The URL can be used to link to this page

10/16/2000 CONF MTG - 4703� � CffY QF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING October 16, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. Fridlep Municipal Center Conference Room A (Upper I,evel) 1. Automatic Meter Reading Report. 2. Entrance Fees at Springbrook Nature Center. 3. Speed Limit Change/2o is Plenty Proposal. 4. Seventh Street Drainage Project. 5. Proposed Sprinkler Ordinance Changes. 6. Proposed Changes to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Front Yard Setbacks and Minimum - Lot Sizes. 7. Proposed Manufactured Home Park Closure Ordinance. Adjourn. TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER �� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESEARCH ONAUTOMATED METER READING DEVICES DATE: October 13, 2000 Attached is an overview of some of the research that has been done over the past month. I started the process by conducting a survey of some of the surrounding cities to determine the key components regarding the utility billing in their City. Only a few cities actually utilize the automated reading devices for their utility billing systems. I had an opportunity to go out and visit with the Public Works Director and Water Supervisor in Brooklyn Park to see what direction they were heading, since the rumor was that they were going to make a move to an AMR (automated meter reading system). They provided me with a number of documents that had been produced for the cities of Robbinsdale, New Hope and Champlin. These communities recently did studies on meter replacement programs and AMR systems. In each case, the City determined that they would pursue a meter replacement program and install an AMR system. Our objective in this review was to determine if it was actually cost effective to pursue the installation of some type of ineter reading system. It was assumed that in pursuing a system the water and sewer rates would need to be unaffected by whatever decision was made. This is a key assumption. When we discussed the different processes for reading water meters with our Water Department, we determined that there were four types of reading systems available to Cities, they are: 1. A self read system — customers receive a reading card, record their water reading and mail it in. 2. Telephone Read System- A automated system using the telephone system as a linking device to the City. 3. Portable Radio Read System - An automated system using radio frequency as a linking device to a mobile receiver. 4. Stationary Radio Read System- An automated system using radio frequency as a linking device to a stationary system. 0 Research on Automated Meter Reading Devices Page 2 We have spoken with vendors about each of these types of systems or processes to determine the feasibility of purchasing one of these systems. Attached to this memo you will find some of the summary information related to each system and a recommendation on the final page. In each case when we began discussing the impact to the water and sewer utility, we found that the first issue that came forward was that of ineter replacement. In reviewing our meter inventory we found that the meters are aging, as shown in the following schedule: Meter Inventory Age In Years Over 40 - 416 5% 35 - 40 1220 14°/a 30 - 35 1135 13% 25 - 30 917 11% 20 - 25 878 10% 15 - 20 672 8% 10 - 15 897 11% 5- 10 1058 13% 0 - 5 1254 15% Total Meters 8447 100% Percent over the age of 25 years 44% A concern we have regarding the age of the meters is loss in revenue due to a degradation of the water meter as it slows down with age. In reviewing some of the publications from the American Water Works Association, we found studies that provide schedules by year for the level of under reading. Based on those studies it was determined that meters should be replaced every 25 years. One of the factors in determining the appropriate life of a water meter is the water rate that is charged to determine actual loss. In our case, we need to add the sewer rate to it since the sewer revenues are also generated from the reading, thus making the annual loss greater. RDP/me 0 0 0 0 o � � v X X X X X X X X f0 °o °o � V O O N N E � � � � °� U � t X �- X X X X X X y � o O1 � rn v m � 3 a� Z X X X X X X X X � � O N lfl � � x x x x X x x X X O O O O � O N N x X x x x x x x 00 � 117 N E N e�- E � 0 X U X X X X X X X 0 0 0 0 v o � x X X X X X X N N X X X X X X X X in o 00 0 v ao E �ri E 0 X U X X X X X X X X + 0 0 0 X X X X � X X X X X 0 0 N N r � N X X X X X X X X 0 0 �n o N a0 � xx x X x x X x x N f71 N �p .� >. O 7 �+ � � "' � f/1 O C d ui .� d c o d m o rn � a� � �� ° EO..�O"�. « � `° E c " 2+ M � — � > m -o � � c — � � af°i0-o � £ � � � � � �d� � °> c.9 � i� a� i W _ � ` c c� �n a E 3 a� a� E � a� �� a C7 � �� -L� � o � a �� m c a� m o c � E E'° m � r 2 °—' � a � � a� a� � c d '` d o >. >. o o�• c>, � x U U y H � .. o � > >. >, _ >, �c w fn a� � °� a m � Q 0� _ � v v � "�" 0 y � G' � N C� "O ''_" r L'C C u1 �� V £. � C Y m �"' >> N �� L O N� � C` O 7� O 7 = N 01 O C O N a N U O � N O O C 3 L� � y C C a ,�U��F�O V ��z � ��C7 c�Ci 'n c�z �U� �YCn� �}Z OHH� '�Q--Q � c u� o E � � m E m o a � a �' :r 3 E �n >>. 3 3 >` E °, H � Z 2 U � � Q 2 2 0 Z N Current System & Process Self Read System This system utilizes post cards that are mailed to the customer to record their water reading and mail back by a due date. City is divided into 3 billing districts and billed quarterly. Pro • Most inexpensive System • Does involve 1 1/2 Utility Billing Clerks and various members of the Water Department during each month • Does not involve meter readers for residential • Does involve reading of Commercial/Industrial and Multiple meters(larger meters) Con • This system is based on an honor system • Relies on homeowners to return reading timely • Have to estimate bills when not returned timely • Results in misreads or residents read wrong meter • After a year of no reads, Water Maintenance Dept expends labor to visit site and attempt a read • At no time is the meter reading verified Utility Bill Fridley City Hall Utility Billing _ � � ,� ��; . ,, ,\ .� Current System Self Read Reading Card is mailed Telephone Read System Configurarion: This system utilizes a device attached to the meter that connects to the phone in a home that transmits a reading during the night. It dials City Hall in the evening, and when a connection is made with the computer, it transmits the reading. This is older technology and is not recommended and as such not studied. At this time there are no cities looking into this type of equipment. Con • Devices rely on phone system(unreliable) � Takes a long period of time to collect all calls. • Can have conflict with personal phone usage. • Devices tend to be more problematic Portable Radio Read System Configuration: This system utilizes a radio transmitting device attached to the top of the water meter. It sends a radio signal to a receiving device that is the size of a loaf of bread. It can be moved easily from vehicle to vehicle. It utilizes GPS technology along with the radio device. A address route is loaded in the receiver and placed in a vehicle and then the route is driven. The file is then downloaded into the billing system. I have been told that 6,000 readings can be acquired in a day using this process. Pro • System is owned entirely by the City • Readings can be acquired quickly and on demand • Provides better system to monitor customer complaints on usage problems Con • An employee will need to drive a route approximately two days a month Approximated cost $1,900,000 Annual cost impact to Water and Sewer Fund $126,000 Stationary Radio Read System Configuration: This system utilizes a radio transmitting device attached to the top of the water meter. It sends a radio signal to a receiving device that is attached to a power pole within a 1 or 2 mile radius. It is then sent via a phone line to a regional data collection point and then forwarded on to a central data collection located in Kansas. The reading is then forwarded to the utility via a data file on the internet. Pro • System will provide City with monthly readings via the internet • Does not require any City labor to collect readings • Can request readings on demand(ability to monitor meter on a daily, weekly, monthly basis) • Provides better system to monitor customer complaints on usage problems Con • System ties the City to a new annual overhead for providing the readings • System ties the City to a vendor indefinitely Approximated cost $2,100,000 Annual cost impact to Water and Sewer Fund $140,000 Complete Outsourcing of the Utility Billing Operating using Stationary Radio Read System We had lengthy conversations with NSP regarding the outsourcing of the full utility billing system. Our goal was to provide the Fridley customers with one less check to write out if it would make sense to incorporate our bill into the NSP energy bill. We had a number of conversations with NSP regarding the installation of equipment using the stationary radio read system. After extensive review by the NSP new business development area, they decided that it was not profitable enough for them to pursue. Configuration: This system utilizes a radio transmitting device attached to the top of the water meter. It sends a radio signal to a receiving device that is attached to a power pole within a 1 or 2 mile radius. It is then sent via a phone line to a regional data collection point and then forwarded on to a central data collection located in Kansas. The reading is then forwarded to the utility via a data file on the internet. The data would then be forwarded to NSP to incorporate the City of Fridley Utility Billing information into their energy bill. NSP would then send us the money Pro . NSP would send us the "Money " . Would not require any City Labor other than Customer Service . Would have monthly billing . Provides better system to monitor customer complaints on usage problems Con . NSP determined they did not feel they would be able to get in the business of outsourcing . Cost prohibitive Recommendation As we reviewed each one of the systems, the primary concern we had was to maintain the water rates as low as possible. It appears that with increased accuracy in the system, we should be able to cover the annual charge to the income statement. My recommendation would be to begin a meter replacement program based on the age of the meters to pick up some amount of revenue. As calculated on the previous spreadsheet, with a 5% increase in annual revenues, we should be able to pick up new revenue to support the cost of new meters and reading technology. We could begin to employ the Portable Radio Read System on a systematic basis and conduct comparisons to determine revenue enhancements. This could be a project that is spread over five years beginning with the multiple units, commercial/industrial customers and a defined group of residential customers. This would allow the Water Department employees to end their involvement with the reading process. This is one of those intangible benefits that provides the Water Department with more producrive time that can be applied to system maintenance and support. This is a cost that has not been considered in the cost effecriveness of any one of the scenarios. Also, we will be able to remove the customer from the reading process, and provide more accurate and rimely readings. It would also allow us to monitor those accounts that seem to have water flow disputes. It appears that purchasing a system like a portable radio read system would generate additional revenues to cover the additional costs. Estimate of Project Cost Meter Size 5/8" 6,968 3/4" 617 1" 1 1 1 /2" 223 2" 127 3" 33 4" 10 5" 9 10" 2 12" 1 7, 991 Total Transmitter & New Meter $ 180.00 $ 1,254,240.00 $ 111,060.00 $ 180.00 $ 40,140.00 $ 22,860.00 $ 5,940.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,620.00 $ 360.00 $ 180.00 $1,438,380.00 Portable meter reading device Software Mobile device for collecting readings Possible Savings Install $ 45.00 $ 313,560.00 $ 27,765.00 $ 45.00 $ 10,035.00 $ 5,715.00 $ 1,485.00 $ 450.00 $ 405.00 $ 90.00 $ 45.00 $1,567,800.00 $ 138,825.00 $ 225.00 $ 50,175.00 $ 28,575.00 $ 7,425.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 2,025.00 $ 450.00 $ 225.00 $1,797,975.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 35,000.00 Subtotal $1,841,975.00 Sales Tax $ 119,728.38 $1,961,703.38 Amortization Period 15 Years Annual Amortization a 122,798.33 The amount of time saved is based on the amount of time saved by the Water Department employees not haveing to collect readings from the multiple dwellings, commercial and industrial properties. I one assumes that the Water Employee is not needed then a savings could total Full Time Salarie $ 38,752.57 Medicare Contribution $ 561.83 PERA Contribution $ 2,007.23 FICA Contribution $ 2,402.74 Health Insurance $ 5,650.76 Possible Savings $ 49,375.13 Estimated Revenue Enhancements 1999 Water Revenues $1,597,714.00 1999 Sewer Revenues $ 3,468,816.00 Revenue Enhancement 5% Increased Revenue $ 173,440.80 The revenue enhancement percent is only an estimate. When the City of Edina was contacted they had used a 20% increase when the project was brought to Council. The 5% number we are providing is a conservative number and should be attainable between reading increases from the old meters and a pick up from the error and fraud. r r Recreation and Natural Resource Department emo To: William W. Burns, City Manager �!�� From: Jack Kirk, Director of Recreation and Natural Resources •�`l/ Date: October 5, 2000 Re: Entrance Fees at Springbrook Nature Center The following information is being provided as background information for the City Council conference meeting of October 16t" discussion of entrance fees at Springbrook Nature Center. Can we charge entrance fees at the Nature Center? Yes, we can charge an admission fee or a parking fee at Springbrook. There seems to be a widespread opinion by a number of people involved with the nature center that we cannot charge an admission fee to the facility because it was purchased with LAWCON (Land and Water Conservation Fund) dollars. I talked with a Minnesota DNR representative about this and he confirmed that fees are allowed. He did say that the grant agreement prohibits us from discriminating against users of the park and fees would have to be at a reasonable level. In addition, he said that you can't charge non-residents a lot more than what you charge residents. He thought that it could not be more than double the rate. What do other nature centers charge for entrance fees? I am unaware of any other municipal nature centers in Minnesota that have an admission charge. There is a per vehicle charge for cars entering some of the large county parks (Hennepin and Anoka Counties) that have a nature center located in them. There is not a fee for entering the nature center at these parks. On a national level, I was able to gather some information on nature centers and most of them are also free admission. There are some nature centers that do charge an admission fee and it was usually $2 to $3 for adults per day. There was usually a reduced rate for children and often for senior citizens, but once again, most did not have an admission fee at all. What costs would be incurred by the City if we started charging admissions or for parking at SNC? The costs incurred by the City would depend on what type of facility might be needed for charging admission, what modifications or additions to the parking lot and trails were needed, and what the personnel costs were going to be. Facility... a building of some sort would be required to house the people responsible for collecting fees. Anoka County recently put in gate houses at six locations within their park system. Construction costs for each of these gate house structures was $55,000 to $60,000. We would likely be able to get by with a smaller facility, but even an information kiosk can run $15,000 or more. With special security measures (because we would be collecting money) taken into consideration, I don't think that costs.of $20,000 to $25,000 would be out of line. Building operating costs would have to include heat, lights, telephone service, security measures, and general maintenance. An estimate for these services is $1500 to $2000 per year. Parking Lot and Trails... There would likely have to be some modifications to the parking facility and trails if we are charging admission at SNC. If we charged per car, there would be concerns with traffic flow when cars entering the parking lot were stopped to pay a fee. Other cars could be blocked in and prevented from leaving while cars entering were waiting to pay. If enough cars were entering on a busy day, we could have cars stacked onto 85t" Avenue waiting to enter. At a minimum, another entrance and possibly other modifications to the parking lot may be required. If we charged admission fees per person, there would a problem with the "other" entrances to the parks trail system. Those could be locked shut and the entire park secured with a chain link fence to channel all visitors to the same entrance, but this could amount to a significant dollar outlay as well. If these are not locked, we could expect a large number of park users to enter the park at these remote entrances or simply jump the split rail fence. I don't have a cost estimate on the options for modifying the parking lot, entrances, fencing and trails at this time. When we determine what approach is being considered, we can get the necessary dollar figures. Personnel... Personnel costs for staffing the entrance fee station will vary depending on how many hours we would have people on duty and whether we rely on full-time or part-time help. If we had someone on duty for the same hours that the interpretive building is open, it amounts to 3,314 hours per year. Assuming that we have one person on duty at a time and use several different people to cover all of the hours, it would cost over $32,000 for staffing this operation. In today's job market, it is increasing difficult to find and retain a number of part-time employees. If we use a full-time employee, supplemented by a part-time employee, the costs would be even more because of benefits. Personnel costs could certainly be reduced by cutting back on the number of hours we have someone taking the admission fees, but there would be some related concerns with that approach. I know that Hennepin Parks is concerned with the high personnel costs associated with the gate houses and are looking into automatic entrance gates. They are expecting it would require a large capital outlay to get that type of equipment installed. Using some of the least expensive options for charging admissions, I would conservatively estimate that it would cost us around $40,000 per year or more to run this operation. With any major modifications to the site and perimeter, or with full-time staffing, it could be significantly more. How much money would we make by charging admissions or charging for parking? This is difficult to predict, because we don't know how the public will react to the charging of fees for this facility. Anoka County Parks has six gate houses in the park system for charging a per car fee or selling annual passes. The average gross income for each of these gate houses is around $36,000 per year. This is in a park system that according Met Council estimates draws well over 1 million park visitors each year. Anoka County does not staff the gate houses all day and year round, as they found that many days it was costing much more in staff and operating costs than they were bringing in fees. If we charge a fee of $3 per car to enter the SNC parking lot, it would require 37 paid fees per day just to break even (using a cost estimate of $40,000/yr). This would be 37 cars on average every day of the year that we are open, including winter and inclement weather days. If we charged $2 per person to enter the nature center, it would require at least 56 paid admissions each and every day in order to break even. What are the Benefits and what are the Negatives that could result from instituting a user fee at SNC? Siah and I talked about the benefits and negatives of charging admission. I've listed some of our thoughts as part of this report. Benefits Possible increased revenue to support the nature center operation Security person to watch entrance and parking lot area, where we have had car break-ins in the past Would provide a PR person at the entrance to provide user information • Could create greater public awareness of the costs to operate a public facility such as SNC Neqatives • May keep people away that can't afford or refuse to pay the admission fee • Would require closing of other park entrances that many Fridley residents currently use to access the park • May damage the positive relationship we have with area businesses who allow park users to park in their lots for special events and support the center with donations...workers from the businesses regularly walk the trails during lunch and at break times • Could cause a delay for people to enter the park on heavy use days..also could be a concern for registered program participants and volunteers trying to enter. • Closed gates and additionaf fencing around the park may lead to increased vandalism as people cut holes through the fence to gain access to the park at remote locations These are some thoughts we had as we discussed this issue. There are certainly many other questions that could be addressed as this is reviewed. Bill, I plan to be at the October 16th City Council conference meeting for this agenda item. If you need additional information, please let me know. '. City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager �i1 PW00-119 � FROM: Jon H.,H�ukaas, Assistant Public Works Director -�—_ DATE: September 22, 2000 SUBJECT: Speed Limit Signage As reqnested, we have looked into various options for signage to help reduce speeds through residential neighborhoods. Background: The standard speed 1"unit is set at 30 mph in Minnesota by State statute. Any other speed limit must be posted at the bea nni ng and end of that speed zone. This includes interstate, trunk highways, county roads and higher speed municipal streets. The lowest allowable posted speed limit is 25 mph except for special situations such as school zones or geometric constraints where the sight lines are obstructed by a sharp curve or steep hill. Option 1: "20 is Plenty" Signs 20 mph is below the State's allowable posted speed limit and is therefore unenforceable. However, these signs could be placed on the same posts as our neighborhood identification signs, the Values 15C signs and along with the sponsor plaques on the new City entrance signs. The cost for these signs would be appro�mately $14 each if we purchase over 20 signs. It would take about a week to complete the installation of the signs once received. This should be incorporated into a public awareness program to help educate people to the dangers of speeding in residential areas. Option2: Change Speed Limit at the State Level State-wide organizations bea nning with the League of Minnesota Cities could be approached to work at the state level to change the standard speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph. A state-wide education program would be incorporated into such a move by the legislature. The City would need to install speed limit signs on any street we wish to have a higher speed limit, primarily higher use through streets. The down side is that this would have a much longer timeline to implement. �� September 25, 2000 Page 2 Option 3: Reduce City Speed Limit to 25 rnph Changing the standard speed limit in just the City of Fridley could be accomplished through a change to the City Code. This would require the appropriate notification and public hearings on the issue. The implementation phase will involve the installation of new speed limit signs on every street intersecting a higher speed road. For example, every street intersecting Mississippi Street would require a sign on the north and south sides of the intersection. Installation has a number of components. Each sign must first be sighted to initial a"Gopher State One- Call" for location of underground utilities in the unmediate vicinity. We suggest a bright orange sign be attached to the location lathe notifying the adj acent property owner of the proposed installation. The sign would have a phone number to call to answer quesrions and allowus to coordinate with the property owner if they would like the location adjusted (within reason). This will hopefully reduce or eliminate later complaints and relocation of the sign after installation. After the location is set and underground utilities identified, the signs can then be installed. We estimate a minimum of 500 signs would be required for the necessary locati.ons. Adclitional signs may be needed within neighborhoods along municipal through routes. Each sign and post would cost approxi.mately $35 for materials. A two-man crew of seasonal workers could be trained to do the installation using a standard pick-up, post drivers, and shovels to hand dig where necessary due to the close proximity to underground utilities. Once trained, we expect a dedicated crew could install 12-15 signs per day. The total cost to the City for sign installation will be approximately $35,000 for materials and personnel time and require two to three months to complete. JHH:cz Burns, Bill From: Sent: To: Cc: subject: Haukaas, Jon Thursday, September 28, 2000 11:00 AM Bums, Bill Flora, John Change to 5peed Limit Bili We have dug a littie deeper into the legistlative aspects of lowering the speed limit in Fridley. Speed Limits are set by Minnesota Statute 169.14 S.ubd. 2- Speed Limits. 168.14 Subd. 5- Zoning within local areas deals with the process to change speed limits locally. It states that the "alteration of speed limits on streets shall be made only upon the authority of the Commissioner (of Transportation)" and that the commisioner may authorize such change "upon the basis of an dengineering and traffic investigation". This means that the acceptable speed coutd be set no lower than 85% of the average maximum speed recorded in the traffic study. Please include this information with our memo on Speed Limit Signage. We will bring copies of these Cfiapters to the October 16 Conference meeting to include in this discussion. jo-v� �f �f a�,i.ka.�c.� Assistant Director of Public Works w � . BUfIIS, BIII From: Saliman, Dave Sent: Friday, October 3 2000 10:37 AM To: Bums, Biil rr�� Cc: Lenzmeier, �ary Subject: 25 MPH Gary will be at the Council Work Session on Monday night to represent the PD relative to the signs issue (20 is Plenty, 25 MPH, etc.). I don't have any incredibly strong feelings about it, just that everyone should understand there is a provision in the Statutes to reduce the speed on City streets from the standard 30 MPH to 25 MPH. It would be cumbersome (and expensive) to post every block in the City. That is the requirement however to achieve the 25 MPH speed. There are some other requirements that Jon Haukaas covered in his memo. The other side of the issue is that speeding on residential streets is far and away the biggest citizen concern that we (the PD) receive. The problem is that 30 (or 31,32, 33, etc.) appear to be very fast on most residential streets. When we try to verify using the speed trailer or radar, the vast majority of the vehicles are not violating the speed by any great amount. A 25 MPH speed would slow down traffic and give us the range that we would need to tag if a motorist chooses to go at 30 MPH or slightly greater. It is my suggestion to make it one of the questions on the next City survey that we conduct. This is probably an issue that people could assist in deciding through the survey. I would include the cost of implementation in the question. As 1 stated previously, this is not a big issue to us, just that the Council should be aware of the options that are available. �t City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager � 1 � FROM: John G. F1ora�Public Works Director DATE: September 6, 2000 SUBJECT: 7`� Street Flooding PW00-114 In the past on a few occasions, the intersection of 64�' and 7`� Street flooded during a major storm event. In 1997 after a major storm, the City worked with the property owner at 6390 7`� Street to construct a swale along his northerly property line to provide an outlet for the water accumulation in the street to drain into the Village Green detention pond, thereby eliminating the threat of water entering the residence. This work was completed in July 1997. Since that time we have had no problems in that area until the recent rain event of September 2, 2000. During that event the water did build up in the street as a result of an intense short duration rain. No property damage was noted. It appeared that the system operated as intended and designed. This area of 7`'' and 64`h is a low spot and the surface waters drain into a pipe system which collects water from a large area to the east. As this system fills up the pipe, the water collected at 7`� and 64t1i cannot drain until the downstream pipe system has space. A question arose as to what can be done to improve this system. Since this drainage area collects water along Mississippi Street from Highway 65 to University Avenue and drains through a pipe system to Rice Creek. To alleviate this problem, an additional storm sewer line would have to be constructed on 7`� Street to 67`h Avenue then down 6�' Street to Rice Creek Terrace and then through property on the dxainage easement into Rice Creek. This would result in considerable disruption of traffic and services to all the homes as a result of a new storm water drain line. An estimate for this additional pipe is $350,000. If the council desires to do such an ixnprovement, we can develop specific plans. JGF:cz i r, f I _ _ C�'iY OF FRi DLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNNERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 July 30, 1997 Mr. Tay Kersey 151 Silver Lake Rd New Brighton MN 55112 Subject: Storm Water Repairs at 6390 7th Street Dear Mr. Kersey: PW97-111 As a result of the exception rains that the City experienced during the first part of July, the City staff has been reviewing the storm water effects and possible improvements that can be made to the surface water system as a means of reducing damage and/or precluding further reoccurrence of some of the experiences this past month. As a result, the City proposes to accomplish the following action adjacent to your property as a corrective measure. If you have any concerns or questions regazding this proposal, please contact me at 572-3550 so that we may answer any of your concerns and schedule the appropriate work. We propose to construct an overflow swale from the street to the Village Green pond along the north property line within our 20 foot drainage utility easement. This swale will be mowable but will allow an outlet for any street accumulations of water to directly flow into the pond, thereby reducing the amount of water which could flow across the front of the property and around the south side of the hoiise. Sincerely yours, .�� .i� ��/"� ,-�`� = - '�John G. Flora Director of Public Works JGF:cz •31n w00tl9 —_�� r,., T� - � �Y" r . � �,MP � .)iY1S tl0�A1la iiAalL �31�v0 � _ � s 1 � � ' � � l7 Illt � f � • �� 1 _ � � i �ns� �� ` � � . \� � � � \ . 17)Y�t � w d - � i � � � OIr11[ � i7�Y/t � N)Yn� • . n � �- _ .� : � , r .,� 1 � �Yl • s f h �� % 1±,�1` J� , � � ��b ��. � 0 � r i f li7Yat �� MOff1�t� tll�lt l�M1Ap � � u �_ > 0 Y � 1�11ai 7oYMOw �. V > � a)7�1i MOf�Ot� 0 s ► �. r! � . �...' ..__--- - --- �� I . I • ��i� �� •� � • • � r '. � / ��r� � � 1 1 i — ♦ lY ��—=y � � f� .� �„ —V i` —.�))111: Nli . ■ .— . W f / W� � bZ . �� . W t f) Y�'r Y Y)a�• � 0 l�• � • . ',r � ,,,'� ,1 � � �nR . :F r7 � t , � MEMORAND U1V� TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAG �� FROM: RALPH MESSER, FIItE MARSHAL , DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2000 SUBJECT: SPRINKLER ORDINANCE Ron Julkowski and I will attend the Monday evening Conference Meeting to discuss staff's recommendation to adopt by reference Chapter 1306 -"Special Fire Protection Systems" of the Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 16B.59 et seq. The amendment to our City Code would replace Chapter 205.04.08 "Fire Protection Requirements" in its entirety. This is necessary because: • Our legal counsel has advised that the City's current sprinkler system legislation should not be predicated on zoning, and is unenforceable in its current state. • Chapter 1306 of the State Building Code is the standard offered and recommended by the State. • This is a"minimum-m�imum" standard, that is, municipalities which adopt it are not allowed to change the requirements to make the standard more or less restrictive. If you have additional questions, please contact me. crrr oF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2000 Date: 10/ 12/00 To: William W. Burns, City Manager � �� From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director; Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator RE: Proposed Changes to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Front Yard Setbacks and Minimum Lot Sizes BACKGROUND At the joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting last May, Plaiuiing Staff presented the concepts of reducing the front yard setback in the single-family residential district and permitting construction on lots with lot sizes below 7,500 square feet. The City Manager followed up with a video production of these topics that aired this summer, and a recent edition of the Community Update/Newsletter contained an article about the proposed zoning text amendments. A third topic was also discussed at that time to amend the code to permit detached garages with new construction. Since then, staff has determined that there is sufficient authority with the existing ordinance language to pernut detached garages. Another recently produced resource that has proven to be very helpful is "A Patternbook For New Homes", the Fridley HRA's guidebook for new homes on scattered site lots. It was prepared by Robert Gerloff, a residential architect, and provides valuable guidelines for various aspects of home site design (e.g. the impact of garage placement on a lot). Gerlof�s analysis on a variety of design issues are also pertinent to home additions or other remodeling projects. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends a 25-foot front yard setback for additions and new home construction. It is also recommended that garage expansions or new garages in the front yard not exceed a distance of five feet in front of the home. The memo also explains the necessity for other amendments to related provisions in the zoning code for building in the front yard. 2. Staff recommends the creation of an "overlay" zoning district to regulate construction on lots that are 50 feet wide and have a minimum lot azea of 5,000 square feet. The title of the district is O-5, "Residential Lots Created Prior to 1955 Overlay District". The proposed ordinance would not however permit new subdivision of land into 5,000 square foot lots. PROCESS The Planning Commission and City Council will consider the zoning text amendment for front yard setbacks first for formal consideration. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission would hold its hearing on December 6, 2000, with the Council hearing on December 18, 2000. The O-5 District proposal will require preparation of an extensive mailing list of not only the property owners directly affected by the amendment but the property owners that surround them. As a result, a mailing list of entire neighborhoods such as Riverview Heights or the Plymouth Addition will be developed. The O-5 District proposal will be considered on January 17, 2001 by the Planning Commission and then the Council on February 5, 2001. BD/bd M-00-177 � � CffY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING OF Date: 10/12/00 To: William Burns, City Manager OCTOBER 16, 2000 From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Paul Bolin, Planner RE: Information on Draft Ordinance Creating An Overlay District For Those Lots Outside of Hyde Park Created Prior to December 9, 1955. M-00-175 INTRODUCTION Lacking large tracts of undeveloped land, it is imperative that the City of Fridley explore ways to preserve and enhance existing housing stock while providing opportunities for infill development. Preliminary data obtained by planning staff indicates that there are 220 lots between 5,000 sq. ft. and 7,499 sq. ft. in size outside the HYDE PARK ADDITION, both developed and vacant, which under current zoning requirements are considered non-conforming. Staff has investigaied different ways to allow in-fill development on these vacant parcels and re-investment in the homes already located on these non-conforming lots. The purpose of this memo is to provide the rationale for recommending an Ordinance revision to permit expansion and new construction on lots, platted prior to December 29, 1955, between 5,000 and 7,499 square feet. BACKGROUND Prior to the incorporation of Fridley, the residential areas were platted and otherwise subdivided with lots of varying sizes, some as small as 25" X 110" (2,750 sq. ft.). Since December 29, 1955 the R-1 Single Family section of the zoning code has required that all single family lots created have a minimum lot area of 9,000 sq. ft. and a minimum lot width of 75'. The R-1 Section of the zoning code requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. ft. for those lots created prior to December 29, 1955. Past concerns with substandard lot sizes in the HYDE PARK ADDITION led to the creation of the "S-1 HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT REGULATIONS" special zoning district in 1976. This special district,. developed by a neighborhood task force, retained the 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size, but reduced the minimum lot width to 60'. Due to the heavy citizen involvement in the creation of the HYDE PARK special district, staff is not recommending the inclusion of the HYDE PARK ADDITION in the proposed overlay district. Of the approximate 220 lots between 5,000 sq. ft. and 7,499 sq. ft. in size outside the HYDE PARK ADDITION, both developed and vacant, approximately 110 of them are located in RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS and 10 are located in the PLYMOUTH ADDITION. Staff is working with the GIS Department to further narrow down the exact number of properties, both vacant and developed meeting the criteria to be included in the overlay district. COUNCIL / COMMISSION SURVEY RESULTS This past years Council / Commission survey asked whether or not the City should create special zoning districts for areas of the City where there are high concentrations of non-conforming single family lots. Two of the Council members were in favor of allowing lots of 50' in width and 5,000 square feet in size. One Council member would choose to align lot width and area requirements with existing conditions, one member chose to leave the requirements as they are, and one Council member did not know. Of the 41 Commission responses, seven of them would make no changes to the existing requirements. Thirty three of the Commissioners would make some kind of change and 1 didn't know. Of the 33 who would make changes, 19 of the Commissioners would support lot sizes of at least 5,000 square feet in size and the other 11 respondents would align lot width and area requirements with existing circumstances. PROPOSED OVERLAY DISTRICT City planning staff is proposing the creation of the "O-5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS CREATED PRIOR TO 1955 OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS". This overlay district would apply to all residential lots created in the City of Fridley prior to December 29, 1955. The overlay district will not enable property owners to subdivide existing lots into the smaller sizes proposed in the overlay district. The "O-5" district would reduce minimum lot size to 5,000 sq. ft., reduce the minimum lot width to 50', reduce the required rear yard setback for living area to 25', reduce the required rear yard setback for an attached garage to 15', and increase the allowable lot coverage to 35% for those lots created prior to December 29, 1955. Making these changes will allow infill development in some of the older portions of Fridley and remove the "non-conforming" status from a number of existing homes, leading to reinvestment in our existing housing stock. Property owners on "non-conforming" lots do not have any incentive to maintain or improve their housing stock, as they will lose the investment in the event of fire or natural disaster that damages the home beyond 40% of iYs market value. Lot size does not dictate home value. To give you some idea of what kind of a home could be built on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot with 35% lot coverage and a 15' rear yard setback please refer to the site plan below. It should be noted that the construction cost of this home (based on $115/sq. ft.) is $119,600. The construction cost of the garage is approximately an additional $12,000 for a total construction cost of $131,600. It should be noted that these construction costs only include materials and labor and are not reflective of the actual selling price for these homes. One item not included, which would raise the actual selling price for new homes, is the actual selling price of the lot. In reviewing assessed values and some comparable lot sales, it is estimated that these lots may sell anywhere befinreen $8,000 and $20,000+ depending on size and location. -� � � � Sample Site Plan For 5,000 sq. ft. lot. WHAT YOU MAY HEAR FROM OPPONENTS & STAFF RESPONSES 1. 20 to 30 years from now, new houses on the lots are going to look "run down" just like some of the existing homes in these neighborhoods. • The housing market is completely different today than 40-80 years ago when many of the smaller houses in these areas were built as "cottages". • Construction of a new home is very expensive, and that represents an '"investment" that the owner is going to maintain...$125,000 to $160,000 is a lot of money, and a significant part of one's life earnings would be made to maintaining that. • By making smaller lot sizes conforming, people will reinvest in their existing homes and we will not have as many "run down" homes in these areas. 2. Suburbs are supposed to have space! They will be right on top of the house next door! • The City has seen one story ramblers on 75 foot wide lots get wider every year with two and three car garages...some garages are as close as 10 feet (garage to garage), and some with variances even closer. From a streetscape point of view, its not a problem. The city has to adapt to changes in the culture. • Though the lot sizes may be smaller, the same side yard setbacks will still apply, so the homes will not be closer to neighboring homes than in any other portion of the City. 3. These lots have no depth, how can you get a reasonable house and garage on there? • We have examined various site plans, including some in the City's remodeling handbook, which show that it is very practical to place a reasonable size home and garage on these lots. The site plan included in this memo is just one example. • St. Louis Park and Richfield have been permitting the same thing on smaller width lots...their programs have been very successful. BENEFITS OF APPROVING OVERLAY DISTRICT Why should the City of Fridley approve this overlay district, reducing the minimum lot size of these lots which were created prior to December 29, 1955? The most obvious reasons are to spur reinvestment in the existing housing stock and to provide additional opportunities for new homes in Fridley. The following list summarizes the benefits of creating this overlay district. • Provide housing options & choices. Lacking the large tracts of undeveloped land found in outer suburbs, Fridley must look at infill development to provide additional housing opportunities. This overlay district would create additional opportunities for new construction. • Homes on non-conforming lots become a"lost investment". Owners will not invest in a home on a non-conforming lot due to the fear of losing the investment in the event the home becomes more than 40°/a destroyed in fire or natural disaster. • Gives City, HRA, & residents more flexibility in developing and rehabilitating housing. Allowing construction on these lots will enable the HRA more opportunities to purchase additional lots and develop more single family homes. Removing the "non-conforming" status from existing homes will allow more residents to participate in City/HRA housing rehabilitation programs. • Does not increase density. These are lots of record created prior to December 29, 1955. Sideyard setbacks will remain the same. The wording in the overlay district does not allow property owners to now create smaller lots. • Tax forfeiture of "substandard lots" has a cost for neighborhood and City. Unbuildable lots that end up "tax forfeit" do not generate taxes for the City, County, or School district. These properties end up costing the Fridley tax payers money as they become a habitual maintenance problem. • Lot width does not dictate home value. The square footage of the home, the design, materials, and labor put into the home determine home value. The trend across the nation has been to build larger homes on smaller lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Unless instructed otherwise, staff will proceed to the Planning Commission with the attached draft of the O-5 overlay district at their meeting on January 17, 2001. The proposal would then be sent to the City Council on February 5, 2001. 205.XX O-5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS CREATED PRIOR TO 1955 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1. TITLE This Section shall be referred to as the "Pre-1955 Lots" in short form. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this special zoning district is to: A. Change the present "legal, nonconforming use" status of the residential dwellings located in this district on lots over 5,000 square feet in size to a"confornung use" status. B. Re-establish and maintain the residential character of Fridley's neighborhoods. C. Protect the property rights of all present landowners as much as possible, while promoting reinvestment and infill development in Fridley neighborhoods. D. Establish a zoning mechanism for the City that will encourage residential investment and development on those lots created and recorded prior to December 29, 1955. 3. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES The extent of this zoning overlay shall be comprised of those residentially zoned lots split, platted and recorded at Anoka County prior to December 9, 1955. These Plats include the Adams Street Addition; Auditor's Subdivisions #22, #23, #25, #39, #59, #77, #78, #79, #88, #89, #92, #94, #94 Sublot 10, #108, #129, #153,  Berlin Addition; Brookview Addition; Brookview 2nd Addition; Camp Howard and Hush's ls` Addition to Fridley Park; Carlson's Summit Manor North Addition; Carlson's Summit Manor South Addition; Central Avenue Addition; Central View Manor; City View; Clover Leaf Addition; Clover Leaf 2°d Addition; Dennis Addition; Donnay's Lakeview Manor; Elwell's Riverside Heights; Elwell's Riverside Heights Plat 2; Florence Park Addition to Fridley; Fridley Park; Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville; Hayes River Lots; Horizon Heights; Irvington Addition to Fridley Park; Lowell Addition to Fridley Park; Lucia Lane Addition; Lund Addition; Meloland Gardens; Moore Lake Addition; Moore Lake Highlands & Additions 1-4; Moore Lake Hills; Moore Lake Park Addition; Moore Lake Park 2nd Addition; Murdix Park; Niemann Addition; Norwood Addition to Fridley Park; Oak Creek Addition; Oak Creek Addition Plat 2; Oak Grove Addition to Fridley Park; Oakhill Addition; Onaway; Osborne Manor; Oshnans ls` Addition; Ostamans 2nd Addition; Parkview Manor; Plymouth; Rearrangement of Blocks 13, 14, 15 Plymouth; Rearrangement of Lots 1,2,3, Blk 1 and Lots 1,2,3, Blk 4 Pice Creek Terrace Plat 2; Rees Addition to Fridley Park; Reivised Auditors Subdivisions #10, #21, #23, #77, #103; Rice Creek Terrace Plats 1-4; Riverview Heights; Sandhurst Addition; Scherer Addition; Shaffer's Subdivsion #1; Shorewood; Springbrook Park; Spring Lake Park Lakeside; Spring Valley; Subdivsion of Lot 10, Auditors Subdivision #94; Sylvan Hills; Sylvan Hills Plat 2 & 3; Vineland Addition to Fridley Park; and any unplatted lots created, prior to December 29, Chapter 205.XX 1955, as recorded at Anoka County. 4. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in the O-5 District: One-family dwellings. B. Accessory Uses. (1) Only one (1) accessory building in excess of 240 square feet is allowed per site. One (1) additional accessory building is allowed provided it does not exceed 240 square feet. (2) Any accessory building in excess of the above requirements (square footage or number of buildings) requires a Special Use Permit. (3) All accessory buildings must be permanently attached to a foundation and may not be used for home occupations. (4) All garages whether attached to, tucked under or detached from the main dwelling are considered to be an accessory building. The following are accessory uses in the O-5 District: (a) Private garages or other accessory buildings. (b) Privately owned recreational facilities, such as swimming pools, tennis courts, which are for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents of the principal use and their guests. (c) Home occupations including rental of rooms for occupancy to not more than two (2) persons per dwelling unit. C. Existing Uses. (1) Existing one (1) family dwellings that do not conform to the conditions of this Chapter will be allowed to continue as a permitted use. In the event that the main structure is either damaged or destroyed, the existing use will be allowed to rebuild to the setbacks of the existing building or to the allowed setbacks of the district. Alterations and additions will be allowed when they improve the structure, provided they meet the required setbacks as stated in this Chapter. D. Uses Excluded. The following are excluded uses in the O-5 District: 2 Chapter 205.XX (1) Radio or television antennas exceeding a height of twenty (20) feet above the dwelling roof. (2) Any use not specifically permitted in the preceding paragraphs of this Section. 5. LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS A. Lot Area. A lot area of not less than 5,000 square feet is required. B. Lot Width. (1) The width of a lot shall not be less than fifty (50) feet at the required setback. Corner lots shall not be less than sixty-five (65) feet at the required setback. C. Lot Coverage: Not more than thirty-five percent (35%) of the area of a lot shall be covered by buildings. D. Setbacks: (1) Front Yard: A front yard with a depth of not less than twenty-five (25) feet is required. (2) Side Yard: Two (2) side yards are required, each with a width of not less than ten (10) feet, except as follows: (a) Where a house is built without an attached garage, a minimum side yard requirement shall be ten (10) feet on one side, and thirteen (13) feet on the other side, so that there is access to the rear yard for a detached garage and off-street parking area. (b) Where a house is built with an attached garage, the side yard adjoining the attached garage or accessory building may be reduced to not less than five (5) feet, provided the height of the garage or accessory building on that side is not more than fifteen (15) feet. (3) Corner Lots: (a) The side yard width on a street side of a corner lot shall be not less than seventeen and one-half (17.5) feet. (b) Any attached or unattached accessory building which opens on the side street, shall 3 Chapter 205.XX be at least twenty-five (25) feet from the property line on a side street. (4) Rear Yard: A rear yard with a depth of not less than twenty-five (25) feet permitted for living area, however, setback may be reduced to 15' fro an attached garage located in rear of lot. 6. BUILDING REQUIREMENTS A. Height. No building shall hereafter be erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, enlarged or moved, so as to exceed the building height limit of thirty (30) feet. B. Minimum Floor Area. A one-family dwelling unit shall have a minimum first floor area of 768 square feet of living space. 7. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: A. Parking Requirements. (1) At least two (2) off-street parking stall shall be provided for each dwelling unit. (2) No parking stall shall be located in any portion of the front yard, except on a driveway or hardsurfaced parking space, approved by the City, and set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the side properiy line, except as agreed to in writing by adjacent property owners and filed with the City. (3) A garage shall satisfy the off-street parking stall requirement. (4) All driveways and parking stalls shall be surfaced with blacktop, concrete or other hard surface material approved by the City. B. Exterior Storage. (1) Nothing shall be stored in the required front yard. (2) All materials shall be kept in a building or shall be fully screened, so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way except for stacked firewood, boats and trailers placed in the side yard. C. Refuse. All waste materials, refuse or garbage shall be contained in closed containers as required under the Chapter entitled "Waste Disposal" of the Fridley City Code. 4 Chapter 205.XX D. Drainage And Grade Requirements. A finished ground grade shall be established such that natural drainage away from all buildings is provided. The following minimum criteria shall apply: (1) The minimum elevation of finished grade shall not be less than one fourth (1/4) inch rise per horizontal foot of setback measured from curb grade. (2) The City may specify a minimum finished ground grade for any structures in order to allow proper drainage and connection to City utilities. E. Landscaping. The following shall be minimum criteria for landscaping: (1) Sodding and landscaping shall extend across the entire front yard and side yards including the boulevard. (2) All other open areas of any site, except for areas used for parking, driveways or storage, shall be sodded, seeded or have vegetative cover. (3) All uses shall provide water facilities to yard areas for maintenance of landscaping. (4) It shall be the owner's responsibility to see that all required landscaping is maintained in an attractive, well kept condition. (5) All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shall be properly maintained in an orderly manner free of litter and junk. F. Maintenance. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that: (1) Every exterior wall, foundation and roof of any building or structure shall be reasonably watertight, weathertight and rodentproof and shall be kept in a good state of maintenance and repair. Exterior walls shall be maintained free from extensive dilapidation due to cracks, tears or breaks of deteriorated plaster, stucco, brick, wood or other material that gives evidence of long neglect. (2) The protective surface on exterior walls of a building shall be maintained in good repa.ir and provide a sufficient covering and protection of the structural surface against its deterioration. Without limiting the generality of this Section, a protective surface of a building shall be deemed to be out of repair if: (a) More than twenty-five percent (25%) of the area of any plane or wall o n which the protective surface is paint is blistered, cracked, flaked, scaled or chalked away, or 5 Chapter 205.XX (b) More than twenty-five percent (25%) of the pointing of any brick or stone wall is loose ar has fallen out. (3) Every yard and all structures, walls, fences, walks, steps, driveways, landscaping and other exterior developments shall be maintained in an attractive, well kept condition. (4) The boulevard area of a premises shall be properly maintained, groomed and cared for by the abutting property owner. G. Essential Services. (1) Connection is required on each lot served by City sanitary sewer. (2) Connection is required on each lot served by a City water line. C� � � Cf17 OF FRIDLEY DATE: TO: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2000 October 12, 2000 William Burns, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Stacy Bulthuis, Planner SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment to modify the front yard setback from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty-five (25) feet M-00-174 Introduction City staff is requesting consideration of a text amendment to the City Zoning code to allow for a front yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet in the R-1 One- family dwelling district. In addition to the front yard setback reduction, finro additional minor modifications will need to be made to section 205.04.4G and 205.04.06.A3. Background Since the first zoning ordinance was adopted in 1955, the front yard setback has been thirty-five (35) feet. This distance is typical of traditional "suburban" zoning requirements of the post World War II era. In order to prepare for this amendment, staff reviewed existing setbacks in the R- 1 District, researched previously granted variances, surveyed other similar city setbacks, and analyzed how the changes would impact lots in Fridley. Council/Commission Survey Results The results from the Council/Commission survey showed that a majority of the Council members would support some reduction in the front yard setback. Three of the Council members would support changing the front yard setback requirement from 35' to 30' and would allow enclosed as well as unenclosed porches and decks to be built up to 20' from the front lot line. The other two Council members stated that the setback requirements should not be changed and they would continue to evaluate variances for porches and decks on a case to case basis. With these results in mind, staff is proposing the front yard setback be reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet. Why the Changes? Fridley is now a predominately "fully developed" city, so land is not available to provide new and/or "move up" housing. Allowing the residents of Fridley to expand and to remodel their homes enables the housing of the 1950's to be more usable to today's lifestyles as well as encouraging residents to reinvest in their properties and stay in Fridley. Why Reduce the Front Yard Setback? Reducing the front yard setback came up as a solution to accomplish the following: • Permit additional living area and therefore rearrangement of the old 50's floor plan to a more updated current floor plan � • Recent input from the public indicates a desire for a front porch feature therefore making the front yard more usable as a"gathering space" • Permits residents to expand their homes to meet their lifestyle needs: ❑ Gives Empty-Nesters the ability to add more living area to the main floor for typical improvements like main floor bathrooms, master bedrooms, or laundry rooms ❑ Permits extra space for young families Other Cities Setback Reauirements Of the Cities surveyed, two out of the twelve have a 25-foot front yard setback. Seven out of the twelve have a 30-foot front yard setback and the remaining three have a setback of 35 feet. Attached are the findings from the Cities surveyed. Impact on Typical Fridley Lots Staff will show site plans of typical Fridley lots on Monday night. Staff finds that based on variances granted in the past, the additional 10 feet will not adversely affect adjacent properties. In the last two years, 14 out of the total 59 variances requested were to reduce the front yard setback. Nine out of the fourteen were variances approved for living area additions, garage additions, or porches. The remaining five variances were approved to correct an existing nonconformity. Of the nine variances granted for living area additions, garage additions, or porches, the greatest reduction allowed into the front yard setback was 10 feet. An additional ten feet is not significant enough to adversely affect site lines. Further, adequate room exists for parking of vehicles in front of the garage, especially given that typical lots have an additional 8 to 10 feet of boulevard space adjacent to the street. An additional ten feet gives homeowners plenty of room for rearranging the floor plan or expanding the existing living area. Staff does not recommend that lot coverage requirement be increased to beyond 25%. It may be good to maintain that standard in order to force a variance and further review by the Appeals Commission. Garayes Garages are getting bigger and closer to the street. As has been adeptly pointed out in the Fridley HRA "A Patternbook for New Homes", an overbearing predominance of a large garage can detract from existing Fridley landscape (see attached pages from Pattern Book). The proposed change to the ordinance would allow Fridley residents to expand their garages from 35 feet to 25 feet but not more than 5 feet in front of the home. This will give residents the extra room they need for additional vehicles, toys, and tools without allowing the garage to dominate the streetscape. By limiting the garage addition to 5 feet in front of the house, the character of the neighborhoods would not be as adversely changed by a protruding garage. Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of the proposed zoning text amendment to modify the front yard setback from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty-five (25) feet for the garage and home on new construction as well as additions for living area, additions to garages, and front porches on existing structures. Staff also recommends approval on the changes to Section 205.04.4G and 205.04.06.A3. Listed below are the proposed text amendments. Unless otherwise directed, staff will schedule the ordinance amendment before the Planning Commission on December 6 and the City Council on December 18. The amendment, in general will encourage the residents of Fridley to stay in Fridley and invest in their homes and community. TEXT AMENDMENT Amending Section 205.07.3D (1) Change (1) to read (1) Front Yard: A front yard with a depth of not less than ' twenty five (25� feet is required, except as noted in Section 205.04.4G. In no case may a qarage extend more than five (5) feet in front of the home. TEXT AMENDMENT Amending Section 205.04.4G Change (G) to read (G) Where the front yard setback of existing building is greater than the minimum front yard setback required and said existing buildings are within one hundred (100) feet on either side of a structure to be erected, then the setback for the new structure can be six (6) feet more or less of this mean depth of the adjacent structures but in no case shall it be less than the required front yard setback. In the case where one of the adjacent properties is vacant, the assumed setback will be the minimum front yard setback requirement of the zoning district that a�plies to the propert� TEXT AMENDMENT Amending Section 205.04.06.A3 Change (3) to read (3) , , Canopies and steps to building entrances may extend not more than ten (10) feet into any required front yard. Decks. unenclosed porches. canopies and steps to building entrances may extend not more than ten (10) feet into the required e� rear yard setback and not more than three (3) feet into any required side yard, provided they do not extend nearer than five (5) feet to any lot line. APPENDIX A Table 1, Singie Family Residential Setback and Lot Requirements City Froot Yard Setback o.�. v.... e_.�--.- -• •-- -- • �•.� ��. aap[n . i o• iN�n� area Not more than 257G unenclosed porehes, (no less than ZS' . g� accessory bldg for prt�eipal � deeks, canop/es and and no greater . See 205 07.03 for accessory structures steps to bu/ld/ngs may than 40'j extend 10' lnto setback) comer lot excepNon Roseville 30' 30' • comer- 30' none • 5' Golden Vailey 35' 20% of lot depth • lot width>100'=15' • lot width 70'-99' =15% of lot width • lot width<70'= �rth or west 10% bt width, south or east 20% of lot width Crystal 30' 30' (exception: entry 5' porches may extend 4' into the setback) St. Louis Park . SF larger lot - 30' • 25� • SF smaller lot - 25' (recenUy lowered by 5' for each disUicq (exception: open- porches may be as close as 20') Brooklyn Paric 35' 30' Richfieid 25. 30' (exception: 20• tor porches if ineet design �equirements - see design ezception be%w) Hopkins 25' to 40' 25' to 40' rwne 0 Commenb Have recentlyr passed a setback permit process to allow for encroachme�ts into setbacks under administrative review (see Appendix D fo� details). Have granted an addiGonal 6'-T in front yard for porches. 30% of rear yard Feels the fro�t yard (behind principal bldg) setback could be 20'- for accessory 25'. swctures • SF larger lot - 6' and None 9' unless attached 9a�9e or alley...then 6' both sides. If building is greater than 2 stories, require 9' and 11' unless attached garage or alley...then 9' both sides. • SF smaller lat - 5' and 7' unless attached garage o� aliey...then 5' bath sides. If building greater than 2 stories, require 7' and 9' unless attached garage or aliey then both 7'. • 10' interior lot line none • 20' street side (exception: 5' for addition of garage) • 12' street Not more than 35�o for Lot coverage, garage • 5' side interior principal 8 accessory expansion, and front • 3' for expansion of structures porches were issues single to double garage that they have (provided garage at addressed. least 20') 8' to 14' Not more than 35% for Their single-family principal and districts are classified accessory structures. into five categories based on density. A range was used to illustrate the variation of setback reauirements_ Table 1. New Hope 30' Coon Rapids 35' Columbia 25' Heights Robbinsdale 30' Bloamingtan 30' Residential Setback and Lot 1 Setback Rear Yard S�tba �v . a� garage a accessory • 10' dwelling • ZO' dwelling on comer lot 25' • qarage - 5' • dweliing - 10' • 35' living area 8. 5' garage or deck deck . 10' living • 20' deck 30' 20°h of lot depth 30' 7' Lot Covengs none none Not more than 30% oi lot pn consist of buildings, driveways, and parkin9 areas (open decks and paGos not included). • bt>6500sq.ft. = 30% • lot<6500sq.fL = 35°b • come� -15' none • nortnal - 5' • 10' living space none • 5' garage or accessory They break-down their variances as standa�d and administrative. M administrative variance doesn't require planning commission review, rather a hearing examiner (s:aH member) approves the variance. The administrative variances are less controversial, thus, do not require planning commission review. iichfield's exception to setbacks A. The following shall not be encroachments on yard requirements. 10. On principal residential structures, open covered porches which do not contain either windows or screens and are a minimum of 5 feet from any interior Iot line, 9 feet from any side yard line abutting a sUeet, 25 feet from any rear lot Iine and 20 feet from any front lot tine. Porches shalt be open between the floor and the ceiling. All reilings shall be open utilizing posts and spindles. (Added by Ord. 2111-98 3-16-98) VARIANCES -1994 TO PRESENT Page 8 ,�'1f��E �; `; UARfANCE REQ[JESTEQ � ��'�' �� `� '�� ,��f1�F]RESS x � � ��; _.. �� -� �� _ �� a�� " � ��t�3: �� - � �,�_ �_ ; . :�. � . � � � #98-29 1. To reduce the side yard setback from 3 ft. to 2 ft. - withdrawn 113 Pilot Ave 2. To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 25 ft.; To allow the construction of a ara e- a roved #98-30 withdrawn #98-31 1. To decrease the minimum lot area from 20,000 sq. ft. to 12,991 sq. ft.; 6301 Highway 65 2. To decrease the minimum side yard setback from 15 ft. to 0 ft.; 3. To decrease the minimum setback for a hard surface area from the side lot line from 5 ft. to 0 ft.; 4. To decrease the minimum setback for a hard surface area from the street right-of-way from 20 ft. to 1.5 ft.; To allow the develo ment of a commercial site - denied #98-32 withdrawn #98-33 To increase the allowable encroachment into the rear yard setback from 10 ft. 6310 7 St to 17 ft. to allow the construction of a deck - a roved #98-34 1. To increase the maximum height of a sign from 25 ft. to 50 ft. - approved 7651 Highway 65 to 40 ft.; 2. To increase the size of a sign from 80 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. - denied; 3. To place a free standing sign on an entry driveway rather than the code requirement of locating the sign 10 ft. from any driveway or property line - approved to 3 ft. from driveway; To allow the construction of a free-standin lon si n #98-35 To increase the allowable encroachment into the rear yard setback from 10 ft. 5869 Hackmann Ave to 14 ft. 7'/z in. to allow the continuance of an existin deck - a roved #98-36 To increase the allowable encroachment into the side yard of a corner lot from 6875 Washington St 3 ft. to 5 ft. 11 in. to allow the construction of an open deck and steps - a roved #98-37 1. To increase the maximum lot coverage of the main building and all 5427 4 Street accessory buildings from 30% to 32% - approved; 2. To decrease the driveway width from 25 ft. to 23 ft. - denied; 3. To decrease the setback from the alley from 15 ft. to 5 ft. 9 in. - approved; To allow the construction of an 8 unit apartment building - approved decrease in north side ard setback from 15 ft. to 13 ft. #98-38 To decrease the required setback from the right-of-way to the driveway from 6431 Highway 65 20 ft. to 0 ft. to extend the driveway for adequate fire protection for a proposed chiro ractic clinic - a roved #98-39 To increase the allowable encroachment into the rear setback from 10 ft. to 13 7661 Brigadoon PI ft. to allow the re lacement of an existin deck - a roved #98-40 To allow the storage of a travel trailer on a blacktop driveway in the front yard 560 Fairmont St rathe� than the side or rear ard - denied #99-01 To allow the storage of a travel trailer on a blacktop driveway in the front yard 6949 Hickory Dr rather than the side or rear ard - denied #99-02 withdrawn #99-03 To decrease the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 28 ft. to allow the construction 350 Ironton St of a 96 s. ft. entrance fo er - a roved #99-04 To decrease the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 29 ft. to allow the construction 590 Hugo St of an o en, covered orch - a roved #99-05 To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 ft. to 19.2 ft. to allow the construction 7411 University Ave of a 7-unit townhome structure - denied #99-06 1. To reduce the front yard set back from 35 ft. to 27 ft.; 8145 Ruth St 2. To increase the maximum lot coverage from 25°/a to 28%; To allow the construction of a covered deck - a roved #99-07 withdrawn VARIANCES —1994 TO PRESENT Page 9 � � . !]�t � � �� `� C�°� �' � � .�'��(Alt[� �� .� E�� , � ....:. � � ,>,, �` �>. � , � ". �° �' r�;:��s,., � � ��T-��x . � � �� r^'e"�3" . , .. . � .,'. ,. . . � � , . � n; � . � r s -. s. _, . . , ' � ' ' _ z� :�. . ...; . . , . � ., .., <�t . . ,..�. ._ r � .. . � ,... �.:. , u .. .. �, . ,� .� #99-08 To decrease the setback between a building and the right-of-way line abutting 1290 Osborne Rd an adjoining residential district from 100 ft. to 75 ft. to allow the construction of an industrial multi-tenant buildin — a roved #99-09 To decrease the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 23 ft. to allow the construction 581 Rice Creek Terrace of a covered deck and stairs — a roved to 26 ft. #99-10 To decrease the side yard setback between a garage and the side property 7412 Concerto Curve line from 5 ft. to 3 ft. to allow the ex ansion of an existin ara e— a roved #99-11 variance not needed #99-12 withdrawn #99-13 To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 18 ft. for an existing home due 500 Ironton St to the widening of East River Road and subsequent modifications to Ironton Street — a roved #99-14 1. To decrease the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 25 ft.; 7905 East River Road 2. To allow an existing accessory structure in the front yard a roved #99-15 To allow unscreened loading docks adjacent to the public right-of-way — 5400 Main St a roved #99-16 variance not needed #99-17 1. To reduce the side yard setback from a properry line from 5 ft. to 3 ft.; 7395 Van Buren St 2. To allow a private garage to exceed the square footage of the dwelling unit by 12.6 ft.; To allow the construction of a ara e— a roved #99-18 To reduce the rear yard setback from 27.69 ft. to 22.69 ft. to allow the 6444 Arthur St construction of an addition — a roved #99-19 1. To reduce the setback from the adjacent residential district on the east 5333 University Ave side from 50 ft. to 30 ft.; 2. To reduce the setback from the adjacent residential district on the north side from 50 ft. to 3 ft.; 3. To reduce the parking set back from any street right-of-way from 20 ft. to 18 ft. 4. To reduce the parking setback from an alley from 15 ft. to 13 ft. 5. To reduce the required parking spaces width from 10 ft. to 9 ft.; 6. To reduce the required number of parking spaces from 32 to 25; To allow automotive re air services — a roved #1; #2-6 no lon er needed #99-20 To reduce the rear yard setback from 31.25 ft. to 10.5 ft. to bring an existing 1561 Rice Creek Rd home into com liance — a roved #99-21 To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 20.5 ft. to correct an existing 6475 Able St nonconformi — a roved #99-22 To reduce the side yard setback from 5 ft. to 3 ft. to allow the construction of a 5477 East Danube Rd stairwa — a roved #99-23 To reduce the side yard setback from 10 ft. to 6.5 ft. to correct an existing 561 Lafayette St nonconformit — a roved #99-24 To reduce the side yard setback from 15 ft. to 6 ft. to allow the construction of 7365 Central Ave a stora e facili addition — a roved #99-25 1. To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 5 ft. to correct an existing 6454 Riverview Terrace nonconformity; 2. To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 32 ft. to allow the construction of a second accessory building; 3. To allow an existing accessory building in the front yard; 4. To allow the construction of a new accessory structure in the front yard — a roved #99-26 1. To reduce the required side yard setback from 10 ft. to 9.3 ft. to correct an 4110 Main St existing nonconformity; 2. To reduce the side yard setback from 10 ft. to 9.3 ft.; To allow the construction of a 3-season orch — a roved VARIANCES —1994 TO PRESENT Page 10 y�/`�?��'�j��il�iCE� �VAR�[GE �REQ�E��E� � � ��' ��; �" � �. � a`�� .��R�QRE� � � � �, ,�'sb�1.�. � s _ �� s�„� s`�`�,=�r-�� a . �t ,q„ �p�-'� � i-,. � � * !A f. �%. . ",.�a�-". ..:.4 .,.� #99-27 To reduce the side yard setback for an accessory building from 5 ft. to 3 ft. to 1284 Norton Ave allow the construction of a ara e— a roved #99-28 To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 25 ft. to allow a garage 550 Rice Creek Blvd ex ansion — a roved #99-29 withdrawn #99-30 To reduce the side yard setback from 10 ft. to 7.99 ft. to correct an existing 5361 6 St nonconformi — a roved #99-31 withdrawn #99-32 To allow a si n to be ainted on a buildin — a roved 7033 Central Ave #99-33 To reduce the setback from neighboring residential properties from 50 ft. to 25 5311 University Ave ft. to allow the construction of an automobile service station — a roved #99-34 To reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 ft. to 1 ft. to permit 5685 Quincy St an existin encroachment for the ara e— a roved #99-35 To reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 ft. to 5 ft. to permit 5684 Jackson St an existin encroachment for the ara e— a roved #00-01 To reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 ft. to 11.1 ft. to 5503 Regis Trail ex and an existin nonconformi — a roved #00-02 To reduce the required side yard setback for an attached accessory structure 1363 53` ave from 5 ft. to 2 ft. 6 in. to allow the expansion of an existing garage — approved to 3 ft. #00-03 1. To increase the allowable size of a free-standing sign from 80 sq. ft. to 160 7920-7990 University sq. ft. — approved to 130 sq. ft.; Ave 2. To decrease the required setback of a free-standing sign from a property line or driveway from 10 ft. to 5 ft. - approved; To allow the construction of a new free-standin si n #00-04 withdrawn #00-05 To reduce the rear yard setback for a double frontage lot from 35 ft. to 9 ft. to 121 Hartman Circle allow the construction of a detached ara e— a roved #00-06 To increase the allowable square footage of a free-standing sign from 80 sq. ft. 7890 University Ave to 92 s. ft. — denied #00-07 withdrawn #00-08 withdrawn #00-09 To reduce the rear yard setback from 25 ft. to 15 ft. to allow the construction of 8191 Ruth Circle a 3-season orch — a roved #00-10 To increase the allowable square footage of an institutional sign from 32 sq. ft. 6875 University Ave to 70 s. ft. — denied #00-11 To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 20 ft. to allow the construction of 6330 Arthur St a home and attached ara e— a roved #00-12 To reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 25 ft. to 12 ft. to allow the 600 Hugo St reconstruction of a ara e— a roved #00-13 1. To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 30 ft. to recognize a 5991 Gardena Lane nonconformity; 2. To reduce the rear yard setback from 25 ft. to 19 ft.; 3. To reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 ft. to 15 ft.; To allow the construction of an addition — a roved #00-14 To reduce the side yard setback for an attached accessory structure on a 701 Overton Dr corner lot from 25 ft. to 22 ft. to correct an existin nonconformi — a roved #00-15 To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 8 ft. to allow the construction or 7890 Hickory St an addition — a roved #00-16 withdrawn #00-17 Incom lete — returned to etitioner #00-18 To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 32 ft. to allow the construction of 191 Hartman Circle an attached ara e— a roved #00-19 To reduce the side yard setback for a living area from 10 ft. to 5 ft. to 1352 Hillcrest Dr reco nize an existin nonconformit — a roved VARIANCES — 1994 TO PRESENT Page 11 � . ,., . �, . . • � � �� . �� e �� w . � .. n �� . . � . �a_ � � �� #00-20 To reduce the required setback for an open deck in a side yard from 5 ft. to 3 7119 Ashton Ave ft. to allow the reconstruction of an o en deck — a roved #00-21 1. To reduce the required parking setback from 20 ft. to 10 ft.; 5943 University Ave 2. To reduce the planting strip behind the required sidewalk from 15 ft. to 10 ft.; 3. To reduce the parking stall width from 10 ft. to 9 ft.; To allow the construction of a new commercial buildin #00-22 withdrawn #00-23 1. To reduce the front yard setback from 35 fi. to 31 ft.; 369 Hugo St 2. To reduce the side yard setback for living area from 10 ft. to 5 ft.; To allow the construction of a home ex ansion - a roved #00-24 To increase the height of a fence in the front yard from 4 ft. 6 in. to allow the 1581 Rice Creek Rd construction of a fence in the code-defined °fronY' ard - a roved r— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —� i� � f — — — — — — — — — — � � •� ' � � KITCHEN ,� ttl3. s:'3 ' � N0.3 �dASTER BDRM I BEDROOM ��'�—n�` � � I t3'2. t.'s ' � � 9'9 ■ I_'3 r- i I I� �j < _.'s � I i � � : . � �I r�� I� �'i � I , I: __,;—�`-�,seT ��, �—� � � � �----------- ;'�� '�� ri � GARAGc / I ��, 19' 1 V' ; ' II _ ^� �� GININ , i I r — — — — — — — — � N0.2 � �\ ��:°� � �' � � �y � ' i i BEDRGOG:1 I� - v' :'�'o;� j y�;. iG•� ,��1 � \ ! ! � I I i I I� o T�H � � i _ . , I: ;C� ;� ; i II , j, y — — — — — — -- ; ;r�'; UVING� `c��E — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ' �' z t?'c � � _ i� i � NEW ADD�TI(1N �� ,� i � POR1H I I — — — — — — — —� � — —an � — r--p—�- — PLAN VIEW FRONT ELEVATION � 35 . . Daily Homes Rambler Remodeling Plan #2 Project Descriution • Added a front porch to define the entry and create cover at the front door. This also gives a place to relax in the fresh air. This porch could either be left open, or could be screened in. Proiect Cost Range $5,000 to $10,000 Code Issues • Building Permits • Variance - Required if the front porch addition encroaches into the front setback from the street. ■ ■ FRONT PERSPECTIVE 44 � , . — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —, i �� , � ,i ' � ---Ee I � � o � � � � I / , � � i � ~L—� � � 1 � I �� KITCHEN � � N0.3 i N0.2 � 'i �3'S x 10'6 1 OPEN I BEDROOM j BED OOM � � i � �\ I� i �� I 8EL09 �� g�� x 10�6 I /�• x iC'6 I � � \ — — I\ � I ! � I ; � �� i �_ I; `� � � ��, � � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — \ i� � i' � � � � � � I / � �r1 � i� ; �� / / � I ' �i ( ' �� LIVINj�o/ �\� �i � I IJ III , �z�,c�,s�� ;; J, �i ' �j ! i i BATH II jli / \ 9'6 x 9't �� i � iI I' I / / / / ` I �J� � � / / / � \ �� / / i .\ �I � : I \ /I I � — — — � \ � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —� \ � � PORCH � � �•a z s•s � � _ � ' — — — — — — — — — — , \ � ,. BEDROOM ;E 12'8x1�1 � \ � � PLAN VIEW FRONT ELEVATION 45 � � `�?� °� g y `n. D .m � � � � o � w = m �•m�° �'� � � �' � � a.' L7 o v �' y n m a� � � � f m n°v G) m om`Nm�.� N y ? y t�ii j� N � � _ 7 � y CND � +L� a o Q: �' fO � m � y � ow � m � � a a w cn A, ►'rl fD p 7 j, O• � � � p � � � � � n O � �J (O � �' � 3 � n y, m � Cn m � D °o '� � �'o �m o0 v�i �- y o � n �° a w m � n � -n �D� �•m 7D '�� 'nw � �' � �D � �a -rt n. � � � � O v�i m v � o° -Z-1 vi�t�'< � 0 � w O � w c�p c° � O �. m � � m � y s w o � n o � m � m � m � w < � w � � n� � G� °' �• °i w D � � � � � � � � �n' '< v�' n m � o � � � �� .� n w w m n Q�� 2 � � � o v � w � � � <° °'��'_ o a. 3 < D � o � � °' o � � m ci � � w m � w � w � ? m o-no w D � � � � � � o � m ? � � n c c°1i o � �D v�, o m -o m r. u� �y - � � � m D °' w r. �. �. (D � Q� O N � � � O CD � d < '-"- cD Gi � � � - - o' c�D N � N � N � N � �,wG � � � (D � (�aD N O C � n n j � � � � > > n �i �+ a. �O S `n ^-� � � � m � � a' D �n cn �' 1° 7J w w � m � m �, c ?� m •o � � � � n m u, m m O m n c� � Z ' `y° ° �c m � ° n ° -�i m � m o m v �a�� o -, -� a � � 0 2 �' � D � � � � n c�o' v°, �. o � n ° sv � � o � n z _ � c ? � � � m m � � � � � � �'� m � � � � �_� � � °c v m d � � p C N �, � � � � � < y a. N � n' � .:�+' '�t '�' �' '�. � �' '� �' +�,: �- �irlr � �r+ '�;� �... �w �► � .: : j �,r � ^ tr . � � � ��O � � i� c0 � �� f0 �0 � � A �� t� c�" f0 � Cp � � � � O �H � R � � � N• �0 .n► . r .. .. ..,�, �..�..�.��..��..y►.,.�,.�►r.rrr�r.�►rr�r�:r��11�i11��N�"��'�� 0 u y W � y C/� — W � � � � � � � o� '�--� � � � ,� � � (n � � �� Q � �� (n -� � W � N � � .� � O � � � �-- � �F= � .� � .� � � � �E 0 v � 0 0 v a� rn � L c� . � LL � N t _ "r O .°-� = L W � _ H � � d O � z � °' � � � � � � w � = = N � � .� _ � h _�n `o 0 i � �_ _ .S c cn c ,� _ � a� J ll. � � W �- pj � '� _ Q > L � � .0 ❑ �" v- L�1 L O _ " c Q'�.� � � Q F- � � � O N N � O Q� � N O1 C V � � � � �= d (�6 � �. r- � � �f � j, � � C � -� - t7 . ~ N LL � >. T p v- � a O C � � � d C N � � O y' N L � � � � L � .�c ccv � c � n. c — `° E .L.�.. � � � y � � 0 L C � N a � O a� �3 ' w � � �� o � °' �. � �.� � c� p�v� oL � � � c � o � 3 � w o o � �• � O � � � �Z�� n ;� � °� � rn � �N � N � Y L N � t0 '.�7�-°o�.L.�. O � � � � � � � � � p � � � � '� „1� •� � � . . � � � � i � � L � � � O � `° -� � � t � � -z2 � L °- o � � N 3 i ° .c N � ►- �. +� � +� n� � � � � ' � � �' � 3 +� , � � � � � � � o � � o o � � � ti � `��' ca � � � a, m � �3 ° .� � � � u� � � � +� u� o �. 3 � � � 6' L � � =' � � � � ,� � � � }' � L � � � � � .� Oi �v u a� ,,� � u� -� � � � �- � L •L +� `� a� � �, .� � o ; � °s� � +4 m � °� � ±' a, � rn c°� N � � s- - � i� {� � 7 � �[ li; � � .� N � N .� N O � � � � Q$ L � �0 � � O � i� � }' � lS� � � � � � L a � o� � -� m -� °' O iV � � � � � � � � � +' X � � � � � � � � � � � � ,c � � 0 3 .� � � � L ° >' -4�c R ' tS� � v � c�u �' � � � � � � 3 � � � � 3 � u°_ a� �' � -� � � a, c�i � " � �' � �p� � � � .� .� � u °o � `° o +' � � � 3 0 0 0 � +� � O C) � fl' lpn� y�+� U�z- � O� N i� N� tn C) �� O s. � � ZS � � � Q cv � � �, � � � `� � � •3 � � 'c ,N � L � � p� � � � 4� a�'1 � L s- i � � � 0 � � N � o`�i -� � � .� � o ° � � L 'o i °—' � .�4 n�i � � -� � o � L � � � � � �� a °� � � � � � � � > n�i a �� o ,� c°' � O � �' � � �.�.► � � � � � � 1�- +� t�. t� +� p�-� � � N :} O � � � -� t� cc � � � 'c � rn ca N c�v � °� � L v La"► �L-' � a� +4 £ �'' `�° � � � �' � ?� � -� c�v i o o � .c �' � � � -a ;n `� �� +� +� m � +� L � s � � � _ 3 � 3 ' o� � ui �.► � � � +� o� � cu � +� 3 tp p� — � � 3 s s- � `� `� u � i� n�i °�'� �� o o � a, v o�' � �� *�' � �� 3 � � � � 3 u� � � � -� 3 � 3 L � � � ��-, � 6, .� �$ � � �F-�,�� ; � �,o.�-�' �-� � � � di .0 � O7 Q � � � � � 0 i � � � Qi U v � � � � 3 � � � � � � � i � p '3 � .g +�c�' � � � :� � ir• , ' �i1r c�o � �• �°. � 3 �� Z� °i �o � �- � �+ o � � � � � � .n �0 c� �, C0 � v ° g , r 7� � • � �°a, • � �' • � � ~ � � �-3� � � �-� °' g � �' �� v��•�o��O�°�� . � `� � � � �O c� � � � � � °_. o v � o � 3 � `t � � � v �' `g p rc `� o � � 3 cs � 3°' o c�n z° a�i �� c� �.. � �, �' � c��o c��o u�Di v c� �' � c�t � � �� -s � � � • � � ct �t ��p (S1 �p O �, Q. II� � ct (D � (�4 O CO � � � c�-t O� c�t � O �-+, ct Ft c0 cn' (�S1 O � (f1 � � � � O (� a- 3�}� CD �t rt �' ��. ��• o � Z� o� O � CD �' � � � � � (�D � � � � � � N C�. �� v C�yl `� t�D � c9 ��, . C�D ct Q � � �' � � � Q p � � � 3� � i � �� RQ� � � � ��-� � � � �� g� � ��-�� -�� °��a� � -� � � �� o� � � � � � � � � � °� � ��' �-�X�, � �' � �� ° v � �, � o,� �o�� , � � v � �� c v `� c�o � � �'Y co � _: � � � � . � �' �� o ? � � � c� a � 3 v � � � �- � � c�o co �, �e �+ co � �� 0 � �D �� CD � �p CD � Z � Q � � � CD O v � � C�D � � � � � �. � � � �� ' � � �� - � �. � � � � � � � � o � � � � w o 0 0° T m � � rm- 7Do N � � � m � w N• w D .,�. �_ � N � n � � O � � N N w � O f�i (D -• (D � � � �' p � i�ii O tn � . Cp W O � � N T � (D C'D � n CD r. p "il `�G � � d � a y CD `� (D � r m o cNi a � � �� , w � m � n w n o °" m � �' � � <. n� ? Q v; m � o ? �o � �' ?• � � � o � n � y �• � m m v'd`°.� ? � � � � m .-_. � T �_ p . . • CD d � -w O � � w N � c � 0 t/7 p O �, n� �, Q < � N (D cD �. '� � ? N 'O �. 0 � t � � �� I1 � � 1I W �� W � � � y � W W � � � W � � � -'� � O � � � W � � W � � � LL U V/ � C � � a�.�� O � i -� -'� Z � � � � .� V/ � �V � � � -1�-+ � L L� � .� �+ � L -�-+ � �� '��° o� �, � U L �L � s-' �� V L � � � o �n � L 3 ?� +� � � � � � � o rn � � � � L '�, o u� L : � +, �T-� ;��i�= `�� L � '� � L � � � � � i � �� ~. � g-. � '� [� . li � 3 ~ y' � � � , �� °�� O •� � � � � � � � '� � � � � _ � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��., � c�v � 3 � m � �� °� � � � � � � � •� °' L �— °� o� }, � -� L '+_� m a� � rn 3 �� •� � � N � N '3 X 3 � � �p� � � � 4� ,�? � � � �'�' +' N � � i � � �'' � .� .c °" � is� � ' i � 3 �' � o � � � � o � � � � .� � � -� � � � � X � � � �, � � �t- -� � � L � CO l� �� o� N.� s�.. � t 4'� +� L� L� N U� tS) O� H�+� � cv :� L �� 3 rn o -� v � ��-► i � -� >' � �' � �-�.s � +4-aJ.� tn � °a � � �� X� +� � Lo � � °—' p�j � }� U � L O =� '� � � � t � � � � � 3 � 3 � � � � � � � � � � Q� � Z � � � � � � tn L � L U c6 O -� � � � � � � � � Q � � � � o � °� � ~ � a� � � � � � � � � .►.� a � � i � � •� � � L O +� U � � .=� � � � � � � V � � � � `+- U Q Q � � O � p � �� N � � � � � � � � p� � � � � � � N t Q � � � ,� � N '�4"� � N � t� � l� � S � � .a � ;� � -� � � � � � � � � v�- � U � � � � � � � � m � a i � � � p� � ;' Q � w � � � Q � . � � � ,}.' [fl ~' L Ci� � 'L � .0 N � i O '� L � i di di � � � � � � X '�L .� '� O � � cR � � }� � � � � � N +� � � i0 ' � U �-► +� O � � N �.Q � U � o '� � � u� 3 � � ' o � � �a � `�+'+4�� o� � 0 0 �n � � � u � � � � � � i � � � i � Q ,` O O � a � � � a -B � � � Qi � � {] � Q .� i °�� c�'� �i �+— � � �, � � � � .� x � � �� O � U � � � � � �� i� � Qj }� fl- �i � �" � � �' � p fl- �� i � � <i- � � � +°� +� � � ei � � -� � � 1ii > i m d o o � � �� +��' -� +�'` � �n }4 a� pL v- +� c� 3'� �`� � o � � � � � � u� � � L � �' � ° ai � � � � .� O � � � � � 3 v- u) +� � I�i, � 3 � tn � `�' � � -� w � ° .� o `n L � � 3 �• �o a�� o> o�°cn o� o � a� o � � � �� '� �oo� �o� � � � � -� � � V � c� � �d' •� °a� �° 3 � i e� ��p L i0'� � U Q •L � }3 tV � � � � � � � � +�-` � � � 3 3 � o�� _ i� t�Sl � O p 3}�i � o��,�, �- 3� p�j 4� O � tn 0 N � � }�i � � � � � 3 � Q � � L � � � V �� y � o� �- � � 3 0� `{- �v -� 0 3 ca L � � � � � � � �.1 � � � � � � � 0 m '> � o� o ��,, e� � 'v �j � �o p }' .� � p � � i W�+� N O �� i ln tn � 1' � p +� � +� . � � � � p � .� '� � � ,N � � co W� m 3� ��+4 � +�,, 3 � o � }�,� � � :� � i � � L � ln tf1 � L V O� L p �� = t O L � � � � � i � '� F—►—� � ��c�� cB s�.. � .c � L � � O O O � � o � � u�i � � OD � ____...W..� � r f cmr oF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2000 Date: 10/12/00 To: William W. Burns, City Manager �� !�° From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director; Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator RE: Proposed Manufactured Home Park Ordinance The City Council requested staffto respond to several questions about a proposed manufactured home park "closure" ordinance at the Conference meeting in August (the attached memo responds to each question), and asked that the City Attorney be in attendance at the upcoming conference meeting. The outcome of the additional reseazch and analysis is a proposed ordinance that is modeled after the Roseville and Apple Valley experiences. In short, staffs recommends the City initiate the public hearing process and adopt the proposed ordinance.. Staff finds that the benefits of adopting the ordinance outweigh the consequences of not adopting it. The ordinance will require the park owner and a potential purchaser to provide certain amounts of compensation to residents who would not ordinarily receive relocation assistance just because of the nature of their "home". Without a local ordinance, Fridley manufactured home park residents would not receive any relocation help or financial compensation if a park closes. Second, the ordinance, by defining the required compensation formulas, establishes the rules to follow for the future. This could save the park owners, residents, and a future Council valuable time in responding to proposed closures. Third, adopting the ordinance will not create any additional financial liability to the City other than what currently e7cists. If the parks were to close for a redevelopment purpose, the park owners, purchasers, and residents can request redevelopment assistance anyway from the City/HRA just like any other redevelopment proposal. Whether the City agrees to it is another matter. PROCESS The attached memo recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and consider the ordinance for first reading on November 20, 2000. Prior to the hearing, staff will forward a draft ordinance to the representatives of the residents who signed the petition and to the park owners. Staff will meet with the affected parties, if desired, and prepare for the Council hearing in November. BD/bd M-00-176 � � CffY OF FRIQLEIf AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2000 DATE: October 13, 2000 �� TO: William Burns, City Manager � FROM SUBJECT: Backqround Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator Follow-Up Discussion Regarding Mobile Home Park Closure Ordinance At the August 22, 2000 City Council conference meeting, staff presented information on a proposed ordinance regarding the closure of Fridley's mobile home parks. The ordinance was drafted in response to a petition by residents of the Fridley Terrace mobile home park and All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC) an advocacy group for mobile home park residents. The proposed ordinance would require the owner and/or purchaser of a mobile home park (who intended to close or convert the park to another use) to compensate the displaced mobile home owners. The mobile home owner would be entitled to either relocation assistance (if within 25 miles) or compensation equal to the fair market value of their unit. Note, regardless of whether the City adopts an ordinance, state law already requires the park owner to provide nine (9) months notice to the residents and the City is obligated to conduct a public hearing to review the impact. The rationale behind the park closure ordinance is simple: mobile home park residents are in a unique position relative to other forms of housing tenure. Namely, they do not own the land where the home is located, yet they have a financial stake in the unit. When a park is closed or converted, the mobile home owner often cannot move to a new park because of the age/condition of the unit. Moreover, the park owner is not obligated to buy the unit. The end result is that the displaced resident receives nothing for their investment and is forced to find alternative housing. The financial hardship can be quite severe because many Mobile Home Park Ciosure Memo October 13, 2000 Paae 2 mobile home owners are low-income and have chosen this housing option out of economic necessity. The purpose of this memo to do the following: 1. Respond to the questions and issues raised by the Council at the August conference meeting. Fritz Knaak responded to the legal issues that were raised at the August meeting and will attend the conference meeting on Monday night. 2. Summarize the experiences of other communities that have adopted park closure ordinances. 3. Identify the pros and cons of adopting an ordinance. 4. Outline a model ordinance for Fridley. 5. Describe the timeline for adoption. The goal for the conference meeting on October 16th is to get direction whether or not the Council wants to proceed with adoption and if so which approach is most appropriate for Fridley. Issues Raised at Auqust Conference Meeting Q: Is it necessary to adopt an ordinance in the first place? It appears that the State Statute already addresses the issue. What would be the rationale for adopting an ordinance? A: Minnesota Statutes 327C.095 provides rights to mobile home owners living in parks about to be closed or converted. Principal among these rights are 1) notice of the closure and 2) a public hearing by the city in which the park is located. Nothing in the Statute provides guidance as to what, precisely, the city must determine or what action it is required to take after it has conducted such a hearing. The only requirement of the city is to conduct the hearing. The Statute does, however, state that the city mav require the park owner to pay for reasonable relocation costs to displaced residents. In addition, the Statute provides that the city mav require other parties involved in the closing to provide additional compensation to displaced residents "to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing." But the state law does not require a park owner or developer to pay for the relocation, Mobile Home Park Closure Memo October 13, 2000 Paae 3 only a municipal ordinance can require it. As a side note, in the event a City or HRA was involved in the park closure (e.g. via a redevelopment project or condemnation case), the public body would be required to provide relocation assistance. The rationale for adopting an ordinance now, is that it establishes the procedures and compensation well in advance of any park closing. To try and address a park closure on a case-by-case in future (e.g determining who gets compensated and who doesn't) without an ordinance in place, the City could risk a legal challenge that it is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Q: If the City were to adopt an ordinance, is it necessary to hold a public hearing? At what point is the City required to conduct the hearing? A: The State Statute requires the City to conduct a hearing to review the closure statement and any impact a pending closure may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. The hearing must be conducted within 30 days of receipt of the closure statement. This provision of the law is required and therefore not discretionary. Q: What happens in the event that a deal to close a park falls through? What liability does the park owner have to compensate the tenants or those that remain in the park? What recourse do the tenants have against the park owner and, possibly, the City? A: It seems that there is a legal answer and a practical one to these questions. From a legal perspective, if a deal falls through, the displaced residents could always take action against the park owner. Displaced residents can and have brought action in the past against owners under these types of circumstances. Ultimately, it would be up to the Courts to decide what damages, if any, would apply. There does not appear to be any liability for the City to such a claim from the displaced residents, however there is nothing preventing someone from taking action. The most probable scenario for the City, is that of a park owner asserting a"takings" claim. However, to some extent this issue has been resolved at least to the satisfaction of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in the Arcadia v. City of Bloomington. In that case, the Court ruled that the City's closure ordinance did not constitute a taking. Mobile Home Park Closure Memo October 13, 2000 Paae 4 From a practical perspective, there will likely be a lot of people inconvenienced if for whatever reason the closure/conversion falls through (see response below about owner dying). However, it is not the City's responsibility to make sure that a closure or conversion goes through, nor to take care of the consequences in the event the deal falls apart. The intent of the ordinance is to provide for appropriate levels of compensation in the event that a park is closed or converted. Q: Can the City file a document against the property which, in essence, notifies any prospective buyer/developer that there is a park ordinance governing this transaction? A: The buyer of any real estate is charged with the responsibility of knowing or learning of the laws of the State and City as applied to the parcel being purchased. The City could file any such ordinance with the County, with particular notice directed at certain governed parcels, but nothing in the Statute would require the City to do so. Note, that singling out certain parcels for such treatment could invite an accusation that the City was defaming the title of such property by such special, unwarranted treatment. However, in light of the Arcadia case, that argument would not likely receive favorable treatment in the Courts. Q: What is the definition of "park closure"? In the event that a park owner wants to expand or modify their park (i.e move units within a park) does the ordinance govern the transaction? A: The Statute and ordinance only apply to instances of closure, which would be defined as "the conversion of all or a part of a manufactured home park to another use". Below are several scenarios as they relate to application of the ordinance. • If the park is sold by one party to another party, with the intent of maintaining the facility, as is, the ordinance does not apply. • If the park is sold by one party to another party and the new owner intends to close the park or convert it to another use, the ordinance would apply. • If the park owner wants to expand the park and add more units, the ordinance does not apply. • If the park owner wants to reduce the number of units (e.g. to accommodate a storm shelter or community center), then the Mobile Home Park Closure Memo October 13, 2000 Page 5 • ordinance applies. Compensation (either relocation assistance or a buyout) would only be offered to those residents impacted by the project. Q: Are the heirs of a park owner or park purchaser obligated to follow through on a purchase or conversion in the event of a death? A: No, unless the owner or purchaser are individuals who have, by way of how they executed the necessary transfer documents, provided for a survivorship of their interest in their estate. Q: Should the owners of the park have a"right of first refusal" in order to buy units over time as they are offered for sale? A: Nothing prevents an owner from buying a unit once it is put up for sale. In fact, most parks must approve the new buyer before the transaction can closed. Experience in Other Communities The history of mobile park closure legislation dates back to 1987 when the State law was passed in response to the Lyndale Lodge mobile home park closure in the city of Bloomington. The state law became the enabling statute that allowed cities to adopt ordinances which could place additional requirements on park owners or purchasers (e.g. developers). Since that time at least nine other metro communities have adopted mobile home park closure ordinances. Staff spoke with a number of these communities and learned that the circum- stances for enacting ordinances were quite similar. In some cases, there were actual redevelopment projects on the horizon which prompted the discussion. In other cases, the mobile home park residents took a proactive stance in advance of any redevelopment activity. The APAC coalition has also been very active in raising the awareness of the issue and has even solicited the help of the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis in the Fridley proposal. In Roseville, an ordinance was adopted in February 2000 in response to resident's concerns over possible redevelopment plans. The ordinance was modeled after the City of Burnsville and requires the park owner to pay reasonable relocation costs to the displaced owner (within a 25 mile radius of the park). In addition, for those displaced owners who cannot or chose not to relocate, the ordinance requires that the buyer (developer) pay them for the value of their unit. The amount is the greater of the assessed value for tax purposes or Mobile Home Park Closure Memo October 13, 2000 Page 6 an independent, third-party appraisal. The buyer of the park is responsible for paying for the appraisal cost as well. Roseville has only one park (108 units) which is situated on approximately 10 acres and is in poor condition. All of the homes in the park are older and it unlikely they could be moved. Staff acknowledged that the economic impact of the ordinance would probably add about $500,000 to the cost of redeveloping the land at some point in the future. Nonetheless, there was fairly significant political pressure to adopt the ordinance. At this time, the owner has no plans to close or convert the park. In Hopkins, an ordinance was adopted in 1990 and the only mobile home park in the city (Park Pines) was closed in 1997 and subsequently developed into town homes. Tenants of Park Pines received fair market value for the units. In Elk River an ordinance was adopted in 1997 and Elk River Terrace closed in 1998 for a commercial redevelopment project. In the cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Lake Elmo and Shakopee, ordinances were also adopted, however the mobile parks are still in existence. The Pros and Cons of Adopting an Ordinance Pros * Adopting an ordinance now eliminates any uncertainty for mobile home park residents that they will be compensated in the event that a park is closed. The ordinance will help protect an affordable housing resource for low and moderate income residents. In light of rapidly inflating home prices and apartment rents, this is one of the last forms of "affordable housing" that remains. May help to keep the mobile home parks viable/marketable for future residents; all things being equal, communities without these protections may not be as attractive to prospective residents. The park owners may also use the closure ordinance as a marketing tool. Establishes the rules for future stakeholders, including the residents, park owners, developers, City Council and staff. Mobile Home Park Closure Memo October 13, 2000 Page 7 Cons: * The ordinance adds cost to any future redevelopment of the park. The proposed ordinance would divide the financial responsibility befinreen both the park owner and the new buyer. However, as a practical matter, the park owner would ultimately bear this cost since the buyer would factor this cost into the purchase price. Adopting an ordinance could establish expectations for other groups (e.g. tenants of apartments) that the same economic treatment should be provided under similar circumstances. The ordinance may create the expectations from the park owner or developer that the City would assist in the economic assistance. Although, there is no legal basis for such a request, the owners might be inclined to approach the City for help given the cost of the project. We should point out, that at a minimum regardless of whether or not the City adopts an ordinance, the City will be involved in the park closing process. State law already requires the City to hold a public hearing to review the proposed impact of the closure. The bottom line is that mobile home park closure ordinances have been tested and successfully defended in the Courts. The Courts have found that due to the unique nature of mobile home ownership, cities do have the purview to enact special legislation that helps ease the economic burden on those who are displaced. Model Ordinance for Fridlev Based on our research, it seems that a hybrid approach using the ordinances from the cities of Roseville and Apple Valley, would be a good approach for Fridley. Both of these ordinances are well drafted, including a good set of definitions and a detailed process for addressing the closure once it happens. The Fridley ordinance would include the typical requirements of a nine (9) month closure notice and a public hearing by the City. The Fridley version includes the following modifications: Requires the park owner to pay reasonable relocation costs to displaced residents for relocation within a 25 mile radius of the park to be closed. 2. Requires the park purchaser to buy out the mobile home owner in the event that the displaced resident cannot or chooses not to relocate. Mobile Home Park Closure Memo October 13, 2000 Pa�e 8 3. Defines Park Closure, Purchaser and Relocation Costs. 4. Distinguishes befinreen Displaced Owners (those who own the unit and rent the lot) and Displaced Tenants (those who rent both the unit and the lot). 5. Requires displaced residents (both owners and tenants) to notify the park owner in writing, within 90 days of initial closure notice, of the following: • Displaced Owners must elect either relocation costs (paid by the park owner) for a move within 25 miles of the park to be closed OR compensation equal to the value of unit (paid by the park buyer). • Displaced Tenants must indicate the cost of their relocation for personal property and related expenses as outlined in Section 10. The intent of the Fridley ordinance is to ensure that those who are displaced receive just compensation, either in the form of relocation assistance to a new park or a fair price for the value of their unit. Under the proposed ordinance, they would not receive both relocation assistance and compensation for the unit. It provides equity to the mobile home owners, reasonable relocation assistance to tenants, and a sharing of the costs between the park owner and developer. Process of Adoption Should the Council decide to proceed with adoption, staff would begin drafting the appropriate ordinance language and could schedule a public hearing and first reading for the November 20th Council meeting. Second and final reading would take place on December 11 th with adoption of the ordinance on December 1 gtn Prior to the public hearing, staff would provide a copy of the draft ordinance to both the mobile home park residents, the park owners and APAC. Any changes could be made during the hearing could be incorporated into the second and final reading. We look forward to discussing this issue further with Council on Monday night. M-00-176 CITY OF FRIDLEY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS AND REQUIRING OWNERS TO PAY RELOCATION EXPENSES TO DISPLACED RESIDENTS UPON PARK CLOSURE. THE CITY OF FRIDLEY ORDAINS: Section 1. of the Fridley City Code is amended by adding a new Chapter to read as follows: MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSINGS 1) PURPOSE In view of the peculiar nature and problems presented by the closure or conversion of manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and general welfare will be promoted by requiring compensation to displaced home owners and renters of such parks. The purpose of this ordinance is to require park owners to pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and purchasers of manufactured home parks to pay additional compensation, pursuant to the authority granted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095. 2) DEFINITIONS The following words and terms when used in this Ordinance shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: CLOSURE STATEMENT: A statement prepared by the park owner clearly stating the park is closing, addressing the availability, location and potential costs of adequate replacement housing within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park that is closing and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured homes located in the park. DISPLACED OWNER: A resident of an owner-occupied manufactured home who rents a lot in a manufactured home park, including the members of the resident's household, as of the date the park owner submits a closure statement to the City's Planning Commission. DISPLACED RENTER: A resident of a renter-occupied manufactured home who rents both the lot and the manufactured home in the manufactured home park, including the members of the resident's household, as of the date the park owner submits a closure statement to the City's Planning Commission. DISPLACED RESIDENT: Displaced owner or displaced renter. LOT: An area within a manufactured home park, designed and used for the accommodation of a manufactured home. MANUFACTURED HOME: A structure, not affixed to or part of real estate, transportable in one of more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical system contained in it. PARK CLOSURE: A complete or partial closure or conversion of a manufactured home park which results in the reduction of manufactured homes or lots. PARK OWNER: The owner of a manufactured home park and any person acting on behalf of the owner in the operation or management of a park. PERSON: Any individual, corporation, firm, partnership, incorporated and unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity. PURCHASER: The person buying the manufactured home park from the park owner. In the event that the park owner intends to retain ownership and convert the park to a different use, all references to the purchaser refer to the park owner. RELOCATION COST: The reasonable cost of relocating a manufactured home frorn a manufactured home park within the City of Fridley that is being closed or converted to another use to another manufactured home park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park as follows: A. Preparation for Move. The reasonable costs incurred to prepare the eligible manufactured home for transportation to another site. This category includes crane services if needed, but not the cost of wheel axles, tires, frame welding or trailer hitches. B. Transportation to Another Site. Reasonable costs incurred to transport the eligible manufactured home park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius. This category also includes the cost of insuring the manufactured home park while the home is in the process of being relocated, and the cost of obtaining moving permits provided that the park owner shall not be required to pay delinquent taxes on a manufactured home if necessary in order to obtain a moving permit. This category does not include the cost of moving personal property separate and distinct from the mobile home and separate and distinct from the appliances and appurtenances on the mobile home. C. Hook-up at New Location The reasonable cost of connecting the eligible manufactured home to utilities at the relocation site, including crane services if needed. The park owner shall not be required to upgrade the electrical or plumbing systems of the manufactured home. D. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the property being moved. Relocation costs do not include the cost of any repairs or modifications to the manufactured home needed to bring the home into compliance with the state and federal manufactured home building standards for the year in which the home was constructed. Relocation costs also do not include the cost of any repairs or modiiications to the home or appurtenances needed to bring the home or appurtenances into compliance with the rules and regulations of the manufactured home park to which the manufactured home is to be relocated, if those rules and regulations are no more stringent than the rules and regulations of the park in which the home is located and the resident was notified of non- compliance with the rules and regulations of the park in which it is located within sixty (60) days prior to delivery of the closure statement. 3) NOTICE OF CLOSING If a manufactured home park is to be closed, converted in whole or part to another use or terminated as a use of the property, the park owner shall, at least nine (9) months prior to the closure, conversion to another use or termination of use, provide a copy of a closure statement to a resident of each manufactured home and to the City's Planning Commission. 4) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City's Planning Commission shall submit the closure statement to the City Council and request the City Council to schedule a public hearing. The City shall mail a notice at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place and purpose of the hearing. The park owner shall provide the City with a list of the names and addresses of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time the closure statement is submitted to the City's Planning Commission. 5) PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for the purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating what impact the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. 6) CONDITIONS OF CLOSING As a condition of the closing of the manufactured home park, the park owner shall pay the relocation costs to the displaced residents. If the park owner determined within four (4) months prior to the date of closure of the park that the park will not be closed, the park owner may rescind the Notice of Closure and shall pay any actual relocation costs incurred by any of the park's manufactured home owners. If the park owner determines at least four (4) months prior to the date closure of the park that the park will not be closed, the park owner may rescind the notice of closure, and not be liable for any relocation costs. 7) DISPLACED RESIDENT STATEMENT Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a closure notice, displaced residents shall do the following: A. Displaced Owners: The displaced owner shall provide the park owner with written statement of the relocation costs, or, in the alternative, a written statement that the resident cannot relocate his or her manufactured home to another manufactured home park within a twenty-fine (25) mile radius or chooses not to relocate his or her manufactured home. If a displaced owner chooses not to relocate as defined within this Section, the displaced owner must state whether he or she elects to receive relocation costs under Section 8 or compensation under Section 9. B. Displaced Renters: Shall provide the park owner with a written statement of their relocation costs as defined in Section 10. 8) ELECTION TO RELOCATE A. After service of the closure statement by the park owner and upon submittal by the displaced owner of a contract or other verification of relocation expenses, the park owner shall pay to the displaced owner the reasonable costs as defined in Section 2 of relocating the manufactured home to another manufactured home park located within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park that is being closed, converted to another use, or ceasing operation.. B. If a displaced owner cannot relocate the manufactured home within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park which is being closed or some other agreed upon distance, and the displaced owner elects not to tender title to the manufactured home, the displaced owner is entitled to relocation costs as defined in Section 2 based upon an average of relocation costs awarded to other displaced owners in the park. C. A displaced owner compensated under this Section shall retain title to the manufactured home and shall be responsible for its prompt removal from the manufactured home park. D. The park owner shall make the payments under this section directly to the person performing the relocation services after performance thereof, or, upon submission of written evidence of payment of relocation costs by a displaced owner, shall reimburse the displaced owner for such costs. E. The displaced owner must submit a contract or other verified cost estimate for relocating the manufactured home to the park owner as a condition to the park owner's liability to pay relocation expenses. 9) ELECTION TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION If a displaced owner chooses not to relocate the manufactured home within a 25-mile radius of the park that is being closed or some other agreed upon distance and tenders title to the manufactured home, the displaced owner is entitled to compensation to be paid by the purchaser of the park in order to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing. In such instance, the compensation shall be an amount equal to the estimated market value or the tax assessed value of the manufactured home, whichever is greater, as determined by an independent appraiser experienced in mobile home appraisal approved by the City Manager. The purchaser shall pay the cost of the appraisal. The purchaser shall pay such compensation into an escrow account, established by the park owner, for distribution upon transfer of title to the home. Such compensation shall be paid to the displaced owner no later than the ninety (90) days prior to the earlier of closing of the park or its conversion to another use. 10) PAYMENT OF RELOCATION COSTS TO DISPLACED RENTERS A. After service of the closure statement by the park owner and upon submittal by the displaced renter of a contract or other verification of relocation expenses, the park owner shall pay to the displaced renter reasonable costs of relocating. Reasonable relocation costs shall include: The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced renter's personal property. ii. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the property being moved. iii. The difference between (New Lot Rent - Closed Lot Rent) for a period of 2 years, if the new lot rent is greater than the old lot rent. 11) PENALTY A. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be a misdemeanor. B. Any provisions of this Ordinance may be enforced by injunction or other appropriate civil remedy. C. The City shall not issue a building permit in conjunction with reuse of manufactured home park property unless the park owner has paid reasonable location costs and the purchaser of the park has provided compensation in accordance with the requirements of the Ordinance. Approval of any application for rezoning, platting, conditional use permit, planned unit development or variance in conjunction with a park closing or conversion shall be conditional on compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, this _ day of , 2000. Signature lines: