Loading...
03/05/2001 - 00009187THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MARCH 5, 2001 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund, Councilmember Barnette, Councilmember Bolkcom, Councilmember Billings, and Councilmember Wolfe. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of February 26, 2001 APPROVED. OLD BUSINESS: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1148 AMENDING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE CREATING CHAPTER NO. 129 PERTAINING TO TRESPASSING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this ordinance would allow property owners of certain types of properties to exclude individuals who have committed a crime on that property or have violated its rules of conduct from entering that property. Tenants may also issue trespass notices. This also applies to areas of the property with restricted access. The property owner or tenant issues written trespass notices within 30 days of violations. A violator is not allowed to enter the property for up to one year. If they do, the police may be called for assistance, and the violator may be charged with a misdemeanor. This ordinance will prevent someone who has been evicted from a property from returning to that property. This situation often occurs with drug houses. Staff recommends approval of the second reading. WAIVED THE READING AND APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 1148 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 2 2. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS (REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #01-01, BY GATEWAY EAST REDEVELOPMENT, LLC) (WARD 1) (TABLED FEBRUARY 26, 2001): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that Gateway East Development, LLC, is seeking to rezone property generally located at 57th and University Avenues to S-2, Redevelopment District, in order to accommodate the development of 28 two-bedroom townhome units. The City Council held a public hearing regarding this matter on February 26, 2001. The Council tabled action on the rezoning and directed staff to amend the te�t as necessary to allow action on the item on March 5, 2001. Staff modified the te�t of ZOA #01-01 to reflect the modifications identified by Council. Item "F" was added to include all vacated right-of-ways. Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the ordinance as amended. WAIVED THE READING AND APPROVED THE ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 15-2001 TO VACATE PORTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY SERVICE ROAD AND 57TH PLACE, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF 57TH AVENUE AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE GATEWAY EAST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (VACATION REQUEST, SAV #01-01, BY GATEWAY EAST REDEVELOPMENT, LLC) (WARD 1) (TABLED FEBRUARY 26, 2001): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that Gateway East Redevelopment is seeking to vacate portions of the University Service Road and 57th Place in order to accommodate the development of 28 two-bedroom townhome units. The City Council held a public hearing regarding this matter on February 26, 2001. The Council tabled action on the vacation request pending modification to the description of the right-of-way to be vacated. Council directed Staff to amend the description as necessary to allow action on the item on March 5, 2001. Since Council's last meeting, Staff has approached the owner regarding acquisition of the vacated right-of-way, agreed to a purchase price, and agreed to terms of acquisition. Staff has also modified the description of the right-of-way to be vacated by SAV #01-01 to reflect the changes identified by Council. Staff recommends approval of the resolution as amended. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 15-2001. 4. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 9, 2001, TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICTS 7 AND 9: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that at their March 1, 2001 meeting, the HRA approved a chronology of ineeting dates and actions to respond to pending legislation contained within Senate File 73 currently under consideration in the State legislature. The proposed legislation seeks to limit a municipality's ability to utilize the funds generated by TIF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 3 Districts created prior to May 1, 1990. As you are aware, any modification to the City's TIF Districts requires a public hearing, approval of the Council, and action of the HRA. The proposed TIF modification will not change the geographic boundaries of the districts. However, it will change the individual budget within each of the districts. Action by both the City Council and the HRA will be required prior to April 30, 2001. Staff recommends that the City Council establish April 9, 2001, as the public hearing date to consider modifications to Tax Increment Finance Districts 7 and 9. SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 9, 2001, TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICTS 7 AND 9. 5. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINING PROJECT NO. 337: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that out of the three bids submitted Lametti & Sons, Inc., was the lowest at $151,522. The 2001 budget allocates $180,000 for this project. Staff recommends that Council receive the bids and award the contract to Lametti & Sons, Inc., in the amount of $151,522. RECEIVED BIDS AND AWARDED CONTRACT FOR SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINING PROJECT NO. 337 TO LAMETTI & SONS, INC. 6. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR REPAIR OF WELL NOS. 5 AND 9: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that out of the four bids received for Well 5, Bergerson- Caswell was the lowest bid at $63,855. Four bids were received for Well 9. The lowest bidder was Keys Well Drilling at $16,905. The total cost is $80,860. We budgeted $65,000 and there is $50,000 available from other budgeted 2001 capital projects that were completed ahead of schedule in 2000. Staff recommends that Council accept the bids and award the contracts to the lowest bidders. RECEIVED BIDS AND AWARDED CONTRACT FOR REPAIR OF WELL NO. 5 TO BERGERSON-CASWELL. RECEIVED BIDS AND AWARDED CONTRACT FOR REPAIR OF WELL NO. 9 TO KEYS WELL DRILLING. 7. APPOINTMENT: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that staff is requesting approval of the appointment of Paul Bolin to replace Scott Hickok as Planning Coordinator. Paul began employment with the City in 1998 working as a Planning Assistant/Planner. His responsibilities will include supervising the review process for development plans and applications, researching and developing land use ordinances, assisting the Community Development Director, and supervising the Planning Division. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 4 Mr. Burns stated that staff is requesting approval of the appointment of Stacy Bulthuis to the position of Planner. Stacy began employment with Fridley as a Planner/Code Enforcement Officer on June 19, 2000. Her responsibilities will include assisting in review process for development applications and preparing case files, site plans and staff reports. She will also administer sign permit procedures, work with the public, contractors and businesses in resolving development issues, and complete GIS projects. APPOINTED PAUL BOLIN TO THE POSITION OF PLANNING COORDINATOR AND STACY BULTHUIS TO THE POSITION OF PLANNER. 8. CLAIMS: APPROVED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NOS. 98330 THROUGH 98458. 9. LICENSES: APPROVED ALL LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE IN THE LICENSE CLERK' S OFFICE. 10. ESTIMATES: Frederic W. Knaak, Esq. Holstad and Knaak, P.L.C. 1690 Minnesota World Trade Center 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of February, 2001: $5,000.00 No persons in the audience spoke regarding the consent agenda items. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the Proposed Consent Agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt the Agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 5 OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren, stated that she came across a beautiful house plan for $270,000 but it could not be built in Fridley. In the model home section of the paper 50 to 75 percent of the houses could not be built in the City of Fridley. The reason for this is that the garages e�tend more than five feet in front of the house. In lieu of the fact that the housing in Fridley is middle age, she would like to believe that the City's thinking has expanded over the years. Fridley needs bigger, better, and brighter homes for the people who do not want to leave Fridley but want a different home. Mayor Lund stated that someone from the City Council or staff would get back to Ms. Olson. He thanked Ms. Olson for coming to the meeting. Mr. Peter Rolstad, 7471 Jackson Street, stated that he represented Spring Lake Hockey. They are looking to sell meat raf�les in the bars to benefit the hockey team and the community. They would donate ninety percent (90%) of the profits back to the community, mostly to the schools. Ms. Linda Rand, Shorewood Pulltab Operator Representative, stated that they are asking to do the same as the other restaurants, bars, and legions are doing with meat raf�les. Mayor Lund stated that the City would be looking into that. Ms. Rand stated that they were wondering if they should continue selling the meat raf�les until the City Council decides if the ordinance will be changed. Mr. Knaak stated that he is doing an analysis of the City's ordinances. He is going to make a recommendation of how they should be enforced. The City's position would be consistent with State law and there are two separate ordinances. He is not going to tell them to do anything right now except to obey the law. Ms. Rand asked if they would be okay if they stayed within State guidelines. Mr. Knaak stated that they would, but City ordinances can be more restrictive than state law. Mr. Rolstad asked if the Legions and VFW's are running a tri-wheel within City ordinances. Mr. Knaak stated that he could not tell him. Mayor Lund stated that they do. It falls under the City ordinances that Mr. Knaak referred to. There are two separate ordinances and there is a discrepancy. There may be some need for review of the ordinances. Councilmember Billings stated that one ordinance is a club ordinance that regulates what can be done in organizations with a club license. That would be the American Legion, the VFW, and the Knights of Columbus Hall. They can do anything that is legal in the State of Minnesota. The on-sale liquor establishment ordinance states that the only gambling that is legal is pull-tabs. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 6 Mr. Peter Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley, wondered why the ordinances that come up get pushed back to the end of the meetings all the time. Mayor Lund asked if he was referring to the public hearing coming up in the ne�t few minutes. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that he was talking about the Chapter 7 hearing. Mayor Lund stated that they would be getting to that as soon as possible. Mr. Pat Carline, 5705 Jackson St., stated that the removal of the salvage yards seems to be a done deal. The image of the City as a grand old city seems to be driving what is happening here. It is pushing the HRA and the Council. It is wrong because government is doing something they should not be doing. He is for simplified government, but not for real estate development. This project will not pay for itself and will cost money. At the HRA meeting, they were even talking about taking money from other TIF districts to recover some of this loss. He does not think that anyone looked to see if this was proper. The salvage yards are not targeted by the PCA at all. There was pollution at the gas station for the Gateway East project and apparently it is being ignored. are ignoring it. The money would be well spent to help those viable businesses. The City should not interfere with the free market economy. In the Star Tribune a few weeks ago there was an article about Minnesotans dumping their garbage on Wisconsin land and filling up their landfills. Someday we will all have to take care of our own cars and garbage. Someone has to take care of all these cars, and the salvage yards are doing a public service. They are not pretty businesses but you could work with them toward installing better privacy fences, improving landscaping, and possibly helping with pollution problems. What else will we do with the cars? We must recycle. Mayor Lund stated that the City Council and the HRA will have a joint meeting about this on Apri15. He stated that Mr. Carline is welcome to attend the meeting and discuss this matter. Mr. Carline stated that everyone agrees to the removal of the junkyards in spirit. Councilmember Barnette stated that they closed five in Andover in the last two years. He asked where they moved. Mr. Carline stated that one of them is doing business in Fridley. Most of them went out of business and got paid millions. The Gateway East project is estimated at $1.00 per square foot. The junkyards' estimate is $1.75 per square foot. Mayor Lund stated that this is an issue that was just brought forward and it will take the normal course of action. He suggested that Mr. Carline attend the HRA meeting. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the City CounciUCommission survey that is done every year stated that this is a priority, so it is not just staff driven. Mr. Carline stated that morally and ethically speaking, the question about the junkyards should not have been asked. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 7 Councilmember Bolkcom stated that vision meetings for the planning process identified this as an issue that needed to be worked on. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 11. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING" BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 205.31, 0-6 RESIDENTIAL LOTS CREATED PRIOR TO 1955 DISTRICT REGULATIONS (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #00-04, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY) (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 5, 2001): MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to remove this item from the table. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:12 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that this is a special zoning district that protects e�sting smaller lots in Fridley. This applies to lots created and recorded in Anoka County prior to December 29, 1955, between 5,000 and 7,500 square feet in size. The minimum lot width is 50 feet. This will not create new lots and will only deal with e�sting lots. The main reason for this district is to protect the existing housing stock and remove the non-conforming status from those properties. This would encourage reinvestment in the older neighborhoods. There are 191 lots citywide that meet the requirements. They are all located outside of the Hyde Park addition. Most are developed with a home on them, but four of them are vacant. The Riverview Heights neighborhood is the location of 127 of the lots and the four vacant lots. Since the February 5 meeting, staff and the GIS division conducted fieldwork to locate the number of properties meeting the criteria. The vacant properties are at 611 Buffalo, 630 Ely Street, 513 Paramount, and 571 Lafayette. The standards for homes created now or to be rebuilt in case a home burns down on one of these properties is that the lots need to meet the size criteria for square footage and lot width. The new homes would need to maintain the 25 foot front and rear yard setback and for an attached garage, there would need to be a 15 foot rear yard setback The minimum home size would need to be 768 square feet with 30-foot height restrictions. Mr. Bolin stated that in Fridley for the e�sting lots created before 1955, we require a 75-foot lot width and a 7,500 square foot lot size. Columbia Heights also has a 60-foot minimum lot width and a 6,500 square foot lot size. Minneapolis is down to a 40-foot lot width with a 5,000 square foot size. Richfield allows a 50-foot minimum lot width and a 6,000 square foot lot size. St. Louis Park allows a 50-foot lot width with a 6,000 square foot lot size. We did not look at the 50-foot lot width and the 6,000 square foot lot size because it did not fit the properties we are trying to protect. In Richfield, the majority of the properties they were trying to protect were 6,000 square feet in size. Mr. Bolin stated that on January 17, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the duration of the overlay district. The February 5 City Council public hearing was held and continued until this meeting to clarify the data. This overlay district protects e�sting homes and FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 8 will encourage reinvestment in Riverview Heights. It gives fle�bility in developing and rehabilitating homes. Staff recommends approval of this ordinance. Mr. Mike LaFave, 640 Dover Street, stated that he has two 25-foot lots. If they were allowed to be combined, a buildable lot, 50 feet by 110 feet would be created. About ten years ago, there was a 50 feet by 110 feet lot that was being sold because of forfeited taxes. Nobody took care of this lot, so he purchased for $2,500. That has been attached to his property. If he is allowed to build on that lot, it increases the value of his 50-foot lot. That would not be a buildable lot though because it is attached to his home. If the 50-foot lot to the east became a buildable lot, he would be allowed to separate his 50-foot lot and build on it. It is as if he would be penalized for taking that land ten years ago and improving it and cleaning it up. Ten years later the rules have been changed. His real issue is with the west side of his property. His house is situated close to that property line and it is in the flood plain. The land has to be built up before it can be built on. That backyard is his open space. He thinks a house built there would be very intrusive. It would be unfair to allow a house to be built on two 25-foot lots. If the current owner of the property took the initiative and got it combined, that is exactly what would happen. Mayor Lund stated that his points would be duly noted. Ms. Conella Angell, 8016 Ruth Street, stated that her home was built in 1978. Her concern is that she has two lots side by side and she is taxed on both. She receives two separate tax statements. One lot is 60 feet wide and the other is 15 feet wide. She is not sure if her lots are non-conforming. Mr. Richard Boyce, 520 Glencoe, stated that he was not given this information at closing when he bought his home two years ago. Should he have been gven this information before he bought his house? Mr. Ron Lundsten, 581 Ironton, asked why this was not disclosed when he bought his home seven years ago. If the house is damaged or destroyed, it is considered condemned. The house should have been condemned the day he bought it. Councilmember Barnette stated that he thought that was the purpose of the title search. Mr. Anthony Cox, 4533 Main Street, stated that they purchased the house eight years ago and he owns a lot and a half. The house was built in 1935 and they have a 60 foot by 128 foot lot. He said he is not too sure that if something should happen to his house if he would be allowed to rebuild. Mr. Michael Curtis, 689 Janesville, stated that his house was built in 1978 on an e�sting 60-foot lot. A building permit was issued in 1978. There was a fire in the house in 1981. A permit was given to rebuild that house and there was more than fifty percent (50%) damage to the house. Why just now after all this time are they being told they cannot do that any more? This property is now of no value to someone who wants to buy a home. He is in favor of the ordinance. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 9 Ms. Stephanie Rounsville, 565 Hugo Street, asked if each of the houses designated for this overlay district has 25 feet to the rear and 25 feet in front. She does not think that her house does. She bought the house eight months ago. This was never disclosed to her at all and a title search was paid for. That makes that home valueless because of the way the ordinance is written. Her house is set further back and the garage is detached from the home and abuts right up to the property line. She wants to make sure this is adequate and she is covered. Mr. Jason Curtis, 585 Ironton Street, stated that he bought his house three years ago. The insurance will pay off the house but not the land. He cannot sell the land and he would have no place to go. He is in favor of the ordinance. Ms. Annette Hagen, 440 57th Place, stated that she bought her home two years ago and it does not meet the requirements for the footage from the front of the house to the street. Mr. Tom Leonard, 526 Glencoe, stated that he bought the house in 1974 and had the title search, but now the City is saying that it is no good. How does that work? When did this law change? Mayor Lund stated that it was changed in 1955. Mr. Leonard stated that they were all empty lots back then and he wondered how the City did it? If the City bought the house back for fair market value, he would say that is a pretty good deal. Mayor Lund stated that this was sold on a private transaction. The City did not sell him that. Mr. Al Stahlberg, 8055 Riverview Terrace, asked if the lot on Fairmont could be disattached? Could a parcel be sliced off and a house built there? Mayor Lund stated that the short answer would be "no." He would like to hear all of the residents' questions and then refer to City staff for response. Mr. Jim Klein, 500 Glencoe Street, stated that his property was built on two lots that are combined. Why do they not combine for tax purposes too? The other issue is that there were two separate times when the house was renovated and at neither time were they notified that this situation e�sted. This lack of communication should be addressed and modified. Mayor Lund stated that the staff has been trying to address this. He asked when the properties were renovated? Mr. Klein stated that they were renovated in 1982 and 1989. Mr. Roger Avery, 600 Glencoe Street, stated that on his tax statement, it says that his lot is 75 feet by 13 5 feet. He is in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Curtis stated that his lot is smaller than his ne�t door neighbor's, but he pays more taxes because his house is bigger. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 10 Mr. Dell Freitag, 537 Fairmont, asked if this will take effect tonight. Mayor Lund stated that this is a public hearing, and the ne�t item will be a first reading of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Burns stated that the second reading will be during the last Council meeting during March.. Mr. Knaak stated that it would then take effect 60 days after the second reading of the ordinance. Mr. Freitag stated that it is terrible that they should have to wait three months for this ordinance in case there is a fire before then. He is in favor of the ordinance. Mr. John Thomas, 611 Glencoe Street, stated that he does not think that his lot would even be 50 feet wide. How could a builder be allowed to build on that land? His house was built in 1969. Mr. Avery stated that a fellow by the name of Roger Meyer built the houses in that area. At that time, he asked for special variances to build on those lots. The people who worked for the City at that time gave permission. Mr. Lundsten asked if a doublewide trailer could be put on a foundation on one of those lots. Ms. Kim Saxe, 4452 Madison Street, stated that she does not want what happened to her family three years ago to happen to anyone else. Their house burned down and they were unable to rebuild. Mr. Todd Rautio, 551 Lafayette, stated that there is a big silver maple in his front yard. If he knew this was happening, he would have cut that down a long time ago. If this does not pass, will the City come out and remove the tree? Mr. Bob Eastman, 641 Glencoe Street, stated that builders from the City built these houses. Those lots were legal at that time and he is all for this. Ms. Hagen stated that her home did not meet the criteria for the distance from the street to the house. If she was to remodel she could probably only build up. She asked is she would be ablt to rebuild on the e�sting foundation? Councilmember Bolkcom asked when the old ordinance was adopted. Mr. Bolin stated that it was adopted in 1959. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why the vacant lots were not included. Mr. Bolin stated that the maps that this was derived from were scanned, and through that process, the lot size could have been thrown off. In the original search, the lot on Ely Street showed up as 4,890 square feet. The title states that it is 50 feet by 110 feet and meets the size requirement. The data is sent from Anoka County twice a year. Sometimes Anoka County is 18 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 11 months behind in updating the data sent. The vacant lot on Buffalo Street and Lafayette showed up as occupied homes during the initial search. We have a disclaimer on the map and it is for informational purposes. There is no such thing as a one hundred percent (100%) completely accurate map. The final say as to whether or not a property would qualify for inclusion lies in the records at Anoka County. If a home burned down before a building permit was issued, we could double check with Anoka County to get the correct lot size. Mayor Lund asked if he was alluding to 600 Glencoe Street. Mr. Bolin stated that they would look at that one. The one they have shows a 50-foot lot. It is either wrong at Anoka County or in Fridley's records. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that anyone with questions could call City staff or go to Anoka County. Mr. Bolin stated that the lot size could be easily found out. Mr. Knaak stated that the information at closing regarding the title and title policy is not an affirmative obligation on the part of anybody to disclose municipal ordinances. That is the responsibility of the buyer. Those kinds of non-conformities do not affect the title. Banks and the insurers are protected if they have insurance. Their standard policy is if there is a case, the outstanding balance on the mortgage gets paid off. Variances were granted under certain circumstances and hardships may have been found on some of these lots. That does not change the underlying circumstance. The variance was granted but it did not change the ordinance. It can create a lot size variance overall for that particular parcel and that can probably be built on again. Councilmember Billings stated that the reason staff was putting this together is to correct that situation and make it more viable for people to be able to build in the future. Mr. Knaak stated that was correct. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that this is why this originally came about. Two homes in the last couple years were more than 50 percent destroyed by fire. One of them was not allowed to rebuild because they were on a 50-foot lot, and they moved out of our community. Mr. Bolin stated that to answer Mr. LaFave's and Mr. Stahlberg's questions regarding two lots combined or two split apart, this is the reasoning for the January 1, 2001, time frame placed on the ordinance itself--to not create new lots. Mr. Burns stated that the ordinance applies to lots created before January 1, 2001. Mr. Bolin stated that was correct. Mayor Lund stated that this came about because of the recent street improvements. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 12 Mr. Bolin stated that there were some assessments in the Riverview Heights neighborhood in 1999. A number of people combined their parcels to avoid getting assessed on numerous parcels. Staff wanted to include all the individuals with recently combined parcels. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that if there are two 25-foot lots, this will not apply now. Mr. Bolin stated that was correct. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she may as well combine them if the ordinance passes tonight or not. Mr. Bolin stated that the question of the non-conforming lot that was not listed on the map could have been overlooked. Staff will get back to the owner regarding that. Mr. Hickok stated that the property of Mr. Anthony Cox, 4533 Main Street, is not on the map because the map only shows the most intense area of Riverview Heights. There are other lots elsewhere in the City that are not on this map. Mr. Bolin stated that in response to the question from Mr. Curtis, 689 Janesville, regarding why permits were given in 1981, it could have been due to variances or other reasons. Mr. Hickok stated that on a non-conforming lot, permits can be issued for siding, windows, and decks. Enlarging the structure is difficult. There were typically no permits issued on non- conforming lots for those situations. There may have been circumstances that we cannot explain. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that someone could build on a non-conforming lot with a variance. Mr. Hickok stated that even if they were granted a variance for a non-standard lot, that is a size issue and has an impact on the overall size of the lot. Tonight we are trying to address and collectively pull all of these lot size issues together. Mayor Lund stated that if there was a wrong at some point, we are trying to make a right. Mr. Hickok stated that with respect to the question from Ms. Stephanie Rounsville, 565 Hugo Street, regarding a 25-foot rear lot and a 25-foot front lot, we can make a determination from our records. We would be glad to talk to her. Mr. Bolin stated that with this proposed overlay district, we are really addressing the lot sizes. We know all these lots are non-conforming in size. With any other residential property across the city, there may be some cases where they may be closer than the 25-foot setback and would need a separate variance. Mr. Hickok stated that Mr. Curtis, 585 Ironton, asked if the insurance would only include that damage done to the structure but not help him out in terms of rebuilding his house. That is correct. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 13 Ms. Hagen, 440 - 57th Place, states that her lot does not meet the requirements. In her case, it is on the larger map of the overall City and her lot does meet the requirements. Mr. Leonard, 526 Glencoe Street, asked about a structure built in 1974 and wondered how this worked with a vacant lot. He is not aware of the specifics on the permits on either side of him, but they are trying to correct those situations. Mr. Stahlberg's question has been addressed by Mr. Bolin and Mr. Knaak. Mr. Klein, 500 Glencoe, asked about two lots. His property was built on two lots as a single lot. There was a 1982 and 1999 building permit issued. Staff will try to figure that out. The answer to Ms. Freitag's question about when the minimum dimension went to 7,500 square feet is December 31, 1955. Mr. Thomas, 611 Glencoe Street, asked how a builder can build on a piece of property with the 1969 permit in question. That question has been answered, but he can talk to Mr. Thomas directly for clarification if needed. Mr. Lundsten's question about a double wide built on a foundation is possible as long as the home is built to the uniform building code standards. Ms. Hagen asked if she could rebuild on an extra foundation. Building on a non-conforming lot without the ordinance represents expanding on a non-conforming lot. Mr. Franzen, 590 Kimball, stated that in 1992, he applied for a variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks and total lot coverage and it was granted. The property was two 25-foot lots and he complied with everything the City told him to do in 1992. This is a good thing the City is doing. Ms. Freitag asked if they could check for more information on the foundation of her house. A question was asked if all these lots were platted and where the information was. Mr. Bolin stated that they were all platted. The information is at the Anoka County courthouse or the Municipal Center. A question was asked about who the representative was for the Riverview Heights area? Councilmember Barnette stated that it is Councilmember Bolkcom. A question was asked on why they were not notified of this previously. A question was asked what would happen if this ordinance did not pass. Should this be up to a vote for the people of Fridley? Mayor Lund stated that they would have to wait until the ne�t election. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 14 Councilmember Bolkcom stated that they have been working on this for three years. An article was in the fall newsletter. There was a program on cable about it. There are over 100 properties in Riverview Heights with these lot sizes. She is sorry if people do not think she is representing them, but she is and she is for this. A letter was sent out to residents regarding the February 5 meeting. Mayor Lund stated that three years ago, many people did not realize the e�tent of this potential problem. They have been trying to address it. Mr. Lundsten stated that he was curious about exactly what happened from when his home was built in 1943 to when it was condemned in 1955. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he does not think anyone was against this, they were concerned about building on lots that were vacant now. Ms. Nancy Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street, stated that several people are concerned that if their home burned down, would they have to build on the existing foundations or meet the current codes for foundations. If people have to meet certain setbacks, they will have to put in a new basement. Is there any way the ordinance can take a look at that rather than having them come forward on a case-by-case basis for a variance? Her concern is about what is going to happen to the other 25-foot lots that are not going to be built on. If we are going to have 25-foot lots all over town, no one is going to be taking care of them and they will become dumpsites. What happens to an individual property if they have 46 feet by 200 feet? What happens if there is a vacant 25-foot lot ne�t to them? If they picked up that 25-foot lot, they would miss the deadline of January 1, 2001, and could very well be short the minimum footage to complete the building. Do we know how many homes in Fridley have been built on lots less than 50 feet wide? Mr. David Nickolausen, 5949 Glencoe, stated that he is in favor of this. He bought his house over one year ago and if this does not go through, he might as well just put it back on the market right now. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Knaak what would happen between the first and final reading if there was a problem. Mr. Knaak stated that if this were passed and we were waiting for this to be effective and somebody's house burned, he is hard pressed to imagine how things would move so quickly as to make that relevant. Other issues could be handled by allowances by the City with the understanding that within a short period of time this would be a conforming property. As a practical matter, it would not matter much. The City could waive the requirement in special circumstances. Councilmember Bolkcom thanked everyone for coming. Mayor Lund stated that the purpose was to allow everyone to speak. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 15 MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:20 P.M. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the first reading could be moved before the ne�t public hearing. Mayor Lund answered that it could. NEW BUSINESS : 14. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE RECODIYING FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING" BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 205.31, 0-6 RESIDENTIAL LOTS CREATED PRIOR TO 1955 DISTRICT REGULATIONS (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #00-04, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY) (TABLED FEBRUARY 5, 2001): MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the first reading of the ordinance. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED): 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER PERTAINING TO TAXATION AND FINANCES: MOTION by Councilmember Billings to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 9:25 P.M. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that the Vice-Chair of the Charter Commission and the City Attorney were present to speak on this topic. Mr. Craig Gordon, Vice-Chair of the Fridley City Charter Commission, stated that this ordinance is the result of the Charter amendment petition that was circulated by a group of residents in the City of Fridley. It was focused on placing tax limitations and to control the rate of growth upon local government while protecting the bond rating and not placing any undue hardship on the City or the HRA. The amendment was voted on in the general election of November 7, 2000, and adopted. City staff had questions and concerns on that amendment. An ad hoc group comprised of former Mayor, Nancy Jorgenson, Charter Commission members, City staff and FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 16 members of the amendment initiators was formed. This group met various times to clarify the language in the amendment. The language was vague and there were concerns there may be problems in the amendment as it was passed on November 7. There were changes made to the amendment that clarified the amendment and made it easier for the City staff to operate under. After that process, the changed amendment went to the Charter Commission. The Charter Commission discussed it at its meeting on January 29, 2001. It passed with no one opposing it, and it was recommended that it be presented to the City Council for approval. Mr. Knaak stated that changing the Charter by ordinance is the legal method by which these issues need to be addressed. There is no issue about the overwhelming nature of the vote that occurred when this was proposed. There was never any discussion about the particulars of the language. To implement this language, staff carefully reviewed the adopted language and concerns were raised about possible legal issues. The idea of proposing technical amendments was raised at that point and the purpose of the ordinance is not to substantively change at any point what the voters had voted on. Mr. Knaak said that the first problem area is how this amendment applied to other units of government. The language could be construed to apply to government units outside the City, such as schools. Under the current Charter, schools are included if located in the City limits. The HRA and the county would also be covered by the language. The full faith and credit issue is a problem area because it raises the question if the City would be allowed to require to back up its bonding. The result of this would be a significant increase in taxes and liability for the City. That was not the intent, this was only a technical clarification. The other area had to do with the issue of fees. Under State law, the City charges fees for services it actually provides and they are directly related to the cost of the services. Any efforts to suggest changes to the amendment to the Charter could not attempt substantive change to the voters' language. Former Mayor Jorgenson called on many Charter member components as well as City staff and Charter Commission members to examine the new language and suggest any changes useful within these limits. Mr. Knaak stated that the proposed ordinance adds additional language that clarifies that the new Charter will not affect the general obligations of the City. The other language is stricken or underlined or italicized. This ordinance is not intended in any way to substantively change, undo or modify what the voters acted on in adopting the recent amendment. He was tremendously impressed by all the citizens participating in this. Councilmember Billings asked if they could hear from someone who was on the initial Charter Amendment Petition Committee to make sure that this is not inconsistent with their original thinking. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that he was on that committee. There were a few items in there he was not happy with. He is not happy with fees for operating junkyards, annual license fees, fees for operating pawn shops, and the regulation of businesses. In the minutes from the meeting on January 29, he did vote nay on this matter. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 17 Mr. Carline asked about the fee added regarding pawn shops. Is that still in effect? If the residents of Melody Manor have a big garage sale every year, is there a fee charged? Ms. Lana Freeburg, 301 Rice Creek Terrace, an original Committee member, stated that they agreed as a group that there were no true substantive changes to this. It was a clarification of wording to help the City function the way it should. The group was satisfied that what was presented was what was decided on. Mr. Quentin Freeburg, 301 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that he was involved with the petition and part of the committee group. He agrees that there were no substantive changes in proposing these technical amendments. Mr. Greg Pettersen, 1601 Innsbruck Drive, stated that he was also involved with the committee. He said that they were trying to clarify the language in the Charter. They went directly from trying to clarify the language to what the original intent was. Oftentimes it came down to a question of whether this was something the group intended to address. Mr. William Holm, 7424 Melody Drive, stated that he was a member of the committee and a member of the Charter Commission. The Charter Commission's role on the committee was to hear the input from the petitioner's group. Their interpretation is what controlled what went on during the committee's meetings, what was presented to the Charter Commission, and what was ultimately approved. That group was very cooperative in resolving this. Mr. Knaak developed the technical language. Ms. Olson stated that as long as the City was not going to put a fee on her e�traordinarily high gas bill and electric bill she is content with the language. Ms. Lynne asked if this addressed the Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance. Mr. Knaak stated the ordinance is not imposing any new fees, only clarifying existing language and fees and preventing a situation from occurring. This prevents these charges over time to not reflect the actual service being provided by the City. For example, this applies to landlords, health inspection fees, and health and safety issues. The City would feel compelled if the language is not clarified to go to the voters with a list about five or six pages long on a ballot. This does not create new fees. If the Council agrees with the position stated or not, for the City to actually eliminate those fees would require a substantive change. That is not what this is about. Mr. Knaak stated that the Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance has to do with discretionary fees and the language that was in the current Charter. This ordinance does take care of that problem. Mr. Knaak stated that Mr. Carline's question regarding garage sale fees was addressed by the committee. A new fee would have to be treated as a new fee and brought to the voters. If a garage sale fee was suggested, it would have to be brought to the voters. We are dealing with e�sting fees. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 18 Mayor Lund stated that the voters would like to avoid the cost of a potential user fee. Mr. Knaak stated that a super majority was created in the language of the ordinance. It requires the vote of fifty-one percent (51%) of all voters in the election to adopt any change in the fees. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Knaak if Mr. Eisenzimmer's comments regarding some provisions being removed is not permissable because it is from the Charter Commission meeting. Council can only accept this or reject this. Mr. Knaak stated that was correct. Councilmember Billings stated that small businesses going out of business need clarification from Mr. Eisenzimmer as to what he was talking about. Probably what he is referring to is new fees for service or fees that were in excess of what it costs the City to administer the provisions of the existing ordinances. No new fees could be established that do not already exist, and the paragraph he was referring to states that the fees must be limited to the actual cost of the service being provided. Mr. Knaak stated that was correct. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that he was referring to junkyards being stricken off. You should not impose fees on a certain type of business such as junkyards and pawn shops. Councilmember Billings stated that he agrees and is a little confused by the language that is there. It is unusual for something in the City Charter to spell out the administration of a couple of types of our licenses. We have no choice but to accept or reject this and this makes sure we keep the intent of the original language. That paragraph does talk about other regulated businesses and it certainly is livable. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that Mr. Knaak and Ms. Skogen talked about why this was in there. He just does not understand the whole thing. Ms. Jorgenson stated that Mr. Eisenzimmer was concerned about these fees. Due to the type of businesses that they were, with possible contamination clean-up or the investigative nature of the pawn shops, they were addressed separately. It was the committee that brought these two fees up for discussion. Mr. Gordon stated that at the Charter Commission meeting on January 9, 2001, Mr. Eisenzimmer raised the issue but the other petition circulators did not have problems with this language. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 10:05 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 19 Mayor Lund stated that he appreciates the public's comments and apologizes for the lateness of the hour. He also appreciates the hard work of everyone involved. Councilmember Barnette stated that he would like to move Item No. 15 before Item No. 13. Mayor Lund stated that was fine. NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 15. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER PERTAINING TO TAXATION AND FINANCES: MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve the first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. Councilmember Billings stated that there are substantive changes being made with this ordinance. He would prefer to table this item until the ne�t meeting to allow the public to have exposure to the discussion held at the public hearing. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to table this item until the ne�t Council meeting and to have it appear on the regular agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OLD BUSINESS: 13. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 223 CONCERNING MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS, REQUIRING OWNERS TO PAY RELOCATION EXPENSES TO DISPLACED RESIDENTS UPON PARK CLOSINGS (TABLED JANUARY 22, 2001 : Councilmember Billings stated that State statutes are clear that when there is a closing, the municipality shall hold a public hearing. This ordinance is not necessary with only two parks in the City. The ordinance assumes that the park owner is going to be selling the park at windfall prices. It does not address the possibility that the park owner is losing the park because of bankruptcy or that in fifteen years these types of homes are not even going to be built anymore. There are too many uncertainties. The bottom line is that this ordinance could not contemplate every scenario for a park closing. Staff admits it cannot be done. If there is a park closing, the determinations are made at that time. The park owners have not come to oppose this because they do not want to create problems with the residents. He does not think the ordinance is necessary. Councilmember Barnette stated that he disagrees. If there are ever any lawsuits, we are on safer ground having the ordinance in place. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 20 Councilmember Wolfe asked if part of the reason for having this ordinance was because of the apartments being built. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that it has to do with the fact that there has been other park closings in other cities. She agrees with Councilmember Barnette. We will not get every detail, but it is a way of protecting a group of people who need protection. Councilmember Wolfe asked Mr. Carline if this is the issue he was referring to when he stated that government should not be involved in these kinds of issues. Mr. Carline stated that he used to own a mobile home. It took him seven weeks to find a park to put it in. It did not have wooden siding and it was too big at 1,300 square feet. He sold it after eleven months and it is something like "buyer beware." When he sold it, he had to move it. It was very expensive to move. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that this ordinance is not addressing fees, but protecting a group of people and helping to preserve affordable housing. Fridley is well above the average of other cities for affordable housing. Mr. Carline stated that this is a problem for the mobile home owners and somebody has to protect the mobile home park owner. Mobile homes are so impossible to move. Mr. Fernelius stated that the 25 mile radius comes from State law. Councilmember Wolfe stated that some people may stay there just so they will get paid. Councilmember Billings stated that they could have a situation where someone saves enough money to purchase a house and they have a new manufactured home. Rather than finding a buyer and location, they exercise the option not to move because they cannot find a spot within 25 miles. The park owner is obligated to purchase that home. Rather than going through the hassle, they sit tight until the closing comes along and someone pays them to move. The very same language that staff is relying on is language in the State statute. He wonders why we don't wait to deal with this until the situation comes up. Mr. Knaak stated that there is no requirement that the City provide for any compensation under any circumstances. If any compensation is to occur, it is going to happen because the City Council authorizes it. You would want to do this by ordinance because then you would not have another opportunity until the public hearing. You would be forced to improvise. The argument is going to be coming from the side of the park owner. Anything that you decide is required is something coming out of that individual's hide and it is an open invitation to the charge of arbitrariness or capriciousness. If you do this in advance and follow the rules when the hearing occurs, you eliminate that argument. This benefits the owners because it establishes what fees can be charged. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 21 Mayor Lund stated that he believes that the unique situation of homeowners on rented property creates a different scenario and he would have to go along with the ordinance. He does have reservations, however, because of the input from Councilmember Billings. Mr. Burns asked if they would use the appraised value. Mr. Fernelius stated that they would use the appraised value. Tracey Tomas, representing Park Plaza stated that she talked to Mr. Fernelius and Ms. Dacy at the initial meeting regarding park closing ordinances. They are not opposed to this at all. They talked about modeling it after the State statute. At the previous meeting, it was discussed that they were going along with it because there is no reason to argue the point because it is already a State statute. They understand their residents' genuine concern about the unique situation. If the park was going to close, they would know exactly what to pay. There are no plans to close the manufactured home park. The concern is how specific the ordinance has become. Who knows what the City would want to do with that land many years from now, and the City's hands would be tied as well. The cap on the compensation is a concern. Who picks up the difference for the cap? They do not know what the situation would be if the park ever closes. It is unreasonable to pay to have someone's personal belongings packed up and moved. Ms. Geri Lynne, a Fridley Terrace resident, has notes that define personal property as expenses for packing, crating, unpacking, and uncrating of personal property; disconnecting, dismantling, removing, reassembling, and reinstalling relocated household appliances and other personal property. Storage of personal property not to exceed 12 months is absolutely unreasonable. The last section under penalties stating that violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor is also a concern. She said she had a letter from Mr. Mark Brunner from NINIIIA regarding this matter. Mayor Lund asked if she had the letter with her. Ms. Tomas stated that she did not. Ms. Geri Lynne, 7303 Taylor Street, stated that she is a resident of Fridley Terrace Mobile Home Park. With respect to expenses of moving personal property, there was a list of what could be included as personal property contained in the Federal Uniform Relocation Act. If that act kicked in, this would be defined for the moving details. She received a copy of the draft of the ordinance late Wednesday. The copy of the draft of the ordinance was not included in the letter to the residents advising them of tonight's hearing. She is concerned about the personal property inclusion and she wants to thank Mr. Fernelius for putting it in. The question is if this would apply to people's homes that have been bought out. She cannot tell by the ordinance if it would. The City requires an appraiser licensed by the State of Minnesota to do the appraisals. This would be an expense they would have to cover. In disputes over evaluations over homes that would be sold out or bought out by the property purchaser, it says that under Section 223.08.01: "The appraisal may be provided by the displaced resident, the park owner, or the purchaser. Any disputes over evaluation shall be resolved through judicial action in Anoka County District Court." An attorney she talked to today stated that although you can go into District Court without an attorney, he highly advised that you do have an attorney. That would probably cost FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 22 over $400. The purchaser shall pay such compensation into an escrow account established by the park owner for distribution upon transfer of title to the manufactured home. If the park was closed and she wanted to tender title to her home, when would she get her check? The latest figures from Anoka County for Fridley Terrace for the cap would come somewhere in the neighborhood of $4,300 for the home owner if they were displaced and that does not cover what her home is worth. That would not cover a lot of people. The differential may be passed on to the taxpayers. Fridley homeowners can call her or the office for a copy of the draft ordinance. She appreciates the fine work of the City. Mr. Fernelius has done a very good job of pulling this together and she appreciates all the hard work done on this ordinance. Mr. Fernelius stated that they are trying to avoid a situation where a future Council is faced with relocation compensation and the question of who pays for the rest of the portion. He would recommend adopting the cap. Burnsville and Apple Valley have the caps. Bloomington and Roseville do not. Under the issue of personal property, it is fairly clear that the items included in the revised ordinance have not provided the level of specificity Ms. Lynne has. We have tried to address that issue fairly clearly. The deadline for the mailing of the draft was made clear to Ms. Lynne. As soon as the mailing was done, she was made a copy of it. We tried to mail the letter in a timely fashion. This is not a new issue for all the residents affected by it. We have not received many comments from people affected by this. Whether or not people will be compensated for the value of their unit, they would not receive any kind of compensation for moving personal property. They receive money to move their personal property or make the decision to sell their home. It is an either or proposition. The ordinance does not state that the displaced owner has to pay for that appraisal. It could be provided for by any one of the private parties. That is something that could be negotiated. With regard to the tendering of the title, the language is somewhat confusing. If you want to be bought out for the value of your unit, you will have to wait until si�ty days prior to the closing of the park The presumption is that the closing of the park will be tied to the closing on the sale of the land. That is when the money will become available. Compensation paid prior to that time will make that process more difficult. Councilmember Wolfe asked if it would be better to specify that the owner of the home itself gets the appraisal and pays for it, or the owner of the property. Mr. Fernelius stated that they could include any language in there. They were trying to make this as broad as possible and to allow as much fle�bility as possible. Any one of those parties can provide the appraisal. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the first reading of the ordinance. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. Councilmember Billings offered amendments to Section 223.08. He stated that his proposed language would indicate that it would be at the fair market value arrived at by an appraiser, or if an appraisal does not exist, at the current assessed value. If the park owner, purchaser, or the displaced resident, does not like the value put on the property by the assessed value of Anoka County, they can pay for an appraiser and that appraisal will determine the value. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 23 MOTION by Councilmember Billings to insert the following into 223.08, titled "Limitation of Location Costs and Compensation:" "The total amount of compensation paid to displaced owners of manufactured homes shall not exceed the greater of twenty percent (20%) of the County's Assessor's estimated market value of the manufactured home park as determined by the County Assessor for the year in which the park is scheduled to close or twenty percent (20%) of the purchase price of the park" Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Councilmember Billings to explain his reasoning. Councilmember Billings stated that there has been much discussion that one of the benefits to the park owners is that this ordinance would spell out some guidelines for them so they would know what types of costs they would incur. Placing the twenty percent (20%) figure in the ordinance helps park owners determine what kind of costs they would potentially face. This particular scenario provides that this compensation will be paid if this park owner goes out of business because they cannot afford to be in business any longer and they do not have the financial wherewithal to pay these fees. It is a misdemeanor and they will be thrown in jail. We do not know that someone is going to make a windfall on a sale ten, fifteen, or twenty years in the future. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Knaak if that was true. Mr. Knaak stated that a misdemeanor is a crime punishable by 90 days in jail. This ordinance does create the crime for non-compliance. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that if the non-compliance was because there was no money there, would it still be considered the same? Mr. Knaak stated that this would be a behavioral incident, but any violation of the ordinance would be a crime. How does Councilmember Billing's amendment correspond to the amendment just adopted by the Council providing for a separate appraisal? Is this creating a circumstance in which the language just adopted is rather meaningless? The appraisal does not matter if there is an assessment that is far less. Councilmember Billings stated that he is using assessed values of two different things. He is using the assessed value of the mobile home itself. The language proposed in the amendment is the assessed market value of the home park as determined by the County Assessor. Could we get into a situation where the closing costs exceed twenty percent (20%) of the purchase price and of the estimated market value of the mobile home park? Mr. Knaak stated that would explain the language. Councilmember Barnette stated that he understands Councilmember Billing's point but Mayor Lund stated that there will be value to that piece of land no matter what happens to the park. Whether it would be enough to pay the assessed value off is the question. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 24 Mr. Knaak stated that other cities have tried to address that issue by putting those caps on. In terms of bankruptcy there is a question of whether the homeowner would be able to stand before the bankruptcy trustee and have a claim. It would have to be predicated on the contractual relationship and require that payment be made, or on a statutory basis. In this instance it would be the ordinance. Absent that, there is the possibility that the City could not award enough. The jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court would be absolute. Mayor Lund asked if he had any thoughts on who makes up the differential. Councilmember Billings stated that pursuant to State statute, the City Council has the authority to have additional compensation paid to displaced persons by the City or by others. Mayor Lund stated that would be true regardless of whether we have this ordinance or not. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she is not ready to agree to the amendment without understanding the ramifications. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND AND COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, WOLFE, AND BILLINGS VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Lund asked for a vote on the main motion. Mr. Fernelius stated that the additional language to be added on the cap would be under a new section. Councilmember Billings stated it is put under Section 223.08 but if staff would like to make it a new item and renumber 9 and 10 it would be appropriate. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND AND COUNCILMEMBERS BOLKCOM, BARNETTE COUNCILMEMBERS WOLFE AND BILLINGS VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 14. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the crowd at the Home and Remodeling Fair last weekend was not as big as last year, probably due to the weather. Staff spent a lot of time planning this and it is much appreciated. Mayor Lund stated that the Fridley Lion's Club Spring Pancake Breakfast tickets are available now. It will be held on Sunday, March 18 at the Fridley Community Center from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he would like to congratulate Carrie Varichek, a gymnast from Fridley High School, who qualified for the State tournament. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 25 ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MARCH 5, 2001, CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor