Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-19636 54 Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., September. 23, 1963 ~ Minutes ,of an adjourned -regular meeting of the Common Council of .t)Xe. City .of Rochester, Minnesota, held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, .in said City, on September 23, 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. Absent: Aldermen.Thoma:s and Wilson. President Tingley stated this as bang the.time and place set.for a public hearing for the purpose of again considering the, Proposed Zoning Ordinance for the City of Rochester, Minnesota, as revised 1963. The three following letters were each read and President Tingley referred the same to the Planning & Zoning Commission: "Honorable Mayor and Common Council City of Rochester Rochester, Minnesota Gentlemen: This letter is being written in response to your letter of September 13, 1963 wherein you requested any specific criticisms and suggestions that the Board of Realtors might have with regard to zoning matters. We -all realize that the proposed zoning ordinance is so comprehensive that it is extremely difficult to review it in its entirety, and make specific recommendations and criticisms on the'whole ordinance. We have, therefore, several specific recommendations which we are tendering at this time, and will in the future from time to time tender further criticisms and recommendations. Those that are immediately apparent are: 1. We strongly believe that the square footage requirements with respect to residential lots in the new ordinance eiould remain the same as the requirements in the old ordinances. This particular clause of the ordinances will not affect either realtors or home builders, who of course will pass the added cost on to the ultimate pruchaser, whom,w4 feel is being deprived of inexpensive housing at this time and whol ,will be further deprived if the requirdmtns are increased. 2. The present square footage requirements for multiple lots, we fedl, should remain the same in the established areas of the city. We have no quarrel with increasing the square footage in new areas, but to in- craese the square footage in the established area would render the majority of them non -conforming immediately. 3. We strongly feel that off street parking'is definitely needed and should be provided for in new areas; however, we are of the opinion that in the established areas it would work an extreme hardship on the present owners in the event of a total loss or loss of such magnitude that they would have to rebuild to require them to provide off street parking. It must be recognized that huge numbers of working people choose close -in apartments for three main reasons: a. The apartment rental as a rule is lower (this rental based upon no additional lot purchased for parking purposes). b. They do not own automobiles. c. They want to walk to work. .As a rule people with automobiles will rent in areas where lack of transportation is not a problem, with the result that they do not rent in close proximity to the downtown area. 4. We feel it is very unfair to the majorttyof the citizens of Rochester to exempt from all new controls the downtown core area where parking is most essential. The outlying areas have generally done a.good job in . providing parking for their buildings. The proposed ordinance makes further stringent regulations and controls on these people, while the most congested area is free from any controls whatsoever. S. We believe that Second Street S. W. will inevttably.be commercial the entire distance from down town to the Miracle Mile, and should be so zoned at the present time. 6. We believe that North -Broadway should be zoned c�mnercfal in its entire distance that part of North Broadway North of 14th Street. There are under the present ordinance areas East of North Broadway and North of 14th Street N. E. which are zoned R-S.. This should be changed. F • 1 it • u 0 Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., September 23, 1963 6 1 • 1 C� 1 These are but a fes of the specific suggestions you have requested. We earnestly request that many more hearings be held before any action of the Common Council. Yours very truly, ROCHESTER BOARD OF REALTORS 1s Dale Cravath, President" "Honorable Mayor and Common Council City Hall Rochester, Minnesota Gentlemen: According to the map.in the proposed new zoning ordinance, all -the property from 16th St. S. W. to 29th St. S.-W., along -the West -side of Highway 63 South, will -be zoned R 1, which is one family residence. The property that this area in question covers, along the route, has four motels and a truck sales and service building which have been in -this area for 10 or more years. The property was zoned Commercial in the township and is still commercial in nature. It compares generally with the property on the East side=of the highway which is'zoned in this new zoning map as Light Manu- facturing, M 1. Should the area be zoned R 1 as indicated, it•would impose a great -hardship on the owners in veiw.of their long range investments. -We know this area is going to grow with Rochester. There must be additions and expansion of the businesses in question. There must be room to expand, and there is room to expand in this area. If this area is left -in zone R 1, expansion is not possible, and a great loss will be suffered by the property owners. Therefore, we,. the following owners of property along the West side of Highway 63 from 16th St. S. W. to 20th St. S._W. herebypetition the Common Council to urge the Planning and Zoning Commission -to review their orgginal decision and place the property in question in its proper zone which we believe would be B 1, or Commercial. Sincerely yours, TRUCK SERVICE COMPANY, 1941 South -Broadway /s Inez G. Schaefer 63 Motel, 1837 South Broadway /s John F. Wood GOLDEN HILL MOTEL_, 1817 South Broadway /s Mrs. Ronald C. Johnson" " Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council City of Rochester Rochester, Minnesota Gentlemen: OAKLAND COURT, 1753 South Broadway /s Ray E. Krofchalk R B. SWEENEY, 1907 South Broadway /s R. B. Sweeney I deeply regret I will not be able to attend the meeting this evening. You may recall that I spoke briefly at the last meeting and in line with my remarks at that time I wish to present my request in writing at this time for the record. I feel that since my property at 1941 South Broadway, Lot 3, Block 22, Golden Hill Addition, as well as my lot across the street, has always been used for commercial purposes, it should be zoned as Commercial property, not residential as it now is, or as proposed in the new zoning plans now under consideration. I will greatly appreciate your consideration of my request, and will be happy to appear before you in consultation on this matter if you so desire. Formal petition for changing my property to commercial zone will be forthcoming in the near future. Thanking you for your consideration, now and in the future, I am Respectfully yours,, - Is Ines G. Schaefer 1941 South Broadway P. 0. Box 707 Rochester, Minnesota President: Truck Service Company" Mr. Robert Floyd, President of Waters Corporation, read the following letter: "Members of the Common Council City of.Rochester Rochester, Minnesota Gentlemen: On July of this year, Crenlo, Inc. appeared before the Zoning andPlanning Commission 0 56 Record of Official Proceedings of the -Common Council of the City- of Rochester, Minn., September 23, 1963 • FY-6-0252 to give reasons why Crenlo, Inc., felt it had been misclassified as a light manufacturer. The commission recommended that other manufacturers be contacted to obtain their reaction to the proposed zoning ordinance. Following that recommendation, a Special Industrial Zoning Advisory Committee has been formed to study the proposed Rochester Zoning Ordinance. This committee represents the Rochester Chamber of Commerce, Industrial Opportunities, Inc. and the industrial.community of Rochester. The industrial group we represent contends that the proposed ordinance appears to be discriminatory against existing industry because: 1. It improperly classified many of the existing industrial plants. 2. Limits property and building expansion. 3. Increased.their..operating costs and therefore_ distrubs their competitive position.. 4. ProhibitA future planning and use of existing buildings. This special committee has not been set up to find fault with the proposed Rochester.Zoning Ordinance, but rather.to assist the city in designing an ordinance which will be a useful tool in building a better Rochester. • This committee asks that further action toward the adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance be delayed at least 120 days to allow time for study and formulation of detailed recommendations. We solicit the opportunity to discuss this with the Zoning and Planning Commission members. individually or as a group. Sincerely yours, Special Industrial Zoning Advisory Committee /s.Roger R. Cresswell /s 'Rob'ert A. Fl&yd, Co -Chairman" Mr. John Wood, onwer of the 1163" motel, stated that he had signed one of the foregoing petitions but would like to add that he did not think this was good residential area, that he:lived here and it was very noisy due to the traffic on the highway going by. He said he felt the businesses that derive a livelihood from the traffic on that highway would be an asset to the City, and recommended and requested that this property be zoned as commercial. Mr. R. B. Sweeney of 1907 South Broadway, also requested that this property on South Broadway be made commercial instead of residential as shown in the proposed zoning ordinance. Mayor Smekta inquired what would be done with the foregoing letters presented. Alderman Leonard stated that it was his understanding that the Planning & Zoning Commission would get together with these various groups and the said Commission would take the initiative to schedule such meetings and bring their recommendations to the Common Council. He said at the last,Council meeting the Council had approved a number of recommendations made by • the Planning and Zoning Commission, these were some of the easy ones to consider and did not take too long but some of the more difficult changes, like particular zoning categories, would take extensive study and would take longer. He said he thought it was the intention of the Planning & Zoning Commission to go at the zoning block by block or step by step and they would not get these changes in as fast as before. President Tingley commented that Article No. 61 "establishing the Common Council as the Board of Appeals with the City Planning & Zoning Commission serving as an advisory agent to the Council" had not yet been drafted. The original ordinance had suggested that this be a body appointed by the Mayor, and any appeal from the decision be sent to this appointive Board. He said he thought it was the concensus right now that'it should be an elective board, that the • Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., September 23, 1963 65.7 1 1 0 I. • 1 group to act on an eppeal should be a little more sensitive to the will of the people and the elective people Would be more appropriate, and it is in this direction that the revamping would go. President Tingley further stated that he made a statement at one of the previous meetings that as the zoning ordinance stood at that time, he would be unable to vote for it; he said there had been many changes made, in fact just the recommendations they came up with at the last meeting were some of the things that he was opposed to. He said if it was possible at all there was one thing he would -like to see done and that was -to leave, as near as possible, the present zoning map as it is today and start from there on, then there is very litte in the Zoning Ordinance that would not meet with his approval. Mr. Leon Shapiro also recommended that the zoning map be left as it is at present. lie said he thought that the present,ordinance that we have now has worked fairly well with very mitior,changes as we have gone along and thought the new proposed ordinance should be drawn along the lines of the present ordinance. Willard Knapp of 730 - Sth.Street S..W.,stated that he too felt that the steps were being taken in the right direction with the recommended changes. ,A motion was then made by Leonard that the Council continue with the hearings on the 4th Monday of the Month and that the next hearing.on the proposed ordinance be set for 7:30 o'clock P. M. on Monday, October 28th, 1963; DeVries seconded the motion and all present voted in favor thereof. President,.Tingley then declared the hearing officially closed. A letter from B. H. Drummond requesting an unloading zone in front of his place of business at the Albon House at 712 Second Street S. W. was,read. Upon motion by Bergstedt, second by DeVries, and all present voting in favor thereof, the letter was referred to -the Public Safety Committee. President Tingley declared the meeting adjourned at 9:50 P. M. City Clerk W 0