Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpf_01787Gerald Kaufhold (Rose Galleries)_ Lex. School Site 1787 i a 00 Z pj a> 00 oa: ..1 ® V 0 CO y�a0Q U O N M 'ate ;u ZWWJ w K 93 O zw a � O u I I Elig} iJIaifmellf Q) co r � � MER WAXERSlow I1'AP- 4 CHARGES H -H WONE rdo +�gfia, U iwP� ro �4 >C Q) N c� a I CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Please check item or items for which you are applying: X Rezoning $100 _ Division of Platted Lot $50 _ Special Use Permit $100 Relocation of Dwelling $50 _ Vacation of Right -of -Way $100 X Variance to Zoning Ordinance $50 x Preliminary and Final Plat $100 _ Minor Variance $25 Please complete form by typ_—g or printing in ink. If the spaces provided are insufficient, use additional sheets, keying information to the proper item numbers: 1. Roseville Area Schools Independent District No. 623 633-8150 Name of Owner: (First) (Middle) (Last) (Phone) 2, 1251 W. Co. Rd. B-2 Roseville rJN 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. 7. Date Property Acquired: Purchase Agreement was signed 6/1/87. antique Mall, 8. Present Use of Property: school Proposed Use of Pro ert retail sales, ----- P Y� and offices. 9. Present Zoning of Property:R-1 schoolproposed Zoning of Property:B_l, R&-1, 10. What plan or change makes this request necessary? See attached. 11. What is the expected effect of the proposed change? (For example, on property values, health, safety, parking, traffic conditions, etc.) See attached. -2- 12, For Rezoning Only: A. If property to be rezoned is currently zoned in two or more zonin classifications, set forth the legal description of each such g 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 510 of the abutting property owners. The original statement in the petition should be as follows: "We, the undersigned, owners of at least 5 % (fifty-one percent) of the property abutting 1 request that this section of right-of-way be vacated because it no longer of value to the general public." is 15. 16. 17. All property owners signing the petition shall list their address and legal description of their property. For Platting Only: A. Number of Lots: 3 or 7 if sale of land for additional park area is B . Subdivision to be known as: no Lexart consumated. C. Engineer: Name Phone D. Architect: Name Buetow & Associates, Inc. Phone 483-6701 For Division of Platted Lot Only: A. Separate legal description for each newly created lct shall be Provided. For Relocation of Dwelling Only: A. The 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 500 of the property owners within 250 feet of the relocation, -3- 18. For Variance Only: A. Variance is requested from the following section of the City Code: 15' setback of existing parking area from public street right-of-way along County Road 'B'. B. State exactly what is intended to be done -on or with the property which does not conform with the City Code: Parking lot infringes on setback after additional rig t-o -way is taken By county along 'B'. 19. Applicants requesting a rezoning, special use permit, variance, divi- sion of lot, or -platting of property are encouraged to conduct a neigh- borhood 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 requirement applies only when residential property, R-1 through.R- 8, is listed on the Abstractor's Certificate. This requirement does not apply to property proposed for development which is zoned R-1 and will be or continue to be used for single family housing. Please indicate the date that you have met or will be meeting with the affected property owners: July 16, 1987. Information to be submitted for all applications except minor variance: A. Application and Fee. B. Abstractor's Certificate listing the NAMES AND ADDRESSES 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 Ramsey County Auditor (350 feet for Special Use Permit and rezoning application). 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. 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. I 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 of the South 30 feet thereof. The TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, does hereby certify that it has searched the records in the Real Estate Tax Division in and for the County of Ramsey in the State of Minnesota, and it appears from such search that the last apparent owner or owners and addresses of the property within a radius of 350 feet of the above property are as shown on the attached -printout. SEE ATTACHED PRINTOUT. NOTE: This report is not to be construed as a legal opinion of title. Taxes, Assessements and Judgments, not examined. We are not certifying to the accuracy of the Real Estate Tax Division Records. Witness the signature of an authorized officer of the'said Company this llth day of June- 19 87 , at 8 o'clock A.M. TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA r BY An Authorized Signature Order #RA87--61047 For: Buethow & Associates 2345 North Rice Street Roseville, MN. 55113 } . i t c .7tate of Minnesota Tountu of Ramey _ N, Theodore Lillie being duly sworn, on oath says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of 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 Notice of Public Hearing which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for successive weeks; it was first published on Tuesday , the 218t day of July g7 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: 'abcdetghllklmnopgrstuwvxyz BY: TITLE: Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 22nd day of. July , 19 87. Notary Public "Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. • :r " �' aRATE INFORMATION My 7, 1fi92 'C�v'1�dJ19`'�t>S�4'��„"�:`;;`.fi �;�.3r\io^'C� 64�?L`d'OJ4F•t;vi�4'%J3hf (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space ........... :............... $9.34 per col. inch (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter..................$6.40 per col, inch (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter ..................... $ per col. inch NOTICE OF PUBLICHEAAiNG TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, Notice Is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Roseville will meet at Roseville City Hall, 1 2660 Civic Center Drive, on Wednesday, August 5 1987, at 7:30 p.m., for the purpose of considering th following request- a 1 Gerald Kaufhold' request for rezoning, Comprehen- 018 Plan Amendment relimary IOI, variance' Ot,lnt 130 CoCoy Road Bp( Gallepriesand is pj the modification of the Lexington OPOsIng gton School for an Anil. qua Mail, an auction houselOffice on the southeast part of the property, and the southwest park.) area as potential Tho City Council of the City of Roseville, will meet on Monday, August! 10, 1987. at City Hall Of 7:30 p,m. 10 Consider this request - LEGAL DESCRIPTIOf,4- That Pan of the East 660 feet of the North '12 Ih 6 Northeast V, of the Northeast piaOf Sectionof is, Township 29. Range 23, lying North of the South 30 feel thereof. Jame J F Andre . ; (Roseville Review: July 21, 1987) CitI Manager J- t a f. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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, August 5, 1987, at 7:30 p.m., for the purpose Of considering the following request: Gerald Kaufhold request for rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County Road B. (Rose Galleries is proposing the modification of the Lexington School for an Antique Mall, an auction house/office on the south- east part of the property, and the southwest area as potential park. The City Council, of the City of Roseville, will meet on Monday, August 10, 1987, at City Hall at 7:30 p.m. to consider this request. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 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 of the South 30 feet thereof. �3MWVre, City Manager CONTINUATION TO Proposal for Roseville Cit, Park Adioininq Lexart Addition Terms of Sale of Parcel (C) shown on 7/1/87 submittals. The $125,000.00 will be paid by the City of Roseville, at its option, in cash or the date set for closing, or in the alternative, so that the City of Roseville can budget this purchase, in five (5) installments of $25,000.00 each and interest at the rate of six (6%-) percent per annum on the unpaid balance, on August 1, 1988, February 1, 1989, August 14, 1989 J. February i, 1990, and the final a p yment on August 14, 1990, Repurchase Guarantee. Gerald Kaufhold guarantees the City of Roseville until and including January 1, 1991, his repurchase from them of Parcel 11Ct, for the sum of $225,800.00 should the City of Roseville in its sole discretion and upon ninety (90) days y written notice to Gerald Kaufhold, accepts said repurchase guarantee of said Parcels comprising the City Park site; provided, however, that said Parcels be rezoned R-2 by the City such sale of Roseville prior to said sale and as a condition of y . 7 f� L Gerald Kaufhold City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 No. 13029 DATE NAME' ADDRESS SITE/FOR,,'' 8; Descrintl6n E— Total Coding Amount PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 5 August 1987 1787 Gerald Kaufhold Southwest Corner of County Road B and Lexington Avenue (see sketch) Rezoning from R-1 to B-3 and B-1, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan, Variance to Parking Setback, and Approval of Preliminary Plat 1. As you all know, the property in question is the old Lexington School which consists of 8.54 acres. This site has been declared surplus by the Roseville Area School Board and put on the market. Surprisingly, there has been little interest in purchasing this site. This specific proposal was that of the applicant, Gerald Kaufhold, who operates the Rose Galleries in the immediate vicinity north of County Road B. The Staff has met with Mr. Kaufhold, his attorney, and his architect, Tom Dunwell from Buetow and Associates who has prepared the development proposal currently applied for by Mr. Kaufhold. The net area of land proposed to be developed is 8.17 acres after the dedication of an additional 10 feet of right-of-way on the south side of County Road B and an additional 16-1/2 feet of right-of-way on the west side of Lexington Avenue. 2. In general, the proposal is to develop the property into three parcels indicated as Parcel A, B, and C in the attached drawing. If actually platted in this way, these parcels would be designated as Lots 1, 2, and 3 of a plat. However, for descriptive purposes, they will be referred to as A, B, and C. Parcel A would contain the existing building minus a portion to be removed which would consist of the south 62 feet of the classroom . wing extending to the south. The remaining existing structure is proposed to be developed as an "antique mall" which would be a collection of private antique dealers operating in a single space. Such a development exists in Minneapolis in one of the old warehouse buildings. This parcel consists of 4 acres which utilizes the existing parking lot plus an addition to create a total parking capacity of 200 cars. The 37,550 square feet of space would require 188 spaces, or 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for retail or office use. In the long run, we Suggest for this development proposal that Parcel A would be the subject of redevelopment in the future with new structures more appropriate to this excellent location. 3. Parcel B would consist of 2.3 acres. This parcel is proposed to be developed with a three story building with 37,200 square feet consisting of officos and the Rose Galleries auction house. The southerly 125 feet Gerald Kaufhold, Case No. 1787 Page 2 of this parcel is proposed to be zoned B-1. The southerly 30 feet of this parcel would be a landscaped strip to protect the single-family homes immediately south of Eldridge Avenue. Under the recent Ordinance adopted by the Council, parking in the B-1 District is to be utilized for the B-3 District. Application for this special use permit has not been requested at this time, though that could be handled at a later point (because the Ordinance had not been adopted by the Council as yet). This parcel would consist of 2.3 acres with a frontage of 318 feet on Lexington Avenue. 4. The remaining Parcel C would consist of 1.9 acres which equals 82,600 square feet; 36,750 square feet of this land would be dedicated as required where property originally zoned R-1 is platted and consists of more than 5 acres. The remaining 45,850 square feet is proposed to be sold to the City at a price of $125,000 or $2.27 per square foot. The first parcel contains the existing ball field as it is. The retention of at least this portion of the school site is deemed an important element in the overall community park service system. 5. Attached is a copy of the development description as submitted by the applicant. The statement is in the form of answers to some of the questions on the application beginning with number 6 and ending with number 19, which is the request for a statement on the application form. Also attached is a copy of a proposal signed by Mr. Kaufhold and dated July 1, 1987, offering the 45,850 square feet to the City at a price of $125,000. 6. Frankly, we were hoping that a development proposal would come forward that involved the total redevelopment of the land with new structures and a retention of most of the existing recreational areas for park purposes. We had suggested some months ago the adoption of an ordinance amendment that would have provided for the development of commercial space on the former school sites without rezoning, where up to 50 percent of the land would be dedicated for public purposes. This provision, however, was not adopted and cannot be used as a basis for settlement in this proposal. However, we do suggest, and the developer and architect concur, that the reuse of the existing school site will likely be an interim use. There is no question that the 4 acre parcel they propose can be better used if redeveloped for new buildings given the excellence of the location. 7. The three story office building with Rose Galleries on the first floor seems a reasonable density for the parcel since it is directly north of Eldridge and across the street from the church. The retention of the 30 feet of planting along the south side of the site (suggested by the Staff) offers some protection to the single-family home owners to the south of Eldridge. 8. The retention of the park facilities in the neighborhood is extremely important, and the retention of the southeast quadrant as proposed offers a means of transition to the single-family homes near the southwest of the site. Although the $125,000 seems like a lot of money, when attempting to acquire existing development for park land in the City in most cases, this amount would buy one single-family home and its lot. Comparable with the proposed dedication and given the sensitivity of the area, a figure in the vicinity of this amount is Gerald Kaufhold, Case No. 1787 Page 3 reasonable. The applicants have indicated their willingness to negotiate with the City and realize that at a recent work session, the Council expressed concern regarding the costs and the concept of buying poi tions of this land for park purposes. The City may elect to take the 10 percent dedication in cash in lieu of land. The dedicated lane; area of 36,750 square feet at $2.27 per square foot equals $83,422.50. This money may acquire additional land elsewhere, but could not provide a facility in this immediate area, which is in need of the recreational space and its function as it transitions onto the single-family homes to the west and south. 9. We have been informed that the applicants conducted a meeting with the residents on July 16th at the Rose Galleries. Apparently 35 people attended and, in general, expressed support for the proposal expressing extreme interest in the retention of the park land as proposed. The placing of the remainder of the parcel on the Tax Rolls as business development enhances the City's Tax Base. The* reuse of the existing school building would not result in any fiscal disparities contribution because it is not new development. Thus, in the overall equation, cash spent to retain the ball field area as proposed would be amortized over time. Conversations with Mr. Dunwell, the architect, suggests that they will be prepared to offer adjustments to the plan at the Planning Commission and Council hearings. Thus, the development proposal should not be considered concrete, but the basis for a potential negotiated solution. 10. The engineering staff notes that a sidewalk should be required on the north and south end of the property along County Road B and Eldridge Avenue. There are some concerns as to the storm drainage system and potential for ponding, which likely can be successfully evolved. Though the drawing does not specifically indicate so, all parking areas must be curbed. They note that the warming house should be further back from the street right-of-way rather than as shown on the drawings. Specifics for storm drainage and utilities need to be finalized. 11. A variance proposed in this application relates to the distance from the existing parking along the lot south of County Road B after the 10 foot dedication is made. The developer proposes to leave this lot as it is, which will result in the north line being 3 feet from the new right-of-way line of County Road B. Thus, a variance is requested from 15 feet to 3 feet. This seems to be a reasonable proposal only to be applied during the life of the use of the existing building. Such a condition might be added to any approval considered. The remaining setbacks for parking are 15 feet as required. 12. The application is, first of all, for an Plan. The land amendment to the Comprehensive If approved, is shown on the plan the amendment should be as public school and park site. to entire site as business with the south recommend 125 feet and designation of the 315 feet of depth on Eldridge feet by 280 to be recommended as limited feet business. The parcel of 295 would be designated as public park if the development as proposed is recommended. Gerald Kaufhold, Case No. 1787 Page 4 - 13. The rezoning to B-3 and B-1 is as indicated on the preliminary plat drawing dated July 1, 1987 as submitted. The rezoning proposal, of course, is consistent with the parcels as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan amendment and as indicated on the preliminary plat drawing. 14. The architect has submitted a full size drawing of the landscape plan, which is attached, because the reduced copy is difficult to read. 15. The development proposal for the reuse of the Lexington School site is important to the residents in the neighborhood and the City as a whole. It would appear to be a good idea to take our time and seriously negotiate with the applicant toward an acceptable solution. Perhaps, a matter of importance will not be resolved at a single public hearing. Any solution will evolve impact on the neighborhood, the park system, tax base, and the overall community interest. We have a successful local entrepreneur working with a capable designer toward a solution within the framework of the proposal acceptable ' by the School Board. Thus, the ingredients appear to be workable as a basis for negotiations. R O 0 0 010000oo!o,0d00000, "o oloo iT + ._. . A�EXANUER RA.MSEY (SR H.) ' O+O ,O+OO+O OOOO 10+0 NO'0 O SCHOOL I O'O UIST 623 , _ - i ZaOIO 1 ° re• • i• • 3 J -j -t-- + -+ ^� y. a O,0-01001 . O rfl my j 6 O O kQ �oo ' Q p .p.l O O ry7,FO - I W 10!010 010 o Lo-j'o R o DR D z,. : T a �, 010,o1c OC.-4,-1 j x o 0 _ 0 0. p O ! i O _ O O ! i O O 0 o O 010!010101010lc O:O o 0lolc ROAD A Q. O O 0-1 f 0 0 6. Complete Legal Description of 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 the U.S. Government Survey thereof; subject to easements of record. See Exhibit A. 10. What plan or change makes this request necessary? The applicant is requesting that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan be amended and the existing school property be rezoned in accordance with the attached preliminary plat to allow for adaptive reuse of the existing school building and new development of the remaining vacant land for commercial purp,.�sas. The commercial use of this property is very compatible with the adjacent commercial properties along County Rd. B and Lexington Ave. and would enhance their business potential while creating additional tax base for the city. The existing school building could be easily converted into an antique shopping mall facility with classrooms used for dealer display and sales areas. The vacant land at the S.E. corner of the property could be'de'- veloped into a compatible mixed use building containing an auction house and associated office space. Retaining the S.W. corner of the property for use as a city park would provide a buffer to the residential area and be a valuable asset to the total park system for the community that was envisioned in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 11. What is the expected effect of the proposed change? (For example, on property values, health, safety, parking, traffic conditions, etc.) It is anticipated that the adjacent properties would increase in value as a result of the proposed development. There would be no adverse affect on the health and safety of the public, area residents or property users because all codes and ordinances will be met. Adequate parking will be provided for all commercial users. Traffic conditions will actually improve because parking will be contained on the site and the heavy bus traffic that accompanies the present school use will be eliminated. Also access will be controlled to only one curb cut along the Lexington Avenue side and no business traffic will occur on Eldridge Avenue as a result of the proposed development. Beautifully landscaped buffer areas and removal of delapitated existing structures will enhance the visual impact from the residential neighborhood. TOWNSHIP 29 RANGE . '� NORTH EAST QUARTER (4) SECTION 15,f.•1_ r ••' •t...'� 1 ..20!70• 0 � b all - Jima�J•-- .y �. ►,►t _ ; f.70 ac. • ol 'jI ; � •i a , ^es tat t3 IL 11 to • e T , - j °, ••• a,.n• i j.T,td; $cSaoo( District4 -1 �If i I 1t tt 10 1 • •7 • S �► ! ' ,1 , .3 K 1 •.. ° .. f .°.f t' 1 • �� "`JJJ h�M . b: .,) •.G) � y, ,�� r}, b, (4i " .. ;' (K� "6. G• -(:SI (,at lal .• ! 'tit/ , '+ ! 1� t3 1L it ��' Fes• r.L�,' l(r) 23 to is 2♦ 27 za L! I• 1 �t n (� t+ to tt `u :! x• ],[ a• al �� i'i in ,.; o' tj; � T•.f W S LJ 47. 41 ' ,� u ri IL 11 10 ! • T �' t •. > L (Ls' (L1 - 1 j3) • f � 3 2 1 It R I! (19 ,7D .t-'• ltt: `L•1 d lt] a t i tt to i T b .Jy .k1 t a. a .. .f u .7 ,•.tt 7t: ' ,,-� rn � t]�) a) ,Lt• ,z: ' �� (�I) a°' (+� (L81 t� t e : ' / � - ] + 14 ID IL ( ( 7iT t! 2• LS L• LT zs L ; `r`t it 1 3Qp p eta tT Is 17 Zo LI LL se L3 24 Ls �4+ 4: R. •„_. - •r „-ar 1 .e t • r • ' •AVE. s .. .: ,t 7 .� cc'�f �St)' � 1 S ♦ ! L t � 13 ti 11 t p � !1 Qi . � , t,3 . .7;• `. zs [x •3 7 7 Lb � , . t :at _ ,s. d -IF 14 13 IL t\ 10 D • 7 fi �) (�, •ar ta.et' t )'� • (let (5[ " 4 ; ; T,.N •O t _ X ' I (/, • (pr` t� • ! � �: (fP: 41: � t7 1 !.flat. t•a + - .., t Z7 � T � 2! y ,T to t3 LO 21 i �0 - +•n of •t ar t0 21 LL Z3 L• 25 2• I J, ly 1 • `;q'• 1771 IT le ti • • S is .,. t V � • ,f .- M. � • � 't� 3 • ••.,,. KARYL 4 PLAC ^ '4 . ' E; �•;-:ri'..�.i ;. Ow - LANE _ 1 ••�►a. sc 11 .. - • 1T7. (1L. -b a' 7 4 ? - ys! --;IT •' , (14) (70) t � iL ►L � a• 1 \ to t3 tt t► ►a ' i( T • r + ] ' • )ta.w +� 0 las.a (ir' a •, •e ••' (� s • 1�' , H '� 6 is Z i :7 - e w •"il 16 ►S to ►� ►L J - (� (� •. 1n �I �i� is r? io LI :2 Z3 L+ is 7[ s tr+ f x I. 1T b I• = it LL P! t+ Li Lb 2I 21 L! 7." , •, • 7i •t N' s0 •.l - 467 .s--- .- 4 • Ll f•2s • a V - - •a I• .• ». 0 •a �� 1.4� •' ) L .1 I • 7 rp. s � fc ' S, w 1 s• ► 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. 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, among other uses, as a potential antique mall; 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 Buetow and Associates, Inc. and Mr. Tom Dunwell, of that firm, along with the Planning and Economic Development Consultants for the City of Roseville, this Application and Preliminary Plat have been filed which requests amendment of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Rezoning and variance to set back. The Purchase Agreement with the School District provides that if Mr. Kaufhold does not obtain the necessary zoning and approvals for his uses of the site property, that the Purchase Agreement will terminate on November 1, 1987. The proposed Preliminary Plat makes the best use of the premises for all parties: (1) the City will own the land dedicated and that purchased for a city park which would provide a buffer to the residential area and be a valuable asset to the total park system for the community that was envisioned in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan; (2) the School District will accomplish the sale of a non -productive asset and will use the proceeds in its budget; and (3) the Developer can use the property in conjunction with his business and the highest and best uses consistent with the neighborhood and location. Rezoning the existing school property to allow for adaptive reuse of the existing school building and new development of the remaining vacant land for commercial purposes would be compatible with the adjacent commercial properties along County Road E and Lexington Avenue and would enhance Choir business potential while creating additional tax base for the city. The existing school building could be easily converted into an antique shopping mail facility with classrooms used for dealer display and sales areas. The vacant land at the S.E. corner of the property could be developed into a compatible mixed use building containing an auction house and associated office space. Further, the adjacent properties would increase in value as a result of the proposed development. There would be no adverse affect on the health and safety of the public, area residents or -2- property users because all codes and ordinances will be met. Adequate parking will be provided for all commercial users. Traffic conditions will actually improve because parking will be contained on the site and the heavy bus traffic that accompanies the present school use will be eliminated. Also, access will be controlled to only one curb cut along the Lexington Avenue side and no business traffic will occur on Eldridge Avenue as a result of the proposed development. Beautifully landscaped butter areas and removal or renovation of some worn existing structures will enhance the visual impact from the residential neighborhood. -3- Proposal for Roseville City Park Adjoining Lexart Addition Developer Gerald H. Kaufhold submits the following proposal in conjunction with his application submitting a Preliminary Plat for Lexart Addition and requesting rezoning and variance to zoning of the site property most recently known as the Lexington School. Mr. Kaufhold, without additional expense, will dedicate to the City of Roseville by deed donation, ten (10%) percent of the total. site property, located as shown as Parcel C on the Site plan and incorporated in the area shown as the City Park as Parcel C on the Preliminary Plat. This dedication can occur as soon as Mr. Kaufhold has title to said Parcel C from Independent School District No. 623. Closing on that transfer is scheduled for August 1, 1988. This donation, for park purposes, is equivalent to $100,800.00 in dollars on the basis of the undeveloped land value cost to the developer. If the park purpose of the land is discontinued, this land shall revert to developer. Further, without expense, Mr. Kaufhold will sell for $125,000.00 to the City of Roseville, as soon as possible after transfer to him from Independent School District No. 623, the four (4) lots shown as Parcel D on the Site Plan and incorporated in City Park in Parcel C in the Preliminary Plat. These four (4) lots, totaling 45,850 square feet are otherwise designated for residential duplexes in the Site Plan and present sales to the developer in excess of $150,000.00. The City of Roseville shall furnish the legal, engineering and administrative services necessary for these transfers. / , I-11 'e7 J oa'ooe o � I Ll KS. IwVlO 61 • � SaW�O 1-1 � xj` 1 LL{INl'iON AVCNUC z � i ti���� 9 � � �lil✓� � � c�t�rS��rF�: 4€"ksi'f a i � Q o r +;la 1�•,��,le ROte-fALI[KIM N�W �RY1Cfl O�lJ1MM� � N "a • I U xa;ii 1 t ROf[ L�4[flff • .w ' 1 1 I I T ' / �• rn•wn �nw/+lwrvr a • •• II nC ewanww JaJwJ! M " .1 • ••+ . J - 1 pit M i�. • � ilia I AC01T1ai [11 O �MIA P ! W1, nI III! I enrew AOUXUTn LICHMM \ VW'd'M w.wr.o.w• REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 8/10/87 ITEM NO.: val: Manag er Reviewed: Agenda Section: Department Ap r Hearings Comprehensive nest for rezoning,Comprehensive variance at ion: Gerald Kaufhold rreliminary plat, Item Descrip Plan Amendment, p 1130 County Road B. Commission, at its August 5, 1917 meeting, of the Gerald Kaufhold request or The Roseville Planning plat, and variance unanimously recommended tabling of preliminary P Commission rezoning, CompreoadsBvuntilnthe September 2, 1987 Planning at 1130 county R meeting. the Planning the Kaufhold proposal, ark area is and discussing Therefore, in After reviewing essentially reached the conclusion t e P tabled Commission has ro osed Commission a critical buffer element to the P P the Planning ossible solution, Commission meeting. order to facilitate a P September 2 Planning the application until the Sep COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: public hearing for the Gerald rescheduling the p preliminary roving/denying Comprehensive Plan Amendment, P 1987 Motion apP September 2, Kaufhold request for rezoning, Road B until the plat, and variance at 1130 County Planning Commission meeting. 2660 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE August 12, 1987 TELEPHONE 484-331 1 � � e Vi Mr. Gerald H. Kaufhold 1123 County Road B Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Kaufhold: The Roseville City Council, at its August 10, 1987 meeting, rescheduled the public hearing for rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County Road B to the September 2, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting. Sincerely, L Craig; Waldron Dire' or of Economic Development cc: Roseville Area Schools District No. 623 1251 W. County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 August 12, 1987 TO: Planning Commi; Howard Dahlgrei FROM: Craig Waldron SUBJECT:%"LEXINGTON SCHO( cc: C ii;�Y4-Council Jim Andre Bob Bierscheid Tom Dunwel.l The Roseville City Council, in continuing the Kaufhold request, further clarified and refined its position with respect to the project. The Council stated: "The City Council does not want to purchase parkland at the proposed price, nor does it want a small two acre park which provides inadequate space for an effective recreational program. The Council is also seeking to encourage increased housing on the site, and the formulation of an appropriate buffer to the adjacent neighborhood." To: J94"Al— - S", � V, Attn: LA�� Project No. Project Nam Gentlemen: The following items are Kenclosed From: BUETOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. Architects & Engineers 2345 Rice Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 (612) 483-6701 ❑ being forwarded under separate cover Copies Number Description These are transmitted as checked below: ❑ for Approval ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Resubmit on sepias as per contract ;tor Your Use ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ as Requested ❑ for Review and Comment ri Approved ❑ Fabrication may proceed at contractor's discretion, subject to corrections noted. Return corrected sepias for our records and distribution. ❑ Contractor's action not affixed to submission. We require all shop drawing sepia's submitted to this office to have the contractor's Approval Signature as per Specification Section A.I.A. General Conditions. Paragraph 4.13.3. Please comply with this or we will return without approval. Copips to: . �'`SC TRANSMITTAL cz�4a-� -- Z Yellow lJ' Pink _ Cl Green ENCLOSURE L Signed 0 BUETOW & Associates, Inc. Y PLANNING REPORT DATE: 2 September 1987 CASE NUMBER: 1787 APPLICANT: Gerald Kaufhold LOCATION: Southwest Corner of County Road B and Lexington Avenue (see sketch) ACTION REQUESTED: Rezoning From R-1 to B-3, R-1 to B-21 Amendment to Comprehensive Plan, Variance to Parking Setback, and Approval of Preliminary Plat PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. You will recall that this application was tabled at the last regular meeting of the Planning Commission so as to give the applicant time to address citizen's and Planning Commission Members' concerns as expressed at the public hearing. Since that time, the staff has met twice with Mr. Kaufhold and his architect, Tom Dunwell, and In one case with his attorney. It was noted to Mr. Kaufhold and his colleagues that It was not the staff'burden of tlon oofpurpose on him the some kind of solution, but that the Pro applicant to propose a total solution that will address the City's needs compatible with his own interests. Mr. Bob Bierscheld, Parks and Recreation Director, was present and assisted at these meetings as well- 2. We suggested that in view of the obvious ewInteresth inated thein the reational Planning open -space that exists on the school Commission hearing) that he might propose a dedication of the ball Hold area so as to improve the overallmerit of that he theproposals pno osfeol from that the City's perspective. Mr. Kaufhold noted could to this. 3. M:., Blerscheid noted that if only 10 percent of the land is to co,.Istitute a park area on the site, then a configuration of this land might be In the form of an "0 shaped parcel at the southeast corner of the site. Based on this suggestion, had Mr. Kaufhold has will noteedhis from proposal as indicated on the at plan. examining this plan that this is Indicated as Parcel Dfirl consisting on of 35,668 square feet equalling .82 acres. Include small children's play equipment, pld assive resting areas, and to a possibly a neighborhood skating facility, lhe area of obviously f land t to be zoned ®far ball field. Such a solution Increases business as noted on this plan. The area northeast of this i open-space respect would be proposedto be used for the recreational parking send zoned ctio B-2nf the site, it to the question appears that the Park Department's Interest may be as follows: a) The first objective isruld be to somehow keep s size and its present faciliti©s, open -space functioning present Gerald Kaufhold, Case No. 1787 Page 2 b) The park of slightly less than 2 acres is too small to constitute a high enough priority for the City to purchase major portions of the land (such as $25,000). c) If given the park of slightly less than 2 acres, the City could except it. If a park is desired utilizing only 10 percent of the land, the "L" shape parcel is better than a piece of land in the interior of the site (as shown in the original proposal). We suggest that in the long range interests of the community and the immediate neighborhood, that we work toward a solution that retains as much of the existing open -space as possible. To achieve that goal, It may mean the development of the land in a totally different way. 4. Mr. Kaufhold has proposed for the Planning Commission and Council's consideration a sale of the land to the City as originally proposed at $125,000 with the understa-iding that In two years after the purchase he would guarantee the repurchase of the park land for a some of $225,900. A statement to that affect is attached to this report. The merit of this procedure may be dubious since once a decision is made to establish a park, selling It a short time later might be rather difficult. 5. At the last meeting of the Planning Commission and Council, a good deal of time was spent discussing the park issue. As a there was little discussion of the merits of the amendment ton the ®land use plan and the rezoning proposal. Attached Is a copy of the blowup of the area in question. You will note that the B-3 Zones in the immediate quadrants of the Intersections of County Road B and Lexington are substantially smaller than the site in question. It the logic that the portion of land across the street from other B-3 Zones should be zoned on this site, you will note that less than a quarter of the site would qualify under this criteria. Expressed another way, the existing B-3 Zone to the north (across County Road B) and to the east (across Lexington Avenue) extends In each cnse approximately 250 feet from the corner. 6. The City, since its Inception of Its original Comprehensive Flan, has adopted and successfully pursued a pallcy of "not extending business zoning along Lexington Avenue In the City of Roseville". The rezoning to business districts on the east side of the property in question would, of course, violate that principal. The rezoning of the property as proposed (and the accompanying amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) constitutes a major expansion of business zoning In the southwest quadrant grossly out of scale with the zoning and land use pattern in the immediate area. Such extensive areas of rezoning might be more compatible If a total site solution offered substantial community benefit In the form of a reasonably adequate park facility that has been a part of the overall park plan for the City since its Inception in 1960. 7. It may be useful for us to recall that the Lc-.Ington School Site is one of four elementary schools closed in the City of Roseville within the Roseville area school system. The City has adct.-,ussfully absorbed the conversion of these school sites to other uses. It would seem appropriate that the City take a reasonable amount of time to evolve a successful solution for the free enterprise development of the Lexington School site. It may mean that additional time Is needed to allow for examination of other options. HLkLRLNGE PURPOSES A :D THE COUN- TY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY IN- ACCURACIES HEREIN CONTAINED, eh 7 • D o 9 0 4) i $ t: 90 :t 0 ( ( ) is :•.. A (�� ) O 1 2 3 4 :$: fi !,+ 1 5 fo T : >:• • t GL�' 9C 90'1 4 90' 07.83' _............ ..... 7B' 80.2 L (14 •I(13) (I2) (to n IS 14 tb 12 (1 10 5 0 70 842 e, .. ,. tit t�T od • l 2 3 4 5 6 7 w (t9) 71. L L` (�� (2t) (!1.) (v°) (2h) ~ (� 5` •v • �� c") c 0-5) t+ 15 1z to 6 t w it 04.A AO' OI' a pl 71df' C :•Itl • bi -0to A t so 71 �a •o r .,, too. to C39) C _ �� L5►) (,t) f Ls4� : CSs . at a •7•• .iJa "".x� _�'� d ��-e of +t�D) 8 SUBJECT PROPERT -- �x(B1)8 (8 ' (79) ; �o� •�, NORTH .�.,.' r• 27 � 9 ° .SCALE 1"= 200' "` � iCARYL � PLAC (n), (Go)to � (Sp) \Tub ft3.` w A.J �`= .h. nM 4 IM xTV 4 (43��-• "'i_� .^ (7f)(7z) Q /��) ( .� � �• O' so 419' d0' Q.+ 11' �(,..R' i z 41.� t� to tT I ti let 7C' 79• �t er►+ t d kL794 p• n (G.5 7S1.f' •70.2.2 w .. r .. 7f31. ao, y .� y 4u 7� ;S t Lt • 4a' ' '(ID' (fti (lo) c (►� x ) (s) `r (19) (aO) (ZI) 44 (Z'! (g) g t 1 . 1L 18 t4 15 tt, +� �fi iT7� 1 14 h. 00 7tt tt' 2 G 10' n Ct�0 ' . ?•P �s • ' 7 foi flhi b `K 4t' 0 00 , W 7s' N el •. .. AN. 76 1ac f y 75' r �3 q 1• 110. la me t to 9 (40) i I ie .2aac. C •4.0 &A . 75.07 7S' F1t)•. b ? to i' S 4 (34 3 2. 1 (•w 47) ( .. (S)) (5 7SI Ir 75 76 76, 27 i 0. s 1 ss) i i a (54) i. (57) _ram ys, 6 • 4' i .�-- . u�ii • 1 Ln N ewe Z m 115 b p 010 1 �o 00 p_- ,... o 0 o I p,pp 000.o-01o.oO.cSH EN ST OOIO'Oio;O O °SH R J-0 Q �. Y olo O � O O i. p 010'0,0 ,blb O' O�b � b: O O _O:O.O.O O O i o _ _ L. 1 4'• r- r-� t- O O'p1 O O OIO O p l Q • o ° O _• .0- oo AO oo,o! b... d .O_40-..Ob O o O � O° oO O R O°O to OOOO O 1O�10p p ;O O - j/ 4 . • .- r 0 O r a �_�_ w i ►O - O O p J ST OOR ° OA O'O.o�0�°1l o;oO0o'o'o'o!o'o O'ao j.._ t cc p!p O IOiOo, O o ROAD O RIQI�Q, h l► `I 010 OlO O O a ' o o;oc • • • + • • • • s Er MR O ` O.O O O 'O O•4 IIm O 00:0 ociol 'o IT,.. • NORTH • .00 • • w�� • ;�� • r, • • • r: • • • • • • • • A. • • • BUETOW AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 66113 TEL. 812/4B3-8701 September 10, 1987 City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Attention: Craig Waldron Dear Craig: ard at the Public Hearing In order to give us time to respond to the issues 1987,brougwe orrequest that the City Council held by the Planning Commission on September 2, 19 Public Hearing concerning the rezoning application for the Lexington School site be continued for one month. Sincerely, BUETOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. � g44V4,426 Thomas W. Dunwell, AIA President On behalf of applicant Jerry Kaufhold REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 9/14/87 ITEM NO.: Department, A proval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section: A I , Hearings Item Descr' ion: Gerald Kaufhold request for rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County Road B. The Roseville Planning Commission, at its September 2, 1987 meeting, unanimously recommended denial of the Gerald Kaufhold request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 1130 County Road B, based on the following findings of fact: 1. That the size and intensity of the rezoning request is not consis- tent with the Lexington area, particularly as it relates to the proposed B-3 use. 2. That the proposal conflicts with the City policy to discourage commercial strip development on Lexington. 3. That the City has sought to protect and preserve R-1 zoning where it is currently in place. 4. That the adjacent areas to the south are zoned R-1. 5. That the planned amendment and rezoning are inconsistent with the current land used in the area. The Planning Commission also recommended denial of the Kaufhold request for rezoning, preliminary plat, grid variance at 1130 County Road B based on the following findings or tact: 1. That the size and intensity of the rezoning request is not consistent with the Lexington area, particularly as it relates to the proposed B-3 use. 2. That the proposal conflicts with the City policy to discourage commercial strip development on Lexington. 3. That the City has sought to protect and preserve R-1 zoning where it is currently in place. 4. That the adjacent areas to the south are zoned R-1. 5. That the planned amendment and rezoning are inconsistent with the current land used in the area. 6. That the rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion approving/denying Gerald Kaufhold's request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 1130 County Road B, based on the aforementioned findings of fact. Motion approving/denying Gerald Kaufhold's request for rezoning, preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County Road B based on the aforementioned findings of fact. September 17, 1987 Mr. Gerald H . Kaufhold 1123 County Road B ^oseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Kaufhold: The Roseville City Council, at it-- September 14, 1987 meetin rescheduled the public hearing for rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, preliminary Plat, to the October 12, 1987City Council 1Meeting,1130 County Road B Sincerely, Craig A�, Waldron Director of Economic Development CC: Roseville Area Schools District No. 623 1251 W. County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 9/14/87 ITEM NO. �-- Department Approval: Manager Rev'ewed: Agenda Section: ljxA,t Hearings Item Description: Gerald Kaufhold request for rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment p preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County Road B. The Roseville Planning Commission, at its September 2, 1987 meeting, unanimously recommended denial of the Gerald Kaufhold request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County Road B. However, based on a subsequent meeting with staff, Mr. Kaufhold has requested continuance of the project until the October 12, 1987 City Council meeting. A letter from the applicant is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion approving/denying rescheduling of Gerald Kaufhold's public hearing for rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County Road B, to the October 12, 1987 City Council meeting. BUETOW AND ASSOCIATES. INC. ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55113 TEL. B12/483-B701 October 7, 1987 City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Attn: Craig Waldron Dear Craig: In order to give us additional time to respond to the issues brought forward at the Public Hearing held by the Planning Commission on September 2, 1987, we request that the City Council Public Hearing concerning the rezoning application for the Lexington School sits be continued for an additional month to November 9, 1987. Sincerely, Buetow do Associates, Inc. ..x Thomas W. Dunwell, AIA President On behalf of applicant Jerry Kaufhold TWD:mm NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; Pleased be advised that Gerald Kaufhold is Of his request for rezoning, Comprehensive requesting plat, and variance at 1130 Count Plan g a rescheduling City Council meetin Y Road B p from the Semberdmentp1411minary e October 12, 1987 Council Meeting, 1987 g to the Mr. Kaufhold wants to develop a modified Planning Commission concerns, plan to meet previous v . c�— es F. Andre, city Manager Department Appr REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 10/12/87 ITEM NO , : Z-3 Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section: Hearings Item Description � Gerald Kaufhold request for rezoning, Com rehe Plan Amendment, preliminarynsive 1130 County Road B. Plat, and variance at The Roseville Planning Commission, at its September 2, 1987 meet'ng, unanimously recommended denial of the Gerald Kaufhold request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat, and variance at 1 County Road B. 130 However, based on a subsequent meeting with staff, Mr. Kaufhold' architect has requested continuance of the s 1987 City Council meeting to the November 9, 1987tCitymCouncthe ilt a et 12, as they are still developing a modified plan to meet meeting, Commission concerns. Previous Planning Notices have been sent to affected property hearing will be continued to the November 9 A letter from the architect is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: owners advising that the regular meeting. Motion approving/denying rescheduling of Gerald Kaufhold's public hearing for rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and variance at 1130 County Road B, to the November preliminary, plat' Council meeting, y flA October 13, 1987 Mr. Gerald H. Kaufhold 1123 County Road 8 Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Kaufhold: The Roseville City Council, at its October 12, 1987 meeting, rescheduled the public hearing for rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County Road 8 to the November 9, 1987 City Council Meeting. The Council has stated that it will not consider another continuation at that time, and will proceed to mane a decision regarding said applica- tion. Sincerely, i Crai A. Waldron Dir for of Economic Development cc: Roseville .Area Schools District No. 623 1251 W. County Road E-2 Rosevillo, DIN 55113 2060 CIVIC CEON ('I -It DRIVE, - ltOtiEVILLE - NIINNESO T1- 5iII.3 -013-- 4-1-3371 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM 1T MAY CONCERN: Pleased use advised that Gerald Kaufhold's request for rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County Road B is rescheduled from the October 12, 1987 City Council meeting to the November 9, 1987 Council meeting. w James F. Andre, C ty Manager REMINDER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is a reminder that the Roseville City Council will meet on Monday, November- 9, 1967, at 7:30 to consider the following application: at Roseville City Hall Gerald Kaufhold request for rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County Road B. (Rose Galleries is p the modification of the Lexington Schoolforoann9 Antique Mall, an auction house/office on the south- east part of the property, and the southwest area as potential park. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 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 of the South 30 foot thereof. s ,F. Andre, Cry E4an,ager Amended Proposal for Roseville City Park Adjoining Lexart Addition November 5, 1987 Developer Gerald H. Kaufhold submits the following proposal in conjunction with his application submitting a Preliminary Plat for Lexart Addition and requesting rezoning and variance to zoning of the site property most recently known as the Lexington School. (1) Dedication. Mr. Kaufhold, without additional expense, will dedicate to the City of Roseville by deed donation, ten (10%) percent (36,750 square feet) of the total site proper located as shown as Parcel C on the Site plan and incorporated in the area shown as the City Park as Parcel C on the Preliminary Plat. This dedication can occur as ,coon as Mr. Kaufhold has title to said Parcel C from Independent School District No. 623. Closing on that transfer is scheduled for August 1, 1988. This donation, for park purposes, is equivalent to $100,800.00 in dollars on the basis of the undeveloped land value cost to the developer. If the park purpose of the land is discontinued, this land shall revert to developer. (2) Offer for Sale. Further, without expense, Mr. Kaufhold will sell for $157,000.00 $2.72 a square foot to the City of Roseville, as soon as possible v f ter transfer to him from _. Independent School District No. T623, �57,750 square feet of land, being the remaining areaof the 270' x 350' remaining after the 10% deduction in (1) above and as shown as Parcel C on the Site Plan and incorporated in City Park in Parcel C in the Preliminary Plat. This 57,750 square feet are otherwise designated for residential duplexes in the Site Plan and present sales to the developer in excess of $188,000.00. The City of Roseville shall furnish the legal, engineering and administrative services necessary for these transfers. (3) Terms of Sale of Land of Parcel "C" Being Offered for Sale. The $157,000.00 will be paid by the City of Roseville, at its option, in cash on the date set for closing, or in the alternative, so that the City of Roseville can budget this purchase, in five (5) installments of $31,400.00 each and interest at the rate of six (6%) percent per annum on the unpaid balance, on August 1, 1988, February 1, 1989, August 1, 1989, February 1, 1990, and the final payment on August 1, 1990. (4) Repurchase Guarantee. Gerald Kaufhold guarantees the City of Roseville until and including January 1, 1991, his repurchase from them of Parcel "D" and Parcel "C" for the sum of $257,800.00 should the City of Roseville in its sole discretion and upon ninety (90) days written notice to Gerald Kaufhold, accepts said repurchase guarantee of said (1) and (2) Parcels comprising the City Parr site; provided, however, that said Parcels be rezoned R-2 by the City of Roseville prior to said. sale and as a condition of such sale. Gerald Kaufhold -2- TO: Roseville City Council 9 November 1987 I live next to the, Lexington School property`,and am very concerned about the proposed development of this area, as are all of the other people who live in the neighborhood. If this site is turned into business use, we will lose the most heavily used skating area in Roseville, as well as a neighborhood park and ball field. This area is heavily used throughout the year by organized adult softball leagues, youth football teams, youth soccer teams, and youth hockey teams. In addition, the area is used daily by youths for pickup games, soccer practice, kite flying, skating, family get-togethers, and a host of other activities. There is precious little open space left in the residential neighborhoods. Any that is turned into business use is lost forever for its recreational benefit. Roseville currently has more business properties than can be effectively used. We do not need to turn residential property into business use. This is especially true for a business that is not a direct service to the local residential area that it is located in. It makes sense to have some service businesses next to the neighborhoods they serve. However, having a business that predominantly serves an outside area simply increases local traffic. We already have enough outside traffic on our neighborhood streets and do not need to increase it. In August people in the neighborhood formed a citizens committee to help save the Lexington School Park Area. At that time we collected about 800 signatures from Roseville citizens on a petition stating that they want the Lexington School area to remain zoned R-1 and that the southern half of this area should be preserved as park land. We could easily have obtained many more signatures. As could be expected, most of these signatures are from residents that live near the area and use this land. However, there is also a large nw,,aer of signatures from voters who live in other parts of Roseville. Everyone I have talked to, from all parts of Roseville, have expressed their deep concern that our city government, and city management, appears to be more interested in business growth rather than preserving and enhancing the quality of life for the citizens who live in the community. We chose to live in Roseville because of the quality of life that it has been known for. This quality of life may soon be gone unless we take steps to preserve it. I strongly encourage each of you on the City Council to vote NO on this proposal. But not only on this proposal, on any proposal that would turn any of the open land on this site into a business use. I must remind you that this is not just a neighborhood issue that we are dealing with. It applies to all of Roseville. If we do not keep the open land we have in the residential areas, and instead turn them into businesses or multi -family dwellings, I guarantee you that 20 years from now Roseville will not be the desirable community to live in that it is today. Preservation of the quality of life we .now have must be made a priority item, at least as high as business growth. I strongly encourage you to work with the city management, the School Beard and the citizens to find a way to keep the open land on this site for the recreational purposes that it has been serving our community. Sincerely,�`,..� Thomas N. Turba 1170 West Burke Ave. Roseville, MN 55113 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION r Department Approval: V , Mangier Reviewed: DATE: 11/09/87 ITEM NO.: 9 -/ Agenda Section: Hearings Item Description: Gerald Kaufhold request for rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminaryve 1130 County Road B. plat, and variance at The Roseville Planning Commission, at its September 2, 1987 meeting, unanimously recommended denial of the Gerald Kaufhold request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment preliminary County Road B, This was basedonthes following findinga f at 1130 of fact: 1. That the size and intensity of the rezoning request is not consistent with the Lexington area, particularly as it relates to the Proposed B-3 use, 2. That the proposal conflicts with the City commercial strip development on Lexington policy to discourage 3. That the City has sought to protect and preserve R-1 zonin w it is currently in place, g here 4. That the adjacent areas to the south are zones R-1. 5• That the planned amendment and rezoning are inconsistent wit current land used in the area. h the 6. That the rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Pla. 1. The developer has twice asked for continuations, from the September October meetings, which were granted. At the October Council meetins and the Council determined that the hearing would be conducted at the g, November 9, 1987 meeting, The developer will be presenting a plan that is somewhat modified from the proposal that was considered by the Planning Commission in that th zoning request is a B-2 rather than a B-3, the t the and the facility to the southeast has been downsizedltosaxsingleghtly estory. A copy of the new proposal is included in your g review. packet for your review, COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion approving/denying Gerald Kaufhold's request for rezoning,Compre- hensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County Road B . my November 18, 1987 .f a '! Mr. Gerald H. Kaufhold {' ;i' 1123 County Road B Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Kaufhold: The Roseville City Council, at its November 9, 1987 meeting, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, denied your request for rezoning, preliminary plat, and variance at 1130 County -Road B, based on the following findings of fact: That the size and intensity of the rezoning request is not it consistent with the Lexington area, particularly as relates to the proposed B-3 use. 2. That the proposal conflicts with the City policy to discour- age commercial strip development on Lexington. 3. That the City has sought to protect and preserve R-1 zoning where it is currently in place. 4. That the adjacent areas to the south are zoned R-1. 5. That the planned amendment and rezoning are inconsistent with the current land used in the area. 6. That the rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Sincerely, Craig Waldron Direc or of Economic Development cc: Roseville Area Schools District No..623 1251 W. County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 `�-#-,�,'�71 2060 (.1N'1(: (:11,N1"1?l( '1)it11'E - IZOSEV11,L11.-,N11\%,'ESO TA - ii11.3 - 012--# / �, ve \r )I e--� 14K �'Ie k-5cl),L 717 oil Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville comkunity, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. M=M= 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i .ice ..�._._ �. ♦ '��s� Address rf3o u= C v (� 13-'. Ct) A46'-u � 3 els ... 6. '07 of G7dial V' lc t Instructions to petitioners: [] Have all residents of each household that are of voting age sign the petition. [] Have non -Roseville residents sign the colored petition form so marked. [] Encourage other people to help circulate the petition by taking it to work or other places of business. [] Make sure that all Roseville residents contacted get a copy of the information sheet and questions. [] If someone is not home, leave an information sheet and list of questions as well as making a note that they were not home so you can stop back later. [] When done, return all petitions and unused information sheets to Tom Turba at 1170 W. Burke Ave. 1 ! V lop nk r. 1 G / FF1P e° - u Instructions to petitioners: [] Have all residents of each household that are of voting age sign the petition. [] Have non -Roseville residents sign the colored petition form so marked. [] Encourage other people to help circulate the petition by taking it to work or other places of business. [] Make sure that all Roseville residents contacted get a copy of the information sheet and questions. [] If someone is not home, leave an information sheet and list of questions as well as making a note that they were not home so you can stop back later. [] When done, return all petitions and unused information sheets to Tom Turba at 1170 W. Burke Ave. 1 ! V lop nk r. 1 G / FF1P e° - u Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-11 that the southern half of the land ballld be fieldPreserved as and generalpactivity, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2] 2', 2. w " N- 7'r4 1AI Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved , and generalas park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball area for the Roseville community, that he eaeapkcontinuelto be provided infor the youn,4er children, and that access to th way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 21 2"2 2_ 24 2! Address i' ` Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q2-1..,.-moo.. � t Address )qOq �V-k�� 3 L�E Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Address 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 �'1 U 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rA . Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. M m 2 �/3 C �4 5 C 6 8 9 i0 12 13C 14 15� 16 17 i 18 19 20 21 22 23 264 25 j316 cwl cjj6:V;M Fla4l W .S` tnP . Ls A--Ce' . -1 /.0 We, the and Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area ,,signed, believe that the Lexington School propert shou zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should b y ld remain that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball e preserved as park land, Younger children, and that access to this field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the s park facilities be enhanced for way that it is now. area continue to be provided in +rA 1 2 3 0 Address _. _ � _ 7-al f La�L Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-11 that the -southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville c imunity, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and th-t access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Name 1 2 G1i 3 �i 4 5 -L 'Oe 6 7 8 9 11 r 1, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 J':d 21 22 23 s 2 25 Address _22,2dvf 6 -7 Loz'LZCZ� ._I .// j- ,5-11 1 3 Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area we, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 �� 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 024 25 Address L-41 Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general act.-vity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (i12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .� AMC- �r Ij Address �7J 1q'6 Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area LFs We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 r, 6 7 6 9 1� 1: 1: 1: 1� 1� lE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Name ,,11 ,n Address I f Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area hould remain We, the undersigned, believe that zoned R-1, that the southern half that it continue to be used as a area for the �enevandethatnaccess young''" child way t.,.at it is now. 1 2 3 4 25 the Lexington School property s ark land, of the land should be preserved as p hockey rink, ball field, and general activity that the park facilities to be provided inrthe to this area cantnue Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Address 1�7 ��ll woa ,e 6 stiff 1.11 1751' TOE eo�vr Lz 5 2os w R ., k. A- c- oS w &kite �E r Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Wi 1 'g 2 _ 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Address _&3 �erz� ZOGO i N 0 i I 1 oc u7 . S, 1s/l wt a vL 4j, Ste; ' //J�� r� V el, Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 2 3 4 5 �13-- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r r� Address C) y e Oak (.Vp-g ' v e, sLMd"M M/I 1L Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-11 that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community,that toathiseareakcontinue1es be enhanced to be provided inrthe younger children, and that access way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1: 1� 1 1 1 1 1 2 G s. 22 23 24 25 .,e.►.,' l �/ r� Address I 1.1 l z Cf eo& ed id c� /v� 1 c�' LU �d3 S puV + ys o 6L�/19 Q Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area t should remain We, the undersigned, believe that zoned R-1, that the southern half that it continue to be used as a area for the reneVandethatnaccess younger children, way that it is now. Name 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l � 7 i 1 the Lexington School proper y ark land, of the land should be preserved as p hockey rink, ball field, and general activity that the park facilities be enhanced forthe to this area continue to be p Address cc �v !G n c{ j3 17,4 ; �� f Q �� -7 Scr..d �1uv5 cc, coA.7-r 2_ Z Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that zoned R-1, that the southern half that it continue to be used as a area for the Roseville community, younger children, and that access way that it is now. Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Lexington School property should remain of the land should be preserved as park land, hockey rink, ball field, and general activity that the park facilities be enhanced for to this area continue to be provided in the Address g r4tAll ol � r 0.11 / .2.4 76� �..� .air MWA Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-11 that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activit area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for y younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 14 15 16 11 lE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Address �Q.) ' 71 _ c . �'7t Ica G✓ 83 1 � — 3 U x 7 1'V .Iola /ter Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activit area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for y Younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Address s 12-0 2 w- L.pvppd s�-� 5sj�3 - d � r57/13 Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 _&,, 16 L_ 17 �0,; r� Address 3 r�uu Y - U l l vj-e _-7 TH AIU2. �4Yn-Tt r ��•-� lls7rJsz ISMW U, '� �J. �2 v / J 1 Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park .land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Name � Address /17a /41 Ile, Loo L r_ F A A N Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 25 Zt 11 n L ..hJ�Y ,' I t Address a� CASO �a lb`f-)7 W ✓r t'C-t i 1� ji c �I4.. yr .M- n Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Name 2 3 4 5 C 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L//j AV 14 ! �C 15 � 16 17 181� 19 20 - 21 22 23 24 25_' Address r /36 3 w ;�-z k,' Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area L4, We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-11 that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field and general area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhancedaforvity Younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. lffl.lv : 'L Address C5-5 W �i — ZyS-°- p4Fvft» o7 =fl Q U r N f Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should'be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Name 1 2 3 94 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 l 2 2 2 2 24 25 Address T 1j co �cX /0)C� t l.C/, CC9 4 cW G4J. �-40-8z2 3 7 ZV _7z, I ! -) l=A v'& [ lzb. tk c��;2131* AI)d dl d&t I � A � Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 S 9 1 1 1 1 1� 1 16 17 is AIL�.- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Address 165 W , ")1nev-ren S-'. \0 t.J. -e s: G n L � /y ` "I V/ (ems'/ Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned,_ believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1"IMMo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 %;z 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NA 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i 25 f. Address A4*, .GK c. .�..� Z7U�. C% r'C //: Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-11 that the' -southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for Younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Address l/95/ W.. X�k. as' 3 5r N . n v -V- -- J- 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-11 that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activit area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for y/ Younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1dnr — 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 In 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Address .• ,Driv'e Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Address 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Par We, the undersigned, k Area zoned R-11 that gthe �southern half of that et that it continue to be used as Lexington School property should remain area for one Roseville community, he land should be a hockey Preserved as park land Younger children, and that unity rink, ball field, and ltthat the park facilities be general daforvity way that it is now, access to this area continue to be provided in the Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Address 14 15 16 17 18 — 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -C� rx Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Name 1 2 3 4 '�)5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Address Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-11 that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Name Address AV,. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-11 that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Address C> 13 14 u 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Address a� f Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-11 that the -southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 v 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Name LHUU.L t -S 2 IF %/lam S GC i � z.%•�t.l �' T M Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Address 009L uv o� zsgg Al- tj M Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-1, that the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. Name Address 1 AS a 2 AA-4 A14 Illejonn 06 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4. Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, believe that the Lexington School property should remain zoned R-11 that: the southern half of the land should be preserved as park land, that it continue to be used as a hockey rink, ball field, and general activity area for the Roseville community, that the park facilities be enhanced for younger children, and that access to this area continue to be provided in the way that it is now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Address r� 19 -- 20 21 22 23 24 25 VA 6 Petition to Preserve the Lexington School Park Area We, the undersigned, although we do not live in Roseville, have either personally used the Lexington School Park Area or have friends or relatives that have. We would like to see this area remain as park land for the general use of the community. Address �S;�iF�4�rsf lC.o� �V i l(•e 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I-o 0.7 -i IL iJ J T'i P R A TPX DV . . . . . . . . 2 5 Gl� 5 A� C, R iE: E J� - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - �l V, J b - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - H A D L D . . . . . . . . .. ,C5 SC 1) .. . . . . . . . . 3 A tC FNI E t-3 IJ I".. LEI Ql L) p l:*'[)r') N AT) LJ C-li i 1-1) TAX _DESCRIPTION------___----------------------------------'-------------- pLAT..�3993. ! 6�OADVlc� AUD ---------- �5 SQ FT 6lZE D E S C ^^^^^^^^^^^.1�D�12 / ' ,."..... � '-U''� � ACRES ` .2 COMMEN�S------___-------------------- __________ . ------- --,� c, � ' p|��� 77;,`�i���i � X | -------'-------___ ` -__--___- _-_---_---_- --_ � - P�R[]}' �AX DESC��u�-�2`-_------__---'-'---'�'-- ----'-- [}��Si� - �[]-Y�[q[C,---_-__--'�� --------� - -- - - � -__' ------- Qp� � � R[]SEVI.,LLE 0481 , -------- TAX �E�C�IPTI��--------------___________-------------------------------- ' PLqT.^03993, - 13 02 � DE�'S'C ....... .. 9 ACR,,1-:S ! � � , .2 �[]MME�TS----------------___________---... ... .... ------------------_____________ ' _____________________________________ 0.P.1���9234�(0�97� E, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ C[J�'.`'L�v` 6--- ------------___- ___-______---------------------------________ ------------ -----------------__-________ -----------------------------__ ��N ��N (� SO 1::7 � � ACRIEC.3 ^ / --~--------------------------------------------------------------------- �OMM��)JTS-^-�--�---�------�_�________-----------�------------------�------ ---~---- 87 j PROP PDDR� 7 t3 ry C) N�, f C, A!N�" CIP A X D E S C� p P LA 0 40 8 5-- DIE Z:5 C w,'! A, up# P R CIP D D 3 C, T P X Pi A-r s. . . . . . . I DDR. c 0 Al. TAX PLA-F. . F41 T DESO F- ` �O CONME�T5 GiP,1�5�92311��1� ENT�R ANOTHER DI��LAY �STD-�ETURPJ N HOMESTER, B2/25/87 � LA�[��� pRLjp ADDR°`^ TAX PLAT. U` �' W SE"!FT - � ' -�- .^^....^^^^^.18),�4 DESC...~.... �------_ ----------_-_-' m� 529.�.����J�/'� oR[]p �[}A1v � ^ TAX DE��[.�I P/'� U�----- -'.- _ - _.__------'--- ------- --- - --- -- � tD |�'' ' / /� - , ^ . ^ . . ^ ` ~ . [>.. ^ ^ ^ ` - pR{lp /l[)[)R... ! ���91 40zu� 5��\/ILL� ./!n PLAT. . Q-14081,57. KEI-Li.-*-Rl 5 0 s Gi i;7 T ........... DEE SC' , ........ -lu 3 A f R [ E* 5 C f I IM 1A E ii,\l -I S U. P. 1521323,�,,- 1. NIT A!\! C..). 2/ 1. 9 I F3 7 w000, PROP ADDR... 7 TO!\, PLP7 . . 0406". t7� D il S,- : t 4L, W-01 D;- OX V; ,T.);!,! c1l. p i 1,57 "31 .11. `554 tj f ryj SO 4 9 /,9 DR 0 TA x D ZIE S,-- G� Jw - - - - - -- - - - - - FA X D r fir Q. p n- D Woo/ Al y'! T'.)X D E-S' L-3?- PLAT. - - - - - - - - - - - - Cp 4 A C RE- S C D m tyl E --- - - - - - - - - E V t li TAX DESCRIPT PLAT. - 0408-5,, 3 S Q F T 7'? 4 AC-RES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 C 0 fq lyl i\"! Z-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - 2/19/87 C) C, 02/19/9-7 J. P PROP q- D DR 17 0j FJ; '3 LOAN CCj- 0 "4 0 IZI 1. o c .Ax p1 1"17 . . . . . . . . . . . . b; b.- PR(T T�)X DESC Rl P 4VI a DESP ..... A C R'E-:: S COM MIENI-I S-- OW iA -H A WH 1 r- I'l.... DOROTHY ,00/ 0 4 / 2 BE, -17Q.� ELDRT.DGE H 0 11)" E S T E AD R 6 7 — — — — --- --- — ---- --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — A x 1) c . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1-3 P D - IR E-'-! U R k 1 0 /6 E, 162. 0 izi TAX DESCR, p L A 16 D A. ________________________________________________________________________ TAx DIE- SC�l�T�/�O�-------------------------------- w� �OMESTEAD��H. } ' y/ P9O� ! �[j��E��lL�E TA X DE����IPTION-------------------------------------------_-__--_____�__ pL-AT. c)2. 4 G[ FT D[�S<�. P ACRE9 ^ � ' COMMENITS--------~----------------�-------------------------------------~ �O �OMN��TS 04/��4/�f� ! APA[�-TE�AS IkiC ! � ! L�XINGTON ROSEVl-LE � �� CO. . . . . ! 9632 / � � 0�/692/A7 ! � / � � ' ` � TAX DESCRTPTlON-----------------------------------------------------�--- SlZ�..-...".....48,29 1 [J FT , 0 ACRES ^ � D��SC" 7,D!., b ^� 4/86 ' -------- � �.JM��E��JT��---------------------------------------________-___________�__�_ lFAX DF�G[�RlPT��!�---------------------------------------�-----------_-____ PLAT. .��3�57. � AU�ITOR'S S�8�lVISI�r � �OT S�ZE............48,�9 F�T DE. ISC."" , � �23x9��711 3-17-B6 QP,11292333�9058 E�TE� gNOT�E� �l��`-AY �LJ�E----/ : PROP ADDR`.. ROGEVILL� MN � 551�3 85 � ! TAX_DH'SCRIPTl�N-----------_______--------------------------------------- �iAT..Q)3957. �� ���� FT �'� �`Z - � �^ ^^ ^ ~ ^...^.. l&^ /b.1 4 ! L[)T COMMENTS'------------_____---------------------'------------------------ NO CUMME�T6 2/3Vj/86 2 /1�9/87 / � HSTD—RETURN 0 | | H[]�ESTE��DER, � L�XIN8TON � �Y / � EUGE�E 3 D1-DI PFRO 1-1 ADDR."" � RE, SEVILLE MN 55l13 � LDP) i\i. CL]. , . . . ! N�56 21::-//.1E/ ! ! TAX_Dc��CRlPTIOy�-----------_--_____--------------------------------------~-- PL-AT. , ��957. ! AJ,DI� - SOFT � �� u ' -�—^ � ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ . ~ . . . 14, 30 S,'�. 2 PIC.iIES DESC. ! l43 18/1W& FT OF W l/2 OF ' COMMENTS---------_________------------------------- HZMESTEA DER. a7 ' Fu�R�AN ! � p[:,OP CDUt,�TY . � LOAM C[]. . ~ . . 6L1I66}�� � 86 ! T(*-)X_�E��CRIPTIOFx------------____---------------------------------�------- PLAT..@39��7. 4 13{] � >xO. 4 ACRES DESC""..^...! ! OF � / ����`� OT L11 � ' I TAXPAYER....! � � HOMESTEADER. � . PROP ------------------------------------------------------------------------ � ROE�����L�E TAX DES[�RI�TIO�---------------------------------_-________________-_____ 0 SO FT DESC ^^^^^^^^ - 7 ACRE�S . . � ' . COMMENT�----------------------------_________-_________----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ �JO CO��MEN�6 � � � D ROTH4. ! HS'I-D-SE ` QP,15�92311it 059 l'WTER AP!OTHER DISP.'o\� CO0 E---- AVE ! HSTD-RETURN 0 2/19/87 � � ST PAUL MN 55110 � HOMESTEADER. ! . 03/24/87 PROP ADD--�... ' � . � ROSEVILLE it, 55113 � TAX DES CRIPTION---------------------------�------_____________---------- \ 0 SQ FT 7 ACRES ` -------- COMMEWTS-----------------------------------------_____________------�--- � � r POMD��. ! . TAX [ WE. qiP! 1 LON--- '--------------''-----------------______-___- -. 0 9Q F� � ACR�S _..... .... ______ -------- &2/l/Z�//�'� �R(�P /�DD�. . . ! .���� _'�X�``����-'`� A»n aL • .L , .•.. i^-; ., . 1` % -� r , r . w! _. ,._.._. , i -/ ,� !\. .. i _. !— i__ r , _. i.._ w: , >.:� ._ ..f.. 'F. u m m r. u r. 1 � ., . u a w7 p!� w a :_ 1 .. is t.�' : w _. s-.' i_ _'.� �_ .=i �..... � � !,;1 ia. f _... �\ t .... `_; '...1 � •..i � � .—! �. �- '_J .i ;a -� L_ Ga C 0 ,_ ._ -_ It �,� . J. I! t - ':J 7"L ,, c, f i,Il f i-: ",-! -- f , " ! —.. F Er.__ WN E R. P R D',P A D R IUS V I L TfIX �.-Pl T n :Zip.; 40 AV i 95. 1 '91 CA 10 T PCREG x R0, E V L 7AX rKSCRI Z Z 7 SU 7 PCRES 4 SO F-F D i,, C . . . . . . . . . 3 ACRES COtyl MENTS----�- N��MES^---------'_____------------------------------ ADD�^.- ' . Tn x DESC�l�iI���----____- '__---------------�-------- N4�9�'. 4 3 ACR��S __________--- __-_______-_______-'___ [�[]M��E��TE�--------_____--------------~--' 6/���/B> -------------- '-------~----____-_-- �vAME�5'----�-----___--_------------- �-'�----��-'----'- TAX X DES[�RIP'�' �JN---------_'__---------------�---------- t7j��i t-,..�--.....,...._.., J, TRIX J— Sz 12, C'31'e fy-iE!!v:' V% X D S L rq S U: .. . . . . . . . . . DE, C� . 0 P i, 4 4 16 U 7, Cl Wool,' 0 V PROP LEE TAX p P L A D VJ. co IS GO -6- a g P c T! a 7 HDMESTEEADC-:I�. 02/25/87 PRCiP A-DDIR . . . j. z; TAX 0 S Q F T D E S C, . . . . . . 0 c c Dy f7. Py A -D D D P."\! D Ln 0 �m'v',�n/�----------- �O COMMENTS [�p,1029344�9Q94 E��TER A�OT�ER DISP��Y CODE----> � NGA�,,i D'� PROP ADDR.'-v � -------- TAX DESI�',RIP'rI�^�------------------------_-__-_______--------------------- 9LAT..033.! DESC~°...... � - - - .2 N ACR��S COMME��T�--------------------------__-_-________--------------------____~ []P°1N2�2344�053 987 � HOMES7EAD���. ! . PR[]P ADD�;... TAX E)ESCRl���'�2(`------------------------____________-_-_----------------- DE6C...... @ ACHE6 ________________________________________________________________ C[]h��E�x�S----�----------------------____-_____-______------------__-_^-___ r 1 i ., g�� ... , ,. .,. ... , ?3r.. ...., 7� ., .. � 35t z ».Rsifi',^ I'�# b:..� 8 t :. <Y re ._ ...... ,. r. „ f L i G, '."S .k., v0C L ,. ,, .,„ .:.. u�.,.; 3 ...., � .�,_� { :.;�'� T , ":: :��.;: .i. K.. .. T. i.L, ., F f.. L t .�"�' r4 +. 4.,..:. �", r� �lr'- I' rf.� i '. ''_ '.-.. .:. ,. ._� i fur 1 r, .� �.; „ '' ,; , , +, 'i i r _ r'q�j T ' . ;f. a�).:'. f, -"R,a r':`i 1`P' "s .:,a. ,« , I. T .. :.•rt r ., , ...; - .... , -. ,.. 121 :'rdP. � ,,.c Y �•.ai x,hr ,, �,+?.,1 rPYr • 7F< _ _ ... . . ) ti : 7 ..{ . t � P r+ ,r{ �: t r•'7 r. 'A ]'I ,. .:r.J,iv y�.: 1f .,r „t. a..,.^jY.,fi r,A -t{ y a. ,...,.. ;', •. • C •1. n. a 5...,. : : . i .fi .. ,. ]f .. .. ...- , 'S , i- ., +1 i. '. :1F .t - f.: - f 1 . ro A _t: ?. 1 Y§u t r _M a 1 'S , �. � A 1 ) . r . Y � ..,i t f. y,�r 111.E 1 .. ,P. : r, , . ii(�'� .. .: -. - 1 ... A . r , '•r. N.: ..a iv : ( t ... ,. r :. a t.r -.,. .. .. r .. ".. ,� .. , .. }. ... 1. ,.. .. ,. � f ..t. - 4 ,},�,�� r. , .'Ain R : P .. t `r} {. , 1' , .,' , . i -�. ,•','t(rr'. , - � .- «.. ._ c.. '� #, ,, t. ,.. �-.. -, 54 _ � �'. , � .- ., .n fir. .. ,� „... ,P cu. 4' o. Y , :.. ,. .,. -. .. ."! .. .r r .: a ,. : .n... -'-{•, r" �,. �.a 1 .v: .. sq Z .. , .. -s. , + _, ., r. , J .. - ., Y " , . / f _ ,. I s" .5 L v4 . T"' R t 5 .. , , .. ,. .. , 1 .t.. - ,.,.. ..3i"r N .. •r 3 :., f a ... _ _, I � , .. ... f. 2 .r .. r . ,•:Lr..3' ?c l: Y"' ''¢+� y t F , y ,, t. t s• e. r . .t - .P n •F:.. .f . �S .. ,. .. .. x ,,,,yy- ., .. , _..t t. M1 , 1 .. r s .. S .. I r. - : . ., . } r: ) . N k 1 :., , " a :L . . F t. A�,. S .:. 4 , .. L P. Y . t. .. : R,. F:,. . 1 N e a r l _ J ., 3. 2., . " .. b. d + x n }r.e ,. r ..,. 1 ;� i -e .. t- -.. ... J .. ,. � ,. ., ,. ..- i f C. n'7E .t' _.�' Jk.. I t r _ + l , - r r N,- , ,,.3 r'.e -.,r, , .. ,{ ,'.: '. j.. ..,L - - +,.. . •; �i. - - -I .. J . -r h l y rr... .w ^ • 1" ..; :: r. - .7 " q' y' ,7 S ..A H.. . J. :. .. ,... .. - t, :.'• r :Yr1''.`� 4 7a. :#' ri'.:J10 N,. 1 .. , s ;,. E' w', • x Y., . , 4 L jr f S d,, r• k(! ." drr • rrn'I e , hi°': . 'r . i. J A ... .... c _ . �;., 1 .. P .,.v.98 1 f .r 9 ,� ", x k. r. r ,` " . ti. r..i r ti• J. :.. , ,'1f.L : .:.,. : , . r ... '�+,,♦ , B i•} a'ypt{i' :,c, s ,. ,f - � _ "`! ?. i r, '~fi.; r ".l:rk, (,..t,.d . r y at N'L'.-rf Y rt' F - ,1 .Ii. it" w S i /f... 44 �`, .. 1,,r.� , L .'st',.. F7 ..Cl'fuj+ r wil ..r' . r ',1 - I l: ': ,t-I>-.. 'p(-r2.sa5�d�/(r. _ ... i;er{'rr(i. t ::. ,r.e. .,• -.i- - ✓ '.t,x `'r k?},. T' , f f. , ..,.. �, -.. ,M1,., J.. i.:' :. : • 1 _ - e.'ii . .I ' i r'1 tt. s: °„ C , .pi- 4, v {y 1- � s 'I .r.,.t4. -+. , ,-.. _4, .. ,•-.- -t.. _ - , r t. 1 r .l .t :!>w ylf;%, t �'.,iyf r, P ... - -. 1 < . f t .d%" R .t6�.:P r, 7 rd.•k. _� to � C �jy Y ": I � .. - �, r {' ) t P ,� ,. , ` 37 r star — — 1" E1c15T Grfl ' o- '-",.1 e/ I h r,kW x` :/ .+ 9 O r t - f j C !" Y_ •J' - ' r h n,,5 , / J J, /_ r / / _ / / % . 1 r�gF, 'y — ____/- " r_ / / 7� [ r / / (/I / / i ?9 k I rt ) kr, � s - -10, 5-,.12, lJ ra ,J i ... )� t :, t 9� 1 9.PS-fiNGt P�ARKI/1(a — /09 GAitS l__ 4,� \ �_ t _ PS?IC►afJAiC / CNl GQ :IV _ itY4 \ t '\ ""— " \ \ I l .. ` \ 3 ,.I a f rrt, , \ \ \ ,(r \ \ �t t - •-\\ 'r `\ - �� 1- - \\ _ \\�- 'z� \>t. 1, -- _._..__. ,'R{ 1 a t ., x i >r } L f ' I i ,.. j FXIsTIn� r,/ y) e.. 1 - - - 1 - 11nrT SISI' 1 r ! t' i re r y -. r I S{W "�u 4.p/NL1 4�Ar D rV� 1t►. , ` . w 1 i 40 __ u 1 _ ,��b .N�arT'_:_ _ fr �t s;. i rr ",S •. _ Z j I 1 I 9 _i e�X. r C�p,�R,� p„1 . ,� _ 1 '.r i_e I ~F�~ M1C f . �, - - 3 S 5, 5! 3 : �/� _ '�" i$ 5; .�� ��5:� boss 4 �' ., tt :. I _. _ . �f n� P� oa t M n 9 I:b� OAK§ �Hoti7� i'1pF a I I ! 114E R! Ak; \ ._� /. ...r..^ r 4 f _ . a v i {f2 i i ` !'� I `I i i I T� G� 5 S �}C1•N� I �' r P +/ ' I �' na 1 r '�—'_--r-T [ `, txPn'IOI.:.ist{'.. ,�4.4�'.i'!i ti, P_ S '° ` '', r' 13 -- - Imo' I W �} r r 'f t Da �� I I 1 I __ 1 ` t` d J - �0 /JQ(i K�Kiif" I I �._ I I I I 1. � r r ld r t,ti k �_ -...�. 9y. A I — �— �� ,P �,5t k' : 1 i . I I I .I I I /_ , t �vt 4' {r 'a x I 1 1 I , 13 /�rJ L;&°' ,' w VE: ! I { 1e I `: /, f ,; pA� lr g 38,37 °' - . 9AC.�F x r .a► I �.I. _ ��' s' ^fir' / ►i�Po{7 ZONING I 1 `.� .i a , N� '/ $ , EN5r P , � t S,_�— �_ _�_ _. .. 4I iy , p _ Z cra. _ y c / / 12 tY 1 2 ): + 11 i Q �. � I ... � � / .. r 4 :'. _ , . t1` r tr S i, t, r , %S' _' S�, �, 0' - It r ' r'r 7?''t�i \ Vt r Jn t=rt - r,;' /6 52z0 { �11; yy Lr , y+l-: i, t 4 1 F.- :i t i , r � 11.'.. if:,4, , a �.;t , f`� SF�'>��iL,K. t' x 7bt a+.` r.lt' t t+' t. v t t t.' " r i' :> YJ�iM r ' c f t1' i , sir .y w-,1, bt t . N to txgNp G ----- / Sj t�/ /[UG77 0/ `3/ �7�'t L P�U I!-�ln1C+ ( z , ';ii a r .F tF O 61QOa ~ j 30r oao NET t f\ tF/�81 of c ,� �2`.P. r 1,� ,r't 0 -° j� -- - - --- - - N r 1n ti rr , z _ Q .., , taT-S!?t Aftc,,�: 3�1,:9��?_SIG�C S 5 '1ai44 6 ,, f ' ' ' J o 3 a2� r,v x�H �,y+: pp e I 5 /off •. 8</% A�2E5 ' NET AID: l�-.D,txrS . N L4 T 2 GEL• IG I /213 , Z l D 2 • I '. A� S rAf-c�L- A j6UIL910( Ajez A: ?5. 5i-s -r 4P.os5 ,CRCA APSA DfaY1o+..•m o" , ,.r. 5 �'•�',� �, ��i /52, 83�-r�► 30� o no SQ LF-ASEI�gC E �77i Ly { r �1`. PP !� Zo�iNC �-Z �J'` ,� �r _ Ft NET :f PI AJJ'1i !A,?,..r i .2. V� - /� {-ryR.K ��b+1 IZ�`Yi���GJ/'. (� �O �Q / �t'� .. S i J 7 ' I ! a� \ PAQKIN Q G yNowrJ: /Oq EX�sT>JS��+(�O.NE�i /b�.!arcS TbT1�C., z *+ _j N I 2vS �_—__�---- -- { a5 I I I - - _ Q G k, a, tr /� 1\ Uli���U cQr O G�O., t , 3 rr 3011 :.. /SB ARs7 yn �JlJ , . -•�` iV 2 �r - frflt�R= oE�hfiol.-IT7oJV ,, _j ; ,e'YEX !!! 38 3 74- . r, iq; I RING 8boa , 's oo. yc�-�3 ' `i r ,t . t ( f • p y �, t 1 rA r - 3 � (,/0 3 . S 2 A�-P-C.w, 3 � 1 N6, .aNa t� • c-Al : : s x 3 {w �- ' L. 1� PAS w` 4`s t t s^ t i [ k, +1 `rr ;'1,�fw t \ P0Nt�1NC ��-'/�'�C.Fi�. G, (�vI t�1NG '/}gip , 3 jl (000 SW; C-�►1.a55 AP 3ca,boo" 52�.FI . N� : LFAS'I+1,1....1. I� r I 2 S, ./ m I rY� YJ _ _ — — _� _ _ I'A '-Ak/ , • `(a••QtL1 i W 0 c— _ . 2oa - l SD t"-ArLS r �+ I+ ' ` #\'.. � fti j _ A'P-4�rN� .._. l5B ,'IrlduiA! ` . <-r4 2S "LflY 1• r>t ' I i i + 1 . 4.91 rV L, _-L. (. 0 rm �'l �'f � F'+G I+fF",7- 1 ! �y. _ t 1 f �•?`. ��',r I{ , , D l o a (3S, q a i cam► e-A`r�v f'494, - - . 4A- f -0f��{i r . 3s !o �s 2 + aP �� r {'. 1 by �_, J , ,1 rC faF�- Pu F3lac. U5 AS A NLGN gnF�-- >Lbvp �" i' , 1 M 2, f ! L4S A' ) 1 t ,,� i a':4'tit )rr xi r a1 ( _ , 'r' ' �vf e,, ` n , Y - s' ` 1 rt ti y+ 1 , - u , i ,, , .. T 4... �, ti .i r ' I r .;x .. ._y 3 .J,. ,, ` ' ~� t �{ ',T i<-rf :tr r T d p ,1 ") , r d Y Irr;K'1 .i:1 ,--(. Y t t .. ' , .. Itl, 1 %, t J .t ;', Yi t. l,r1 'r (p l44�I l 1 I /. - IP .S rt ts� '1 tat /Ai,r, , t,!, I , S ��tt ✓`4i?'tFf/�s''o6 i 1 % 'Iz i'„ , '. t, i it -;(I "kr�,,"f l' "{� rPxl `� Ir r' ( - - -'' r 1'i' � 1I �tP I:,t, tl ;F..S,, i Iti 1\q.r{� L' �,rr v t y' ii; �' } r+l t rr. f l ilA :rl �'' i,5 't , Lt , A .. 1 1 h [ i _,',,,r `Y rl'f� ,, A. f� ' f,?.I 't'" •r p ,/. ::r ,r,' .. ; ' ' 'd + +1�t'`•IMj1f T.�'.,y1.p+', p,,' J M1 , !.l'. j„ ° 1 •+, . '� - P, ,, . , .,,�, .NyJ,M ..t _ 4ru"�Y�,Yrr.'•I ggrFt.�rr��wNM�ISIr�rrrwrrnwrrr:orn��. MI�II�r:w�r�, wurrr�r+�Vrrrre��e rr,l - '1 Y.r-;fa'yi ,+I .s ��If,1, hyf..,,,F'f-l�l 5�,q y. J , �" _ :_ I . l . `gal � S I I I a .. � , I : I �.�..__ '! 1. I . . . . � I � -{ .. . t . . I , �' - , ", " ; I I :, , I , , � " I ': , " I �' I. I � : ,- .. ., ..,.. .. . ,.. ., '•'. ,- , % , , , I . I�, - IJ. tC i. ,. { ,: •' , - I I I • r . - , ' _,l - I. .­� '. I . I I, � :. . r .. '� . I �. 1 I , : I I., . . - ... _­ . l - I 11f I 1 I^� flo.rCSfCpvEK - . I. . :,N ..ntEf' ! C55 o r f o u iP ✓ JAR' •dA 1 R F p ECur4lr, p . �,S H. � N� _ �.. 1 ] I e:' l f� $� s ++ �j �j ] y E ;no RI E PK�/{, ¢y„o , N L,'LUJ T_ caa�s�a . C; 4A PLS 1 >'3om I LVIN vruCFt cJA<;es IKr, . K v4e :'. 44B N w ;rg1LC Y 4, }%QLc.W c'14i_ ,' P oc 406. I nw 'R• CCAA4 .^ µ f"' -tu NG C E Ct:REyQ M, 1! ,. A0(,4 o . '?A.410: I'AIRWAYS GWE. ' a{/' I nv.ICIA :w a e,t' 1 y-FC9 CR�� SL,.: I - L7 3 1 l iiv ), II (�] I 117 '] j i1,I 1 : pEuur�. �A4,Jcg i MvA4gr u_,cc .cp . I - I ifq,s So97' I .. IDI' vl. A . 45.1i3, . _ •• - ro y ?� Pc�woc, A.uE,"a- I .iA�.., ,-„J. eSq �wuEC; PAG•'�E 5,;.,c, A yn 000 t II _ -- - - - ----------- - .. _. 11 3 - i . I ' 1 . . - ... I . - I. 11 &. I 2fCv'% ,J,%EK91JG'�o,•1 L•E �'1.3n4� 40 1l r S Te '---- - ---- - ... s.. '. - ' � I " -17 11.L.F r1 2 _fie ,4 - .. _. ___ - _- , ' ofM vrr �L _ __.___.______�.__.___.�-__.11_____..._..._ �_..-_.. .. _. .- _ ------ ------- - - r-'- - - _ -1 -- :i T - -ram . ''! - 5foR Cw E'R 4 3 - -� - - - ---L -_.._..__ —. - - _ i - __. ._ _ .. .'' - --- - --- . _�__ -'- __ . __ - -:'-•------ - 1 J - _ _.__. ____.-..__.. __-_�__ .. .._ _._-_.�_ - ---- _.... -- - .----- _ _ - -__--- . . - , i I --�_•_- _--�__ __ I o , , CI.- —. _ _ - . . - I - 5AN,1 SC:: ���., -Q.. ... �A. - - - -- - _ - __ -__.- -- -- O nn l Tl nK) M . /n,- O r -I -..•, F. - _.. _ .,._. i — ... � . "--- � � �.,_ � TT� � . - � I `':__ - --i _.�_._._. - 1. U 7o t j 1 I 1 I P,StuQ ._ EXIST.�` - o I I li u _ __ - 2�3 , _ - 14i 'A5 N. {- I: A L.-,ke,A , 1F, , , I .. \ :r .I 7- - N' / _th 1 1-11 ),- 1' ---'- Cc t,, r It ,I I W, I ' 3 i �► {3 ! I, r I �1, ! I I �'. I.. NfiN T 3 b{it f A Uc.MdA•/ v� ':.Z oo� - t: I II I. CC it,4 _ # � If - �: I`A�u�FN� s 90 GAS• ,�q C, . ci I ' 2 500wi N. T .�,. , I' , �'• i I { B a L 1 SEA j- I. i I , .,ca .:.4LVAZ' .7aPfs-r c,a,rcH I I I / ' I -11, .\ � I :_rZo N Lcw,,at,•1 qJ£, .'1, T_�� I I : I � . i 1 ` „� _ J ;I , IN . ; � I I / ` I 1 -- ------ , o I f -, - -' f N I I / j 1 1 1L ­_ , 14�t. t1 q� /, �, A B 1 .11 : /D ! . E-x1..ml 1G.:z.oNIrJ�,... '%--f=F.w►�I�l - �- .N I LA P� zaN� , 1 � II I IT I f - _ ... &U -i v5 I t i I I SL � 0 i I 1 PAa•�uw 1 - __ _I� I z Z I / I ' 2'1 CAr4 , � L I I I I .. /-1 s I . Z'°. // I �,. ti I , I I �: I jI I I� I }o%o C�P1[A-n0A.) z6,7so4 . _ — 1, r 2 . I I. -- 15L 'Z�cg. I 1 0_ -- -.. _ j I \ r• 1r _ _ 35�, ;" , i '� I.gyp, --) `. � 2 2(.0 , ! I. / I i -� m d? 5 \ I11 - '-- ---__ - . 1 -- ___.- _.___. _ I_ _, _ - - (�In.s ;Ca' f _ V% j - - — - — - A Vt< _ 1 \ c I 1, I t ,• �1. - _ -- - - -- - -- - - ---- ---_-__------ --- ' c.1 �,q_r --1 J -- - - a r e., -- - --- -- — - -� - , y P i - �� - -- - - - - --.I- --- - - --_..... _.:.__ - ... _ _j i - - _ -_ - _ —{... - - --. ----- ---- .__. - __ . :. - _ _ 1,,,4Ir-.1 v 1' 1 P _ I ti., -. _. - - __..-_ .... - .- i f, I 1 y" - - - --- �- - _ . - - - _ rR ___ r r— _ -- - _ _ - -_ _ _ _ _-._ _. - - ' J I I 11 I 5'+ I �{ I ¢Z 1 II'3( I Z,� I ' \ .\ ZIJU 110111 , I ;•.r;u"uy t,oCC I e,:, ! a C L('.Lf/'•; 1f�,� ..l h„rA �<Eu,q M SpS L•i `��• ,+rr'v }' i .. 1r:Inl n}, t. '•J;1ti£IJ ! ' II,Ir� r I?L I '1 �'„r: R' ,A�J !' >' (or+A\p J, hI�zIN I;'q� C .'t.c"t-I IA,1ve.nt. I i { W1L1.,.1N.1 ,-tT t!'6R N,1R-'( { `a + br rA 1'1 : 9n'S ? ; I li 1 II I1 ! j . I 1 ; . 1 f 1. _ _ _. -_ ... ..--....._ I j r I. : 1 1 I.......�.r. - .. r,1 , .. - t ....-. .._ .. .. _... r. . ,..., we. ,. .. ., n __ . _._..... _ ... - - ..w..e 1 ! r r j p _ r ._ - .. . _..... ., ul, � . ,\\�t.h, H. . .r.. v,.1•,e, w ,. , .,• .. , r�1f I I I •1­1 _ :. . , * , , �i ,. , %:'. . . " : � ",I .I. -',,", _.'-,.. f,I; �I I. -� I'' ".IIII.�-.-,"I ,-��.. I-7.5r • ­ .� � ". ,1:%,,��. . _ �, , � ' ' } i , i, ';, y' Ilb, -_- MY1YY.�.YYY�IYYy�.: Ij ­. �1. 7, ._ t--- � - Y ,. I . � ,, -;! �, ,;? ..I .--.. :Ie: .�I:.:- ..�. .A1 !� t .. M , .�',Ii .,1, ;`-.,.,, -,;_�', .,,,,..1. . . 1� 'f S I1, - . ' F Y 1 J ' 11 --7 'l "Z :I. .I .I -- .,,';,�, "":.-I. .,I. ,,...-­-1 . . , I ;i� 'l .I ',!. '", �,­I- ,,! ,,-b­, 1;!--%�,". .! �I. ,,. - - 'K.'1 � ,. ,:y y s 1 . -, r i , . . I �. ,r .;I,.",�,.. �.1 �•( t- ���-' ,. ',�'­z ,4,,­,1. -_`I�'�II..-�_ 1!�.I. VI; ;.. .",1 .�I-.�.L ,',.:. .I I�I. I��. .f. I. I , � . .. ,� .,! ,;1. .f. j,�+ y w L , ,; ' ,; �7,, �I�, ..�I ,,X.)-,1 . . - :•, r { r ' . t Yr t ' -� .,�- !�.` ,l', ,��". ,,,I ,iI_,o '­;.,.,;. "...''­ I 5 . � ` ,, i, i 1 7 -. , .., ,.!..S.��-:�:�I," •. I �. II -I ..I IY .I i n r 1 , , 1 t _1�.'�; �''.�e,� ,�;�': V�­, I � , . �1 -�I .I .I. �.­: ,, .. is a i y, se r . i 4'I ;. ,W h .� 4 - 1 l�1� I,-,­I,L ' - " ._L •J -..F Vf .5 A . "��-* .,. -,�, w�,i- ',.I .. I�­, . .I.I-,­ . ,- �, I.II :1 .: .- :! ­ I_._ r 1 -`` , _� s +[•� J r i', ,;. —.�,.-.,; II ._,t �-"� -0_.d.4 ,;. .;...� �-t II.I :.: �":.'- f. ,, c"�,, ,.I�1:. I I .I 1�. : J a 'cyt ,: '",-"` ...:! . I r..I . .. W' ';• ,. 1 a a -. iJ _, "� I­..,' I�1�I � PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR "I .� -I.". �I�-� , W "i 41 }.. r ,'V 3j 141 . �-Z :...I'i1, I . , � . .I ,. :.P ,.I�" �� ,*I.. .. ..< .. ��.; r . tc rii t srr`,?a" 1 t,' ;. 1t A� j2Q LEXADDITIw x W < LL <Il �t 0 m>w t ,,I }"+'.1 ..1r= ,,_- o �. �N tt U.- W tvn _ 1ti.� .: � . I.�..,I� I.r. II ..., Lu W g 7,r t�k t r fr .. u1.x>r his;;or�I; - .., 1� ,1.,-�� . . : LAB FT"I N ,:,j__ .II ",.. `,,. �.. Ie,... Q`4u4,. `:a �;,p �.- zIw a W 1 4 � r�. d atW't O fir;?: 1. u�l't. 1. ,�.,,"�:�;; ...1 r ,t's.i . A]CING C(ZT1 Flc-A'i� ,oF 'r1.�.1-E No. 225350 1 -I -­III() .� f_, rLi n S 'L, 1" , -I ire K� ,,� �- ,'.I.�-- f7b I T , pdo' of . - ` NoIQ-T}# fFfkC.F 6j-C I�, ,' 1 1 �, ,? 7.1�I�� L '- . FpV ,,aI H, .I�., --'AHII ,_: -1 �- p--- +5E�. �_- P.-..L�,!- M� L"- I � . L-� 10 1 �' W hi 5 N I-11 4 I ' (z �l`(! 2 'j t- �ll�ll� I �(,o� } �Lz.( `Z41 1+ahL, i i,�I 11f`, 1 f a F Tftt: ' !SPUT' 30' 1+- ff— �o1 I Acy-o(LA HIJ& ,, lb `iNir ,,. .I .,.I IT .�1:;...­ .�T�I�/.�$ 1 �'"E ; t 1 r, xsR N;. OC J�" : , US. GoVR-IvN'T' sci(t-+�5-rF}f�F sii� jEc Y T :Td ,-.,;:..�..I .­ .� )tt „u ; }, ��a �' ,K PA.... �� �`' 1 mDI : : . . . . - .I+- -.��.I -II ��I­ I1 .... I1,- I. Pr.,S "A-_I ��, �t T vK a�.sPo . � , I. � I ,. ; �4.2 ,, .I I. .� I� ._I.1 .*._I .�s�__ ,1-. ....� 5if YU r, .. 4DF.E :T.T . . , I ,I �; fI - i- -II .I .I .1IA D.A�i4...j- 11.. 1pIIq� .- %, &I._ .2'. �.. - .�1-.;'! I.I-��. .. %. �. .-I�I . .I -I. '.,,. 1- -I- __ .I. .,g 1_,._ . _1_, ,a } .­- II.,�. >�gEV(i�L IkR(A sc l fflot.s iNDEPEIJp Ni" DISTI�Icr b2 I/( j� �.;I ...1,;. . .-� � � . �. 12 ;I W, co, (ZD l3-2 ?59V Il 1. M;IV , I-.CII ,I1. � ,I`. _..I.I._. ..4.� 3 � �`� `I- W . o 1- . I 1 I. _ „ rys1 . � - ` (I ]e p 1 N sr �I-�,� ._. D­ u1r"tF .. �,1.��, ; / I z Y ,.1tJ -< ,I. ."1,­-1,.�,1:��, ..� .'/ �.-...,I II: :-. 1­. .�I`­-'' 1f".­.I.I,11 . ' ?': ,-sa; .�. .:.::,. I"-.I1 ..I.. I I /�(�(� j1� ^' t** C-0-�4L . ►• . "VrI1�`D �� I, 1. IIII_. I,".;.�-.." .�_� ...: ,--_­ ..._ , : � II I�.,; .:'. „,) .�- ,. I I Z3 w,. Go, rtzD., 6 I (ZosE.vIL L P�,I M* It.- .• .;,4 ya S. =1.I •, 1 1 .. I,IIv ..' I-_ L,FI . � ."' �1.c. I, ...,', -_dN� fC- .-1 "�-'I.-:,y� �I­­"�-.: .. I I�, �:.,.I1 _cI �: 1- `1 I:, 1?E7T -) 4. 4ss0C3A'itS, i 'ic.. AuI7Et�"S _. -,� ,',­ Z 3¢$. . , l�l. 21G _ 57 - ..,�osEV�u. /I I , : , i. . --'.... II1 _I-...�-I 1- 1. ".1�I ­�I '. ,­ ,. -:I_1 '-� ,I . .� 1'.. . . - ,, .A I. *.,,I­- ;,'..� .,I��,"I..,: , . , 11�.I . . . 1I.a.. .,,.,I , .. .� -; I.� I1I. .I_. ._ ...' '.-:,.,? I .I. :"A .,..II II I.fG �.�I. .,._­" ._. .,:.,. -1�I,�,' . ;..- _ . .-�. � . - , :II.1 ._� I ,-� . I .�, I I �.. .�. � . . I " ,�1 ".%-,�...4I�"I-.. .� ... �D I_-. �--II�_., ­.,­­t 1-. ... �,:.� ,-�t,, �,,11:*-. -.I. _ •,r .-� -;I ,�i F . - �' - ,. LI; .- I�. .I­:;i II:P�j I . � . . � I�. , - 4. ..t. I-I I.1." ���­,iI .I�.,, � , ­1- �.' ­ :I I 1 .. ,:II Ig' j-I, ��.�I,,z �"�,-� w.-1 �I.�-. -4­­:., .-7. I � . �- ..T 1..I ;... ,I�";1 , �I:.> �'­ .�r"-:3".. . . . . ._­ ,. . , �-­ .;.�- . . I I TLI 4 �.- :� Imo.- � ,: : y :, _ �;. ' -. -- IoL.,­ O • . 3� I I 9z'3®., Q Fr. `.8: $4 Ac,izes - o�l< lMAt,:,, ,eta, : ..,,J,.",,-1 ,I.. 356,08 (6 sA Fr - 8, I A4F'-ES - Gas A-k A A. ?. � . . , I.. �_0.- I . (-; ). A 1?KN 6ociN . ..I I> I� I..',.".�­., . , ..!: r,.. I .�I I I ..1 � !; KCEL I, �-; '._,,,i;. ...i�I __.., .�..--�-.-,I"�; .I. � I­ , l- -�.,I.- _I .'.�.� .[l°5� E,: , �- 1­ 3I- q�I�_ c. 4I 0b, P* -1 .9. 1_*,.�; e �5-. 1.. e."-!.-. 1��, ­�Ir �:it.-.i',. . - "" I, ,��',-�. .I_ 2-e­► NA (, Z0I`Q I N G V_ -( _ �.-.�._ ' ' I- �.. ,,-. .7I . . .. __ _ '- f'gc3Pa5 ..oN i N :_:. _. . ..-J+_2..- .-- - -- �":-��, ­. . s` E�.1 Fi. 1,� - CIhNG_ j3U)l t�iNb A(Pr 3S.,-S7'S 6k�ss- 30100.9 ,r i..NTj .Z-.WS.I-,� .�. -� �1'-�?'_ rN(�: 2 .5?�: - t�.AR_W S N_ 7\ ":9__Gf��?-.5` `--� L�I. *"-! .. -1 .'A>-.ft_._ ­ _ _. .d--_I.. ,-I ,- . ., ,'.-. _,Ll _�_1,."-- --... I, r' .."�;:,�. .II.-' AS F1=.,: G _ _. l...� .�.. _ �r .. .. _ 70N ._.. - ., . I. .,I. 5G _..I 3, 5,IAI -.,_. .-_ - . c - . 1 . . .,.4-. �IO1 ..a. .*I I . . -.1..--_:'I .'- .. �,I I R•1 ON A-(,. , ,?oN i N 6, R- -1 _ r ­-j., 6. 01I.ff '.-...I P, -.. - - _ - FI ? J -- ..'1,�I -.-�''­ cII�R �I.- t:.�ctsr in:!;v)N:. � �o� 7 .. .. . , to . -I -�,7 ;e.I.., .', 7- FAraU (�Q'D, 4.3 - P,4Rritl rr s Nac,,J�J4= G4R- 1, l-.. ;: � , ..: : , 1' � �. -..,"I -'.�" I.,_I.� ­..1 --­-.�­ ,-1I_l �. ..1-�KOf � .- % . " - 1 .I c� .. - . ­,- .I�._. .�.� -1 ,_."� *_�fI.1 - _ -- 91f, 5bo 4 - 2 , I 7 AGE . . :.-..-.. 1 -owwIvM, .. ­- -._, I,,,,; I.,.� zLI. -.`,.. -�: , 3 -- 3 ?�uNING P--I ..... :, _ _j ­� 1p -o N'5E,O 2oN ING R--1 ' GITy PAi'LK- . � :.1 , _ FLml c. rrr .. pAR-9-r N c,oT . — .. �:.c� - I� .... .:.. -%..,I-:I.'4 1,I� ..:II� .'-.� ..1 .� -� I. -.,I. -F E,S ­� sZ�I�-I �. ,. I_ . �. ..�I f _, I,. lI,Iv;-r­ i �. .'I..`I. �_ ..;._I. -,.� .1 _��-i.. ,I -.- . � , - 1- -. 1�,, ,. : Q ­,.� ,IxI .1'.. _- ­, .� .1 .. .. �,,,-II,* .. .. b ' + 1 ... /,,�_...f'. ""_ .ems . -7' ­ -�.. . .­�. :1� ­., '.�-"., ,I�. .--'- 1, ., "' .. I1 -..I.. I.,J*1 1Er)I ". 1, I*-�I, .;.,. .I- .".­.-� -. - A(_._s_ I a.Q&;- I ". ".- 'I, 7�', ,_­'` ',, .I. ',, .. 1—,� .�.,._17.; .. ..- .� I _�p.0QS40' ...;.DNl NG,.: s-s,`N�V?� M�.-' 2r:q .t�^► .sov1 '�L, _ ' r'FI.j •. , ,. '. N:rT-ti.0 Pw1:��•Ii�� �{�,��. ;:a8;.a.1 _0 i�Afl.wi 4I�•,.9- :qJ . ,, �� . ''.I-L .: ___...:.... r.w ...._:- _._....... _- --" . _..-_-_-_ .- ...:--. . 4-ITt"Ib I P, X FACTS I < > 00 0 z In ow u< 30 rz .0 < W6 z Xj ir W 0 0 a Z W 0 J ���� �/�Gl/� M '14�' . TOWNHOUSE 1Z UNITS PER ACRE C E PARK BATON - Down Payment (cash up front) - ;Z247,Q00 261,360 sq. ft. - 4,500 per unit. -, MAXimum developer payment CITY - Down Payment (cash up €r-ont) - S315, 000 (a ages o par] ✓1 ded joated )Y r. Final Dead - $562,000 Total downpayment to sad©el $738,000 n Still owed to school on 'I'1 (1{3001000 purchase - 562,000 down payment) INCREMENT 55 Units x 80,000 value = 4,400,000 x .027 $118,800 - ($43,000 Taxes) 575,800 ararauai. inement PAYOU-T 1-9-6 1 YEARS PO.TEN'TIAL $738,000 - School Payment 200,000 - C.D.B.G. 538,000 - Owed to school Payout on 75,800 increment = 10.90 years TOWNHOUSE it UNfiTS PER ACEE CHE PARS BATON - Down Payment (each up Front) 77 units at 4500 per unit - Maximum developer payment CITY - Down Payment (gash up front) No 2 aloe Parr purchase.= 1 acr®edoatd Final Deal �• $340,3�9 Total downpaym@nt tc school (Baton) $953, 040 Mill owed to se�iool oxi TiP ($1f 300, 000 4346, 3f0 -Kato j INCREMENT 77 Units x 80,000 value = 6,160,000 x .027 166,320 - (43,000 Taxes = ._ _ _ ) 123,320 annual incr-ement EAYOUT 12.53 Y ,ARS C.D.B.G..POTENTIAL $346,360 - School Payment 200.000 - C.D.B.C. (Down Payment) . 753,640 - Owed to school Payout on 123,320 increment = 8.72 MULTI=FAMILY 25 UNITS PER ACRE = 1 ACRE PAX BATON Down Pgym@pt (each up frpnt) -- $375,000 $3,000 per unit maximum developer payment CITY $315,900 2 acres ef Park (I acre dedicated) Final Deal $690,000 Total downpaym@n,,t to. 6ehool $610, 000 Still owed to gigh661 On TIP ($1,300,000 - $Qgoigoo) INCREMENT 125 units x 90,000 value = 6,450,000 x .034 212,500 -- (43,000 Taxes) = 169.500.annual,incre-ment PAYOUT 4.41 years C.D.B.G. POTENTIAL, $610,000 - School Payment 2001000 - C.D.B.G. 410,000 - Owed to school Payout on 169,500 increment = 2.79 years.- 11 OPTION 3 ApprQV9 Plat = let development proceed and accept park ded aati.on cash, AQVANTAGES ♦ The development will be single family and twit@ com_patib,e with the area. DISADVANTAGES ♦ The use of the school to the North is left undecided, ♦ The City loses open space. OPTION, 2 Deny Fiat = Be pFgp4Fed for court action ♦ Park is protected e Forces consideration of School to the North ♦ If Kaufhold does not proceed or loses case, gitys Baton( or other developers can reopen negotiations with Kaufhold er school district, at more reasonable rates. DISADVANTAGES 4 City will experience court costs. ♦ City could lose case and development proceeds anyway 10PTTQ�1 ♦ City substantially subsidizes development to facilitate housing en the site-, ADVANTAGES ♦ A workable solution is put in place for City, Kaufhold, and School District. ♦ City gains housing and possible park space depending on type of development. DISADVANTAGES ♦ City pays high price to Kaufhold and School District for this solution. ♦ Neighbors may believe multi -family housing is too dense for area. It would be the staffs recommendation to consider options 1 or 2. Under option 1, the City would end up- with single family housing on the site as a final result. Under option 2, the City may (after litigation) have the opportunity to develop Multi- family housing on this site however, it could g , potentially occur at more reasonable land costs. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E.V. DO AN COMPANY Realtors and Appraisers ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA F 1 H C] A p p r'I i. s ,i !. for Lndependent. School District No. 623 of Property known as the Lexington School. Site located at the; southwr'st corner of Lexington Ave. & County Road Q Roseville. `linnesota 1 1 1 �7 u I L 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER Appraisal for Independent School District No. 623 1251 West County Road B Roseville, Minnesota of Property known as the Lexington School Site located at the southwest corner of Lexington Ave. & County Road B Roseville, Minnesota as of November 17, 1986 by E. VINCEN'T DOLAN, H-A.I. 1180 Northern Federal Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 1 ' E. V. DOLAN COMPANY Realtor and Appraiser 1180 NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 29 1.7928 ' November 24, 1986 Mr. Paul Borg Roseville School District. Independent School District No. 623 1251 West County Road B Roseville, i'li.nnesota 55113 ' Dear Mr. Borg: Pursuant to your request I have made an inspection and appraisal the of property located at the southwest corner of Lexington Avenue and County Road B, Roseville, Minnesota, which is known as the Lexington School site owned by Independent School District No. 623 and legally described as: ' The North 605.94 feet of the East 660 ft. of the NE 1/4 Of the NE 1/4 of Section 15, Township 29, Range 23, ' subject to County Road B. Lexington Avenue. A 25-Foot wide sewer easement running north and south along the west line of the property and a 10-foot bike way easement running north and south along the East line of the property. The fee simple property rights have been appraised to estimate the Market as of November 17, 1986, It is rn opinion Y P that the Market Value of the subject property as of November 17, 1986, is the suns of: ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ( :$1 , 100 , 000 ) ' This appraisal has been made e subject to certain limiting conditions as hereinafter expressed. Such facts and information as are contained herein ' were obtained from sources t.hlt I consider reliable and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. ' Respectfully submitted, 7 E. INCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. EVD:bh 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. tREALTOR AND APPRAISER 1 ' II TABLE OF CONTENTS E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 ' Preface Page 1 Market Value Page 1 Date and Purpose Page 2 Neighborhood Data Page 2 ' Zoning and Highest. and Best Use Page 2, 3 Description of the Properry Page 3, 4, 5 ' Valuation Premise Market Approach Page Page 5 6 Comparable Lane Sale Commercial #1 Page 7 Comparable Land Sale Commercial #2 Page 8 Comparable Land Sale Commercial #3 Page 9 Comparable Land Sale Commercial #4 Page 10 Comparable Land Sale Commercial #5 Page 11 Comparable Land Sale Commercial #6 Page 12 ' Comparable Land Sale Commercial #7 Page 13 Comparable Land Sale Residential #8 Page 14 Comparable Land Sale Residential #9 Page 15 ' Comparable Land Sale Residential #10 Page 16 Comparable Land Sale Residential #11 Page 17 Comparable Land Sale Residential #12 Page 18 Discussion of Comparable Land Scales Page 19 Comparable Building Sale #1 Page 20 Comparable, Building Sale #2 Page 21 Comparable Building Sale #3 Page 22 ' Comparable Building Sale #4 Page 23 Discussion of Comparable Building Sales Page 24 ' Correlation and Conclusions as to Certification Value Page Page 24 25 1 Addenda Photographs Plat Map ' Building Sketch Building Plans ' Zoning Nap Limiting Conditions Appraisal Qualifications H 1 d E. V. DOLAN CO. ' REALTOR AND APPRAISER 1 E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 1 PREFACE An Appraisal is an estimate of value. An Appraisal Report on a parcel of Real Estate, when prepared by a well -qualified Appraiser, is an opinion of value reached after careful inspection of the property, and investigation into all factors having an influence on it. ' Appraising can never be an exact science. People, not brick and mortar, ortar, create value. Real property has value only in relation to its capacity to satisfy the needs and desires of these people. Due to continual ' change in human behavior, of attitudes. of factors of supply and demand, of urgency - the value of real estate fluctuates, sometimes widely. Price or Cost should not be confused with Value. Unusual circumstances may cause the price paid to be greater, or less, than the value. The Appraiser, in his valuation study, relates how typical buyers and sellers ' previously have acted upon similar properties and, through his education, experience and judgment, interprets how they are most likely to act upon the property being appraised. ' The value estimated, then, is a reflection of the attitudes of typical buyers and sellers to the property in question. It assumes that both are fully informed and prudent persons, that neither is acting under undue ' compulsion, and that a reasonable time will be allowed to explore all usual avenues of marketing. Finally, an Appraisal Report is prepared only after a careful analysis of all pertinent factors has been made. To warrant consideration, it must be made in accordance with a high moral standard of professional conduct, ' such as the Code of Ethics of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. MARKET VALUE ' The most. probable price estimated in terms of money bring if exposed for sale in the open by which the property will market a seller who is willing but not obliged to sell, allowing a reasonable time to find a buver who is willing but 110t obliged to buy, both parties having full . ' knowledge of all the uses to which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used. 1 1 1 11 Page 1 1 1 1 r, h E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER DATE AND PURPOSE E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A J. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102 The purpose of this ..Ippr;1is,11 is to e November. 17, 1986 stimate the' Market 'Ialue as of. of the Property owned by the Independent. School. District. No. 623 w!� i.ch is known as the Lc west corner of LexLnu: xLngt:on School Site located at the south- C) and County Road B, and legally described as: I The North 605.94 Ecet of the Edst: 660 £t. OF the NE 114 of the NE 1/4 of Section 15, c County Road B Lexington 29, Range 23, subject to Lexington Avenue. A 25-foot wide easement running north and south along the west lineofthe Property and a 10-foot bike Jay casement running north and south along the East. line of the property. The fee simple property rights have been appraised. NEIGHBORHOOD DATA The subject ct property is located in the City of Roseville, which is a well -established community lying commercial area for the Y g just north of St. Paul. City of Roseville would be The main of Highway 36 and Snellingthe intersection commercial development scattered cthroughout theentire is egood deal o ' ci.al development takinge city with cornmer- with Larpenteur and place `Tong Lexington Avenue at the intersection commercial development along County Road B. There is a good deal of Of the subject and there isgaRmixt_uree'Of �comlmercis ialtandeasterly development. in the 35LI Corridor.1l More. specifically, ,i.ndusrrial the subject property has commercial development onthe area around corners of Lexington and Count three e along County Road Band some ay Road B. There are some twinhomes located Partt in buildings along most of the residential development in the aretl is single Tamil d i�CXingt011; hOlJe'.1/er, ings. At the present time, there seems he be good activity cial land in the Y well- City of Roseville with a number of developmentsor comde1Wa or in the planning stage. Phis includes two shopping Of Rosedale, a proposed office park at 35E and County Road`Ds north Y Of land for office buildings which is currently talon Hamline and Highway 36 an assembly and other is activit g place along o!' County Road C and Snelling. Y at the intersection rZONING AND HIGHEST AND BE ST USE At the present time, the subject property have enclosed a zoning map for this portion of the is zoned RRee ofsidential. I which indicates the other three corners of this intersectionoScville B-3; however, the B-3 Zoning does not e, are zoned Road B as does the subject extend as far west along County J Property nor does it extend as far south along Lexington as does the subject. It would be my opinion p that the (continued) Page 2 ' E. V. DOLAN CO. E. VINCENT DOLAN, MAJ. REALTOR AND APPRAISER NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102 ZONING AND HIGHEST AND BEST USH, (continued) Highest and Best Use of the subject property would be for soma combina- tion of commercial and r.esi.dentiral use. At the very least, I would anticipate that a tier of res ident i.a l building s i.t'es would have to be used as a buffer along the south and west line of- the property. I would estimate these sites to be some 125 feat i.n depth. It is possible that. the balance of the site could be for used some type of commercial purposes. In talking with the City of Roseville, their officials were very non -committal on what, if any, type 01 commercial development would be acceptable to the city on the subject property. Also, there was some mention that the city may wi.h to see a part of the, subject: Property used for park purposes. Also. I believe it is safe to assume that there may be some objections frra the abutting residential property owners if the subject property is not buffered on the south and west from the existing homes. The other uses to which the subject property ' could be put: would be some type of use permitted under the present zoning classification and using the building; exi.sting such as a school, chemical dependency treatment center, nursing homes, half -way homes, home for the mentally handicapped and other institutional -type uses of similar natures which would be permitted under the residential zoning classification. 1 II DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 1 Land As can be , seen on the. enclosed PL'at Map, r.he subject property is rec- tangular in shape. It has some 627 feet along County Road B, which is the north line, the same amount of frontage along Eldridge Avenue, which is the south line of the property, and some 572.94 feet. along Lexington Avenue the east line of the property. The al tract contait 359,233 38 uare feet. excluding stroets; however, should be Holt, Cis a 25-foot wide sewer easement that runs north and south along the west line of the property and a 10-foot wide bike way easement that runs north and south along the east line of the Property. The site is served by public sewer and water and the [our streets that border the property are all paved. The topography of the land would bestbe described as level. There is blacktopped parking area along County Road B and the entire is property enclosed with a chain link fence. (continued) 1 1 11 Page. 3 E. V. DOLAN CO. E. VINCENT DOLAN, MA.I. REALTOR AND APPRAISER NORTHERN FEDERAL auILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 ' DESCRIPTION OF "rm, PROPf_.RTY (Cont Inip rovernents The improvem(nrs cunsi sr_ 0f an l,rnt, nr: rr•y sc11011I which is one-story for Lhe most part except for the ori.gin.tL portion which Es two stori,�, ' The building was bui 1t over .an ext(-nded period (.0 t.Lmt, with the original building being built in 1928. The southerly wing was buEl.t in tta51 with an addition in 1953. The weirerly wing w,rs built in 1947 wLth ' an addition in 11)58 arld the Last port. ion was constructed in 19 71 . The entire exr.cri.or is brick with aluminum windows and the vast majority Of the roof is a f'at, built up pitch and grave root; however, the south- erly wing of the huilding has a sloped roof which permitted second story windows facing b,jth east and west. lfeat is supplied by two as f' oil standbyLow ,-; .; g trod pro.ssur� scam boilers which are located in two separate boLLer rooms. Also, the older portion of the school has four gas fired hot air furnaces. Although the building is not air conditioned there is air handling equipment for all of the classrooms. A typical classroom in Lite west wing has an asphalt the floor with concrete block walls and acoustical Lite ceiling. There is exposed strip fluorescent lighting. In most cases, there: are cabineLS with Linoleum counter tops and a sink. Some of Lhe classrooms in this westerly wing have been carpeted. hallwov has a carpt,Lvd floor with glazed block approximately 7 feet height ,rnd concroLe block above this with acotjSLLcal Cite ceiling. The office area has carpeted fluor with sheetrock walls and acoustical the ceiling. The boys' and girls' lavatories have ceramic the floor, glazed block walls approx[mar.ely 6-1/2 to 7 feet in 'height. The souLh wing of the building, which was built in the early 1950's,11as a carpeted floor in Lite hatlw,ry with the glazed block approximately 5 let:t Ln h,right, concrete block above and acouSt ica 1 L i to ce i l ing, 1'hest! classrooms typically have an asphalt Lite floor with concrete block walls. As I have explained earlier, they have a second row of windows beginning at ceiling height and extending tip. Some of the partitions have been moved or targor doors have been installed. A laundry has been installed with additional plumbing to handle Lite clothes washing machines. Tilt! boys' room in the south wing has an asphalt the floor, concrete block and brick walls in the outer room. The inner area has ceramic Lite floor with glazed block walls. I am assuming that: the girls' room is the same. The upper r pp floor of the original school has an asphalt tile floor with sheetrock and plastered watts. The room that is marked "Music Room" has an acoustical rile ceiling; however, sonic of the Liles are, missing at the present LLme. At the south end of the building is the special services. This has been divided into a number of offices but basically they have carpeted floors that are badly worn and most of the partitions appear to be some type of movable partitions and there are acoustical Lite ceilings. The lower level is used as a kitchen, eating area and lounge. The kitchen area has a vinyl floor with a standard number of stainless steel countertops, commercial garbage disposals, dishwasher, 1 (continued) Page 4 1 1 1 1 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Improvements (continued) E. VINCENT DOLAN, MAJ. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 stoves and hoods. The lunchroom area has .111 ;1sph,11t. the floor with newly pane led walls and acoustical t i to ceiling. At th,; north and of this level is the Lounge, cusLod ian office, workshop and boiler room for the oldest portion of Lhe building. Cenerally, the building is in good condition and has been well maintained; ' however, Like all school buildings, it suffers a good deal of functional obsolescence if it is to be converted to some other use. ' VALUATION PREMISE In arriving at the Market Value Of the subject property. I have used two different approaches. First, I have treated the property as vacant land have and used sales of vacant commercial and residentially zoned lane[ in the City of Roseville to estimate the value of the tract if it were vacaw. . The second group of sales are sales of existing school buildings In the metropolitan area which are used, for the most pert. for some type Of educational Or school-rel,lt ed purpose. It has been Illy experience Lhi1L LhOse school buildings which were sold for conv,.rsion ' to some other use such as nursing hoinos or condominiums did not command ill, ;rppreciabIy higher price in the marketplace t11.I11 the valua of comparable vacant land. In this report. I have not use(] a Cost Approach because, Lhe buildings were: built over a lollg period of time and suffer a great deal of functional obsolescence which is very difficult to measure. BeC,Icrscr there are ;in adequate number of sales of school buildings in the metro- polir,an area, l believe chit this is the' "I"Cliod which would be typically employed by the buyer and s,.-ller and, theretoro, best reflects Lite k thi ai - ing in the marketpl.Ice. 1 0 1 1 Page 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER MARKET APPROACH E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAU L, M I NN ESOTA 55102 In this approach the appraiser looks at the subject as a real estate entity and then compares it with similar properties which have sold recently or are now offered for sale. The appraiser endeavors to find properties which are believed to have a high degree of similarity, and to determine_ if both the buyer and seller were well informed as to all the uses to which the property could be used, and that both were acting prudently without undue stimulus, thereby making the sale truly repre— sentative of the market. ' Although a large number of sales and offerings may have been considered, only those properties which are most comparable have been included in this report. I have compared these sales to the subject and have con— sidered the factors influencing their value and have reflected these findings in my estimate of value. Some of the items luence the value of the land are the size, utilities, shape and ctopiofraphy, topography, i also the zoning; and highest and best use. The improvements are by condition, age, size, Jesign, mechanical equipment a ui and q P 1 qudlity of the materials. The approach is based on the premise that a prudent buyer will ay I p no more for a property than it 'ill cost to obtain .r similar property in a similar location. E f 1 1 J 1 ,f 11 Page 6 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING REALTOR AND APPRAISER ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102 �a L Sal! r:J'ciw ' IBROOKS 0 SE ALE\ M ! err.» � \ � 1 • �' " BR, y •i 107 y• y l ♦• y l., I •. • 4c,i,1r':11t+lIlLF. 1.,1N'v SlOL1;4 — C0*%U%IFXC1AI- CUMPARABLE SALE I l.c�c,t t yn: iNarth sidl. of (:uainty Rd. Ila. w:I: t of SnvIltr+. Avenue. Sale III lev: 3�yt1lK�yt?txc� Date; .lInu. rv. 10Si Situ. 504.421) S/F P r I c v per S/F: $4.12 lluv4? r : icv i• o i)t+1Jy• 1 ►j1!i'1l•f3r se'l e` e` : � I,I r` a^ ?e� (I cafe y 11.1 1`,'i• �' k l t lla' r y ► c 'l l Zoll i np : SC.. Sh►tpp i rc ; Coolr r i t,�:I.II t►s•�►c.: I.Qt ty 1`11(1•k y, 'i��tii°c�•i1 • f'►'nt►•r`. 1$I Add. except Ih►• W. zt'l)l o1 tlic S. `11,w Iic�In,,rks: Tlsiw pr`op,•rty IlAd poor subsoil condition's. which f f oitl�:t•tl .1 tar'w•uii)ll"j ptlydiw' r to not (omploto tlit" `i.jIv i .t tllc• pr►�hc�rt}` arc! it c.,rRluc�et thry uncl uirl architt"cturlll c1��si�;n 1�1 t.l►u :h�rpptl�; crrntc�r° in t11;,t it is 4-1 two-story I sh► ly i n Cc nt c'r .,ti upp►i: Od t O t 110 rnur+- t y'p iC,1 l once —story. The SH O Wr is sorvvd by public ►.ywol"' et,ItVI•, it h•,d blac:kt oppc•d st ro c s and curbing - Page 7 1 1 1 H 1 1 J 1 J 1 Ci 1 1 J 1 J 1 4.' E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 +.,�� r... ••wad .. —` .. �. —��. .t-'u:�� _ Q s xM00L 1 IT w N t !!9 XL VEt" Joe N , A. l! � LI <rc. Y � i 1 • J wee` t i t 1 V �riJY r � 1 I • N•. V erttl4.2 r �i'iE'AltAiiLE LAND SALES—001MMERCIAL COMPARABLE LAND SALE fid l.tif pit it�lfi: WestC?! tlltr Sale III•ic�, • • r\!i� , egret r of CL�unt ;. Rd. C & Stria l 1 i ng Avenue ��• � 751.84t1 0.1t : Negot iatcd, not c li)sr�d 1'"c" I'VV F•• 6961960 S/!' $4.00 Ouvor: Sarl It•r; Lincoln Prtaii,Art it=;; %aninE;: Space Cent car I.t•i;a 1 ll -sc .. I't•alirainary .lppr;av,lI Ior �.;yriin chin• The Sou th !G �c t•�:caivt�cl Itomirks: acres c�C O4t~t?u_�-_� vie site is .1 ►rv�rl trt:t. .�f`3•"1-540-75 a truck terminal. ,iatlnc! t.,hi� h Wits formerly Thr� i7u rt-11"s"' is ilc t ua l l y buying; S�Ilas itrld Tht, sit(! is served b laund in t hr: C:it y of R0sLvi Irlthe ut i 1 it tc:s 1 1( anc! thc�ra no bad subsoil condit iol"s to my knowledge. Ililge 8 1 - Mn E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER E. VINCENT DOLAN, MAJ. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST• PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 ijC3:�til � . I t. r:^ ' � W • may' � 1 a Iroo.. I b � q 1 —: Q IHDE ,� T SCHOOL LI 57 y _ ' ". r V) a V ® I 1Z A J i W I .- .w V ✓1 !- Z r aV1 l .17 .l 11 10° I pp jr .7 Lu�._ �• .T��1 cov rr COMPARABLE LAND SALES- COMMERCIAL COMPARABLE LAND SALE #3 ' Location. West o $1,62f the NW of County Sale Price: 5,000 Rd. C and Snelling Avenue Date: Negotiated, not closed Size: 324,957.6 S/F ePrice per S/F: $5.00 Buyer: Lincoln properties Seller: Space Center Zoning: I-1 Legal: 04-29-23-41-540-75 except Remarks: This is part of Sale #2 in the S. 16 acres ' one tract of ground which that Sales #2 and would be #3 make developed as a unit. Page 9 1 1 1 J 1 1 H. 1 fl 1 1 1 J E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER Z � !, Ui.n,J fu,m.m is �• 36700 I I 46 7) o o ('\ � 00.6 __ .--_ — its 00 — $. -._ ..._ —�_ ••�— � Q �L rvJeo j t` 2/9.0001 c• I t,. I -- NO/,.y so Y /SO 00J -� � . �t - tt I y• p� �• _ M . 8 � � •IIl Id ' Q •~,+.wow,,. 4 . --L_ _ . � i" . � I . � See, b l♦ .—I E. VINCENT DOLAN, MAJ. NORTHERN FEDERAL OUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 COMPARABLE LAND SALES - COMMERCIAL COMPARABLE LAND SALE 94 Location: 41est side of Snelling avenue, Road C2$350,000 543 Et, south of Count y Sale Price: Date: October 2, 1985 size: Price 103,727.7 S/F Per S/F: $3.37 Buyer: Seller: ,John L iba lest r•a ; Lido RestdUrant Zoning: liar Pig+r, Inc, B-3 Legal: Remarks: Lot 2, Block 1, Slawick Park Of 2nd Addition the sale price of $350,000, of '•'ih5oil conditions. r correc 0vel The sit(-,and servedtion L. the utilities found in the ropPc'd stceets and curbing, city including blacic- Page 10 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G �7 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER at ' mCb J6T00 I !I _•� .OUTLOT a A 44846 BOO Ole ` t�, �• /SO 00 � O _ � p , • � p u roinv l' � I J J I � Pla • •�JOO'6 T 1 4 H 446.46 Ccsf SE /q See. I b COMPARABLE LAND SALES - COMMERCIAL COMPARABLE LAND SALE F5 E. VINCENT DOLAN, MA.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102 LOCAtion: West side of SneL1i.ng AvoMW , 402 feet south Of County E%oad C2 Sal.e price: $200.000 Date' December 17, 1984 Size: 68,001 S/F Price per S/F: $2.a4 Buyer: Health Resources Assistant Corp. Seller: Hdr Mar, Inc. Legal.: Zoning: Lot 1, BLock 1, Slawick Park 2nd Addition B-3 Remarks: This was a relatively level tract. of ground, served by all the utilities found in the City of Roseville. The property was "L" shaped with a portion of the Property beLng very difficult to use have and this rn�ty contrLbuted to the lower sale price. Page 11 E. V. DOLAN CO. E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. REALTOR AND APPRAISER NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING --__ ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 CL w.0 ?• .�.w.�.- ...' .u._.. ....-..1I :.i.r,..I:I: �•�� nL J Qo 3 Y .V ' NORTHERN 7 ' —.. ».-_. _ .... _---�---�.� I COMPARABLE Lt1N[? SALES - ;;Or[Mrac: [:>L COMPARABLE LAND SALE #6 Location: NW of county Rd. C: Srh Site W of SnolIing Avenue Sale Price: $1,700.000 Date: Not closed as of 10/18/86 Si.ze: 438,649 S/F Price per S%F $3.88 eBuyer: Price: Savers Discount Srores Seller. Ed Kostayak No. 3.21 Acres and Don,ild Rea in So. 6.86 Acres Zoning: I-2 g` Legal: 04-29-23-43-510-75 & 500-75 1 f� Remarks: This property is an old truck terminal which will be removed at the buyer's expense. It is a level tract Of ground served by all the utilities found in the a Cea . J 1 1 11 Page 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER E. VINCENT DOLAN, MA.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL eUILUING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 COMPARABLE LAND SALES - COMMERCIAL COMPARABLE LAND SALE ##7 Location: N.E. corner of Larpenteur and Snellin• Sale Price: $240,000 b, 1533 Larpenteur Dare: 5/83 Size: 49,408 S/F Price per S/F: $4.86 Buyer: Bullsize Golf Centers Seller: St: i. 1 lman Zoning: B-2, Retail Business Legal: Lots 6 thru 13, Kellers Ru of Block 10 of Falcon Heights Remarks: This was a level tract of ground which is the remains of a burned -out store. The site is on grade with the street and served by all the utilities Found in the area. Page 13 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER COMPARABLE LAND SALES - RESIDENTIAL COMPARABLE SALE u9 E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 II Location: 1610 North Victoria Street., St. Paul, INN, Victoria School Site Sale Pried: $270,000 Date: 1984 Size: 102,420 s/f Price per s/f: $2.63 Buyer: Straus Construct ion, Inc. Seller: St. Paul Public Schools Zon i 11g : R-3 Leg.i l Desc : Except the South 66.25 feat of Lot 1, the Nort h 60 feet of Lot 3 and all of Lot 2, Block 12, Como RemaI.ks: This is a level tract of ground served by a I I the utilities found in the City of St. P��ui. 1*11is is a former school site where the land is to bar used for single family dwellings. Page 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 C� 1 u J 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER COMPARABLE LAND SALES - RESIDENTIAL E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. !NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 COMPARABLE SALE #8 Location: Sale Price: 14.50 Arundel, St. Paul, MN Arlington School $193,000 Site Date: Nov. 1983 Size: 159,599 s/t Price per s/f: $1.21 Buyer: City of St. Paul SeIler: St.. PaUl Public Schools Zoning: R-3 Legal: Remarks: Lots I - 28, Block This is 13, Edwin M. Ward's Cumberland Addn. a level tract of ground served Utilities found by all the in be the ctty Of St. Paul. It should noted that this zoned land was a former school on residentially and the site could not be used for any purpose but residential development. Page 14 1 1 E. V, DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER 3 5 7 2 0 uu od API`TOLy1 HtIIS VE; AVE; p 9lws. soot.. \4u •...a Jo.e„ \4 r /•U � A� 8 $ tb� ° •t.e • E rF \'\ f tt3—Yam � o0 ► ��`" iI r\e... — — 'rV�----- ow —�=, u 'o.. � � G r �y�li'8 Ij�1 6 COMPARABLE LAND SALES — RESIDENTIAL COMPARABLE SALE #10 E. VINCENT DOLAN, MA.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 Location: NW corner. Highway 36 and Rice Street Sale Price: $215,000 Date: December 1984. Size: 196,020 s/f Price per s/f: $1.10 Buyer: Gordy Howe Reel Estate Seiler: Carlson Properties/Ri.chter. Estate Zoning: R-6 multiple (bulk of site) Legal Desc: Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Werner Heights and Outlots A & B. Remarks: The site was level along Rice Street but sloped towards the west. There was an old single family dwelling that. cost "PProxi'WItely $5,000 to raze. Page 16 r 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. E. VINCENT DOLAN, MA.I. REALTOR AND APPRAISER NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 '1�(�rK 1)SU4N[R •� �� ST .. "-w•• �r-il 1 Y•� sit 1 'JIY� E �. �•, ,• Rr S• `� Irr � E .V Ir wr �� COMPARABLE LAND SALES - RESIDENTIAL IAL COMPARABLE SALE #11 Location: Prior Avenue, 120 feet sough of Summer Street, Falcon 11eight:s Sale Price: $514.000 Date: March, 1983 Size: 746,178 s/f Price per s/f: $.69 Buyer: Good Value homes, 111c. Seller: Charles Hawkins Estate Zoning: R-1 Legal Desc: Platted after sale as Falcon Woods No. 3, Blocks 1, 2, 3. Remarks: This is a level site. The utilities were ' available to it; however, the developer had to build the streets and brink; the ut.iliLies in to Lhe property. Page 17 E. V. DOLAN CO. rREALTOR AND APPRAISER 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 E. VINCENT DOLAN, MA.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102 COMPARABLE LAND SALES -- RES I Dh N-r IAL COMPARABLE SALE # 12 Location: Sale Price: , Larpr.nteur Avenue. between Fullmin & Pleasant, Lauderdale, Mkt $500.000 Date: 10/10/80 Size: 340,540.71 square feat Price pt'r s/f : S1 .47 Buver: Minnesota Federal, Savings & 1. 111 Seller: Ch.lr-les J. Hawkins et ux Zoning: R-1. Resident Jill Legal L)esc: Remarks: Lot. I. Plan of Prospect dill. Ramsey yCount. � •; �IfnneSrat,r This tract. o1 ground was to be used for <r PUI). It is .r level site which had buildable foil and wits served by all U110 ut i 1 it ies found in the area. rl fl 1 11 Page 18 r — L1 E. V. DOLAN CO. E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. REALTOR AND APPRAISER NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING 5T. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102 DISCUSSION OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES In making the adjustments for the commercial land sales, no adjustment for time was made as these sales are recent, for tlae most part. I believe that the subject's location is equal or superior to those sales Iocated in the vicinity of County Road C and Snelling; however, it is obviously inferior to the Pavilion Shopping Center sale, but as I indicated, this sale had very poor subsoil conditions. S►le #7, which was at they inter- section of Snelling and Larpenteur, in some respects has as location that is very similar to the subject in the type of neighbo.laood a,ackup, however, this IOCFation would be superior to the subject in that it has more traaf f it on Lkarpenteur and Snelling :and there is more cowmerciaal development in the immediate area. However, these :sales :all tend to Ball in the $4.00 per square: foot price range. There ,are a number of sides in Roseville which have sold at prices substantially higher than $4.00 per square foot but. by and barge, these are smaller tr.-acts of ground or in the case of the proposed Shopping Centers, it is a far .superior location. As for the residential Sales, Sala:► #8 & #9 "ire of School sUCS Similar to the subject. with a great eldy.a 1 of street frontage.— ,Ind ut i l it. iOS 9av I i Iablcr to thc+rn Which are also similar to the subject. Sales #10 ,and #11 are of sites which have rather limited Street front age in relation to total size sand will be much more costly to develop th.--an the subject property. Whilay Sale #12 is similar to the Subjvct in st recrt 4ind other utility ,avall1 Ibility, this property was used fear a planned -unit dt-vulopment which w.ii tilt im.1t fly a condominium rompl%-;e, gilt this salle w,ls .atst+ Some six ec� ors old end .an aacijtatiCanerat for t itncr would be nc,cc":.S,11-;. Based On tla4i:e 1 '44104. bel leve that the° subjec;t's resident i;al patent ial would by $1.75 per square foot , E E U 1 11 Page 19 I I I I [i !J [1 r� h �i f Il E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 wc , a I os I IS' I . itI i I , v t It opt It tpkl I fig �j gill o -s flit f: 4 0,f.� The '6 i I q. Ikv Kdt I I t g j i it Ilk, k' 4 it k c ooil k i '141'h .#it Peru Il kl oft A.Wl It I T k' 1D" 114± 01k % It 1! C it t (silk It 1 k! -1 k IA.V it 0!ie V a sO v t It, it I oo; ft'j 110 kill Sk Itoo i t k' I fig t oft R.OkI C It A1 1, k: It 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. ' REALTOR AND APPRAISER 1 1 1 1 P 7 1 E 1 I �I t,t?Mi'AKABLF. BUILDING SALE #2 E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 ►,•! t,otft i,aa►,t ,Aveime No., Crys(31, W I" .an ,•iomwntary SChoal that W.vv %old In (Iw 1.111 M 19$1 lot. $1,000,000. Thv property sold an tile (a,a4iy. •�t Si . lb per,ytaar.� lt�t�t al Mai ltlitl. .ar+�.► including land or $1 -85 a 'W r titiu.I rt. f oo( 01 l -acid a ro.a 1•11v site Cont,I i nt-ti l' b.� t• 1: , �19 ,•1t; r,•-:. 1t .�.►�: rc•1.It ivt 1y l� ,`r'i Itatl served by ,►1 l (11v ut i 1 it iv-, lotJ111 iae ail%, .aa.•.a. the building u,a laui1( in lot)'). 1t w.ta brick yawl blot:k ;:owtructiott wkih a btailtUP 1`001. "1`1` tataildiatl; coil t,aillud sonar Pu,000 wl.ar�^ la•t't , ,all oil oil,. I lour. Th.. 1►roporty Was •,01d by the k+>Glaiti,.yl,a1• licit of to tilt• tlliv•,•( li,apt is( Church. 1 11 Pala 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r ri F 0 �J 1 1 1 1 1 E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER k,kJN1'AKAbLL BUILDING SALE #3 E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 2800 North Arona, Roseville, MN sold in August of 1982 for $772,000 or $20.29 per square foot of building area including land or $1.47 per squ,►re foot of land area including the building. The site was level and on grade with the street and contained some 12 Acres. The site is served by all the utilities found in the city. The building was constructed in 1962 and was brick and block with a builtup roof; however, t hory were sevc,ral leaks in the roof at the time of. sale. The building contaiilvd 20 cl,►ssrooms, 1 libraryandgym, and contained some 38,054 square s,il (and The building was in generally good condition at the time of s,rle and w;►s sold by the Moundsvfew School District to NCR Corporation, whirl► was the .►butting propc,rty owner. This sate was contingent upon "" rezoning of the lard from Residential to Commercial. This rezoning wrls .lreonlpl islit! d. Page 22 1 1 1 1 1 C I E. V. DOLAN CO. REALTOR AND APPRAISER COMPARABLE BUILDING SALE #4 E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 The northeast corner of White Bear Avenue and County Road C, which was formerly the Harmony Public School, was sold in February of 1985 for $750,000. This property sold on the basis of. $16.69 per square foot of building area including land or $1.47 per square foot of land area including building. The land contained some 11.67 Acres and was rolling in topography. It was served by all the public utilities found in the area. The improvements, most of which was built in 1962, was concrete with a brick exterior and there was a flat. built:up reinforced pitch and gravel roof. The building contained a total of some 44,q26 square feat. The old section of the building and approximately 1/3 of the new section were two-story, the balance of the building was one-story. At the time of sale, the property was zoned Farm -Residential and it was to be rezoned for the intended use. 1 11 Page 23 INNOVATIVE MICROGRAPHICS are DUE TO THE POOR CONDITION OF THE PRECEEDING DOCUMENT WE CANNOT PRODUCE AN ACCEPTABLE MICROFILM IMAGE. E. V. DOLAN CO. E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. REALTOR AND APPRAISER NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 DISCUSSION OF COMPARABLE BUKDLNG SALES In this report I have used fuur sales, all of oLement-ary schools. It will be noticed that aLl of t.hc sales had approximate Ly again as much Land as the subject property and the s��1c pric, s of these ropert ins using only the land vaLue had fin ;-1 relativeLy sm;IIL variance their sale Prices, ranging from a low of $1.47 per square foot of land area to a high of $1.85 per square foot. of land area. None of these buildings had the commercial. potential and location of the subject It. property. can also be seen from these sales and the sales found in my appraisal report of the subject dated May 6, 1983, that. there has been no measurable appreciation in the sale prices of elementaryschools area. If anything, there may have been ' a slight drop in the square foot sale prices of elementary schools since May of do show that 1983. These sales iE the upper end of range of value was used, the indicate d Per square foot value of the improvements, including the land, would be $20.00 per square foot. ' Estimate of Value: 52,665 square feet at $20.00 per square foot. equals: $1.053,100 (S,ay) $1,000,000 CORRELATION AND CONCLUSION AS TO VALUE I , n this report, 1 have approached the value of the property as if vac land and, also, as improved with the present building. It would be ant my opinion that the subject property would be of at. least e greater value �.1s vacant land with a tar e equal or Probably to commercial purposes than as currently zonedlwith fthecbuildingyin`zoned ' place. Based on the information contained in this report and other information known to me, it is my opinion that the Market Value of the subject property as of November 17, 1986 is the sum of: ' ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($111001000) 1 Page 24 ' E. V. DOLAN CO. ' REALTOR AND APPRAISER F_ 1 �I E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. NORTHERN FEDERAL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that I have no undisclosed interest in this property, present, or intended, and that my employment is not contingent upon the valuation found, and that I have personally inspected the property. I further certify that according to the best of my ' knowledge, the contents of this report are true, and that no important facts have been withheld or over— looked, that the appraisal has been made in accord— ance with the standards of practice and code of ethics Of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers ' conducts a voluntary program of continuing professional education for its designated members. MAI and RM members who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. 1 am currently certified under this program. E. VINCENT DOLAN E. VINCENT DOLAN, M.A.I. ' J Ll r 1 11 Page 25 '..: •It- .. 77 Ulm — —�. �_ _ y- +sue ' {� _ �..•� . T .t 4. ' M , INNOVATIVE MICROGRAPHICS f��l�ri7 THE POOR CONDITION OF THE PRECEEDING MICROFILM IMAGE. LECT ION 15 TOWNSHIP 29 RANGE -23 A-- 454 2(,34. 7o K ' cr. 80 04 90 04F I - 0 5 4- L 1'! 1 0 I -w 3 4 5 (0 -F I .3 A64 — — I ' 4 -I" I fe L --j •?�L— 0 ? 101% 1 I M #oil Ind Sckoc( District AO t1h 11 to 5 6 AA A E. If -sr- LLJ uj 4% 410 Up WAVE. (A 40 45. 1 tA r IN . •- 7 � Q 1 0 , S : 4 5 ".. P. 'A OA Ilk 44 E 41% KARYL PLAC� At- 41 # R Ito .4!V Vt d 7 67) 60 z t t p 00A A its r't- -f— NA - - -. -3v lot# 467 416bf Ilk 1, 4tA VJ6 yyrT�l 4% . j il T"I H. 1 W7 At I A.0 %- tH I 71, 7--77- �i It 7S �1'1 Is 44 —7r7 i— . 0.4 419 41 w! is 0 1 to z z 21 to f L6 41) _Z7A 1 CAPEiA 11 VZVgAI �—OWfEA UYEL -fl .! ;: 1 9 s � i =,% I 1 :. �Mi t .71 l`. Paw -- .�— rum, rIgw;;r 1 IB �i I ,mac 'F:. ? `: •�l�% its M, GIRvr �s E E --- # -- -- III E►tTWE PAR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 CITY - pARU �+ , C, pU'. ° o PARK a l ('—� B o D LAKE OWA ' x .0 4 O o 000 000 O N[,e COLNIr _ - O-- 1 --. Jl�il..,.` ° C kTY ---- ~, o0(Oj0t00O 'OIO O 10100000URT$=�O ,1 40 �00 do oTo'Oro':c 1- 0o-- I •n p r o J g_' ° o ° °o Q°0 _ 00 op 1 0o o C:, —a0 0, o 0 0z0100' O n 00 0 Q- 110pO 4P }:.. A. Cale, A,[ z O 0000 OOO aOp O,GG OQ0Oi0i00'o001 / F \.. 00 10'O0 0-1 r ! AVE OOOiG O Op,0;0 0 0 ( O i QT'o .O0 a ` AV 0/ O O O '• \ ` 0 O o bra �op Qoo CO: o ---°a Y p t T: � 0 o ,O000 O(•o o .pz O $ Q4.OQ Q_ 1000;oO 0 o ' O O +, 0:0 • G• 0 p , 0 O f O ` `•'- ' `. T+•�-•��•�..o+...�..T.. i o O l'�il N p-1 4 loco OIL) p a 1010 000 010io 0 O,OzOI01 t -� f OOOOG" ,,OooiO,o q•O 0.9 00000.0 Opi0lOf0'o0' �_ ^_° o )'C 00 0 O` '"J ` ' . . p --� ..� ,_. , . 1 1 - O;O O O O O OIO GIO',0 J O� O i3i3OOgll i 0 OOD O o - O O O O U O O O Ob'OI G> e. O a O;O o ,n 0,0 Oj0 O!O'A,lh 0. O V p 0000000010000000 r0000O00 O 010 N I O 0 O+O OO.O 1 o All pev;Er s1+r1' 'OOI000010100000 00� 000'041'00 t r 0 '_T U o L o o 0 0 0- o • o lo.© -''To o-oTo ob o,o °S C H 0 L o o rIST N?oio oioA o i s .� =. ' 0 0010� O O O.O O Z 00 Or OiOi O O COI"O Oi0�0'O O O�: c R-3 ow000aoo oo•000 oo;aao oI U`0-475 ,oTd f� •it r p e+ [ - A e1 oo—T 0�0~O'IOk IOIO )qO.j l SOoC 0 000000 O ___._ 00010:p10 0 No �+ DAYT NS LEk '� C Q o a. -0- o•o p o,o 0 00 olO ° -.p 4 OOOOOw�o 0 0 000 ob o �o' Q ° o,/ 0.$ 00o,0 ao;o p;b 0. o ` 4 ° °j^xin O O O �O O O O O, 0 O, e•er ]ijf(q O fY00 ot0'-b O O O p 1 .. v° ° o io plp 0 oal .ado ao o _ i oIt g G t i ° ° /r. o o:0 D.�O ° Q, Q : 00000000006,06 0 Q O ° I l•' O O° O C r r Y L ., ..• +� Q C) Q1. O - /Y } 0000000.01001O 00c. ; i0 O U O° a C) ' b O A OO o O CAU ` r 0 p tl O O 0 ' . �l' O Q f �fw O O r + y. _ 0 0 o 0 Oi00 O otp 010 u o C 0 r1 _ 0 0' O O `O+O, 0 iO X) Q •.) 0w�,0�0.O'0 0 0 0 y 0 _. ' I r, 00- 0...-.- • • • r 1 e • A •yz -- "V•C -1 y O O'O f?00 O 'D 'r�'.��� W O 0 .O Op�O'O p;O O'O O O Ip p° , i I + { o ono 0 o )ooaa o 0 0 0 000q[ro<vovo o c,r:: - io, rr— r �.. .. � I00 000o+cO 0400coc, c'000000o o'o'11i OOo 0 t� � ..0 y{7C� P O 100'J i:�• •pQ• 1 ( C1%,-`1r. }.00Ar11'0(O�nfiO Lk I00000.0.O+rj 0 �0�00p 0100010 iI OOO!O O �O © 00' 0}, O OIO OIOOOp`O 1 0 PAY 0 ,0 0 O0O Oo0 00O-oOoo0 so 0 o �,r� OOno 1 'r tr tl't, ,.o 0 OCT ocO 0 o p �. r- �p O 'v 1 • / l �O Ot Cl C C' o Q t7iCi r:0 0!0.0.0 00.0P.. �... _ ...... I. `9t Q TO19 0 o 1 U n't+(1 OOrOK1�..)) 'O 0 00 0 0 ICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O a -... Z+' v.O7!�U O OO pI II (7 �J..,7. -O .R � -'e 10 '6O 'OO poO' O b0160 A� 1 a , o O. C7 e' 4 ao a oe A O 0 0o� p pO pK� n o 7, •••• t- - ,OO,pbO O 4...� ��IIY _ 0. Oi000O00 OIoQ •Olo ° �( •. 0- 1-7 oo i t 1] 8=1 Q oo1oo E 9ARK �o �1.o. O -.I IO0 0 CITY 0' OI � I. O O O Ir+ESEt r v ROAD d_ Q•O p I00 CEO O,�oa00 .1 O 0 0 0,0� 0 52 Q 0.O p, 7` fit• ., > '�i'� O 1 - -- L. r ... , o'o 3 o io b'o' 4.000, Q O{o O�C� . Quo b; p _ O 1- - '�p 0 }-°6 - ° a10, _Q 1 o s Uo 0 o Q OL) q,O,O,Opo T o O O 04010,6 o O O O'�-1acbOn 4' -� -0-0 �. 1 tlimiting This Appraisal is r^ade subject. to the following $ conditions: 1• The 'Legal description furnished me is assumed to be correct. ' 2, 1 assume no responsibility for matters legal in character nor do I p Y marketable. render any opinion as to the title wlbeelis assumed n disregarded,t and the perty Liens and encumbrances, if any, have though free and clear and under responsible has been appraised as ownership and competent management. 3, if sketches of flo plans or plots are included in his report,they assist are to be considere,, only as being approximate and submitted of e no I have the reader in visualizing the� with such e mattcrsy responsibility in property and assume no responsibiitY in connection 4, The information in this report identified as being furnished to me no responsibility by others is believed by me to be reliable, but 1 assume for its accuracy. ' 5 Neither all nor part of the contents fthisrporb� ll news, sales c,yed o the ublic through advertising, public relations, t p l f l e author, and approval other media, without the iconclusions t the idertityoftile appraiser ' particularly as to valuation firm with which he is connected, oany Ce,c'co tile � or lust itute of Real Estate Appraiser, or tl1etheMA•ldcs[gnation 1 am not required to give testimony or attendance in Court by reason of this appraisal with reference to its subject property, unless arrange- ments have been made therefor. ' 7. 1 have no present or contemplated ante rest in the property appraised. My employment is not contingent upon the value rep(rted. ' g, The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land tllnocon- ' and improvements applies only land'rande buiildiing rnusC r`nato tarltused 'The valuations for separate if so Used- junction with any other appraisal and are invalid . 9. The qualifications of this appraiser are a 1)�Irt of this appraisal report. 10. 'This appraisal has been mide in accordrince with OW rubs of f►rr+Irssic►nrll eLilics of the American Institute of itrrll I-st;lte Appraisers. L 1 1 APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS 'of I• MEMBER E. VINCENENT DOLAN (a) American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - Vice Pres. 1977 - Pres. 1978 (b) St. Paul Board of Realtors - Treasurer, II. EDUCATION: 1965 - Vice Pres. 1970 - Pres. 1971 ' (a) Graduate of the College of St. Thomas (b) Completed courses in Real Estate at Macalester, U. of M. and Hamline III. APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENTS: (a) CITIES AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: Shoreview ' Moundsview Morton Solt Co. West St. Paul Schaak Electric Co. New Brighton American Can Co. North St. Paul Ford Motor Co. Birchwood Roy Wenzlich & Co. St. Paul Park Berg-Torseth Oakdale Village Comsery Corporation City of Red Wing General Foods Corp. ' Mendota Heights Ramsey County Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. General Motors Corp. City of St. Paul Bethlehem Steel Corp, Board of Water Comm. Griffin Pipe Co. General Services Adm. Minn. Transfer Ry. Co. St- Paul Housing Authority Aetna Life Insurance Co. ' U.S. Post Office The Toni Company State of Minn. Hwy. Dept. Pemtom, Inc. Dept. of Natural Resources Falcon Heights State Bank Dakota County Assessor Wheel Service Co. Ramsey County Probate Court Target Stores, Inc. ' Ramsey County Assessor Gould, St. Paul Port Authority The Sussl e Co. Federal Housing Adm. Champion International Corp. City of Mendota Hgts Indfanh 1 Truck Lines Lower Minn. River Water Shed Dist. Chrysler Corporation Internal Revenue Service Minnesota Mutual Life U.S. Dept. of the Interior Minnesota Club Hastings Public Library North Oaks Company St. Anthony Park State bank (b) EDUCATIONAL INST1Thi20N5: Drovers Bank St- Joseph's Provincial House Norwest Bank College of St. Thomas tnited Air lines .North Central College Roseville ille School District America National bank Catholic •,id Association West 5t. Paul School District bankers Life Insurance Co. St. Paul School District Deluxe Check Printers, Inc. Northweste College businessman's Assurance Co. Northwestern C0innes Minnesota mining% Mfg. Co. l'nivrrsity of Minnes0t'i St. Paul Insurance Companies White Ae•nr Lake Sehoois Bemis brothers AaH Co. hiotese of Saint Paul liont•yweII Inc. Mounds Viry Stltool llibtritt Homequit%, Inc. `:o.rth St. Paul - M:eple'wood - Oakdale Ft Trust COmpanv fit. Cloud School '✓istrict mbet),rst Kirly-Clark Corp. Syntex Corp. it) NATIONAL AN17 LOCAL COMPANIES: i'iil.hu►v ic. Northw steru hell lcl. CO. Ncrthrrn Stotrb Fowrr Co. Sherwin-Wiiltam l.,rnd a'1..►kr� (rv.tmt-ties. inc. Fepublic i'rtrOltum Co. burger King Corp. Pte•r Homes ti t;ardent toldwell banker Reletation Service :av +tern oil .tntl Fuel CO, (Oftr01 Bata COrpotatien �uperamorlta St,rtiont, int. lletrilt Lvnth ;hell ail to. H, 1. He 1 nx (i•, •'.rrthvestt•rn kt•f ininK Cv. oot!veat' 7 i rt i 0. ►STI• 10omlr, Arrnored (a► Service KEIt' Mttlt[of) Inr. tile. Servitt till (o. • iV,OI U (III : implov,•' lranslvi (orp0r,rtinn Western 1.11t' ;r,aurdb<e 1p, U, felon 'b All Anit-iitan Ir,trt,i3Ort. :nt Texaco ite•Laval Separator Co. t�riIfi li kauenhorst Corporation i.rifIEN Wheel C0' eel o. kcmington Rand Univoc 1�'• EXPEkIENCf:: Con,inentaI Capital Co. (a) Actively I."" " in the genoraI real estate business since 1957. selling property manegement and appraising various types adjacent Counties of properties in St. Paul and t and in other towns in Minn eSota, Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota. (b) instr,-ctor in Real Estate at Globe Business (e) Lecturer on Land Economics at the University (d) Commissioner College. of Minnesota, Extension Division. appointed by the District Court (e) Qualified of Ramsey County. as expert witness on real estate values Dakota, Washington, Goodhue, Stearns, Scott, in the District Court of Ramsey, Blur Earth and Hennepin and Anoka Counties. 1 June 17, 1987 2.90 TO: Jim Andre FROM: Craig Waldron (� SUBJECT: LEXINGTG.; SCHOOL This morning (June 17), Tom Dunwell, the owner of Rose Gallery, and the Rose Gallery attorney met with Howard and me to discuss the Lexington School issue. Essentially, the School has 41,000 square feet of leaseable space, and the purchase price with the School District was set at $1,008,000. The applicants initially proposed a rezoning of B-3 on the entire property. We pointed out that a blanket B-3 zoning would not work, based on the fact that the area is adjacent to R-1, no proposed use for the southern parcels is in place, and the area to the south is part of the recreation system. We also pointed out that if the School is asking a commercial price for the property, it is artificially driving the market. As the meeting later progressed, Dunwell discussed the possibility of residential zoning in the southwest area of the property with a B-3 zone on the southeast corner. Howard and I also discussed the fact that the park dedication applies to this area, thus any development that is proposed would have to meet those requirements. The meeting was left at the point where Dunwell and the developer would start to develop a plan that could meet the needs of all parties. Again, this may prove to be difficult based on the artificial price that the School District is asking for the property. June 24, 1987 TO: Jim Andre FROM: Craig Waldron SUBJECT: LEXINGTON SCHOOL Howard Dahlgren and I met with Tom Dunwell and the applicant relating to the Lexington School situation. At this point in time, they are proposing a 40,000 square foot B-3 office on the southeast portion of the property, and residential (R-2) on the southwest. The required ten percent dedication will essentially be in -the middle of the parcel, which would allow enough room for three tennis courts, and a parking area with potential basketball. use. Howard and I pointed out that this does not serve the City's park needs at this point in time. The applicant pointed out that he could not make this deal work if he were forced to dedicate the ball field. The meeting concluded with the intent that the applicant again develop a plan, more palatable to the City, that would include a price with respect to possible City purchase of the nondedicated land for softball purposes. In addition, the B-3 use adjacent to the neighborhood should be changed to a more compatible use. Again, the artificial price that the School Board has placed on this land is, in my opinion, creating the basic problem. cc: Bob Bierscheid }. July 1, 1987 !v TO: Jim Andre FROM: Craig Waldron SUBJECT: LEXINGTON SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT CC: Bob Bierscheid Dahlgren, Bierscheid, and I met with the Lexington School developers today, July 1, 1987. The following transpired during the course of the meeting.. 1. The developers are proposing a new building which will be essentially in the center of the property, somewhat closer to Lexington, with a parking lot adjacent to the property owners. An enhanced buffer would be placed adjacent to the property owners to the south. 2. The plan depicts the ten percent dedication to the City, pur- portedly at-$100,000 cost to the developer. The remaining area needed for the park is approximately 45,850 feet. The developer is tentatively offering this land to the City at the price of $125,000. It was stated that the cost was originally $150,000, based on the value of the sites for potential duplex develop- ment. Thus, the developer is supposedly discounting the property by $25,000. This works out to a cost to the City, per square foot, of $2.73. 3. It was determined that the layout is essentially workable, with the contingency that appropriate parking be made available for the ball field. We stated that the price, based on potential duplex value, is simply too steep. The developer will be moving forward to meet all of the planning requirements for the August Planning Commis- sion and City Council meetings. A formal purchase price will be submitted to the City for the ballpark land as soon as it is refined and finalized. In my opinion, at this point in time, it is critical that the City establish an internal working number with respect to the bottom line that we are willing to pay for the 45,850 square feet. July 8, 1987 TO: Jim Andre FROM: Craig Waldron SUBJECT: BREAKDOWN OF LEXINGTON SCHOOL SITE COSTS CC: Bob Bierscheid The developer is proposing to pay $1,008,000 for the 8.54 acres, resulting in a cost of $2.71 per square foot. The potential price for the dedicated area was formulated by simply taking ten percent of the total $100,000 figure. The ballpark area costs rwere ecalculatedubythe the developer's attorney, who worked with an appraiser n setting cost of the area in relation to four duplex lots atl$35,000, orhe the $150,000 as originally proposed. At the reduced price of $125,0001 the City is essentially looking at $2.73 per square foot. Thus, the cost for the City is virtually identical to the square foot cost that would be paid by the developer for the total site. p E 660 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE c TELEPHONE 484-337 1 O J e V I v P MINNESOTA SS 113 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT August 10, 1987 TO: JIM ANDRE FROM: BOB BIERSCHEID R3 '.RE: LEXINGTON PLAY SPACE At the Planning Commission meeting of August 5th concerns were expressed by neighbors, commission members and the city planning consultant as to the recommendation not to acquire the Lexington ballf ied space. The following is a more detailed analysis of the issues involving this parcel: 1. Desirability of property: There is always a concern for providing and preserving open space. Although the Lexington site has well served the neighborhood and the community for several years as an active play area, there are additional considerations: - This land is a part of the city's master land use plan as a recreational use area but it has not been an actual city park. This site has been owned, scheduled and maintained by the Roseville Area Schools. - It's use has been more of a community playfield than as a neighbor- hood use area serving softball and hockey teams throughout the city. - There is additional neighborhood play space approximately one block away at Mayflower Park which is often used for soccer, frisbee and casual softball. This area also has a nature area with a pond and passive rest area. - A comprehensive park, Bruce Russell, is located five blocku from Lexington and offers tennis courts, play apparatus, basketball.court, ballfield, shelter building and parking. This area is near the bike trail system from both the east and west. The decision to either retain or require land is more than just a factor of open land, availability or past use. 2. Usability: These are the major concerns regarding the ability to use this area under the proposed plan. - Parking: Past history has proven over and over that unless off- street parking is provided there are always problems in using active play areas. The present proposal provides no guaranteed parking on ::.either a short or long term basis. - Proximity: The field would be located next to business parking areas and an office building and the potential for damage due to foul balls and overthrows is very high. It is also important to note, that the skating areas will be relocated at Bruce Russell Park unless they are retained in their present location. It is not economically feasible to place the rinks on a seasonal basis on the proposed city owned ballfield because of: a) turf repair b) hockey board wear and tear from continual assembly and re -assembly c) relocation of lights and warming house 3. Affordability: The City is not in a position to provide unlimited resources for either acquisition or maintenance of park areas. Based on the current proposal it is far more economically feasible to: - Add lights to additional Central Park Victoria fields. Lighting just one more field would provide the same space as used at Lexington and eliminate added daily maintenance costs. - Place a backstop, for casual softball play, and play apparatus at Mayflower Park to serve the neighborhood interests. In reviewing the priorities for land acquisition in the City, this site is considerably lower than several other sites which provide greater resource protection, site amenities and capacity to serve large numbers of citizens. The question of payback was raised during the planning commission meet- ing. I know of no measure of determining payback on a facility that generates no income except for direct programming costs. Certainly there is a very real value in using recreation and park space but it is not definable in quantative monetarial terms. 4. Park Planning Procedures: In ascertaining proposed park land use, the criteria applied are usually the following: - Does it provide either active or passive recreational use? - Is there a capacity to provide several amenities on one site thus facilitating ease of maintenance and more attractive use for families and multi -interest groups? - Does the space protect significant cnvironmental resources? - Is it part of a connective land use such as a trail or pathway" - Does it provide massive green space or forested areas? - Is it cost effective in terms of acquisition, maintenance and overall usability? r - Is it accessible? 1 - What is the environmental impact on the surrounding area? In many cases, park areas can readily serve as transitional zones in land use planning because there is mutual benefit to neighboring interests and park land users. It is not a regiment of the Parks and Recreation Department to provide buffer zones on situations where the needs of the entire community are not well served. Summary: The original recommendations not to acquire this site was based on a specific proposal that in my estimation 1) was too cnatly, 2) dad not provide adequate parking, 3) provided too little space for comprehensive park use and 4) did not offer cost effective alterna- tives for retaininj; open space and providing park amenities to those already available in nearby parks. If another plan that proposes significant changes in either land uses, volume or cost is offered, the Parks and Recreation Department vxill re-evaluate this site. August 12, 1987 TO: Planning Commission, Howard Dahlgren FROM: Craig Waldron SUBJECT: 4w, LEXINGTON SCHOOL PR ECT CC: City Council Jim Andre Bob Bierscheid Tom Dunwell The Roseville City Council, in continuing the Kaufhold request, further clarified and refined its position with respect to the project. The Council stated: "The City Council does not want to purchase parkland proposed price, nor does it want a Small twoacrepark which at the Provides inadequate space for an effective recreational grog m. The Council is also seeking to encourage increased housingon.athe site, and the formulation of an appropriate buffer to the adjacent neighborhood." September 17, 1987 TO: Jim Andre FROM: Craig Waldron f e 7{> !;�,�:� n, • ..:.e. SUBJECT: LEXINGTON AND BRUN PROPERTY APPRAISALS I have reviewed both a I.�___-----__-_� true costs to the Cityper each proposal. PPraisals, and attempted to ascent ain the With respect to Lexington, when one includes the Per square foot, the cost of acquiring and clearinemthe Len costs School site is approximately $3.31 per square foot.g the Lexington With respect to the Brun $5,000 to $6,000 from the phousetsaleSs assuming gerhut one can net in the range of $3,49, P square foot cost is costs, as modified, there his`a approximately the respective apt�raised per square foot between the Brunr7ersusethelLexingtonctdifference acquisition costs. School . - I October 23, 1987 I TO: Jim Andre �� I �l, FROM: Craig Waldron SUBJECT: KAUFHOLD PURCHASE REEMENT cc: Bob Bierscheid Attached is a copy of the Purchase Agreement relating to the Lexington School site that I obtained from Dr. Worner. I have highlighted the salient elements of the contract. I think it should be noted that this is an extremely "soft" Purchase Agreement, in that it allows the purchaser to extend the closing date to August 1, 1988. In addition, the developer could walk away from the deal before March 1, 1988, and only experience a $15,000 loss. I also find it somewhat frustrating that Kaufhold can 1-ie up the property PurchaseAgreementforlessthanfivepercentof mAeftafthe ftaa effectua- tion of thehe land deal in excess of $1 million. Attch. l �` �I fosSrqLE gCGES$ �Sz` kA i M � I Co u l l--f-( — SYJS-0IJ(, PARKING IISCAAS I, F - ii v- I �2Ai AcE r!£IJ PAZKIn)L, " 99 GAR$ --- �' I I I i j lo' Wlq I AwvscAPE JUr'r=F I U � D 2 Ion wlpE �oscAPE Bv�FE2 k r3 1 ' I I l, u^ �L-��IrJG� a,vtNuc I�CA*rCwgg O V 99� WCO, \'lam 'SC 53 / 1 / l � Y i v I �1 Z >I I ' 15� I II � M I / N I� II I 101 w10E LAWP560£ OOrrSK 511E A2EA. 3111 980 5gir<. 9.54 AdgC5 TrA(, t5WLQI0(A Af-EA : 51, 215 51:� r'-r 49055 ARCA (411215 54.F% 6r-o55 1EA$CAfSX ACCA) f ARKW6, 9CQur2CD' 41 `- Zoo = 006 CAP-5 PACKING, Sgo jo ; I I--?' 5YC15-i'46, i' 99 NEW = Z14 CA25 z o� 6 } Q. W O <5x<uj W LLW = Q z h ¢�a O d m z o�1 O LU Wto m S % W _ ccw W WIL C7G F awQ3 CO V1 W° W w m Q z 0 N_ uj Q W 0 w U N W 4J O PURCHASE AGREEMENT This Purchase Agreement is made and entered into this 12th day of May 1, 1987, by and between Gerald H. Raufhold, 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 Seller 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. 2. PURCHASE PRICE. A. Price. . The total purchase price for the above -described prop- erty shall be One Million Eight Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($1,008,000.00). ------------- 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) sha a pai as an or earnest money as of the date hereof; a further payment of $2000.00 upon execution a pprova by Seller; and an additi ent on November 1, 1987. Commencing January 1, 1988, and monthly thereafter through u _y Buyer s a to Seller additional earnest money hereunder, or be subject to termination as provided for in paragraph 14 herein, the following sums on the dates shown, to wit: r January 1, 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 ix -Eight Thousand ($968�000 0 ) ars, cash, snail be paid as of Do 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 shmu ua y 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 (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 whichwilltnothe pinterfere with the planned developmentof 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 "A" 1+-reto. (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- 4. 5. 6. POSSESSION. 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 *gay, 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: 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- (3) Compliance with Applicable Law: The Seller warrants that: The property fully complies with all existing local, state nd federal rules, regulations and laws having application the condition and ownership of the property, including, without limitation, health and safety and environmental ordinances, codes, hasand nolaws; knowledge Seller has received no notice, of any present code, ordinance, or zoning viola- tions relating to the property from any governmen- tal authority having jurisdiction shall have, he as of the property; the Seller has 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 necessary closing, bear the expense of all work or a n remove or correct such violation; and all licenses and permits needed tooperate pro force and effect, and, erty present manner, are n 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 ems f in is ossesin Buyer with the following datetthatiSellertacceptssthois within 30 days of the Agreement, to -wit: a. copiesof rtgagesgorideedsnofdtrust�,tif including all mo any; b. A certified as built survey of the property, which survey shall show the legal description of the property, the location of all improve- ments on the property, easements, building lines, 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; EEC 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 contract or 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, ur a Registered Property Abstract certified to date to include proper searches covering bankruptcies, and State and Federal judgments and -5- 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 are so made the Seller shall be allowed one hundred twenty (120) days to make such title marketable. Pending 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. §559.21, 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. §559.21; 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, 1987, 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- 9. 10. 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 rata 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 e condition of the property. For the purpo es of this hprovision, 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, 1987, 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 -7- 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 Seiler in care of Paul Borg, 1251 West County Road B2, Roseville, MN 55113, and for the purpose 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 REPF'ESENTATIONS. All statements contained 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 nt to the provisions hereof, for the benefit of the parties,laas 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 its obligations hereunder, and the Seller shall performance cper- formed or tendered performance of all of its obligations hereundert and said default shall continue for a period of 10_days, then, in that event, t e e erg ll be entitled to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Minn. t on w oc �a . §559.21, CUTbe thirt (30 ) da s from and uafter service nof noti efauIt shall complies with Minn. Stat. §559.21; and, on such termination,o all payments made upon this Agreement shall be forfeited by the Buyer an retain d b the Seller an a Sell s agent, i any, as liquidated damages, ome eing of the essence hereof, which shall be Seller's sole remedy against Buyer. am 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. All understandings and agreements heretofore made between the parties hereto are merged in this Agreement, which alone fully and completely expresses their agreement. This Agreement is entered into after full investigation, neither party relying on any statement or representation not embodied in this Agreement. 16. ACCEPTANCE OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT. This Purchase Agreement has been signed by the Buyer and submitted to the Seller as of the date first above written. In the event the Seller shall fail to accept this Purchase Agreement, by affixing its signature hereunto, andby notifying the Buyer of such acceptance, on or before June 1, 1987 this Purchase Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect, and the earnest money herein paid shall be refunded to Buyer forthwith. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Purchase Agreement the date and year indicated below. BUYER Gerald H. Raufhold Prepared by: John P. Vitko, P.A. 200 Rosedale Towers 1700 W. Highway 36 Roseville, MN 55113 (612) 636-6400 Attorney Reg. No. 112938 SELLER Independent School District No. 623 BY: , " A ITS: Clerk Date: 6/1 /87 Department REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 11/09/87 ITEM NO.: /-�) -I roval: Mana er Reviewed: Agenda Section: Hearings Item Description: Gerald Kaufhold request for rezonin Plan Amendment, preliminar g, Comprehensive 1130 County Road B. y plat► and variance at The Roseville Planning Commission, at its September 2 1987 unanimously recommended denial of the Gerald Kaufhold►re request Comprehensive Plan Amendment q t for County Road B. This was based ponlthe nfollowinary g and variance at :1130 g findings of fact: 1• That the size and intensity of the rezoning request consistent with the Lexington area is not the proposed B-3 use. ► Particularly as it relates to 2. That the proposal conflict h the Cit commercial strip development wonLexington.policy to discourage 3• That the City has sought to ' it is currently in place, protect and preserve R-1 zoning where 4. That the adjacent areas to the south are zoned R-1, 5, That the planned amendment and rezoning are inconsistent current land used in the area. tent with the 6. That the rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive The developer has twice asked for continuations Plan. October meetings, which were from the September and rthethe Council determined that the ahearingAwould betcond Council meeting, November 9, 1987 meeting, ucted at the The developer will be presenting athe proposal that was considered byplan g the Planning that is somewhat modified from zoning request is a B-2 rather than a B-3, the park sCommission in that the and the facility to the southeast has been downsizedltos singl expanded, A copy of the new proposal is included in your packet for single story. r your review. . 0. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion approving/denying Gerald Kaufhold's request for pensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat, and variance rezoning, oty Road B. e at 1130Countyu, November 4, 1987 r TO: Jim Andre FROM: Craig Waldron �Iokll SUBJECT: LEXINGTON SCHOOL UPDATE cc: Bob Bierscheid Howard and I met today with Tom Dunwell and Jerry Kaufhold regarding the Lexington School project. The plan has not changed substantially from previous plans that have been reviewed by staff. In effect, Kaufhold is now requesting a B-2 zone as opposed to B-3, and has downgraded the building on the south- east to one story. Howard suggested some additional modifications that would involve a B-1 zone adjacent to Eldridge that would still allow B-2 parking based on the modification in our ordinance. In summary, albeit the zoning is somewhat modified and the build- ings are not as dense as originally proposed, we are not really dealing with a substantially altered proposal. Mr. Dunwell will have modified maps available for me on Friday, in order that they can be sent out in the City Council packets. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Jim Andre FROM: Craig A. Waldron RE: Potential Findings of Fact Relating to the Post st Office Attached is an RCA from the 11-9-87 findings as depicted in this memo, would still appear City Council meeting, The relevant findings, should the council to to deny to be Office project. The findings were depicted as follows. he post 1• Size and intensity of the zoning request 1 consistent with the Lexington area particularly as not relates to the proposed use, choosing to deny, may want to modify(The this to cil, if state business zoning) . _ 7,',��sa simply l�US� ties ZT�v��'� 2. The proposal conflicts with city commercial strip development on LxPolicy i gt n.tO discourage 3. The cityrhas sought tzoning, protect and preserve R-1 a�5 currently in place, oiling, where 4. The adjacent areas to the south are zoned R-1, 5. The planned amendment and rezoning are inconsis with the current land use in the area. tent 6. The rezoning is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. P nsive December 1, 1087 TO: Ji Andre FROM: Craig Waldron(/,`�- SUBJECT:' KAUFHOLD POST OFFICE PROPOSAL cc: Bob Bierscheid Kaufhold has now submitted the plan for the post office on the Lexington School site. He is essential) y proB-2 on the northern part of the site that willosinfacilitateotheg to Post office development, and the 6,000 square foot addition to the existing building to the northeast to function as his auction house. Shared parking is being proposed to the southeast, which would be zoned B-1 under the recent modification that was made in the City Zoning Code. The area depicted as Parcel C includes 2.82 acres for park pur- poses. After the ten percent requirement is donated, Kaufhold is proposing selling the remainder to the City for 1200,000. If the City chooses not to buy it, Kaufhold is two remaining acres for residential lotsproposing to develop the couNrr gaao eURKE AVE cult Y- AM T-raL sl rE- A94-4 . - . 57 ig6o 5QK-6S�P�£S--oNryNM.. AftA StL,41.sQT-d.lT 11[t$ sQacGItRFJ1AH(R . � - CoWsA�cTh+=av a1 �arwrY �ARGCL 'Af u/, Pq, :1 I:r ,SDI AGFGy YCL,.6tca aAAlA: yf��vwfl�-ilr( ). 17.fw N.Q(, J �K �Ri7 NS01c5� Fti.Ca+A Swn.+J ff'f `""6 PARCEL '6: 6bIZS• 54.Ft= aDL A—C3 _ 014G WAa. ZoJrNL: R-1 U r MN OurfoWG AACAI Dean Se. Ft 1 = f�rxwa kaNArp 7-31A11, sw J izn cKs PAFCCL - F c I2S.eeo �, t- a (.DL Aceb ; 07 C Proposal for Roseville City Park Adjoining Lexart Addition eloper Gerald H. Kaufhold submits the following proposal in conjunction application submitting a Preliminary Plat for Lexart Addition and requesting rezoning of the property most recently known as the Lexington School, conditioned upon such rezoning. Mr. Kaufhold, without additional expense, will dedicate to the City of Roseville by deed donation, ten (10%) percent of the total site property, shown as part of Parcel C on the Site Plan and incorporated in the area shown as Parcel C on the Preliminary Plat. This dedication can occur as soon as Mr. Kaufhold has title to said Parcel from Independent School District No. 623. Closing on that transfer is scheduled for August 1, 1988. This donation, for park purposes, is equivalent to $100,800.00 in dollars on the basis of the undeveloped land value cost to the developer. In the event of such rezoning, without expense, Mr. Kaufhold will sell for $200,000.00 to the City of Roseville, as soon as possible after transfer to him from Independent School District No. 623, the balance of Parcel C on the Site Plan and incorporated in Parcel C in the Preliminary Plat. This area, totaling approximately 87,390 square feet, is otherwise designated for residential lots and represents potential sales to the developer in excess of $375,000.00. The City of Roseville shall furnish the legal, engineering and administrative services necessary for these transfers. Gerald H. Kaufhold Date: 11 ''d/e/ LAW OFFICES OF PETERSON. BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN 2100 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 101 EAST FIFTH STREET ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 (61 2) 2224.4703 ERWIN A. PETERSON ROBERT C. BELL WILLARD L. CONVERSE ROGER A.JENSEN KURT F. WALTHER W. TIMOTHY MALCHOW MARTIN J. COSTELLO JAMES C. ERICKSON WILLIAM M. DRINANE CAROL A. BALDWIN ADAM E. BRIDGE City Council City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 January 28, 1988 RE: UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE - POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN -LOCAL ZONING LAWS Our File No. 1011.19 Ladies and Gentlemen: Attached to this letter is a memorandum from our office dealing with the powers of the United States Postal Service. The following appears to be the powers of the post office: 1. They have the power of eminent domain. They probably could exercise the power even if the land they were taking already was devoted to a public use. I presume, however, that the post office would follow a procedure of not taking land already devoted to a public use. 2. The post office does have the power to disregard local zoning laws. However, I am told that they have a policy of attempting to follow local authority. Very truW yours, PETERSON, BEL , CO ERSB & R )t e RCB/ap Enc. cc : , Howard Dahlgren m MEMORANDUM Date: January 28, 1988 To: RCB From: CAB Re: Post Office Power of Eminent Domain Our File No. 1011-19 I. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN. The basic postal power is set forth in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution. To effectuate the postal power, congress has conferred the power of eminent domain on the Post Office. This statutory grant of power is contained in 39 U.S.C.A. Section 401(9) which reads: The Post Office shall have the following powers. . . to exercise in the name of the United States, the right of eminent domain for the furtherance of its official pur- poses;. Title 39 also specifically incorporates the general statu- tory provisions relating to eminent domain. 39 U.S.C. Section 402(b) states the following provisions shall apply to the postal service: (4) the following provisions of Title 40: (A) Sections 258(a) - 258(e) (relating to condemnation procedures); 40 U.S.C. 258(a) - 258(e) set forth the outline of the procedural requirements to be followed in federal exercise of the power of eminent domain. Copies of all these statutes are attached. [1. ZONING. It is generally recognized that when Congress acts through its postal power, its power under the supremacy clause to super- sede conflicting state law is as broad as it is in its exercise of power over interstate commerce. See generally 62 Am. Jur. 2d Post Office, Section 7. The courts which have considered the issue have generally concluded that this means that local zoning ordinances and regulations have no applicability to Post Offices. See generally Crivello v. Board of Adjustment of Boro of Middle- sex, 183 F. Supp. 826 (D.N.J. 1960) and Thanet Corp., . , vs. Board of Adjustment of Princeton Township, 260 A. 2d 1 (N.J. Super 1969). The Thanet case also stands for the proposition that this immunity applies whether the Post Office owns the land or is leas- ing. III. TAKING OF LANDS ALREADY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC PURPOSE. As you know, lands which are already devoted to a public purpose are immune from further takings unless there is a su- perior use involved in the subsequent taking. I think there is no question that when the specific taking is directly authorized by statute, the federal government can take land devoted to a pre-existing public purpose. For example, in United States vs. 4450.72 Acres of Land, 27 F. Supp. 157 (D. Minn.), aff'd Minne- sota v. United States, 125 F. 2d 636 (8th Cir. 1942), the Court upheld the federal government's power to take by eminent domain for use as an Indian reservation some land which was already used by the State of Minnesota for wildlife conservation purposes. However, in that case, the United States government was acting - 2 - pursuant to a specific piece of legislation bye Congress which, in effect, told the government to set up a reserve on Rice Take in northern Minnesota. The Am. Jur, article on eminent domain, 26 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain, Section 91, indicates that absent explicit statutory authority, the courts are split over the issue of whether the federal government can take land devoted to a pub- lic purpose, that is whether a federal purpose is always a su- perior purpose. I have reviewed some of the cases cited in the Am. Jur. article and also an annotation at 91 L.Ed. 221 and reach- ed the same conclusion. I also looked at some later cases from the Federal Digest and it indicates to me that this split is still in existence. However, I think there is a slight trend toward the rule that a specific grant of the power of eminent domain authorizes taking of public as well as private property, even without a specific statute saying " go build a Post Office in Roseville, Minnesota, on the site of a former school." IV. WHAT IS GOING ON IN ROSEVILLE NOW. I spoke with Bruce Davison in the Local post Office Eminent Domain and Real Estate Division. He told me that he knew nothing about any plans to acquire a school in Roseville for use as a post Office. Davison indicated that any eminent domain activi- ties which would be going on in Minnesota would be handled through the regional office in Chicago. I called Nick Kline in Chicago. Kline told me that it was his office that would be han- dling any condemnation procedures of this nature and he knew noth- ing about any moves to condemn the Lexington School in Roseville. Davison's number is 851-1130 and Kline's number is (312)765-4988. PROVISIONS :al Note I51g1 of 11111. I., UI 375. ..rl uut as an f"live Iintr n-or I.rr.•rding .rrllita 1( this title. Cal Regulations 3 2.1 at seq. .r3 alter, amend, or repeal any or a to such alteration, amendment, or, of any contract made by the Post, red by this title. tat. 722. al Note )scat of 1'ul).t.. 91-J73, get 011t as an atf. fecalre Irate Mote prec-rdiuK %ec•tloo 101 of this title. Decisions Ott out as a Mnte under recllr,o 19WI of `� Title 1:. lOagmUch as euolrart sag ea. tered 101u under provlaloo out IMcorpo• rated Into this title. Nallooal Aag'a or Letter Carries. AFL-CIO v. 11. s. Postal strrlev. 1/.C.D.C.1971. = b' supp. aft 4� CHAPTER 4--GENERAL AUTHORITY Sec. 401. General powers of the Postal Service. 402. Delegation of authority. 403. General duties. 404. Specific powers. 405. Printing of illustrations of United States postage stamps. 406. Postal services at Armed Forces installations. 407. International postal arrangements. 408. International money -order exchanges. 409. Suits by and against the Postal Service. 410. Application of other laws. 411. Cooperation with other Government agencies. 412. Nondisclosure of lists of names and addresses. 40 L General powers of the Postal Service The Postal Service shall have the following general powers: (1) to sue and be sued in its official name; (2) to adopt, amend, and repeal such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to accomplish the objectives of this title; (3) to enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and determine the character of, and necessity for, its expendi- tures; (4) to determine and keep its own system of accounts and the forms and contents of its contracts and other business docu- ments, except as otherwise provided in this title; (6) to acquire, in any lawful manner, such personal or real property, or any interest therein, as it deems necessary or con- venient in the transaction of its business; to hold, maintain, sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of such property or any interest therein; and to provide services in connection therewith and charges therefor; (6) to construck operate, lease, and maintain buildings, facil- ities, equipment, and other improvements on any property owned or controlled by it, including, without limitation. any property or interest therein transferred to it under section 2002 of this title; (7) to accept gifts or donations of services or property, real or personal, as it deems, necessary or convenient In the tranaae- Mn of its business; (8) to settle and compromise claims by or against it; 19 39 § 401 GENERAL PROVISIONS Nola I Ch. (9) to exercise, in the name of the United States, the right of eminent domain for the furtherance of its official purposes; and to have the priority of the United States with respect to the Payment of debts out of bankrupt, insolvent, and decedents' es- tates; and (10) to have all other powers incidental, necessary, or appro- priate to the carrying on of its functions or the exercise of its specific powers. Pub.L. 91-375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 722. HLltOrkd Note l:ffsellre Uato Cle. (1) sad (3) to (to) .section 13(s) of Pub.L. 91-rs. set out se. effectl►e July 1. 1971, pursuant to Resolu• Effective Date Dolt preceding section lion No. 71-9 of the Board of Governors ss and cf. (2) effective Aug. 12. 1970. Bet10, of this title. Port Office a=t. Library References C.J.3. I'ost Office 11 2. 3. Code of Federal Regulations Administration, organtsatloo, etc., ON 39 CFR Chap. 1. Notes of Dedgilons Acquisition of pr•harsy 10 Actions by or agalast tonic• Gaaendly t aar'I,hraext Proe*edlags t Into►eot a A►bltrartaos, or rule, sad rogalwtkas Coenpreastoo It Cenalfuctlsa at rules snit regutatlosu 1 Csatfwcts e rd"Iaeat domain is Fern and effect at rules wad rogulwtlsoo Qarnishmeas preeeodlnar. salsas by against service t Iaterssl. actions by ar agatost "orrlco Intorprotatlon of rule.# wad regulations Judieiwl Nolte* 14 teases 11 M.ewaonablesose of ruks mad rogsls fe 7 Italsa sued regstalloa, Goawralty, a Construction s Foros assi •!fort 4s No+soa.whlotwoo T Yallality, a Ilottlasasat &*4 «ssl►raaaloe u Vadldlty of rake ward rogulatwim a or as S. Aetlsasa by ar &C LNs1 tlorv4o6_.0tws, Nlty Goversmeat doss not become conduit of Its tesmuaity IN suits agalast al tat# or Instrumentalities merely because they do Ina work. May Dept. stone Co, v. Wil. Ilstasoa, C.A.lto.l97i. 3411 F.2d 1147. Bervlce 1s lust so amenable to Judicial I process as Is s private enlerprlse. Kenna. dy Kitt. Co.. Inc. v, 11. S. Postal Service, l C.A.Colo.1014. 3W F.2d 9M. Dtiermlostlon of service's liability to electrlcal subcontractor who performed work on Post office under contract Offal. oa By awarded by fort Of(Iee t)tpartmaol weal to the tnerlis of electrical subcoa• Ifactor's action and one to Jurisdiction, even though the Oil claimed Chet. be. cause the coairacl wax Initially awarded by the Post O((Iry 14partment, the ac• flan was barren by aoveralgo Immunity. Id. Fad that If sleciflcal subawattrador who ptrtorastA work as past Off" sad wbkb sought, after contractor's tal)uro to Pay, psyasest from itanlcs. wart success. ful la Its adlos, IkrvIco would have to make psylnast oat of toads held by Treasurer of that United states did not tutsn that the action was a salt against tbs severetes. Id. [eaadlsg this *"ties. Coa;raes ex. PMaly atlPslated that Marvin# should have authority to sue sad b* said la its official aamy and such provisloa operst. e4 as a waiver of ooverolg■ Immensity is All actions brought against lkrvk,c 20 Ch. 4 GENERA I Pearlatloe v. 1'. H., D.C.11a.1919, f�4� Su pp. 1044. Herrlce In aubJrcl to cult In Its nffl. t name, and ault by mall rarrler to cowl. 1'Irll Iterrlce Cnmmlxrloo Inow Uffire Personnel Management) to accept Ills aI peat (ram his remoral would not he ill mlraed oo ground of sovereign Immunit, Abbrussese v, Bersak. D,C.N.J.1976. 4: F.supp. 201. affirmed 801 F.2d 107. S. - Oaralshrneat proceedings &rvlce did not retain the broad Rona ally from cult which had beta afforde to Its predecessor, and was not Immuc from state Raralahment process. Itenef clal Finance Co. of New York, Inc. 1►allax, C.A.Y,I'.1978, 3T1 F.2d 123. serylee wen not Immune from garolal meet procedures. General Elec. Cred Corp. v, Smith. C.A.Va.19TT, 30 F,2d W service was not Immune from star xerolshment proceeding brought by Judl meet creditor of service employee. Gaon taws Furniture Co, T. U. S. Postal Her% ere, C.A.X.J.19it, 301 F.24 462. iY Words "sue and be sued" in tlttir not uul connotation embrace all civil prove► Incident to legal proceedings Inrludln xoraishment prncadurea. May ltrp Fitorto Co. V. Williamson. C.A.11o.IfI T, 34 F'.2d 1117. The power to sue and ate sued run (erred no the Service by this aeclloo cut We've garnishment proce•edloge. 'Stand and Oil Division. Atuerican oil Co. t Marks. C.A.111.1973, 328 F.2d 201. He., alan. Aasoclalea Financial Service, u America. Inc. r. Robinson, C.A.La.1018. 3A 1'.2d I; Inws•Ika MillOts Nat. liank ► II.C.luws gold, tit F.Supp. 1393. The Mrr%lte I, not Immune to gernlslt toent profedurta to effect Judgmentx I .191e rousts. Rtsodard All I)lrl.l.. American oil Co. v, Rtarks. C.A,111.197t 4211 F;241 201. nee, also, flank of Vlrgial r. Tompklaa. II,C.Ve.1n77. 434 F.Bultp, 78' Revt/vlga Immunity did not provto ' slats court Judameat creditors tram Rat olsbleg wagte of fkrvlct employees IJGcola NaL llsak A 'Trust Co. of Ner York v. 3tarotts. D.C.N.Y.11ITT. 442 1 supp, 46. Congress which gars Ral•vtctl outhorit to sot and be sued to Its oMclal Data did act great Immunity of aervlee wit rasped to garal•bmest procedures. Des of Virginia T. Tompklss. D.C.Vs,ln7'1. 43 F -Rupp. 797. t.oglslative history of Ibis title make It clear !bat Congress chose structure o ! 39 §409 GENERAL Nat@ E of Madonna ProteetanIa and Other Americana United r Sepsrat Ion of Church and State •' tl'lirlen, D.C.D.C. I9d7, 272 F.Mupp 112 Y. 1'artl�. Post Office Employees' welfare Com. mittee through which postal employees had Installed and operated reading ma- chines In city post office constituted late - oral part of service and thus was loatru- mentality of United stales for purposes of suit by such Committee against Serv- Ice and postmaster for alleged tortious conversion of assets. Employees Welfare Committee v. Dawn, C.A.Fla.1979. W9 F.2d 1375. Discharged postal employee could maintain suit against service seeking rt. Instatement and back pay without join• log the United States as a party. while T. Bloomberg. C.A..Md.1974. 501 i*2d 1379, Post Office Employee Welfare Commit• lee, which negotiated contract wlth,plslo. Ilff corporation for lastallallon of vend- Ing alachines in city post office, eonstl. luted Integral part ref Post Office Depart - meal (now united Stales Postal Service) and was thus Instrumentality of halted Stales for purpose of determining propri- ety of suit by plaintiff corporation for declaratory judgment that contract was valid and enforceable for five years In accordance with Ira terms. Automatic Retailers of America, Inc. Y. Ruppert, D. C.Iows 1967. 2tV F.Supp. SM. to. Clue anions to Action oeeklax declsration that de, ftudsols had violated this title by refus• log to treat cornpeosalloo as basic pay. SerAce supervisory employees who re• cth•ad e4uslisalluo payment without PROVISIONS proper payment of other forma of peasadon hosed on basic pay. that Premium wares, In an amount sufn to reflect equallratlon payment met 4ulrementa of rule pertaining to class lion. Burns Y. U. S. Postal service, D?�Q N.Y.1974, 390 F.supp, an. In action by Service supervisory ployeee seeking declaration that defs auto had violated this title by refusln�; treat compensation as basic pay and b refusing to make cootributlooa to rah meat fund, class treatment for those a pervlsors who bad received 44uallaatlo Payment and who were receiving a4 would receive cost of 1171or Increase all without proper contribution by service to civil service retirement fund was Inappro. priate, where, in fact. It was probable that vast majority of supervisors were actually pleased that Service gave them additional compensation without deduct. Ing anythlag for retirement purposes. Id. It. Csmprasalss or setUement Fact that Department of Justice lei compelled by law to furnish legal repro: sentatlon to the Service does not bind or prevent settlement authorization speclfl. cAily granted to the Service by section MM of this title. Leonard Y. U. a. Post- al Service, D.C.Maaa.1971, 300 F.Supp. 440, affirmed 480 F.2d 814. It. Damages sovereign Immunity barred recovery of punitive dameara sealant the Hervlre sad Iberefure, In fairness, Man precluded Im• Position of punlllve damages against Postal employee's union In case In which both Service and union had breached do - lies to employee. Bowen v, U. S. Postal Service, D.C.Va.1979. 470 F.Supp. 1127. § 410. Application of other laws ch. 4 GENERAL Al' Lions on employment of relative, (antidiscrimination; right to pl' bility, security, and conduct of (withholding city income or el 6632 (dual pay) of title 6, excep der such chapters or sections sh unless expressly made applicable (2) all provisions of title 18 d the mails, and officers or emplo United States; (3) section 107 of title 20 (kn Act, relating to vending machint (4) the following provisions of (A) sections 268a-258e ceedings) ; (B) sections 270a-270e (b ing to performance bonds) ; (C) sections 276a-276a-7 Act, relating to prevailing ws (D) section 276c (relating contractors) ; (E) chapter 5 (the Con Act) ; and (F) chapter 16 (the Got Act); (5) the following provisions of (A) sections 35-46 (know ,q lating to wages and hours) ; h (B) chapter 6 (the Servie, (6) sections 2000d, 2000d-1-2( Civil Rights Act of 1964) ; and (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and ex- cept as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws re- main in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Fed- eral law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees. budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 6, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service. (b) The following provisions shall apply ,to the Postal Service: (1) section 552 (public information). section 552s. (records about individuals), section 652b (open meetings), 31021 (em- ployment of reading assistants for blind employees and Inter- preting assistants for deaf employe*s), section 3110 (restric- 46 (7) section 19 of the Occupat: 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668). (8) The provisions of the Act 4161-4166). (c) Subsection (b)(1) of this sects sure of— (1) the name or address, past tron: (2) Information of a commerc crets. whether or not obtained fr Service. which under good burin licly disclosed; 47 ;RAL PROVISIONS other proper payment of other forms oa of pensatlon hared as basic pay. C.D.C. premium wages, in an amount a In reflect r4l11411sa1100 payment 4ulremeate of rule pertaining to cla tlun. Iluroa r. U. S. Portal llervioa4 Com. N.Y.1974, 380 F.Supp. M 110yses In action by Service supervise" -it rna. ployses seeklog declaration that d d Init. ants had violated this title by ref mstru• treat compensation as basic pay a tposee refusing to make contributions to:'' Serv. meat fund, class treatment for to Ktlous pervlsors who had received eQna 'elfore payment and who were recelring 1 F.2d would receive cost of living Increaea, without proper contribution by Servky could civil service retirement fund was loop, it re• prlale, where. In fact, It was proba Join. that vast majority of supervisors n White actually pleased that Service gave tl 1779 Additional compensation without dedl log anything for retirement purpoo omit- Id. Plain. rood. 11. compromise or se4demenl ,osti• Fact that Department of Just" part. compelled by low to furnish legal rep vice) sentatlon to the Service does not bled filed prevent settlement authorization epee .1pri. cally granted to the Service by sect for 2008 of this title. Leonard v. Il. a. Pa I gas al Service, D.C.Iifasa.1973, 300 F.Supp, i In affirmed 480 F.2d sit. A atic N D- It. Dunwree Sovereign immunity barred recovery punitive damages agalaat the Service a therefore. In falroeaa, Man precluded I de• position of punitive damages &gall us. postal employee's union to case In whl sy, both Service and union had breached f re• ties to employee. Ilowen v. U. S. Poo •ut Service, D.C.Va.1979, 470 F.Supp. 1127. or laws b3ection (b) of this section, and e his title or insofar as such laws 1 ,lions of the Postal Service, no Fe Federal contracts, property, wort funds, Including the provisions apply to the exercise of the powe shall apply to the Postal Set iformation), section 562a (re, :Gay (opvh wrcarstnXe), 3102 a its for blind employees and I employees), section 9110 (rei 6 Ch• 4 tions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suita- bility, security, and conduct of employees), and section 6620 (withholding city income or employment that no r taxes ion and section e ti n 6632 (dual pay) of title 6, except un- der such chapters or sections shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable; (2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States; (3) section 107 of title 20 (known byathelblind)eppard Act, relating to vending machines operated (4) the following provisions of title 40: (A) sections 268a-268e (relating to condemnation pro- ceedings) ; (B) sections 270a-270e (known as the Miller Act, relat- ing to performance bonds) ; (C) sections 276a-276a-7 (known as the Davis -Bacon Act, relating to prevailing wages) ; (D) section 276c (relating to wage payments of certain contractors); (E) chapter 5 (the Contract Work Hours Standards Act) ; and (F) chapter 16 (the Government Losses in Shipment Act) ; (5) the following provisions of title 41, (A) sections 35-45 (known as the Walsh -Healey Act, re- lating to wages and hours) ; and act of (B) chapter 6 (2e 1-2000d-4 rof fillet 42 (t tie VI, the (6) sections 2000d,000d Civil Rights Act of 1964) ; and (7) section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 669). (8) The provisions of the Act of August 12, 1968 (42 U.S.C. 41614166). (c) Subsection (b)(1) of this section shall not require the disclo- sure of— pa- (1) the name or address, past or present, of any postal pa- tron: trade se- (2) information of a commercial nature, including crets, whether or not obtained from a person outside the Postal Service, which under good business practice would not be pub- licly disclosed; 47 GENERAL AUTHORITY 39 § 410 40 § 257 PUBLIC BUILDINGS, EM, Ch. 3 BUILDINGS AN( Note 203 Precept where section 258a of this title is invoked, and then only because that section fixes the rate of interest, the federal rule is settiod that interest in condemnation proceed ings runs from date of the taking, and federal courts are usually consiraincd to vJoci the local rate of legal interest as the one proper in such procoodings, even though it is conceded that conformity did not so roquim US. v. A § 258. Omitted Ccnain Tract or Parcel of land I County, Ga., D.C.Ga_1942, 47 FSUf Allowance of interest on interest amount awarded for land and caae in condemnation prooeoding is U.S. v, 20.08 Acres of Land in H Allegheny County, Pa., D.C.Pa.1941. 421. Illstorical Notc Codlfieadom Section, Acts Aug. 1, 1988. c ity, as near as might be, to sate practl 728. § 2, 25 Suit. 357; Mar. 3, 1911, c. 231. pleading, has born omitted as superse § 291. 36 Stat. 1167, which. in connection with rule 71A of the Federal Rules of CdvU condemnation proceedings, required conform- dure. Title 28. § 258a. Lands, easements, or rights of way for public taking of possession and title In advance of Judgment; authority; procedure In any proceeding in any court of the United States outside of the District of Columbia which has been or may be instituted by and in the name of and under the authority of the United States for the acquisition of any land, or easement or right of way in land for the public use, the petitioner may file in the cause, with the petition or at any time before judgment, a:.' declaration of taking signed by the authority empowered by law to acquire' . the lands described in the petition, declaring that said lands are thereby' taken for the use of the United States. Said declaration of taking shall. contain or have annexed thereto— (1) A statement of the authority under which and the public use for which said lands are taken. r (2) A description of the lands taken sufficient for the identification thereof. (3) A statement of the estate or interest in said lands taken for said public use. (4) A plan showing the lands taken. (5) A statement of the sum of money estimated by said acquiring authority to be just compensation for the land taken. Upon the filing said declaration of taking and of the deposit in the court., to the use of the persons entitled thereto, of the amount of. the estimated compensation stated in said declaration, title to the said lands in fee simple absolute, or such less estate or interest therein as is specified in said declaration, shall vest in the United States of America, and said lands shall.- be deemed to be condemned and taken for the use of the United States, and; the right to just compensation for the same shall vest in the persons entitled thereto; and said compensation shall be ascertains' warded in said proceeding and established by judgment therein, and tic said judgment shall include, as part of the just compensation awarded, interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum on the amount finally awarded as the value of the property as of the date of taking, from said date to the date of payment; but interest shall not be allowed on so much thereof as shall have been paid 276 into the court. No sun, ct,tnmissions or poundage Upon the application of the money deposited in the or on account of the just t If the compensation final13 thereof, shall exceed the a entitled, the court shall ci amount of the deficiency. Upon the filing of a dec.' fix the time within whit: possession shall be require court shall have power to liens, rents, taxes, assessr shall be just and equitable ( Feb. 26, 1931. c. 307, § 1, 46 Short Title. The Act of Feb. 307. 46 Slat. 1421. which is clan• Alaska native reindeer industry, a section 500a of Title 25. In Alternative sources of condemn, judgment as not abrogated title. Coast Guard, exercise of functio, Coast Guard. Colorado River Basin Project, On 1522 of Title 43. Public Lai Condemnation of property, right Congressional limits on price to authority, see section 258c Connecticut Indian claims seulen resources, see section 1754 Defense housing, acquisition of 12 licalth and Welfare. Federal Aviation Administration. 49, Transportation. Ilclium•gas•bearing land, condcn Irrigation projects, acquisition t Lands. Jurisdiction of United States dis Title 28. Judiciary and Juc Maine Indian claims settlement, within reservations, see se Naval petroleum reserves, right-o Armed Force. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Public Health and Welfan Postal Serviw, power of condos Service Redwood National Park, aoquish River and harbor improvemenu Navigation and Navigable Socretaries of Army and Air Rot 4780 of Title 10. Armed F. Tennessee Valley Authority. righ this section x section 8' Uniform real property acquisitie section 4651 of Title 42. T M3XX BUILDINGS, ETC, Cnrsa. Trea or Parcel of LAnd in 0 C"ry, G-, D.C.Ga.1942, 47 F.Supp,,. AA—ancc of interest on interest aJ! a.r...a awrdcd for land and e..cm, i- aodcmnation proceeding is Ir. CS .. 2G.06 Acres of land in Hart AA-p`cny County, Pa., D.C. Pa.1941. 39 QL tad ?"Ge 'ry as near as might be, to state preset I�+4t has been omitted as super ruic 'LA of the Federal Rules of Civil dvR Tide 28. or rights of way for public •o and title In advance of pcoceAure ;6c I:niud States outside of the Distil be insdtuted by and in the name l S+Itcs for the acquisition of any Iar :or :`x public use, the petitioner mi or t: any time before judgment,, Iboc::N• empowered by law to acquh .iocfari.ng that said lands are thertib ,es. Said declaration of taking s6 c t.mdcr which and the public use :akc sufficient for the identification's :-Me-cst in said lands taken for said to t 1 rno=cv estimated by said acquirinj tJ�." I i`cr L. a land taken. ti l .king and of the deposit in the co eto. of the amount of the esti t, t tic to the said lands in fee ' cu dxxdn as is specified in scs Of America, and said Iands for the use of the United States, me shall vest in the persons eatl x ascertained and awarded In ,at min, and the said esackm awarded, interest at the said tt3attu t th%4"od o of ach tbcreof as shall have been i Ch. 3 BUILDINGS AND WORKS GENERALLY 40 § 258a into the cour-t. No surn so paid into the court shall be charged with commissions or poundage. Upon the application of the parties in interest, the court may order that the money deposited in the court, or any part thereof, be paid forthwith for or on account of the just compensation to be awarded in said proceeding. if the compensation finally awarded in respect of said lands, or any parcel thereof, shall exceed the amount of the money so received by any person entitled, the court shall enter judgment against the United States for the amount of the deficiency. Upon the filing of a declaration of taking, the court shall have power to fix the time within which and the terms upon which the parties in possession shall be required to surrender possession to the petitioner. The court shall have power to make such orders in respect of encumbrances, liens, rents, taxes, assessments, insurance, and other charges, if any, as shall be just and equitable. (Feb. 26. 1931. c. 307, § 1, 46 Stat. 1421.) Historical Note Short Title. The Act of Feb. 26. 1931. c. lions 258a to 258e of this title, is popularly 307. 46 Stat. 1421, which is classified to sec. known as the 'Declaration of Taking Act. - Cress References Alaska native reindeer industry, acquisition of reindeer and other properly by condemnation, sec section 500a of Title 25, Indians. Altcrnalivc sources of condemnor's power to take possession and title in advance of final judgment as not abrogated, limited, or modified by this section, sec section 258d of this title. Coast Guard, exercise of functions as including acquisition of land, see section 92 of Title 14. Coast Guard. Colorado River Basin Project, Orme Dam and Reservoir, acquisition of Indian lands, see section 1522 of Title 43. Public Lands. Condemnation of property, right of Government officers, see section 257 of this title. Congressional limits on price to be paid for condemned property as limiting condemnor's authority, sec section 258c of this title. Connecticut Indian claims settlement, Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, acquisition of land or natural resources, see section 1754 of Title 25. Indians. Defense housing, acquisition of lands, see sections 1502. 1592d, and 1594a of Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare. Federal Aviation Administration, acquisition and disposal of property, see section 1344 of Title 49. Transportation. lichum•gas•bearing land, condemnation, see section 167f of title 50 War and National Defense. Irrigation projects, acquisition of land by condemnation, see section 421 of Title 43. Public Lands, Jurisdiction of United Slates district courts in condemnation proceedings, see section 1358 of Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Maine Indian claims settlement, condemnation of trust or restricted land or natural resources within reservations, sce section 1724 of Title 25, Indians. Naval petroleum reserves. right-of-way acquisition under this so.tion, see seaion 7422 of Title 10. Armed Forces. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, condemnation of real property, see section 2222 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. Postal� pof condemnation under this section, see scalon 410 of Title 39. Polies) Redwood National Park, acquisition of additional land. see saxion 79c of Title 16. Conservation. River and harbor Irisp�•ov�ements, resettlement of displaced families, see section 398 of Title 33. Navigation ar+d Nayipble waters. Seeretarks of Army and Air Force acquldtlon of buildings in District of Columbia, ace section 4780 of Titk 10, Armed Forces, Tennessee valley Authority, right of eminent domain as not depriving Authority of rights under this aoctlon. not diction 831e of Title 16. Conservation. Uniform real properly aoquWtion policy, deposits of amounts in court under this aection. we section 4651 of TUk 42, The Public Health and Welfare. 277 40 § 258b PUBLIC BUILDINGS, ETC, § 258b. Taking In advance of final Judgment; appeal Ing of bond as preventing or deli In vesting f delaying of No appeal in any cause under section 258 of this title nor any bor undertaking given therein shall operate to prevent or delay the vcstir title to such lands in the United States. (Feb. 26. 1931, c. 307. § 2, 46 Slat. 1422.) Historical Nose References In Text, Section 258 of this title, referred to in text, has been omire d from the Code. Fed" Practice and Procedure Condemnation procedure, see Wright & Miller. Civil § 3044 et seq Federal Jury Practice and Instructions Condemnation. —eminent domain --severance damage —mitigation of damage, we § 93.01 et Code of Federal Regulations Forest development transportation system. 'set 36 CFR 212.1 et seq. § 258C. Obligation of United States to pay ultimate awn, when fixed Action under section 258a of this title irrevocably committing the Unit, States to the payment of the ultimate award shall not be taken unless d chief of the executive department or agency or bureau of the Governme empowered to acquire the land shall be of the opinion that the ultima award probably will be within any limits prescribed by Congress on it price to be paid. (Feb. 26. 1931, c. 307. § 3. 46 Slat. 1422.) Federal Practice and Procedure Condemnation procedure, see Wright & Miller. Civil § 3Wr c1 seq. Federal Jury Practice and Instructions Condemnation --eminent domain —severance damagc`mieigation of damage, see § 93.01 et seq. Code of Federal Regulations Forest development transponation 9Ystcn% see 36 CFR 212.1 et seq. Notes of Decisions Administrative, nmeat of p 47-21 Acm of Y t �Uwropl�v� 1943. Ott F.supp, 73. �nd. Pam) Na S. n.C.1K . Emit on'"e"Ousst N be paJd 4 2. Abaodoum mt sf }rroceedtap WIcre United suites gavemment had taken 1. CoastJtutlooailty Property under *ecdons 2586-258e of this dtk U S t:,A. Coast Arssend. 14, § 1, _ authorizing taking of pion and dtk of t&k; � ssivate propenY for public we with � t� Y o�a fiUag declaration of taJdgg� .( i.vf' t r witlsout _ t of estinueted compeaaatJoo is pensatlort" is wtislied by this sretionl U. V.ten' tNvernmcnt was Invvocably bound to Pay ultimate award In tending coodcauutloa 352 Ch. 3 BUnDINIGS AND WORKS C proceedings, regardless of whether ultimikic award was within limits prescribed by Con gress on price to be paid, and government could not thereafter abandon proccodings. llcswl v. A. Smith t4 Co.. D.C.111.1936. 15 FSupp. 953. 3. AdisdautreUve Opinion If Conga= provides a limit on amount to be spent on land for a specific project under sections 25" to 2Sbe of this title, the require• ment of administrative opinion that amount of ultimate award will probably be within such § 258d. Taking in advance of tional to existing righ The right to take possession and tit condemnation proceedings as provided in addition to any right, power, or au - United States or those of any State or ' ings may be conducted, and shall not I or modifying any such right, power, o (Feb. 26, 1931, c. 307, § 4, 46 Slat. 1422.) Federal Practice Condemnation procedure, see Wright k Miller: t Federal Jury Practic Condemnation -eminent domain -severance dan Code of Feelers Forest development transporutlon system, see it § 258e. Taking In advance of buildings thereon; e works; funds avallab In any case in which the United Sta of any real property during the course advance of final judgment therein irrevocably committed to pay the ai compensation, it shall be lawful to e: that purpose in demolishing existing s public buildings or public works there the Attorney General, the title has be persons having an interest therein ha% ing and will be bound by the final ju (Feb. 26. 1931. c. 307, § S. 46 Slat. 1422. 835.) Ntstork 1'!7'0 AMMAM M1. Pub.L 91-393 ellminat• ed words ", notwithstanding the provisions of 3! PUBLIC BUILDINGS, ETC. cc of final judgment; appegd reventing or delaying vesting section 258 of this title nor any )pevate to prevent or delay the ve Sta(cs. 122,) itorical Note this tom cdce and Procedure filer, Civil § 1.044 el seq. ractice and Instructions c damag—mitigation of damage, ace § 93.01 et 8% deral Regulations .ee 36 CFR 212.1 et seq. ed States to pay ultimate award t title irrevocably committing the United r tic award shall not be taken unless the r agency or bureau of the Government All be of the opinion that the ultimate limits prescribed by Congress on the . •e and Procedure Civil § 3044 et seq. Ice and Instructions mag—mitigation of damage, see § 93,01 et seq. al Regulations 16 CFR 212.1 et seq. liedslons 47.21 Acres of Land, Parcel Na S, D.cX . 1043. 48 FSupp, 73. 1. A►aodoaMssst of proowdlogss Where United states government had taken property under soalons 258a-MIc of this" sudwWng taking of possession and dtk of private property on filing declaration of taking and deposit of estimated compensation M court. government was Irrevocably bound 16' my ultimate award In pending condea umdoe ,, Ch. 3 BUILDINGS AND WORKS GENERALLY 40 § 258e proceedings, regardless of whether ultimate award was within limits prescribed by Con gress on price to be paid, and government could not thereafter abandon proceedings lice-wl Y. A. Smith 6t Co., D.C.111.1936, 15 1 supp.951 J. Adm►WatnLLlvc opinloo If Congress provides a limit on amount to be spent on land for a specific project under sections 258& to 258e of this title, the require- ment of Administrative opinion that amount of ultimate award will probably be within such limit is met by request of agency to Attorney General to file condemnation proccoding. U. S. v. 40.75 Acres of Land, More or IA=. Situ• arc in Du Page County, III., D.C.111.1948, 76 FSupp. 239. 4. Unit on amount to be paid Congress need not provide limits on the amount to be ,spent on land for a specific project under sections 2584 to 258e of this silk. U. S. v. 40.75 Acres of Land, More or l.cs Situate in Du Page County, Ill.. D.C.111. 1948. 76 FSupp. 239. § 258d. Taking In advance of final judgment; right as addi- tional to existing rights, powers, and authority The right to take possession and title in advance of final judgment in condemnation proceedings as provided by section 258a of this title shall be in addition to any right, power, or authority conferred by the laws of the United States or those of any State or Territory under which such proceed. ings may be conducted, and shall not be construed as abrogating, limiting, or modifying any such right, power, or authority. (Feb. 26. 1931. e. 307. § 4, 46 Stat. 1422.) Federal Practice and Procedure Condemnation procedure, see Wright k Miller, Civil § 3044 et seq. Federal Jury Practice and Instructions Condemnation —eminent domain —severance damage mitigation of damage, we § 93.01 et seq. Code of Federal Regulations Forest development transportation system, see 36 CFR 212.1 et soq. § 258e. Taking in advance of final judgment; demolition of buildings thereon; erection of public buildings or works; funds available for purpose In any case in which the United States has taken or may take possession of any real property during the course of condemnation proceedings and in advance of final judgment therein and the United States has become irrevocably committed to pay the amount ultimately to be awarded as compensation, it shall be lawful to expend moneys duly appropriated for that purpose in demolishing existing structures on said land and in erecting public buildings or public works thereon: PlrovideA That in the opinion of the Attorney General, the title has been vested in the United States or all persons having an interest therein have been made parties to such proceed- ing and will be bound by the final judgment therein. Mcb. 26. 1931. c. 307. § S. 46 Stat. 1422; Sept. 1. 1970. Pub.!_ 91-393. § 4, 84 Stat, 8'35.) Eiilatotrlcal Note 1l70 Ameadmeot, Pub.L 91-393 climinat• section 255 of this dtk' which followed 'pub. ed wor4e ', notwithstanding the provisions of lic worsts thereon-. 353 § 8 P( I( :I: 62 ;\m fur 2d the course of his cmploy►nent, , ' m I';'Vc nu grcatrr rightw, tl►c railway company than if he were an cmplovcc." flowevcr. .► ,Imc requiring through mail trains to turn aside from tllc inlerst;ttr rctutr so as to stop at a particular station operatcs as an interference will► Elie mails and is therefore invalid.16 The validity and effect of regulations relating to various particular mat- ters," and the enforcement of regulations," arc considered in subsequent portions of the article. § 8. Post roads. Congress has established the following as post roads: the waters of the United States during the time the rnail is carried thereon; railroads or parts of railroads and air routes in operation; canals during the time the mail is carried thereon; public roads, highways, and toll roads during the time the mail is carried thcrcon; and letter -carrier routes established for the collection and delivery of mail." The states cannot interfere with the control of post roads and routes by the Fcdcral Goycrnmeni, and its power to select, establish, and declare such roads and routes." Thus, it has been held that a state cannot impose a toll on wagons, carriages, stages, or other modes of convey- ances carrying United States mail;'* nor can a state restrict the numhcr of conveyances which tfte Federal Governrttent may see fit to cmploy in the transmission of mail within and through the state.' I:yen the operation of the telegraph on or along post roads comes within the exclusive control of the Federal Government as against hostile state legislation," although federal stat- utes which authorize the construction of telegraph lines along post roads do not affect the right of a landowner to the damage to which he is entitled for the additional burden on the fee caused by the erection of telegraph poles upon a public highway which is a post road.' Local highway or traffic regulations as applicable to vehicles employccl in the transportation of the mail arc discussed under another title.' 9. Fiscal matters; revenues, funds, ctc. There arc several specific provisions with respect to the revennes and other funds of the Postal Service. aniong which are those dealing with the collection and adjustments of debts.° the collection of postal -relined rcx'cnucs! the 14. Martin v Pitt%lmrR & 1.. F. R. Co. 2M US 284. 51 1. Ed 104, 27 S Ct 100: Price v Pennsylvania R. Co. 113 US 218. 28 1. Ed 980, 5 S Ct 427. 15. Illinois C. R. Co. v Illinois, 163 US 142. 41 L Ed 107. 16 S Ct 1096. 16. See sections relating to particular mat- ters and subjects. 17. As to criminal prosecutions, see 11 122 et seq., infra. 18. 39 USC 15003. 18. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v United States, 198 US 385, 49 L Ed 1094, 25 S Ct 665; Luxton v North River Bridge Co. 153 V3 525, 38 L Ed 808, 14 S Ct 891 ; Cal. ifornia v Central P. R. Co. 127 US 1, 32 L Ed 130. 8 S Ct 1073; Ex parte Jackson, 96 US 727, 24 L Ed 877; Kohl v United States, 91 US 367. 23 L Ed 449. to 20. Scaricht v Stoke%, 3 ffnc,• (EIS) 151. 11 t. Ed 337. 1. Neil v Oltio, 3 lil.w (US) 720, 11 1. Ed 800. 2. Pensacola Tel. Co. v Western U. Tel. Co. 96 US 1, 24 L Ed 708. Generally, as to the use of post roads for the constructinn, maintenance, and operation of telegraph lines, see TEI.rcoMMCNICATIONa (I it ed if 22 et seq.). 3. See 26 Am Jur 2d, EMINENT DOMAIN 1214. 4. See 7 Am Jur 2d, APTOMOat1.ES AND li1014WAY TRAFFIC 1 171. S. 39 USC 12601. As to money order funds, see 128, infra. 6. 39 USC 1 2401. 62 Am (ttr prcpl , t .t t tt it, Irpotl" .i"tf: audit,►* the• and agrec•oirt: against Elie• I' funding of (h. § 10. Gencrall) Under the P of the Postal Governors rct r Advisory Cour from a Postal § I I- Board of The control Governors, 9 t • for 9-year tern the Postmaster by such 9 Go% Hoard of Goy( consent of the these 9 mend: General." ,N Governor." Prior to tht provisions cxi- of postage .In I authority to c and cquitahle tions that thr , Postal Service i tain and coati adapted to if revenue to in - Postal Scryicc of the Postal 7. 39 USC 1 2( 8. 39 USC fi 21 9.:19 USC 1 2( to. 39 USC 1 : 11. 39 USC 1 ' 12. 39 LtSC ; 13. 1 11. infra. 14. 12. infra. l5. 1 13. infra. 1 E it. Is c use, .vice `�'sYt s fro Ind " nn ' is nti "sties. of a l .hill aging .,UA c under purchasel ceased tc 'atc indivi ,stitutc an :d from ;blic use, a ,s were to, ngt it not sulk vein prima tear he land to a 2 Ind 493� _Id that t under the end remove It had been sto' roeeedingt fa here the mM wt was run wl loing a large4i tufacture and Roselawn C tV 279; Twin' r Electric Co. ismd 284 US d not to ha the waters here a pu of o. r wall Amotnt notional ;omen Bc njr Co. 4 205 US EMINENT DOMAIN § 91 !?(I. Sttlx•tiur, consLStrnt, or inferior uu•. (•„,I(•r gcncral authont\ 10 condenut fr,r ;I public usc, 'it is settled that prop- rrt� (Ic\•r,1rd to one public use nlay be condcntrlecl for another which is of ,I;t.r;,tr r;Ink in respect of public necessity, or which may be exercised con- ,;,tt•1ttl� ""III the use first attaching. Gencrally, «'here it is the public through t►f its entities that seeks to condemn property already devoted to a I,,,I►lie use, and public ownership is thereby suktitutcd, the property is said to I>< devoted s to a "higher use" and the change is therefore regarded as for a I►ul►lie usc. (7f course, where lands arc necessan' to a public use, and arc devoted thereto, the%, cannot be condemned for a lesser public use. For example, the , onstruction of a levee for the reclamation of land from the floodwater of a ,;�,•, will not, although it is for a public use, be permitted to destroy a portion ,f the %,v;tter supply system of a municipal corporation.19 411. -- Federal takings. I -he application to takings by the united States of property of a state or .uhdivision or agency thereof, of the concept that property devoted to a I,ttl►lit use may be taken for another public use which involves a greater .h•cree of public necessity than the first, but may not be taken for a .4•14111d u-,c which involves a lesser degree of such necessity, is somewhat ..It•, tile. While ubitct languast n1;1% be found in the decisions indicat- ,ttt; III.It particular uses to which the United States proposes to devote itl,►pert� previously held for a public use, by a state or subdivision thereof, AT of greater public necessity than the use involved in the slate's owner- •161) or occupancy," and vice versa," or even that the uses of the Federal t wit-rnment arc automatically superior to any uses to which the state may have h•t„tcd the property! application of the doctrine in question so as to affect h, .,cell;tl holding of a case has occurred only rarely.' t . o1 921. 27 S Ct 790. error disntd 212 US 1.. '0 1. rd 371. 29 S Ct 355. Ir,mmnlion: 12 ALR 1509. 1510. N• to abandonment and nonuser generally, . i 115 et seq., infr5. 17. l.'nited Stares %• Carmack, 329 US 230. I. eel 209. 67 S Ct 252, reh den 329 US 11. 91 1. ed 706. 61 S Ct 627; Mobile & O. k Co. v Postal Tel. Cable Co. 120 Ala 219 : t S., 408; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v Chieaito, 1 - L. R. Co. 30 Ind App 654, 66 NE 919; N„n•rican Tel. & Tel. Co. v St. I-ouis, I. Ii & S. R. Co. 202 Mo 656. 101 SW 576; Slate. by State Highway Commissioner v I •rtiun County Park Commission, 89 NJ Super :n2. 214 A2d 446. - 18. Limit Island Water Supply Co, v Brook- 166 US 68S, 41 Led 1165, 17 S Ct 711, Power Co. v Los An=les (CA9 Cal) N 1 F 784. cert den 262 US 751, 67 L ed 11. 4.1 S Ct 700. Re Brooklyn. 143 NY 596, t►t NE 983, affd Lone{ Island Water Supply t v Brooklyn, 166 US 685, 41 L cd 1165, 17 S Ct 718; State ex rel. Washington Water Power Co. r Superior Court for Grant County. 8 Wash 2d 122, 1 It P2d 577. Annotntion: 171 ALR 1370 et seq. 19. Ft. Worth lmprov. Dist. v Ft. Worth, 106 Tex 148. 158 S%V 16.1. 20. United States t- Tiffin (CC Ohio) 190 F 279; United States v Certain Land (CC N10 165 F 783. Annotation: 91 L cd 234. 1. Re Certain Land in Lawrence (DC Mau) 119 F 453. Annotation: 91 L ed 234. 2. United States v Carmack, 329 US 230, 91 L ed 209. 67 S Ct 252. Annotation: 91 L ed 234. 3. United States v 4450.72 Acres of Land (DC Minn) 27 F Supp 167. s I'd Minnesota v United States (CA8) 125 F2d 636. Annotation: 91 L ed 234. 747 62 :'ant fur 2d to prescribe the to determine the -tit, and [raining :,c:d paper, cards, fees; to provide services; and to Il Service and to : is authorized to: ,rmancc of official and employees in discharge, or take :s; relieve officers r other legitimate . to it; determine ns arc to be con- arricrs and other icccssnry to carry )mcnt, promotion, Jr and reasonable gcs in rates, fees, iervicc is enjoined ,r granting undue Ling classifications, organization Act,' :rvicc may not be a change in the on a nationwide :ithin a reasonable tal Rntc Commis - Commission shall or hearing on talc the mail, and an ,gent the interests Ily vested in the the Board may 1.1 he public by any Idr=xs of postal 1,2 Ant fur 2d I't ),1'I OI.1.1cl., §1 I,:rl1t rr�' 1,11C PtI.S1.11 .SvIki1r• i. NiIIIiLirl%- l,ruhibitcd frr�Irr dit�ulgrnt;: the 11.11ur oil .rdclres� lr.r�l ��r l,tt.,r nI, t�( ,tn� pr,•I:tl paUun; infu►nclli„n t�l ;r laI 'r'r�,ctr.uuturutsidcrtlhr I't( Ilrllttic�rti1;idc�llit,lict` %-dwthcr tar nnl ul)l;rinctl (runt undo gcxul business practice ��rndd nut be publicly• disclusccl; information prepareO for use in conncctic,rt with cocne rl talc (�ruc tlings; report .end rncnurrancla (If c nnsultants or indcpcndrnl rttractors except to tale extent that the)• would be required to be disclosed if prepared within the Postal Scrvicc; investigatory files, whether or not considered closed, compiled for law enforcement purposes except to the extent avail:Ihle by law to a party other than the Postal Scrvicc; and information prepared for use in connection with the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements with postal employees., 1. Primacy of the Postal Service vis-a-vis state and local regulation. So far as the supersession of state laws is concerned, the sarne principles ;apply when the postal powers of Congress arc exercised, as in the case of talc exercise of its power over interstate commerce.10 Accordingly, regulations enacted by the states or state agencies are invalid and innper,It % incnfar as i they interfere or conflict with fcdcral control." The primacy mf fit,. Postal Scrvicc dues not, however, preclude the states, municipalities, or other Inc:Il ' governmental agencies from the enactment and enforcement of laws or regu- lations which affect the postal service only incidentally, in the absence of pre-emptive federal laws or regulations governing the subject." Thus a i f former federal statute which provided that membership in any organization Of postal employers not afliliatcd with any outside organization imposing an obligation upon them to participate in any strike against the United States should not constitute cause for reduction in rank or compensation, or removal from service, did not indicate an intent on the part of Congress to occupy completely the field of regulation of organizations of federal postal crtlployers, so as to invalidate a slate law which prohibited its labor organization., includ- ing Ihosc whose Inernbers were federal postal clerks, from discriminating. In reason of race., color, or creed, in the :tdnticsion or treatrtu•nt of rne•nIl►er• I' And the power of C:ongrecs io cst:lblish post olr1cce :nul post r,►ad. is not infringed by .1 state slatule uncicr which :I railway p1mal clerk, injurrd in 8. '19 USC ; 412. 9. 19 USC f 410(c). 10. Cr-l.by v 1Ycil, 302 Ill 5311, 48 NE2d 3116. 14.5 AI.R 1244. 11. Pennsylvania R. Co, v Public Service Cum. 250 US 566, 63 L Ed 1142, 40 S Ct 36. Regulations of the Interstate Commerce Co,►rtninion prescribing requisites for ca- boose cars without platforms, and of the Pat Office Department respecting the equipment of mail cars when used as end can, amount to such an assumption of control by the United States over the subject matter as to invalidate a $talc statute insofar as it requires that a mail car, when used as the Iasi car in an interstate train, be equipped at its tsar end with a platform .10 inches in width and with guardrails and steps. Pennsylvania R. Co. v Public Service Corn., supra. 12. Martin v Pittsburg & L. E. R. Co. �rl't l'S 3111. 1 1. Ed fill, 277 S C, Inn f liwilatills' of liability of railroad for injury Ill railway trail clerk). As to ,br urce%jity for a postal eury►luyee too secure a state driver's license, sec 7 Ain jur 2d, At-T01401111.ES AND 141011WAV TstAr• etc d 102. As to liability of carriers for violation of state highway regulations, see 7 Ain jnr 2d, AvTOA101111.Ba AND II1011WAv TRArrrc 1171. 13. Railway Mail Asso, v Corsi, 326 US 88, 89 L Ed 2072, 65 S Cl 1483 (holding that the provisions of the New York Civil Rights I.aw which Prohibit any labor organization from discriminating, by reason of rice, color, or creed, in the admission or treatment of members, are not, as applied to an orRanira. lion of postal clerks of the United States Raila;IY Mail service, in conflict with the federal power over post offices and post roads as circumscribed in article 1, section R. clause 7, of the Federal Constitution). 9 39 § 4(9 GENERAL PROVISIONS Note 4 The Postmaster Ueneral may not put loto operation A plan of a company, de' signed to relleve advertisers and others from paytnr postage on reflSra cards and envelopes until they are actually depoall• ed In (be mails sod reach the office of destination, and giving to It exclusive control of the sate of return envelopes and postal cards. Id. The original text of former section 274 of this title only applied when mail mot - ter was deposited to the post office, chargeable with two or more rates, one Of which, at least, bad been paid; and to regard to such matter both the paid and the unpaid rates were governed by the same standard. 1873. 14 Op.Ally.Geo. IBA. Letters on which postage has not been fully, prepaid al the time of mailing them should be charged at the offlee of tie Is. err only with the amount of the deflclen• cy. Id. I. Catabllsinmeat Of past Office* The policy of the government has been to delegate to the toortaleattr General the power to designate the place* where the otsllu shall be received and delivered. ware v. V. S. Pa.ltld1, 71 U.S. till. 672, 4 Wall. 817, 632. 18 L.td. 380. where S place has totem dcalgoaled where mail absil tot reoelved and delly- tried, then It a post office, over which a postmaster may to appololed, sod the post ornev cootioure until It Is dlrcoollo• ued. U. 4. v. Iloatan Zlevsted ity. Co., C.C.%IAss.191o, I m 1% 907. It cannot trt doubted that the Postmsa. ter Georrol hat authority to r.taullsh a post office In the City of 11'A.hingtou. sod lu provide s place fur conduction the busl*eas of the ufflcr Skmutes v. V. N. IiDI.:V Ct.CI. 119. Immunity from local toolog ordloancea which extend- ill Totted Ptslea to esleh• Milling a Pont ufflct tartlily sppllea whether t'olted States owns the land or leases It. Tbaoet Corp. T. hoard of Ad. Juetmtst of Princeton, Tp., 190, 240 AN 31, 104 Nj.euper. 180. attlrmed 200 AN 1. 108 N.J.Bnper. o11 ufflces, and thr lou.lmaaler Ucneral aulhorlxr4 Icy Impllcalloo It, discos okay po.t office whenever It should pear Id•hlio In Ile expedient sod pr Ware Y. V. S., 11s.180, 71 U.S. 617. t Neil. 017. 431, IN L.Fd. Seto. The power to discontinue post of was Incident to the power to ealabl them to the absence of statute restr Ing the exercise thereof, sad the po of the Postmaster General to discoothi a post office might be exercised, thoa. the postmaster had been appointed b�l the President by anti with the Advice of the Senate, and even to the absence of'j, statute expressly outhorlxlag the post. master General to discontinue a post of• flee, former section 2 of this title which required him to cause to be certified to the auditor of the toast Office Depart - meat [now United States Postal Servlctl all calm bllahmenta and dlscosllousacts of Pont offices, and providing that no post office to existence should be discontinued because of diminution of reremute, Con— strued In connection with the custom of dl.cootloulog post offices always exer• cised by the Postmaster General, had to be construed As giving the Postmaster General the power of discoatloulor a post office. Id. Within meaning of this oeetios ImPO4- Ing certain requirements tefort doting or coasolldsttno of post oftices, "closing^ retera to complete elimination of post of- fice. while "cooaoll4slloo" boa character• Istle of subordinating day-to-day overall management of not office haying past - master to administrative personnel of on. ,,,her office. Knapp y. 1]. B. Postal Sees. Ice It.'31131. D.C.NIth.1978, 449 V.SuPP. 1 M. Trsoeters of bulls mall•sarliog opera• Ilona from certain past offlets to other pust•oftlee facilities did not constitute "cloalon" or ,conenlldation" whhis.00s. templttloo of this section imposlog cer- lain requirementa before closing or Call - validation. Id. Brea It "consolidation" occurred wilts post *tiles Allegedly lost Its postmaster. requlremist that Service glue 00 days' The Pootwasler General nay astabllah sotice 10 artecte4 postal patrons to par. A post otfica Is The Cheroka Country all 1►;da to present their view• would provided It bs as a road cometrutW uo. sot r pply ahem provision of this section der Act Mar. 3. I= e. _N. 4 _•tat. _IO2._,.oetrsg up such requirement was sot es• ltil2. 4 Op-AltyGss• 79• r.ted until such consolidation had al. ready takes place. Wilson v. U. B. Poet• al Berylee3. , D.C.CSLIM. 441 F.Supp. 80 e. CI«lag K Ma►I.w of ps.e of - CIO" CIO" Transfer of certain mall precooslar rormer stenos 1 of This title recog• functions t s marina tlAfdount not racutconsty In ■teed the eclatesce of the authority of te I►a Postmaster General to aatabit.ss pwt "comoolldatloa" such as to roqulr+ Bervkv 34 'rdt (,'h. 4 GENERAL. A ,,, give NO dare' notice to affected poMl.l I,,.,rons no that they might have opparl❑ ally to present their view.. Id. ttraach post atticeo llranch otticea have curve to be callr.l. In departmental language, "mall statlou." sod to be designated by letters of rite sl• phatxt. Ksoc v. U. B.. IM. 34 CLCI. Sa. yM, also, Union Transfer Co. v. U. .4 . 1901. 36 Ct.CI. 214. Merely designating a shop as a brsa'il i,o.t office or mall station without us1*K it for that purpose data not make It such. Kno% T. U. S.. 1990. 30 MCI. W. 1, Mta.+npa—tlesartilly Former section 241 (sow oeetloo 81 of Title 18 made stamps an "obligation or other security of the United States". 1910. 28 Op.Atly.Gea. 201. Pontegt stamps are supplies for the (lost Office Department lnow Ualied .Matte Postal Btrvlcel within section .s fit Title 41. sod not •'securllleo" within sec - Ilion 414 of Title 31. and the Postmaster Uentral need not have the oemrs of tier' toot whole portralte are placed on .temp• Isacribi d below such portrally. too`;. 26 Op.Atly.Gta. 231. In what cases postmasters e1+611 be held sod Is what eAeeG not for Statops scot to Ihem sod sot Gold or returoed to the Post OMCc Depa►tmeot (now United ;hates Postal Senlcel. 1831, 9 Op.Attr. Ilea. 10S. e. — Caseeliallsa The Poatmosler General to authorised to substitute, for The black printing lake sod writing fluids used under regulation. any canceling loin -hieb to uniform and %hlch actual exPerlmtot Sod test 'love .huwa to big sSllahctioo to to beat CO" rulated to guard against fraud, sod to urder Its use to All post uftleto where .lamp• are eaoceled. ISM. 18 OP•Allr. Geo. 131. Ili. -- Iaaaaos laeoaacs of postage stamp bearing Pic- ture of Itsdonsa was sot Is violation of II.S.C.A.Cosat. Amend. I. Proleotenls and other Americans United for Ifepara• lion of Church and Blots V. O'Urleo, U. C.D.C.I981. 3Tf F.Supp. 112. It. — Bads A clerk is •barge of a branch poet of- l flee le "Istrrated by law" with the sale of stamps 6a4 stamped envelopes. U. 9, l v. Royer. D.C.C41.1903. 122 F. 044, 841. 35 THE 1, view of fact that ther>ry laws protecting Cite matlr� of the Congress embrace necessary to insure the Safi, transit and prompt dclj 5i and mail matter and no"I mails under that exclusive ' Congress but "mail" w such and so long as it rcrtsal„Q contemplation of law pro National Government. US, U.C.Mo.19S5, 137 FSupp,.� 235 F.2d 930. certiorari dcril 266. 352 US. 943, 1 LEd-2d. The power of Congress ova is not unlimited and is subjcc{4 of Cot Rights• Securities and..] 193nmission v. Tirnetruu, in939, 28 F,Supp, 34, s„ !• Excluslveneas of power ;t+ The power of the Congress Cite mail is exclusive and its rcgul the receipt, carriage and I, lima, cry of mail "to the person to wb, directed" is therefore suprerrse•,l Alaxwell, D,C.Mo•1955, 137 Fd affirmed 235 F,2d 930. eertiora 77 S,Ct. 266. 352 U.S. 94l, I Llld, Only ed StatessonVc,en latcs mails 124 NAV,2d 150. 253 Iowa 979. 4. Delegation of power~ Ste Moles o/ 1kci3ronl unjw o/ rhir ores,% y rQ S. State rcguitttion or control... &fly 18 U S C.A. § 1161 Punishing oal Dual mailing or advertising by ubttcne nlatc(iaMA did not preempt rclMatnry• field, and state obscenity etc it) no way imposing a burdj4 inferfcring with federal postal furled Was not rcpttt;nani to this clause ddq Ins 10 Congress power to cstsbll , al(tces and post roads. Roth v, U It N.Y.1957. 77 S.Ct. 1304, !S4 U t LC 1498, rehearing ►,C" 8, 355 U,S, 852. 2 LEd,2d This power. having been he federal government. Is power of the ycv,.ral stato ish any postal system, and less aw made a monopoly excjudd ate Individuals from estab Nino or postal systems to tales. Hoover V. Mcch;', 597. 81 F. 472. W,S,A. 201.42 istnatnl.r so _� rrtx» .nrtliu,rer insurance At[- I POST OFFICES AND POST ROADS SeC.-A Cl. % 1„I 1110 uucr(crc with use of mail, did n++t inol"bit such companies from using i1„• ,nails, did not interfere with Con. gees' exclusive power to dcterrnine what ,hall be carried and what shall be ex. ,laded in rnaiIs,r-and'ifid not violate this clause. Ministers Life 6r Cas. Union v. Ilaase, 1966. 141 N.W.2d 287. 30 Wis.2d 339. appeal dismissed 87 S.Ct. 407, 385 U.S. 105. 17 LEd,2d 301. rehearing de- nied 87 S.Ct. 739, 385 US. 1033, 17 i..lid.2d 681. 7. - Labor organizations The provisions of McKinney's N.Y. Civil Rights taw. §§ 41. 43. 45. forbid• ding labor organizations front denying membership therein because of race, col• or. or creed. as applied to railway postal clerks association, is not repugnant to provision of this clause conferring on Congress the authority over Postal mat• tcrs, and hence Is not unconstitutional as an attempt to regulate a federal instru. mentality since the taw does not impinge on Icdetal mail service or the (*ewer of rite government to conduct it. Railway Marl Assn v, Corsi. N.Y.1945. 65 S Ct. tAsI. 326 US. 66. 89I_Ed, 2072. R• Taxation tilatute providing for the taxatrnn of Intangibles was applicable to Ixlstal wv, Ings ccrtrficalcs and not unconsntuttonat ` canttary to provision of this article %,sung in Congress power to borrow money oil ctetlit of the United States and to establish post offices, Lutz v, Arnold, 1935. 193 ME $40. 20 ind. 480. petition Overruled 196 N.L 702. 208 Ind, 480, Motor vehicle tact. Imposed by Laws 1923. c. 418, on motor trucks used in interstate comnser. r. does not violate this clause, givirtf Corylress power to es• tablish pest offices and post roads. Stale v, Oligncy, 1925, 202 N.W. 893. 162 Minn. 302, itegistmion tax on automobiles devot• ed exclusively to transportation of mails is `old. Louweln v. Moody, Tex.Com, APP•1929, 12 S.W.2d 9t39, 1-y a power to organize, in eonnee• 669 0 12 9. -_. T.onans If Postmauer Gencral, pursuant to and in exercise of authority vested in hint by Congressional enactment, contemplates erection of post office on proposed site, his authority •nmy. not be.4e94cLccj, by local ordinance, and'resort to local zon- ing board is unnecessary. Crivcllo v. Board of Adjustment of Borough of Mid- dlcscx. D.C.NJ.1960, 183 FSupp. 826. Refusal by city zoning board of appli. cation for use of lot as substation post office, which had been leased to United States for ten years, was not unconsiitu• tional as unlawful regulation of property of United States, since such property was not within exclusive jurisdiction of Unit- ed States. Mayor an,' City Council of Baltimore v, Linthi.um, 1936. 183 A. 531. 170 Md. 245. 6. - Drugs The operation of t►te mails was not affected by the New Mexico Controlled Substances Act, 1953 Comp, § 54-11-21. and this clause giving Congress the pow. er to establish post offices did not preempt New Mexico jurisdiction to pro• hrbit the distribution of controlled sub. .ranres by the mailing of the substance. 10. Acquisition of land for post offices .State v. McIforse, 1973. 517 P.2d 75. 85 N.hi 753. Thr authority of the federal govern• rncnl to acquire properly necessary or suitable for post office is within the ex• press grant of power given by this provi• sion. U.S. v. C_crtain Parcels of Land in Town of Denton of Caroline County, D.C.Md,1939. 30 F. Supp, 372. The power expressly given to the Unit. ed States to cs:ablish post offices and carry on offensive and defensive war by general grant of power to do all which was necclwry And proper to effectuate those express Dowers gave the United States the power 10 exercise etnincni der main over tetritorial lands within the limits of the United Stales• and all lands "ceded lot lift scat of the government of the Unrtcd States, an,l (tit cstablrshnlcnt Of Ixsst offices, (oils, arscnaFs, and Diller ncrdhil barldrngs. US V. 458.95 Acres al d.a"d, It C 1'a. t9311. 22 F.Supp. 1017. It. Examination of (,tiers or parcels No law of Congress can Place to the Itan,fs of ,Illictals connected with the Ixlstal IN'vice any authority to invade the secrecy Of letters and such sealed Itackaxes in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail of this kind must be suboWinate 10 lite principle embodied in Amend. 4, fix pant Jackson. N,Y.1878, 96 US. 724, 6 Otto, 724, 24 Ltd, 877. See, also, Blackham v, Gresham, C.C.N. Y,1893, 16 F. 609. IL Foreign mall Foreign trail Is so closely connected with a Proper system of Inland mall as 111" the Power to organize and carry on a general post•offiec system would seem to inl 1 THE COAL In view of fact that laws protecting the mailar of the Congress embrace necessary to insure the serf" transit and prompt, deli and mail matter and not mails under that exclusive Congress but "mail" w such and so long as it contemplation of Law National Government. U D.CMo.1955. 137 FSupp. 235 F.2d 930. certiorari 266. 352 U.S. 943. 1 I-Ed2d- The power of Congress ovc is not unlimited and is subiecg,g of Rights. Securities and..F Commission v. Timetrust. Inc., 1939. 28 FSupp. 34. .SM 3. Exclusiveness of power The power of the Congress t4 the mail is exclusive and its rigid the receipt, carriage and ultimat cry of mail "to the person to +Ji directed" is therefore supremo Maxwell. D.C.Mo.1955. 137 F.S14 affirmed 235 F.2d 930. certiorari 77 S.Ct. 266. 352 U.S. 943. I I U Only Congress regulates maikJ ed States. Severs v. Abrahaffisoc 124 N.W.2d I50. 255 Iowa 979. 4. Delegation of powers .See Notes o/ Decisions under, sa o/ this article 5. State regulation or control ally I8 US.C.A. § 1461 punishing tual mailing or advertising by obscene material did not pree regulatory field. and state obscc utc in no way imposing a bu interfering with federal postal fi was not repugnant to this clause ing to Congress power to establ offices and post roads. Roth v. t & N.Y.1957. 77 S.Ct. 1304. 354 t 1 LEd.2d 1498. rehearing de S.CL 8. 355 U.S. 952, 2 S FA ZdA This power. having been eta; the federal government. is e4 :-�- power a Lhe several stattexi fish any postal systern. and I si4 law made a monopoly cxd- Yale individuals from peting or portal systems In States. Hoover v. M 1897. 81 F. 472. W.S.A. 201.42 t3erss;rsi.w vo Art. 1 pos-T OFRCES AND POST ROADS .�$, d. 7 46094 12 „..1 j+ttcrfere with use of mail. did n,.t luuhibit such companies from using .nu�fs did not interfere with Con. c.tclusivc pourer to determine what ~haU be carried and what shall be ex- ludcd in maiisrand did not -violate this clause, ,misers Life & Cis. Union v. yaasc. 1966. 141 N.W2d 297. 30 Wis.2d 339. appeal dismissed 87 S.Ct. 407. 385 US. M. 17 1 Ed 301. rehearing dc- nied 87 S.Ct. 739. 385 US 1033. 17 LEd.26 681. b. Drugs The operation of the mails was not affected by dvc New Mexico Controlled Substances Act. 1953 Camp. § 54-11-21. and this clause giving Congress the pow- cr to establish past offices died not prccmpt blew Mexico jurisdiction to pro- hibit the distribution of controlled sub• .tanccs by the mailing of the substance. Statc v. htcllorse. 1973. 517 Pad 75. 85 753. 7. - Labor orixtiltatlons The provisions of McKinncy's N.Y. Cisil Rights Law. §§ 41. 43. 45. forbid• ding labor organizations from denying membership therein because of rate, col- or. or creed. as applied to railway postal clerks association. is not repugnant to provision of this clause conferring on Congress the authority over postal mat. tcm and hence is not unconstitutional as an attempt to regulate a federal instru. mcntality since the low does not impinge on federal mail service or the power of the govcrnmcni to conduct it. Rztlway Mail Assn v. Corsi. :4.Y.1945. 65 S.Ct_ 1493. 326 US. 88. 89 I -Ed. 2072_ 8 - Taxation Statute providing for the taxation of intangibles was applicable to postal sav- ings certificates and not unconuitutional a% contrary to provision of this article %cuing in Congress power to borrow money on credit of the United States and to establish post oWxx:. Lutz v. Arnold. 1935. 193 N.& M 208 and- 480. petition overruled 196 H.E. 702. 208 trxL 48M Motor vehicle t= imposed by Laws 1923. c. 41 S. on nso r trucks used in interstate cotstawcxv- dicta not vioLue this clause. eying Cotes pow,ta to es• tablish post ortiv= WW post roads. State v. OCigney. 1925. 202 N.W. 893. 162 . 302. -!scion tax ors situoaxobites d+cvot- ed e$tluavely to is ion of Snails is void. Louwdn v. Moody. Tex.Cortt. 4. - Zooits: If Postmaster General. pursuant to am ,n exercise of authonty vested in him by Congrcssional enactment. contemplates erection of post office on proposed site. his swbor"T -rrw.y not be-zca aed. by . local ordinance. and resort to local zon- ing board is wry. Crivcllo V. Board of Adjustment of h3onxtgt of Mid- dlesex. D.C.N.J.1960. 183 FSupp. 826. Rtdusal by city zoning board of appti- eatior for use of lot as substation post office. which had been leased to United States for ten years. was not unconstitu- tional as unlawful regulation of property of United States. since such property was not within exclusive jurisdiction of Unit- cd Sutcs. Mayor and City Councul of Baltimore v. Linthicum. 1936. 183 A. 531. 170 Md. 245. 10. Acquisition of land for post offices The authority of the federal govern- rncni to acquire property necessary or suitable for post office is within the. ex- press grant of power given by this Provi- sion. US. v. Certain Parcels of Land in Town of Denton of Caroline County. D.C.Md.1939. 30 FSupp. 372- The pourer expressly given to the Unit. cd States to csublish post offices and carry on offensive and defensive war by general grant of power to do all which was necessary and proper to effectuate those express powers gave the United States the power to exercise eminent do- main over tcrniorial lands within the. limit.% of the United States. an,.i all lands needed for the scat of the government of the United Stasis, and for establishment of post office-, forts. arsenals, and athcr needful buildings. US. v. 458.95 acres of Land. D.C.Pa.1938. 22 FSupp. 1017. 11. ExitinSrtatton of letters or parcels No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such scaled Packages in the mail: and all regulations adopted as to mail of this hind tt tm be subordinate to the principle embodi ed in Amcnd. 4. Ex parts Jackson. N.Y.1878. 96 US. 724. 6 Otto. 724. 24 LFd 877. Sce. also. Blwkham v. Gresham- C-"- YA 993. 16 F. 609. 17- >r'oscigra mad Foreipo talil is so closely cone ccu d with a p:vper sysum of inland mail as that the power to organize and eairry on a ,general postoffnee syztesa would srrrtn February 3, 1988 TO: Roseville Planning Commission FROM: Bob Bierschied, Director of Parks and Recreation rVI-5 RE: Park and Recreation Board Review of Lexington Proposal The Park and Recreation Board, at a special meeting on January 11, 1988, reviewed the latest proposal for the Lexington School property. Following con- siderable discussion, the Parks and Recreation Board passed the following recomm- endation: The park portion of the new Lexington School proposal is acceptable and a positive solution to the proposed loss of recreation space for the following reasons: 1) Because of the increased size for park use, it is now a viable park site. 2 This proposal retains a large percentage of the present recreational use area. 3) Off street parking access would be gained under this proposal. 4) The planned park area would act as a buffer to the residential area. The vote was 1 in favor; 0 against; 1 abstention (Jim Klassen abstained because of his employment with the Roseville Area Schools who has been a party to the disposi- tion of this property). February 5 , 1988 TO: Jim Andre FROM: Craig Waldron SUBJECT: POST OFFICE SITE INVENTORY Attached is a listing of potential post office sites that meet the general space criteria as defined in the Kaufhold proposal. Staff has depicted the site size, the existing use, current and future zoning, inarket value, and a traffic count. in addition, maps depicting the respective sites are attached. Att%h. Ramsey County Size Existing Use Comp. Plan Zoning Market Traffic Value 1. County Rd. C 3.5 Acres Industrial Industrial I-2 166,260 Co. Rd. C. between Snelling Business 12,300 and Cleveland 2. East of Hamline Between Library 2.56 acres Single Family Low Density R-1 310,300 Hamline and vault factory Residential Residential 11,500 Co. Rd. B. 1,500 TH 36 4,004 3. West of Hamline North of County 3.1 acres Single Family Low Density B-1 930,200 Hamline Residential Residential R-1 ll,500 Co. Rd. B. 1,500 Albert 1,510 4. Daytons Home 3.50 acres Business Limited B-1 1,397,800 Hamline Store Site 11,500 TH 36 54,000 5. Lexingtion 3.50 acres School School R-1 Co. Rd. B School 1 , 008, 000 8,900 Lexington 12,800 6. Reiling Property 3.50 acres Vacant Business SC 72,420 Lexington North of City 8,800 Hall Woodhole 2,250 7. Vacant Parcel 3.16 acres Vacant High Density R-3 79,000 Lexington of Lexington Residential 120,000 North of HWY. 36 TH 36 55,500 8. Roseville High 2.0 acres School School R-1 Co. Rd. B2 School property 6,400 170.545° or S.92ac o i q CbNn���l/Nllll►1 C `,t. Lh.�.t.�.►..... r- r Ms tt i E t.. �..-�- M " AF'ARTEr-I t�WNl R�NII' ►v0,10 -^"G I dI _ WILLIAM5BURG GREEN Ap I T ^ - 4 COPE.,) 040-50 340-SOS � I 62, :. Aa f l r / a. , L J H 6,tic - - _ - 3 I 1 ' (Ss) N �, � _ I � 3.E5�ac• .. 2.45ac 3 0ac. Chetidler• Wilbert Il �t Co. 2g�p�� Lp d 01 (G7) 70 0 •was) (s)L �• N 81 tp _ ,224ac Ir oa ,. 778c (4 (s 467,88 0 rr- a�ae 1 y c n w �_—. ,r.i., A ��� e• 1 Ls►J 45dc(67)7.51 I ,45 ac eo (G4j 0°D „� I In .4 S ac . .4 Sac (65) yl CS Pam) , 1br 2C fq Os070 on .a�1�3o5�ae. ° _ t 4foac.54 4 ° 7 !1 L j (3 ec i c .91 zc .6o ec. ' c r• . -astir. tl r� l A�a0 �4) °Hi N I o —0Y 1 '� 4.27 ee. 44 ac (G7) . 50 ae N) 70`9K 7 75 -75 75 I T5 7 1i9.67 1- N .27ac B,) 020 ° OIp 11150) ti ( 9 I �i BS O v I * Cam) b5' N .Y7ac 6 cc y� 8 7 6 I 6 •¢ 3 m, 2 °D Isl. iW o Q ti5ae. (�j1) CS) ( a) �13) �2).Mt� �'� �I1� m t°n (fQ 202) VI 75 7S �I TS 9. 7 t26.G, 38ec o Y + -- l. - SAN ®H lJ RST' ,DRIVE 0 �o� �o % � � ----- 7y) fa 43 f-- --- _ 4 54.G3 I. 97ac iZ i� I y c1 Cep 1 I. 57ac .7 . 61 ac. (7 Rom-e COL i 42 5.45) 84 ,LpEN AGE _ tt ` ao V (�9) ^ 'A 1_i bi ary i Bond . 618c (75) U R S I W v HOME: I. i26) ]'� � I 'A 040 IJ6i ! Cr+�ci '� r v�'� rI s • 1: x s 910(, 11 I 12 13 14 I 15 I 16 `-" (79) osz o40 92°c. 41oe . u: •�110 e64 (27j4 e) (29) (3O T53, 75 ("')'� >, i ,j' t7a) �77) cis) CIA 7(e 085 ^ a 43 43 _218.b_ iooJ ) 5 ^ � nn * 33 33 15 THIS IS A COMPILATION OF RE( THEY APPEAR IN THE RAMSEY OFFICES AFFECTING THE AREA THIS DRAWING 1S TO BE USED ( REFERENCE PURPOSES A`:D Th TY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCURACIES HEREIN CONT10 ;zCo34 7o' PC. A '^ It A 7 co 5 4- L Jfq _ oar O. L4 25 26 27 28 3 do 4 84.37• 90• .. .. .. yo �. A 01133 t p (4) 4 (5) (G. 3 U' 4 (P, 5 (9) (!o) '� 5.7o do . G� i NO ro 7 {+► j %,8& ' go go- 90' 07.8S1 ' I -Ad. Sckoc( Di5tricf 76.2;/ 76• 78• go, 2L' (tz) lit) . 0 0� p is 14 13 IZ ti to 9 5 _n (Ij of • Ei AVE. Al o' . uu c • , �9 w H pl l 031 . L lc .11 a.c. .3 AC 24 25 z� 27 28 29 '^ M - IAi g0' gr •• .. 8i 3 ►. n � N I 2 3 4 5 (0 7 1 :,2.2� (2-3' (25 N 792 2 �24 r. (2r9� A I� 13 12 V"1 to 9 8 81.44 1 80 Bi' .. ar I •79.t3 d � 6•—•�1 W a, � • o Q 1.36ac• It. (.4ac. 41 l3� N1 T o so r I o7 i 11\ • `a '11300 327' °AV E . U � r 90 • �A(o. i�, 77' O' •• •• ,• so• 77.54 po 6.5 u" s �•Bo Bo' po r. i 7 L3) 3 14 3 ,2 I j0 d I `Z . 9 4 5 (c a 7 ��• a 1 2 '� 3 • 4 5 6 N M ($7 52i I(5:/ ' - - - -- - � .5/) (52) (53) _(S4) (55) . c{i ,0 1 3•� 3 3,5; (3G �7� (3°` (�9 " a _ Pj b�L l0 1 79.3� Bo' + 01 U. iw v� 3� i r 1 - 7e _ ,? (4� (G3� i , t9. N•-- =a�� _».,e_ o . H.� £�, o (79) a : .3 24 2. 5 Up 27 f S 29 50M 1 • � 8 ^ � (3002 6 t 2.?SAG • ?o lC a 31 N 29 ,� `�q �(�• 30 all awl � J y0� NO of �fv �1 a s' ss » a• � � _ A N E in)14 114 KARYL 0 PLACE m„ 1 1 S V. �J • 26 14 (• o S 7 6 8 4 ! 2 I �_ 1 0 21 0 23 24 N 25 ter' ~(Gt �i It "se (71' Z. (73 (70 �(75) ' ( "13o t1:. , r• �. 7 z7 lo3.ff 75' 7S 7J 80 !' e2.7z •o (G>; (85 1 1, (49,�, (s' (� +'' : 88 S' o 90 eo so. go.a et ,: • tee fall _ °t " �, U o +5 �.t z (,. (69 (G8 (`: (6r,' n (Gi o t•sl i t4 zc z� t7 2e 25 ni �` it Igo l5 14 " 1 b 12 0 —. N h !' ' r1 y(/ .o q - N _ 20 19 18 17 1�N 15 Al _ • .. .. .. lei He "7.1.V1 7C .. -�• _-'� a -..• _ (G3 `21 �1 7. "SI n \ � ' n oC ELSEA SiLn '�.1'' W tV 'h v j rn , 1 �p MERRILL ' �^kp OI I I O w � 1 N \ i(c,+%` u ri N� �A -C o CD -� J _ m D >� K9: U)m m Z O O n C >—... Z �m 0 0 �Rm w 0 0 Ln rn r rn �5 1J 51 LP ODI- -4 LD I N I W I A 'Ip I -4 Io N. G,RIGGS i0 S3 aD v I 0 - -4i 637. 3 ON v I v ? B6 ... QN DRIVE ---o - -� rl --- 2 II _ Y ,4 �l bV —��W. 7 TRANSIT o. to �C 81 to o A V E r V N 197.1 5 ~ fA 2 Cp ^ 7S 78 ,b 7 7y 79 7s 79 7L Ifs 5 o co I I p �` o 2t 24 I 19 6 lao I - I 18 I r7 I 16 115 14 13713 72 S'1.9 aZ.29 80 136.94 ' O 7 , I 7 I f frl(� f°57.90 5 7s 7 74 75 72'73 75 75 3. 58 ec. + co N � �2.a3ac) 0 .47ac, .47a¢. .47all ,47ac 35aa C\2t� •� .9800 140 a N v 1b3 9a e9 1aa 1. 495 33 J � 1 � 1 11 1go o BB' 14 m Z M ie ro 7Q 7H 7tl 7 75 �s M C1G) GS, I C) I C13) I (rz) (rr) (lo) I (9) (8) i (7) I CG) C3) C�) (3) (z) r S CAo 14'I I is ' i2 I li I IQ 19 8 � , I o � 5 14 i 3 1 � C> ,o Czr') Iq a 15 17 Io IC-1 WL I M I A� �--c !— -t-- + - 4 R 1$ I '9 I 23 24 2ti I 2 L 128 ! J I I •, 53 ' %7) �'(18) (19) ��) (� r) I CzZ) I �z3� I (24) ZS I .zb I z I 29 I 31('� 32 » 8 7A 1 7% , , C 60 t Tint 16 33s 7M s. a.-,,L GO fiO CAST 32716 ('7) �U`� I! 3.59ac C>r Q (4z) to ( ��� C48•' �P` » Ros,a'v i l l e A SseTnhl r I� y of God O 7 �. a M 2 N IN C34> I~ " _ �.� -- 4 t °o It c �� _,... .. C,52� s �.man is 13 iIA_ 34 '—'-5 `y $ 4 j . e \ 1.14 at CAiT"1dS.�°--- T.3r1{ -__ �_ -•a 56�7 V ' p s L0 O0 ° ROSE OF '�•s��, y(50) ;) O 3 (yr) z.►4a,,- 1.44ae I i I � SHARON D p 's� 'y -3,7 u rI S e� 37. Jo* h �S d M (4)) o 'rzjIt -ak AID rr a ° °a4 ?Q wZ1e 74 • 0 REC1ST I too • � I toB.2G 870.32 • (-9�9.Sor to „ I I � H. 36=0118 4 _ _-_ 1• i 1a I �."I �� , I tso •� _ o. Flir Ila InIly ON i .ff y£ 562 - 1: ' l IV: -f C•�u • I y�,ny� c d3 c•a-..pyd oJel Ali-•;c 1. 718 .Ls I,0 -1 O ( 8 -3-Li s MO.. v l>lIS-1 4pw.«. o 1 aTlt• P (s) I • ya+ny] 10hu4 r 9 to i u •ar• 1 ` .r • � �a� � C�� C Gros ��"�►riA,��l � ya+Rril7 ��n1rOwW1 JT �►�1,� r A M..k vd .� •�1 -al RoES10C1 7aa ',W6� I _,L�I11_t^1_"1. �13�� � 35.fteIT W ��. �' L e - �. I _. � . ! .. I •�� f Al•GJ AI •r •' �•�4 GI `9% CC . 3*9 04 ,';OL I�";; �� M�Illew owsMs+sr �e1C c7p :m oc 70 *1 .. .. X . ` � f : Q. ti .� ac. I I.Ifo I ` D/� 7 J •i 9 t1 1 Q • . � wf0� I6n.OH � 4 It OGO I a too � .9Zac a I $ D I 10 11 I It IS 1 �� w� •�.�.ta- t. - - � � M®��s /S• lip• b�' K tl f -L • • - Pwr+eww� 6AsC�fti �.04�:.• !II 1 I im�nA�+1us1 Ch..�eh ( .1s1\c `�4 -�l4 ,i • so,-tl 144, go f• 1 1 1 A,k 9®aa VI joln't- laaual Ghu.eln .flak ISM (7) .71&4 0 !ND. SCHOOL DISTRICT . Ir A %f b!. Ghriskopl.era Et+ ...nor ocacmTo -H 0 O�J LAW OFFICES OF PETERSON. BELL. CONVERSE & JENSEN 2100 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 101 EAST FIFTH STREET ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 38101 (812) 224.4703 ERWIN A. PETERSON ROBERT C. BELL WILLARD L. CONVERSE ROGER A. JENSEN April 14, 1988 KURT F. WALTHER W. TIMOTHY MALCHOW MARTIN J. COSTELLO JAMES C. ERICKSON WILLIAM M. ORINANE PAMELA CONVERSE 2ERIN CAROL A. OALOWIN AOAM E. ORIOGE City Council City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 RE: Preliminary Plat for 1130 County Road "®" Our File No. 1011.19 Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed is a proposed resolution denying the preliminary plat for the property owned by Gerald F;aufhold at 1130 County Road "E" If the council finds this to be in order it could be adopted. I think it would be a good idea to h-.ve a meeting between myself and the council members for about 15 minutes prior to the council meeting at which this is taken up. Very truly yours, PETERSONp REILL, CONVERSE & JENSEN Robert C. Sell RCR/ap Enc. .. A 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 foll-owing 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 COMITY 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 filed an appl icati�or a preliminary plat for only cart of said land. h ., -- WHERF,AS,. thel City Council for the City of Roseville has rocoivod a report from a professional planner retained by said City that the proposed plat would creato certain problems for the City of Roseville. Tile City Council has also received from 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 Cite of Roseville. WHEREAS, The City Council for the City of Roseville has determi nod, 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 the land immediately to the North of the proposed plat. The land North of the proposed plat lies between the plat 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 tine proposed plat of Gerald Kaufhold. 2. The proposed park dedication would create a land -locked park without sufficient accossibilty. They proposed access via uic proposed 10.5 foot access is i ew degUa L e . 3. The proposed prat violates the policy of the City of ` Roseville to avoid, where possible, driveways intersecting with a major thoroughfare. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the preliminary plat for the property owned by Gerald Kaufhold at 1130 County Road is denied. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: , and the following 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 Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of the said City Council held on the day of , 1988 with the original thereof on File in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Mlanager this day of , 1988. James F. Andre, City Manager (seal) RAM p is VV 0 AA V ST � 6O, D r�C� I P� ,. 4,�sc��0� 39�,�`t� fir � � r�J � �4 M E M O R A N D U M _ DATE: April 15, 1988 _ cold woll TO: Jim Andre --7 /J fi7(9 / . Zed FROM: Craig A. Waldron &.& 4 C040e k/i Ny SUBJECT: Potential Developmei on the Lexington School Site Attached is analysis regarg potential development on the Lexington School site with respect to housing, park and commercial projects. The analysis is predicated on offsetting the developers cost with respect to fair market value and purchasing any of the park land desired beyond the initial 1 acre, which would be dedicated. It appears that a number of scenarios can work, both in terms of the city's priorities and potential tax increment. It would be my recommendation that the city offer to work with Kaufhold and a number of the major housing developers to review the potential of a housing/park development on this site. This would seem to be the most logical step in that it would offer a situation for all parties involved. The scenarios will be discussed in more detail at the work session. ASSUMPTIONS 1. 2. 3. 1.50 2.00 5.00 per per per sq. ft. Medium Density 15 Units/Acre sq. ft. N High Density 25 Units/Acre sq. ft. commercial - 22% average 4. 5. 6. 3.62 City Existing take out price ($1,300,000) always gets 1 park acre dedicated original assessed value on School $1, 000,000 SCENARIO #1 LAND 5 ACRES RESIDENTIAL 2 PARK 1 COMMERCIAL MEDIUM DENSITY Developer will pay: 544,500 Actual Cost: 946,600 Over Payment: $402,102 INCREMENT AT $69,000 PER YEAR Final deal 402,102 + Park 157,687 - $559,789 (69,000 Increment) HIGH DENSITY Developer will pay: 653,400 Actual Cost: 946,600 Over Payment: 293,202 INCREMENT AT $222,000 PER YEAR Final deal 293,202 + Park 157,687 -- $450,889 (220,000 Increment) SCENARIO #2 LAND 7 ACRES HOUSING 1 PARK MEDIUM DENSITY Developer will pay: Actual Cost: Over Payment: INCREMENT AT $100,000 PER YEAR Final deal 646,429 (includes park) HIGH DENSITY Developer will pay: Actual Cost: Over Payment: INCREMENT AT $314,000 PER YEAR Final deal 493,970 (includes park) 457,380 14103,809 $646,429 (100,000 Increment) 609,840 1,103,809 493,970 (314,000 Increment) SCENARIO #3 3 ACRES HOUSING 2 COMMERCIAL 3 PARK (2 CITY) MEDIUM DENSITY Developer will pay: 631,620 Actual Cost: 788 ,435 Over Payment: $156,815 INCREMENT AT $38,700 PER YEAR Final deal 156,815 + (2 acres) Park 315,374 �- $472,189 (38,200 Increment) HIGH DENSITY Developer will pay: 696,960 Actual Cost: 788,435 Over Payment: 91,475 INCREMENT AT $130,000 PER YEAR Final deal 91,475 + (2 acres) Park 315,374 N $406,847 (130, 000 Increment) SCENARIO #4 LAND 3 ACRES HIGH RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRES MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL 2 PARK Developer will pay: 457,380 Actual Cost: 94` Over Payment: 488,742 INCREMENT AT $171,200 PER YEAR Final deal 488,742 + (1 acre) Park 157,687 N $646,429 (171,200 Increment) SCENARIO #5 LAND 3 ACRES HIGH RESIDENTIAL 2 ACRES MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL 3 PARK Developer will pay: 392,040 Actual Cost: 788,435 Over Payment: $396,395 INCREMENT AT $150,000 PER YEAR Final deal 396,395 + (2 acre) Park 315,374 -- $711,769 (150,000 Increment) SCENARIO #6 LAND 2 ACRE HIGH RESIDENTIAL 50 3 ACRE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL 45 3 ACRES PARK Developer will pay: 368,360 Actual Cost: 7 g_ g ._5 Over Payment: $420,175 INCREMENT AT $120,000 PER YEAR Final deal 420,175 + (2 acres) Park 315,374 $735,549 W /TH-j,rT Sc6Wl._ 6CO-r (Ar,- -�0, t V1C-Tx/ A (120,000 Increment). t" %S/eZ10 ove RF1�nJ 5 Irb� --) CITY OF ROSEVILLE�— COUNCIL WORK SESSIdN AGENDA Monday, April 18, 1988 5-.00 p.me* 1. Review of reasons for possible denial of Kaufhold's preliminary plat (attachment). 2. Cable TV pornography issue (attachment). 3. 40th Anniversary Hall of Fame process (attachment). 4. 40th Anniversary Open House/Student City Council meeting (attachment). 5. Letter from Maxine Crippen - Membrez House (attachment). 6. RCLLG proposed resolution on Ramsey County Charter Commission Study (attachment). * Food and beverage will be provided. LAW OFFICES OF PETERSON. BELL. CONVERSE & JENSEN 2100 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 101 EAST FIFTH STREET ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 (612) 224-4703 ERWIN A. PETERSON ROBERT C. BELL WILLARD 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 2ERIN 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 Pile No. 1011.19 Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed is a proposed resolution denying the preliminary plat for the property ov;ned by Gerald Kaufhold at 1130 County Road a B It 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 council meeting at which this is taken up. Very truly yours, PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN Rooert C. Bell RCB/ap Enc. 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 Kauf hol d 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 filed an application for a preliminary plat for only part of said 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 City of Roseville. The City Council has also received from 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 arc true: 1. The proposed plat creates a future planning problem for they land immediately to the North of the proposed plat.. The land North of the proposed plat lies between the plat 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 Kaufhold. 2. The proposed park dedication would create a land -locked park without sufficient accessibilty. The proposed access via the proposed 10.5 foot access is inadequate. 3. The proposed plat violates the: policy of the City of Roseville to avoid, where possible, driveways intersecting with a major thoroughfare. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, by the City Council of - the City of Roseville that the preliminary plat for the property owned by Gerald Kaufhold at 1130 County Road is denied. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: against the same: and the following voted 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 Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of the 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. (son ll James F. Andre, City Manager April 14, 1988 TO: City Council FROM: Jim Andre SUBJECT: PORNOGRAPHY OPINION - PROGRAMMING ON CHANNEL 34 Attached is an "opinion" from Tom Creighton, counsel for the North Suburban Cable Commission. The "opinion" seems to suggest that the Commission or cities have no constitutional basis to require changes in Channel 34 programming. This opinion has been referred to Roger Jensen for review to determine whether the city of Roseville has a basis for requirirg changes in Channel 34 programming. Attch. FORTH SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION )77 WEST LARPENITUR AVENUE FALCON HEIG1-rFS, MINNESOTA 55113 • (512) 646.3172 DATE: April 11, 1988 TO: City Managers, Administrators FROM: Bootsia Anderson !° 4 RE: Review of April 7th NSCC/NSAC Meeting Enclosed, as usual, you will find the approved March minutes, March subscriLirr statistics and current library information. Topics on the April agenda included one that many of the cities have been ,::r--►- for: The Pornography Opinion fram XSCC Counsel, Tom Creighton. The opini••►c 1= A;so c►irlo►ed for your review. Additionally the. Commission voted to "Pass a ex r4s Ain the Conmission's objection to such Frogtramminu en Channel 34, arc;i sveci:ically request that the Company remove the adult programming from Channel 34." In a related storti, various groups have again asked the FCC to clarify "IndeLrocy ." (see enclosed article). Another agenda ILM of interest was the $2.00 late fee charged by the Compan•. after 15 diays instead of the normal 30 day payment period. After several citizen complaints, I asked the Commission ro comment on this issue. The Co=ission voted to ad,!ise the subscriber to complain to the Cable Company, but also said tear, it (the NSCC) felt the $2.00 late fee was in poor taste and a less tl►n smart marketing L001. They fell subscribers should discontinue Lhuir service in protest of this fee. The Commission will continue its workshop meetings set to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of ascuming, the take-over of the Public Access responsibilities. These mi-stings are a full gothe-ring of the Commissioners sc therefore are public meetings. Please consider this i►otice of workshop dates as public nutice which needs to he posted. The North Suhurba^ Access Crrpnration rranti cd 1 root lale High School the Burr. of $6,000.00 for the purchase of 2 camcorders and 1,1:? VCR to be used for the Television Production Class taught only at lrondal%. This equipment will inters,-L. with equipment to be borrowed from the Public Access Studio. If you have further quostiuns about a►.y of this, please call me immediately. AtILjL I lill S��``Lc��?iiii?!4't; �µ,1,pj+le • Uttle Canada •grounds View • New Ilripphton • North Oaks • Rosevillc • St, Anthony • Shoreview t M E M O R A N D U M TO: North Suburban Cable Communications Commission Burnsville/Eagan Cable Communications Commission North Central Suburban Cable Communications Commission Quad Cities Cable Communications Commission FROM: Thomas D. Creighton DATE: March 30, 1988 RE: Adult Programming/North Central Cable Company's Channel 34 I. INTRODUCTION You have requested a legal opinion regarding the Commis- sion and its member municipality's regulatory authority regarding Cable TV North Central's offering of adult pro- gramming on cable channel 34. Below please find an analysis of the facts, a summary of the law as it relates to this issue, any legal conclusion regarding the regulatory author- ity, and alternate courses of action for the Commission and its member cities. II. FACTS Cable TV North Central (the "Company") is the provider of cable service to subscribers in your various municipal- ities. The Company has modified its program offering to include adult programming on cable channel 34. The program- ming has been characterized as obscene, indecent, or other- wise pornographic by individuals communicating with your cities. The Company characterizes the programming as adult programming or "soft erotica". The programming is not x- rated, simply because it has not been submitted to the rating boards of the motion picture industry since the pro- gramming is not shown in public theaters. The Company offers the adult programming on a pay -per - view basis. The programming is only offered after 10:30 P.M. The adult programs are "scrambled" both in audio and video by the converter box at the subscriber terminal. Additionally, subscribers are provided with a lock -out key which will prevent that programming from being received on the converter. For those few subscribers who connect their cable directly to a cable -ready set (a process which is difficult since the cable channels are not the same as the Memorandum March 30, 1988 Page 2 television channels), the video signal is scrambled but the audio is not. Any subscriber who wishes not to have the programming enter their home is provided, free of charge, with filters to connect to the cable line so that the pro- gramming never reaches the television set or the con- verter. It is apparently disputed as to whether these filters adequately filter out the adult programming on cabl channel 34. a Those subscribers with converters who do -not e order the adult programming are provided with programmin which promotes the other offerings of cable channel 34. g The Company has informed the cities that of its 66,Ooo cable subscribers, they have received only a limited number Of complaints regarding the service. They have also re- ceived complaints that the programming is not "adult enough". The programming is one of the highest requested Pay -per -view services of the Company. The major opponent from the community of the adult pro- gramming is a group entitled Clean -Up Project which alleges that the local cable television operator is distributingpornography. This organization is apparently based in St. Paul and is not a constituent of any of the member munici- palities nor is it a subscriber to the Company. Clean -Up Project has not provided me with a membership list or an explanation of its membership structure. Representatives of Clean -Up Project have apparently, however, viewed tapes of the adult programming in question. The Company argues that not only is its right to offer such programming protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as allegedly is the subscriber' right to view such programming), but Cable TV North Centrals has also stressed the various steps it has taken, listed above, to provide the programming only to those who request it, and to protect the programming from receipt b q in or unauthorized viewers, particularly children. y unwilling individuals a � y While some appearing before your various COmmissions-have alleged a breakdown in these security procedures, no facts have been presented to ae such that I can conclude one wa or the other regarding the quality dunes. of these securityy groce- III. LEGAL ANALYSIS Your cable television franchises expressly provide that the Company shall not cablecast any programmin whi be considered, in the sole opinion of the city, ch would . Y• to be x- Memorandum March 30, '1988 Page 3 rated or pornographic. (The Quad Cities franchise does not include this specific language, but there is general T an- guage regarding the control of programming content.) he contracts state that the city offendthe theastandar�stofdde�encye which pornographic programs of the city. 'The Federal Cable Communications policy Act of 1984 provides at Section 624(d): (d)(1) Nothing in this title shall be con- strued as prohibiting the franchising author- ity and the cable operator from specifying, in a franchise or renewal thereof, that certain cable services shall not be provided or shall be provided subject to conditions, if such cable services are obscene or are otherwise unprotected by the Constitution of the United States. (Emphasis added). (2)(A) In order to restrict the viewing of programming which is obscene or indecent, upon the request of a subscriber, a cable operator shall provide (by sale or lease) a device by which the subscriber can prohibit viewing of a particular cable service du.-ing periods selected by that subscriber. The Constitution of the United States provides in the First Amendment that the rights ° freedom byothe Dnitedech and freedom of expression shall protected States Constitution and not restricted by local, state, or federal governments. However, obscene material is not pro- tected by the First Amendment. While newspapers and magazines are broadly protected by the First Amendment and have relatively unrestricted author- ity to print whatever they choose, broadcasting mediums are not so protected. In the broadcast area, the Supreme Court has consistently held that reasonable public interest regu- lation of broadcasters does not violate the broadcasters' First Amendment rights. For the purposes of any First Amendment analysis of cable regulation, a key issue is whether cable systems should be treated more like newspapersor emtoelike broad - cable systems casters, and to what extent factors should be considered in balancing the appropriate First Memorandum March 30, 1988 Page 4 Amendment considerations. No Supreme Court case has yet to rule on the extent to which the regulation of indecent or pornographic material on cable television is permissible under the First Amendment. It is likely that standards will be developed by courts in the next few years es more of these issues are litigated. IV. OBSCENITY As stated above, obscene speech is not protected by the United States Constitution. The Federal Cable Communica- tions Policy Act of 1984 prohibits "obscene" programming. In Section 639 of the Act it is stated: Whoever transmits over any cable system any matter which is obscene or otherwise unpro- tected by the Constitution of the United States shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. While this section clearly prohibits transmission of obscene materials over cable systems, it is not clear how it would affect indecent and similar material. This becomes a par- ticularly difficult discussion when one looks at the Supreme Court's three-part test to determine whether zaterial is obscene. In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). the court established a three-part test to determine whether material is obscene: (a) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual contact specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the serious literary, scientific value. 413 U.S. at 24. work taken as a whole lacks artistic, political, or All three factors must be present for material to be ruled to be obscene. To the best of my knowledge, the United States Supreme Court has never found material to be obscene using the Miller court standards. Memorandunt March 30► 1988 Page 5 urther, the determination of obscene material must city be made on a case -by -case case basis. In other or ou"ld not merely forbid the transmitting each of channel 34 adult programming to be c in general, but reviewed by the decision -makers to determine whether, in their opinion, the work was obscene. in - Since the Company could sue and request a judicial ities tarp retation as to whether a work is aib�hallengeYionctheir could have a major constitutional gig ha nds regarding each work offered on cable channel 34. ,c ornoaraphic Your franchises refer to the "exclusion obscene"). Federal material (a lower standard thanautiiori.�ze a Communications Policy Act does not explicitly Erna franchising authority to regulatethetrelulationof which sporno- graphic, however, it does permit regiment in the event graphic material in the franchise agreement is such pornographic material, like obscene material, P protected by the Constitution determined to be not p Section 624(d)(1). The prob- vided over the cable system. ermits a franchising lem with this Section is that it P authority to regulate the carriage of pornographic material, hic material is provided that such regulation of pornographic bse uent1 found to be constitutionally permissible by a su Q y that a court of law would applY the court of law. Assuming such attempt Miller test, it is highly improbable that any at regulation would be upheld. The Senate Report accompanying an early version of Se nate Sill 66, a precursor to the ��Cable C Communications Policy Act of 1984, suggests that t or the determination of a breach of the rtaeulare in bons f judicial determination t the absence of a j the Constitu- speech was obscene or otherwise Reunpro e98�67�,y98 Con., 1st tion," was not permitted. S. P was not included Sess. 25 (1983). However, similar languageisla- in the House Report and is therefore es nclicatefthatitheregwas Live history for the Act' riorit drestcaint of otherwise pro - discussion regarding the p n could " and a representative of the company tected speech rior judicial determination as to the argue that, absent a pby protection of pornographic material the a P could not regulate t local authority Memorandum March 30, 1988 Page 6 V. COURT HISTORY REGARDING LOCAL ORDINANCES ON OBSCENITY Even though the attempt to regulate adult programming would in all probability not survive constitutional First Amendment scrutiny, some local officials have asked whether they could enforce their local franchise ordinances in which the Company has agreed not to cable cast pornographic pro- gramming. Local ordinances which have been drafted to pre- vent obscene or indecent cable programming have not survived scrutiny by the courts. Roy City, Utah, had passed an ordi- nance which permitted the revocation of cable franchise permits or the imposing of fines for "knowingly distrib- uting] any pornographic or indecent material as defined by law or in violation of the community standards." In Com- munity Television of Utah v. Roy City, 555 F. Supp. 1164 (D. Utah 1984), the court held the Roy City ordinance to be unconstitutional. The Roy City court distinguished between broadcast television and cable television. The court stated that cable signals are "invited" into the home while broad- cast signals are not. The court stated that broadcast tele- vision "is pervasive because its medium, the air, is perva- sive. Transmission by wire is not." Roy City at 1169. The United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of Florida enjoined the City of Miami from enforcing its ordinance which prohibited the distribution of indecent material over cable television. The City was also enjoined from implementing procedures established to enforce this prohibition. In Cruz v. Ferre 571 F. Supp. 125 (S.D. Fla. 1983), the court held the city ordinance to be unconstitu- tional since the provisions of the ordinance which tried to regulate indecent material exceeded permissible limits for the regulation of obscenity as set forth by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California. Again the court relied on the ability of the consumer to control whether or not they chose to receive cable television signals. Therefore, although the member cities could choose to attempt to enforce their franchise ordinance, a court would likely conclude that the enforcement of the ordinance in an attempt to restrict the First Amendment rights of the Com- pany would be unconstitutional and therefore impermissible. Memorandum f� March 30, 1988 Page 7 VI. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE CABLE COMMISSION AND MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES Even though a court would likely reject the city's attempt to regulate or prohibit the programming of channel 34, the city or the Cable Commissions could still take ac- tion to express their displeasure with the Company. Below please find a hierarchy of actions which the city could. take from the less extreme (above the line) through actions which would in all probability be held impermissible by a court of law (listed below the line). The Cable Commission or the member cities could: 1. Take no action. 2. Pass a city's objection �3. Pass a cit'y�objection specifically req gramming from ca resolution expressing the Commission's or to such programming on channel 34. resolution expressing the Commission's or to such programming on channel 34, and uest that the Company remove the adult pro- ble channel 34. 4. Pass a resolution expressing the Commission's or city's objection to such programming on channel 34, and order the Company to remove the adult programming from cable channel 34 (if the Company chose not to comply with this order, any attempt to sanction the Company would in all probability be held impermissible by a court of law). 5. Pass a resolution expressing the Commission's or city's objection to such programming on channel 34, and order the Company to remove the programming from channel 34 within 15 days of written notification or face the fines and penalties provided for in the franchise. 6. Pass a resolution expressing the Commission's or city's objection to such programming on channel 34, and order the Company to remove the programming or face termina- tion procedures of the franchise for failure to comply with the franchise sections prohibiting x-rated or otherwise pornographic material. (This step would not to available to the Quad Cities Commission.) Memorandum March 30, 1988 Page 8 Note that those steps below the line would in all proba- bility be held by a court of law to be d6nstitutionally impermissible. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. TDC:ph Media Groups Again Ask FCC to Clarify `Indecency' by Jaaevhlns Avarsa WASHINGTON — The Big Throe broadcast networks anti 14 other media groups asked the U.S. Cohn of Appeals here to order the Federal Com- munications Commission to clarify it policy on "indecent" programming The parties contend that the agency's nearly 1-year-old in - deep W policy is overly broad and constitutionally vague, thus treading on broadcasters' First Amendment right. In their brief filed with the noun, the parties charge that the FCC's policy is confusing to broadcasters because they don't know what specific words or pictures or other con- tent considerations in a pro- gram would constitute a viol- ation of the agency's rules. The case will be argued Turner Outlines TNT Plans For Hollywood Producers LOS ANGELES — Though he said he is willing to pay adwork rates or even more for „uplifting" program- ming for his proposed new basic cable octwork, Ted Turner came away from his meeting last week with lfol- lywood rsudio producers with no definitive agree- ments for shuwp, for Turner tirtwurl Television UA, Heritage Sign As TNT Affiliates ATLANTA — Turner Broadcasting System Inc last week announced of- filiste agreements for TNT with two top-20 multiple systems operators. United Artists Communications Inc arud Heritage Commu- nications, both of which are majority -owned by Tele- Communications Inc., the nation's Largest MSO. The two signings bring the current commitments to a total of about 3 million subscribers, according to Terence McGuirk, Turner Network Sage president About 10 other MSO agrre- ments are pending, he said UA agreed to commit over oil percent of its basic subscribers, br about 700,000 subs. TBS said The systems will phase in TNT, with the bulk of them on line within six months of the Oct 3 Launch date, Mr McGuirk said Heritage, which has over 1 million subscribers, said it will re- view channel lineups to de- termine where it can put TNT on. As for United Cabe Tek- vision, which has agreed to nwrge with UA, Mr McGuirk said separate DegtA-Lions are —going Mr. Turner made a 45- minute presentation to the filmmakers, be said, asking them to pmpoee "informa- tive, educational, inspiring, enlightenirtR, entertaining" miniseries and special events for TNT, which is scheduled to launch Oct. 3. As examples of the type of programming he'd lilac to emulate, Mr Turner named Hoots. Shogun, and The Sound o/ Music ., I t w a s v e r y positive no one got up and walked out," be said at the meeting. Many prtoducers anpressed interest and future meetinga will be scheduler) with TNT ex- ecutives, htr Turner said The board of the new venture has approved s38 million for or4Wsl pro- gramming for the Oust full year of operation of the net- work, an amount that might seem small by Hollywood standards, he conceded But he added that TNT will be using 2,t1W films of those in the MGM library for its programming Statistic show that these films are more popular with viewers than ofl-network reruns or cut-rate game shows, he said. TNT's initial goal will be to air one bkhckbtustes event a month, he said Seri" arc Dcx a pan of the programming plan, be added Shows oxh TNT will be� free from the "tyranny ratings" because half of network's revenue will coat from subscribers, be said That will Alec" the netwcr to be programmed wit &bows that have "high sa faction quoxients" ituated of pandering to the lowest common denominator, much as the bnoadcmst &bows Fa{eoa Crew or Dallas. he Mullrchannel News - April 4, 1988 before the court on June 1. So-called indecent material is protected by the First Amendment, although the fed- eral courts for years have had trouble defining what indeceny is, the FCC has said Last summer, several broad- casting groups asked the FCC to reconsider its policy Upon doing so, the agency largely affirmed its new standards. The parties, which include the National Association of Broadcasters, the Assccisdo of Independent Television Sta- tions, The New York Times Co. and the watchdog group Action for Children s Tele- vision, said the FCC's policy has the potential of chilling news and public affairs pro- grams because the policy doesn't exempt programs that may be deemed "patently of- fensive" but have serious liter- ary, artistic, political or scien- tific value. Even potentially obucene speech — which is not protect- ed by the First Amendment can be defended in awn if it has serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, the U S Supreme Court has said. The FCC's definition of in- deceny is "material that de- picts or describer, in terms patently offensive an mea:,ured by asntempurary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs " That definition is similar to one of the three conditions that must be present in refining obwene materiel Before the FCC adopted this definition, it used the "seven dirty words" standard to judge whether a program was inde- cent "Under the commission's standard, audio and visual broadcasts of angry political demonstrations or even strong expressions of views in inter- views or in more ametu re d dialogue might sometimes have to be censored. no matter how important that particular Language might be to a proper understanding of the penw-ns, viewpoints and events being reported," the media gawps told the court "In the long run, the greatest impact will be on broadcasts concerning highly sensitive issues, such as infor- matkxtal programs about serious hoalth 6aucs such ale AIDS and on the broadcast of news and public affaim pro- grammittg involving those per- sone who . regularly and pub- licly use language which some might consider inap- propriate,." they saki The media groups also at- tacked the FCC for replacing the to p m -6 am "safe harbor," the period where r., I ..,, -.,e.r, .,,. ,,, night-6 a.m. slot. They said the agency pres- ented no factual record for choosing midnight as the be- ginning of sale harbor. The FCC said it picked the time because less children would be in the audience, an assertion it did not support by TV view- ership data. Indeed, FCC Commissioner Patricia Diaz Dennis question- ed the agency's decision as to the midnight hour and said it did not reflect a "reasoned analysis. " Nielsen statistics, cited by the media groups, found that by 10 p.m. more than half of the adult viewership is no longer in the audience. Said the media groups: "Tine oom- mission's decision effectively bars material from the large majority of the adult audience and reduces adults to seeing and hearing only materal that is fit for children. "❑ "Wrestlemania N' Sets With 1 a 1 M Homes hey N. Thom" Wnsts" NEW YORK — The World Wrestling Federation said Wrestfmania IV broke its own pay -per -view sales record, reaching about 1.1 million homes via an estimated 10.8 percent buy rat. The March 27 event was seen on 725 cable systems, said James 'Troy, senior vice president of inter- national and PPV operations, Titan Sport, a division of the WWF. The WWF also announced that it will file it lawsuit against two Michigan bar owner~ for pirating the event. The event outdistanced last year's Wresdnu tits 111, which averaged a national buy rate of 10 percent, but reached only 650,W0 %aware due to a smaller universe. "It was a huge, huge suc- cess, definitely the most suc- cessful industry event to date," said Mr. Troy. Ile added that the live event from Atlantic City, NJ, was shown on 725 systems. Mr. Troy cited particularly strong sales from Cableviaion Systems Corp. in the New York suburbs of Westchester and Long Island, with boy rates of 36.1 and 22.3 respec- tively. reaching a tool of 67,000 Ixwaeholds . However, NYT Cable TV's Texscan Renews NASDAQ Trading SCOTTSDALE, AZ — Tex - wan Corp. has renewed trading on the NASDAQ over- the- xxtnter market, the com- pan y noted . "Our new NASDAQ listing reaffirms our belief that Tex- acan - will continue to be re- cognized as a revitalised eosn- pany with a stronger balance sheet and reliable product line," said William H. Lambert, cbaitman, president and chief executive offcer. The cable television equip- ment producer reorganised Cherry Hill, NJ. system, noted for its high PPV numbers in the past, reported a "dimp- pointing ' 7 7 rate and S8,000 homes, he said. Mr. Troy also said that the W W F and General instrument Corp 'a VidecrCipher Division will file Lawsuits against two Michigan bars who illegally showed Westkmania IV. G Ken Krushel Named Think Entertainment President and CEO STUDIO CITY, CA — Ken Krushel has been namrd by the board of cable-opecaum- funded Think Entertainment as company president and chief operating officer. Mr. Krushel was formerly with American C:ablesystems Corp. as an executive in the Dew services group, which oversaw business development in such areas as pay -per -view and satellite roaster antenna television, he said. He began with the operator in 1982. Chher memben of the man- agement team are founder Shelley Duvall, chairman; Jim Mullany, formerly with Wells Fargo Bsnk, chief financial of- ficer; and Bridget Terry, a co- producer of Faerie Tale Theater, vice president of ereative affairs. Mr. Krushel said be thinks the company already has an irientity based on Ma. Duvall'& successful cable programs, but added that the firm is open to developing all kinds of pro- gramming: documentaries, long -form drsmo and aeries ' Ow one challenge is not to do trance television, but di,- tinctive productions," he said The company is ab-ersdy talk- ing with all cable program. ming services and hopes to have some agreements to an. nounce soon The only wrinkle in the pro mse is the Writers Guild strike, he said, which will delay work on exiati —.... I .I.. I .. r ■ ROSEVILLE ■ MOUNDS VIEW ■ SHOREVIEW ■ FALCON HEIGHTS ■ LITTLE CANADA ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS DISPATCH SaTiomette tmum t® on 6 cable porn ?; By Ann Baker Staff Writer In December, sexually explicit movies becam available over cable television in the northern suburb and Burnsville and Eagan. In April, the trend w' spread through Washington County. And local regula tory commissions are finding they have little authori ty to stop it. Last week, two commissions passed resolutions ask ing their local cable companies to halt the movies, bu no fines or franchise restrictions were threatened. "It expresses a personal objection," Roseville City Council member Robert Matson said of the resolutio he introduced asking Cable TV North Central to r move its pay -per -view "soft erotica" movies. The company serves 36 suburbs in Anoka, Ramsey and Washington counties, as well as Burnsville and Eagan in Dakota County. Matson added that he realized his resolution "doesn't have any teeth in it — it won't stop the com- pany." The request was a carefully drawn position by the 10-city North Suburban commission, reflecting the thin line cable commissions throughout the St. Paul area are trying to walk as they grapple with the intro- duction of movies that critics call pornography. i . A similar resolution was adopted 4-3 by the South Washington County Cable Commission against the Tuxedo Network, which Coaxial Cable Communica- tions Co. plans to start offering April 15 in most of Washington County. ' That resolution also stops short of imposing any penalities. So does a letter the Ramsey -Washington Cable Commission sent last month to Cable TV North Central, which serves White Bear Lake, Maplewood and Oakdale areas. No "adult movies" have been announced by the cable companies that serve St. Paul and most of Dako- ta County, although the movies are shown in Minneap olis and suburban Hennepin County. Cable TV North Central officials maintain that the movies are popular, more so than any of the individu- al movies and sports programs that subscribers pay $4.95 apiece to see. In January, viewers in the 10 north suburban cities watched 5,000 pay -per -view programs that included the "unrated, adult movies" on Channel 34. In March, they watched 2,600. Company officials said some viewers have complained that the movies aren't ex- plicit enough. In Washington County, Coaxial Cable's Tuxedo net- work will cost viewers a $10 installation fee plus $10.95 a month with no limit on the number of movies that r*ln hn Vann A lnnL%nfo . n.. nn rn tf -i Wii ednesday, April 13, 1988 St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch PC 91P -1Y Continued from Page 1N the price. ii It's in I�k Meanwhile, a St. Paul -based campaign called Clean Up Project vows to launch a boycott against "cable porn" by suggesting viewers cancel their subscriptions and tell the companies why. "It's just like dial -a -porn. These new technologies have outstripped the government's capacity to regu- late them," said Clean Up director, Robert Heinrich, former Minneton- ka city manager. He added, howev- er, that he will press for federal legislation to block the explicit films from cable systems. Earlier, objections to the movies were expressed by several city of- ficials, including the Little Canada and Vadnais Heights city councils and Newport Mayor John Walker. "The company is lying to ,is," said Bob Staeheli, who represents Mahtomedi on the Ramsey -Wash- ington County Cable Commission. "They say it's not pornography. I watched one; it shows anal and oral sex, intercourse, masturba- tion, group masturbation. I was devastated by it; I'm 50 years old. It's not X-rated because it hasn't been submitted to rating." Staeheli said the public should have the right to know who is wn tching these programs and use t that information in protest cam- paigns. Boycotts may be the only effec- tive avenue for people who are determined to stop the programs, c said attorney Tom Creighton, who t \ 7 e dilal-a-Dorn. These new -- technologies have outstripped the government's capacity to regulate them. 9' Robert Heinrich Clean Up director advises cable commissions repre- senting area suburbs that have franchises with Cable TV North Central. Before the North Suburban com- mission took its stand last week, Creighton spent two months weigh- ing the commission's power to con- trol programs vs. the cable compa- ny's right to exercise its First Amendement guarantee of free speech. In his equation he pitted the company's earlier promise not to show "X-rated" material against the federal cable deregulation act, which became effective last year, stripping local commissions of their authority over program con- tent. He outlined the Supreme Court's difficult -to -prove definition of ob- scenity and noted that the movies are shown after 10:30- p.m., that viewers can turn a key to block re- ception as well as refuse to allow heir homes to receive the entire Channel 34, which carries the ex- plicit movies in the Cable TV North Central area. Creighton concluded that if a lo- al commission tried to thwart T— ransmission of the movies, it r probably would face long and cost,- ly court battles and ultimately lose. The local commissions and city councils are "easy targets" for people who object to the explicit material, Creighton said. Instead, he said, protesters should "organize the community and have them convince the com- pany it would be an economic dis-, aster to keep on showing it." Shoreview City Council member Bob Weyandt voted against the North Suburban Commission's res- olution, made it clear his intent was not to endorse the movies. "I must explain," he said. "My. feeling is that people out there can take a position. They have every opportunity to do that, and I en- courage them." N 3• J'' AC. M,EN�S'�S7'dRf� P . � ft�l April 14, 1988 ..Mr. Roger Jensen ,Peterson, Bell, Converse, and Jensen 2100 American National Bank Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 SUBJECT: PORNOGRAPHY OPINION - PROGRAMMING ON CHANNEL 34 Dear Roger: Attached is an "opinion" presented to the North Suburban Cable Commission from Tom Creighton, regarding adult programming on North Central Cable Company's Channel 34. This item will be reviewed by the Council at its work session on Monday, APril 18. If your initial reaction to the opinion is different from his conclusions, please advise by Monday (4/18) afternoon. Sincerely, James F. Andre ,,;/ City Manager Attach. 2660 CE.N-r :R I)R1N'E • 1((.)til;�"ILLi: • \11\NI:S011 • »113 • 612-48I-.337j April 14, 1988 TO: City Council FROM: Jim Andre 9f,--- SUBJECT: 40TH ANNIVERSARY -.HALL OF FAME AWARD The 40th Anniversary Committee (see Roseville Reader 4/1 and 4 8 is planning for an October activity which would honor a ers / to the first Hall of Fame. P on(s) The Committee is looking for direction from the Counci this person(s) may be selected. 1 on how The Council may handle the process themselves by askin for nominations based on criteria established by the Council, or it may elect to establish a Citizen's Committee to handle the process. In any event, the process should commence fairly soon, if the Council is receptive to that kind of activity. April 14, 1988 TO: Jim Andre FROM: Steve North_�� SUBJECT: 40TH ANNIVERSARY OPEN HOUSE AND STUDENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING The 40th Anniversary Committee is planning two activities for May 23. 1. Open House at City Hall from 3:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. The details have not been established but City Hall would be open, with employees available in each department to talk to citizens. Beverage and cookies would be served. 2. Student City Council Meeting - The Committee is working with Mr. Bruce Hartman, Social Studies teacher at Roseville Area High School, for this event. He has two classes, totaling approximately 60 students, who will conduct a Council meeting with students assuming the role of Mayor, Council, and residents. They will discuss issues relating to youth and the city such as curfew, vandalism, and drugs. The May 23 regular Council meeting should have a rather light agen ad , e'xcept for the public hearing to consider the Compre- hensive Plan Amendments in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. The Council needs to determine the amount of time to be devoted to the student meeting. Betty Wolfangle, who has talked with Mr. Hartman, indicates that one hour should be sufficient time. Perhaps the student meeting could begin at 6:30 p.m. and the Council meeting at 7:30 p.m., or the student meeting at 7:00 p.m. and the Council meeting at 8:00 p.m. It is planned to televise the student meeting live. The foregoing events also fit into the "City Week" theme suggested by the League of Minnesota Cities. April 14, 1988 TO: City Council FROM: Jim Andre 9�_ SUBJECT: LETTER FROM MAXINE CRIPPEN - MEMBREZ HOUSE The attached letter from Ms. Cri the city is interested in peen is an inquiry as to whether Drive. purchasing the home at 1810 Alta Vista The house is the place where the city was first incorporated 1948, ncor p ated in If the property was adjacent to another larger cityowne the proposal may warrant further consideration. o d parcel, seem the house would retain whatever historicalHo would significance has whether it is privately .or publicly owned. it Attch. V71 MAXINE T. CRIPPEN C� Yl 164 dr i 1810 AL.TA VISTA DR., ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 (612)489-3180 MAXINE T. CRIPPEN 1810 ALTA VISTA DR., ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 (612) 489-3180 M :QF OF LOCAL GOVC�ERNMENTS CAPITOL COUNTY OF MINNESOTA Arden Hills Falcon Heights Gem Lake Lauderdale Little Canada Maplewood Mounds View New Brighton North Oaks TOPIC: DATE: TIME: 183 University Avenue East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600 RCLLG APRIL MEETING I• "PROPERTY TAX REFORM" and "THE PORT AUTHORITY" Wednesday, April 20, 1988 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Maplewood City Hall 1830 E. County Road SPEAKER: B (Please see map on reverse side.) George Latimer - Mayor of St. Paul N. St. Paul ALSO provisional speaker on Ramsey County Tax Update; Steven Novak - State Senator Roseville & representative from House -Senate Conference St. Anthony Committee on property tax bill St.Paul You are invited to hear Mayor Latimer speak on property tax reform and the St. Paul Shoreview Port Authority. Senator Novak will then (depending on the status Vadnais Heights of the committee and his ability to attend) update us on what is happening in the property White Bear Lake and A question White Bear Township heir presentations. ALSO, delegates will vote on the enclosed resolution regarding the Charter Commission. Please instruct your delegate as to how your community wants vote. him or her to Enclosed also is a property tax reform resolution which was sent by the RCLLG Executive Board and the RCLLG Legislative Committee because there wasn't time for the general membership to vote on it before compromise tax reforms bills might be drafted by the Legislature. This resolution went to the Ramsey County Delegation and other legislative officials with input on the bill. We hope to see you on April 20. For more information, call RCLLG Coordinator Merideth Chelberg at 227-5600. 71 � rig �f.• �//•••r.. �.... F �., ;�. .I:._ n,. •- �• r L•1e f 'l , /'n•h Lnel µ'aha•.,:� 4§'� t� , / •/� 7jr`Ffn�ri 1. - • , c ■• I C- � �:: L b ��� ef• �' \c ` r •., � ornt'1's .' , Iry I ) l•a •:Y .I . S } •'• `� SBro , µ''me hmgfon �', •� �I fir, �!'"bt Y Lake ;� b a:re■•• IA = �... BLaki b i" n /,� l i p, fi.' i Gt• st R Lake r p LakeJ ' 41 L.Ae �� % 96 .lJ . i:_J . i PINE e (SPRINGS 1 '!• �/ 30 ' ' ' ® foie j1 •• - _ fLte f pr0 31 <<< LITTLER _� f C A� C'f 6; 58 . ' . N JS C•oNAD Kohl n )�/ •J :`� .r •A. " //• rry� r� �ol L.4e N1 `. CJ _ Silver AI Round ! t, I _= AIAPLEWOOD 7"";— Lake 1 CO ..L 0 L : 1 �,� erva.s� - �-� #. NOR '• _ - S� :Lake Clear xQ ST. P ® M( - De Montrevill. �L.AO r 1: i •�` ° _aA;;� �n .` ` % ►o• `ES file 1r � l'{. 1■r( 0 ><7e 1��' '' a'` . 2t� 65: t e : eon - e L.ne r Keller ®" v �� OAKDALE zt", uRost McCarron! L S� Ro t e ro• u.0) ,I .: ��el Cake i �f•` : LAKE ELMO I •7 .`lt)7hivl� LO to ef>. s7ri Q I ant�, _� ®.7 1 L rostul("r �o Sunfish C �, J• ? �3' l ..I �fJlw 11 rtLSr e0110111. "AV 11Te , NOrf• R3 t_ ,t• t' -A V-L,•-- �• _ F!��:' e��� V OJ • ,.; Lake JI-� ` • _ A A�` Lake ® t9 3 r' _ Eagle Avt g E b Y d�: Bever .I0 +' point hob ch.0090 Lake ,,� ' Lake - •. B C`I �s ".T(r Aft AU U T fir' , urrl.l.A _ .N S A ! 1` i 46 039 e - w 1� `>Q • .. _ 2 � �ote�l.y� s, - r`-' s �✓ - ' _ Tanner. v :J3 I:e' s coo.e ��d �• ■ �. Lake tiiA p r . LANDF ror e, AI.L _ + ' `?• . P==4r•. e•7. � Pl _ DAM - is � � R/ �� S � � ... • , ! ����.� - c..n - Oakbtuy 1 p t C y r'r IO\ 1� I�5 •� 1Markgralo -ell' I`.Io• a' M s "IONBatr/e E LOA@ i� \c f �.�•4 J q �J Crook- �� +�! e " HD•:1 st , •\� -_ � �` ^ �\. • �1� ut;, �C \ i IrO0. n1• pp�� '�.r a It IAU: O_w"rOw� Iaf ,y'AU r, t■" \. tc CID IwOIA•A" nr,o) Ilmel e• a J a g' r ,.Pickerel 1 - I fro\ r-- cell. L �r\.rp,is •o S�'J Imo. •t ® ��Portr IJ 023 .' - _ ? �• lau. _ ..':tSl: IAu • C1114 LaA WOO IL •0. .r IDAL PE 1.'llR A, - Q1j c DB �. �' • s •'" •� ! Lj` 1 A - rgs r• r Y t �a lop to lrr r. WEST s rtj SAINT _ - L w /f^Y C•arvOr 8 g ro•AUL e _ /"=_ LOA• E i� u rQ► Co - a o a lIr . t 1.� V a SOUT i •y i t SAINT - - �PAUL 19s i Ir Iq •U L ' E . :N La i Sunfish �6 ' ! EWPOR LaA• I o, 'E CDOTA f •f l e (� + ro• 3sls :. i '. .� o _e, �..r• .� 1 I ror pill HTS apSUNFISH = i' chmitt :Iv .1 s ; �.< :e. 1• 1!u i fD LAKE , ••r FIR MAPLE1400 D CITY HALL 30 E . County , Road Take the White_ ; ,;�,.,,.1' e.�: � '.,�.; �� •�� •.-... - • off Hi Bear Avenue exit south - hway C County ad 66� Continue south to Turn 1 block to the Te left or tone Maplewood City Hall. �\!t • ..::��' .gar. SE' cc COUNTY OF LOCAL CAPITOL COUNTY OF MINNESOTA Arden Hills r 7LJLJ M LEAGUE GOVERNMENTS 183 University Avenue East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600 RESOLUTION REGARDING PROPOSED RAMSEY COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION STUDY WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Charter Commission was Falcon Heights formed specifically to study the issue of a charter form Gem Lake of government; and Lauderdale WHEREAS, the Ramsey County League of Local Little Canada Governments (RCLLG) supports that charge; and Maplewood WHEREAS, the consolidation issue was considered Mounds view and rejected in 1973 by the Local Government Study Commission of Ramsey County which had been charged by New Brighton the State Legislature Oto study the structure, functions North oaks and operations of all governmental units and bodies within the said county" and to determine the need for N.St. Paul "consolidation, separation, addition, removal or other Ramsey Counts revision" of these units of government; and Rowille WHEREAS, the two issues (charter and consolidation) St. Anthony are separate, and the passage or failure of one might unduly influence the passage or failure of the other; St. Paul Shoreview NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the RCLLG that any additional study of a consolidated government Vadnais Heights structure for Ramsey County be conducted by an White Bear Lake independent, separate committee established for that purpose; and White Bear To%nship BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the new committee focus on investigating consolidation of services and not individual governments, and that representatives of the local governments be directly involved in the study. The committee could gain valuable information from studying the joint powers agreements that local government units have formed in the past, whether they were successful and why they succeeded, or whether they failed and why. Adopted by the Ramsey County League of Local Governments this 20th day of April, 1988. Vice President President 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 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 April 26, 1988 Mr. Rick Jopke Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Re: Parking at Lexington School Site Our File No. 1011-19 Dear Mr. Jopke: With regard to the question posed in Your April 18, 1988, correspondence, if there appears to be a regular arrangement between the Rose Gallery and the owner of the Lexington School site, allowing Rose Gallery clientele to park in Lexington School parking lot, I believe the zoning tcodeRis being violated. The owner of the R-1 property may be cited if it appears that he has made an arrangement with Rose Gallery for this parking. I recommend that he be sent a letter advising him that Such parking is prohibited by the zoning code and that he should the parking lot to prohibit an the use in the school building, Y Parking oter tl�an parking for On the other hand, if it appears that the parkin not part of an arrangement with Rose Gallery,I do not r believe that the owner may be cited. Depending on the number of cars parking in the Lexington School parking lot by Rose Gallery patrons, a letter similar to that described above may be appropriate. RAJ/el d Yours very truly, PETS SON, L, GeeRSE & JENSEN Roger X. Ansen S ''� §9 �'4-') M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 28, 1988 TO: Craig Waldron FROM: Rick Jopke SUBJECT: Rose Gallery Parking on Lexington School Site Attached please find a copy of a letter I recently received from Roger Jensen concerning the parking situation on the Lexington School site. Please advise me how you would like to proceed on this matter. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 26, 1988 TO: Howard Dahlgren FROM: Craig A. Waldron SUBJECT: Potential compromise on Lexington School. Based on the land use proposal that you developed utilizing three acres for housing, two acres for business and three for park, I have developed the following proposal. If the city were to get two (2) acres of park dedicated, and purchase one (1) the city would have to pay $157,000 according to Kaufholds price of $3.62 per sq. ft. In addition, on the three acres of housing, $294,561 would be needed to write down the land to approximately $3,500 per unit. That would create a total write down of $451,561 to facilitate the project. I have projected annual increment at $64,340 per year, that would close the deal at 8% interest in 10.71 years. The critical elements relating to this deal are: 1. No TIF on the two acres of commercial. 2. Two of the park acres are dedicated - 1 is purchased. 3. The cost is $3.62 per sq. ft. 4. Three acres of housing would occur on the site at a density of 17 units per acre. MEMORANDUM DATE: July 27, 1988 TO: Jim Andre FROM: Craig A. Waldron SUBJECT: Potential Lexington Compromise The potential for a Lexington schoolc crp tical lement relatimise ng with Mr. Kaufhld could potentially be feasible. The to the compromise are as follows: 1. Kaufhold would dedicate 1 acre to the city. 2. The school district would _have that amount dedicateto fromKaufholdan as acre to the city, and subtract original purchase price. 3. The city would purchase one acre�rotm Kauf old t the effectrie of $157,000 that could be paid o, creates a three acre park to the south). 4. The area northwest -would be zoned R-3A (seventeen units per acre, 2 to 3 stories high) which would facilitate multi- family housing. At the developer rice of $3.62 per sq. ft., this would require purchase a city write -down of $294,561. 5. The northeast 2 acres would be zoiedcommercial, The which would hich could facilitate a 20,000 sq. ft. str p center. not provide subsidy for this development, but would use the increment to write -down the housing costs. 6. In final the city's housing commitment to the site could potentially total 451,561 dollars which, based on increment of 64,340 per year would create a payout of 10.71 years. 7. If this were deemed a workable compromise, the city would have a contractual agreement 8 With of c� ty commitment ld that would allow him to close on October 1, 198 A. Purchase the one acre park. B. Be prepared to enter into a tax increment program to facilitate housing on the southwest portion of the site. C. Move forward with the modified zoning plan based on the compromise. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 1, 1988 TO: Jim Andre FROM: Craig A. Waldron SUBJECT: Status of Lexington JSool Project. Jerry Kaufhold and Tom Dunwell were in to meet with Rick and myself (August 31) to formally submit the modified proposal for the Lexington School site. The approval of the modified proposal, which is essentially the same project that was discussed at the August 29th work session, is contingent upon the approval of a proposed agreement between Kaufhold and the City. It is my understanding the proposed agreement as developed by the mayor and Kaufhold is as follows: 1. Kaufhold agrees to dedicate 1 acre to the city. 2. The School District agrees to dedicate an additional acre to the city, in return the city agrees to fund a police school liaison officer (originally, pursuant to the direction at the Council/Staff breakfast meeting, you and I had approached Worner regarding a voluntary dedication of two acres in addition to ,he 1 acre that would be provided by Kaufhold). 3. The city would agree to consider tax increment financing for the three acre housing development. Tax increment would not be considered for housing during the first two years that Mr. Kaufhold owns the project, nor after 10 years of ownership. It is unclear if there is Council understanding or consensus on this provision. 4. The city agrees to purchase an additional acre of park predicated on the fact that the city and Kaufhold could reach agreement on the price and that the payments would be made on an installment basis. It would be my recommendation that in order to properly proceed, we should discuss this proposed agreement with the city council to ensure concurrence with this particular approach. Based on our discussion, I will be securing an appraisal on the land to be acquired for park purposes. rmll UEJEJ Roseville Area Schools • District 623 a 8 Serving the Communities of Arden Hills, Falcon 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: 612 /633-8150 October 7, 1988 Mr. Craig Waldron City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Craig: I am writing to confirm the Roseville Area Schools' interest and willingess to aid in the consummation of the sale of the Lexington Elementary School _property by agreeing - subject to formal School Board approval - to the following property -for -services arrangement with the City of Roseville: At the request of the Lexington Elementary School purchaser, the Roseville Area Schools will participate in an adjustment to the existing purchase agreement or enter into some amendment to the existing purchase agreement or engage in some other legally -acceptable process that will allow the City of Roseville - either through the purchaser's or the school district's actions - to receive one acre of the Lexington Elementary School property from the Roseville Area Schools in exchange for the City of Roseville's funding of a Police Liaison Program in the Roseville Area Schools at a rate of a minimum of $40,000/year for a five year period of time. Assuming this arrangement is agreeable with the City of Roseville and the purchaser, Mr. Jerry I<aufhold, I suggest that legal representatives of the three parties confer and make recommendations on the most effective and efficient manner in which to facilitate this transaction. I am delighted to learn that the sale of Lexington Elementary School may soon be consummated, The School Board, my staff, and I stand ready to assist in expediting this process. Please let us know ways we can be of assistance. Yours most sincerely, Rktiendent orner S of Schools m.ie/D279 c Members of the School Board An Equal Opportunity Employer October 18, 1988 Mr. Gerald Kaufhold }� 1123 W. County Road B Roseville, MN 55113 I I Dear Mr. Kaufhold The City of Roseville, in pursuance of its desire to establish a ' park on the Lexington School site, is hereby presenting this offer to you for your consideration. Based on an appraisal by Dahlen and Dwyer Inc., which has designated the highest and best use for the 1 acre parcel as R-1, the City is hereby prepared to offer you the sum of $72,000.00 for this parcel. The $72,000.00 would be forthcoming to you on an immediate cash basis, and the City would not be requesting annual, time payments. The appraisal is available at City Hall, should you desire to review - the appraisal report. .Please contact the City at your earliest convenience regarding your response to this offer. I Sincerely, J Cra. Wa dron mCoty Development Director City of Roseville. :cf 2600 (:1VIC (;I:NTEIR DRIVE, • 110S IVI1,L ,-111\\lISO 'Ck - ,55113 • 612-484-3371 October 21, 1988 Mr. Craig Waldron Community Development Director City of Roseville Dear Mr. Waldron: I have received your offer dated October 18, 1988, to purchase one acre of land from the Lexington School site, which will be added to the two acre park site otherwise dedicated. I have offered to sell one acre to the City of Roseville for the sum of $125,000, and I find your offer of $72,000 unacceptable. The appraisal appears to treat the property involved as acreage rather than desirable lots for one family houses. The configuration of the acre appraisal could not be easily divided into lots, also, the area appraised does not match the proposed park configuration. The actual area faces Eldrige Ave. and proceeds west from Lexington, approximately 363 feet and is 120 feet deep. This configuration would produce four lots, approximately 10,900 square feet each. I could readily sell these lots for at least $40,000 each, since I have a list of people willing to purchase such lots. A second alternative would create three large lots, approximately 14,500 square feet each, which I believe would sell for over $50,000 each, based on discussions with prospective buyers. Your office prepared a scenario which led to the proposal approved by the Council. In that scenario you suggested the City pay $157,000 for one acre of land. Mayor Frank Rog prevailed upon me to reduce that amount as much as possible in order to reach a cooperative agreement. In response to his request I conceded to accept $125,000 for the one acre of land. During the Planning Commission and Council meetings, I was asked to make concessions as to the shape of various lots and to accept changes in zoning requested. I accepted these changes,based on my offer to sell the acre for $125,000. I also conceded to dedicate a full acre of land to the park site, which is approximately 8,000 square feet more than the ordinance requires. School District #623 has agreed to reduce my purchase price by $125,000 for the one acre that they are giving to you in exchange for services. The purchase price of the site and the expenses incurred to resolve the future use of this property, coupled with the concessions I have already given in good faith, do not allow me to accept less than $125,000 for this acre of land. I have been open with you during our negotiations and have cooperated with the City and neighbors to reach an acceptable solution to the use of this site, even to my financial dismay. I hope that you will consider this in your response , which I need by October 25th, as the closing will occur the first week in November. Sincerely, Gerald H. Kaufhold r, M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 25, 1988 TO: Steve North FROM: Craig A. Waldron SUBJECT: Lexington School Proje t If you will recall, the City originally offered Mr. Kaufhold $72,000 for an acre of land at Lexington School. Attached is the letter from Mr. Kaufhold essentially countering for the sum of $125,000. Based on his counter offer, I am now offering Mr. Kaufhold $90,000. A copy of both letters are attached. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 25, 1988 TO: Steve North FROM: Craig A. Waldron SUBJECT: Lexington School Proje t If you will recall, the City originally offered Mr. Kaufhold $72,000 for an acre of land at Lexington School. Attached is the letter from Mr. Kaufhold essentially countering for the sum of $125,000. Based on his counter offer, I am now offering Mr. Kaufhold $90,000. A copy of both letters are attached. October 25, 1988 Gerald H. Kaufhold 1123 W. County Road B Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Kaufhold: Pursuant to the counter offer of from you October 21, 1988 the City °Q0 that the City received Prepared to offer you the pis ark property. sum of $90,000 for the one acre of Please consider this the City,s formal response to offer. Your counter Sincerely, Craig A. Waldron Community Development Director City of Roseville :cf u October 21, 1988 Mr. Craig Waldron Community Development Director City of Roseville Dear Mr. Waldron: I have received your offer dated October 18, 1988, to purchase one acre of land from the Lexington School site, which will be added to the two acre park site otherwise dedicated. I have offered to sell one acre to the City of Roseville for the sun of $12S,000, and I find your offer of 072,000 unacceptable. The appraisal appears to treat the property Involved as acreage rather than desirable lots for one family houses. The coatiguratiom of the acre appraisal could not be easily divided Into lots, also, the area appraised does not match the proposed parr configuration. The actual area faces Eldrige Ave. and proceeds vest from Lexington, approximately 363 feet and Is 120 feet deep. This configuration would produce four lots, approximately 10,900 square feet each. I could readily sell these lots for At least 840,000 each, since I have a list of people willing to purchase such lots. A second alternative would create three large lots, approximately 14,500 square feet each. which I believe would sell for over 850,000 each, based on discussions with prospective buyers. Your office prepared a scenario which led to the proposal approved by the Council. In that scenario you suggested the City p,ay $157,000 for out acre of Land. Mayor Frank Rog prevailed upon at to reduce that amount as much as possible in order to reach a cooperative agreement. In response to his request I conceded to accept $12S,000 for the one acre°of land. During the platinang Commission and Council meetings, I was asked to make concessions as to the shape of various lots and to accept changes in toning requested. I accepted these changes,based on ny offer to sell the acre for $125,000. I also conceded to dedicate a full acre of land to the park site, which is approximately 8,000 square feet sore than the ordinance requires. School District e623 boo agreed to reduce my purchase price by S125,000 for the one acre that they are giving to you in e:cbange for services. The purchase price of the site and the expenses incurred to resolve the future use of this property, coupled with the concessions I have already given in good faith, do not allow me to accept le.s than $125,000 for this Acre of land. I have been open with you during our negotiations and have cooperated with the City and neighbors to reach .an acceptable solution to the use of this site, even to my financial dismay, I hope that you will consider this in your response , which I need by 0-,tober 25th, as the closing will occur the first week in November. Sincerely, Gerald H. Kaufhold October 28, 1988 Mr. Gerald Kaufhold 1123 W. County Road B Roseville, MIS Dear Mr. Kaufhold: he Thank you for your counter offer dated •�Otfberthe►one8acre 8. Tof City is now prepared to offark,$withOrespect to the Lexington property to be used as a pwould be School site. As I previously stated, thwouidOnotObe0r questing paid to YOU immediately: thus, the City time payments. I should point out that this represents an increase of $28►000.00 from the City's oriarequestibyl of $72,000.00. Thus far, you have modifiedyour $5,000.00. T you ou for your consideration of this offer, and I will look forward to your response. Sincerely,, Craig A. Waldron, Diractor Community Development �(�(�I) (:!\'I(; (;h:\"1�1.1� l)ltl\'1; • ItO�►h:\'II"1.1: 111\\1,S(1"f,\ • iili,l • 1►12-,_1,ti.1-,3,�i 1 I sblsfivfl�7hE November 1, 1988 Gerald Kaufhold 1123 W. County Road B Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Kaufhold: Thank you for your letter of October 31, 1988 in which you ave offered to sell the one acre of Lexington School land for thehsum Of $118,000. We are pleased to inform you that the City will accept this offer, thus all parties can move forward to execute the appropriate documents to facilitate final sale. Sinc rely, f Craig aldron Comm ity Development Director Cit of Roseville :cf u 2660 (:[\'I(. (:1:NTl;h 1)l(1\'1. • 1(()hl:\'i1.L1: • 11IN-NES0 T\ • ,5,i11.3 • 613--18-1-3371 From the desk or ROBERT C. BELL 224-4703 110: CRAIG WALDRO CITY N� OF ROSEVILLE This was FAXed John Driller to Attorney today. 11/15/88 RCB/ap 2100 American National Bank Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 LAW OFFICES OF ERWIN A. ON BELL ROBERT C.. BELL PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN WILLARD L. CONVERSE 2100 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ROGER A. JENSEN KURT F. WALTHER 101 EAST FIFTH STREET W. TIMOTHY MALCHOW ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 MARTIN J. COSTELLO JAMESC. ERICKSON (61 2) 224-4703 DAVID S. ANDERSON WILLIAM M. DRINANE FAX No. (61 2) 223-8070 PAMELA CONVERSE ZERIN CAROL WIN SCOTT B..CROSCROSSMAN November 15, 1988 CAROLINE F. BELL Mr. John M. Miller Attorney at Law 200 Rosedale Towers Roseville, MN 55113 RE: LEXINGTON SCHOOL PROPERTY YOUR FILE NO. 7101-880003 OUR FILE NO. 1011.19 Dear Mr. Miller: Enclosed is the revised Agreement with regard to Lexart Addition. Please call me with any comments and/or changes you may have. RCB/ap Enc. Very truly yours, PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN Robert C. Bell 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 existencQ 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 ($118,000.00) Dollars for said one (1) acre of land. It is the parties' intent that said purchase, if it is m€►de, will be accomplished at the time of the closing of the sale of the Lexington School site from Independent School District No. 623 to Kaufhold. The City shall furnish, leg engineering, and The administrative services necessary to r 'sh this sale. deed transferring said one (1) acre of lane nall be subject to easements, reservations, and restrictions of record, aif any. Kaufhold will pay any taxes due and anyunpaid ssments due in calendar year 1988. The parties agree that this property has been tax exempt, except that it has not been exempt from special assessments, and Kaufhold will be responsible for any unpaid special assessments. 3. Tax Increment taxnancrementlt is financingefromtthethat City when Kaufhold will request 1990 and he develops the Lexington school site between July 31, July 31, 1998. The City will use its best efforts to give favorable consideration itoi$aumffhdeld's request for such tax increment financing if 4. Zoning. This Agreement is conditioned upon the City rezoning t e Lexington School �rcel so that the vision subdivisionts on datedthe July preliminary plat of the Lexarti 28, 1988 shall be zoned as follows: a. Lot 1 - to be zoned R-1. b. Lot 2 - to be zoned R-3A. C . Lot 3 - to be zoned 3-3. 5. one Acre From School District. The Independeent School District No. wit a retaYning once acre of the Lexington School site and shall he tranasame outsidathe ofCth� of Roseville by warranty deed to consideration purview of this Agreement. Such transfer, however, is a precondition to this Agreement becoming effectivc- 6. Time. • It is contemplated by tine parties that those actions necessary to accomplish the requirements of this agreement will be done as close as poossibl to the closing data 23. between Kaufhold and Ind+.Pendnt 7. Dismissal and Release. Kaufhold has in they past filed applications watt t,'e city for var ous and differant uses of his land, And said applications have been denied by then City. The land referred to is the land Kaufhold purchased from School District 62'3 tit the corner of Lexington Avenue and County Road 8 in the City of Roseville. Theses applications which have been denied have been for zoning changes, variances, and applications to plat the property. Kaufhold has expressed the opin'on 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 tiie same with prejudice. Kaufhold further acknowledges that in consideration of that the City i^ eltay0no for the land set forth in paragraph 2 pa hereby releases and discharges the City from all cdusam of a�.L�he or. r g lies may have against tale City for any of the City's actions denying tile3 applications referred to above. S. 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 'that the City Council has no control over futurerCityties�Councils, orethis same Council at future meetings. In the event, for any reason, Kaufhold fails to accomplish the tax increment financing referred to in paragraph 31 that that will not in any way land acquired by the City pursuant to this Agreement. itzisany further agreed that any zoning classifications that Kaufhold ma receive by the terms of this Agreement and any subsequent y hearings to be held puts Kaufhold in no greater nor lesser Position than any other property owner with similarly owned land. IN WITNESS WHEREOF* the Agreement to be effective the CITY OF ROSEVILLE By I t s mayor Its Manager Parties hereto have executed this day and year first above written. CERALD H • KAUFHOLD ^I" r ocr 5-1 m6 1Zg7 r _ t j � �—.at rti ...L...0 -.• nf1 � aM ! air � r.a. N I LEXART ADDITION . L7�r5oafe w.Arara. s .r! rt �✓! .� w-xc .« n: f tJ..h{ aaq w M a.� ...a � �K ,.�w:� wr♦ o Tac w ..y few Y/ r.✓�es ...++�.. 3 `rt _ _ - usme�s--A r.4r.+uc jB 'AT A.D t,1. '� 1� ;- Iy 2 A� ♦ e a2 Ei { Y .1 a: tr l Z ,:.ai.Ll,liL_~ 4 1 H+a_ a✓e:-.".C. ARA M-14 G ! —74 Val I oil a ff _ ^°.'q^�<`m. a"'Y""k� �,y�*a 'f •wiC„>e.a.{i` ! � N }t 4/�� �` � ,..._erg _� ..... .�..� V f T _ Tf f't Y .ter '� ,.o.�.a�......_ _ A� �►�' 1' i.R1. I' IF ••tjFFYY �a � ri . a.� �� � a. V Y �:� w p R V .r � s �w � Lot 1 The west 310.00 feet of of the north 356.00 feet the Northeast Quarter of County, Minnesota. Lot 2 the east 619.50 feet of the south 313.00 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 23, Ramsey The west 260.00 feet of the east 309.5 feet of the south 333.00 feet of the north 376.00 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Lot 3 The south 20.0 0 feet of the north 376.00 feet of the west 53.00 feet of the east 362.50 feet and the south 130.15 feet of the north 506.15 feet of the west 313.00 feet of the east 362.50 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Lot 4 The west 362.30 feet of the east 411.80 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15: Township 29, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying south of the nor,--h 506.15 feet. Except the south 30.00 feet thereof. Lot 5 The west 49.30 feet of the east 411.80 feet of the south 150.15 feet of the north 560.15 feet and the west 133.90 feet of the east 545.70 feet except the south 30.00 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying south of '_he north 356.00 feet thereof. Lot 6 The south 313.00 feet of the north 356.00 feet of the wost 40.50 feet of the east 660.00 feet and the west 114.30 feet of the east 660.00 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section lo356h00 feetRange Except,theRamsey southCounty, 00 feetMinnesota lying south of the north thereof.