pf_03135 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Rosevillle Community Development Dept Welsch, Dennis From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: cklaw [cklaw@uswest.net] Thursday, July 15, 19995:51 PM 'Dennis Welsch' 'Morrison, Pat' RE: Com Dev - Council Work Session July 19th Comments: First, the Elk River Ordinance that was faxed to me last Friday deals extensively with design, operation, and maintenance issues of parks. It does not, however, address the relocation issue. In that regard, it serves as a poor model for the Council to consider when discussing the relocation/closing issue. The Roseville City Code, section 1004.10, currently provides substantially similar provisions regarding park standards (from a design and construction perspective, such as street layout and landscaping). The Elk River ordinance does include more specific performance standards than the Roseville Code, but I question why those standards are not extended generally to all housing types: for instance, odors, exterior lighting, vibration, dust, and smoke don't seem any more uniquely connected to manufactured homes versus site-built homes. In fact, section 900.28 seems to apply these performance standards to all property owners. While that may be something the Council may choose to consider, it goes far beyond the narrower focus of the work session. Second, from a legal perspective, the question of park closing and relocation is addressed in detail in M.S. 327C.095. No local ordinance is necessary. M.S. 327C.095 provides a detailed process of notifying residents of closing, public hearings, and timelines for the closing process. The law specifies that: "Before any change in use or cessation of operation and as a condition of the change, the governing body may require a payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced resident for the reasonable relocation costs...The governing body of the municipality may also require that other parties, including the municipality, involved in the park closing provide additional compensation to residents to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon the residents." Given the changing legal landscape regarding property rights and "takings" the City runs some risk of legal challenge in fashioning a requirement in advance of a particular proposal. This is because the statute specifies that the requirement is to be imposed "as a condition of the change" in use of the property. It is my recollection that other cities have discussed the imposition of relocation payments only when a specific closure or redevelopment plan was imminent or pending. That is why I was curious to see the Elk River sample, which purportedly addressed the issue well in advance. At this point, I think it prudent to gather further research from other communities/LMC regarding park closings prior to drafting an ordinance_ ---Original Message----- From: Morrison, Pat [SMTP:PatMorrison@roseville.rcmnet.org] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 11 :08 AM Dennis Welsch Community Dev. Director Phone 651-490-2232 Fax: 651-490-2931 City of Roseville Community Development 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville. Mn 55113