Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-91 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 14INUTES APPROVED: 10-15-91 MINUTES ISSUED: 11-1-91 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1991 Mayor Johnson called the City Council meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Mayor Johnson, Hunt, Dick Johnson, Mottaz, Williams, City Engineer Prew, City Attorney Filla and Administrator Kueffner. 1. AGENDA Change Old Business: A. APAC Ordinance, B. Cimarron Severe Weather Emergency Procedures, C. MUSA Extension, D. Stonegate Rezoning. Add: 9C. Clarify his position on PZ Subcommittee M/S/P Hunt/Dick Johnson - to approve the October 1, 1991 City Council agenda as amended. (Motion carried 5-0). 2. MINUTES: September 17, 1991 M/S/P Dick Johnson/Hunt - to approve the September 17, 1991 City Council minutes as amended. (Motion carried 5-0). MINUTES: September 24, 1991 M/S/P Williams/Hunt - to postpone consideration of the September 24, 1991 City Council minutes until the October 15th Council meeting. (Motion carried 5-0). 3. CLAIMS M/S/P Dick Johnson/Hunt - to approve the October 1, 1991 claims #95282 thru #95332 as presented. (Motion carried 5-0). LAKE ELMO JAYCEES PRESENTATION: On behalf of the 1991 Lake Elmo Jaycees Huff n'Puff Committee, Rick Schultz acknowledged the prestigious amount of work Mike Bouthilet, Lake Elmo Parks Supervisor, has done to make Huff n'Puff days a success and presented Mike with a plaque extending their grateful appreciation for services rendered. 4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES: The letter written by Steve DeLapp requesting the Council direct enforcement of Ordinance 505.010 in the City Code Book regarding signage and comments on the MUSA was entered into the record and made part of these minutes. (See Public Inquiry). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1991 2 Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Avenue, stated she attended the September 27th hearing where Mayor Johnson and Councilman Mottaz asked the judge to vacate an order regarding the rezoning of land for development to be known as Stonegate. The judge stated he was going to turn down their Motion and the City of Lake Elmo is to rezone this property. It is unfortunate that the County and City tax money have had to be spent to protect ourselves against Mayor Johnson and Councilman Mottaz in a seemingly frivolous lawsuit. Mayor Johnson and Councilman Mottaz were accused engaging in unauthorized practice of law which constitutes a misdemeanor. I would like to know if this puts our city in any kind of jeopardy and would hope if the suit is fought these two individuals would have to defend themselves personally without any help from our City Attorney since they have been representing themselves and not the citizens of Lake Elmo in this lawsuit. 5. OLD BUSINESS: A. APAC ORDINANCE: The City staff has been working with representatives from Cimarron Park, APAC, and the Cimarron management to prepare an ordinance relating to park closings. A draft ordinance was presented for council consideration. The Council engaged in detailed discussion of all parts of the proposed ordinance. M/S/P Hunt/Dick Johnson to adopt Ordinance 8058, as amended, adding chapter 1700 to the Lake Elmo Municipal code relating to the closure of manufactured home parks. (Motion carried 5-0). B. Cimarron Severe Weather Emergency Procedures M/S/P Dick Johnson/Williams - to direct the City Administrator to set up a meeting with the manager of Cimarron, Cimarron Resident, Mayor Johnson, Civil Defense Director Fran Pott, Deputy Sheriff and Fire Chief for the purpose of discussing the Severe Weather Emergency Procedures for Cimarron. (Motion carried 5-0). C. MUSA Extension At the September 17, 1991 meeting, the Council postponed action on the following motion: MIS/ Mottaz/Mayor Johnson - to proceed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment adding a new MUSA that would extend from County Road 13 to 1/2 mile east of County Road 19 and 1/2 mile north of I-94 for this entire distance. Councilman Williams provided the following amendment to the motion of 9-17-91. MIS/ Williams/Hunt - to amend the motion to read as follows: The following three actions shall be accomplished: LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1991 3 1. Get an agreement with either Oakdale or Woodbury acceptable to both City Councils, for the use of sewer facilities to provide service to the potential MUSA area. 2. Enact a zoning ordinance, including at least allowed uses and design standards, for the MUSA area. 3. Bring the zoning of all parts of the City into conformance with the Future Land Use Map of the existing comprehensive Plan by rezoning the land appropriately, with the exception of the land to be included in the MUSA area as described below. However, if a resident owns and resides on homesteaded land which is currently zoned agriculture, and that resident requests that the zoning remain agriculture, that request shall be granted. Once the above three actions have been accomplished, the City Council shall by ordinance amend the Comprehensive Plan to include and apply to the Metropolitan Council for extension of the MUSA line, in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation, to the 1/4 section line north of I-94 from Inwood Avenue to the 1/4 section line east of Keats Avenue and an additional area including to the 1/2 section line north of I-94 by 1/2 mile east of Inwood Avenue, except for an additional area including to the 1/2 section line north of I-94 by 1/4 mile to the west and 1/4 mile to the east of Keats Avenue. If the MUSA extension is granted by the Metropolitan Council, the city council shall issue an amended Comprehensive Plan to show the MUSA extension. The City Council shall, within 3 months of the Metropolitan Council approval, rezone the land within the MUSA area to bring the zoning into conformance with the amended Comprehensive Plan. 4. to set a sunset clause that if all of the Council concerns are not met at the end of 90 days the application is null and void. M/S/P Mottaz/Mayor Johnson - to amend the amendment by deleting Item No. 3. (Motion carried 3-2: Williams: The reason for bringing the rest of the City into conformance with the Comp Plan was to limit the MUSA line. I don't want it to grow any larger than it is. The message I get from the residents is: put something down there I don't care, but don't make me pay for it; and protect the residential areas. If those residential areas that our comp plan calls for, especially along 10th St., are not protected by zoning, then I don't want any part of this. I feel I have compromised. Item No. 3 has been advocated by our city attorney for months and we have not done it yet. The Section of the Statutes clearly states the official controls should be brought into conformance of the Comp Plan within 9 months of changing of the plan. If the Council will not compromise the rest of the way, then the failure of this MUSA proposal is on your heads, LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1991 4 Hunt: I feel item #3 is important to the city because this city is trying to send a positive message by saying we are going to rezone the land within that MUSA. We should then carry that thru and rezone the remainder of the City. Councilman Mottaz: If we ask the City Attorney he will tell us there are differences of opinion in interpreting that Statute about controls. I have talked to more attorneys who disagree with our attorney than those who agree. Mayor Johnson: In the case of Anton versus City of Eagan, the supreme court stated that the master plan, as referred to the comp plan, does not unalterably hold the city to a rezoning. Although not abiding by the comp plan would be one part of evidence for support of arbitrainess. M/S/P Williams/Hunt - to amend the amendment to include the following changes: 3. At the same time, to request an extension of the MUSA and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from the metropolitan Council, in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation, to the 1/4 section line north of I-94 from Inwood Avenue to the 1/4 Section line east of Keats Avenue and an additional area including to the 1/2 section line north of I-94 by 1/2 mile east of Inwood Avenue, except for an additional area including the 1/2 section line north of I-94 by 1/4 mile to the west and 1/4 mile to the east of Keats Avenue. 5. If items #1 and #2 are not accomplished within 75 days, the application to the Met Council for the extension of the MUSA and amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be withdrawn, or if the Met Council has already approved the MUSA Extension, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be null and void. 6. At our earliest opportunity, the city set up a public hearing for the purpose of enacting a moratorium on development with the proposed MUSA defined area. (Motion carried 3-2: Williams:same reasons as stated above, Hunt: I strongly support the Comp Plan of this City and strongly support the extension of the MUSA. I am very troubled at the position we are in tonight. What troubles me is I see something that is good for the city and the ability to do something good for the City. I also see an unwillingness for some members of this Council to follow this comp plan. I have seen that occur in a recent case that went to Court. Every time a proposal comes in near the MUSA it will probably be turned down by this council unless it is for commercial.) LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1991 5 M/S/P Mottaz/Mayor Johnson - to proceed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment adding a new MUSA with the following conditions: (Motion carried 4-1: Williams: for reasons stated previously) 1. Get an agreement with either Oakdale or Woodbury, acceptable to both City Councils, for the use of sewer facilities to provide service to the potential MUSA area. 2. Enact a zoning ordinance, including at least allowed uses and design standards, for the MUSA area. 3. At the same time, to request an extension of the MUSA and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from the Metropolitan Council, in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation, to the 1/4 section line north of I-94 from Inwood Avenue to the 1/4 Section line east of Keats Avenue and an additional area including to the 1/2 section line north of I-94 by 1/2 mile east of Inwood Avenue, except for an additional area including to the 1/2 section line north of I-94 by 1/4 mile to the west and 1/4 mile to the east of Keats Avenue. 4. If the MUSA extension is granted by the Metropolitan Council, the City Council shall issue an amended Comprehensive Plan to show the MUSA extension. The City council shall, within 3 months of the Metropolitan Council approval, rezone the land within the MUSA to bring the zoning into conformance with the amended Comprehensive Plan. 5. If items #1 and #2 are not accomplished within 75 days, the application to the Met Council for the extension of the MUSA and amendment to comprehensive plan shall be withdrawn, or if the Met Council has already approved the MUSA Extension, the Comp Plan Amendment shall be null and void. 6. At our earliest opportunity, the city set up a public hearing for the purpose of enacting a moratorium on development within the proposed MUSA defined area. Discussion followed: Mayor Johnson: I feel Item 3 is unrelated to the specific request for a MUSA extension. This item may be considered as a priority item separately at a later time. He would deal in earnest on the issue of rezoning the entire City. In general, he agrees with the comp plan, however he does believe if we want to preserve for the residents of the City some assemblance of rural, he would want to discuss at the same time the idea of clustering or transfer of density. Councilman Mottaz: He added support to what the Mayor said and he would be willing to work as hard as anyone else to deal with Item 3 as a separate issue. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1991 6 Councilman Hunt gave the following reasons for voting for the motion: Although we are opening some risk in that area of the City, I could not in good conscience put myself in a position to harm the city because we have not protected our residential areas, but also feel if he had voted "no" now the development would have been lost and likely ended up with a Council so divided that it would have been unable to function ever again. Mayor Johnson asked Item #3 (bring the zoning of all parts of the City into conformance with the Future Land Use Map of the existing Comp Plan) be placed as a priority item under Old Business at a special meeting. D. Stonegate Rezoning Councilman Williams explained that at the last council meeting pursuant to the court order, the Council considered a motion to rezone the Stonegate property and the motion failed 3-2 because of the required 4/5th vote for passage. Some of the comments made by the Mayor and Councilman Mottaz for voting against the motion were that the Mayor's Motion to Vacate the court order was in process and they wanted to see the outcome. The Motion was not allowed by the Court so now the Court has an unchallenged order to the City to rezone Stonegate property. Therefore, Williams made the following motion: M/S/F Williams/Hunt - the property known as Stonegate development be rezoned to Residential Estates based on the Findings of Fact of July 16, 1991 City Council meeting and pursuant to the court order. (Motion failed 3-2: Mayor Johnson: At this point he would have to vote against the motion, but he possibly may be able to take some stance on this at the next Council meeting, Mottaz: I am voting against the motion for the same reasons that I stated the last time.) Councilman Williams indicated the Council was handed a Notice of Motion filed by Trailhead Dev. against the City of Lake Elmo in regard to this matter. The part that troubles him is this is filed against the City and one of the pleadings is awarding plaintiff its reasonable cost and attorneys fees incurred in bringing this Motion. Williams urged the Mayor and Councilman Mottaz to please reconsider as this is putting the City at severe financial risk. Councilman Mottaz: The issue here is not a matter of rezoning, but the issue here is three Council people put the City in a position where they might be in violation of a state law by instructing the City Attorney not to defend, thereby, circumventing a very clearly worded state statute that requires 2/3rd vote to pass this. This is what is costing the city money. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1991 7 6. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING: A. Large Lot Subdivision & Variances: Everett Beaubien At its September 23, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request of Everett Beaubien for a large lot subdivision which included variances for road frontage and lot configuration. The Commission voted 8-1 to deny this request based on the eight reasons stated by City Planner Mike Black's report dated 9/17/91. M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the request for a large lot subdivision and variances for road frontage and lot configuration based on the Findings of Fact listed in Mike Black's memo dated September 26, 1991. (Motion carried 5-0). B. Rolling Hills, Preliminary Plat At their September 23, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 7-2 to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Rolling Hills contingent on: 1) the applicant receives the Valley Branch Watershed permit, 2) Core of Engineer permit, 3) DNR permit if required, 4) the City Engineer's approval of the final design, 5) the applicant pay a park dedication fee in lieu of land of 70 of the fair market value based on the finding that the preliminary plat complies with the RE zoning standards, 6) also with the recommendation that the bottom strip of land (that follows the southside of 53rd Street which is the west portion of Lot 2, Block 2) with the potential requirement for a variance be satisfied as part of final plat approval. The City Attorney indicated that the bottom strip of land would probably go tax forfeit because who would pay taxes if they cannot use it. The property owner to the South has indicated he had no intention of developing in the near future. Councilman Williams stated that Lot 2, Block 2 should be truncated as shown and the outlot be deeded to the City. On Lot 3, Block 1, cannot be construed as meeting 3:1 lot depth to width ratio because at the setback line the lot width is less than 200' and the shortest distance between the front and back lot lines is almost 700' feet and the lot depth is supposed to be the mean distance. Roger Kolstad explained it was his understanding from his surveyor that it depends on how you measure the lot. The PZ indicated at their meeting the ordinance was not clear as to how lot configuration could be interpreted. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1991 8 A council member brought up the John Day Farm Addition Plat, where there was Council consensus that the applicant probably did not meet the letter of the ordinance, but met the intent of the ordinance. It was acceptable to Roger Kolstad to postpone discussion for two weeks or when he has the necessary permits in hand. Therefore, the following motion was made. M/S/P Dick Johnson/Williams - with the consent for an extension from Roger Kolstad, the Council postponed discussion until the necessary permits are obtained by the applicant. (Motion carried 5-0). C. Large Lot Subdivision Variances: Ron Gjerstad, 11311 50th St. At their September 23, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed large lot subdivision for Ron Gjerstad, 11311 50th Street, as presented by revised survey dated 9-23-91, subject to: 1) dedication of all drainage easements shown, 2) recognize variance to lot ratio and lot width to depth easements with the hardship of existing topography, trees, and wetlands, 3) the new driveway cannot be in or through drainage easements, 4) payment of $700 for park dedication. M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to adopt Resolution No. 91-32 granting a Large Lot Subdivision, as amended, for Ron Gjerstad, 11311 50th St. subject to the following conditions: 1. dedication of all drainage easements shown, 2. payment of $700 for park dedication, 3. the new driveway in proposed Parcel A cannot be in or through drainage easements, 4. an 18" driveway culvert on 50th Street be installed with safety aprons 5. satisfactory perk tests on Parcel A, 6. justification for the variances for road frontage and lot width to depth ratio being the preservation of historical structures and the contour of the land providing access to those structures. (Motion carried 5-0). D. City Council & PZ Joint Meeting Each year the Council and Planning Commission are supposed to meet jointly to go over the planing commission's annual work 'plan. The commission has now reviewed its work plan and asks that the Council call a joint meeting for Monday, October 28, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. M/S/P Hunt/Dick Johnson - to call a joint meeting with the Planning Commission for Monday, October 28, 1991 at 7:00 p.m, and that proper notification be given to all interested parties. (Motion carried 5-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1991 9 7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: A. 1991 City Engineering Standards Councilman Johnson informed the Council of the following concerns by the Public Works Foreman: concern on when you don't provide curbs and storm sewers because the ditches of the City are filling up with the normal accumulation of sand and silt; concern was with planting trees in the right-of-way on the volume of snow storage if we encroach any closer than 9 or 10' of the road surface. M/S/P Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to postpone discussion for two weeks and if there are comments by the council, they should be submitted by Thursday before the meeting to the City Engineer. (Motion carried 5-0). B. Partial Payment #3 to Kenko, Inc. The City Engineer requested approval of Partial Payment Certificate No. 3 in the amount of $57,820.34 for Kenko, Inc. for work on the SW-1 watermain project. M/S/P Hunt/Williams - to approve Partial Payment Certificate No. 3 in the amount of $57,820.34 for Kenko, Inc, to be paid after the City receives payment from Washington County. (Motion carried 5-0). 8. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: OLD BUSINESS: When the SW-1 landfill discussion is on the agenda, the Council requests the Fire Chief and Public Works Foreman attend this meeting. A. Precinct Boundary Adjustment Designate Polling Place for Precinct 2 The City Administrator requested council permission to proceed with amending our precinct boundaries and designating the Lake Elmo city hall as the official polling place for precinct 2. If we designate Highway 5 as the precinct boundary, we would be able to retain the fire hall as the official polling place for precinct 1 and city hall could be designated as the official polling place for precinct 2. M/S/P Mottaz/Williams - to direct the City Administrator to prepare a resolution amending our precinct boundaries and designating State Highway 5 as the precinct boundary and designate the city hall as the polling place for precinct 2 and the fire station as the polling place for precinct 1. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/P Dick Johnson/Mottaz - to adjourn the City Council meeting at 12:10 p.m. (Motion carried 5-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1991 10 ----------------- Ordinance 8058, adding Chapter 1700 to the Lake Elmo Municipal code relating to the closure of manufactured home parks. Resolution No. 91-32: Granting Large Lot Subdivision for Ron Gjerstad, 11311 50th St. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF LAKE ELMO ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 1700 TO THE LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS. The City Council ordains that Chapter 1700 and its subsections shall be added to the Lake Elmo Municipal Code to read as follows: 1700. Manufactured Home Park Closings. 1700.010. Purpose and Intent. Based upon the difficulty and expense of relocating Manufactured Homes and the unavailability of Manufactured Home Parks within a reasonable distance of the City of Lake Elmo, the Council finds that the public health, safety and welfare of Lake Elmo residents will be promoted by adopting regulations relating to the payment of Relocation Costs and Compensation in the event of the closing of all or a portion of a Manufactured Home Park. The purpose of this regulation is to define the regulations which will apply to Manufactured Home Park Closings and is adopted pursuant to the authority granted by M.S. 327C.095. 1700.020. Definitions. As used herein, the following words shall mean: A. Closure Statement. A written statement prepared by the Park Owner which includes the following information: 1. A statement that the Manufactured Home Park, or a portion thereof, is closing and the anticipated date of closing. A statement addressing the availability, location and potential cost of other Manufactured Home Park lot sites located within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the Manufactured Home Park that is being closed. 3. A statement of the probable Relocation Costs within a reasonable range which will be incurred by the Park Residents in order to relocate the Park Resident's Manufactured Home to a Manufactured Home Park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius. B. Current Resident List. A list of names and addresses of adult residents of the Manufactured Home Park. C. Eligible Park Resident. A Park Resident who satisfies the following criteria: 1. Park Lot rent is current within thirty (30) days of the anticipated Park Closing date and personal property taxes have been paid for the current and prior years. 2. Manufactured Home has been maintained (including the roofing, siding, windows, flooring, and frame) pursuant to the Manufactured Home Park Standards for the year in which the Manufactured Home was constructed and the Manufactured Home is in good repair as determined by the City's Building Inspector. 3. Park Resident is unable to locate space in a Manufactured Home Park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius which has the same or less restrictive standards. 4. Personal credit history is not the reason for Park Residents inability to relocate to another Manufactured Home Park. D. Lot. An area within a Manufactured Home Park designed or used for the accommodation of a Manufactured Home. E. Manufactured Home. A structure, not affixed to or a part of real estate, transportable in one or more sections, which in the travelling mode is eight (8.) body feet or more in width or forty (40) body feet or more in length, or when placed on a Lot, 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. P. Manufactured Home Park. A site, lot, field or tract of land upon which two (2) or more occupied Manufactured Homes are located either free of charge or for compensation and includes any building structure, tent, vehicle or enclosure used or intended for use as part of the equipment of the Manufactured Home Park. Manufac- tured Home Park does not include facilities which are open daily during three or fewer seasons of the year. 2 G. Park Closing. The conversion of all or a portion of the occupied Lots of a Manufactured Home Park to another use or the termination of use of the Manufactured Home Park. H. Park Owner. The owner of a Manufactured Home Park. I. Park Resident. An owner of a Manufactured Home located on a lot in a Manufactured Home Park within the City of Lake Elmo who rents such Lot and occupies such Manufactured Home as a principal residence. J. Person. Any individual, corporation, firm, partnership, incorporated and unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity. K. Relocation Costs. The reasonable cost of relocating a Manufactured Home from a Manufactured Home Park in Lake Elmo to another Manufactured Home Park within a twenty- five (25) mile radius. Such cost includes expenses incurred in the following categories: 1. Preparation for Move. Reasonable costs incurred to prepare the Manufactured Home for transportation to another site. This category does include crane services but not the cost of wheel axles, tires, frame welding or trailer hitches. 2. Transportation to Another Site. Reasonable costs incurred to transport the Manufactured Home to another Manufactured Home Park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius. This category includes the cost of insuring the Manufactured Home for its replace- ment value while the Manufactured 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. 3. Hook-up at New Location. The reasonable cost of connecting the Manufactured Home to utilities at the relocation site provided that this category does include crane services. The Park Owner shall not be required to upgrade the electrical or plumbing systems of the Manufactured Home. 3 1700.030. Notice of Closing. At least nine (9) months prior to the anticipated date for the full or partial Park Closing, the Park Owner shall: A. Personally serve a copy of the Closure Statement on at least one adult resident of each Manufactured Home within the Manufactured Home Park. B. Personally serve the Lake Elmo Administrator with a copy of the Closure Statement, a Current Resident List, and a plan for funding the Relocation Costs and Compensation which will be required as a condition of closing. 1700.040. Public Hearing. The City Administrator shall forward the Closure Statement to the Planning Commission for comment. Upon review by the Planning Commission, the City Administrator shall schedule a public hearing before the City Council preceded by ten (10) days mailed notice to people whose names appear on the Resident List. Failure to notify all Park Residents shall not invalidate the public hearing. At the public hearing the City Council shall review the Closure Statement, receive comments and evaluate the impact of the Manufactured Home Park Closing on the Park Residents, the City's resources and its comprehensive plan. 1700.050. Conditions of Closing. As a condition of closing, the Park Owner shall pay Relocation Costs to eligible Park Residents or the Park Purchaser shall pay Compensation to eligible Park Residents as hereinafter provided. Development and/or building permits shall not be issued for subsequent uses of the Manufactured Home Park Property until the Park Owner has complied with the City's Development Regulations and until the Park Owner and/or Park Purchaser have made arrangements, acceptable to the City, for the funding Relocation Costs and the Compensation required hereby. 1700.060. Park Resident Statement. Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a Closure Notice, a Park Resident shall provide the Park Owner with a written statement of Relocation Costs or; in the alternative, a written statement that the Park Resident cannot relocate the Park Resident's Manufactured Home to another Manufactured Home Park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius and the reasons for such conclusion. 1700.070. Election to Receive Relocation Costs. A. If a single section Manufactured Home can be relocated to another Manufactured Home Park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius, the Park Owner shall pay eligible Park Residents Relocation Costs as defined herein, or, an amount equal to $3,500, whichever is less. 0 B. If a double section Manufactured Home can be relocated to another Manufactured Home Park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius, the Park Owner shall pay eligible Park Residents Relocation Costs as defined herein, or, an amount equal to $5,000, whichever is less. C. The Park Owner shall make relocation payments directly to contractors providing the relocation service, but, upon proof of payment of such Relocation Costs by an eligible Park Resident, shall reimburse the eligible Park Resident directly for such Relocation Costs. The Park Owner shall be entitled to receive adequate documentation of Relocation Costs, including costs of proposals, invoices, estimates and contracts for relocation services. D. The maximum relocation payment specified in Sections 1700.070(A) and 1700.070(B) above shall be adjusted on January 1st of each year commencing on January 1, 1992 based upon the change in the Consumer Price Index, Minneapolis -St. Paul, for all urban consumers ("CPI-U") as published in the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. The amount of the adjustment shall be equal to the percentage of change in the CPI-U on the date of adjustment over the CPI-U in effect on January 1st of the preceding year. 1700.080. Election to Receive Compensation. I£ a Manufactured i Home cannot be relocated to another Manufactured Home Park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius, an eligible Park Resident shall elect one of the following options by giving written notice to the Park Owner who shall forward such notice to the Park Purchaser; and the Compensation payment provided for herein shall be paid within thirty (30) days prior to the date of the closing on the sale of the Manufactured Home Park. A. The eligible Park Resident may elect to receive compensa- tion in an amount equal to the average Relocation Cost provided to eligible Park Residents for the relocation of similar housing, in which event, the Park Purchaser shall pay such compensation and the eligible Park Resident shall retain title to the Manufactured Home and be responsible for its prompt removal from the Manufactured Home Park; or B. The eligible Park Resident may elect to receive compensa- tion in an amount equal to the estimated market value for the Manufactured Home as stated on the Current Year Personal Property Tax Statement for the Manufactured Home, in which event, the Park Purchaser shall pay such compensation to the eligible Park Resident and the eligible Park Resident shall transfer title to the Manufactured Home to the Park Purchaser free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. 6E 1700.090. General Requirements. A. Displaced Park Residents cannot be required to vacate the Manufactured Home Park until sixty (60) days after conclusion of the public hearing before the City Council. B. If there is a partial closure of the Manufactured Home Park and other Lots remain available within the same Manufactured Home Park, the Park Owner must allow Displaced Residents an opportunity to relocate within the Manufactured Home Park unless the Displaced Residents' Manufactured Home, because of its size, is not compatible with the available lot. 1700.100. Limitation of Relocation Costs and Compensation. The total amount of Relocation Cost and Compensation to be paid to eligible Park Residents shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the estimated market value of the Manufactured Home Park, as stated in the Property Tax Statement for the year in which the Closure Statement is served on the City Administrator. In the event that the total of the Relocation Cost and Compensation payable to eligible Park Residents exceeds this limitation, the Relocation Costs and Compensation payable to each eligible Park Resident shall be decreased proportionately so that the total of the Relocation Costs and Compensation does not exceed the limitation stated herein. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective the day following its publication. Adoption Date. Passed by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo the 1st day of October , 1991. David Johnson, Mayor ATTEST: Mary Kue£fner, City Administrator Publication Date. C\J\LEORD91.005 October 3, 1991 Published on the of 1991.