this.was a natural
and should be zoned as commercial.
Mr. Robert Dunlap of Plainview, KinAesota was present.. He stated this, his reason for
being here is that he is a paid Attorney.representing the Rochester Guest Home Association and -his
appearances.here will be in that connection He said he thought it was fair to say that they
realize sone is necessary but he.said rather than appear at every hearing they are making a complete
study of all the guest homes and it will be.presented in writing. He said they.were in the process
of gathering all factual information so the Cquncil might know how it will effect each property.
He said they were trying to acquire information as to lot zoning, size of lots, off street parking,
number of units, etc. and see how the proposed ordinance affected each of them. He said they
r
would probably have such -a report ready .in about 45 .days.
Mr. Norman Kuyath of 1120 -,7th Avenue S..W.,said he had attempted to study.this.zoning
ordinancebut found it to hard to interpret. He said an Attorney was asked to interpret it for them
and it took him such a, long time, so how,can just ordinary -people understand it. HA said he
thought it was a shame that these people had to spend money to have it explained toga them.
Mr. George Henke 'of Byron stated that he had been interested in commercial.property on
North Broadway for a many years. ; He said he had purchased q acres about 20 years ago and he had
sold most_of this property and sold it.as commercial but under the new zoning ordinance it is
changed and he_did not think this was fair to the -people that purchased this property.from him as
commercial. -He also said he did not feel.that they should have to provide parking out t)Lere when
the people downtown were furnished with parking.
Mr. H. S. Patterson of 1019 East Center Street was present. He said he thought di.s-
cussion .such as .this should be limited to people .paying taxes... He said .some. of the .people
complaining about Rochester .and _this ordinance were not even tax payers and did not think their
remarks.should be considered.
Mrs. Inez Shhaefer stated that the property.she.owned at 1941 South Broadway was brought
into the City not too long ago, this property. had always been commercial and the present building
was built.many years ago. This property came in as residential and she.has_not been able to get
it zoned as'commercial, In the,new proposed ordinance, it shows this property as R-3.which is
rated for motels, etc..and she called.attention to the -fact that all motels in this area came in
long.after her building. She said she understood the opposite.side pf.the street is industrial.
The terrain is supposed to be a factor, behind her property is a high, hill and.she felt,sure it
would never be suitable for homes,. She said the 4-lane highway runs beside her building and she
thought this was conducive to commercil and her property was still residential. She requested
1
•
7
J
•
1
that this be considered.
0
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., August . 26, 1963
62
•
1
1
n
LJ
1
President Tingley declared the hearing closed at_9:45 P. M.
A motion was then made by Leonard, second by Thomas, that another meeting on the pro-
posed zoning ordinance be scheduled for 7;30 P. M. on September 23, 1963. All present voted in-
favor thereof.
Mr. Dale Cravath then -stated as follows.. For the people that have just come to the
meeting tonight for the first time it might seem that the public has not come up with any
concrete suggestions# this.is the thing I have heard pounded over and over. ,After we invited t
Council and -Planning & Zoning Commission to one of our meetings and voiced some suggestions, we
gave them many concrete suggestions and there was nothing done at that time so.we asked them to
come back and at that time Mayor Smekta recommended that two of our members sit in on the
special meetings of the Planning and Zoning Bard. John Van Cuyk and myself sat in on many of
these meetings and we at that time offered specific suggestions bnd as.we were going through the
book we came up with many concrete suggestions.and at that time the members of the Planning and
Zoning Board said they were very good ideas and they had not thought about them and naturally
they would not think about them because they were not familiar with them.. When the new edition
of the zoning ordinance came ¢out not one of our suggestions came out in the book and this left
quite a doubt in our mind that anyone should even make suggestions and I would ask now assurance
- from the Council and Planning & Zoning Commission that if specific suggestions'are made by the
public they.would give some kind of answer before it.comes to a final vote, I think that is a
reasonable request. I have said no one has worked harder than the Planning and Zoning Commissi
and the Council but it is inconceivalbe to me that you would attempt to pass this ordinance in
its origianl form without having this finformation and I do not believe it can be passed in the
present form. I don't think the average individual has a change of getting his recommendations
incorporated in the ordinance. We have spent more time on this than anyone in the City and we
brought it to the attention of the City and think we are entitled to know what is going on.
A motion was then made by Leonard, second by Thomas, that a letter be written to Mr.
Cravath and other members of the Board of Realtors, under the signature of the President of the
Council, Albert J. Tingley, stating that the Council is definitely interested in any con-
structive suggestions and are going to rely heavily on these suggestions, and:that they submit
their concrete and specific suggestions in writing. All present voted in favor thereof.
A recess was declared at 10:00 P. M. President Tingley called the meeting to order
again at 10:15 P. M. with all members being present except Alderman Wilson.
The applicationg signed by Cortland J. Silver,.for plat approval of Silver Acres, was
read and upon motion by Thomas,,second by McCaleb, and all present voting in favor thereof, the
application was referred to the City Planning and Zoning Commission.
The following letter signed by Albert J. Tingley was read and upon motion by DeVries,
second by Thomas, and all present voting in favor thereof, -his recommendations were approved
and the request for street lights were denied;.
C�
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., August 26, 1963
P7B02gP
r
"To the Honorable Mayor '
and
Members of the Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
The request of Mrs. M. E. Palen of 709 - 8th Street S. E. for a street light
in the middle of her block has -.been -investigated and it is the recommendation of
the undersigned that no street light be installed in this block but that the trees
be trimmed. This block is only 250 feet long so -it is not felt that a street
light is warranted in this location.
Also,, the request for a street light in the alley of the block bounded by
loth and llth Avenue Northeast and 2nd and 3rd Street Northeast has been investigated.
this has been considered many times before and I can see no reason -why the decision
should be changed, so it is the recommendation of the undersigned that no light be
placed at this -location.
Respectfully submitted,
/s Albert J. Tingley
Member of Public Utility Board"
The recommendation of the Finance Committee that the space vacated by the Public
Utilities Office be used for the Police Department and Detectives; the space vacated by the
Detectives be used by the Recreation Department; and the vault space vacated by the Public
Utilities in the basement be -used by the City Clerk as soon as the, Utilities Department moves
out, was read. Upon motion by Bergstedt, second by Thomas, and all present voting in favor
thereof, the recommendation was approved.
Upon motion by Bergstedt, second by Thomas, and all present.voting in favor thereof,
the meeting was adjourned.
Ciky Clerk