HomeMy WebLinkAboutpf_0185700
ro�Ul
0
H
H
z
t-4
c •
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Please check item or items for which you are applying:
Rezoning $100 _ Division of Platted Lot $50
_ Special Use Permit $100 Relocation of Dwelling $50
_ Vacation of Right -of -Way $100 — Variance to Zoning Ordinance $50
Preliminary and Final Plat $100 _ Minor Variance $25
Please complete form by typing or printing in ink. If the spaces provided
are insufficient, use additional sheets, keying information to the proper
item numbers:
A. Roseville Area Schools Independent District No. 623 633-8150
Name of Owner: (First) (Middle) (Last) (Phone)
2. 1251 W. Co. Rd. B-2 Roseville Mn 55113
Address of Owner: (No. and Street) (City) (State) (Zip)
3, Gerald H. Kaufhold 484-1415
Name of Applicant: (First) (Middle) (Last) (Phone)
4. 1123 W. Co. Rd. B Roseville Mn 55113
Address of Applicant: (No. and Street) (City) (State) (Zip)
5. Lexington School Site S.W. Corner of Lexington Ave. & Co. Rd. B
Street Address of Property Involved:
6. Complete Legal Description of Property Involved: See attached.
1. Date Property Acquired: Purchase Agreement was signed 6/l/87.
SchoollPark
8. Present Use of Property: School Proposed Use of Property: & Single F,mily;
Homes
9. Present Zoning of Property: R-1 SchooProposed Zoning of Property: R-1 School
10. What plan or change makes this request necessary?
The new property owner desires to sell the 8 residential lots enti ie on Me
preliminary plat, dedicate in excess of 10% of the property to the city and
continue the lease on the existing school building to Public School District 916.
11. What is the expected effect of the proposed change? (For example, on
property values, health, safety, parking, traffic conditions,.etc.)
There would be no adverse affect on any of the above since the north half
of the site would remain as is and the south half would remain R-1 and be
compatible with the surrounding residential property.
ti
-2-
12. For Rezoning Only:
A. If property to be rezoned is currently zoned in two or more zoning
classifications, set forth the legal description of each such
separate zoning classification.
B. If proposed rezoning will rezone the property into two or more
separate zoning classifications, set forth the legal description of
each such separate zoning classification.
13. For Special Use Only:
A. City Code Section authorizing special use permit:
14.
For
Vacation of Right -of -Way Only:
A.
A petition must be submitted, signed by at least 51% of the
abutting property owners. The original statement in the petition
should be as follows: "We, the undersigned., owners of at least 51%
(fifty-one percent) of the property abutting
request that this section of right-of-iaay be vacated because it is
no longer of value to the general public."
All property owners signing the petition shall list their address
and legal description of their proper-Ly.
15.
For
Platting Only:
A.
Number of Lots: 10
B.
Subdivision to be known as: Lexart
C.
Engineer: Name Phone
D.
Land Planner: Name Buetow & Associates, Inc. Phone 483-6701
16.
For
Division of Platted Lot Only:
A.
Separate legal description for each.newly created lot shall be
provided.
17.
For
Relocation of Dweliiag Only:
A.
'ih� legal description shall be of the land upon which the building
is to be moved.
B.
The application shall be accompanied by a written consent and
approval of at least 50% of the property owners within 250 feet of,
the relocation.
r:
-3-
18. For Variance Only:
A. Variance is requested from the following section of the City Code:
B. State exactly what is intended to be done on or with the property
which does not conform with the City Code:
9. Applicants requesting a rezoning, special use permit, variance, divi-
sion conduct a neigh-
borhood
sion of lot, or platting
g of property are encouraged
meeting at least fifteen (15) days before the scheduled Planning
Commission Public Hearing, and shall send notices to all of the affected
property owners. Affected owners are those listed on the required
Abstractor's Certificate. The meeting shall be a time for the applicant
to review and explain the proposed development to the owners.
This policy applies only when residential property, R-1 through R-8,
is listed on the Abstractor's Certificate. This policy does not apply
to property proposed for development which is zoned R-1 and will be or
continua to be used for single family housing.
Please indicate the date that you have met or will be meeting with the
affected property owners:
Information to be submitted for all applications except minor variance:
A.. Application and Fee.
B. Abstractor's Certificate listing the NAMES AND ADDRESSES ON LABELS.of'
the owners of the land within 250 feet of the boundaries of the
property in question as those names appear on the records of the Ramse
County Auditor. Hearing notices will be mailed to listed property
owners.
C. Proposed Plan (2 copies).
D. 8 1/2 x 11" reductions of the proposed plan (26 copies).
E. Written statement by the applicant which provides the details of
the application. The statement will be given to the Planning
Commission and City Council along with the City Planner's report.
F. Documents as required by the City Planner.
-4-
20. Application Process:
A. Application and accompanying documents reviewed with the City
Staff.
B. Completed application presented to the City Council for referral to
the Planning Commission for public hearing.
C. Planning Commission conducts public hearing and makes recommenda-
tion to the City Council.
D. City Council conducts public hearing.
21.' The above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
•
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
VI -A
This Purchase Agreement is made and entered into this
12th day of May 1, 1987, by and between Gerald H. Kaufhold,
hereinafter referred to as Buyer, and Roseville Independent
School District No. 623, hereinafter referred to as Seller.
Buyer may sell, assign or transfer all his right, title and
interest to the within Purchase Agreement and premises therein
described; It being understood, however, that such transfer in no
way releases said Buyer from his liability for the performance of,
all the terms, covenants and payments under said Purchase
Agreement.
1. SALE.
The Seiler hereby sells and agrees to convey to the Buyer,
and the Buyer hereby agrees to purchase, that certain parcel of
real estate, commonly known as Lexington. School land Independent
School District No. 623 together with all buildings, improve-
ments, hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereunto and
located in the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of
Minnesota, and legally described as follows, to -wit:
According to Certificate of
Title No. 225350, that part of
the East 660 feet of the North
Half of the Northeast Quarter
of 'the Northeast Quarter of
Section 15, Township 29, Range
23, lying North of the South 30
feet thereof, according to the
U.S. Government Survey thereof;
subject to easements of record.
PURCHASE PRICE.
A. Price.
The total purchase price for the above -described prop-
erty shall be One Million Eight Thousand and no/100
Dollars ($1,0,08j000.00).
B. Payment.
The purchase price shall be paid, as follows:
(1) Earnest Money:
The sum of one Thousand and No/100 Dollars
($1,000.00) shall be paid as and for earnest money
as of the date hereof t a further payment of
$2000.00 upon execution and approval by Seller; and.
an additional $5000.00 payment on November 1, 1987.
Commencing January 1, 1988, and monthly thereafter
through July 1, 1988, Buyer shall pay to Seller
additional eai;aast money hereunder, or be subject
to termination as provided for in paragraph 14
herein, the following sums on the dates shown, to wit:
1
VI -A
r'•
VI -.A
January 11 1988 $3500.00
February 1, 1988 $3500.00
March 1, April 1, May 1
June 1, and July 1 $5000.00 each month
(2) Cash:
The balance of Nine Hundred Sixty -Eight Thousand
(6968,000.00) Dollars, cash, shall be paid as of
the date of closing.
3. CLOSING.
A. Date and Place.
The closing shall be held on or before August 1, 1988,
at such place and time as the parties shall mutually
agree.
B. Closing obligations.
At closing, the Buyer shall pay the purchase price in
the manner hereinbefore provided, and the Seller shall
deliver to the Buyer, the following items, and the
following duly executed documents, to -wit:
(1) A general Warranty Deed conveying marketable title
to said premises, subject only to the following
exceptions:
a. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and
federal regulations;
b. Restrictions of record as of the date hereof,
in any, relating to the use or improvement of
the premises which will not interfere with the
planned development of the property;
c. Utility and drainage easements of record as of
the date hereof, if any, which will not inter-
fere with the planned development of the pro-
perty;
d. Permitted encumbrances as shown on Exhibit "Ap
hereto.
(2) Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title or a
complete Abstract of Title, last continued and cer-
tified to within 30 days of the date of closing.
The Seller shall pay all State and County Deed Taxes, if
any, for the recording of the Warranty Deed, and the
Buyer shall pay recording fees. Upon the delivery of
the foregoing documents, the Buyer shall pay -the
purchase price as hereinbefore stated.
-2- VI -A
0
4,
5.
6.
POSSESSION.
VI -A
The Seller agrees to deliver possession of the premises not
later than the date of closing, provided, that all conditions
of this agreement have been satisfied, or on such earlier
date as the parties may mutually agree.
TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS.
A. Seller.
The Seller shall pay, at or before closing, all of the
real estate taxes and installments of special assess-
ments due and payable in the year 1988 and prior years.
The Seller shall also pay, in full, at or before
closing, all assessments, levied, pending, certified in
the current year's taxes, or otherwise of record, as of
the date of closing; except that any special assessments
resulting from action taken by the City of Roseville or
Ramsey County between the execution of this Agreement
and the date of closing will be the responsibility of
the Buyer.
B. Buyer.
The Buyer shall have the obligation of paying all real
estate taxes and installments of special assessments
(except to the extent that Seller has agreed to pay said
assessments) due and payable thereafter.
C. Miscellaneous.
Nothing herein contained shall be deemed
alter any obligation of any tenant under
respect to the payment of property taxes
assessments.
SELLER'S COVENANTS AND WARRANTIES.
The Seller covenants and warrants as follows:
A. Specific Warranties.
to affect or
any Lease with
or special
(1) Title: f
The Seller warrants that it has good and exclusive
right, title and interest in and to the above
described real property, and has the right and ;
authority to sell and assign the same. The Seller
further warrants that all bills for work done or
materials furnished to or in the improvement of the
property have been paid in full.
(2) Encroachments:
The Seller warrants that all buildings and improve-
ments on the property are entirely within the boun
dary lines of the property, and that there are no
encroachments on the subject property.
-3- VI -A
VI -A
(3) Compliance wi`;h Applicable Law:
The Seller warrants that: The property fully
complies with all existing local, state and federal
rules, regulations and laws having application to
the condition and ownership of the property,
including, without limitation, health and safety
and environmental ordinances, codes, and laws; the
Seller has received no notice, and has no knowledge
of any present code, ordinance, or zoning viola-
tions relating to the property from any governmen-
tal authority having jurisdiction"over-the
property; the Seller has or shall have, as of the
date of closing, complied with all Landlord and
Tenant laws of any governmental authority having
jurisdiction over the property; the Seller shall,
if notice of any violation of the foregoing items
is received by Seller prior to the date of closing,
bear the expense of all work or action necessary to
remove or correct such violation; and all licenses
and permits needed to operate the property in the
present manner, are in full force and effect, and,
if assignable, will be assigned to the Buyer, at
closing, at no additional cost to Buyer.
B. Covenants.
(1) Documents to be Provided:
,,..
The Seller covenants and agrees to provide the
Buyer with the following items if in its possession
within 30 days of the date that Seller accepts this
Agreement, to -wit:
a. Copies of all underlying financing documents,
including all mortgages or deeds of trust, if
any;
b. A certified as built survey of the property,
which survey shall show the legal description A
of the property, the location of all improve-
ments on the property, easements, building
dines, rights of way adjoining the property,
location of any improvements on adjoining pro-,
perty'which might tend, by reason of location,
to encroach on the property, the location of
all water, sewer and utility service connec-
tions to the property from the nearest loca-
tion in a public right of way, and indicating
the approximate square footage of the proper-
ty;
C. Complete copies of inspection reports and.soil
tests relating to the property or the
buildability thereof;
d. A statement of improvements or modifications
of any nature which have been made to the prop-
erty during the period of Seller's ownership
thereof;
-4- VI -A
s '0
VI -A
e. Complete copies of any contracts, agreements,
or developmental proposals relating to the
development of the property during the period
of Seller's ownership thereof;
f. Copies of any covenants, easements, encumbran-
ces or other agreements, instruments or wri-
tings, recorded or unrecorded, pertaining to
or in any way affecting the property or its
operation, including, without limitation, any
developer's agreements or similar agreements
with any governmental body.
(2) Debris:
The Seller agrees to remove all personal property
not included herein and all debris from the premi-
ses prior to closing.
(3) Interim Maintenance:
The Seller covenants and agrees to maintain the
property, including the improvements thereon in the
same condition and repair as presently exists, all
at .its expense, until the date of closing.
(4) Conduct of Business:
The Seller covenants that, pending closing, no
contractor any other commitment affecting or
otherwise relating to the subject premises, and
extending beyond the date of closing, will be
entered into, without first obtaining Buyer's writ-
ten consent thereto.
C. General Warranty.
The Seller, warrants that no representation, warranty or
commitment in this Agreement, or any statement or cer-
tificate furnished or to be furnished to the Buyer pur-
suant hereto or in connection with the transaction
contemplated hereby contains. or will contain any mis-
statement of material fact, or omits or will omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements'
contained therein not misleading.
7. TITLE.
The Seller shall, within a reasonable time after execution of
this Agreement, furnish an Abstract of Title, or a Registered
Property Abstract certified to date to include proper searches
covering bankruptcies, and State and Federal judgments and
'IN..
VI -A
liens. The Buyer shall be allowed twenty (20) days after
receipt thereof for examination of said title and the making
of any objections thereto; said objections to be made in
writing or deemed to be waived. If any objections ar3 so
made the Seller shall be allowed one hundred twenty (120)
days to make such title marketable. Pendi;ig correction of
title the payments hereunder required shall be postponed, but
upon correction of title and within ten (10) days after writ-
ten notice to the Buyer, the parties shall perform this
Agreement according to its terms.
If said title is not marketable and is not made so within one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of written objections
thereto as above provided, this Agreement shall be null and
void, at option of the Buyer, and neither principal shall be
liable for damages hereunder to the other principal. All
money theretofore paid by the Buyer shall be refunded.
If the title to said property be found marketable or be so
made within said time, and said Buyer shall default in any of
the agreements and continue in default for a period of ten
(10) days, then and in that case the Seller may terminate
this Agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. S559.21, the period
within which the Buyer may cure any default shall be thirty
(30) days from and after service of notice which complies
with Minn. Stat. S559.21; and, on such termination, all
payments made upon this Agreement shall be forfeited by the
Buyer and retained by the Seller and the Seller's agent, if
any, as their respective interests may appear, as liquidated
damages, time being of the essence hereof, which shall be
Seller's sole remedy against Buyer.
8. CASUALTY OR CONDEMNATION.
Prior to November 1, 1987, in the event the property or any
portion thereof, including trees, shrubs, or improvements,
are destroyed or substantially damaged by fire or any other
cause before said date, this Agreement shall become null and
void, at either Seller's or Buyer's option, and all monies
paid hereunder shall be refunded to Buyer. After November
1, 1987, in the event the Buyer elects to accept the pro-
perty in its damaged condition, proceeds of insurance suf-
ficient to restore the building and improvements to their
former condition shall be collected by Seller and shall be
assigned to Buyer at closing.
Prior to November, 19+87, in the event of the exercise by any
governmental unit having jurisdiction over the property of
the right to eminent domain or any action or threatened
action in nature of or in lieu of eminent domain or condem-
nation including any claim, demand or requirement of ceding
any of the premises before approving Buyers development of
the premises pursuant to 10(d) (hereinafter referred to as
condemnation), with respect to all or any part of the pro -
VI -A
-6-
9.
10.
• 's
perty prior to the closing date, either party may, by writ-
ten notice to the other, terminate this Agreement, and all
monies paid hereunder shall be refunded to Buyer. After
November 1, 1987, in the event the Buyer elects to accept
the property notwithstanding condemnation, then any condem-
nation proceeds received or receivable by Seller shall be
paid or assigned to Buyer at closing.
ADJUSTMENTS.
The Buyer and Seller also mutually agree that pro rats
adjustments of rents, interest, insurance and city water,
and, in the case of income property, current operating
expenses, shall be made as of the date of closing.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT.
All obligations of the Buyer under this Agreement are sub-
ject to and contingent upon the fulfillment of the following
conditions:
A. The Buyer's review and approval of all items to be pro-
vided by the Seller pursuant to the provisions of
Article 6B(1) of this Purchase Agreement;
B. The Buyer's inspection and approval of the condition of
the property. For the purposes of this provision, the
Buyer and Seller agree that the Buyer, and the Buyer's
representatives, shall have reasonable access, during
normal business hours, throughout the period prior to
closing, to inspect the property, conduct tests upon the
property, and to otherwise examine the property for the
purpose of determining its suitability for development;
C. The Buyer's review and approval of all codes, ordinan-
ces and laws applicable to the development of the
property;
D. The Buyer's application for and acquisition of approval
of Buyer's proposed development of the property by any
governmental unit having jurisdiction over the premises;
and
E. The Buyer's application for and acquisition of the
financing necessary to fund this purchase, all on terms
and conditions acceptable to Buyer.
In the event the foregoing conditions are not satisfied or
removed by the Buyer on or before November 1, 1907, then
this Agreement shall be null and void, and the earnest money
herein paid shall be refunded to Buyer forthwith. The
satisfaction or removal of said conditions shall be
•
VI -A
accomplished by Buyer delivering written notice to the
Seller stating that the conditions have been satisfied or
removed. Said notice may be mailed to the Seller in care of
Paul Borg, 1251 Weet County Road B2, Roseville, MN 55113,
and for the purpc se of determining the time of satisfaction
or removal, the postmark on any written notice shall be
deemed to constitute the date of satisfaction or removal.
11. SURVIVAL OF REPRESENTATIONS.
All statements container: in any financial materials or other
instruments delivered by or on behalf of the Seller pursuant
hereto or in connection with the transaction contemplated
hereby, shall be deemed representations and warranties by
the Seller hereunder. All representations, warranties, and
agreements made by the Seller in this Agreement or pursuant
hereto shall be deemed joint and several, except as other-
wise expressly stated, and shall survive closing.
12. BROKERAGE SERVICES AND COMMISSIONS.
The Seller covenants and agrees to pay any and all real
estate brokerage commissions which are or may become due by
reason of this transaction, and further agrees that the
earnest money paid herein shall be held, in trust, pursuant
_ to the provisions hereof, ,for the benefit of the parties, as
their interests may appear, by Seller.
13. BINDING EFFECT.
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of the respective parties and their heirs, suc-
cessors and assigns.
14. DEFAULT BY BUYER.
In the event: the Buyer shall default in the performance of
its obligations hereunder, and the Seller shall have per-
formed or tendered performance of all of its obligations
hereunder, and said default shall continue for a period of
10 days, then, in that event, the Seller shall be entitled
to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. S559.21,
the period within which the Buyer may cure any default shall
be thirty (30) days from and after service of notice which
complies with Minn. Stat. S559.21; and, on such termination,
all payments made upon this Agreement shall be forfeited by
the Buyer and retained by the Seller and the Seller's agent,
if any, as liquidated damages, time being of the essence
hereof, which shall be Seller's sole remedy against Buyer..
-8- VI -A
HFIE] Roseville Area schools • District 623
1:1r623 Serving the Communities of Arden Hills, ralcon Heights. Lauderdale. Little Canada. Maplewood. Roseville. and Shoreview
Independent School District 623 • Roseville Area Schools
District Center • 1251 west County Road B•2 • Roseville. MN 55113
Telephone: 612i 633-8150
January 7, 1988
Ms. -Mary Bakeman
1178':West County Road B
R'osevi 1 le, MN 55113
Dear Ms. Bakeman:
I'apologize for not having had an opportunity to respond to the comments which;
at the November 10, 1987 School Board
you.„made during '.Citizen Comments" at
meeting. The press of activities has been horrendous.
In short order, here are the answers to the questions Chairperson Tom Bertz
listed on the backside of the "Citizen Comments" Log Sheets which you
returned, prior to making your remarks at the November 10 School Board
meeting. Unfortunately, I did no, see Mr. Bertz's notations on the back of
the card.
You asked what was the basis of the appraisal of Lexington Elementary School
Property: commercial or residential?
The answer is both. Mr. E. Vincent Dolan, the school district's appraiser
can this property, appraised the residential worth for a portion of the
To: City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Dr.
Rsvl, Mn.
Attn: Rick Jouke
Project No. 8733
Project Name Lexart Addition
Gentlemen: The following items are CK enclosed
`A
3
From:
BUETOW & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Architects & Engineers
2345 Rice Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55113
(512) 453-6701
Date: 4/29/88
❑ being forwarded under separate cover
Copies
Number
Description
1
Application for Preliminary Plat
1
$100.00 Fee
2
Preliminary Plat Plan - 24" x 36"
8P x 11" reduction of Plat Plan.
26
1'
Abstractor's Certificate listing names and addresses (labels)
of owners of land within 250 feet.
Written statement by the applicant is found on page 5 (Iten, 19)`
of same application.
That part of the East 660 feet of the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4
of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 15, Township 29, Range 23, lying North
- r
6. ComDlete Legal Descriptionof Property Involved:
According to Certificate of Title No. 225350, that part of the East 660 feet of
the North half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15,
Township 29, Range 23, lying North of the South 30 feet thereof, according to
Y;
the U.S. Government Survey thereof; subject to easements of record. See Exhibit
A.
ITEM 19
Re: Information to be. submitted for all applications except minor variance.
E. Written statement by the applicant which provides the details of the application.
The statement will be given to the Planning Commission and City Council along
with the City Planner's report.
Gerald H. Kaufhold is a resident of Roseville, Minnesota at 2096 Fairways Lane.
He has conducted a business at 1123 West County Road B for ten years under the name
and style of Rose Galleries for the consignment . and sale of estate and antique
merchandise.
After discussions and review with Buetow & Associates, Iiic., and Mr. Tom
Dunwell, of that firm, along with the Planning and Economic Development Consultants
'mi nary Plat have been filed
P e1�
'on andr
's Application Y
f Roseville this for the City o � PP
to divide the property into 10 lots. Lot 1 would remain a public school use with
916 continuing to lease the existing school building. Lot 2 through 9 would be
single family lots and lot 10 would be the .land dedication required by ordinance
which is in excess of 10%.
ff
ARE THERE ANY GENERAL BUILDING
CODE CONCEi`R11S?
YES
NO
ARE THERE ANY GENERAL FIRE CODE
CONCERNS?
YES
NO
OTHER COMMENTS:
..
�iA�iTR-%-1 h��� L►NE M�+�1I-1-�L�c-S
r A�NLI I�l'�5� �5�' (�c.l7uGkr.S
b1~ D 1=IJ 1 6ATap---
�3 2. 0 W1fiGH G> !3f`L-ow I
% t>i _A Z]obJ
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
f
t;V
I
I
qt
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING FILE CHECXLIST
PLANNING FILE NUMBER: �$S�
PROJECT NAME:TO SGfI>L-
PROJECT ADDRESS: 6of-4r-H\4 POPJ-) P"
C014TACT PERSON: -To DUr.�UJ� U
ADDRESS: Z'34a pie-,e :�k PHONE:
IS APPLICATION COMPLETE?
YES X
NO
DOES PROPOSAL MEET APPLICABLE ZONING REQUIREMENTS?
YES >�
NO
DOES PROPOSAL MEET APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS?
IS PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
YES
x
NO
i4
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PLANNING FILE CHECK LIST
PLANNING FILE NUMBER jg S7
APPLICANT'S NAME 1CbbE7yJ=
LEGAL DATE CHECKED ,S / 23 8
ANY DEFFERED OR ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS ?
NO
YES
. L2-Z-,
CHECKED BY
TYPE OF ASSESSMENT
PROPERTY ASSESSEMENTS
AMOUNT OF
ADDITIONAL
CHARGES
PARTIAL
FULL
SANITARY SEWER
t!
STORM SEWER
STREET IMPROVEMENT
WATER IMPROVEMENT
✓
OTHER:
ANY ADDITIONAL ROW OR EASEMENTS REQUIRED ?
NO
YES
ANY GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONCERNS ?
NO
YES
P4
ANY EXISTING CITY EASEMENTS ON RECORD FOR THE PROPERTY ?
NO
YES --� �'�az `t'��az- ,��►—��, Lr�'t S. 2'
ANY UTILITY CONCERNS ?
NO
YES_
Et-�T
Y wt fr) �, v - Vu � -
UTILITY SERVICES
EXISTING
TO BE BUILT
WATER SERVICE
t'\
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
NEsoet ,
ANY CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER TO BE iD ?
NO
YES
CASE#
IS5-'7
PROJECT
NAME
LE:V, I N)6-FO NJ 46 bOL- FAA` I
PROJECT
ADDRESS
11-30 G02 t f ( P0Ab �
CONTACT
PERSON
_Tolf1 DLL QVJE--L_ ,
ADDRESS
PHONE # _6701
--
INITIAL & DATE
APPLICATION RECEIVED
APPLICATION COMPLETE
COMM. DEV. DEPT. REVIEW COMPLETE
ENGINEERING DIV. REVIEW COMPLETE
REFERRAL RCA COMPLETE
PUBLISHED HEARING NOTICE COMPLETE & SENT
MAILED HEARING 140TICE COMPLETE & SENT
FILE PICRED UP BY DAHLGREN
PLANNING REPORT & FILES RECEIVED
RCA COMPLETE
CITY COU14CIL ACTION LETTER SENT
NOTICE SENT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT
P&Z ADIMIIN./ASS'T CITY ENG. REVIET•A OF
FINAL PLANS COMPLETE
P&Z ADMIN/ASS'T CITY ENGINEER INSPECTION
OF C014PLETED DEV. COMPLETE
5
At
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 4-11-88
ITEM NO.:
Department Approval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
/l _ . , , _
Report and Recommendation
Item Description: Gerald Kaufhold request for a preliminary plat
at 1130 County Road B.
The Planning Commission at it's April 6, 1988 meeting on a 4-3 vote
recommend denial of the preliminary plat based on the findings of
fact that:
1. The proposed park is too small, is inadequate and un-
workable.
2. The proposed plan is only a short range solution for the
site.
3. The plan does not address the site in a comprehensive manner.
4. The plan does not adequately protect prospective homeowners
purchasing property as part of the new plat.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny Gerald Kaufhold
request for preliminary plat. If the
preliminary plat is approved, then a
PLANNING NING REPORT*
L
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
6 April 1988
1830
Gerald Kauf hold
Southwest Corner of County
Road B and Lexington Avenue
(see sketch)
Preliminary Plat
1. This site consists of
8.17 net
acres (after street dedication) and has
been turned down by
the City
on two previous proposals, the first of
which included the conversion
of most of the existing school structure
to an "Antique Mall"
and the
second of which featured a use of a
significant portion of
the site for a new post office for the City. Both
of these development
projects
included proposals to dedicate . and sell
portions of the land
to the City for park purposes. Both proposals,
likewise, proposed the
rezoning
of and the use of all of the frontage on
County Road B for
business
purposes. Reference can be made to
previous planning reports on
these two proposals for more of the
details.
2. The applicant now (as stated in his application) "desires to sell the ten
residential lots identified on the preliminary plat, dedicate in excess of
10 percent of the property, and continue the lease on the existing
school building to Public School District 916". The applicant further
states:
"Gerald H. Kaufhold
2096 Fairways Lane.
West County Road B
of Rose Galleries for
antique merchandise.
s a resident of Roseville, Minnesota at
He has conducted a business at 1123
for ten years under the name and style
the consignment and sale of estate and
In order to enhance and facilitate his business, when the
Lexington School site came on the market for sale in 1986, he
became interested in it for a site for a possible new auction
house and the space necessary to obtain needed parking for his
operation. Currently, many of his customers use the school
parking lot as available during his auctions.
After discussions and review with Buet— & Associates, Inc.,_
and Mr. Tom Dunwell of that firm, aicing with the Planning
and Economic Development Consultants for the City of
Roseville, this Application and Preliminary Plat have been filed
to divide the property into 12 lot:,. Lot 1 would remain a
public school use with 916 continuing to lease the existing
school building. Lots 2 through 11 would be single-family lots
and lot 12 would be the land dedication required by ordinance
• Gerald
Kauf hold, Case No. 1830 Page 2
which is in excess of 10%. This land could be used for a
hockey rink area and Mr. Kaufhold would donate $15,000 to
help defray, the cost to move the rink, lights, and warming
house from the present location on the site."
3.
This proposal was reviewed with the applicant's architect, Tom Dunwell,
on February 17, 1988. Mr. Dunwell announced that they now "have no
choice but to divide the southerly portion of the site into ten
single-family lots". We noted that because the City had turned down
two proposals involving business zoning across the entire north of the
site, that it does not mean that a solution other than single-family lots
on a major portion of the site is the only alternative. There remain
-options for developing this site with less area in business use and
including well planned multi -family housing developments, institutional
uses, and open space which is considered by many to be an important
ingredient in the overall park system serving the City of Roseville.
4.
A significant part of the problem with the current proposal is that it
does not constitute a total solution for the site. The development of
single-family homes on portions of the site without planning, for and
determining the use of the remainder on a permanent basis could be a
major mistake. We are simply exposing new residences of the City of
Roseville (in the ten proposed lots) to possible and future unknown
business development that would be immediately contiguous to their
properties. In other words, we seem to be making the environmental
concerns and the compatibility issues greater in the future. We suggest
that it is not wise planning to do this on purpose.
5.
We noted that the City has a right to pursue its interest in maintaining
a portion of the site as a part of its original and existing park system
plan. Because two development proposals were turned down involving
unacceptable business land use proposals, does not mean that the City
advocates its need or desire for the retention of portions of this land
as a functional neighborhood park. Obviously, the development of a
portion of this land for single-family purposes is not the "highest and
best use" for the property under the circumstances. It appears to be a
solution where "everybody loses". What we are looking for is a solution
where "everybody wins".
6.
The proposed park dedication in the plat is for an area of 350.5 feet
(east -west dimension) by 115.39 feet (north -south). This proposed park
area is landlocked and accessible via a proposed 10.5 foot access to
Eldridge Avenue. Never in our experience had we found a City to
propose or except such a landlocked parcel for park purposes.
7.
In summary, the park proposed represents poor park planning because:
a) It is almost totally landlocked;
b) It is too small to be efficiently and effectively used to serve the
neighborhood needs;
c) The site has poor visibility from public streets and, therefore, is
difficult to patrol and supervise and will constitute a public
safety hazard;
d) Such a small, isolated park will be expensive to maintain;
e) Such a small and overused park will be an adverse influence on
the visibility of the contiguous single-family lots; and
Gerald Kaufhold, Case. 1830 Page 3
f) The scale and the location of the park make it incompatible with
the purpose and function of the property as originally planned in
the park system plan adopted by the City in 1960-61.
8. We understand that the proposed use of the northerly portion of the
site for schoul purposes by District 916 '.s proposed to continue for
approximately two years. There remains a very important question as
to the f-iture use of this land. It would be .bad public policy to make
a land ise commitment z.,;d change any portion of this relatively small
site anc leave the remainder unknown for the future. It is simply
delaying an important land use decision and likely makinn it more
difficult to achieve a compatible development on the northerly portion
of the site after additional single-family home owners occupy the
southerly portion. There is also, of course, a minor regulation detail
that requires a public school building not to be less than 30 feet from
a contiguous single-family lot. That regulation is violated.
9 9 Y g .
9. Though the land is zoned single-family (R-1), the land use plan which
controls the future land uses of the City still designates the land as a
public school. If a portion of the site is to be developed . for low
density residential, the land use plan should be changed accordingly. We
suggest that such a designation of low density residential for the area
of the land proposed to be platted now and leaving the remainder as a
public school would be very bad land planning since the days for the
use of the land fi ,r public school purposes are numbered. Therefore, it
is reasonable on the part of the City (hopefully working with the land
owner) to achieve an overall land use plan and development proposal
that . will be compatible with the considerable concentration of
single-family homes in the immediate vicinity and the community as a
whole.
10. The Planning Commission and Council may wish to consider an action
that would provide for:
a) A more' appropriately scaled and located park site consistent with
the original parks plan in the overall community interests;
b) A long range look at the overall land use, zoning,
and development of the site;
c) Elimination of an inadequately sized and located park for the
reasons as listed in this report; and
d) Development that would be compatible with the single-family
homes in the area, the traffic capacity of the street serving the
site, and the land use pattern as established in the contiguous
quadrants of the county road serving this site.
LAW OFFICES OF
PETERSON, BELL, CONVERS
E & JENSEN
2100 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
101 EAST FIFTH STREET
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101
(612) 224-4703
ERWIN A. PETERSON
ROBERT C. BELL
WZLLARD L. CONVERSE
ROGER A. JENSEN April 14, 1988
KURT F. WALTHER
W. TIMOTHY MALCHOW
MARTIN J. COSTELLO
JAMES C. ERICKSON
WILLIAM M. DRINANE
PAMELA CONVERSE ZERIN
CAROL A. BALDWIN
ADAM E. BRIDGE
City Council
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Preliminary Plat for
1130 County Road "B"
Our File No.
1011.19
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a proposed
resolution denying
the preliminary plat
for the
property owned
by Gerald Kaufhold
at 1130 County Road
" "
B
If the
council finds this
to be in order
it could be adopted.
I think
it would be a
good idea to have a
meeting between myself
and the
council members
for about 15 minutes
prior to the .ouncil
meeting
at which this
is taken up.
Very truly yours,
PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE
& JENSEN
Robert C. Bell
f
RCB/ap
Enc.
:L
S "IJSR�n@e>r:
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of
Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the day of 1988 at
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Member moved that the following resolution denying
the application for preliminary plat at 1130 County Road B be
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO.
DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 1130 COUNTY ROAD B.
WHEREAS, Gerald Kaufhold is the owner or has an interest in
certain property in the City of Roseville _located at the
Southwest corner of County Road B and Lexington Avenue, and has
reliminary plat for only part of said
filed,an application for a p
land.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Roseville has
received a report from a professional planner retained by said
City that the proposed plat would create certain problems for the
Council has also received from
Th
e Ci
ty
City of
Roseville.y
Robert Bierscheid, Director of Parks and Recreation for the City,
a report indicating that the proposed park shown on the
preliminary plat is not feasible to become a part of the park
program of the City of Roseville.
WHEREAS, The City Council for the City of Roseville has
determined, based on the reports and the testimony at the hearing
that the following facts are true:
1. The proposed plat creates a future planning problem for s
lan
the land immediately to the North of etheopdndaCountyeRoadd
North of the proposed plat lies between Alata
"B". Until a final determination is made on the use of that
property, it is impossible to properly plan the area covered by
the proposed plat of Gerald Kaufhold.
2. The proposed park dedication would create a -1- a-nd-locked
park,,without sufficient accessibilty. The proposed access via
the proposed 10.5 foot access is inadequate.
3. The proposed plat violates the policyof
the
hecCity
of
Roseville to avoid, where possible, driveways g with a
major thoroughfare.
0
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, by the City Councii of the
City of Roseville that the preliminary plat r for
ne property
owned by Gerald Kaufhold at 1130 County
Road The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
nd u on a vote being
duly seconded by member a p
taken thereon, the following voted in and the avor hfollowing voted
against the same:
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted this day of
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of
the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of
attc
hereby certify that I have carefully compared the
meetingeofand the
foregoing extract of minutes of a
said City Council held on the day of
1988 with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this day
of. , 1988.
James F. Andre, City Manager
(seal)
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
i
Department approval: Manager Reviewed:
DATE: 4-25-88
ITEM NO.:
Agenda Section:
Report and Recommendation
Item Description: Gerald Kaufhold request for a preliminary plat
at 1130 County Road B.
The Planning Commission at it's April 6, 1988 meeting on a 4-3 vote
initially recommended denial of the proposed preliminary plat.
Subsequently, at the April 11, 1988 City Council meeting, the
decision relating to this project was continued to the April
25, 1988 City Council meeting. At the subsequent work session on
April 18th, the City Council decided that it may be appropriate to
continue this decision to the May 9, 1988 City Council meeting in
order to allow time to review alternative developments on this site
with Mr. Kaufhold. Therefore a motion to continue this project
until May 9 is in order.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny continuation of
the Gerald Kaufhold request for
preliminary plat at 1130 County Road B to
the May 9, 1988 City Council meeting.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 4, 1988
TO: Jim Andre
FROM: Craig A. Waldron
SUBJECT: Lexington School Site
I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of developers
regarding potential multi -family projects on the Lexington School
site. The Baton Development Company is the most interested in
this site and is willing to look at a medium density residential
project with approximately 3.acres of park to the south.
At this point in time, Baton will be meeting with Kaufhold to
ascertain whether they can buy his rights to develop the
property. If Kaufhold is agreeable, the developers will proceed
to meet with the school district to ascertain whether there is
any flexibility to the terms that the school district formulated
with the original Kaufhold contract. If these 'two meetings
produce favorable results, Baton will again meet with me to
review the type of agreement that can be worked out with the City
in terms of the park dedication, C.D.B.G., tax increment, type of
payment, etc.
If in fact Kaufhold and the school district are not willing to
negotiate, the City may have to let Kaufhold's deal run its
course. In the event that he defaults or does not decide to
proceed with his deal, Baton would then be interested in entering
into negotiations with the school board, and subsequently the
city. It should also be pointed out that the School Board has
extended Kaufhold's final payment from August to October.
Department Approval: Manager Reviewed:
Report and Recommendation
f
Item Descrip ion: Gerald Kaufhold request for a preliminary plat
at 1130 County Road B.
The Planning Commission at it's April 6, 1988 meeting on a 4-3 vote
initially recommended denial of the proposed preliminary plat.
Subsequently, at the April 11, 1988 City Council meeting, the
decision relating to this project was continued to the April
25, 1988 City Council meeting. At the April 25, 1988 meeting the
City Council continued this decision to the May 9, 1988 City Council
meeting in order to allow time to review alternative developments on
this site with Mr. Kaufhold.*
Attached is a resolution from the city attorney's office concerning
the potential denial of the preliminary plat.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the Gerald
Kaufhold request for preliminary plat at
1130 County Road B, if so desired.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of
Roseville will meet at Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, on
Wednesday, June 1, 1.988 at 7:30 p.m., for the purpose of considering
the following request:
Gerald Kaufhold request for preliminary plat at the former Lexington
School site at 1130 W. county Road B. (The applicant proposes to
divide the site into a total of 10 lots which includes 8 single family
lots, 1 lot for the existing school, and 1 lot dedicated as green
space) .
The City Council, of the City of Roseville, will meet on Monday,
June 13, 1988 at City Hall at 7:30 p.m., to consider this request.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of the East 660 feet of the North half of the Northeast
quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 23
lying North of the South 30 feet thereof.
—37mes F. Andre, City Manager
L_J
pli
Aff bauit of Publicatt'jan
Mate of Minnexiota
C90nntu of naming
N . Theodore Li l l i. a being duly sworn, on oath says that
he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee cf the publisher of the newspaper
known as Roseville Review and has full knowledge of the facts which
are stated below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as
a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
(B) The printed public Hearing Notice
which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published
once each week, for 1 _ successive weeks; it was first published onTuesda *_, the
2 4 th day cif May 19 U and was thereafter printed and published on every
to and including , the day of , 19 ; and printed
below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby
acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the
notice;
' 48CI]EF3►!SIKI t�lNnpnFiCTIiVWXYz
'abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz B Y :
TITL
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
this 24th day of ' M.ay, , 19 88—•
2 a-l'r 'e�L -." I
Notary Public
"Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice.
;•;;:!r.;`.,, CAROLS HEURUNG
NOTARY PUBLIC - hiINiVF.Sr:iA RATE INFORMATION
RAMSEY COUNTY
`�f�`•' M Commission Expires May 7. 1wJ2
...a. Y
owest classified rate paid by
commercial users for comparable space ........................... $10.31 per col. inch
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter .................. $7.04 per col. inch
(3) Rate actually charged for the above matter ..................... $ per col. inch
1 /88
C HEAFUNG NATO
VV}U,i4iITMAY_Cf 1,
{ ytlf tioeeYime nM Test at Posswie city HA
r rDOW.On Wsdnos*.,hmo i,1989
�0 tfwpurposeotooraiderinpHNtoow•
fequeet for or plat at tM
��tpooQ! fiehod sd� N 1130 W.. POW
*00 tm* lom I fot for
a ' wW t bt dedicsod of green
�'' r CoWtcM: of the City of RosevMs, *0 meet
Y. t 3,'19W at City Ham at 7 30 p.m..
DYSC
+ PSI of �e6BQ feet vltAch haU al the
t quarter of The Northeast quwter of Section
>i Towpship 29, Ranpe 23.lyinp North of thg South
Jainis F. "Andro'.
CRY Manager
vimY Revkw::May 21, t.t)t38) � �.
•
•
ROSEVILLE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
ROSEVILLE AREA SCHOOLS
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 623
1251 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
May 24, 1988
7:00 p.m.
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, AND COMMENTS
A. Library Card Presentation
IV. COMMUNITY INPUT
A. P.T.A. Coordinating Council
B. Citizen Comments
V.
VI.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of the Regular School Board Meeting of May 10, 1988
B. Payment of Bills
C. Resignat' rns and Appointments
D. Adjustments
DISCUSSION, REPORTS, AND OTHER NON -ACTION ITEMS.
A.
D160
5/2019/88
School Board Policy ED: School Bus Transportation. FIRST
READING. Commentary by Mr. Paul Borg.
Mr. Jan VandF;rwall, Transportation Supervisor, will provide a f
brief description of an., rationale for a change in the manner in
which the Roseville Area Schools reimburses non-public school
parents who transport their= stude,its to the school district's. ! {
boundaries.
As described in the enclosure, the policy change is consistent
with that which is found in several other Metro area school
districts, does not affect parents of non-public school students
adversely, and streamlines school district operating procedures.
This item will appear for a SECOND READING on the June 7 School
Board meeting agenda with a request for action.
Mentorship Program. Commentary by Dr. Rosemary Schneiderhan.
A well kept secret" is that the Roseville Area Schools has
offered i�,entorship program opportunities for its students over
the past five years.
1
Dr. Rosemary Schneiderhan, Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum and Instruction, will introduce Roseville Area High
School students who have been involved in mentorship programs
during the 1987-1988 school year and furnish information about
the types of projects in which these students have been involved.
C. School Board Policy KGA: Use of Buildings and Grounds. FIRST
READING. Commentary by Mr. James Klassen.
Enclosed is a copy of a proposed revision of School Board Policy
KGA: Use of School Buildings and Grounds.
Mr. James Klassen, Director or Community Education, will provide
an overview of the specific changes in and rationale for
modifying School Board Policy KGA.
This item will appear on the June 7 School Board meeting agenda
for a SECOND READING with a request for action.
VII. A. Floating Holidays: Teachers and Twelve Month Employees.
Prepared by Mr. E. Keith Smelser.
I recommend that floating holidays for teachers, clerical,
administrative and custodial groups be approved as specified in
the enclosed May 10 and 17, 1988 memoranda, prepared by Mr. E.
Keith Smelser, Assistant to the Superintendent for Personnel.
B. Placement of Teaching Staff Members on Unrequested Leave of
Absence. Prepared by Mr. E. Keith Smelser.
In accordance with Minnesota Statute 125.12 and for those reasons
specified in the resolutions adopted by the School Board when
teaching staff members were placed on proposed unrequested leave
of absence, I recommend the School Board adopt the enclosed
resolution placing the specified staff members, cited in School
Board agenda documentation, on unrequested leave of absence for
the 1988-1989 school year.
i.
C. Sale of Lexington Elementary School: Temporary Suspension of
Purchase Pa menus. Commentary by Mt•. Paul Borg.
Mr. Gerald Kaufhold, owner and proprietor of Rose Galleries, has
requested that the schedule of payments for the purchase of
Lexington Elementary School be temporarily suspended until the
October 3, 1988 sale closing. At that time, Mr. Kaufhold will be
obligated to make full payment o-,= the outstanding balance as
specified in the agreement for the purchase of Lexington
Elementary School.
Mr. Kaufhold has requested the temporary suspension of purchase
payments in order to underwrite the preparation of architectural
renderings which will result in the City of Roseville Council
approval of plans for future development of the Lexington
Elementary School property.
2
I recommend the School Board authorize the administration to have
legal counsel prepare a purchase agreement addendum which will
permit a temporary suspension of purchase payments by Mr.
Kaufhold until closing on the property on October 3, 1988.
D. 916 Lease. Commentary by Mr. Paul Borg.
Enclosed is a proposed document for the lease of Lexington
Elementary School to Northeast Metropolitan Intermediate School
District 916 for the months of August and September, 1988.
I recommend the School Board approve and execute the enclosed
lease agreement.
E. Sale of Spooner Park. Commentary by Mr. Paul Borg.
Enclosed is a letter from City of Little Canada Mayor, Mr. Mike
Fahey, in which he describes recent actions by the City of Little
Canada Council on the sale of property known as Spooner Park.
I recommend the School' Board authorize the sale of Spooner Park
without the proposed deed restriction, but with the
"understandings" clearly in focus as specified in Mr. Fahey's
letter.
F. Canvass of Ballots, School Board Election. Commentary by Mr.
Edward Fick.
Mr. Edward Fick, Clerk of the Roseville Area Schools' Board, will
furnish a report on the canvass of the ballots for the School
Board election of May 17, 1988.
I recommend the School Board certify the results of the School
Board election of Tuesday, May 17 and execute any and all
documents related thereto.
N. Final Budget, 1987-1988. Commentary by Mr. Paul Borg.
Enclosed is the final budget for the Roseville Area Schools
for the 1987-1988 school year.
Mr. Paul Borg, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services,
will furnish an overview of salient features of 1987-1988
revenues and expenditures and, along with members of the
Executive Council staff and Superintendent of Schools, respond to
questions School Board members may have.
I recommend the School Board adopt the final budget for the
1987-1988 organizational year.
H. Direct Deposit of Net Par. Prepared by Mr. E. Keith Smelser.
Roseville Area Schools will offer its staff members the
opportunity to participate,voluntarily, in the direct deposit of
net pay to banking institutions by electronic means.
3
Spa
recommend the School Board execute the enclosed document,
permitting the school district to participate in direct deposit
of net pay.
I. Appointment of Director of Business Services. Commentary by
-S--up—erintendent Roger Worner.
After 29 years of service, Mr. Paul Borg, Assistant
Superintendent of Business Services, will be retiring at the
conclusion of the 1987-1988 school year. He has had a remarkable
record of outstanding service to the Roseville Area Schools.
I recommend the School Board apoint Mr. John Thein as Director of
Business Services to replace Mr. Borg, effective July 1, 1988.
Mr. Thein is currently Assistant Superintendent for Business
Affairs in the Wahpeton (North Dakota) Public Schools.
J. Life Insurance Bids. Commentary by Mr. Paul Borg.
The attached memorandum and bid tabulation provided by Mr. Paul
Borg explains the unusual situation in which the district found
itself with its group life insurance plan. We are all pleased
with the outcome but distressed with the measures that were
required to achieve the outcome.
I recommend the School Board reject all group term life insurance
kids.
Loxirigtori School News
May 26, 1988
Citizens'
Committee for the Preservation of
the Lexington School
Park Area
Tom Turba
Jerry Wilkins Dave Jaehne
Mary Bakeman
Don Hamilton
1170 W Burke
1151 Karyl Place 1171 Eldridge
1178 W Co Rd B
1154 Eldridge
489-0779
489-0463 488-6832
488-4416
489-0653
Would You Believe.,,,
•Another New Plan?
o School District Says
Kaufold Need Not Make
Payments? (over)
T• ; ;, well -considered decision, the
roseville City Council denied Kaufold's
request for preliminary plat which
called for single family home lots on
the park site, with intentions of even-
tual rezoning for the northern half of
the property. The 4 findings of fact
given for the denial were:
"1. The proposed plat creates a future planning
problem for the land immediately to the north
of the proposed plat. The land north of the
proposed platy lies between the plan and
County Road B. Until a final determination
is made on the use of that property, it is
impossible to properly plan the area covered
by the proposed plat of Gerald Kaufold. The
applicant himself has acknowledged the con-
nection between the proposed plat and the
land north of the proposed plat by his
proposal that there be a deed restriction on
the deeds to the residential property in the
proposed plat, giving notice to purchasers
that the property immediately north of the
plat may be developed for commercial pur-
poses,
"Z. The proposed park dedication would create a
landlocked park without sufficient acces-
sibility to the public at large and because
of it inaccessibility will be extremely dif-
ficult to supervise and police. The proposed
10,5 foot access point is inadequate.
I. The proposed plat violates the policy of the
City of Roseville to avoid, where possible,
driveways intersecting with a major thorough-
fare.
N . There has been an insufficient showing by ap-
plicant of any hardship or change of cir-
cumstances which justifies not presently
planning for the present or future develop-
ment of the entire parcel consistent with its
current residential zoning."
The New Plan:
The new plan is remarkably similar to
the last plan, with two exceptions:
First, he has dropped the two residen-
tial lots that faced Lex. Second, he
has moved the park from the center of
the southern half to Lex, so that it is
no longer landlocked. While the new
plan answers the second fact listed by
the Council in their denial, it does
not address the intentions for the lot
to the north, a necessary access from
Lex for park maintenance, nor hardship
for planning the entire parcel under
its existing residential zoning.
Kudos to City Staff!
The City Staff has attempted to work
with Kaufold in developing the property
under the residential zoning. They have
provided him with good counsel in what
needs to be do;ie to meet with approval.
They have found developers, looked at
alternatives, and generally been siT-
portive of his efforts. At the same
time, they are ensuring that c'irrent
and future citizens of Roseville will
not be left with problems resulting
from inappropriate land use.
As taxpayers, we want to thank these
dedicated public servants. We ap-
preciate your efforts.
Upcoming Events:
June 1, 7:30 p.m., Roseville Planning
Commission, City Hall, Co Rd C at Lex
June 13, 7:30 p.m., Roseville City
Council, City Hall, Co Rd C at Lex
1-1
District 623, Kaufold and the
Purchase Agreement
On June 1, Kaufold presents his new
plan to the Roseville Planning Commis-
sion, and his purchase agreement with
Dist 623 will be one year old. While
the Dist says 'no one else has made an
offer for this property,' they have not
explained how anyone else CAN mane an
offer when an agreement already exits.
Nor has much changed financially in
that year. Purchase price for the
property was $1,008,000; to date,
Kaufold has paid $25,000 or 2.5%. At
the Board meeting on 5/24, Kaufold re-
quested and received suspension of
another $15,000 due before closing.
In addition, Kaufold asked for and the
Dist approved setting back the closing
date of the sale from Aug to Oct. This
alone results in a loss of almost
$20,000, assuming a 12% interest rate
(the 'late -pay' rate in the new lease
between the tenant, Dist 916, Dist 623
and Kaufold) .
Dist 623 neither asked for an increased
purchase price nor interest to be paid
to offset this loss. The Dist ob-
viously believes that someone who can't
pay $15,000 this summer will be able to
pay almost $1,000,000 in Oct.
Why?
Only the parties involved can say, and
they have not been willing to say much
publicly. However, at the 5/24 Board
meeting, Paul Borg (retiring Business
Manager) asked to be put on record as
supporting Mr Kaufold. He said, "The
District would be well served to sup-
port him, as we would otherwise get a
considerably lower purchase price."
Supt Worner responded in a letter dated
1/7/88 to a question on the basis of
the appraisal for the property: "The
answer is both (residential and
commercial). Mr. K. Vincent Dolan, the
school district's appraiser on this
property, appraised the residential
worth for a portion of the property at
$1.75/square foot, and the remaining
commercial property at $3.50/square
foot." The entire 8.54 acres is zoned
R-1, single family/school. Why should
the appraisal include any portion at
'commercial' rates? The purchase price
at the $1.75/square foot rate makes the
total about $600,000, a more reasonable
price for residential and park use.
In contrast, Spooner Park, just sold to
Little Canada by Dist 623, works out to
less ti.an $.50/square foot. With that
sale, the District attempted to tack on
asseosments to the purchase price after
the agreement was made, and they asked
for a deed restriction requiring the
land to remain parkland, unless the
School Board approved a change. Little
Canada refused, and the sale was made
without either amendment.
The District has asked Little Canada to
rezone the land at Capitol View,
without regard -to Little Canada's right
to control land use through zoning, so
that the purchase price for that
property could be increased.
It seems clear that the long standing
cooperation between Dist 623 and the
communities and taxpayers it serves
takes second place to their perception
that the School Dist's needs must be
met, under their terms.
What Can You Do?
1. Cal: Boger Horner and Paul Borg at 633-8150
(Roseville Area Schools District Center) or
write them at 1251 W Co Rd B-2, Roseville, MN
55113, Express your support for keeping com-
mercial property in commercial sites, and
open space where possible. Remind them tha`
land use is a City decision, and not one di
tated by the Schools.
2. Call or write your School Board members,
Foster leaves the Board on 6/30, and Ellen
Shelton joins it then. Credible long term
facility plans must be worked out.
3. Attend the Planing Coamission and Council
meetings, Every person and every voice
counts. We need your involvement.
School Board 8eabers
Thoaas Berts (chair), 1259 Carden, 644-0990
Sue Cummings, 2230 Marion Rd, 636-3995
Edward Fi- , 3191 Hafner Ct, 483-4727
Richard Foster, 678 E Co Rd B, 774-7509
Mi!:dy Creiling, 2495 Marion St, 490-0013
Earl Hoekman, 365 Brooks, 483-3617
Ellen Shelton, 2018 N Lex, 488-0795
Mt
PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
(C(31p'�Y
1 June 1988
1857
Gerald H. Kaufhold
Southwest Corner of County
Road B and Lexington Avenue
(see sketch)
Approval of Preliminary Plat
1. As you all know, the proposal regarding the use of this property has
previously been submitted by Mr. Kaufhold. The first proposal included
the rezoning of the northerly half of the site and a portion of the
easterly part of the site i-o business uses utilizing the existing school
Largely as an antique mall, the construction of a new structure for Rose
Gallery, some offices and the retention _of a . portion of the site for
park purposes. The second proposal included the use of most of the
northerly half of the site for a new United States Post Office, the
development of a Rose Gallery facility, an office building (the old
original school), and a portion for park purposes. The third proposal
was for the development of ten. single-family lots fronting on Lexington,
Eldridge, and Lindy Avenues, with a portion of the land for public park,
and the remainder to be left for school use.
2. In general, the City has resisted the use of significant portions of the
site for business purposes (at least in the manner and extent proposed)
and has expressed strong interest in the use of a reasonable portion of
the site for neighborhood park purposes.
3. The land is shown on the Comprehensive Plan as a public school, and
the first decision is one of amending the Comprehensive Plan to
conform to any new use that may be proposed and ultimately approved
by the City. Though the land is zoned R-1, the approval of a
preliminary plat under that zoning should conform to the Comprehensive
Plan. In terms of land use, the current proposal utilizes 5.6 acres to
be left for school purposes, 2.13 acres for single-family dwellings, and
.88 acres for park land. It would seem appropriate and reasonable that
the designation of the land use for the total site should be agreed upon
in the form of a land use plan amendment prior to the approval of a
development proposal for any part of the property.
4. The current proposal is to plat the entire property into ten lots. Lot 1
would be the 5.16 acres left to be utilized for school purposes. Lots 2
through 9 would be single-family lots, each of which meet or exceed
the normal lot standards according to the Roseville Zoning Ordinance
and subdivision regulations. l-at 10 is .88 acres, or 37,982.17 feet,
which constitutes 10.66 percent of the total property. This designation
Gerald H. Kaufhold, Case No. 1857 ag 2
of park dedication is in accordance with current subdivision regulations
requiring such dedications if land is to be platted consisting of more
than 5 acres.
5. There would seei-n to be two p, incipal concerns with respect to the
redevelopment of the old Lexington Schoo. site:
a) First, there is a question of the retention of a portion of the
site for park purposes. As you all know, the initial park plan for
the City designed in 1960 included the use of a portion of this
site for neighborhood park purposes. The use of the open space
portions of public sites as a part of the overall community park
system is a common practice. Thus, the loss of such a public
school facility (as is proposed here) constitutes a serious
deleterious impact on the quality of the system and the service
to the immediate area. Though proposals for dedication and
possible sale on the part of the applicant to the City for park
purposes have been included in previous proposals, they were in
conjunction with business rezonings which the City found
unacceptable. There still remains the lack of a reasonable
proposal on the part of the applicant for the City to consider for
the use and purchase of some of the land for park purposes.
This is a serious concerr , and all reasonable alternatives of
securing and maintaining the park function should be explored.
The problem here is that the single-family lots are proposed to
be located where the park should be. Therefore, the approval of
the preliminary plat as proposed is forever closing the door to
having an appropriately placed and property scaled park at this
location.
b) The second matter of great concern is the ultimate use of the
school building and its immediate environs. At a recent meeting
with Mr. Kaufhold, he indicated that he has a two year lease
with District 916 and anticipates that the lease may be extended
indefinately for a number of years. If this is true, the continued
use of the site for school purposes may be a reasonable land use
designation and could go on in perpetuity.
However, we are informed from Mr. Bierscheid who has spoken
with officials from District 916 that the use of this school will
likely be terminated at the end of the current lease
(approximately two years) and that funding for the development of
new facilities has been approved in a recent bond issue. These
officials inform Mr. Bierscheid that they do not intend to extend
this lease, with the result that the proposed continued school use
is by no means a reasonable, permanent solution.
Under these circumstances it appears to be unwise on the part of the
land owner and the City of Roseville to commit a portion of the site
for single-family residential purposes without there being a proposed,
reasonable, and approvable solution for the remainder of the site. This
simply is not wise city planning, development strategy, nor is it in the
PY Y P
public interest. Therefore, we suggest to the Planning Commission and
Council the consideration of not amending the Comprehensive Plan in
accordance with the pl-` as proposed, but recommend to the a 3plicant
Gerald H. Kaufhold, Case No. 1857 Page
that long range solutions for the property in question be proposed and
hopefully will be compatible with the neighborhood interests, the wider
community interests, and workable for the developer and owner.
b. In the mean time, the Council has requested that the Community
Development Director make contact with other developers who may be
interested in utilizing the site. Mr. Craig Waldron, Community
Development Director, has pursued this objective and has a major
developer interested in considering the site. Mr. Waldron informs us
that he antiticipates receiving the outlines of the development proposal
by the end of May. Mr. Kaufhold 'has noted his agreement to sell the
property at a price reviewed with Mr. Waldron. The objective of such
a proposal would be to develop the land for multi -family housing
purposes and would include the retention of a major portion of the site
for park purposes. It would seem reasonably important to allow
sufficient time in order to consider a potenLial solution under such a
concept.
7. In summary, though the proposed action requested is simply a platting
_ of the land without rezoning of the property, the implication of that
plat will have far reaching and permanent impact on the two major
questions remaining, i.e., a long range and permanent park decision and
the ultimate use of the properties now temporarily occupied by the
school. It would seem inadvisable to proceed with decisions on portions
of the land and likely be a mistake on the remainder. Obviously, we
should avoid for the sake of all parties the possibility of "making a
mistake on purpose".
•
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department Approval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Consent Agenda
Item Description: Gerald Kaufhold request for preliminary plat
approval at 1130 West County Road B.
The Roseville Planning Commission at its June 1, 1988 meeting on a
5-1 vote tabled consideration of Gerald Kaufhold's request for
approval of a preliminary plat at 1130 West County Road B until July
61 1988 to allow time to review alternative developments on this
site with Mr. Kaufhold. Therefore a motion to continue this item to
July 11, 1988 is in order.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny continuation of
the Gerald Kaufhold request for a
preliminary plat at 1130 County Road B to
the July 11, 1988 City Council meeting.
•
June 21, 1988
Gerald H. Kaufhold
2096 Fairways Lane
Roseville, MN 55113
i
Dear Mr. Kaufhold,
at its June 13, 1988 meeting,
The Roseville City Council, plat at 1130 W. County
continued your request for preliminary
Road B to the July 11, 1988 City Council meeting.
If you should have any questions,
contact me.
SiTIV.
rely,
Craialdron
Diref Community Development
Cityseville
:ms
please do not hesitate to
3b(�U (al'IC. (�l:v'!'!;!Z 1)ItlN'l�. • !ZOSj—' ,l.l: • MI\\!?5O7�1 .55113 • (�13--!`�-1-3371.
PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
6 July 1988
1857
Gerald H. Kaufhold
Southwest Corner of
County Rcad and
Lexington Avenue (see
sketch)
Approval of Preliminary
Plat
1. Attached is a copy of the Planning Report prepared for the
June meeting of the Planning Commission when Mr.
Kaufhold°s proposal was tabled to the next regular
meeting. General concerns relate to the disposition of a
park fF,cility and the ultimate use of the remainder of the
land (5.16 acres) now proposed for a single-family lot, or
park dedication. There was also the question of a
possible usu of this property for multi -family housing
.irposes (including a park) by a potential developer who
had been meeting with Craig Waldron, Community Development
Director.
2. At an informal work session, Mr. Waldron presented a
scenario under wl.-ic"i this developer could possibly develop
the site utilizing tax increment financing and a City
contribution toward a park site. The result was an
indication from the Council that the sums of money
involved were tcj large, and that the solution (as
presented wi:.h that developer) would not be workable.
3. Not withstanding that attempt to utilize the land for
multi -family housing and park purposes, there remains the
critical question as to whether or not the preliminary
plat as proposed is an appropriate and intelligent
development proposal. Our concerns relate to the fact
that the plat as presented merely represents the easiest,
cheapest, and most expeditious way of carving out a few
lots with no investment in streets and minimal investment
in utilities, without regard as to the overall solution to
the bulk of the land remaining. Mr. Kaufhold claims that
the continued use of the site for school purposes will go
on indefinitely and that represents a long term use.
Information obtained from the staff of District 916
a
Gerald H. Kaufhold, Case No. 1857
Page 2
indicates otherwise. They have the money and the desire
to relocate in their own facilities and have, in fact,
reduced the number of students currently at the Lexington
Avenue site by one-half for enrollment this fall.
4. We suggest that developing a parcel of land in a first
string suburb virtually surrounded by single-family
development without a total long range plan is unfair to
the surrounding land owners, not in the public interests,
and not an intelligent approach on the part of the
developer. No community in the Metropolitan Area that we
know of would seriously pursue such a solution. This
observation is based on 30 years of doing private and
public sector work in this and other Metropolitan Areas.
5. Mr. Kaufhold has reiterated to us verbally with the advice
of an appraiser,_that.the remainder of the land is a
"commercial site". It is this kind of supposition
(already turned down by the City) that leads to the
concern relating to the platting of a portion of the site
for single-family homes without regard to an intelligent
solution for the remainder of the land. If additional
areas of the site are to be developed for single-family
purposes, for instance the platting of the land as
proposed utilizing the street frontage to the west and
south, may be a mistake. Mr. Kaufhold's position is that
having tried two development programs involving
substantial Business zoning and having failed in each, his
only alternative is to plat the developable single-family
lots and worry about the rest later. The question is
whether this is a reasonable and intelligent way to go for
both the developer and the City. In the process of
approving a preliminary plat, the City is to determine
that the division of the land and the uses in which it is
to be puc are reasonable and appropriate and in the public
interests. It would seem that determination is impossible
to make without a reliable determination of all of the
land uses involved within the relatively near future.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 7-11-88
ITEM NO.:
Department Approval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
-h
Hearings
491V
Item Description: Gerald Kaufhold request for a comprehensive
plan change from school to park and low r;
density residential and preliminary plat at
the former Lexington School site at 1130
County Road B.
The Roseville Planning Commission, at its July 6, 1988 meeting on a
6-1 vote recommended that the City Council deny the comprehensive
plan change because the proposal does not provide a long term plan
for the use of the total site. The Commission further recommended
on a 7-0 vote that the preliminary plat be denied for the following
reasons:
1. The proposal is not consistent with the city's comprehensive
plan.
2 The applicant failed to provide a long term plan for the
total site.
3. The sanitary sewer location is not acceptable to staff.
4. The applicant has requested only low density on a portion of
the site and not on the total site.
A resolution making finding of fact on this matter has been drafted
by the city attorney's office and will be provided to the council at
the July 11, 1988 m(--, Ang .
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve/deny the resolution
concerning Kaufhold's request for a
comprehensive plan change form school to
park and low density residential and for
a preliminary plat at 1130 County Road B
if so desired.
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a Regular Meeting
Ramseyof e
City Council of the City of Roseville, Coy
Minnesota was duly held on the 25th day of July, 1988, beginning
at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
The following members were present: Cushman, Kehr, Johnson,
Matson and Rog. Nc, members were absent.
Member moved that the following resolution denying
Gerald Kaufhold's request for a comprehensive plan change from
school to low density residential and park and application for
preliminary plat at 1130 Country Road B be adopted.
RESOLUTION NO.
DENIAL OF REQUEST
FOR
COMPREHENSIVE
AND PRELIMINARY FROM
LAT SCHOOL
1130
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
COUNTRY ROAD B.
WHEREAS, Gerald Kauf hold is the owner of or has an interest
in certain property in the City of Roseville located at the
Southwest corner of County Road B and Lexington Avenue, and has
filed an application for a comprehensive plan change from school
to park and low density residential and for a preliminary plat;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Roseville has
received a report from a professional planner retained by the
City that the proposed plat does not provide a long term plan for
the use of the total site; and
WHEREAS, the City has received f:com the Parks Commission a
report that the park dedication in the proposed plat is un-
suitable and inconsistent with the city's park plan; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has twice before applied for rezoning
of the site to permit business uses, which applications have been
denied; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Roseville has
determined, based on the reports, other evidence and testimony at
the hearing that the following facts are true:
1. The applicant has failed to provide a long term plan for
the total, entire site.
2. it is in the best interests of the city to consider and
approve the use of the entire site as a total concept, rather
than piecemeal.
3. The applicant proposes to initially plat only the
easiest and least valuable gexisting and complex ontage nor northernlyp
and
and has not addressed the more valuable
northeastern portions of the site.
4. The applicant's prior applications for business zoning
indicate that the northern portion of has the
site will in the past,not be used
as a school in the future, as
it 5. The applicant has .requested a comprehensive plan change
from school to park and low density for only a portion of the
site, not the entire site.
6. The applicant
has
not submitted a plan
for vehicular
of the
circulation to, through
and
around the northern
portion
site.
7. If the existing Burke Avenue were extended through the
site, Preliminary Plat Lot 2 would become a sub -minimum width
corner lot.
8. The proposed park dedication is not consistent
with t city
the
park plans, or the interests and wishes of the
southwest of the site.
9. The proposed plat creates a future planning problem for
the land immediately north of proposed Lots 2 through ro1
designated Lot 1 in the proposed plat. Due to its size, proposed
Lot 1 is unsuitable for residential use. Until a final
determination is made on the proposed use of that property,
it is
impossible to properly plan the area covered by the proposed plat
of Gerald Kaufhold.
10. The proposed park dedication lacks sufficient
accessibility to the public at large and would be extremely
difficult to supervise and police.
11. The developer is unwilling to sell proposed Lots 2
through 9 subject to deed restrictions that the northerly portion
of the site, proposed Lot 1, will remain in residential use.
12. There has been an insufficient showing by applicant of
any hardship or change of circumstances which justifies not
presently planning for the present or future; development of the
entire parcel consistent with its current residential zoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Roseville that the application for a comprehensive plan
change and for a preliminary plat for -the property owned by
Gerald Kaufhold at 1130 Country Road B is denied.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
2
seconded by member and upon the vote thereon,
the following voted in favor: and the
following voted against:
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted on the llth day of July, 1988.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the City Manger of the City of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby
cerhe
tify that I have carefully compared Council ofthis tthetCitytof
Minutes of the Regular Meet inq of the City 1988 with the original
Roseville held on the ?lehinmaof Jr
offuice and this Extract is
minutes thereof on fiY
accurate.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as Manager this day of
, 1988.
James F. Andre, City Manager
is
.r.
; ..L
ERWIN A. PETERSON
ROBERT C. BELL
WILLAI. ) L. CONVERSE
ROGER A.JENSEN
KURT F. WALTHER
W. TIMOTHY MALCHOW
MARTIN J. COSTELLO
JAMES C. ERICKSON
DAVID S. ANDERSON
WILLIAM M. DRINANE
PAMELA CONVERSE ZERIN
CAROL A. BALDWIN
ADAM E. BRIDGE
SCOTT B. CROSSMAN
LAW OFFICES OF
PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN
2100 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
101 EAST FIFTH STREET
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
(612) 224 -4703
Mr. Rick Jopke
Roseville Planning & Zoning
Administrator
Roseville City Hall
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
July 21, 1988
RE: Gerald Kaufhold Resolution
Our ^ile No. 1011.19
Dear Mr. Jopke:
Enclosed is the revised Draft Resolution in this matter, per our `
July 21 discussion.
U;
Yours very truly,
PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN
William M. Drinane
WMD/llg
Enclosure
ur
1
1
1
'1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DWIGHT W. DAHLEN,,MAI, SREA
DANIEL E. DWYER
BEVERLY H. DWYER.
MICHAEL J. BETTENDORF, MAI
MARC E. KNOCHE
DAHLEN & DWYER, INC.
1260 NORWEST CENTER TOWER • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 • (612) 224-1381
October 7, 1988
Mr. Craig A. Waldron
Director of Community Devr.l.opment:
City of Rosevi.l l.e
2660 Civic: Center I)riv(-.,
Roseville, MN 55113
'
RE: One Acre Tract.
Lexart Addition
Rosevi l.Le, Minnesota
'
I)ear Mr. Waldron:
In accordance- with your request, I. have made an inspection
and an appraisal of a one acre vacant tract of Land located at
'
the northwest cc:rr)er of Lexington Avenue and Eldridge Avenue in
Roseville, Minnesota.
'
`.I'he purpose of this appraisal is to est.imate t:ho market:
value of fee simple interest: in the property. Lt is the
intention of the City of Roseville to purchuse this one acre
'
tract from the: developer of Lexart Addition.
Thereforn, aft.er a thorough analysis of all E'ac.t.oc•s, it is
the opinion of your appraiser that the rollowing value is
applicable the subject. property as of September 26, 1.988:
SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
72 000
`rhis appraisal, has been made subject to certain l i.miting
conditions and assumptions 11S hE:reinaft.er expi OlUS0d. Such t'ac:t.s
a nd inl'ormat ion contained herein W-re obt.ained from sources that:
I cons:ide-r reliable and are true to the best. of any knowledge and
be.l ie f.
1
The following report. describes my method of approach,
contains data gathered in my investigation, and demonstrates my
t ec:hn.-Lque in arrivi.r.g at: the estimate of market- value for the
subject property.
Respectfully submitted,
DAHL9N &. DWYER, INC.
4
Daniel E. Dwyer
[)ED/bla
1
1
1
1
l
1
1
1
1
1
DAHLEN & DV%TYER, INC.
TABLES OF CONTENTS
Suulillar•y a.f' Sit l :ieni. Fzacts and Corlcl usiol)s
Su.b ject Phol.og-r•aphs . . ... . . . . .. . ..
. . .... ..... . . .... ..... . . .
I�Iarkei. Value Def:iiied ..... . . .. . . . .
. . . ... . . ... . . .... .. . . . ... . 4
Purpose of t:he Appraisal. ...........
........................ 5
5
Ac:krcowledgeineti t:............................................
Legal. Description ..........................................
5
5
RecordDa-I.a................................................
Roseville City Data ........................................
G
Neig;hbor•hoorl Aiial.ysik.......................................
7
8
Zoni.ng;.....................................................
Highestand Iicnl. Use .......................................
9
{:si:i.matu of Highest and llesst Use ..........................
.
I'rmiiiary )'aa1. Mrah.......................................
1(1
ileccription of t:he Site .................................
... 11
Melh(I o-I' Valus.iI.ion.........................................
12
comparahl (� Lan(I Sr► l es .......................................
13
Antsly.:i.4 OI' C()inparaI l(• Land SaI(!ti ...........................
1rl
(:(�rt:i!'iiion..............................................
15
(:onl:ing;c�nl sinrl Ijtnil ing Coiidil,iocis 1G
Addendum
'Lun:ing; drill
Nletro Map
Ahpra i s:('rs' ()ufl 1 i i'i crit. ions
I-
k
DAUEN & DWYER, LNC.
;4
' SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS'
:y7
Genera]. llr:scr. ipt:ion: This is a 1.0 acre l:t acl: of land
wh,i ch is vacant, love and
served by al.l. uti..lities.
1,oCal:J.11 Northwest corner of Lexingt-on
Avenue and Eldridge Avenue in
Rosen i.l l c�, M:i nnesol.
' Parcel Size: 1.0 acre
Zoning: R-1.
Land Value:
Market Valises: $72, 000
September 2ti 1988
Date of Value Estimate: Se.ptt.n ,
AOL
0
'Clia
Dal
..........
11 tulrlr-� q
- , �2,
1
I
L
0
u
1
1�
[J
I
I
1
1�
1
d
DAHLEN1 & DWYER * INC.
VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEASTERLY AT SUBJECT SITE FROM INTERSECTION
OF BURKE AVENUE' AND LI NDY AVENUE
3
P
r
1
L
0
1
11
1
MARKET VALUE DEFINED
The- most price ill terms Lit' money which a pi-opert y
wi i 1 Isr i ng ill it cornpe't it i ve and open loarke•t under sr 1 I c and i t ions
requisite toil fair sale_ thebuyer and riv1 ler, ea cli west ing;
prudently, knoir4�1_dgabIy and a tisuming Ilrr• prire i� not rici by
undue stimulus.
Itop IiciI ill thin def'irtition ira t.hc inn of, n stilt!, an
of a apeci.tied dattea and the pass int; of tit lc� t'rom sell Ier Co buyer
under condi1.ions where I)y:
I . I)uyc:r and sealIf! r it re t.ypica I I inot ► vat ed;
2. both parties are we] 1 informed or we] I aidvirtod and e;,ch
acting in what he considers his own best. interest.;
3. a rensonab le= time! is allowed for exposure in they open
rnnrket;
4. paymen.t. is made in cash or its equivaale:-t;
5. financing, if any, is on terms generally available in
the cornnuuniLy at. the speci fied date and typical for the
property type in its location; and,
6 the price represents a normal consideration for Lbe
property sold unatffecLed by speci.a.l financing amounts
and/or terms;, service's, feels, costs, or credits
incurred .in the transaction.
4
I
L
1
DAMEN & DVvrM, WC.
PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of the tippraisal is to determine the markel.
vrtlue of the fee simple- Interest in the property as of SePte:mber
26, 1988.
1 understand that the function of this: report. is h) servc
as a guide for the City of Roseville in acquiring; I.he property
from the developer for park purposes.
ACKNOWL's'DGEMENT
All of the ,judgements and conclusions contained in this
report are those of the appraisei7 for which he assumes full
professional responsibility.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The East. 229. 3' of Lot .1, Lexal-t Add.i tion, Ramsey County,
Minnesota.
RECORD DATA
The parcel being appraised is part of a recent: subdivision
and therefore no information on assessor's market: VE-I.tue, taxes,
and special. assessments was available.
5
F
P
�7
1
1
P
1
1
1
DAUL'1\i & LY%rMt INC.
ROSEVILLE CITY DATA
The City of RosevIi I le is rj 1,1I-st ti,r_r suburb on Lhe
►joI-t,,Iern side of the Twin C i t ies Ni c 1, r 01) i Lan itI'C! a. The 19RO
Census indic.aLes a pclpulctt.iotl of 35 5:30. Since this time, Lhe
population has decreased sl igill .ly to tan est,iwated 34,7t35 in Apr i 1
1988. 7'11t� t->opu lilt i on growth rate has slowed and sLai) i 1 i zed s inc.e
1970 and, i 1. is ext)ec L Q d tIial Lhert� wi 1 I be a sul'cl 1 Irks in
pnpuIal: i o,n Lhrougtl 1990. Rosev i 1. 1(� encompasses an area of 24. 3
scfuare ill Ies EInd is a kgeI1 p.I.arined cc.)nlill uni.I.y of t.radi.i.ionai and
c ontemporary homes of al l styles anti price r a n 9 e s. Nosevi.l le has
�I lso expos lenced a cons i d v r a1).1e antc.►unt, 0f coIrIll e'r c:ic�l anc:t
indust:ri.al. growth over• the years. The sl:rat:egi.c regional
loc►t::i.on of I{oscvil.lc� aril exce�l.lenl. Itc:cess have :influenced mrluy
families and employers to l.ocat:t:. in the area. Such firms such as
Sperry Uni vac, 11oneywel 1, NCR CoIIItt>m, Inc., Paper Cal.menson,
State Farm Insurance, Dayton's Department: Store, and Carson
piriv Scot. a1.1 occupy space in the Roseville area.
Two large shopping centers, Rosedale and Har Mar Mall. are
ccant.rrll.ly 7.occtt:c:d and r:onl:a:in a w.i.dc� velri.ety of shops and stores.
The Rosedale Shopping Center continues to grow with the addition
of numerous free st:andi.ng r•estaurant:s and shops. Rosev:i.l l.e's
r•etai.l development is one reason alit. Ci.t:y is fast becoming an
office d,evel.opment. hot. spot:. �4:i.th Rosr:�dt►l.e Center, Har Mar Ma.11.,
fla.vi.li.on Place:, 1,oehmann's Plaza, and Roseville Shopping Centers
as regional or sub rep, i.orlal centers, p.l.us a Score of smaller
neighborhood and special-ty strip malls, Rosev.ill.e now has well
over 2,000,000 S.F. of rel:a.i.l. spike. Woodbridge Development: i.e.
In the process of developinj; the centre Pol.nt(� Business Park on
Lhe: east. side of 135W between County Roads C and D. rh.i.s w:i..l 1
be a $20,000,000 p).-ojecL- and i.nrlude :300,000 S.F. of Class C-•A
office and. 300,000 S.I. of ofI'ic:efshowrc>c.Iln space along wi.Lh a
hotel. It is al.so anLi.cipaLecf that. Hosewood Corporation wi l 1
Put-. in a Iargc: scale o•f'fice/ret.a'L.l cle:ve.lopment in the no,'t:llwest.
quadrant of I-35W and STH #:36.
Int.e—C. atr:� 1.9 and State_ `1'r•tinl: If:i.ghway i36 provide, Cary
acr�ess to Saint Paul. and other metropolitan areas.
Emphasis has been placed on recreational. fac:i l.:i L:i.es and
e-:vill.e area. Thr-,re are many parks, lakes
ac:tivit:it�s in the Ros
and paaygrounds with excellent. fac::iIiLies for both sumine>r and.
winter. sports. Roseville has an olltstancling parks and recreation
depari.men t: which sponsors year—round programs for adul. Ls and
children.
„C.
u
I
n
1
1
1
The City of Rosevi.lle, S most recent. Comprehensive Plan war:
adopted with City Council in Nov ember in 1980. This Plan has
two principal characteristics which list.inguish it. from iLs
predecessors. Tihe: first is the fact that this Plan is part Or a
major, coc.,rdinat.ed regional planning effort mandated by the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1.976. The second key
characterist.ic is that. for Lhe first. time Rosuville's 198()
Comprehensive Plan places considerable emphasis on redevelopment.
In Ju l.y of 1982, t.hc (:i.ty of Rocevi.11e established under
the appropriate state statutory authority, a Redevelopment: and
Tax Increment: Financing P101). The proposed Nedevelopmer►L Area
contains appro+ imnLely 2,350 acres and occupies the port;hwest
corner of the city.
Your appraiser has round t-he CU5, of Rosev.i l lc: t;o be a
well balanced community, economically, socially and culturally.
No detrimental factors have bee'll observed in the analysis which
would restrict resi.denti.al, commercial or industrial growth in
Lhe City of Roseville.
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
The area in which the subject property is .located is to the
southerly portion of the city approximately .l mile to the nouLh
of the City of St. Paul. This is an area of mixed development
i.ncIudi.ng commercial, rc:sident.i.al, and multi -:family. 1.exin9Lon
Avenue is a major north -sough street; connecting the neighborhood
with S`1'H #36 located just: Lo the north and the City of St:. Pau.]
located just: to the south.
Located just, across Lexington Avc:;nue from Lhe aubjecL
property is the Calvary Baptist Chur-ch. There is single family
development 7.1i►m(i:diat,el.y to t.lar south across Mid also t.o
t.he, cast. Three of the corners aL Lexington Avenue and County
Road B are develc,p(�d connnc:rc i. al ly wi. Lh a `1'w.i.n C:i Ly Federal branch
o:rfice a.t the northwesL- corner, a SuperAnlertca station at the
nori.heast; cc)rner, and a Clarlc station at-, L-he southeast curner.
Overall, i.t is my belief that property values in the
neighborhood for romme'rci a.l. and re'sideratlal has beeIl relative-l.y
strong and should continue so into the future or until that: time
When inter(st r. at.ee. rise s:igni f:ic:anLly ar)d the economy begins Lo
f a]. 1. .
DMEEN & DV%rM, INC.
1
ZONING
The subjocl. properly, accovding to the Preliminary Mat
t for sul)&i.vi.s:i.on, will be zoned 1t-1, or 5ingLe. family Rers:idencr,
District:. The rol lowing uses ar-e permit ted in tit 11-1 Dist.ricL:
2.
3.
4.
5.
One fattti ly detached dwel t.ings
Public parks and ptaygrounds
Exist:ing railroad right. -of -ways for the movement of'
through trains but not to inc].u,lr.; s`itchi.ng, storaf;r
yards or sidings
Churches, convents, libraries, City buildings and
similar public uses provided Lhat: uo sl:ructure or
hui..lding shall. be nearer than 30' to any adjacent .Lot;
in art R District:.
P u blic; private and parochial., elementary and
,
secondary schools, universities and colleges, provided
that::
cational inst:i.tut:ions does not:
a. The use by edu
include dormitories or rooming space for students;
b . No s t:ruc Lure or bu.:i J.din g shal l be nearer than 30'
to any adjacent lot in an R District.
Transitional Uses
lit a R--1 1)i.st:r:i.c:L, no structure or bu11.d:ing shal1 exr;
2.5 stories or 30' in height, whichever is lesser.'I.'lte floor
' area ratio wi.t}tirt the R--1 1):ist:r i.ct shall. not exceed 0. 3. The:
man -interior lot is I _, 000 S.F. and the
i.ni.mum lot area. for-
min:imwn lot area for a corner lot. is 12,500 S.F. The m:iniit; um loL
width for an interior lot: is 85' and the minimum lot: depth i.s
' J.10' . The m:inintum lot width. for a corner l.cat: is :LOU' and the
m:ini.ntum lot depth is 100' I'roni: yar.•d and ? ear y��rd sei:backs are
30' while the s•i.dr:; yard setback i.s 10' .
1
8
H
1
1
1
1
1
DAB LEN & DW YER, rNC.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
lj'igljesl-. anCl hest, usC, as dc:t'ined in Real Estate Appraisal.
Terminology,edited by Byrl Boyce, Ph.D., sponsored joint.l.y by
Lhe Aiiieri.can Inst;i.tute of Peal Estate Appraisers and Llie Sor.ief:y
of.' Lhe Estate Appraisers, copyright 1975, page 107, is:
"...that reasonable and probable use that will
support the highest present value, as defined,
as of the effective date of the appraisal.
Alternatively, that use, from among reasonably
probable and legal alternative uses, found to
be physically possible, appropriately supported,
financially feasible, and which results in the
highest land value."
ESTIMATE
OF HIGHEST AND BEST USE
IL is my opinion,
after analyzing the existing
zoning
ordinance, adjacent development
c.har.acLer.isti.cs, .land
use
t
patterns, traffic: flows,
e:nvironrtlent, compe'LiLive spaceandsi:Lr..
characteristics, that Lhe:
highest and l.)esL use of Lhc!
proper. ty
would be for residential.
development. in keeping with
the R-1
1'
'
Zoning Codes of i:hc' C:i.t.y of
Roseville.
l: have considered
al.ternatiVe Uses which would
be legally.
F
pGrm:issC i1.)1e, econoinic:ally
-.f'easi) 1e, and physics:l.ly possible
and.
h3Vt t:o conclude t;�).a'i the
most uf:l.lizat].or)
of Llle si:Le
would h,e for residential
would
dF�velc>pmc�nt,
q
L
t
�kz
I
n
I
1
I
1
1
1
� JJ
1
1
1
1
1
f
I
1
1
I
i
I
I
•I
1
I
I
1
�•
�
I
'
L
I
I 1 � T i •�
H 11'�f � j•, � � lAy I
I I
1•
WET0/1 � ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS A LNOINEERt
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAB LEN & DWYER, INC.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
,riie parce, is a recLarilf,ular shaped Par-cc-11 located
at the nortliwesL corner of Lexington Avenue and 131dridge Avenue
has 229.3' of frwitf-39e oninjj()s(-vi.jj.(:!, M npesoLa. The parcel
Eldridjj,'f3 Avenue and a depth along Lexington Avenue of 1.90' for a
total area of 113,56" S.F. car I acre. The reader's atAn'ition is
directed to the preliminary plat Located on the adjoining page
a,S a IEC 11 (! s i z eV sl.inpe anti lccat..ion c) I -he, s.-L
as it relates to the general. area. The si-Le is outlined in red.
,rile, site is level wi.til street: grade and served by all
Lit i 1, i L Les including sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water-, gas,
sidewalk/bike pa0i, concretE! C-urb and gutter, and bituminous
roadways. There are mature trees along the southerly and
(-Bsterly lot I ines
s a s s ttm d that t- b e r e a r e no adverse subsoil conditioriS
a n (j t 11 a t the site is buildable in its entirety.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAHLEN & DWYER, INC.
METHOD OF VALUATION
In arriving at the market value of the subject property, I
have relied entirely upon the sales and offerings of vacant land,
as in my opinion, sales and/or offerings of vacant residential
land best reflect the thinking of the t.yp:ic€ l buyer- :in the market:
place. This approach, which is referred to as the Direct Sales
Comparison Approach, is employed whenever dependable sales data
are available for properties that: are truly competitive with -the
subject property. Your appraiser has :invest:igat;ed Lh.e terms and
conditions of the comparable sales transactions to try and
determine the at.tit:ude and aims of the: purchaser. Your
appraiser has tried to be objective in the: analysis of the
comparable sales transact.i.ons without. inferring moL-ivations. A
comparison has been made on the basis of the subject property
having a highest and best use as land for residential development.
similar to that: of the comparable properties. In establishing a
basis .for value, the major characteristics of the residential
sites that would be analyzed include:
I. Physical characteristics: size, shape, dimens:i.ons,
topography, drainage, bearing capacity and
permeability of the soil
2. Zoning and other public controls, use restrictions,
structural. resLric:t::ions, set back requirements-,
height: limitations, ect.
3. Title limitations, liens, easements, special
assessments and covenants
�l. Access (locat:i.on): transit, highway, visual access,
fire and police protection, availability, capacities
and casts.
5. Availability: price, -f:i.na,ec:ing terms.
Most of the factors about: which precise and specific
factual information can be obtained. Sonic: r.•equ:ire a.nalysi..
beyond this. Using terms of the analysis that standards of what
:is appropriate and what-. is acceptable, muss: be developed.. They
following land sales, in my opinion, are most: indicative of value
and provides the hest: ind:icat-ion of valise for the subject.
property.
12
0
I']
1
1
[I
n
I
�7
H.
1
I
1
1
DAMEN & DV1vrM, INC.
COMPARABLE LAND SALES
Sale #1: Northwest Currier Arl ingf.on Avenues and Cumberland
Street., St.. Paul, being Lots I thr•oragh 28, 111or.k 13, Edwin M.
Ware's Cumberland Addi t.ion. Sold in November )983 t'or $220,000
or $1 .38/S. F. This was ci sale Fr1' 3.66 acre s i t c- served by all
utilities and zoned 11--3. The seller was tale `I. Paul School
Uist.rict and the buyer was Ken Bacchus. The S I tV WEIS t>urChus(!d
for the construction of single family dwellings.
Sale #2: 14th St.reel. Northwest and 23rd Avenue in New
Brighton. Beings lots G and 7, Pike Lake Instates. Sold in June
1983 for $68, ODO or $ 1 . 49/S . F. Seller was l:he (,i. try of New
Brighton and the buyer wab W. Robert Strobel. The site contained
45,642 S.F. and was served by all uti l i.t::ies. Ji. was purchased
for residential development and had the potential for three
bu.i .lding; sites.
Sale: #3: Hazelwood Avenue but.ween Cope Avenue and Sherre.n
Avenue, Maplewood. Being the South 280' of the East 288' of the
Northeast, quarter of t:he Southwest. gUart-.er of Section 10,
Township 29, Range 22. So.ld in September 1986 for $75,000 or-
$1.18/S.F. The seller was the estate of Pet.er M. Mori.t:z and the
buyer was William, E. Bossard. This was a 63,750 S.F. site served
by al l ut.i l it:ies and purchased for resl.dent:ial development.. A
total of 6 sites could be platted.
Sale: #4: North of Lary.)entnur Avenue and West of TaLum
Sl:reet in falcon Heights. Being part of the Southwest quarter' of
Sect. ion 16, Township 29, Range 23. Sold in September 1985 for
$262,OOU or $1. 14/S. F. This was the salt: of a 5.2 arse site
served by all ut. i l i. t i es an(] zoned res i den t: i a l . The s:i l.e wa►s
purchased for residential subdi.visi.on. The buyer was Strad:ford
1nvesLment: Limii.ed.
Sale #5: sid(. of Dodd Hoed approximately 1/2 mile to
l:lee south of Highway 1.1.0 in Mendota Heights. Sold in March .1986
for $156,500 or $1.23/S.F. This was a 126,724 S.F. sit :e served
by all. utili.t:ies and zoned R--1. or single family residential. The
site was purchased for the construci.— ion of a church.
Sala 96: East: side of Highland Avenue approximately 300'
south of County Road K in W:;ite Bear bake. Bering; Lot. 3, 4 and. 5,
Block 1., and Lots 1 through 7, Block 2, Ulmer Park. Sold in
March 1985 for $180, 000 or $.1..50/S. F. This was the sale: of a
2.75 acre site which was served by all. utilii:i.es. The seller
was lllmer and the buyer was P.C.I. Development. The site was
purchased for the construction of single family dwellings.
1
13
L!
1
U
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAHLE1 ii & D Y Y YM , INC.
ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES
Thc• preceding s ix. Iand saI es for 1.he Inos t partaro s inr i 1 ar
in size and located in suburban metropolitan locations. The
sales range it) sized fi om approximaat.ely 1 acre t:o just over 5
.roes. The price paid per sijuare foot ranges from $1.11t/S.F. Lo
$ 1 . 50/S. F.
Comparable sftic! #1
was t.hc! szt I
of 1.be
olcl Arl .i nt;t tin
School s.i Le at $1 . 38/ S . F.
in November
.1.983.
The s i t.e was
replatted For residenl.ial
development..
Major
upward adjustAlle-111's
were made for time, location
:and Parcel
size,
Sale #2 was of a 1+ acre s:i.t:c: which sold on the basis of
$.1..49/S. F. in June .19B3. A major upward nd jus Lnien L was mride for
t. i in e .
Sale
#3 was the sales
of
a 63,750
S.F. site in Sett.ember•
1986 whi.rh
was subdi.vitl.rci
for
resi.denti.al.
development. Upward
adjustments
were made for
time
crud
location.
Comparabl.e sale #n sold in September 1985 on the basis of
$1 . l.4/S. F. This was Lhc:! sale of a 5.28 acre site located just: to
the southwest: of the subject property in Falcon Heights. Upward
adjustments were made for parcel size, t. i.me, and locat:i.orr.
Comparable sale #5 was Lhe sale of a 2.91. acre site: zoned
residential and sold for the cons Lruct..i on Df a church. An upward
adjustment was made for time: and parcel size. The location is
cumplrrable to that of t:he subject.
Comparable: sale #6 was they sale of a 2.75 acre: site in
March 1985 on the basis of $1.50/ .F. Tlic:! parcel is located in
White Bear, Take, a location which i.s slightly inferior Lo that of
thc! subject: necc;ssitat:ing an upward ad.just.jnent.. Upward
adjustments were also made for time and parcel. size.
Based on an analysis of Hie above sates, it: is the opinion
of your appraiser that: a. value of $1.65/S.F. can be SUbstianLiaLed
for- the subjec:L property. This, when applied to the 43,567 S.F.
indicates a. value as follows:
43,567 S.F. x $1.65/S.F. _. $,71,886
Rounded: $72, 000
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CERTIFICATION
The preceding appraisal analysis was performed according, to commonly accepted
appraisal cloct.r•ine and in conformity with and subject to Hie requirements of
the Code of Professional. Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the
appraisal organi.zat:ion(s) with which the appraiser :is afritiated. As a
pr•acticinK professional Real Estate Appraiser, l here�liy certify that:
1. The Appraiser Eras no present. or contemplated future interost. in thc>
property appraised; and nf�ither the employment to make i.hc! appraisal, nor
the compensation for i t , i.:; r c:>n t:i nf;en 1. upon Hie appraised vn lue Of.' th(t
property.
2. The Appraiser has no personal interest. in or bias with respect: to thc;
subject matter- of the apprais-al report or t le participants t c) the sale.
The "Est imaLe of Market: Value" in the appraisal report .is not based in
whole or in part upon the race, color, or national. or.•i.f;in of thH'
prospective owners or occupants c7f the property appraised, or upon the
race, color.- or national origin of the present owners or occupants of the
properties :in they vicinity of then property appraised.
3. The Appraiser has personally inspected the property, both inside and out:,
and has made an exterior inspec-tion or all comparable sales listed in t:he:
report. To the best of the Appraiser's knowledge and belief, all
statements and :information in this report are true arid correct, and the
Appraiser has not knowi.nf;ly withheld any significant information.
4. Ala c:ont.i.ngent-. and limiting conditions area contained herein (i.rnposed by
the terms of the assignment or by the undr rsigned, affecting analyses,
opinions, and conclusions contained .in the rra)or•t).
r,. This appraisal report has been made i.n conformity with and is subJect to
the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and St:and,irds of
i ,t f I > >rai sal or•g'ani zat i ons with which the
6.
Professional COnc.Uc
Appraiser is affiliated.
A1.1 conclusions and opinions concerning thc:= real estate that: are set:
forth in the appraisal report were prepared bythe Appraiser whose
signatureappears on the, appraisal report, unless :indicated as "Review
Appraiser". No change of any item in the appraisal report shall be made
by anyone other- than the ;Praiser, and the Appraiser shall travu no
responsibility for any such unauthorized change,.
1
1
1
L
CONTINONNT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
The certification of the Appraiser appearing in the appraisal report is
subject to the following conditions and to such other specific and limiting
conditions as are set forth by the appraiser in the report.
1. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for matters of a legal nature
affecting the property appraised or the title thereto, nor does the
Appraiser render any opinion as to the title, WILich is assumed to be good
and marketable. The property is appraised as though under responsible
ownership.
2. Any sketch in the report may show approximate dimensions and is included to
assist the reader in visualizing the property. The Appraiser has made no
survey of the property.
3. The Appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because
of having made the appraisal with reference to the property in question,
unless arrangements have been previously made therefore.
4. Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and
improvements applies only under the existing program utilization. The
separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction
with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used.
5. The Appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of
the property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less
valuable. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or
for engineering which might be required to discover such factors.
6. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the Appraiser, and
contained in the report, were obtained fror„ sources, considered reliable and
believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of
such items furnished the Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiser.
7. Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report is governed by the Bylaws
and Regulations of the professional appraisal organizations with which the
Appraiser is affiliated.
8. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the report, or copy thereof
(including conclusions as to the property, value, the identity of the
Appraiser, professional designations, reference to any professional
appraisal organizations, or the firm with which the Appraiser is connected),
shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the
report, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall. it
be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations,
news, sales, or other media, without the v:Jritten consent and approval of the
Appraiser.
9. On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or
alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusions are contingent upon
completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner.
DAB LEN & DVv YER, INC.
M
IU 7 i iY�
�-i'I /j;J{.• •'..-T._._ Il r� V�,•j l+i.-i v, �.I`i �J Il i �''.�:�•rR-7717
--'��.�.
:� : � 1<'; j --' .� ;�"F. ,.r ,�, >' �' ;=-`�..``�1�••; ( - _, ice_ y_"___-_ . _-_ - - -- -- -__ -__ ._
p
1
�� C U U
�•' O O p !)I r (C 1 C
i,�C rJ�L C.Y
V c, ,. , •1 p , fl I ,
k C 1- r -�,, ''C' I O �.•. V J� / r
p �0 :7 0 C` zJOO•JUnUOC+r?000^ 7
O'G G'O G O lJ •�a --�'' .�c, - n U G O_o_o 0 (J o O -- u
,OC. G G i.,Tm
l
r' O O O J , rr O• n u '�' -; - r 'Oa7 •)O 1) ��' 0 i) 0 r, r,-
- LUN'.7-4
o
>,C G UG Cl. O E ❑ 00 an. ' 4; ;, OCr.!.O�i) U ulr r h l„i!•_,�_�—y
z !_
i'.�---'—'-- c; OC) r, p C', G ,•, I } ` 0 O 0 O C) (> C� C, r. 'T
pta o,o! O 11) U O O ( (�!, C,cY.pr) r) tr (i
gal
O O'O ': �;, D,�o
� C,r) r , U. O Q O r) U ,U , Ct ...'T..�1 f -,_._OtCI n *�-�. i' �Cp', 'C)lc O)! r ,I __: .r __ ) i 7' •rC) r_ Cr U , O OO :) C) p (4 T O <, (,aNa P 't C, C) 1�00CtOA rj rl(._'o U O 0t O C) 0
01p0010 L� 000 �(���rOoc) O;Ooi)O1 C)
� _ n
�T0000 U O) C) Q 0 0 :) r) (jO(] Ci0i0'0 :0'O O o p It 1.
i� )t-r. ,, y... },..,: , I i i, ` Ip 0.0 O O O 0 0 0 r C) 0 ' 1
aU IU'O O'O'G�O' l0 •', J f Q Vi u
U; O J ,C,t.,�t} ra lob k) C C, CT00 0 o,o O o O O p - 0 00'O C) p r O U [7KJ O (' ,
r qIC o (x000' OC OOi010,00 10�1of, o ) ODUO'OU U
O 7 OIU,-� a O Or000joi00 �Jt0 'r O
JO:OO�O} O0 �__M^��3— 0 000000!) OOra00'O ~C)I
I b 000 OIq ��� 0 B'� OUnOOUI '. L�--
i1= ,i�{T' PARK p� 1 O G 11
0 � 0 �,O.O,, Q O n B' L O C) U.0{) 0tj CIUC*V r, T wet+w f
14 0 O 0 C) O.O IOkj) .., O�7 O U O q ) ¢ O O----r--_ .....
9 O, o f _ J R'2, o o' o
N R
I � C) 0. p� o c po oo u.00•o000 o'o o;o
0! U O 0 O_ J,? ..4_ p o ..0 «.. . 80,0
C) G O_ Q V al_.-t 0000000000000000 O R U �° C)
or o c), of ff o•o :0
O r, tl G Tl }, ER
O 0 f O O U
C, o o0o00(hoa oonoao:o °.o ooG'0 �6 Fj_`t'
w o no'n ,bo 0011 0- o010 0 00 0 ,o:o 0 0 6 p
J .. y- r , _t, t. ! ,_ : ,- 0 o is
I I b o oioo 00 } 0 o oclolo 0 0 0
1T_t, , t ,, ; i :..,I �1 p . a Q o 41
--a Old I l0 1 i0� ( Ia0 6 1OIOb"'Iorlb 'O00O 0.. CO r t� a(,'.I:t.QWN CFMFT( t+T
r nv 0 O Cl , '.'
f po W fool o'o 00oo C.,a0000 `
0 0 .,v r
o o 00 0o ao 0
z .00 0. O, i00 3 8
a _.l, .❑ _r C` Q 7 O I 0 0 ) U O O CJ O
4 '. U J O � I I N t] 1 V 7 U
R-3p0 SC 1.1 I
L-3
�..
i � 4000 <
z �
!'f t B_2 RCl O 1 �J Ri"1$EVI� ILL Ve _ V1 1..All, <il•UI
rr• � �D�l� � r.� r o as w �.-.�°•..F
•.'.. .. _. ra � erne � w ��R • � ndC v fff""'''``'''�''''''''''
1 r i ;
ir_. - n . � -_± Tl i�� I ,'�T.l �V ' 1 ' I h t 1 I �� �''1 ._.J �...�i�r •
`. ' AV U - i , a l P N i 4 J-�•Y�• .. �. , _�._ L_:_...� L ��. _
iT1lirli' ;,, I';,�!I _�..� 1 ' i t'T„r y I
If
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ffimumwm'�
AND- Y
E
ii LE J.P
i
IRA
F R OKW SPACE c
T
M
8
8
couNly ... 911 1}
LA Y'�
Jo'
It
�w
KN) R 2649
P. I N,
q
If
v-,
-,PARK1 T
ILL
o
36
36
36
216 0
SIMI, AV
(LDA[ca Aso no 7nV 'q
Altg
CMI �umvw�tl rtti `n u 'I'la -i"', f-".1 �_R' -
:e DIC, N NLtaj M A 'j
JA
It LN I AV.
�
unq
AU
f.1 u;mjx:
IN E si
GAR(? QL it
2 1 P i4
iI AV
UNIVERSrTY
g
OF RL SPACI
MMESOTA ROSE vl5
LARPEXTEIIWT'
�'g
GOLF COURSE . 11 L Ss , ". �, ". I"
AV.
I P L00C
—L
A Ali _.YY ERY;
dOLLW1
FNVI
it L6
EtUM=
vulwa cy r
AV • T& B
a NDAq
�N
VD INE z's ,..... r
I TATE VANUUWIFas
I J
Do
0 14k
N
W. NOSE
oil
S vs FRONT /A&Y
)NEWELL
sit e
I JAV
am
A 5.1 51 fly 711TE..
YAN BURLAV YjN d
v a" 7L t
FQ
52 L Iit
'co Plop A5
4 E':A lip-
12 _2 11 A fff E
4AY
r— —
.[LO
1, it
v,
A
'LAIII AV AS 01ipV MIA,
'!yg AV JC� ORDIA L
d4 An ll LL 4 1 --- . ; _;
-11 A. —2-0 D Y I
DiAYTI)N ? 1:
� - — I :! '. II - —_ — ,,
A o
IP" wag omo"k 1.4 CC.CWYRIGW tol'Ilk
Area Map
j
t
DANIEL E. DWYER DAHLEN & DWYER, INC.
1260 Norwest Center Tower
'
St. Paul, Mint,�sota 55101
a
EDUCATION:
Graduate of l:he College of St. Thomas 1967
Course 1-A, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1971
Course 1-B, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1973
American Appraisal Company Cost Estimating Seminar 1973
Course TI, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1.974
'
Course IV, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1979
Eminent Domain -Advanced Legal Education 1980
EXPERIENCE.
Since 1971 actively involved in the appraisal of residential.,
commercial and industrial real estate
President, Dahlen & Dwyer, Inc., a Minnesota Coporation r
Instructor, appraisal seminars, Minneapolis/St. Paul
Metropolitan Area
Qualified as expert witness on real estate values
APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENTS:
Equitable Relocation
11omequity, Inc.
`
Merrill Lynch Relocation Management
Relocation Resources, Inc.
Residential Relocation Service Corp.
Rmployee Transfer Corporation
U. S. Steel Corporation
'
Deluxe Check Printers
United First Mortgage
United Mortgage Corporation
52=
Northland Mortgage Corporation
First Bank St. Paul
First Bank Minnehaha
First Bank Grand
Western State Bank
C+
C,ommerci.al. State .Bank
Norwest Ban](
City of Eagan
City of St. Paul
r�
City of Roseville
y of White Bear Lake
City of Vadnais Heights
Ramsey County Harks & Open Space Department
Numerous attorneys and private individuals
r,
Ci
ERWIN A. PETERSON
ROBERT C. BELL
WILLARD L.CONVERSE
ROGER A.JENSEN
KURT F. WALTHER
W. TIMOTHY MALCHOW
MARTIN J. COSTELLO
JAMES C. ERICKSON
DAVID S. ANDERSON
WILLIAM M. DRINANE
-PAMELA CONVERSE ZERIN
CAROL A. BALDWIN
SCOTT B. CROSSMAN
CAROLINE F. BELL
PETERSON, BELL, C7
1
2100 AMERICAN NATIONAL BAht
101 EAST FIFTH STREET
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101
(61 2) 224-4703
FAX No. (61 2) 223-8070
November 23, 1988
Mr. Craig Waldron
Director of Economic Development
City of Roseville
2660_Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
RE:
Dear Craig:
LEXART ADDITION AGREEMENT
Our File No. 1011.19
Enclosed -is the Agreement between the City and Gerald Kaufhold
with regard to the Lexington School Property. This agreement
as been redrafted several times between the Peterson, Franke & Riach
firm and ourselves. We have finally agreed upon the enclosed
Agreement.
If.you find it in order the council should adopt the enclosed
resolution.
Very trq, yours,
PE SO ,EL'
Rober 4:B
City Attorney
City of Roseviiie
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City
Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was
duly held on the 28 day of November , 1988
The following members were present: Matson, Johnson, Kehr
Cushman, and Rog, and the following were absent: None.
Member Matson introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 83$
The Mayor and the Acting City Manager of the City of Roseville
are hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached Agreement
between the City of Roseville and Gerald H. Kaufhold pertaining
to the property known as Lexington School property.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
duly seconded by member Johnson and upon a vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Matson, Johnson, Kehr
Cushman and Rog , and the following voted against the same: None.
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted
this 30 day of November , 1988.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified Acting City Manager _.
of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby
certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing
extract of minutes of a meeting of said City Council held on the
28 day of November , 1988 with the original thereof on file in
my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Acting Manager this 30 day
of November , 1983
Steve North, Acting City Manager
AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO LEXART ADDITION
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the
City of Roseville (hereafter the "City") and Gerald H. Kaufhold,
or his assigns, (hereafter "Kaufhold") to be effective the
day of , 1988.
WHEREAS, by this Agreement Kaufhold and the City desire to
provide for transfer of certain property from Kaufhold to the
City, for the rezoning of certain of the Lexington School
property owned by Kaufhold and to provide for a preliminary
understanding with regard to tax increment financing for the
Lexington School Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE
PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Dedication of Land. Kaufhold will dedicate one (1) acre
of land located on the Lexington School site to the City of
Roseville by warranty deed, which acre is described on the
preliminary plat dated July 28, 1988, for Lexart Addition
Subdivision to the City of Roseville. The warranty deed is
subject to the terms and provisions of that certain Lease
Agreement dated'May 20, 1988, by and between Independent School
District No. 916 and Independent School District No. 623,
(including specifically the use for parking of the westerly
approximate 40' x 313' strip of land by Northeast Metropolitan
Intermediate School District No. 916) and easements,
reservations, and restrictions of record, if any. Said dedication
shall be in lieu of and in satisfaction of the park dedication
requirements of Roseville Ordinance Section 20.155. The transfer
of the property from Kaufhold to the City will occur at or about
the time of the closing on the sale of the Lexington School site
to Kaufhold by Independent School District No. 623.
The one(1) acre to be conveyed to the City shall not be
subject to any lease between the above named school districts
after July 31, 1990. Kaufhold shall provide the City with copies
of said leases now in existence and inform the above named school
districts of the July 31, 1990 expiration date.
2. Purchase of Land. In addition to the dedication of one
acre of land on the Lexington School site, Kaufhold further agees
to sell an additional one acre of land to the City of Roseville
from the Lexington School site, which additional acre is
identified on the preliminary plat of the Lexart Addition
Subdivision dated July 28, 1988. The City agrees that it will
pay Kaufhold the sum of One Hundred Eighteen Thousand and
No/100ths ($118,000.00) Dollars for said one (1) acre of land.
It is the parties' intent that said purchase, if it is made, will
f the closing of the sale of the
com lis he d at the tim.. o c
be accomplished g
P
Lexington School site from Independent School District No. 623 to
Kaufhold. The City shall furnish, legal, engineering, and
administrative services necessary to accomplish this sale. T'n�
deed transferring said one (1) acre of land shall be subject to
easements, reservations, and restrictions of record, if any.
Kaufhold will pay any taxes due and any unpaid assessments
due in calendar year 1988. The parties agree that this property
has been tax exempt, except that it has not been exempt from
special assessments, and Kaufhold will be responsible for any
unpaid special assessments.
3. Tax Increment Financing. It is contemplated that
Kaufhold will request tax increment financing from the City when
he develops the Lexington school site between July 31, 1990 and
July 31, 1998. The City will use its best efforts to give
favorable consideration to Kaufhold's request for such tax
increment financing if it is made.
4. Zonin This Agreement is conditioned upon the City
rezoning the Lexington School parcel so that the lots on the
preliminary plat of the Lexart Division subdivision dated July
28, 1988 shall be zoned as follows:
a. Lot 1 - to be zone(. R-1.
b. Lot 2 - to be zoned R-3A.
C. Lot 3 - to be zoned B-3.
5. One Acre From School District. The Independent School
District No. 623 will be retaining one acre of the Lexington
School site and shall be transferring the same to the City of
Roseville by warranty deed to consideration outside of the
purview of this Agreement. Such transfer, however, is a
precondition to this Agreement becoming effective.
6. Time. It is contemplated by the parties that those
actions necessary to accomplish the requirements of this
agreement will be done as close as possible to the closing date
between Kaufhold and Independent School District No. 623.
7. Dismissal and Release. Kaufhold has in the past filed
applications with the city for various and different uses of his
land, and said applications have been denied by the City. The
land referred to is the land Kaufhold purchased from School
District 623 at the corner of Lexington Avenue and County Road B
in the City of Roseville. These applications which have been
denied have been. for zoning changes, variances, and applications
to plat the property. Kaufhold has expressed the opinion that
some of these denials were unlawful and has threatened the City
with litigation. In the event Kaufhold has commenced any such
litigation, he will promptly dismiss the same with prejudice.
Kaufhold further acknowledges that in consideration of the City
paying $118,000 for the land set forth in paragraph 2, that he
hereby releases and discharge: the City from all causes of action
he may have against the City f•.)r any of the City's actions
denying the applications refereed to above.
8. Further Condition. This Agreement is further conditioned
upon the successful closing on the purchase of the subject property
by Kaufhold from Independent School District No. 623.
9. It is further agreed by the parties, that the present
City Council has no control over future City councils, or this
same Council at future meetings. In the event, for any reason,
Kaufhold fails to accomplish the tax increment financing referred
to in, Paragraph 3, Kaufhold agrees that this will not in any way
jeopardize any land acquired by the City pursuant to this
Agreement. It is further agreed that the zoning classification
that may be required to be received by Kaufhold pursuant to
Section 4 hereof, will not place Kaufhold in any greater or
lesser position than any other property owner in the City with
similar land, provided, however that this shall not be inter-
preted as a waiver on the part of Kaufhold to void this Agreement
in the event the zoning and subdivision referred to in Section 4
above, is not finally and noncontingently approved by May 1, 1988.
In the event such zoning and subdivision approval has not so occurred
?.
by such date, Kaufhold may, at his option, be entitled to declare this
agreement void, rescind it, and thereafter, each party shall be
restored to the same position they were at prior to this Agreement,
r
specifically including, but not necessarily limited to, the return
of any monetary consideration and reconveyance of all parcels
conveyed or dedicated pursuant hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement to be effective the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
By:
Its: Mayor
By:
Its: Manager
GERALD H. KAUFHOLD
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 11-14-88
ITEM NO.:
Department I Approval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
j_ ,, _n Report and Recommendation
Item Descrl�tion: Authorization to enter into agreement with
School District 523 regarding Lexington School
property.
As part of the compromise agreement relating to the Lexington School
property, the City will need to enter into an agreement with the
School District. Essentially, the City will be agreeing to fund the
police school liaison officer position for a period of 5 years in
return for the school district dedicating one acre of park land to
the City.
The proposed agreement is attached. Mr. Jensen has reviewed this
agreement and finds it to be acceptable.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Department Approval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Resolution
Item Description: Endorsement
of School District 623 Community
Development
'
Block Grant Project.
The School District has submitted
a CDBG grant to Ramsey County
requesting funding to refurbish parts
of the Fairview Community
School Center. The total amount
of expenditure on the grant is
$203,600. I have attached a copy
of the letter summarizing the
project from Karolyn Kingsbury.
It is required that all such
projects have the endorsement of
the local municipality before they
are forwarded to Ramsey County.
A proposed resolution is attached.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion
to approve/deny endorsement of
School
District 623 Community Development
Block
Grant Project.
Tv,,i EFF,�",,7,
Roseville Area schools • District n rz
4o �.
goServing the Communities of Arden Hills, Falcon Heights. Lauderdale, Little Canada. Maplewood. Roseville. and Shoreview -in
Fairview Community Center - 1910 West County Road B Roseville. MN 55113
Telephone: 612/633-8150
'February 17, 1989
Nr. Craig Waldron
-City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Dear Mr. Waldron:
Roseville Area Schools is submitting a CDBG grant to Ramsey County
requesting funding to refurbish parts of Fairview Community School
Center.
I would appreciate your reviewing the projects listed below and asking
the City Council to support the request through a resolution similar to
the one enclosed.
Projects to be included in request:
1. Updating of fire alarm system
2. Replacement of elevator to allow for handicap accessibility
3. Replacement of a portion of the roof
4. Lower ceiling of cafeteria, air condition cafeteria and
repair kitchen exhaust system
5. Level floor of band room, build a wall to divide room and
install exterior door, providing a workshop area for the
Senior Program
6. Install automatic door. by Senior Center
7. Make swimming pool handicap accessible
Please let me know if I need to review any of these projects with other
City of Roseville personnel and whether or not these projects are
compatible with building codes.
The date of submission for the grant is March 1, 1989.
your assistance.
Sincerely,
Karolyn Kingsbury, Assistant Director
Community Education
KK:co
Enclosure
An Equal opportunity Employer
Thank you for
I
ENDORSEMENT OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 623
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECT
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City
Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was
duly held on the day of , 1989 at 7:30 P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
moved that the following resolution be
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, School District 623
improve the Fairview Center; and
would like to refurbish and
WHEREAS, Community Development Block Grants are available
through Ramsey County for such purposes; and
WHEREAS, School District 623 is requesting funds to
eliminate what are defined as health and safety threats within
the building.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City of Roseville
endorses submission of School District 6233Is Community
Development Block Grant request.
:;t
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101
November 1, 1989
Rick Jopke
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN
RE: City of Roseville
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Lexington School
Metropolitan Council District No. 3
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 14497-6
Dear Mr. Jopke:
The Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the city's comprehensive plan
amendment received by the Council on October 20, 1989. We have determined
that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the
metropolitan system plans. Therefore, the city may place the amendment
into effect immediately.
Because the proposed amendment appears unlikely to affect policies and
plans in other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council
will waive further review and comment on this amendment.
The amendment, explanatory materials supplied and the information
submission f orm will be appended to the city 's plan in the Council I s f iles .
This conclude the Council's review.
Sincerely,
Steve Keefe
Chair
SK: tf
cc: James Senden, Metropolitan Council District No. 3
John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff
Tori Flood, Metropolitan Council Staff
0 ,
•
•
A , • o •
/ • ,
,...
• .. .
•
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1:Z . • • • • • •
•
• • • • s •• • • •• • ,
•7 • • , • �• •• 0000 n ••• •• • • +
. • •• .
• �'.
• • • • • • • • • 11 11 11 /1 1/ • • • • • �� • • r • V • • • • • • • •
• • M h •• �A o • • • e • • • • • • •• • • •
0
p • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• - QO • • �D ...... .�
•
• «
L•
0
.. u ��. .•« ...,. •.......•..•• • • • . • . � • . •
Cam.
•
•
w
1/Ii•� ........ y.��.... •.�•.
Mtr a•i • • . •
•
••o•yyy•.�•s••• •• . •••••
•••••• •••
�� • • • • • • `• w �� • + • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • ., • • • •
• , • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • • • • •
• • • • • oil
• • • + e •
s
® REFERENCE PURPOSES A`ID T9
( TY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR,
ACCURACIES HEREIN CONT�
1'
2) o
5 4 SUBJECT PROPERTY -
NORTH
.4 2:9 26 21 21
(1o) (III SCALE 1"= 200'
F.ad
p A�/ �_ o
7 G FS 4-3 u. .,
W (50
c
ie)
(g)
)
(lo60
ll
t0
9
ij ,°n
iaa i
F
8o'
6f
..
..
491•
r
ro l
2
3
4
5
!o
-1 N
(2 Z)
(23)
(24)
(ZS
(30)
(�)
(�
(27)
(2-0
14
13
12
10
A
It
1;1.44
60•
61•
°AVE.
3
90 •
ILYq
��'.
_
7
(e
5
4
3
L
I
r v
-
�
� r
>b
,• r
(cza
03)
)
t i
:.4
2.5
27
l
r
B
s
I
l o+•
rt:.
I
qNE
1 '^
•• a
eo'
� i
�;
t
(a5
(w
0
`^
1A t
L4
zc
zro
2.-T
za
'd
c
..ram
Q .l •o
v
16
5
I
41
'�
_
144
r
}
24
LS
E6
L7
2d
2,
,t
•�.
.s
..
.�^
W
Q
I
KARYL to PLAC
3L4 Ki :r751-
(43).. F -�-
(1U
(72a
C
k74)
' (75)
�''
aa.s'
o•
90
w
Bo.
po.s
a12,
(46)Z
o
(;�)
(c9)
(C8)
(G7)
(cc)
n.
12*77(4G)
I5
14
IZ 9
—
- 20 b
19
113
17
1(A75
at.ol'
!oa
" 78.5'
Aso'
.•
.,, a •
r ♦ ..-.ems
.. �.�.�.
AA
y1-
_
�.
I
W
J
µ
O
N 41'S
4
b
to
In
de
C
p 444
dr
el
75'
�l
..
,.
(40)
..
75'
i
V 75'
fr
74
110.
±
S 20-wc.
jr&
•4.0 AA
12.0
A IH
l 0
9
e(4t)
t3
?
(?9)
fo
ig
1 y 6
:
. 4•
3
i=
i M
1
" }
(45) .
(�
(43�
(�
^
[�
(3s) .1
( (57)
(36)
(35)
(34)
(3 n)
I
75.07
75'
7SI
1. 75
75'
110.76'
274- 5'
(' ),
A �
•
1to.7.w
r
(Yilnl°IO . ttuutwr. �� r notcrmavrS 1'oW IT1'/ _3:'X3'1 ° ,
-. A
sL11704�
fl I 1
. _ } � � , ! • � ' , -ter -T
I
•!✓ � £�Fw ��SI �``� � � II� �j: � I �a� t j141�"i«°. wl�Iu iM�O(hlM l'
t Y ry I ' yl
� �S�
L �' 13-I O F ♦ I41 NIM o i o� V,N V .J
(r+0 13� I ja�� olo ulo atol lo�°Ip,��
S��t�� • r( � I^I I I � � ( I it r
UL
W 1 f` 7 0
0I
.0
0A
I�
Ic t �1
Sig
s
+
a
o
1, I
�
p � •
.r
,
w �'
r
p
N � i.
V �•
•
W
•
1• I
•
p J
r..
♦
�
r
w .r
1� � y. •�_
,
....
• 0 1
_ r..
fib_.
�
V
• �•� 1 1
J3.
�
1
p 6
'^� C
� - C
n
•
77
FFF
+I
1 •t �,
•
.�
V
�
r
t C w
i
rn
r
V �
rn
l J ;.
r
ra[16 r 1' •w ti• ; 1•
• --_ - �1•4ii /f'� - ._ ..- ,w.ot K = r• .11' � ^ � My� • r.� ., '
.a• +vt• Via♦ 'Iiy •- I t + GI '`• .. ' t�
O M J• •` I ICI {• ♦ y
t
/ to 1 / � A 1. t N i V 1
• 1 V1 � 1 � V� ' 1 t 1 �
„ � + (A) x, �
, 1 _
%1 ' • ti 1. •
F.
40
it
2 • ,,.
S11 _• o . a AVE.
+ a r D �1to ..
P.
J i �?�� V 90 .� O • A
T.' �,•1 • 14
O T
... G. ,i
147 .:ems•• r w .
• t air r • O as.*r ON •:.• Isor
,
Vso
-r-7-�' FYI .•�;T
W
•.C)
rn