HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Manufactured Home Park Text Amendment, 06-05-TAAGENDA ITEM: 06 -05 -TA Manufactured Home Park
Zoning and Property Maintenance
Ordinance Text Amendments
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP; Senior Planner
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Manufactured Home Park Zoning
Ordinance, Manufactured Home Park Property
Maintenance Ordinance, Resolution, Red -Lined
Manufactured Home Park Zoning Ordinance, Excerpts
from the September 26, 2006 and October 24, 2006
Planning Commission Meetings, Memorandum from
Charles LeFevere, October 16, 2006 request from
Rosemount Woods Residents, 2005 Rosemount
Woods Petition Form, Memorandum from All Parks
Alliance for Change
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the following action
1. Motion to approve the attached ordinances
a. Ordinance amending the Manufactured Home Park Section of Zoning Ordinance.
b Ordinance creating the Manufactured Home Park Section of the Building and
Property Maintenance Ordinance.
2. Motion to adopt a Resolution authorizing publication of Ordinance No. B -177 amending
Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance related to Section 11 -2 -19 Manufactured Home
Park Requirements and Ordinance No XXI.15 creating Section 9 -4 -8 Manufactured
Home Park of the Building and Property Maintenance Ordinance.
4 ROSEMOLINT
Packet page 104 of 148
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting: November 21, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ISSUE
In early 2005, a pennon was submitted to the City by the residents of Rosemount Woods manufactured
home park to amend the Zoning Ordinance to included provisions for relocation costs for manufactured
home park residents if the park was closed or redeveloped At its July 2005 and January 2006 workshops,
the City Council discussed the possible amendment and directed staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance
similar to Apple Valley's On September 26 and October 24, 2006, the Planning Commission held pubhc
hearings regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment.
Provided as an attachment is a red -hne version of the Zoning Ordinance text changes to provide a sense
of how the proposed changes have occurred When reviewing the red -lined Zoning Ordinance revision,
original proposed text changes from the existing ordinance are underhned, while changes as a result of
pubhc comment or Planning Commission recommendation are both highlighted and underlined'
SUMMARY
The zoning ordinance amendment provides minimum lot requirement and setbacks, as well as provisions for
manufactured home park closings The conditions of manufactured home park closings include the noticing
of residents nine months m advance of the closing, the conducting of a public heanng to evaluate the
impacts of the closing of the park, and the requirement that the park owner pay the relocation costs of the
resident or providing another form of compensation The compensation provision includes paying the full
relocation costs (as defined with the proposed ordinance) for moving the home to another park within 25
miles, the payment of the average relocation costs if a resident moves the home to a park farther than 25
miles, or the payment of the greater of the appraised market value or the assessed value of the home if the
resident cannot move to a park within 25 tniles and renders the title to the park owner The maximum total
compensation that a park owner is required to pay is 25% of the greater of the sale price or the assessed
value for the entire park.
The property maintenance ordinance provides maintenance standards for street surfaces and snow and ice
removal, trash collecnon that includes recychng opportunities, and the removal of accessory structures when
a home is removed for a park.
The Planning Commission has conducted two public hearings regarding the ordinance revisions, the first on
September 26, 2006, and the second on October 24, 2006. The pubhc testimony at the September 26
meeting pertained to what was needed to make the manufactured homes moveable, who pays the moving
contractor and how those funds are distributed, how the value of the homes are calculated, the belief that a
20% cap of the value of the park on total relocation costs was too low, and that garages and sheds are not
covered as relocation expenses. Between the September 26 and October 24 meetings, an additional request
was made to include supplement payment of increased housing costs as a result of relocation for a period of
24 months.
As a result of this testimony, staff revised the text amendment including a definition of an appurtenance of a
manufactured home; inclusion of tire and axle rental as well as repairs to move a mobile home are ehgible
relocation costs, that the park owner is responsible to pay contractors directly unless the resident chooses
otherwise, that each household is eligible to an equal share of the maximum relocation costs; the
requirement of an appraisal of a mobile home cannot be moved, and that the maximum relocation costs are
capped at 25% of the greater of the sale price or the assessed value of the park.
Three of the public's requests were intentionally not addressed in the revisions: the moving of accessory
structures, the removal of the maximum cap on total relocation costs, and the supplemental payment of
increased housing costs.
Staff does not beheve that the moving of accessory structures should be included for two reasons. First, the
State Statute specifically defines a manufactured home (which is included in our proposed ordinance) and
states that the City can require relocation costs of the home, but it does not include accessory structures.
Second, the relocation costs of moving accessory structure would reduce the total amount available to move
the homes.
The State Statute allows Cities to require park owners to pay "reasonable" relocation costs Staff does not
believe that the cap should be removed from the ordinance because the cap is a mechanism to guarantee
that the total amount a park owner pays is a reasonable amount The only legal case challenging a City's
Manufactured Park Closing Ordinance (Arcadia Development Corp vs City of Bloomington) stated that
Bloomington's Ordinance included a 20% cap to insure a reasonable amount of relocation cost and found
Packet page 105 of 148
2
that Bloomington's Ordinance is enforceable. Without a cap in our ordinance, a legal challenge may not
arrive at the same conclusion Charles LeFevere, City Attorney, has prepared a memorandum that is
attached which goes into greater detail regarding this subject
The State Statute regarding park closures does not include any language regarding the ability to charge park
owners for increased housing costs due to relocation. This request stems to be based on the federal
Uniform Relocation Act which requires public agencies to pay increased housing costs when a homeowner
or renter is relocated due to eminent domain or other use of public funds. The Uniform Relocation Act
only applies to public agencies and the State Statute regarding park closings does not specify that Cites can
charge park owners for this expense. The inclusion of a supplement payment may lead to a legal challenge
that the relocation costs required within our ordinance are unreasonable.
On October 24, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed Manufactured
Home Park Zoning Ordinance with the additions that the maximum cap be calculated on the greater of the
sale price or assessed value of the park and that the "displaced resident" defimuon be changed to "displaced
homeowner" The change to the cap language has been added to the ordinance provided with this report,
but the term "displaced resident" was not changed "Displaced resident" is defined specifically within the
State Statute and staff does not believe our ordinance should be inconsistent with the Statute The State's
definition of "displaced resident" does include resident of an owner- occupied manufactured home
so staff does believe the intent of the Planning Commission's concern is addressed
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the ordinance changes regarding manufactured home parks and authorize the publishing of the
ordinances.
Packet page 106 of 148
3
11 -2 -19: MANUFACTURED HOME PARK REQUIREMENTS:
A. Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Manufactured Home Park Requirements is to
provide regulations for the design, use, maintenance, operation and potential closure of
parks intended for manufactured housing and the provide for public health. safety and
welfare for residents of manufactured housing parks. All parks shall be constructed
according to the following minimum standards.
B. Uses Permitted by PUD:
Community building, management office, private recreation facilities.
Condominium style manufactured home parks.
Home occupations subject to requirements established in section 11 -2 -16 of this
chapter.
Manufactured homes and accessory structures.
Public and institutional uses required by the resident population.
C. Required Conditions:
1. Manufactured homes not meeting single family dwelling requirements are
permitted only in planned manufactured home parks. The PUD procedure is
required for all park proposals.
2. Manufactured home parks must be serviced by public sewer and water systems.
3. Manufactured homes must have a full basement or must be affixed to a permanent
frost free foundation with a completely enclosed crawl space.
4. Only manufactured homes certified as meeting current HUD "manufactured home
construction and safety standards" shall be permitted, unless evidence is furnished
that manufactured homes meeting prior HUD codes have been updated to meet
current construction and safety standards and upon inspection have been found
safe and fit for residential occupancy.
5. Every person operating a manufactured home park within the city shall provide
and keep a suitable guest register for the registration of all persons provided with
accommodations, and each person shall register therein, as provided by state law.
This register shall contain the following:
Name and lot address of each occupant:
Name and address of the owner of the manufactured home;
Make, model, year and license of each manufactured home; and
Date of arrival and departure of each manufactured home.
Packet page 107 of 148
This information shall be kept for at least three years after the date the occupant
leaves the manufactured home park.
D. Site/Design Requirements:
1. Minimum site area for manufactured home parks is forty (40) acres.
2. Manufactured home parks shall have at least one property line abutting a collector
or arterial street, as defined by the comprehensive guide plan.
3. All structures within manufactured home parks shall be set back a minimum of
fifty feet (50') from all adjacent property lines along the outer perimeter of the
park. Said setback area shall be provided with a dense combination of earthen
berms and plant materials, specific plans for which must be approved by the
planning commission.
4. Dedication for parks and recreational uses shall be determined according to the
requirements of title 12 of this code. The city council shall determine whether
land or cash in lieu of land shall be required, and, in the case of land dedication,
whether the land shall be publicly or privately owned and maintained.
5. Streets and utilities in manufactured home parks under single ownership shall be
privately constructed, owned and maintained.
6. Privately owned utilities shall be designed and constructed to meet the minimum
specifications of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency The use of propane or butane gas for any purpose in
lieu of public or private utilities within the confines of the manufactured home
park is prohibited.
7. Private streets shall be constructed to meet minimum city specifications and shall
be paved to a minimum width of thirty two feet (32') where on street parking is
permitted. Where parking is permitted on one side only and signs are posted, the
minimum street width shall be twenty eight feet (28). All streets and roadways
located within the manufactured home park shall have a concrete curb and gutter
and paved in accordance with City standards.
8. The city council shall determine whether streets and utilities in condominium
style manufactured home parks may be publicly owned and maintained.
9. All manufactured home parks shall be designed with a minimum of two (2) access
points on public thoroughfares, providing full ingress and egress at each location.
10. Each manufactured home park shall provide a stone shelter or shelters of
sufficient capacity to safely protect all of the residents of the park in case of a
storm emergency. In lieu thereof, the planning commission may approve
Packet page 108 of 148
Packet page 109 of 148
basement shelters within each unit provided the minimum standards for safety are
assured.
11. The outdoor storage of recreation vehicles shall not be permitted except as
provided for in subsection 11 -4 -8D of this title. (Ord B -96, 12 -2 -1997)
12. Sidewalks. A concrete sidewalk, not less than 5 feet w ide shall be constructed
along one side of streets entering the manufactured housing park and provide save
pedestrian links to recreational amenities and the required shelter within the park
and to public recreational facilities as recommended by the Parks and Recreation
Commission
13. Landscaping. All surfaces not occupied by the manufactured home, patios,
sidewalks or hard surfaced off street parking shall be sodded and maintained with
grass. One boulevard or shade tree shall be provided per manufactured home with
a minimum size of 2" (B &B). In addition, landscape screening is required in the
perimeter setback areas to mitigate the effects of dissimilar uses and traffic.
E. Minimum Lot Requirements and Setbacks.
1. Minimum Lot Area 5,000 sq. ft
2. Minimum Lot Width 50 feet
3. Maximum Lot coverage. 75
4. Minimum Front Yard Setbacks
a. Principal Structure 20 feet
b. Accessory Structure. 20 feet
5. Minimum Side Yard Setbacks:
a. Principal Structure. 20 feet
b. Accessory Structures. 10 feet
6. Minimum Rear Yard Setbacks:
a. Principal Structure• 20 feet
b. Accessory Structures. 10 feet
7. Carports and garages. A freestanding carport or garage not attached to a
manufactured home may be permitted provided that it conforms the all applicable
uniform building codes and is consistent with accessory structure setbacks
provided herein. Prior to issuance of any building permit, permission must be
provided by the Park Owner and certified to the City.
8. Accessory structures. One free standing accessory structure or storage shed per
manufactured home may be permitted in addition to above mentioned carports or
garages. All accessory structures shall conform to applicable building codes.
Said structures shall be limited to 120 sq. ft. in size.
F. Manufactured Home Park Closings
1. Purpose and intent: In view of the peculiar nature and problems associated with
the closure or conversion of manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that
the public health, safety and general welfare will be promoted by requiring
compensation to displaced homeowners and tenants of such parks. The purpose
of this section is to define by whom and in what amount compensation for the
park relocation or displacement of a manufactured home is paid. This section is
adopted pursuant to the authority granted under Minnesota Statutes 327C.095.
2. Definitions: The following words and terms when used in this section shall have
the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
APPURTENANCE: The visible; fiingtional; or or'naine "'tital'odjec
to and part of a building.
CLOSURE STATEMENT: A statement prepared by the park owner clearly
stating the park is closing, addressing the availability, location, and potential
costs of adequate replacement rental sites within a 25 mile radius of the
manufactured home park that is closing and the probable relocation costs of
the manufactured homes located in the park to other parks within the 25 mile
radius.
Packet page 110 of 148
DISPLACED RESIDENT: A resident of an owner- occupied manufactured
home who rents a lot in a manufactured home park, including members of the
resident's household, as of the date the park owner submits a closure
statement to the City Community Development Department.
LOT: An area within a manufactured home park, designed and used for the
accommodation of a manufactured home.
MANUFACTURED HOME: A structure, not affixed to or part of real estate,
transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight
feet or more in width or 40 feet or more in length, or when erected onsite, is
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.
MANUFACTURED I3OME PARK. Any site, lot, field or tractofiand; upon
Which two or mbre occupied Manufactured homes are located, either free of
Charge or for compensation, and includes any building, structure, tent, vehicle
Packet page 111 of 148
or enclosure used or intended for use as part of the equipment of the
manufactured home park. Also referred to in this Section simply as "Park
PARK OWNER: The owner of a manufactured home park and any person
acting on behalf of the owner in the operation or management of a
manufactured home park.
PERSON: Any individual, corporation, firm, partnership, incorporated and
unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity.
PURCHASER: The person buying the manufactured home park from the
park owner. In the event that the park owner intends to retain ownership and
convert the park to a different use, all references to the purchaser refer to the
park owner.
RELOCATION COSTS: The reasonable cost of relocating a manufactured
home from a manufactured home park within the city that is being closed or
converted to another use to another manufactured home park within a 25 -mile
radius of the park, as follows.
a. Preparation for move. Reasonable costs incurred to prepare the
eligible manufactured home for transportation to another site. This
category includes crane services, tire and/or axle rental if needed, and
the cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order to take
down, move and set up the manufactured home.
b.Tr ansportation to another site. Reasonable costs incurred to transport
the eligible manufactured home and any attached appurtenances; such
as porches, decks, skirting and awnings, which were not acquired after
notice of closure or conversion of the park to another manufactured
home park within a 25 mile radius. This category also includes the
cost of insuring the manufactured home while the home is in the
process of being relocated, and the cost of obtaining moving permits
provided that the park owner shall not be required to pay delinquent
taxes on a manufactured home if necessary in order to obtain a moving
permit. This category does not include the cost of moving personal
property separate and distinct from the mobile home and separate and
distinct from the appliances and appurtenances of the mobile home.
c. Hook -up at new location:
i. The reasonable cost of connecting the eligible manufactured home
to utilities at the relocation site, including crane services if needed.
The park owner shall not be required to upgrade the electrical or
plumbing systems of the manufactured home.
ii. Relocation costs do not include the cost of any repairs or
modifications to the manufactured home needed to bring the home
into compliance with the state and federal manufactured home
building standards for the year in which the home was constructed.
Relocation costs also do not include the cost of any repairs or
modifications to the home or appurtenances into compliance with
the rules and regulations of the manufactured home park to which
the manufactured home is to be relocated, if those rules and
regulations are no more stringent than the rules and regulations of
the park in which the home is located, and the resident was notified
of noncompliance with the rules and regulations of the park in
which it is located within 60 days prior to delivery of the closure
statement.
3. Notice of closing: If the manufactured home park is to be sold with the intent to
convert in whole or in part to another use or the owner of the park requests and
receives rezoning of the property from the city, the park owner shall, at least nine
months prior to conversion to another use or sale to someone with the intent to
convert to another use, provide a copy of a closure statement to a resident or each
manufactured home and to the City Community Development Department.
4. Notice of public hearing: The Community Development Department shall
schedule a public hearing with the City Council. The Community Development
Department shall mail a notice at least ten days prior to the public hearing to a
resident of each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place and
purpose of the hearing. The park owner shall provide the city with a list of the
names and addresses of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the
park at the time the closure statement is submitted to the Community
Development Department.
5. Public hearing: A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for the
purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating what impact the park
closing may have on displaced residents and the park owner.
6. Conditions of closing:
a. As a condition of the closing of the manufactured home park, the park owner
shall pay the relocation costs to the contractors providing the relOcatgin
services and/or to displaced residents. If the park owner determined within
four months prior to the date of closure of the park that the park will not be
closed. the park owner may rescind the Notice of Closure and shall pay any
actual relocation costs incurred by any of the park's manufactured home
owners If the park owner determines at least four months prior to the date of
closure of the park that the park will not be closed, the park owner may
rescind the notice of closure, and not be liable for any relocation costs.
b. Each displaced resident is eligible for an equalshare of the maximum tote
compensation as described in subsection 11 -2 -19 F.10 of this title. If a
displaced resident's relocation cost is less than their equal share, then th'e,
difference between the equal share and the actual relocation costs of that
household is equally distributed to the displaced residents who have,relp4t}or
costs in excess of their equal share.
Packet page 112 of 148
c. The city shall not issue a building permit in conjunction with the reuse of the
manufactured home park property unless the park owner has paid the
relocation costs and /or the park purchaser has compensated displaced
residents in accordance with the requirements of this section. Approval of any
application for rezoning, platting, conditional use permit, planned unit
development or variance in conjunction with a park closing or conversion
shall be conditional on compliance with the requirements of this section.
7. Displaced resident statement: Within 90 days of receipt of a closure notice, the
displaced resident shall provide the park owner with a written statement of
relocation costs, or in the alternative, a written statement that the resident cannot
relocate his or her manufactured home to another manufactured home park within
a 25 -mile radius. If a resident determines not to relocate as defined within this
section, the resident must state whether he or she elects to receive relocation costs
under subsection 11 -2 -19 F 8 or subsection 11 -2 -19 F.9 of this title.
8. Election to relocate:
a. If a manufactured home can be relocated to another manufactured home park
within a 25 -mile radius, the park owner shall pay displaced residents'
relocations costs as defined herein.
b. The park owner shall make relocation payments directly to contractors
providing the relocation service, or the displaced resident may chose to be
reimbursed by the park owner after the resident submits to the park owner
proof of payment of relocation costs. The park owner shall be entitled to
receive adequate documentation of relocation costs, including costs of
proposals, invoices, estimates and contacts for relocation services.
c. If a displaced resident cannot relocate the manufactured home within a 25-
mile radius of the park which is being closed or some other agreed upon
distance, and the resident elects not to tender title to the manufactured home,
the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation
costs awarded to other residents in the park.
d. A displaced resident compensated under this section shall retain title to the
manufactured home and shall be responsible for its prompt removal from the
manufactured home park All rent due and owing to the park owner, and all
property taxes for the current and prior years shall be paid by the displaced
resident prior to removing the manufactured home from the park.
9. Election to receive compensation: If a resident cannot relocate his or her
manufactured home to another manufactured home park IN ithin a 25 -mile radius
or some other agreed upon distance and tenders title to the manufactured home,
the resident is entitled to compensation to be paid by the purchaser of the park in
order to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing. In such
instance, the compensation shall be an amount equal to the estimated market
value of the manufactured home as determined by an independent appraiser
experienced in manufactured home appraisal, or the tax assessed value of the
manufactured home for the year in which the park is scheduled to close;
Packet page 113 of 148
Packet page 114 of 148
apprat 1 s al1r c ceeck nt ai r' i"er a lief
that the manufactured home cannot be relocated to another park within 25 miles,
The purchaser shall pay the cost of the appraisal. The resident shall transfer title
of the manufactured home to the park purchaser free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances. All rent due the property owner and all property taxes for the
current and prior years shall be paid by displaced residents prior to the removal of
the manufactured home from the park by the park purchaser.
10. Limitation of relocation costs and compensation: The total amount of
compensation paid to displaced owners of manufactured homes shall not exceed
the greater of 25% of the County 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 25% of the purchase price of the park.
11. Penalty: Violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor.
9 -4 -8: MANUFACTURED HOME PARK MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
A. Maintenance Standards: All streets, roadways and sidewalks shall be maintained to a
level sufficient to allow free vehicular passage for the residents, their guests, and
emergency service responders under all reasonably anticipated conditions. The
existence of a sufficient level of maintenance shall be determined as follows•
Street surface condition. The hard surface of the streets shall not be covered by
dirt, sand, gravel or other materials to the extent that traction between the street
surface and vehicle tires is substantially diminished. The street shall be
maintained in a manner that horizontal or vertical separations or cracks of the
traveled surface are not of a magnitude which will jar a passing motor vehicle
operating within the speed limit. Street repair and patching shall also occur
whenever a pothole with exposed base material exists, when a separation of crack
results in crumbling pavement, or when any dip or settlement is pronounced
enough to cause storm water to collect and not dram away.
Snow removal and ice control. Snow removal operations shall occur as necessary
to provide safe and unimpeded vehicular passage of the streets, and shall provide
for curb -to -curb snow removal. At a minimum, snow removal operations shall be
completed within 12 hours after the end of a snowfall event which deposits more
than two inches of snow upon the street surface. Snow removal operations shall
be conducted in a manner to achieve as close to a bare pavement surface as
possible. To mitigate slippery street surfaces, sand and salt shall be applied to
control ice where necessary, but especially at street intersections, sharp curves
and other locations where motorists are likely to brake or turn.
B. Trash collection: recycling: Trash containers stored outside of manufactured home
units must be placed behind the front entry stoop and be provided with additional
screening if necessary so as not to be visible from the street, except that on the day of
collection the containers may be placed at curbside along the private manufactured
home park street. If contract trash removal is provided through the park owner with a
master contract rather than contracted by individual manufactured home unit owners,
the master contract must provide recycling opportunities for each manufactured home
owner.
C. Accessory structure removal: Upon the removal of any manufactured home from a
manufactured home park, it shall be the responsibility of the park owner to see that all
freestanding or attached accessory structures, fences and debris left on the mobile
home lot are removed within 48 hours after the removal of the unit. The City Zoning
Administrator may approve the retention of all or part of the accessory structures, if
the park owner requests same in writing, can demonstrate that they will meet the
required setbacks from any replacement manufactured home unit to be placed on the
lot, and if they are shown to be in sound condition. The park owner must also
provide a written commitment to remove or relocate the accessory structure(s)
permitted to remain if the required setbacks fail to be verified after the replacement
manufactured home is placed.
Packet page 115 of 148
9 -4 -9: VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS:
A. Any person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
B. For the purpose of safeguarding the health and safety of the general public and of the
occupants of dwellings, it is the duty of the appropriate City official, or his or her
designee, to enforce this Chapter, and, this official is hereby authorized and directed
to conduct inspections to determine the condition of dwellings, residences, and
premises located within the City. For the purpose of making such inspections, the
appropriate City official is hereby authorized to enter, examine and survey, between
the hours of seven thirty o'clock (7:30) A.M. and four o'clock (4 00) P M., all
dwellings, residences, and premises. The appropriate City official, prior to making
such inspection, shall inform the occupant of the dwelling by letter postmarked not
less than seventy two (72) hours prior to the time such inspection is made. After such
written notice is given, the owner or occupant of such dwelling, during such time, for
the purpose of such inspection, examination or survey; provided that such inspection,
examination or survey shall not have for its purpose the harassment of such owner or
occupant and that such inspection, examination, or survey shall be made so as to
cause the least amount of inconvenience to the owner or occupant, consistent with an
efficient performance of the duties of the appropriate City official; provided that the
purpose of such inspection, examination, or survey shall not be for the procurement
of evidence to be used in any criminal proceeding; provided that nothing in this
Section shall be construed to prohibit the entry of the appropriate City official. The
required notice is waived when:
1. At any time when in the opinion of the appropriate City official an actual
emergency tending to create an immediate danger to public health and safety
exists; or
2. At any time when such inspection, examination, or survey may be requested by
the owner or tenant. (Ord. XVIII.10, 9 -2 -1997)
9 -4 -10: ENFORCEMENT:
A. It shall be the duty of the City Council to enforce the provisions of this Chapter and
the City Council may delegate to other officers or agencies power to enforce
particular provisions of this Section, including the power to inspect private premises,
and the officer charged with the enforcement, or his or her designee, of this chapter
shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent the commission and maintenance of
public nuisances. (Ord. XVIII.10, 9 -2 -1997)
9 -4 -11: ABATEMENT PROCEDURE:
A. Abatement:
Packet page 116 of 148
1. Notice: Whenever the officer charged with enforcement determines that a public
nuisance is being maintained or exists on property within the city, the officer shall
notify the property owner and occupant or other responsible party in writing of
that fact and order the nuisance terminated and abated Notice shall be served in
person or by certified mail Notice to the owner shall be satisfied by return receipt
from the person listed as the taxpayer on the county's tax record If the property is
not occupied, the owner is unknown, or no other responsible party can be
reasonably identified, notice may be served by posting said notice on the property.
The posted notice shall specify the steps to be taken to abate the nuisance and the
maximum time period allowed for compliance. The posted notice shall also state
that the city may, after notice to the owner and occupant or other responsible
party, provide for abating the nuisance by the city Three (3) separate notices shall
be written and delivered or posted as outlined above. The first notice shall specify
compliance within twenty (20) days. The second consecutive notice shall
reference the first notice and specify an additional ten (10) days for compliance.
The third consecutive notice shall reference the first two (2) notices, specify that it
is the last notice prior to the city council's hearing for abating the matter by the
city, and allow for an additional five (5) days for final compliance with the
written order(s). In cases where any or all of the notices are posted, at least forty
five (45) days shall elapse between the day of the first posting and the council
hearing.
2. Summary Abatement: The enforcement officer, or his or her designee, may
provide for abating a public nuisance without following the procedures required
in subsection Al of this section, when:
a. There is an immediate threat to the public health or safety.
b. There is an immediate threat of serious property damage.
c. A public nuisance has been caused by private parties on public property.
If the enforcement officer abates the nuisance pursuant to this section, the officer
must reasonably attempt to notify the owner, occupant, or other responsible party
of the intended action and the right to appeal the abatement and any cost recovery
at the next regularly scheduled city council meeting.
3. Hazardous And Substandard Buildings Or Structures: In appropriate cases the city
may elect to enforce the provisions of this chapter pursuant to Minnesota statutes,
sections 463.15 through 463.26
4. Cost Recovery: The owner of property on which a nuisance has been abated by
the city, or a person who has caused a public nuisance on property not owned by
that person, shall be personally responsible to the city for the cost of abatement,
including administrative costs and any other expenses incurred by the city while
performing the work. As soon as the work has been completed and the cost
Packet page 117 of 148
determined, the city clerk or other official designated by the council shall prepare
a bill for the cost and mail it to the owner or other responsible party. Thereupon,
the amount shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the city clerk.
5. Assessment. If the cost, or any portion of it, has not been paid under subsection
A4 of this section within thirty (30) days after the date of the bill, the unpaid cost
may be certified against the property to which the cost is attributable in
accordance with Minnesota statutes, chapter 429 Before the unpaid costs are
certified against the property, the property owner must be given notice and
hearing as required by Minnesota statutes, 429.061. (Ord. XVIII.10, 9 -2 -1997)
6. Penalty: Any person in violation of any of the provisions in this chapter shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and punished as described in title 1, chapter 4 of this
code. Each day on which such violation continues shall constitute a separate
offense. (Ord. XII.21, 6 -15 -2004)
7. Hindrance: Any person hindering the efforts of city officials to investigate
possible violations of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
8. Conflict Of Chapter: In any case where a provision of this chapter is found to be
in conflict with a provision of any zoning, building, fire. safety, or health
ordinance or code in this city, the provision which establishes the higher standard
for the promotion and protection of the health and safety of the people shall
prevail In any case where a provision of this chapter is found to be in conflict
with a provision of any other ordinance or code of the city existing on the
effective date of this chapter which established a lower standard for the promotion
and protection of the health and safety of the people. the provision of this chapter
shall be deemed to prevail The determination of the applicability of this chapter
in light of the above rules of interpretation shall be made by the city and its
determination shall be final. (Ord. XVIII.10, 9 -2 -1997)
Packet page 118 of 148
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. B -177
AMENDING ORDINANCE B, THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO SECTION 11-
2-19: MANUFACTURED HOME PARK REQUIREMENTS, ORDINANCE NO. XXI.15
CREATING SECTION 9 -4 -8: MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OF THE BUILDING AND
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount recommended City Council
approval of these amendments after holding public hearings on September 26 and October 24,
2006, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount adopted Ordinance No. B -177 and
Ordinance No. XXI.15 on November 21, 2006, ordinances amending Ordinance B, the
Zoning Ordinance relating to Section 11 -2 -19. Manufactured Home Park Requirements, and
creating Section 9 -4 -8 Manufactured Home Park of the Building and Property Maintenance
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 412 191, Subd. 4 allows pubhcation by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following summary would clearly inform the
pubhc of the intent and effect of the Ordinances
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Rosemount that
the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No B -177 and Ordinance
XXI.15 to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance
During their November 21, 2006 meeting, the City Council of the City of Rosemount adopted
Ordinance No B -177 The ordinance amends Section 11 -2 -19 of Ordinance B, the Zoning
Ordinance relating to regulations pertaining to the Manufactured Home Park Requirements
During their November 21, 2006 meeting, the City Council of the City of Rosemount adopted
Ordinance No XXI 15. The ordinance amends Section 9 -4-8 of the City Code creating
Manufactured Home Park Property Maintenance Standards.
In summary, the new ordinances update the standards for manufactured home parks within
the City of Rosemount
The revised Zoning Ordinance provides infrastructure requirements for manufactured home
parks and addresses the payment of relocation cost in the event of a manufactured home park
closes
Packet page 119 of 148
Pubhc Notice
Finally, the created section of the Building and Property Maintenance addresses snow removal,
street repair, trash collection, and accessory structure removal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of Ordinance No.
B -177 and Ordinance 30 1 15 shall be kept in the City Clerk's office at City Hall for public
inspection and a full copy of the ordinance be posted in the lobby of City Hall
ADOPTED this 21" day of November, 2006 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor
Voted against:
Member absent:
Packet page 120 of 148
Wilham H Droste, Mayor
11 -2 -19• MANUFACTURED HOME PARK REQUIREMENTS:
A. Purpose and Intent The purpose of the Manufactured Home Park Requirements is to
provide regulations for the design, use, maintenance, operation and potential closure of
parks Intended for manufactured housing and the provide for public health_ safety and
welfare for residents of manufactured housing parks. All parks shall be constructed
according to the following minimum standards:
1 Uses Permitted by PUD
Community building, management office, private recreation facilities.
Condominium style manufactured home parks
Home occupations subject to requirements established in section 11 -2 -16 of this
chapter
Manufactured homes and accessory structures.
Public and institutional uses required by the resident population.
C•, Required Conditions:
1 Manufactured homes not meeting single family dwelling requirements are
permitted only in planned manufactured home parks. The PUD procedure is
required for all park proposals
2. Manufactured home parks must be serviced by public sewer and water systems.
3 Manufactured homes must have a full basement or must be affixed to a permanent
frost free foundation with a completely enclosed crawl space.
Packet page 121 of 148
I Formatted Bullets and Numbering
t Deleted• Persvned
Deleted• H
4 Only manufactured homes certified as meeting current I -IUD "manufactured home
construction and safety standards' shall be permitted, unless evidence is furnished
that manufactured homes meeting prior HUD codes have been updated to meet
current construction and safety standards and upon inspection have been found
safe and fit for residential occupancy.
5. Every person opei acing a manufactured home park within the city shall provide {Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
and keep a suitable guest register for the registration of all nelsons provided w 1th
accommodations, and each person shall register therein, as provided by state law.
This register shall contain the following
Name and lot address of each occupant
Name and address of the owner of the manufactured home:
Make, mocte]. 'ear and license o [each manufactured home; and
Date of arrival and departure of each manufactured home
This information shall be kept for at least three years after the date the occupant
leaves the manufactured home park.
D Site /Design Requirements
1. Minimum site area for manufactured home parks is forty (40) acres.
2. Manufactured home parks shall have at least one property line abutting a collector
or arterial street, as defined by the comprehensive guide plan
3. All structures within manufactured home parks shall be set back a minimum of
fifty feet (50') from all adjacent property lines along the outer perimeter of the
park Said setback area shall be provided with a dense combination of earthen
berms and plant materials, specific plans for which must be approved by the
planning commission
4 Dedication for parks and recreational uses shall be determined according to the
requirements of title 12 of this code. The city council shall determine whether
land or cash in lieu of land shall be required, and, in the case of land dedication,
whether the land shall be publicly or privately owned and maintained
5 Streets and utilities in manufactured home parks under single ownership shall be
privately constructed, owned and maintained.
6. Privately owned utilities shall be designed and constructed to meet the minimum
specifications of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency l he use of pi opane et butane gas for any purpose in
lieu ofpubhc of pi Rate utd'tles w 'thin the confines of the manufactu home
park is prohibited
7. Private streets shall be constructed to meet minimum city specifications and shall
be paved to a minimum width of thirty two feet (32') where on street parking is
permitted Where parking is permitted on one side only and signs are posted, the
minimum street width shall be twenty e�nl feet (28) All streets and roadway s
located within the manufactured home park shall have a concrete curb and gutter
and paved in accor dance with CO standards
8. The city council shall determine whether streets and utilities in condominium
style manufactured home parks may be publicly owned and maintained.
9. All manufactured home parks shall be designed with a minimum of two (2) access
points on public thoroughfares, providing full ingress and egress at each location
10. Each manufactured home park shall provide a storm shelter or shelters of
sufficient capacity to safely protect all of the residents of the park in case of a
storm emergency. In lieu thereof, the planning commission may approve
Packet page 122 of 148
Deleted: C
f Deleted: <y>Publicly owned and
maintained streets and unhttes must be
designed and constmcted accordmg to
mmimum city specifications for other
residential developments if
Deleted• four
Deleted. 4
33
3
basement shelters within each unit provided the minimum standards for safety are
assured.
11. The outdoor storage of recreation vehicles shall not be permitted except as
provided for in subsection 11 -4 -8D of this title (Ord B -96, 12 -2 -1997)
12 Sidewalks. A concrete sidewalk, not less than 5 feet wide shall be constructed
along one side of streets cntcnno the manufactured housing park and pi ovidc save
pedestrian links to recreational amenities and the required shelter within the park
and to public recreational facilities as leconmiended by the Parks and Recreation
Commission,
13 Landscaping All surfaces not occupied by the manufactured home. patios
sidewalks or hard surfaced off street parkma shall be sodded and maintained with
grass. One boulevard or shade tree shall be provided per manufactured home with
a minimum size of 2" (B &B), In addition. landscape scteenuta is tequired in the
perimeter setback areas to mitigate the effects of dissimilar uses and traffic
E. Minimum Lot Requhements and Setbacks.
1. Minimum Lot Area.
2 Minimum Lot Width
3 Maximum Lot coverage:.
4 bhmmum Front Yaid Setbacks.
a. Principal Structure
b Accessorvv S t r u c t u r e
Packet page 123 of 148
5,000 sq. ft
,,...50 feet
75%
20 feet
.20 feet
5. Minimum Side Yard Setbacks.
a Principal Structure._ ,,.,..20 feet
b Accessory Structures ,,,,.,10 feet
6 Minimum Rear Yard Setbacks:
a Piincipal Structure 20 feet
b Accessory Structui es:. 10 feet
7. C .o rts and taianes A freestandm_ car .ort or Cara e not attached to a
manufactured home may be permitted mots ided that it conforms the all applicable
uniform building codes and is consistent with accessory structure setbacks
provided herein Not to issuance of am budding pe permission most be
provided by the Park Owner and certified to the City
Bullets and Numbering
Formatted• Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbenng
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
[Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Bullets and Numbering
8 Accesson stnictui es One free standing accessory structure or storage shed per Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
manufactured home may be permitted in addition to above mentioned carports or
garages. All accessory structures shall conform to applicable building codes.
Said structures shall be limited to 120 sq. ft. in size.
F. Manufactured Home Park Closings
1 Purpose and intent In view of the peculiar nature and problems associated with
the closure or conversion of manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that
the public health, safety and general welfare will be promoted by requiting
compensation to displaced homeowners and tenants of such parks fhe purpose
of this section is to define by w hom and in tit hat amount compensation for the
park relocation or displacement of a manufactured home is paid This section is
adopted pursuant to the authority wanted under Minnesota Statutes 327C 095.
Definittons: The following words and terms when used in this section shall have
the followmgmemnngs unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
APPLIR'FENANCE: The visible functional or ornamental ob'ddisficdessd
to and part ofa building,
Packet page 124 of 148
CLOSURE STATEMENT A statement prepared by the park owner clearly
sta in the ark is closing_ addressing the availability. location, and potential
costs of adequate replacement i enial sites within a 25 mile radius of the
manufactured home park that is closing and the probable relocation costs of
the nianutacttned Homes located in the park to other parks within the 25 mile
1 adius
DISPLACED RESIDENT: A resident of an owner- occupied manufactured
home yvho rents a lot in a manufactured homepaikjpcludlpg members ofthe
resident's household, as of the date the 'lark owner subunits a closure
statement to the City Community Des elopment Department
LOT: An area within a manufactured home park designed and used for the
accommodation ofa manufactured home
MANUEACI URFD HOME. A structure. not affixed to or part of teal estate,
transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight
feet or more in w idth or 40 feet or mote in length. of is hen erected onsite, is
320 or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and
designed to be used as a dwelling wdh or without a permanent loundation
when connected to the iNub ed utilities and includes the plumbing heating,
au conditioning and electrical sy stem contained in it
rlaNv-sc, fiat{
AM7FACTCIRBD HOME PARK.' An 'silt:' lot field otiaotdif l`arid'u' "on
nhich two or more occupied manufactured homes are located, either free of
charge or for compensation, and includes any building. structure tent, chicle
tk
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted Bullets and Numbering
[Formatted: Highlight
rFormatted: Highlight
1
Packet page 125 of 148
DI enclosure used or intended for use is Part of the equipment of the
manufactured home park Also referred to to this Section supply as "Park
PARK OWNER The owner of a manufactured home park and any person
acting on behalf of the owner In the operation of management of a
manufactured home park
PERSON Any individual. corporation, Finn, partnership, incorporated and
unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity
PURCHASER. The person bumf the manufactwed home park from the
park owner In the event that the park owner intends w retain ownership and
convert the park to a different use all relei ences to the purchaser refer to the
park owner
RELOCATION COSTS- The reasonable cost of relocating a manufactured
home from a manufactured home park within the city that is being closed or
coo erted to another use to another manufactured home park within a 25 -mile
radius ofthe park as Follows:
a. Preparation for move. Reasonable costs incurred to prepare the Formatted: Bullets and Numbering J
eligible manufactured home for transportation to another site This
cateoo includes crane services. tire and/or axle rental if needed and I Formatted. Highlight
the cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order to take
down. move and set up the manufactured home.
b. transportation to another site Reasonable costs inein red to transport
the eligible manufactured homepnd any attached appurtenances, such Formatted: Highlight
as porches. decks, skirting and awnings. which were not acquired after
notice of closure or conversion of thepark to another manufacuned
homepark within a 25 pule radius This caegon also includes the
cost of insurino the manufactured home whsle the home is in the
process of being. relocated and the cost of obtaining moving permits
provided that the pack owner shall not be recurred to pay delinquent
taxes on a manufactured home if necessary in order to obtain a rno trig
permit This category does not include the cost of mo�nirgcrsonal
propertv separate and distinct from the mobile home and separate and
distinct from the appliances and annul enanccs of the mobile home.
c Hook -up at new location
The reasonable cost of connecting the eligible manufactured home
to utilities at the relocation site, including crane services if needed.
The. park owner shall not he required to upgrade the electrical or
pl umbmgsv stems of the manufactured home
ii Relocation costs do not include the cost of any repairs or
modifications to the manufactured home needed to bring the home
into compliance with the state and federal manufactured home
buildup for the year in which the home was constructed.
Relocation costs also do not include the cost of any repairs or
modifications to the home or appurtenances into compliance with
the rules and regulations of the manufactured home park to which
the manufactured home is to be relocated, if those rules and
regulations are no more stringent than the rules and regulations of
the park in which the hone Es located and the resident was notified
of noncompliance with the rules and regulations of the park in
which it is located within 60 days prior to delivery of the closure
statement
3 Notice of closing If the manufactured home park is to be sold with the intent to
convert m whole or In part to another use m the owner of the park requests and
receives rezoning of the property from the city. the park owner shall, at least nine
months prior to corn ersion Lo another use or sale to someone w nth the intent to
coo. ert to another use provide a copy of a closure statement to a resident or each
manufactured home and to the City Community De. elopment Department
4. Notice of public hearing. fhe Community Des elopment Department shall
schedule a public hearing with the City Council The Comniun Development
Department shall mail a notice at least ten days prior to the public hearing to a
resident or each manufactured hone in the pack stating the time.phace and
purpose of the hearing the park owner shall provide the city with a list of the
names and addresses of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the
park at the time the closure statement is submitted to the Community
Des el min ent Department.
5 Public hearing A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for the
purpose of rev l3wing the closure statement and evaluatutg what impact the park
closing may have on displaced testdents and the pat owner
6 Conditions of closing:
a As a condition of the closin_ of he manufactured home park the .ark owner
shall pas the relocation costs,to the contractors providing the relocation
services and/or to displaced residents 11 the park owner detei mined within
foul monthspnor to the date of closure of the park that the park 44111 not he
closed, the park owner may iescmd the Notice of Closure and shall pay any
actual relocation costs incurred by any of the park's manufactured home
ow ners. If the park owner determines at least four months prior to the date of
closure of the park that the park will not be closed, the park owner may
rescind the notice of closure, imd not be liable for am relocation costs
b Bach displaced resident, is eligible for an equal show of the maximum total
compensation as described in subsection 1 I -2 -19 F 10 of ibis title If a
displaced resident's ielocation cost is less than their equal share, then the
difference between the equal share and the actual relocation costs of that
household is e.ualfv distributed to the di .laced residents who have relocd&'�i
costs in excess of their equal share.
Packet page 126 of 148
I Formatted Bullets and Numbering
{Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 1
-t Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted• Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
c. The city shall not issue a budding petmit in coniunction with the reuse of the
manufactured home park property unless thepark owner has paid the
relocation costs and'or the park put chaser has compensated displaced
1esidents m accordance with thetequiremenls of this section. Approval of any
application for rezomne, plattm conditional use permit planned unit
development of ti anance to coniunction wnh a park clos no of convetsion
shall be conditional on compliance w nh the requirements of this section
7 Di s laced resident statement within 90 days of racer t of a closure notice the Formatted: Bullets and Numbering J
displaced resident shall provide the pack owner with a written statement of
relocation costs or in the alteina try e a written statement that the resident cannot
relocate his or her manufactured home to another manufactured home park within
a 25 -mile radius. If a resident determines not to relocate as defined widen this
section, the resident must state whether he or she elects to receive relocation costs
under subsection 11-2-19 F 8 or subsection 1 1 -2 -19 F 9 of this title
8 Election to relocate `Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 3
a If a manufactured home can be relocated to another manufactured home park
within a 25 -mile radius, the park owner shall pas displaced residents'
relocations costs as defined herein.
b. the pack owner shall make relocation payments directly to contractors
pro v tdin' the relocation set vice, or the displaced resident may chose to be L Formatted. Highlight
reimbursed by the park owner after the i esident submits to the nark owfte'
proof of payment of relocation costs. The park ow ner shall be entitled to
1 eem e adequate documentation of relocation costs. includms costs of
proposals. invoices estimates and contacts fot relocation services
c. If a displaced resident cannot relocate the manufactured home within a 25-
mile radius of the park which is being closed or some other agi eed upon
distance. and the resident elects not to tender tithe to the manufactured home.
the i esident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation
costs awarded to other residents in the park.
d. A displaced resident compensated undei this section shall retain title to the
manufactured home and shall be responsible for its prompt remok al from the
manufactured home park All rent due and ownte to the park owner, and all
pi°perty taxes for the current and prior years shall be paid by the displaced
resident prior to remov mei the manufactured home fi om the park
9 Election to receive compensation. If a resident cannot relocate his or her
manufactured home to another manufactured home paik within a 25 -mile radius
or some other agreed upon distance and tenders title to the manufactured home,
the resident is entitled to compensatton to bepaid by the put chaser of the park in
order to DM ttgate the adverse financial impact of the kirk closing In such
instance the compensation shall be an amount equal tope estimated market
value of the manufactured home as determined by an independent appraiser
experienced in manufictued home appraisal. of the tax assessed value of the
manul tctured home for the Year in which the park is scheduled to dos;
Packet page 127 of 148
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 1
{Formatted• Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
whichever IS ereatet The'appraisal shall be conducted only after it is cdetermine
that the manufactured hbthe oahnot be relocated to another park within 25 miles.
The purchaser shall pay the cost of the appraisal. fhe resident shall transfer title
of the manufactured home to the park purchaser free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances All rent due the property ow ner and all property taxes fcr the
current and prior ears shall be paid by displaced i esidents prior to the removal of
the manufacniied home from the park by thepark purchaser
10 Limitation of relocation costs and compensator 1 he total amount of Formatted: Bullets and Numbenng
compensation paid to displaced owners of manufactured homes shall not exceed
the greater of 2 of the Count> Assessor's estimated market value of the Formatted: Highlight
manufactured home park. as detennmed by the County Assessor for the year in Formatted: Highlight
tti hich the park is scheduled to close- 'or 25% of the purchase price of ihe F rmatted. Highlight
11 Penalty: Violation of any pro N'skin of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor
Packet page 128 of 148
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
5.a. 06 -05 -TA Manufactured Home Park Ordinance Revisions. Senior Planner Zweber
began the presentation with the statement that staff has not received any indication that the
mobile home park closing. Staff was approached by a resident to revise the ordinance to better
protect thc residents m the event the park is purchased. To staffs knowledge, no one has
indicated that the owner desires to sell
Mr. Zweber reviewed the state statute and requirements in the event a mobile home park would
close, including relocation reimbursement, park conversions, resident buy -out provision, and
noncomphance. The state statute is what the City is using to base the City ordinance on. The
main part of the City ordinance that needs revision regulates the closing of the manufactured
home park.
The state statute defines a manufactured home but is silent with respect to accessory uses.
Relocation costs include crane services, but do not include axles, wheels, etc It also does not
include items being stored in accessory uses Hook ups for electricity and plumbing are
reimbursable but upgrades or repairs to bring a property up to current code are not reimbursable
The City can withhold building permits to the Developer until all residents are paid amounts owed
for reimbursement
The zoning ordinance amendment provides minimum lot requirements and setbacks, as well as
provisions for manufactured home park closings The conditions of manufactured home park
closings include the noticing of residents nine months in advance of the closing, the conducting of
a public hearing to evaluate the impacts of closing of park, and the requirement that the park
owner pay the relocation costs of the resident or providing another form of compensation. The
compensation provision includes paying thc full relocation costs (as defined with the proposed
ordinance) for moving the home to another park within 25 Hiles, the payment of the average
relocation costs if a resident moves the home to a park farther than 25 miles, or assessed value of
the home if the resident cannot move to a park within 25 miles and renders the utle to the park
owner The maximum total compensation that a park owner is required to pay is 20% of the
assessed value for the entire park as currently drafted
The property maintenance ordinance provides maintenance standards for street surfaces and snow
and ice removal, trash collection that includes recycling opportunities, and the removal of
accessory structures when a home is removed for a park
Some residents have expressed concern that the proposed ordinance amendments do not go fax
enough in protecting the rights of the Rosemount Woods residents An exhibit was provided to
the Commission of an e -mail sent by LaVonne Woodruff, a Rosemount Woods resident, which
expressed some questions, raising practical concerns about implementation of the State Statute
and proposed ordinance Mr. Zweber reviewed the questions raised by LaVonne Woodruff and
discussed the answers thereto
Packet page 129 of 148
Staff has reviewed the State Statute and other ordinances from other commumnes regarding
manufactured home park closings Based on previous direction from the City Council, staff has
prepared an ordinance text amendment that is generally based on Apple Valley's ordinance The
proposed ordinance addresses many, but maybe not all, of the concerns raised by Rosemount
Woods
Staff requests a motion from the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council
approve the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance regarding manufactured home parks. The
proposed revisions to the Property Maintenance Ordinance are for review only because the
amendment is not housed in the City's zoning ordinance, no recommendation is needed. Any
comments that the Planning Commssion would have regarding the Property Maintenance
Ordinance will be provided to the City Council
Chairperson Messner opened the floor to discussion by the Commissioners.
Commissioner Schultz questioned how accessory structures are dealt with in the ordinance and
Mr. Zweber replied that the state statute is silent with respect to accessory structures
Commissioner Schwartz asked if mobile homes can be moved on a flatbed without an axle or
whether or not the axles can be rented Community Development Director Lindquist rephed
that the City's building official stated there are places to rent the equipment needed to move the
mobile home
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
Ricky Hawke, 2764 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned the letter he
received proposing rezoning of Rosemount Woods for different purposes and inquired as to the
status. Ms. Lindquist replied that the City is changing the ordinance which is a zoning text
amendment, there will not be a change in the actual zoning. Staff has not received any request
for anybody to purchase the mobile home park. The owner has expressed he has no intention
of selling the property
Barb Stanley, 13955 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned if the
individual home owner has to provide the mina] money needed to relocate and then get
reimbursed, or is the money provided up front. Mr Zweber replied that there is an "or" in the
ordinance The park could move the owner directly or could reimburse the owner after the
move is made This particular matter would be directly addressed at the public hearing in the
event the park would be closed.
Ms. Stanley also stated that the wheels and axles to the mobile homes were taken away by the
park owner when they were set in the park. The homeowners do not feel like they should have
to pay for the axles and wheels when the park owner took them away
Pat Swett, 13995 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, read from an undisclosed
local newspaper which stated that the Governor has declared this week manufactured home park
week Ms Sivert further stated that she feels the park could be recommended as one of the
quality parks in Minnesota She also commented her belief that $6,600 for relocation costs is a
ridiculous amount and should be considered carefully by the Commission.
Packet page 130 of 148
Lynda Thursnn, 2913 Upper 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned how
many parks allow pets and garages should she decide to relocate. She also asked if she could get
a second opinion on the estimate of her home outside of the County Assessor, and further asked
if the park owner could pay hex for her trailer if she doesn't want to move it and supply get an
apartment.
Dean Peterson, 13965 Brianboro Avenue, Rosemount Minnesota 55068, stated that the
ordinance requires a trailer to be broken down to an 8 foot width and stated that this would be
impossible sure a trailer can be broken down to a minimum of 16 feet
Ray and Tammie Kopatich, 2934 138 Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, expressed their
frustration with the whole process and how difficult it is to relocate deaf residents
Lila Dalton, 2764 158 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated she has health issues
and works at Arby's, which is enough to pay for her medical expenses so she has a loan to pay
for her double -wide trailer. She would not receive enough in relocation costs to move her not to
mention pay off her loan
Terry Berger, 2702 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned the information
provided about the 44 available parks within a 25 mile radius and whether or not the lots in
these 44 parks are empty lots. He stated it is not possible to relocate 182 mobile home residents
and it doesn't make sense to discuss relocation.
Leah Lund, 2775 138` Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, has lived in the park for
seven years, is a single parent, has a 1 1/2 stall garage and stated that there are not a lot of parks
that will accept a used home
Sharon Schonhardt, 2813 Upper 138 Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, lust bought a
double -wide trailer m the park She stated she would never get what she paid for it and
questioned why the City doesn't leave the park alone. Mr Zweber responded that the City is not
looking to get rid of the park
Ms Lindquist reconfirmed that there is state statute that governs this matter and the City is not
making up an ordinance The City wants to be more specific because the statute process is a
little vague If the City takes not acnon on the ordinance, the residents will still be governed by
the State Statute What the City is trying to accomplish is set up a process so in the event the
park would close, everyone would know what the process was The City would appreciate
assistance from the residents in providing information helpful in completing the revision of the
ordinance
Ricky Hawke, 2764 138c Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated that to have a
flatbed come to haul a doublewide trailer would range from $2,000 to $8,000. After that cost,
how does the City expect people to pay for the remaining 20 Mr Hawke asked if it would be
fair to require the park owner to pay more than 20% of the assessed value of the home. Mr.
Zweber stated that the Planning Commission could certainly review that matter
Packet page 131 of 148
Robert Phaff, 2825 138' Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated that if a developer has
enough money to buy the entire park, it should have enough money to relocate the home
owners at the developer's expense and this should be included in the ordinance
Lynda Thurstin, 2913 138t Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned in the event
51% of the home owners want to go together and purchase the park, how much would each
person have to pay and could lot rent be put towards the money to purchase park. Chairperson
Messner stated that the purpose of the pubhc hearing was not to decipher the exact economics
of the event, but has heard of homeowners jointly purchasing parks.
Lori Weeks, 2900 Lower 139 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated that if the City
is going to rewrite the ordinance, then it should be rewritten to make it impossible for anyone to
buy the park instead of providing loopholes The ordinance should be rewritten to protect the
homeowners.
Lavonne Woodruff, 2884 133 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, speaking to the
audience stated there are different ways to get an assessed value of the home: county assessed
values, independent appraiser value, and market value that a real estate agent provides. She
stated that homeowners have two options- approach the legislature in the next session, and
there is the opportunity to buy out the park if 51% of homeowners approve the buy -out.
Dennis Ozment, 3275 145 Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, State Representative, stated
that this is an issue to take to the State Legislature and he will make an effort this next legislative
session to get the statute regarding this issue upgraded
Terry Berger, 2702 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned why the City of
Roscmount would tell 182 homes in the commumty to get out Chairperson Messner clarified
that the City does not own the park and does not have the legal authority to tell the owner he
cannot sell the property The City is trying to clanfy the rules to protect the homeowners and is
not encouraging a sale of the park. The City is trying to look out for the best interests of the
homeowners
Judith Breyer, 2872 Upper 138 Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned if there is any
type of government assistance to help homeowners in the event the park is sold since the
housing market is tough right now and she would desperately need a helping hand
Craig Sundt, 2824 138t Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated he loves living here
and beheves the park is doing good if the homeowners stick together and make their voices
heard. If there are no loopholes left in the new ordinance, everyone can make it work
Vikki Marshall, 2812 138t Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, a hearing impaired
resident, questioned if residents had to move and whether or not there was any way to stop it.
Chairperson Messner confirmed that no one is asking the residents to move. The change in
ordinance is to protect residents in the future in case someone would want to sell the property.
Packet page 132 of 148
Jesse Nanoff, 13970 Broughshane Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated it was his
understanding that this matter was brought to the City by a resident to help protect the residents
and that the City cannot modify the state statute Mr. Zweber responded that the statute cannot
be modified by the City but the state has left some items up to the City to be more specific on
bir. Nanoff questioned that since the statute is silent on accessories, is that something the City
can modify or adopt? Mr. Zweber replied that the City Attorney is researching that issue and the
part of the statute that states other "parties" can satisfy remaining relocation costs. The City
.Attorney is also looking into whether or not one of the "other parties" can be the current park
owner, but we do not have a final determination yet Mr Zweber also stated that he does not
expect the assessed value to decrease Mr. Nanoff stated that it is also his understanding that the
City of Lakeville was also approached with this same ordinance and their Council turned it
down In addressing the residents, Mr. Nanoff stated that the City of Rosemount is Looking out
for the residents that live in this park.
Leah Lund, 2775 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the Commission
with another question She expressed her appreciation for Mr Ozment's attendance at the
meeting and wondered how she could get involved in changing the legislation
Ray and Tammie Kopatich, 2934 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, expressed
their disappointment that no hearing impaired interpreter was provided They do not
understand why the City wants to kick them out
George Jansen, 2865 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, questioned if the amount
of $6000 was to move the trailer out. Mr Zweber replied that $6,600 is a figure estimated for
relocation based on 20% of the value of the park and that amount could change Mr Jansen
responded that relocation costs cannot replace his alarm system of his neighbors and his
daughter cannot get the educanon in Lakeville as she can in Rosemount.
Annette Kessler, 2853 Upper 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, was one of the
first 5 residents to live m the park When she received the letter from the City, she checked with
different parks and found that you cannot move a trailer if it was built before 1980. She
questioned what will happen in 5 or 10 years when a trailer park won't accept trailers because
they are too old There should be a provision in the ordinance to protect the older trailers in the
future when they are longer movable
Vikki Marshall, 2812 Upper 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, single mother of
two with a low income. She questioned whether kicking all of the residents out Justified having
more office space? Mr. Zweber replied there is no developer interested m the property at this
time
Larry Schmitz, 13985 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, asked if there are any
examples of a draft ordinance. Ms. Zweber rephed that there is a copy on the website, but it is
generally the Apple Valley ordinance and that the City plans on using the assessed value of
homes
Jesse Nanoff, 13970 Broughshane Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, asked when the City
Council will be voting on this issue Mr Zweber rephed that it would be scheduled for October
17, 2006, unless the Planning Commission continues the item
Packet page 133 of 148
Judith Breyer, 2872 Upper 138 Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the
Commission again and stated that in Bloomington, they have closed 3 trailer parks already within
the last 3 years and there will be more from what she has heard
Jesse Nanoff, 13970 Broughshane Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the
Commission again and asked if the residents will be notified when the item goes to City Council.
Kris Hutto, 13960 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, asked how the ordinance
amendment is going to affect the street maintenance Mr. Zweber quoted the ordinance stating
that snow removal shall occur as necessary curb to curb and completed within 12 hours of the
snow event. If this is not followed, it becomes a code enforcement matter and residents can
notify the City to report the non compliance.
George Jansen, 2865 138t Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the
Commission again and asked if the park would happen to get sold before the ordinance
amendment is completed, is the process terminated Mr Zweber stated there is a time period
where you cannot change the ordinance in a certain time period if someone came in to buy the
property. Ms Lindquist responded that approval of an ordinance amendment typically takes 60-
90 days to complete
The public hearing was closed at 8.02p m.
Chairperson Messner stated there are definitely some issues to investigate and clarify before we
can move this item to the City Council.
Commissioner Schultz commented to all the residents of Rosemount that it is important to
understand that the City of Rosemount is are trying to work with them. She further stated that
by having State Representative Ozment in the audience, it is important to note that we are
confined by state statute. It is important that the residents go to their state legislature to express
then concerns
MOTION by Chairperson Messner to table this public heating to allow for additional
comment. Second by Schultz
Ayes All. Nays None Motion approved.
This matter will be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on October 24, 2006.
Packet page 134 of 148
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 2006
5.a. 06 -05 -TA Manufactured Home Park Ordinance Revisions. This is a continuation from
the public hearing on September 26, 2006 Senior Planner Zweber explained that staff has made a
series of changes to the Ordinance revisions since the last meeting. When revising the Ordinance,
staff has interpreted the limitations of the State Statute, with the City Attorney's assistance, m the
following way
1 The intent of the Statute is to relocate the manufactured home to another park and that
other payments are limited to only purchase the home if the home cannot be relocated.
2 The "reasonable" standard within the Statute limits the types of expenses that can be
reimbursed and encourages a maximum total (or "cap paid to relocation costs.
Mr. Zweber reviewed the proposed changes since the last meeting including a defuution of an
appurtenance of a manufactured home; inclusion of tire and axle rental as well as repairs to move a
mobile home are eligible relocation costs; that the park owner is responsible to pay contractors
directly unless the resident chooses otherwise; that each household is eligible to an equal share of
the maximum relocation costs, the requirement of an appraisal of a mobile home cannot be
moved; and that the maximum relocation costs are capped at 25%
Mr. Zweber reviewed the changes requested by residents of Rosemount Woods to be made to
the proposed ordinance and explained which changes were added to the Ordinance and which
ones were not added to the ordinance. Requests for payments beyond relocating the actual
manufactured home and personal property within, or the removal of a cap, were not be included
in the ordinance
Staff received two correspondences on October 24, 2006, copies of which were provided to the
Commission. One was email correspondence from the City Attorney Charlie LeFevere
regarding relocation costs and what the state statute authorizes with respect to a cap for
payments. The other letter was from the attorney for All Parks Alliance for Change (.PAC).
Mr Zweber reviewed the content of these letters.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if there were any questions. Commissioner
Schwartz asked what was all included within the cap fund Mr. Zweber replied that the cap
includes all relocation costs and purchases of trailers that can be moved which total cannot
exceed 25% Therefore, if there was money available to move the trailer and still be under the
cap, the homeowner would get the full value Only if there was no money available in the fund,
would the homeowner not get their full share Any amount not used would go back into the
pool for others to use.
Commissioner Howell asked for clanfication on the definition of personal property and what is
included in relocation costs. Mr. Zweber rephed that items that are separate and distinct from
the mobile home are not included If someone sells their mobile home and separates the
personal property, that property is not included in the mobile home and not included m the
relocation costs.
Packet page 135 of 148
Commissioner Palda asked if it is known how many lots are actually available within the mobile
parks within the 25 mile area. Mr. Zweber replied that the number of lots currently available is
unknown.
Commissioner Schwartz stated she is uncomfortable with the term "displaced resident" and
stated that "displaced owner" may be more suitable She also stated that on page 1 c in the
required conditions, "guest register" would be better as "attendant register" or "owner register
Chairperson Messner opened the public heanng at 7:01 p.m.
Barb Stanley, 13965 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated the ordinance in
Roseville does include the difference for rent Ordinances from six different cities do not have
caps and some have caps on the sale of the property, but not on estimated value. The residents
of Rosemount Woods would like to have sheds and garages included in the relocation costs.
Ms Stanley also stated that if a mobile home is older than ten years, most parks will not take it.
Ahas Damon, 13940 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, reported to the
Commission that people can only own homes in the park, not rent. He asked who "third
parties" would be as stated in the statute Mr Zweber replied that the statute is unclear as to
who third parties would be.
Lavonne Woodruff, 2884 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated she would like
to have an opportunity to review the information given tonight before any decision is made She
has lived m a mobile home park for much of her adult life and has found that mobile home
owners are treated like low income home people None of the owners can afford to give away
their homes for pennies on the dollar.
Pat Sivert, 13995 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated that mobile home
parks are desperately needed. The City of Rosemount needs more affordable housing. The
homeowners should receive more than 25% and the City should reconsider this percentage. The
landowner should be able to contribute more money to the homeowners.
Vanessa Curtis, 13950 Broughshane Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated that if the
owners are only given the max of $8,300 and some people are retired and do not have the best
credit, it is impossible to get a new home. Poor credit or lack of income should be considered m
the market value
Charlie Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the
Commission and stated that a person cannot build a two car garage for $8,000 The people m
the mobile home park are going to be in the street and the City needs to stand up for them
Bruce Emarson, 2812 138 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated he feels the City is
wasting their money Money should be saved for a better community. Mr Zweber replied that
the relocation money is not from the City or taxes, it comes from the developer
Packet page 138 of 148
Community Development Director Lindquist stated that the state statute already deals with
relocation costs. The City is trying to come up with an ordinance to specify the process and
how the relocation procedures would work If the City left the state statute alone, the residents
would still be allowed relocation costs per state statute. She again confirmed that there is no
interested developer at this time.
Berme Swett, 13995 Bundoran Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota, asked if the park was zoned for
mobile homes and wondered what it would require for the City to not approve a change in the
zoning ordinance. Mr. Zweber stated the park has a PUD approval, it was zoned for single
family units in 1985 Ms Lindquist explained how the zoning ordinance allows for single family
units in the park
Sharon Schonhardt, 2813 Upper 138 Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, is Bernie Sivert's
daughter She stated that the word "trailer" is offensive and there is no compassion remaining.
She does not understand the report of 844 lots within a 25 mile radius She does not believe
there are that many mobile home parks or units available
Chairperson Messner told the residents that the chance of Rosemount Woods home park being
sold is no greater today than five years ago to the City's knowledge What the City is try to do in
changing the ordinance is not increasing the changes of the park being sold. He asked for
understanding that the City is trying to make it more difficult for the potential relocation of
Rosemount Woods
Walt Doerfler, 2781 138 Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, requested the City use the
homeowners' proposals and complete the process.
Judith Breyer, 2872 Upper 138 Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, also requested that the
City consider the homeowners' proposals and to think of the mobile park as an investment to
the City.
Commissioner Palda asked if the City has looked at other areas of land to purchase for
relocating the park in the event it closes. Mr Zweber replied that the PUD does allow another
mobile home park to be developed The ordinance does not include any provisions for this but
the City Council could possibly develop a plan of their own if they so desire.
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Pubhc Hearing Second by Howell.
Ayes All Nays None Morton approved Public hearing was closed at 7 28p m.
Commissioner Schwartz asked what the state statute would provide if the City did not modify
the ordinance. N1r. Zweber rephed that a closing statement would nced to be Issued by anyone
nine months before the park is redeveloped. A 45 day period would be allowed for 51 °,K of the
mobile home park owner to purchase the park at the same price. If this does not happen, the
City would hold a public hearing If there is no ordinance in place at that time, the City would
determine the relocation costs at that meeting
Packet page 137 of 148
Commissioner Palda stated the City should find out how many lots are available within the 25
mile radius before the Commission acts on this. He would like more information in relation to
the 25% cap such as comparison with other cities Mr Zweber rephed that Staff could possibly
call all 44 parks within the 25 mile radius to see what units are available With respect to the cap,
there isn't much information available. There is only one lawsuit on the cap and it showed
reasonable relocation costs.
Commissioner Schwartz stated she's interested in knowing what the values are of the homes on
the tax rolls She wondered if the cap should be based on the taxable value of the home or the
total sale price. Chairperson Messner stated that if someone is going to redevelop this property,
the purchase price is not going to be based on the value of thc homes, but on the underlying tax
base. He stated that doing a survey of current availability in other parks may not do any good if
the sale is way in the future, if ever. The cap should be tied to the sale value or the potential
purchase price as opposed to a percentage Subject to that change, Chairperson Messner stated
he would be in a position to approve the ordinance amendment.
MOTION by Chairperson Messner to recommend that the City Council approve
(subject to change in the cap) the revision to the Zoning Ordinance regarding
Manufactured Home Parks
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes 2.
Nays 2. Palda and Howell.
Commissioner Howell stated she doesn't think the 25°/D cap is enough to avoid devastating the
homeowners She would like to know the value of the homes. Mr. Zweber stated that the
County Assessor does not individually assess units; they base it on the year, of bedrooms, etc.
The assessed value is probably way under what it is worth and the only way to get an accurate
value is to have the home appraised The City does not have the funds to provide individual
appraisals.
Commissioner Howell asked if a third party could be the seller of the mobile home park so they
could be assessed to pay a certain percentage to the homeowners. Chairperson Messner rephed
that the buyer of the property is going to pay a certain amount of dollars so effectively the
money comes from the seller because they would be getting that much less of the sale price
Ms Lindquist pointed out two issues: One, the APAC letter is correct Often redevelopment is
a partnership with the City and the City often tunes invests money. The third party mentioned
m
thc statute is most likely the municipahty Two, if the Commission wishes to continue the
items, Staff would arrange for the City Attorney to be present at the next meeting
There was no further discussion.
MOTION by Chairperson Howell to recommend that the City Council approve
(subject to change m the cap) the revision to the Zoning Ordinance regarding
Manufactured Home Parks
Packet page 138 of 148
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 1. Palda
Mr Zweber stated that this item will go before the City Council on November 21, 2006 Before
that date, Staff will make changes to the ordinance for their adoption Ms Lindquist stated that
no further notices will go out and instructed residents to make note of the next meeting date.
The material will be posted to the website so the public can access the information before the
meeting.
Packet page 139 of 148
301329v1 CLL RS215-4
Packet page 140 of 148
Charles L. LeFevere
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337 -9215 telephone
(612) 337 -9310 fax
clefevere`Jcennedy- graven.eom
http /www kennedv- at aven.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 13, 2006
To: Kim Lindquist
From: Charles LeFevere
Re: Mobile Home Park Relocation Ordinance
You have asked for a memo addressing the need for a cap, or limit, on the amount of
compensation required to be paid to displaced tenants by a landowner closing a mobile
home park.
The state law authorizing cities to require relocation to be paid upon closure of a mobile
home park does not require that there be a cap on the amount paid by the landowner.
However, several cities have adopted ordinances that do include caps. It seems to me
that the caps serve two purposes. The first is that it protects a landowner from incurring
unreasonable costs in the use and development of his or her property for other purposes.
The second is that it may help to protect the ordinance from a legal challenge brought on
the ground that application of the ordinance results in the taking of the landowner's
property without compensation.
Without the cap, at some point, the imposition of relocation obligations on the owner of a
mobile home park may be so burdensome that it cannot be defended in a legal challenge.
Evaluation of the burden of the ordinance on a landowner will depend on the facts of
each case. In some cases, the burden of paying relocation without a cap may be fairly
low. For example, if the mobile home park has larger Lots, few double trailers, small
trailers, and another mobile home park with vacancies in close proximity, relocation
expenses might be reasonable even without a cap.
However, information you provided suggests that there may be reason for concern about
the reasonableness of the ordinance without a cap. It appears that the cost of moving a
double -wide trailer may be as high as $12,000. The cost of purchasing a trailer for the
tax assessed value can also vary considerably. The average assessed value in 2006 is
$13,900.
If the value of a vacant park in an R -1 district before removal of infrastructure were
$110,000 per acre, and if there were 8.7 trailers per acre (under City Code the minimum
lot size is 5,000 square feet), and if the average cost of relocating or purchasing of trailers
were S12,643, that would mean that 100% of the purchase price of' the park in a fair
market value sale would go to the tenants and none to the landowner.
I would be concerned, as the cost to the landowner approaches 100% of the market value
of the land, that a court would consider the ordinance to be unreasonable and
confiscatory.
If the Council feels that a cap is appropriate, either to protect the rights of the landowner
or to protect the defensibility of the ordinance, I cannot predict how high that cap might
be and still be defensible. The ordinance of the City of Bloomington was challenged
sonic years ago. In that case, the ordinance had a cap of 20 and, although the cap was
not addressed as a separate issue in the reported decision, the ordinance was found to be
valid. Therefore, there is some precedent for the authority that an ordinance with a 20%
cap is reasonable. However, how far the City could go beyond that is uncharted waters.
Let me know if you have any further questions on this
301329v1 CLL RS2I5-4
Packet page 141 of 148
Date: October 16, 2006
To: City of Rosemount Planning Commission
From: Residents of Rosemount Woods Manufactured Home Park
RE: The proposed manufactured home park closing relocation compensation ordinance
Dear City of Rosemount Planning Commission,
We, homeowners in Rosemount Woods Manufactured Home Park, working in conjunction with All
Parks Alliance for Change, recommend the following changes to the manufactured home park
closing relocation compensation ordinance that was presented at the City of Rosemount planning
commission meeting on September 26, 2006.
When homes can be relocated within a 25 mile radius, compensation shall include:
The cost of replacing axles and wheels
The cost of moving sheds, decks, garages and appurtenances
The cost of moving personal property
The cost of disconnecting and re- connecting utilities
The cost of any repairs that are required to move the home
When a homeowner tenders title of the home, compensation shall include
Compensation in the amount equal to the estimated market value of the home or the
estimated tax value of the home, whichever is greater
Compensation for the cost of moving personal property
Verification of relocation costs
The homeowner shall not be required to pay upfront for the costs associated with relocating the
home The park owner /purchaser shall pay contractors directly, or an escrow account may be
established.
Cap of the total sale value that can be used to for compensation:
State law does not require a cap on the total amount of compensation the park owner can be
required to pay homeowners when a park is closed. The 20% cap on the total compensation
amount should be eliminated from the ordinance.
Housing costs supplement payment:
Compensation for increased housing costs should be included in the ordinance. Homeowners who
move their home to a different park and have to pay increased lot rent as a result shall be entitled
to a lump sum payment equal to the difference between their lot rent at the park being closed and
the lot rent at the park to which they are moving multiplied by 24 months. Homeowners who do not
move their homes to a different park, but relocate to other housing and pay increased housing
costs as a result shall be entitled to a lump sum payment equal to the difference between their
monthly housing cost a the park being closed and the monthly housing costs at their new location
multiplied by 24 months.
Thank you for considering our recommendations. If you have questions please contact the
homeowners listed below.
LaVonne Woodruff: 2884 Upper 138 Street West, Ikw7772charter.net
Beverly Huesmann: 2883 Upper 138 Street West, 651 322 -5180
Packet page 142 of 148
ATTENTION -HOMEOWNERS-
In 2000, the City of Apple Valley adopted a new city ordinance offering further
protections to owners of manufactured homes in the event of a land sale.
The City of Lakeville is currently going through the same process.
The City of Rosemount's City Council can instruct city staff to start this process
regarding land zoning changes if at least 35t of the homeowners in Rosemount Woods
sign a petition indicating they want to pursue this Public information and
discussion meetings would follow.
The Bottom Line: Homeowners should never find themselves in a
position of being forced to relocate within nine months /or
have to sell their homes for less than full market value.
STREET ADDRESS:
Packet page 143 of 148
PIease sign this Petition, then take it to:
2884 138th St W
-,You can place it in the white mail box on the front steps;
they'll be collected daily for the next 30 days.
When enough signatures are collected, they will then be given to city staff to
authorize starting the process.
Thank You) LaVonne K Woodruff
Return this to 2884 138 Street West in Rosemount Woods.
The HOMEOWNERS in Rosemount Woods request a new ordinance regarding land zoning
changes and respectfully ask the City of Rosemount to pursue this matter on their
behalf, under the authority of Minnesota Statute 327C.095.
PAINT PLEASE
HOMEOWNER'S (only) NAME (last, first, middle initial):
PHONE: 651/ EMAIL:
(optional)
HOMEOWNER'S (only) Signature:
DATE: 2005
PARK CLOSINGS ARE SWEEPING ACROSS THE STATE
Since 2004, 3 mobile horse parks have closed in Mimes; eliminating 88 mars of affordable housing.
Six additional parks have announced closure. if/ten these parks close, a total of 289 units will have been lost since 2004.
.4pproxunately80% ofhfetro,4rea park households are lower income, including senior citizens, single mothers, recent immigrants
and people on flied incomes
The vast nuyorrty of park households own their homes
The esn,nated cost of moving a smglewide mobile tonne in the metro area is .$4,300 to S6,600.
The estimated cost of moving a doublewrde mobile home in the metro area is S9.400 to 312,000
Afany i esidents fear that they would have no place to go. would be unable to afford to move, and could become homeless m the
event ofa pork closing
Residents will likely see a 100% increase or greater in their housing costs Vthev are forced to move into an apartment as a result
ofa pork closing
The estimated cost of relocating residents would likely beyust a small percentage of what the park owner could ,Hake f •orn selling
the park
ENSURE PROTECTION FOR ROSEMOONT PARR RESIDENTS
Rosemount has one mobile home park, with approcmiately 185 households.
With higher land values and the threat of edevelopment, the possibility of'the park closing is always a risk
Close to 400 people live in the park
State law gives cities the authority to require park owners to compensate residents for u easonable r elocatton expenses due to park
closings.
I6 Minnesota cities have passed park closing ordinances guaranteeing protection for mobile home park residents in diet,
community if their parks ever close
br .11 of these cities, a dm inces were passed ehen there were no parks closing. They were passed as proactive measures to
establish giadel ine r for flaw e closings
•Apple Valley, Shakopee and Burnsville all have park closing ordinances,
The city of Lexington recently passed an ordinance in December 2004 Brainerd parsed an ordinance in April 2005
TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, YOUR PARK IS NOT CLOSING AT THIS TIME. THIS
ORDINANCE WOULD BE TO ESTABLISH PROTECTIONS IN CASE IT EVER DOES.
Minnesota Statutes 2004, Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 327C
327C.13 Freedom of expression.
No park owner shall prohibit or adopt any rule prohibiting residents or other persons from peacefully organizing,
assembling, canvassing, leafleting or otherwise exercismg within the park their nght of free expression for noncommercial
purposes. A park owner may adopt and enforce rules that set reasonable limits as to time, place and manner.
HIST: 1982 c 526 art 2 s 13. Copyright 2004 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of MN
Packet page 144 of 14S
Oct 24 2006 11:44RM RPRC
October 24, 2006
APAC
AL Parks Alitince for Change
Planning Commission
City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
651- 523 -0173
An Organization Of Manufactured Rome Residents
RE: Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance
VIA FAX
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I am writing to express support for a park closing ordinance for the city of Rosemount. Additionally, I
am writing to provide some additional background information about park closing ordinances. As the
only organization dedicated to protecting the rights of manufactured home park residents, we have
found that such ordinances provide necessary protections and critical resources that are otherwise
unavailable.
According to Minn. Stat. 327C.095, municipalities can determine that relocation expenses be assessed
for residents of manufactured home parks that are being closed or converted. In an effort to maintain
flexibility, the legislature did not specifically determine what amount of relocation compensation should
be awarded to displaced residents. There is, under the state law, no cap on the amount of relocation
compensation that the city can require the park owner or redeveloper to provide to the displaced
residents The latitude given to cities is very broad in determining the amount of compensation that the
city can require. The legislature was clear, however, that the intent of 327C.095 was to protect
residents of manufactured home parks from the financial devastation caused by the loss of their homes.
In the past, municipalities have determined that park owners, developers and even the city itself should
provide some of the necessary compensation depending on the needs of the residents and the
community as a whole.
The closure of a manufactured home park is not simply a matter of a private business transaction.
Frequently such redevelopments require the city to take action to facilitate building and zoning.
Likewise, the operation and closure of' a manufactured home park is an area that is regulated by state
law as evidenced by special protections that are written into 327C. Requiring relocation
compensation for displaced residents is simply a matter of using the tools that the legislature so wisely
provided.
Packet page 145 of 148
970 Raymond Ave, Suite 105, Saint Paul, MN 55114
(phone) 651 -644 5525 866- 361 -2722
(fax) 651 -523 -0173
www.allparksallianceforchange.org
P.2
Oct 24 2006 11:44AM FIPAC
The Minnesota courts have consistently upheld manufactured home park relocation compensation plans
as constitutional and commensurate with the intent of the legislature. See Arcadia Development Corp.
v. City ofBloonungton, 552 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). As the court stated in Arcadia, by
requiring the park owner to pay mitigation fees or relocation costs, the municipality is exercising its
duty to lessen the economic devastation imposed on displaced residents. See Id. at 287. It is indeed
fortunate that the legislature has given the city a tool so that the economic benefit of redevelopment is
not at the expense of low income residents.
Although the ordinance that was upheld in Bloomington had a cap on total compensation, other cities
have chosen not to impose a cap on total compensation. For example, the ordinance that was passed by
the city of Elk River, and used to provide compensation to residents when a park in that city closed
did not impose a cap on the total amount of compensation. Instead, the residents received the full cost
of relocation or the fair market value of their homes: Although no amount of money can make up for
the loss of a community or the loss of a home, providing full compensation helped residents move on in
the face of such losses.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Truly Yo
Margaret Kap an
Staff Attorney
Packet page 146 of 148
651 -523 -0173
All Parks Alliance for Change
970 Raymond Ave, Suite 105, Saint Paul, MN 55114
(phone) 651 -644 -5525 866 361 -2722
(fax) 651 523 -0173
wwcv.allparksalliancefor change.org
P 3