The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/05/2002BOOK 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 5, 2002, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. July 15, 2002 5. Public Hearing None 6. New Business a. Keller Golf Course Maintenance Building Conditional Use Permit (2166 Maplewood Drive) 7. Unfinished Business a. Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Amendment 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission presentations a. July 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler b. August 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller c. August 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: o The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. o The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 0 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: about 40,000 square feet, whole golf course — 148 acres Existing land use: Existing Keller Golf Course maintenance buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Keller Golf Course East: Keller Golf Course South: Keller Golf Course West: Keller Park and Keller Lake across Highway 61 PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: OS (open space) Zoning: F (farm residence) CUP Findings Section 36-442(a) states that the city council shall base approval of a CUP on the findings listed in the resolution on pages 18 and 19. Application Date We received the applications for this request on July 12, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60 - day requirement on this proposal ends September 11, 2002. Therefore, city council action is required on this proposal by September 9, 2002. p:sec16\keller maintenance cup.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Properly Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Arial Photo 4. Site Plan (Existing Conditions) 5. Site Plan (Proposed) 6. Site Plan (Demolition Detail Plan) 7. Site Plan (Proposed Detail) 8. Proposed Building Elevations 9. Proposed Floor Plan 10. Applicant's statement of intended use of property 11. Chris Cavett's comments dated July 29, 2002 12. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 13. Architectural plans date-stamped July 12, 2002 (separate attachment) 0 5 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 15, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL III. Mary Dierich Present Lorraine Fischer Present Matt Ledvina Absent Jackie Monahan-Junek Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Present Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts added discussion for the city tour under staff presentations. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 1,2002. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 1,2002. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Mueller The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING None. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-15-02 -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Concept Plan Review-MWF Properties Apartment Proposal (2000 County Road D) Mr. Roberts said Mr. David Steele, representing MWF Properties, is proposing to build an 80-unit apartment building. He is proposing this project on a 7-acre site on the south side of County Road D, between White Bear Avenue and Ariel Street. This project would be a 2-story apartment building with a mix of 72 two-bedroom units and 8 three-bedroom units. There also would be 80 detached garage stalls and 101 surface parking spaces on the site. To build this development, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: 1. A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from BC (business commercial) to R-3 (H) (residential high density). A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for an 80-unit apartment development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the BC (business commercial) and LBC (limited business commercial) zoning districts limit the uses on the site to a variety of commercial, retail and office uses. The code, however, allows multi-dwellings on land that the city has zoned BC by CUP. 3. Design approval. Mr. Steele has asked staff to present these preliminary plans to the planning commission and city council for comments. Planning commission members shared input and ideas with the applicant, and he will come back to the planning commission with some answers to their questions at a later meeting. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to see some comparison of traffic with this type of use compared to a BC use. County Road D is already congested, and adding an apartment complex to this area will only add to the traffic. He drove around some areas and made some comments regarding what he likes in apartment buildings. He believes the tot lot is too small. If the applicant is going to install a tot lot, it should be a good tot lot. He likes to see as much green space as possible. He asked the applicant if he had considered using underground parking to eliminate taking up as much green space as Cardinal Pointe and Hazel Ridge did. Commissioner Dierich said she would strongly encourage the applicant to consider underground parking for this proposal. This is a large complex to disperse vehicles out onto County Road D. They should address traffic concerns. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if there are any restrictions on setbacks from the overhead power lines? Mr. Roberts said they just have to be outside the easement area. He said lenders have their own requirements and that would be between the applicant and the lender. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 07-15-02 Mr. David Steele, representing MWF Properties, 7645 Lyndale Avenue South in Minneapolis, addressed the commission. Mr. Steele said the tot lot is for toddlers and would be a secured area inside the courtyard. The green space will be for kids to play on and others to enjoy. Mr. Steele said the road that is to be abandoned in the southeast corner of the site is proposed to be a vegetable garden for the tenants. He said he would get traffic counts for the commission and present the counts when the numbers are available. Commissioner Mueller asked what the proposed rent would cost for these units? Mr. Steele said the units would rent from $900 to $1500. A garage will be roughly $75 a month. There would be 72 two-bedroom units and 8 three-bedroom units. Commissioner Rossbach asked where the occupants would go in a tornado if the apartment is going to be slab on grade? There are FEMA guidelines that need to be followed for shelters. Mr. Rossbach said he knows this because he has built several tornado shelters in the past. Mr. Steele said he did not know. He said he will check on that. He said the commission asked if the complex could have underground parking. This would add over a million dollars to the project and would substantially raise the rent of the apartments. The owner would prefer to keep this a two-story complex with outside garages and parking stalls. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant what the cost would be for underground parking compared to outdoor garages? Mr. Steele said an outside garage will run about $7,500 per unit and an underground garage would cost about $20,000 per unit. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked Mr. Steele if he could get the calculations for the entire parcel and the total green space. She guesses the vegetable garden proposed will be close to an acre at 100' X 300'. With a calculation of the green space, paving and the building for the total site, this would be very helpful. Mr. Steele said he would get the information the commission asked for and bring it back to the planning commission. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Amendment Mr. Tom Ekstrand, the Assistant Community Development Director, addressed the commission. He reviewed the planning commission's questions from their previous meeting and the answers he received about those questions. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked Mr. Ekstrand to describe what the state statute says regarding manufactured home parks. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-15-02 -4- Mr. Ekstrand said the state statute says that the state requires the park owner to notify the city at least nine months before ,the manufactured home would close. They then give direction to the city where the city would notify the park residents and hold a public hearing to discuss the closing. The city "may" require compensation by the city and others that may be appropriate. The manufactured home ordinances in the cities of Oakdale and Roseville state the city "shall" be required to compensate residents of the manufactured home park. Mr. Dick Pearson, the owner of the Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park, addressed the commission. They have 357 homeowners in this community. He feels this ordinance should not be applicable to his park. He feels their responsibility is to maintain the homes and the grounds, and he feels APAC should not be given power to make any decisions. _Mr. Robert O.qilvie of 1249 Antelope Way, Beaver Lake Estates, addressed the commission. He said if a homeowner gets displaced, he gets fair market value for his home. The homeowners in manufactured home parks want fair market value for their homes as well. He said 19% of his rent goes for property taxes for his lot rent. He also pays taxes on his manufactured home. He wants fair market value for his manufactured home, and he wants it now. Commissioner Pearson asked Mr. Ogilvie if he has a copy of the proposed ordinance that APAC has? Mr. Ogilvie said he has a copy of the ordinance, but he did not have a chance to read the ordinance. Mr. James Paist, the Executive Director for APAC. addressed the commission. He said 13 out of 15 cities have passed a manufactured home park closing ordinance. (except for Brainerd and Willmar). State law does not give any compensation for park closing to its residents. This can be disastrous for homeowners in manufactured home parks. The ordinance can be written however the city would like it written. If the City of Maplewood wants to put a cap on the amount of money a homeowner can receive, they can do that. If a homeowner has a manufactured home'that is worth considerably more than someone else's manufactured home, then a cap wouldn't provide enough relocation compensation. Oakdale goes by the tax-assessed value of the home for compensation. There are four or five cities that do not have any cap. Commissioner Rossbach asked how APAC came about? Mr. Paist said it was formed in 1980 when a group of manufactured home residents in Anoka County got together and formed Anoka People's Alliance. They got together to organize around the issue of no cause eviction. Previously people could be evicted for no cause and owners of manufactured home parks could arbitrarily evict people without any cause. It later grew into a statewide organization for APAC. They also have a statewide tenant hotline for people to use for questions about their manufactured home park. They occasionally work for park owners and park residents, but mostly they are advocates for the park residents. They share information about state laws, and they do community organizing. They may look at getting playground equipment in their park as well as other issues for the residents. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Paist of the 13 out of 15 cities that have passed this ordinance, how many of the cities have one manufactured home park in their city? Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 07-15-02 Mr. Paist said he is only aware of the City of Shakopee that had only one manufactured home park. There were 26 manufactured homes in it. Commissioner Trippler said he understood that the ordinance read that the buyers would have to pay for the attachments, sheds, porches and the manufactured home to either be moved or for the compensation of the home. Mr. Paist said as far as the attachments, sheds, porches etc., the ordinance is designed to include that in moving it, but if it comes to buying out the home for the taxed-assessed value of the home, they would only be paid for the home, not the attachments. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Paist if APAC advocates raising the rents at the manufactured home parks. Mr. Paist said, in their experience, rent has been going up consistently enough without them getting involved. Chairperson Fischer asked if any of the cities that passed this ordinance had been challenged in court? Mr. Paist said the Arcadia Corporation challenged the City of Bloomington in court and it went to the Court of Appeals in 1986 and was upheld. When homeowners get displaced in a manufactured home park, it affects the city, the social service agencies, churches, shelters etc. because people turn to these agencies when they are in need of help. Commissioner Mueller said he would like to know from APAC or staff as parks have closed, what has been the relocation percentage of buy out costs for developers or park owners? Commissioner Rossbach asked staff to find out what residents would be paid when an apartment building gets sold or condemned and the residents get displaced? What other programs are out there that would be similar to this ordinance for people to get compensated for being displaced? Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she would like staff to research the same information for town homes as well. Mr. Roberts said as he understands, when the government is involved and they buy out an area or a property, there is compensation. If a private party does the buy out, there is no mandatory compensation for residents, but it can be negotiated. Mr. Paist said a manufactured home park ordinance is not going to solve all the problems. However, it will provide some compensation for the people that are displaced. The City of Maplewood has the ability to designate the wording in the ordinance. The city can use the 20% cap rule or use the taxed assessed value for compensation. Commissioner Pearson said because of the possible conflict of interest for him, he will abstain from voting on this issue. He said a 20% cap bothers him. He wonders what is magical about 20% and why is that fair compensation. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-15-02 -6- Mr. Paist said he does not know what is magic about a 20% cap, but some compensation for the homeowner is better than ending up with nothing. Beverl~ from 1249 Antelope Way, Beaver Lake Estates, addressed the commission. She wants to have the protection for her home in case something should happen. She would like to sell her home one day in good faith and not have to worry about someone else being stuck with this problem and not getting compensated. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to have time to reflect on everything he has heard at the meeting before trying to vote on this ordinance. He moved to table this item until the next planning commission meeting before making a recommendation to the city council. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Rossbach Nay- Trippler Abstention - Pearson The motion is tabled. Commissioner Pearson said the City of Maplewood should get a task force together to decide what the city wants worded in the ordinance. Commissioner Rossbach said he thinks the commission should first decide if there should be an ordinance or not. Then the commission could recommend to the city council what they think should happen. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they could find out, of the cities that passed the ordinance, how many parks each city has in their community, and if theirs is disparate in value, size, occupancy, and how they came to the conclusions on caps. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if they could get the tax base for some of these manufactured home parks such as Beaver Lake Estates? This would help the commission know if a park closing were to happen, what financial impact this would have on the city. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Mr. Robed Ogilvie at 1249 Antelope Way, said he wanted to tell Ms. Dierich that the taxes for Beaver Lake Estates are $5,510,000 and gross $1,000,000. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Monahan-Junek was the planning commission representative at the July 8, 2002, city council meeting. Sinclair Oil Corporation proposal on Larpenteur Avenue passed ayes all. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-15-02 -7- Bruentrup Farm parking lot proposal passed ayes all. One nay was from Mayor Cardinal because he wanted 50 parking spaces compared to the 21 spaces that were voted on. Hmong Alliance Church proposal on McMenemy Street and DeSoto Street was passed ayes all for the parking lot and playground. The city council denied the driveway onto DeSoto Street. Chief Winger announced his retirement. b. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the July 22, 2002, city council meeting. One item to be discussed at the city council meeting will be the home occupation photography business on Montana Avenue for Karla Eckhoff. Interviews for the planning commission candidates will also take place. c. Mr. Mueller will be the planning commission representative at the August 12, 2002, city council meeting. Possibly discussing the Manufactured Home Park Ordinance. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts discussed the city tour. Members are to meet at the city hall at 5:30 p.m. The bus will be making a stop at Beaver Lake Estates for refreshments, and a box lunch will be provided. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Keller Golf Course Maintenance Building 2166 Maplewood Ddve July 30, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Joe Carried of PCL Construction and Kevin Finley, of Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department, are proposing to build a 10,560 square-foot maintenance building at Keller Golf Course. Refer to the maps on pages 6 - 12 and the applicant's statement on page 15. The proposed building would replace the older of the two existing maintenance buildings on the site. The county would keep the brown-colored structure. The exterior of the proposed maintenance building would have metal panel siding and a standing seam metal roof. Refer to the project plans. The proPOsed maintenance building would have bathrooms with changing areas, a cold storage area, offices, a shop area and covered wash bay. Requests Mr. Finley is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) to expand a public building. Section 36-437 of the city code requires a CUP for a public service or public building uses in any zoning district. 2. The building design, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND In 1981, the city approved plans for a 30-foot by 64-foot pole barn for Keller Golf Course. This is the southern maintenance building on the site (the building that will remain on the site). In 1989, the city approved plans for a 944 square-foot addition and remodeling for the Keller Golf Course clubhouse. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve this permit. The proposed building would be attractive and would be an improvement over the existing building. This would benefit the county by improving their golf facility and the view of the site from Highway 61. Design Considerations Building Elevations 0 Staff finds no problem with the placement and choice of materials for the proposed maintenance building. The city code allows corrugated metal buildings in farm districts. As proposed, the building would have a metal panel exterior with dormers facing Highway 61. The plans also show a wainscot base panel for a contrasting color or for rock -faced block. The proposed site plans shows this building set back 30 feet from the Highway 61 right-of-way. Mr. Finley told me that the roof would be green, that the sides would be white and the trim and doors would be beige. Sprinkling Code requires that the developer or owner install an in -ground sprinkler system for any new landscaped areas. The city can waive the sprinklering requirement if there is an alternative method for watering plantings. The golf course is essentially a lawn and landscaping maintenance operation. There is no need for an in -ground lawn irrigation system around the new building since the county staff would maintain the grounds as they always have. Tree Replacement, Landscaping and Screening The city ordinance requires that the applicant replace "significant' trees that would be cut down. Significant trees are over -story trees such as maples, oaks or ash of eight inches in caliper or greater. The largest concentration of such trees is next to Highway 61. The county should not have any problem meeting the city code for tree preservation/replacement with the trees they will preserve and the new trees they will plant. Mr. Finley told me that he is having a landscape plan prepared for the site. The community design review board (CDRB) should review and approve this plan before staff issues the building permit. Parking The proposed site plan shows 15 parking spaces to the south of the new maintenance building. The city code does not have a specific parking standard for this type of facility. The county should provide enough paved parking for the employees that would park in the area. As an example, I counted 14 vehicles parked around the maintenance buildings on July 22, 2002. In addition, there should not be any parking on the landscape areas or along the driveway to the buildings. Dumpsters The county now has garbage dumpsters sitting outside to the north of the existing buildings. The city should require Ramsey County to install a dumpster enclosure as a part of this project to meet current code standards. Other Comments Building Official A building permit is required. We have had a meeting with the architect and the owner and we are working with them. 2 Fire Marshal 1. Provide proper fire department access to the site. 2. Sprinkler system shall be installed and monitored, Police Department Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department stated that he "found no public safety related concerns" with this proposal. Engineering Department Chris Cavett has reviewed the proposal. His comments are on pages 16 and 17. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution on pages 18 and 19. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Keller Golf Course, including a new maintenance building, at 2166 Maplewood Drive. The council bases the permit on the findings required by code and it is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. B. Approve the architectural and site plans date-stamped July 12, 2002, for the Keller Golf Course maintenance building, subject to the findings required by the city code. The developer shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Provide the following for approval before the city issues grading or building permits: a. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan, subject to the city engineer's approval. b. A landscape plan that clearly depicts the landscaping on the site, especially along Highway 61. This plan should help to screen the site from the view from Highway 61. This plan shall be subject to approval by the CDRB. c. A detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting, subject to staff approval. d. Plans for a trash dumpster enclosure. These shall include a revised site plan to show the location and elevations of all four sides of the enclosure. The gates shall be 100 percent opaque and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new maintenance building. This plan shall be subject to staff approval. 3 3. Complete the following before occupying the new maintenance building: a. The construction of the required trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers for this facility. (code requirement) The enclosure must be 100 percent opaque, match the color of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. b. Install all required landscaping around the driveway, parking lot and the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the county occupies the building in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the county occupies the building in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 01 4 � I 0 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: about 40,000 square feet, whole golf course — 148 acres Existing land use: Existing Keller Golf Course maintenance buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Keller Golf Course East: Keller Golf Course South: Keller Golf Course West: Keller Park and Keller Lake across Highway 61 PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: OS (open space) Zoning: F (farm residence) CUP Findings Section 36-442(a) states that the city council shall base approval of a CUP on the findings listed in the resolution on pages 18 and 19. 40 Application Date We received the applications for this request on July 12, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60 - day requirement on this proposal ends September 11, 2002. Therefore, city council action is required on this proposal by September 9, 2002. p:sec161keller maintenance cup.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Arial Photo 4. Site Plan (Existing Conditions) 5. Site Plan (Proposed) 6. Site Plan (Demolition Detail Plan) 7. Site Plan (Proposed Detail) 8. Proposed Building Elevations 9. Proposed Floor Plan 10. Applicant's statement of intended use of property 11. Chris Cavett's comments dated July 29, 2002 12. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 13. Architectural plans date-stamped July 12, 2002 (separate attachment) 5 Lake .400N CO. PLAZA ALVARADO DR 8ELL.~CR£ST DR DF. AUV&LE DR ~fE~DIAN RD. B2 BELMONT Attachment 1 COUN'Pf SEXTANT AVE. SHERREN AVE. SKILL. NT. ON AVE. · FRISBIE AVE. LARPENTEt LOCATION MAP ,Nj Attachment F F SITE ./ SIT;= COUNTY ROAD FU~IT y OF F KELLER GO F COUNTy F COURSE RAMSEY F 15 lc), (t) PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP ] I II 8 Attachment / / / / / / Partial Topograghic and Location Survey for: PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES of o par(ion of Keller Golf Course ~aintenance Facility SITE PLAN 9 / iI I / / / / / / I / / / Attachment 5 SITE PLAN 10 Attachment 6 SITE PLAN LL KELLER GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE SHOP 1 I i I Attachment 7 / SITE PLAN 12 KELLER GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE SHOP Attachment 8 13 ®®® Attachment 9 Attachment l0 KELLER GOLF COURSE NEW MAINTENANCE FACILITY INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY Ramsey County needs to replace an aging, undersized maintenance structure on the Keller Golf Course with a new structure that not only meets today's needs, but is also flexible and adaptable to meet the needs of the golf course maintenance operations for many years to come. The maintenance facility will provide increased space for proper operation of the maintenance program. The project scope includes design and construction of a 10,560SF maintenance facility, including mechanics shop, cold storage for vehicles and equipment, offices and employee areas, as well as access road upgrades and improvements, new parking area, utilities, site grading and landscaping. The facility will be architecturally compatible and complement the other buildings on the golf course and will meet the needs of the Keller Golf Course maintenance operations for many years to come. Page 15 07/11/02 Attachment ll Engineering Plan Review Project: Reviewed by: Date: Keller Golf Course - Maintenance Shop Chris Cavett, Maplewood Engineering Department July 29, 2002 Storm Water Management/Storm Water Treatment & Misc~ drainao, e issues: Basically, all the existing runoff drains toward the T.H. 61 right-of-way and eventually into the Keller Lake. This area is in the shore land district. The applicant has stated that the impervious surface on the site will increase from 31,600 to 43,600 S.F. or 38%.. In addition there will be additional steep slopes added on the site. Submit revised plans addressing the followino_: 1. The applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices, (BMP's) into the design where practical. See the Metro Council website for additional information on best management practices. http://www.metrocouncil.org/enviroment/Watershed/bmpmanual.htm Contact Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, Chris Cavett at 651-770-4554, with questions. 2. One form of BMP, that is strongly recommended are bio-infiltration basins, (Rainwater Gardens). It is strongly recommended that a large rainwater garden (Wet Prairie meadow) be constructed in the area around the "Area Drain". The "Area Drain" may still be usable, but the outlet pipe appears to be in state of disrepair and inspected and considered for replacement. The "Area Drain" should be altered to create an overflow drain rather than a low point drain. (NOTE: location of current under ground utilities). As this site is part of a large regional drainage system, basically treatment needs to be addressed. With that criteria, the bio-infiltration basin shall be designed to hold a raw volume (infiltration volume) of the greater of either: · Runoff from a ½" rain event for the entire post-development drainage area, or · Runoff from a 1.25" rain event contributed by all the impervious surfaces. (Note: the alternative to the rainwater garden is to design a NURP Pond to current NURP design criteria) The rainwater garden may be designed to hold as little as 3" - 6" of water over a large area before flowing into the area drain. The remaining water will then be allowed to infiltrate in the basin area. Depth of the basin may vary depending on soil type. NOTE: the most critical issue is the preparation of the basin area: The garden area should be sub-cut to provide 12-inches of bedding material. The bedding material should consist of a mixture of 50% salvaged on-site topsoil and clean 50% organic compost. Most importantly, the sub-soils in the rainwater garden should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12-inches before the bedding material is placed. 16 Rock Infiltration Sumps may be installed in heavier soils below the rainwater gardens to facilitate infiltration. Provide a detail in the plan. Rock infiltration sumps that have been done by the city are typically 4' Diameter X 3' deep with 1 ½" clean clear rock wrapped in type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The top of the rock infiltration sump is placed approx. 12-inches below finished bottom of the rainwater garden. The rainwater garden should be protected with silt fence after grading to prevent silting into the area, as well as compaction of the soil by construction equipment. The rainwater garden area should be topped before or after planting with "shredded" wood mulch. '~Noodchips" are NOT acceptable mulching material. A landscape plan for the bioretention basins/rainwater gardens shall be required as part of final plan approval. Consider modeling the large basin after the other native planting areas on the golf course, such as the slope to the east of the site or the island at the entrance road. The infiltration basin could be designed as a wet native prairie meadow. This site is very visible from the road. The applicant may consider doing the final preparation of the rainwater gardens near the end of construction, as the site will be more stable and less susceptible to erosion. Continue to protect with silt fence as necessary. A second rainwater garden or similar BMP shall be constructed at CB 1, to prevent direct runoff into that catch basin. The catch basin shall also act as an overflow. A swale or similar BMP shall be graded to direct drainage from the south parking lot towards the north and into the large infiltration area. 5. Additional BMP's may be considered in other areas. Miscellaneous: What is proposed for the existing drive? Nothing is noted in the plans, however it seems clear that something is planned. What is the proposed Section? How is the drainage to be managed? Will there be any parking along this drive? If parking will be permitted, then a concrete treatment is required by code. Consider a concrete curb and gutter along the east side, (hill) and a concrete ribbon along the west side to allow water to sheet drain offthe drive into the green area. Slopes shall not exce~ 3:1 unless a no-maintenance landscape and permanent erosion protection plan is prepared. It appeared that all slopes were greater than 3:1, though it was difficult to determine. The grading plan submitted was very difficult to review. The grading plan was smaller than an 80 scale on 11X17 plans. The plans had been reduced again to fit on the 11X17 paper and were no longer to any scale. Final submittal shall be scaled, legible plans. Fax to: John Krausert, Rehder and Assoc. 651-452-9797 17 [ I Attachment 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ramsey County applied for a conditional use permit for the Keller Golf Course and to replace an existing maintenance building at the golf course. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Keller Golf Course property located at 2166 Maplewood Ddve. The legal description is: SUBJ TO HWY 61 & FROST AVE & EX STATE OF MINNESOTA R/W; W % OF NW ¼ OF NE % & TRIANGULAR PART IN SW COR OF E % OF NW % OF NE % MEAS 208.71 FT ON WL & 297.26 FT ON SL THEREOF ALSO PART OF SW % OF NE % LYING NLY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA R/W ALSO PART OF NE % OF NW % LYING ELY OF HWY 61 & ELY OF AL DESC AS COM AT PT ON NL OF & 1830.5 FT E OF NW COR OF NW ¼ TH S 40 DEG 15 MIN W FOR 790 FT TO WL OF NE % OF NW % TH S ON SD WL FOR 310 FT TH S 43 DEG 15 MINE FOR 160 FT TO PT OF BEG TH S 10 DEG E FOR 300 FT TO SL OF NE ¼ OF NW % & THERE TERM ALSO PART OF SE ~ OF NW % LYING NLY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA PJW ALSO PART OF SW % OF NW % LYING ELY & SLY OF AL BEG ON EL OF & 366 FT S FROM NE COR OF SW % OF NW % TH N 72 DEG 18 MIN W FOR 119 FT TH WLY ALONG CURVE TO LEFT PAD 215 FT FOR 185 FT TH S 66 DEG 34 MIN W FOR 195 FT TH S 48 DEG 40 MIN W FOR 320 FT TH S 440 FT TH S 46 DEG 45 MINE FOR 400 FT TO SL OF SW ¼ OF NW % & THERE TERM ALSO PART OF NW % OF SW ~ LYING ELY & NLY OF PART OWNED BY CITY OF ST PAUL ALSO W 330 FT OF GOVT. LOT 2 IN NE % OF SW % LYING ELY & NLY OF PART OWNED BY CITY OF ST PAUL ALSO PART OF E 10 ACRES OF W 20 ACRES OF SD GOVT. LOT 2 LYING NLY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA R/W; ALL IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On August 5, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On August 26, 2002, the city council held a public headng. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 18 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2002. 19 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance July 31, 2002 INTRODUCTION On June 17 and July 15, 2002, staff presented a request by All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC), and several manufactured home park residents in Maplewood, that the city adopt an ordinance guaranteeing park residents financial assistance to relocate if their park closed. On February 25, 2002, the city council directed staff to study this request and to forward a recommendation to them. Refer to the attached April 3, 2002 memorandum for details. At the July 15 meeting, the planning commission raised several questions and tabled action so staff could address their concerns (PC minutes are attached). Refer to the Discussion section below. BACKGROUND April 9, 2002: The Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) discussed this matter. The HRA tabled this issue until the city receives notification of a manufactured home park closing. They felt that since there are no proposed or pending closings at this time, there is no urgency to act immediately. The HRA discussed the needs-vs.-greed aspects of APAC's suggested ordinance. The HRA also wanted to know from the city attomey if the city would have sufficient time to enact an ordinance at the time of a proposed park closing that would be applicable to that park or if it would only apply to future closings in the city. (The city attorney said an ordinance could be adopted that would apply to a proposed closing as well as future ones.) On June 17 and July 15, 2002, the planning commission discussed this request and tabled action so staff can address their questions. DISCUSSION Planning Commission's Questions 1. As manufactured-home parks have closed, what has been the relocation costs paid by developers or park owners? Of the 14 cities that have adopted manufactured-home park closing ordinances, three have had park closures. These cities are: Bloomington, Elk River and Hopkins. APAC has provided data on the payments made to park residents in the Collins Park in Bloomington and in the Hopkins Pines Trailer Park in Hopkins. They did not have data for the park in Elk River. Refer to the data on pages 5-7. In summary, at the Collins Park in Bloomington, each owner of a singlewide home received an average of $2369.44 (51 homes). Each owner of a doublewide home received an average of $3425.38 (39 homes). At the Hopkins Pines Trailer Park, the average payout to the 34 displaced residents was $4818. There was no breakdown as to single vs. doublewide homes. What would displaced apartment or townhouse residents be paid when an apartment building gets sold or is condemned by the govemment? Displaced apartment residents would not be reimbursed if their complex was sold for redevelopment. If residents were displaced by a govemmental agency due to condemnation, they would be entitled to relocation costs that would include moving expenses and assistance in finding a new place to live. What other programs would be similar to this ordinance that would compensate people for displacement? None, other than receiving relocation costs due to governmental condemnation as previously noted. Of the cities that passed park-closing ordinances, how many parks does each city have in their community? Among these communities, if they have parks that are dissimilar in value, size and occupancy, how did they come to their conclusion on caps for reimbursement? Fourteen cities have adopted park-closing ordinances. Refer to page 8. Payment Caps Staff checked with three cities that have payment caps in their ordinances. The City of Fddley has two parks. One is larger, nicer and newer than the other. The Fddley City Planner explained that they chose a 20 percent cap based on two reasons. One was comparison with existing park-closing ordinances. They felt that this was a percentage that was used in other ordinances they studied. The other was a compromise between those wanting a higher payoff amount and those wanting a lesser, or zero, amount. The City of Oakdale has two parks that are comparable in age and quality. According to the Oakdale City Planner, the establishment of a cap on payment was not debated to a great degree. They established a maximum payment of the greater of either 25 percent of the sale or purchase pdce by the park owner to a buyer for the closure, or the Washington County Assessor's assessed value of the manufactured home. The City of Shakopee has one park. According to the Shakopee City Planner, they established their cap °n payment by caps stated in other ordinances. What is the tax base for the manufactured-home parks in Maplewood? (This would help the commission know, if a park closing were to happen, what financial impact this would have on the city.) The following chart lists the land/building values and the tax amounts of each of the five Maplewood manufactured home parks from Ramsey County data. Park Name Acres #of Lots Value *Taxes St. Paul Toudst Cabins 6.22 45 $540,000 $11,842 1880 English Street 1.15 19 $254,000 $6,944 Town & Country 6.00 120 $1.25 mil $22,168 Beaver Lake 37.8 254 $3.42 mil $69,112 Rolling Hills 37.5 357 $4.50 mil $84,880 * According to Ramsey County tax records, the above tax amounts are charged against the manufactured-home park property. Each resident also pays taxes for their home based on the structure's age, size, and condition. A representative of the Ramsey County Department of Taxation told me taxes on the structures range from about $40 to $500 per year. Any redevelopment would result in a new use of these properties that would also be taxable. Town & Country is the only manufactured home park of these five that might possibly become something other than another residential use due to its highway-frontage location. Staff compared taxes with similar-sized properties in the neighborhoods around St. Paul Toudst Cabins and Beaver Lake/Rolling Hills manufactured-home parks. One block east of the St. Paul Tourist Cabins, staff evaluated a six-acre block with 18 single dwellings. The total of taxes paid by these 18 property owners is $28,902 ($1,605 per lot). An existing, comparable-size development with 20 townhomes generates $29,662 in taxes. A 40-acre single-family tract in the Oakddge Estates development near Beaver Lake and Rolling Hills generates a total of $200,854 ($2,954 per lot) in taxes. There are not any existing 40-acre townhouse or apartment developments in this area for comparison. County records, however, show that the Rosewood Estates property and the adjacent future Beaver Lake Townhomes site presently generate a total of $145,656 in taxes per year. This amount will certainly increase after the Beaver Lake Townhome development is constructed. 6. What might the range of additional costs to manufactured-home park residents be if rates were increased due to the adoption of a park-closing ordinance? There is no data indicating what rents could be increased to in the event a park-closing ordinance was enacted by a city. There is state law that requires that rule and rate changes be done in a "reasonable" fashion. Laura Mapp of APAC stated that there have been cases supported by the courts where rent or rate increases have been made that fall within a $30 to $50 range. 3 LETTER FROM A RESIDENT Robert and Bevedy Ogilvie, of 1249 Antelope Way in the Beaver Lake Manufactured Home Park, spoke at the last planning commission meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Ogilvie have submitted the letter on page 9 for the planning commission's review and consideration. CONCLUSION Staff has not formed a recommendation about this matter. The input received at the planning commission meeting will aid staff in forwarding a recommendation to the city council. Staff will schedule this item for city council review at their second meeting in August. p:com_dvpt\ord\manufactured home parks.7(2)'02.doc Attachments: 1. Relocation costs paid in Bloomington 2. Relocation costs paid in Hopkins 3. Cities that have passed park-closing ordinances 4. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Ogilvie dated July 18, 2002 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 15, 2002 6. Memorandum dated Apdl 3, 2002 Attachment 1 ~I~APAC (City of Bloomington): APAC stated that it would protect the Park Closing Ordinance first passed in this city in 1989 from any challenges and attempts at weakening it. In the Fall of 1992, it bec~me apparent that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. w~s attempting to purchase the property to convert it to a retail store. Residents once again packed Planning C~t~i'ssion hearings and City Council Meetings to advocate that no approval of this project be given without clear assurances by Wal-Mart officials and the park owner that all provisions of the ordinance would be complied with. Residents gained those assurances after many public and private meetings. Additionally, APACleaders called for an interpretation of the ordinance by Bloomington city attorneys to clear up some issues~rela%ed to moving expenses, home compensation, and personal property moving expenses. The city attorneys returned a favorable interpretation and residents utilized this in sit down negotiations with the park owner's attorneys. ~=veral park meetings were then held in late Spring of 1993 to allow residents of Collins to understand the park closure process. It ~-as agreed that residents would receive reasonable relocation funds for all costs incurred during the relocation process. An official park closure notice ~-as delivered to Collins Park households on May 21st, 1993. The residents had until February 21st, 1994 to zracate the premises. Most residents moved out between the 3rd and the 6th month of the notice period. Each single wide home received ar] average of '$2369.44 (51 hcm~_s) and each double wide home received an average of $3425.38 $3425.38 (39 hc~es), although some double wides cost 'as much as $5350! In addition, the ordinance required that each household be compensated for personal property moving exQ~enses (furniture, fragile property, motel expenses). Resident leaders negotiated an amount of $900 per household. A process ~as also created for determining w~ich homes could not be relocated, due to age, condition, or lack of available space. Residents in these homes will be compensated for the loss of their homes based on their tax assessed values. Eleven homeowners opted to sell their homes to private buyers and therefore received only the $900 personal property moving expense money. If no Park Closing Ordinance had ever been passed and no efforts to preserve the relocation and compensation amounts had been made, the residents of Collins would have been devastated economically. Based on the final figures for implementing the park closing, Collins residents would have incurred at least $335,431.26 to remove their homes, decks, sheds, and personal property in nine months. ! - Single wide Double wide Projected relocation expenses based'~.'.'on average relocation costs paid out duri-~g the closure of Collins Park (As re~r~ed .bY the City of Bloc~ningt0h, 2/22/94) $120,841,44 =_.~33,589,82.: $254,431.26 Personal prOperty moving ~ 90 homes x $900. = $ 8z,ooo $335,431 -26 .Household Sinqle wide Double wide Janson $2300 Thrond $2600 Berres $4125 Heath $3475 Olschlager $5350 Olsen $3375 Walters $3450 '~ 612 448 4676 ~[iiiii;~)ON DEVL SVC ' .' ~,',~y.~..*.~r,~'~,~r~-*,~'..-' ,.:-4~-~-. HOPCTLST 2 07/3t496 1~ P.)Z At.'l:ac hmen'l: 2 DRAF. Tj ^ -1 Hopkins Pines Trailer Court 2 Owner__ -~--Phone $5.EMV MoveAIlowance Total~ 3 103 iChrist, Tom ~. ~'['-'/~/¢ $ 3,000.00 4 104 Seads, Ed & Tdsha 936-7983 $ 6.1--~.00 '[ $1,950.00 $4,950.00 -- ~ ' $1,950.00 $8,050.00 Ii 105 Park Owns ~ __$0.00 $0.00__ '~ $0.00 6 i06 ~.bandoned $0.00 $0.00 ' $0.00 7 109 Mathlouwe'-tz, Haml-~-~- ~33-1699 $1,000.00 $1,950.00 $2,950.00 -9 - 111 Vacant $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 10 113 Vacant___. I -- ~ $0.00 $O.00 $0.00 1'7'--~ 16 Sutc~i~s [936-0756 ' $9,000.00 ' $1,950.00 $10,950.0q -12 1{7~Tu¥, Khoeum i938-6975 $1,000.00 $1,950.00 .$2,950.00 _..~13 119 SorenS°n, .~_ml '938-2708 $4,100.00 $1,950.00 $8,050.00 t'-~ '--~03 Wendel, Steve 933-0664 $3,000.00 $1,950.00.. $4,950_____.00. ~ '16 206 Hyllested, Marlys. 938-0409 ~ $4,-"'-~00.00 $1,950.00 $8,150.00 '17 208 EI'IC-~,, Mark 945-9239 $3,000.00 $1,g50.00 $4,950.00 18 215 Randy Helmer ' A/~ $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.0-'~ 19 '217 H & H Pines $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 -20 2~8 ;Eart & Glenda Dragert ~/~. ~-T7-~ $1,000.00 $1,950.00 $2,.9.50.00 · ~ 21 308Christi~-~-M--'~ovem-Renter $0.00 $1,950.00 $1,g50.00 22 309 Dahlmelr, Glen 935-6002 $5,000.00 $1,950.00 $6,950.00 23 313~Vacant $0~0 $0.00 $0.00 24 314 Waldock,-'~"~ .... !7, $1,000.00' $1,950.00.__~_._ $2,950.00 26 315 Vacant ' $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 26 316 Small, Julie 1938-6265 ~ $5,900.00 $1,950.0"~ $7,850.00 27 323 Lamm, Lloyd ~.35-65~ 1 I'1.~'~. $3.000.00 $'1,950.00 $4,950.00 28 326 Amorson,' Denn---~ ~'45-0823 h '3 3 $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00 4 -29 '33~ ,El)er[, Brian (New Renter) ~0 . $0.00 $1,950.00 $1,950.00 30 401 En~lstrom, Dean ! ~/,~ ' $3,0'00.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00 -31 404 Peissig, Tom __: 933-5457 $3,000.00 $1,g50.00 $4,g50.00. 32 ~-~51Guadalupe Rodriquez $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00 33 412 Cmsby, Bill -- 931-9913 $1,000.00 $1,950.00. $2,950.00 .,~ 34' 5021Danlel Martin ~__~ H-'t:j~-~-3Z{~ $4,200.00 $1,950.00 $8,15-0.00' 37 5101Willia'~ ~-'~ hofer $3,000.00 $1,950.00__ $4,950.00 35 514 Whiteaker, David/Allen 938-8524 $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00 -39 520 Evlct~'--' ,t~.00 $8.00 $0.00 '~4~ 528 Evicted ' ~ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 4'1 532iTom & Nadyne Smert 931-9210 $3,000.00 $1,95.0.00 $4,950.00 42 '534 Pulled Out '~ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 43 540 ~/acant $0.00 $0.00 " p 44 5431Ga,~ino &Aumm Deilulwar $3,00'-'~00 $1,950.00 $4,950.0~ 46 551 Bergeri~'a'~ " _ 935-~621 $5,000.00 $1,950.00 $8,950.00 46 556 Sean Zam >, ~ .~ 7- ~ ~'i*r $3,000.00 $1 ,._g50.00 1 . $4.950.00 47 '560 Glad)rs Roseu .~ ~.'~ ~-./~ f~ $1,000.00 $! ,950'O0 ' $~,950.00_ 49 TOTALS ~ ' '97,500.00 $86,300.00 $163,800.00 Attachment 3 List of Cities that Have Passed a PCO and How Many Manufactured Home Parks They Have # of Mobile Home Parks When the PCO was Passed # of Households(units) Apple Valley 2 550 Bloomington 4.+ 246 Burnsville 3 958 Dayton 1 33 Elk River 1 * 60 Fridley 2 410 Hopkins 1 * 146 Lake Elmo 1 505 Mounds View 3 597 Oakdale 2 240 Red Wing 2 240 Roseville 1 101 Rochester 1# 29 Shakopee 1 33 *- Indicates one park has closed since/at the passage of the ordinance, so currently Bloomington has 3 parks, and Elk River and Hopkins have zero. + - Bloomington at one time had 5 parks. The first park that closed, Collin's, brought upon the inception of the ordinance in the state law by the legislature. # - This ordinance was approved just last week due to a park closing notice that residents received in Rochester's only mobile home park. Attachment ,,/~-~-~?£ 7/18~02 Planning commission members, Madam chair person and Committee members', From the last meeting I gather that most of you want more information. My name is Rol~ert Ogilvie and ! live in Beaver Lake Estates. Beaver Lake Estates is like a city in a city. All the roads, lights, trees, tree trimming, snow piercing, is maintained by the park. it doesn't cost the city ofMaplewood a dime, The only service provided by Maplewood is Police and Fire protection. At this time the estima~d tax value on homes in the park are over $5.5 mit/ion. I call that a plus for Maplewood no maintermanee costs but all the tax money. In the second place this ordinance will not cost the city any money. It w/Il even the playing field between manufactured home owners and other home owners. By other home owners I'm speaking ' about the people that technically lease from the .government, like I said when I spoke at the last meeting, in other words I could get a fare market value for my property. Manufactured home living at this time is the most economical way to go, for a new family starting out by buying a manufactured home and leasing the land in a park it is as cheap as renting if not cheaper. For a new family starting out it provides a place to live while establishing an equity in there property. For us older people like me, according to guide lines I don't earn enough money to qualify to pay the rent in some of the apartments, and too much to qualify for low housing assistance. At this time I don't know of any park closings in Maplewood. This is a business and investers are making money on these parks. If not. No one would invest. For instance if an invester bought Beaver Lake Estates, with the new ordinance in place, should the new owner decide to close the park. home owners would be payed a fare market value for their property., in which case the invester would own all the houses and could sell them to recoup some of their expense. When I invested in my home in the park there was no time limits c~n the lease, only park rules, back 12 years ago no one talked about park closings, therefore I assumed like all the rest that the lease was tike'the other home owners leases. I would like to see home owners be on an equal base. Thank you 9 Attachment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 15, 2002 Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Amendment Mr. Tom Ekstrand, the Assistant Community Development Director, addressed the commission. He reviewed the planning commission's questions from their previous meeting and the answers he received about those questions. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked' Mr. Ekstrand to describe what the state .statute says regarding manufactured home parks. Mr. Ekstrand said the state statute says that the state requires the park owner to notify the city at least nine months before the manufactured home would close. They then give direction to the city where the city would notify the park residents and hold a public hearing to discuss the closing. The city "may" require compensation by the city and others that may be appropriate. The manufactured home ordinances in the cities of Oakdale and Roseville state the city "shall" be required to compensate residents of the manufactured home park. Mr. Dick Pearson, the owner of the Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park, addressed the commission. They have 357 homeowners in this community. He feels this ordinance should not be applicable to his park. He feels their responsibility is to maintain the homes and the grounds, and he feels APAC should not be given power to make any decisions. Mr. Robert Ogilvie of 1249 Antelope Way, Beaver Lake Estates, addressed the commission. He said if a homeowner gets displaced, he gets fair market value for his home. The homeowners in manufactured home parks want fair market value for their homes as well. He said 19% of his rent goes for property taxes for his lot rent. He also pays taxes on his manufactured home. He wants fair market value for his manufactured home, and he wants it now. Commissioner Pearson asked Mr. Ogilvie if he has a copy of the proposed ordinance that APAC has? Mr. Ogilvie said he has a copy of the ordinance, but he did not have a chance to read the ordinance. Mr. James Paist, the Executive Director for APAC, addressed the commission. He said 13 out of 15 cities have passed a manufactured home park closing ordinance. (except for Brainerd and Willmar). State law does not give any compensation for park closing to its residents. This can be disastrous for homeowners in manufactured home parks. The ordinance can be written however the city would like it written. If the City of Maplewood wants to put a cap on the amount of money a homeowner can receive, they can do that. If a homeowner has a manufactured home that is worth considerably more than someone else's manufactured home, then a cap wouldn't provide enough relocation compensation. Oakdale goes by the tax-assessed value of the home for compensation. There are four or five cities that do not have any cap. Commissioner Rossbach asked how APAC came about? Mr. Paist said it was formed in 1980 when a group of manufactured home residents in Anoka County got together and formed Anoka People's Alliance. They got together to organize around the issue of no cause eviction. Previously people could be evicted for no cause and owners of manufactured home parks could arbitrarily evict people without any cause. It later grew into a statewide organization for APAC. They also have a statewide tenant hotline for people to use for questions about their manufactured home park. They occasionally work for park owners and park residents, but mostly they are advocates for the park residents. They share information about state laws, and they do community organizing. They may look at getting playground equipment in their park as well as other issues for the residents. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Paist of the 13 out of 15 cities that have passed this ordinance, how many of the cities have one manufactured home park in their city? Mr. Paist said he is only aware of the City of Shakopee that had only one manufactured home park. There were 26 manufactured homes in it. Commissioner Trippler said he understood that the ordinance read that the buyers would have to pay for the attachments, sheds, porches and the manufactured home to either be moved or for the compensation of the home. Mr. Paist said as far as the attachments, sheds, porches etc., the ordinance is designed to include that in moving it, but if it comes to buying out the home for the taxed-assessed value of the home, they would only be paid for the home, not the attachments. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Paist if APAC advocates raising the rents at the manufactured home parks. Mr. Paist said, in their experience, rent has been going up consistently enough without them getting involved. Chairperson Fischer asked if any of the cities that passed this ordinance had been challenged in court? Mr. Paist said the Arcadia Corporation challenged the City of Bloomington in court and it went to the Court of Appeals in 1986 and was upheld. When homeowners get displaced in a manufactured home park, it affects the city, the social service agencies, churches, shelters etc. because people turn to these agencies when they are in need of help. Commissioner Mueller said he would like to know from APAC or staff as parks have closed, what has been the relocation percentage of buy out costs for developers or park owners? Commissioner Rossbach asked staffto find out what residents would be paid when an apartment building gets sold or condemned and the residents get displaced? What other programs are out there that would be similar to this ordinance for people to get compensated for being displaced? Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she would like staff to research the same information for town homes as well. Mr. Roberts said as he understands, when the government is involved and they buy out an area or a property, there is compensation. If a private party does the buy out, there is no mandatory compensation for residents, but it can be negotiated. Mr. Paist said a manufactured home park ordinance is not going to solve all the problems. However, it will provide some compensation for the people that are displaced. The City of Maplewood has the ability to designate the wording in the ordinance. The city can use the 20% cap rule or use the taxed assessed value for compensation. Commissioner Pearson said because of the possible conflict of interest for him, he will abstain from voting on this issue. He said a 20% cap bothers him. He wonders what is magical about 20% and why is that fair compensation. Mr. Paist said he does not know what is magic about a 20% cap, but some compensation for the homeowner is better than ending up with nothing. Beverly Ogilvie from 1249 Antelope Way, Beaver Lake Estates, addressed the commission. She wants to have the protection for her home in case something should happen. She would like to sell her home one day in good faith and not have to worry about someone else being stuck with this problem and not getting compensated. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to have time to reflect on everything he has heard at the meeting before trying to vote on this ordinance. He moved to table this item until the next planning commission meeting before making a recommendation to the city council. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Rossbach Nay- Trippler Abstention - Pearson The motion is tabled. Commissioner Pearson said the City of Maplewood should get a task force together to decide what the city wants worded in the ordinance. Commissioner Rossbach said he thinks the commission should first decide if there should be an ordinance or not. Then the commission could recommend to the city council what they think should happen. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they could find out, of the cities that passed the ordinance, how many parks each city has in their community, and if theirs is disparate in value, size, occupancy, and how they came to the conclusions on caps. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if they could get the tax base for some of these manufactured home parks such as Beaver Lake Estates? This would help the commission know if a park closing were to happen, what financial impact this would have on the city. Attachment 6 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Manufactured Home Park.Closing Ordinance Discussion April 3, 2002 INTRODUCTION Background In 1987, the Minnesota State Legislature passed a law allowing cities and municipalities to pass park-closing ordinances (Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095). The purpose of such an ordinance is to help protect citizens living in manufactured home parks in the event of a park closing by requiring park owners to reimburse homeowners for relocation costs if their home can be moved, and if not, purchase the manufactured home. (See Section 327C.095 on pages 5 through 8.) The City of Maplewood received a proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance for the city council's review from All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC) (see attached APAC letter and proposed ordinance on pages 9 through 13). APAC is a non-profit organization that serves as a tenant's union for manufactured home owners. They help organize park residents to understand and protect their rights as specified in state law. APAC sent a mailing to a majority of the city's park residents regarding their proposed ordinance. In the mailing they requested that the residents show their support of a park-closing ordinance by signing their name and address to a postcard and sending it to the city. To date, the city has received 190 postcards in support of the proposed ordinance. (See the language used by APAC on the postcard and the names and addresses of the residents in support of the proposed ordinance on pages 14 through 24.) On February 25, 2002, after reviewing APAC's proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance, the city council directed staff to review the request and forward a recommendation to them. Request Staff is requesting input from the Maplewood Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to assist us in our review of APAC's request, and the many manufactured home park resident's request, for the city to pass a manufactured home park-closing ordinance. DISCUSSION Manufactured Home Park-Closing Legislation The park-closing legislation came out of a situation in Bloomington when Lyndale Lodge Manufactured Home Park was sold for redevelopment as a car dealership. Many of the homes were too old to move and therefore forced the residents to sell their homes for very little. This left many of the residents financially devastated and homeless. Alarmed by these events, the legislature passed the park closing law in 1987. The law states that a park owner must notify the city and the residents of a park closing nine months prior to the proposed closing. Once notice is received, the city must hold a public hearing to review the impacts that the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owners. The city may require payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced resident for reasonable relocation costs. If a resident cannot relocate the home to another park within 25 miles of the park that is being closed, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation costs awarded to other residents. The law further states that the city may also require that other parties, including the city, involved in the park closing provide additional compensation to residents to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon the resident. After the law was enacted, the City of Bloomington adopted a park-closing ordinance and required the Lyndale Lodge Manufactured Home Park owner to reimburse the park residents for relocation costs or purchase the homes. The park owners brought the City of Bloomington to court over the ordinance claiming that it was a land taking. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld Bloomington's ordinance in Arcadia vs. City of Bloominqton, 1994, and the park owners were required to reimburse the homeowners for relocation costs or purchase the homes. Existing Park-Closing Ordinances Thirteen cities within the State of Minnesota currently have park-closing ordinances: Apple Valley, Bloomington, Burnsville, Hopkins, Elk River, Dayton, Fridley, Lake Elmo, Moundsview, Oakdale, Red Wing, Roseville, and Shakopee. Most of these ordinances require that park owners reimburse manufactured home owners to relocate their homes within 25 miles. If relocation is not possible, the park owner or land developer must purchase the home for the market value as determined by an independent appraiser approved by the city. In addition, some cities' ordinances place a cap on the amount of reimbursement. For example, the park owner or land developer would only have to reimburse up to 20 percent of the purchase price of the park or the assessed value of the park. Two cities within 'the State of Minnesota, Brainerd and VVillmar, reviewed park-closing ordinances and chose not to pass one. Both of these proposed ordinances were brought on by actual park closings. All Parks Alliance for Change Proposed Ordinance APAC's proposed ordinance mirrors Elk River's ordinance passed in 1997. It states that the park owner or land developer shall pay the displaced resident the reasonable cost of relocating the home to another park within 25 miles. Reasonable costs include expenses incurred in moving the home and personal property, insurance for replacement value of the property being moved, and cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order to take down, move and set up the home. If the home cannot be moved, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of costs awarded to other residents plus the park owner or land developer must purchase the home at the amount equal to the estimated market value of the home. ^PAC's proposed ordinance does not include a cap on the amount that a park owner or land developer would have to reimburse the residents. Upon notice of APAC's proposed manufactured home park closing ordinance, Traci Tomas, agent for the St. Paul Tourist Cabins, submitted a letter to the city regarding her experience with park-closing ordinances passed in the Cities of Fridley and Shakopee (see attached St. Paul Manufactured Home Park Closings 2 April 3, 2002 Tourist Cabin letter and Fridley's and Shakopee's park-closing ordinances on pages 25-30). As a manufactured home park owner representative, Ms. Tomas found that the City of Shakopee's ordinance allowed for the most flexibility for possible future city development of manufactured home park properties. City of Maplewood Manufactured Home Parks There are five manufactured home parks with a total of 789 homes within the City of Maplewood (see map on page 37): Park Name Date Established No. of Sites No. of Homes Beaver Lake 1970 254 2425 Maryland Ave. 254 Maplewood Man. Home Park Approx. 1957 1880 English Street N. 19 19 Rolling Hills 1984 357 1319 Rolling Hills Drive 357 St. Paul Tourist Cabins 940 Frost Avenue Approx. 1955 45 39 Town and Country 2557 Highway 61 Approx. 1950 120 120 TOTAL 795 789 St. Paul Tourist Cabins and Maplewood Manufactured Home Park have older manufactured homes, many of which would not meet current building code standards. Since the St. Paul Toudst Cabins have been under new ownership as of last year, six of the older manufactured homes have been removed. The new owners state that they will be replacing the older homes with newer homes. Beaver Lake, Rolling Hills, and Town and Country have a mix of new and old homes. These three parks have given residents the opportunity to trade-in their existing manufactured home for newer models, or when a resident leaves, the park owners purchase the older home and replace it with a newer home. Manufactured home park residents own their home but rent the land the home sits on. The average cost of a new manufactured home is from $30,000 for a standard size to $60,000 for a double wide. The average cost of an older manufactured home varies widely from $500 for the oldest models to $4,000. Rental space is approximately $270 per month and usually covers sewer, water, garbage, and snow removal. There are no studies to indicate the average annual income of manufactured home park residents within the City of Maplewood. However, a study of manufactured home park residents in East Bethel, Minnesota, conducted by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs in 1998, indicated Manufactured Home Park Closings 3 April 3, 2002 that the mean annual household income of manufactured home residents was from $10,000 to $29,999. Possible Pros and Cons Pros: APAC points out that it would prove difficult to find an available manufactured home site within a 25omile radius of a park within the City of Maplewood because of the Iow vacancy rates. Also, many of the manufactured homes are older and cannot be moved. Because of this and the fact that most of these homeowners have lower-income, a park closing could prove to be a financial catastrophe for many of the city's residents. As stated by APAC in their attached letter, residents living in conventional homes receive compensation when their property is sold for redevelopment. However, residents that own a home within a manufactured home park are not guaranteed any kind of compensation if their park is closed because they do not own the land that their home sits on. APAC states that a park- closing ordinance would ensure that the residents of the manufactured home parks in Maplewood would receive fair compensation for their homes in the event a park closes. Oons: Mark Brunner, executive vice president of Minnesota Manufactured Housing Association (MMHA), states that such an ordinance would hinder redevelopment within the City of Maplewood due to the added expense to the developer. He points out that bank lenders may also be more hesitant to refinance loans for park upgrades and improvements if such an ordinance were in place and questions the fairness of how the values of the manufactured homes are determined in some of the existing ordinances. Also, MMHA believes that the language in the law which states "other parties involved in the park closing may provide additional compensation to residents" is intended to not only mean the park owner or developer, but entities such as the city, housing redevelopment authority, or other entities that may be able to tie into reimbursement. Mr. Brunner states that the current law gives the manufactured home residents the protections needed because it allows cities to determine compensation to the residents at the time of a closing. MMHA is opposed to such an ordinance because it could be considered a land taking and would put a burden on the property owner. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the HRA provide input into the proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance. P:ord~nan. home park Attachments 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. State Park Closing Law APAC's Letter Dated 1/11/02 APAC's Proposed Park-Closing Ordinance Manufactured Home Park Residents' Petition in Support of Ordinance St. Paul Toudst Cabin's Letter Dated 3/11102 including Fridley's and Shakopee's Ordinances Maplewood Manufactured Home Parks Map Manufactured Home Park Closings 4 Apdl 3, 2002 Attachment 1 327C.095 Park closings. Subdivision 1. Conversion of use; minimum notice. At least nine months before the conversion of all or a portion of a manufactured home park to another use, or before closure of a manufactured home park or cessation of use of the land as a manufactured home park, the park owner must prepare a closure statement and provide a copy to the local planning agency and a copy to a resident of each manufactured home where the residential use is being converted. A resident may not be required to vacate until 60 days after the conclusion of the public heating required under subdivision 4. If a lot is available in another section of the park that will continue to be operated as a park, the park owner must allow the resident to relocate the home to that lot unless the home, because of its size or local ordinance, is not compatible with that lot. Subd. 2. Notice of hearing; proposed change in land use. If the planned conversion or cessation of operation requires a variance or zoning change, the municipality must mail a ~otice at least ten days before the hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing. The park owner shall provide the municipality with a list of the names and addresses of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time application is made for a variance or zoning change. Subd. 3. Closure statement. Upon receipt of the closure statement from the park owner, the local planning agency shall submit the closure statement to the governing body of the municipality and request the governing body to schedule a public headng. The municipality must mail a notice at least ten days before the hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing. The park owner shall provide the municipality 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 local planning agency. Subd. 4. Public hearing; relocation costs. The governing body of the municipality shall hold a public hearing to review the closure statement and any impact that the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. Before any change in use or cessation of operation and as a condition of the change, the governing body may require a payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced resident for the reasonable relocation costs. If a resident cannot relocate the home to another manufactured home park within a 25 mile radius of the park that is being closed, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation costs awarded to other residents. The governing body of the municipality may also require that other parties, including the municipality, involved in the park closing provide additional compensation to residents to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon the residents. Subd. 5. Park conversions. If the planned cessation of operation is for the purpose of converting the part of the park occuPied by the resident to a common interest community pursuant to chapter 515B, the provisions of section 515B.4-111, except' subsection (a), shall apply. The nine-month notice required by this section shall state that the cessation is for the purpose of conversion and shall set forth the rights conferred by this subdivision and section 515B.4-111, subsection (b). Not less than 120 days before the end of the nine months, the park owner shall serve upon the resident a form of purchase agreement setting forth the terms of sale contemplated by section 515B.4-111, subsection (d). Service of that form shall operate as the notice described by section 515B.4-111, subsection (a). Subd. 6. Intent to convert use of park at time of purchase. Before the execution of an agreement to purchase a manufactured home park, the purchaser must notify the park owner, in writing, if the purchaser intends to close the manufactured home park or convert it to another use within one year of the execution of the agreement. The park owner shall provide a resident of each manufactured home with a 45-day written notice of the purchaser's intent to close the park or convert it to another use. The notice must state that the park owner will provide information on the cash price and the terms and conditions of the purchaser's offer to residents requesting the information. The notice must be sent by first class mail to a resident of each manufactured home in the park. The notice period begins on the postmark date affixed to the notice and ends 45 days after it begins. During the notice period required in this subdivision, the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park or a nonprofit organization which has the written permission of the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park to represent them in the acquisition of the park shall have the right to meet the cash price and execute an agreement to purchase the park for the purposes of keeping the park as a manufactured housing community. The park owner must accept the offer if it meets the cash price and the same terms and conditions set forth in the purchaser's offer except that the seller is not obligated to provide owner financing. For purposes of this section, cash price means the cash price offer or equivalent cash offer as defined in section 500.245, subdivision 1, paragraph (d). 6 Subd. 7. Intent to convert use of park after purchase. If the purchaser of a manufactured home park decides to convert the park to another use within one year after the purchase of the park, the purchaser must offer the park for purchase by the residents of the park. For purposes of this subdivision, the date of purchase is the date of the transfer of the title to the purchaser. The purchaser must provide a resident of each manufactured home with a written notice of the intent to close the park and all of the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park or a nonprofit organization which has the written permission of the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park to represent them in the acquisition of the park shall have 45 days to execute an agreement for the purchase of the park at a cash price equal to the original purchase price paid by the purchaser plus any documented expenses relating to the acquisition and improvement of the park property, together with any increase in value due to appreciation of the park. The purchaser must execute the purchase agreement at the pdce specified in this subdivision and pay the cash price within 90 days of the date of the purchase agreement. The notice must be sent by first class mail to a resident of each manufactured home in the park. The notice pedod begins on the postmark date affixed to the notice and ends 45 days after it begins. Subd. 8. Required filing of notice. Subdivisions 6 and 7 apply to manufactured home parks upon which notice has been filed with the county recorder or registrar of titles in the county where the manufactured home park is located. Any person may file the notice required under this subdivision with the county recorder or registrar of titles. The notice must be in the following form: "MANUFACTURED HOME PARK NOTICE THIS PROPERTY IS USED AS A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK PARK OWNER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARK COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION (IF APPLICABLE)" Subd. 9. Effect of noncompliance. If a manufactured home park is finally sold or converted to another use in violation of subdivision 6 or 7, the residents do not have any continuing right to purchase the park as a result of that sale or conversion. A violation of subdivision 6 or 7 is subject to section 8.31, except that relief shall be limited so that questions of marketability of title shall not be affected. Subd. 10. Exclusion. Subdivisions 6 and 7 do not apply to: (1) a conveyance of an interest in a manufactured home park incidental to the financing of the manufactured home park; (2) a conveyance by a mortgagee subsequent to foreclosure of a mortgage or a deed given in lieu of a foreclosure; or (3) a purchase of a manufactured home park by a governmental entity under its power of eminent domain. Subd. 11. Affidavit of compliance. After a park is sold, a park owner or other person with personal knowledge may file an affidavit with the county recorder or registrar of titles in the county in which the park is located certifying compliance with subdivision 6 or 7 or that subdivisions 6 and 7 are not applicable. The affidavit may be used as proof of the facts stated in the affidavit. A person acquiring an interest in a park or a title insurance company or attomey who prepares, furnishes, or examines evidence of title may rely on the truth and accuracy of statements made in the affidavit and is not required to inquire further as to the park owner's compliance with subdivisions 6 and 7. When an affidavit is filed, the right to purchase provided under subdivisions 6 and 7 terminate, and if registered property, the registrar of titles shall delete the memorials of the notice and affidavit from future certificates of title. HIST: 1987 c 179 s 10; 1991 c 26 s 1-7; 1997 c 126 s 6; 1999 c 11 art3s 10 Copyright 2001 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. 8 An Organization of Manufactured Home Residents Attachment January 11, 2002 Shann Finwall Maplewood Planning Dept. 1830 E. County Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ms. Shann Finwall, 2395 University Avenue West, Suite 302 St. Paul, MN 55114 (phone) (651) 644-5525 flax) (651)523-0173 *nail) apac~mtn, org We are writing to ask for your support in the passing of a park-closing ordinance for the city of Maplewood. This ordinance would protect manufactured homeowners' families from displacement in the case of their park closing for redevelopment. A park-closing ordinance would ensure that the residents of manufactured home parks in Maplewood would receive fair compensation for their homes, which likely cannOt be moved, in the event that their manufactured home park would close for redevelopment. Residents living in conventional homes receive compensation when their property is sold for redevelopment. However, residents that own a home within a manufactured home park are not guaranteed any kind of compensation if their park is closed because they do not own the land that their home sits on. Under a standard park-closing ordinance, if a home is a newer model and can be moved to another park, the owner and/or new buyer of the park would have to pay to relocate the home to another park within a 25 mile radius or buy the home at its assessed value. Under Minnesota State Law (§327C.095), cities and municipalities have the authority to pass a park-closing ordinance. Thirteen cities in Minnesota have already passed Park Closing Ordinances because they understood the necessity of an ordinance to protect their constituents. This ordinance is very important to your constituents in Maplewood that live in manufactured home parks. These voters and taxpayers make up nearly 5% of the population of Maplewood, almost 900 households. Many of the parks in Maplewood are very large and ifa park closed it would be catastrophic. We plan to present the proposal before the city council on February 25th, 2002. We hope that you and the other Council Members will decide to pass this ordinance for manufactured homeowners in Maplewood. Enclosed with this letter are some informational materials for your perusal, including a copy of the proposed ordinance and Minnesota Statute 327C.095. If you have any questions regarding this issue we urge you to contact us. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to meeting with you on the 25th. Sincerely, Resident Association www. allparksMlianceforchange, org 9 Attachment 3 City of Maplewood, Minnesota Ordinance NO. - Manufactured Home Par~-Closings Section XXXX.00 Purpose: In view of the peculiar nature and problems presented by the closure or conversion of manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and general welfare will be promoted by requiring compensation to displaced residents of such parks. The purpose of this ordinance is to require park owners to pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and purchasers of manufactured home parks to pay additional compensation, pursuant to the authority granted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 327c.095. Section XXXX.02 Definitions. The Following words and terms when used in this Section shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Closure Statement: A statement prepared by the park owner clearly stating the park is closing, addressing the availability, location and potential costs of adequate replacement housing within a twenty-five (25). mile radius of the park that is closing and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured homes located in the park. Displaced Resident: A resident of an owner-occupied manufactured home ho rents a lot in a manufactured home park, including the members of the resident's household, as of the date park owner submits a closure statement to the City's Planning Commission. 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 a real estate, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is three hundred and twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical system contained in it. The City of Maplewood also elects to expand these provisions of protection to manufactured homes that are smaller than the dimensions of, eight (8) feet or more in width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, are three hundred and twenty (320) or more square feet, and which are built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as dwellings with or without permanent foundations when connected to the required utilities, and include the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical system contained in them. Some manufactured homes that are currently in Maplewood are smaller than the definition for manufactured homes provided in Minnesota Statute 327C thus, the City of Maplewood feels that since these homes fall l0 under the definition of a manufactured home, except for their size, that these home should also be covered under this ordinance. Park Owner: The owner of a manufactured home park and any person acting on behalf of the owner in the operation or management of a park. Person: Any individual, cooperation, firm, partnership, incorporated and unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity. Section XXXX.04 Notice of Public Hearing: The Planning Commission shall submit the closure statement to the City Council to schedule a public hearing. The City shall mail a notice at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating the time} place and purpose of the hearing. The park owner shall provide the City with a list of the names and address of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time the closure statement is submitted to the Planning Commission. Section XXXX. 06 Public Hearing: A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for the purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating what impact the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. Section XXXX.08 Payment of Relocation Costs: After the service of the closure statement by the park owner and upon submittal by the displaced resident of a contract or other verification of relocation expenses, the park owner shall pay to the displaced resident the reasonable cost of relocating the manufactured home to another manufactured home park located within a twenty five (25) mile radius of the park that is being closed, converted to another use, or ceasing operation. Reasonable relocation costs shall include: The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced resident's manufactured home and personal property, including the reasonable cost of disassembling, moving and reassembling any attached appurtenances, such as porches, decks, skirting and awnings, which were not acquired after notice of closure or conversion of the park and utility "hook-up" charges. B. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the property being moved. C. The cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order to take down, move and set up the manufactured home. 11 Ifa resident cannot relocate the manufactured home within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park which is being closed or some other agreed upon distance, and the 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. A displaced resident compensated under this section of the bill shall retain title to the manufactured home and shall be responsible for its prompt removal from the manufactured home park. The park owner shall make the payments under this section directly to the person performing the relocation services after the performance thereof, or, upon submission of written evidence of payment of relocation costs by a displaced resident, shall reimburse the displaced resident for such costs. The displaced resident must submit a contract or other verified cost estimate for relocating the manufactured home to the park owner as a condition to the park owner's liability to pay relocation expenses. Section XXXX. 10 Payment of Additional Compensation. Ifa resident cannot relocate the manufactured home within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park that is being closed or some other agreed upon distance and tenders title to the manufactured home, the resident is entitled to additional 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 additional compensation shall be in an amount equal to the estimated market value of the manufactured home as determined by an independent appraiser experienced in mobile home appraisal approved by the City Administrator. The purchaser shall pay the cost for the appraisal. The purchaser shall pay such compensation into an escrow account, established by the park owner, for distribution upon transfer of title to the home. Such compensation shall be paid to the displaced residents no later than the earlier of sixty (60) days prior to the closing of the park or its conversion to another use. Section XXXX.12 Penalty: 1. Violation of any provision of this Section shall be a misdemeanor. 2. Any provisions of this Section may be enforced by injunction or other appropriate civil remedy. The City shall not issue a building permit in conjunction with reuse of the manufactured home park property unless the park owner has paid reasonable location costs and the purchaser of the park has provided additional compensation in accordance with the requirements of this Section. Approval of any application for rezoning, platting, conditional use permit, planed unit development or variance in conjunction with a park closing or conversion shall be conditional on compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. Section XXXX. 14 Effective Date: This ordinance shall be effective upon publication. 13 Attachment 4 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robed Cardinal, I am a resident of Beaver Lake Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would help protect and preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting Iow-income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its Iow to moderate- income residents. Thank you for your consideration. Beaver Lake Estates 2425 Maryland Avenue Maplewood MN 55119 Vicki Aerbst Beaver Lake Estates 2405 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Dorothy Anderson Beaver Lake Estates 2420 Amberjack Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Vera Anderson Beaver Lake Estates 1231 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Donald Andrews Beaver Lake Estates 1277 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Mary Jane Belisle Beaver Lake Estates 1259 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Leonard Bergman Beaver Lake Estates 2425 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 JoAnn Bohrer Beaver Lake Estates 1293 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Tom Brockway Beaver Lake Estates 1217 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Kevin Burns Beaver Lake Estates 1232 Deerfleld Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Steve Carlson Beaver Lake Estates 2409 Amberjack Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Constance Conroy Beaver Lake Estates 1253 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 lone Coon Beaver Lake Estates 2461 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Louise Crosby Beaver Lake Estates 1231 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Margaret Cunningham Beaver Lake Estates 1218 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 Rita Deutsch Beaver Lake Estates 1240 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Judith Ehnstrom Beaver Lake Estates 1200 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Wallace Eilers Beaver Lake Estates 1237 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Mary Sue Fiola Beaver Lake Estates 1247 Deerfield Drive North Maplewood MN 55119 Steve Fry Beaver Lake Estates 2400 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Karen Galvin Beaver Lake Estates 2404 Coyote Lane Maplewood MN 55119 14 Quanita Garcia Beaver Lake Estates 2440 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Cory T. Griffin Beaver Lake Estates 1246 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 John Herron Beaver Lake Estates 2428 Coyote Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Owen Hoff Beaver Lake Estates 2453 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Colleen Jones Beaver Lake Estates 2408 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Thomas Krenn Beaver Lake Estates 2425 Coyote Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Mr. Larson Beaver Lake Estates 2477 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 James Lyons Beaver Lake Estates 1235 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Kerry McAmis Beaver Lake Estates 1224 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Dorothy Metzger Beaver Lake Estates 1238 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 Lawrence Giles Beaver Lake Estates 1269 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Lillian Hanna Beaver Lake Estates 2412 Amberjack Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Steve Hill Beaver Lake Estates 1268 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Darleen Hofland Beaver Lake Estates 2408 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Jim Kallio Beaver Lake Estates 2425 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Euphemia Kroll Beaver Lake Estates 1283 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Jeannine Latterell Beaver Lake Estates 2420 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Ray Mann Beaver Lake Estates 2453 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Michael McCormack Beaver Lake Estates 1228 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Michael Mierva Beaver Lake Estates 2473 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 15 Tina Gray Beaver Lake Estates 1211 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Anthony Herbert Beaver Lake Estates 2461 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Warren Hobbick Beaver Lake Estates 1216 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Carol Johnson Beaver Lake Estates 1227 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Wendy Kelley Beaver Lake Estates 1212 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Casey LaCasse Beaver Lake Estates 1208 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Harold Lee Beaver Lake Estates 2400 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 William McAmis Beaver Lake Estates 1228 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Margaret McCrank Beaver Lake Estates 2472 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Catherine Minnear Beaver Lake Estates 2413 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Arnold North Beaver Lake Estates 2469 Elkhart Lane Maplewo(~d MN 55119 Jerry Page Beaver Lake Estates 1215 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Frances Parent Beaver Lake Estates 1215 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Delores Price Beaver Lake Estates 1219 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Teresa Reichert Beaver Lake Estates 2413 Coyote Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Robert Schirmer Beaver Lake Estates 2465 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 David Schneider Beaver Lake Estates 1239 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 James Scott Beaver Lake Estates 1222 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 K.D. Smith Beaver Lake Estates 1259 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Richard Stevens Beaver Lake Estates 1220 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 L. Odden Beaver Lake Estates 1224 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Kathleen Pakulski Beaver Lake Estates 1272 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Donna Peick Beaver Lake Estates 2416 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Tricia Quaale Beaver Lake Estates 2460 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Carol Ristau Beaver Lake Estates 2424 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Elba Schirner Beaver Lake Estates 12131 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 David Schreier Beaver Lake Estates 1236 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Mike Sheehan Beaver Lake Estates 1247 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Tina Sorenson Beaver Lake Estates 242;4 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Mark Swanson Beaver Lake Estates 2433 Amberjack Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Robert Ogilvie Beaver Lake Estates 1249 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Leonard Parent Beaver Lake Estates 1267 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 John Pfluger Beaver Lake Estates 1297 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Walter Rasmussen Beaver Lake Estates 2412 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Jan Rottach Beaver Lake Estates 1196 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Donna Schmitz Beaver Lake Estates 1210 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 Jerome Schultz Beaver Lake Estates 1216 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Mary Sizemore Beaver Lake Estates 2461 Bison Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Craig M. Spreigl Beaver Lake Estates 1219 Bobcat Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Thomas Sward Beaver Lake Estates 1251 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 David Toff Beaver Lake Estates 2420 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Robert Warner Beaver Lake Estates 1214 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 Lisa Williams Beaver Lake Estates 2449 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Sandra Zimmerman Beaver Lake Estates 1255 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 17 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal, I am a resident of Maplewood Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would help protect and preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting Iow-income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its Iow to moderate- income residents. Thank you for your consideration. Douglas Chestnut Maplewood Mobile Home Park 1876 English Street Maplewood MN 55109 Mike Cobb Maplewood Mobile Home Park 1880 English Street North Maplewood MN 55109 18 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal, I am a resident of Rollin.q Hills Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would help protect and preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting Iow-income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maptewood would further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its Iow to moderate- income residents. Thank you for your consideration. Mary Andersen Rolling Hills 2622 Oakhill Court Maplewood MN 55119 Kim Atkinson Rolling Hills 2638 Angela Court Maplewood MN 55119 Myron Axtman Rolling Hills 1324 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Scott Benson Rolling Hills 1340 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Floyd Brown Rolling Hills 1398 Pearson Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Carol Brown Rolling Hills 1394 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Richard Bunde Rolling Hills 1387 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Dan Charboneau Rolling Hills 2628 Benlana Court Maplewood MN 55119 Shelly Christensen Rolling Hills 1358 Pearson Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Larry Coffman Rolling Hills 2676 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Rene Comstock Rolling Hills 2633 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 John Cournoyer Rolling Hills 2655 Oakhill Court Maplewood MN 55119 Fred Creager Rolling Hills 2644 Benlana Court Maplewood MN 55119 Dorothy Dickinson Rolling Hills 1341 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Denise Elmquist Rolling Hills 2700 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Mona Lou Emerfoll Rolling Hills 2638 Oak Hill Court Maplewood MN 55119 Ray Garcia Rolling Hills 2637 Benlana Court Maplewood MN 55119 Carolyn Ann Garrison Rolling Hills 1373 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Judith Gilmore Rolling Hills 1332 Birch View Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Frank Goddfrey Rolling Hills 2642 Angela Court Maplewood MN 55119 William Guerin Rolling Hills 1342 Pine Tree Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Diane Hakes Rolling Hills 1389 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Sonnia Hess Rolling Hills 1324 Pine Tree Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Melvin Johnson Rolling Hills 1392 Pine Tree Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Marjorie Krull Rolling Hills 2696 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Wanda Leiner Rolling Hills 2624 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Bert Logsdon Rolling Hills 1346 Pearson Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Jim Norring Rolling Hills 1380 Pine Tree Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Kathy Paulson Rolling Hills 1344 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Jessica Reardon Rolling Hills 1349 Pearson Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Eva Snaza Rolling Hills 2630 Oak Hill Court Maplewood MN 55119 Nick Hanson Rolling Hills 1321 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Donna Hickey Rolling Hills 2648 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Sam Keenan Rolling Hills 2646 Angela Court Maplewood MN 55119 Patricia Lakman Rolling Hills 1356 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Andrea Lewis Rolling Hills 2625 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Colleen Murphy Rolling Hills 1335 Pine Tree Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Matt Olson Rolling Hills 2632 Benlana Court Maplewood MN 55119 Jean Pearson Rolling Hills 1339 Pine Tree Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Arthur Roy Rolling Hills 1372 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Terry Sokol Rolling Hills 2637 Benlana Court Maplewood MN 55119 20 Cindy Herrick Rolling Hills 2636 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Wayne Hogstad Rolling Hills 1336 Birch View Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Chris Klein Rolling Hills 1357 Pearson Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Harold Larson Rolling Hills 2652 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Wesley Lodge Rolling Hills 1352 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Phyllis Nereson Rolling Hills 1331 Pine Tree Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Robert Olson Rolling Hills 2621 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Richard Pearson Rolling Hills 1109 Crestview Drive Hudson WI 54016 Dave Seidel Rolling Hills 1369 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 William Stangl Rolling Hills 2634 Oak Hill Court Maplewood MN 55119 William Thaluber Rolling Hills 1339 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 EIdridge Wanlesi Rolling Hills 2635 Oak Hill Court Maplewood MN 55119 Ronald Zemke Rolling Hills 1398 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 J. Vasquez Rolling Hills 1350 Pearson Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Jackie Wanned Rolling Hills 2647 Angela Court Maplewood MN 55119 Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park 1319 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Colette Votel Rolling Hills 1396 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Barbara West Rolling Hills 2626 Oak Hill Court Maplewood MN 55119 21 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal, I am a resident of St. Paul Tourist Cabins Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would help protect and preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting Iow-income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its Iow to moderate-income residents. Thank you for your consideration. Madge Asp St. Paul Tourist Cabins 967 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Robert Bland St. Paul Tourist Cabins 963 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 James Devanez St. Paul Tourist Cabins 954 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Alphonso France St. Paul Tourist Cabins 943 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Robert Hollingsworth St. Paul Tourist Cabins 986 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Harry Lebo St. Paul Tourist Cabins 983 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Duane Lonecor St. Paul Tourist Cabins 944 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Richard Moore St. Paul Tourist Cabins 957 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Inez Schuchard St. Paul Tourist Cabins 965 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Jeff Swanberg St. Paul Tourist Cabins 969 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Sam Webb St. Paul Tourist Cabins 961 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Steve Weib St. Paul Tourist Cabins 952 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 St. Paul Trailer Park 940 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Tracy Thomas St. Paul Trailer Park CIO PLJ, INC. 2501 Lowry Avenue NE St. Anthony MN 55418 22 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal, I am a resident of Town & Country Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would help protect and preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting Iow-income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its Iow to moderate- income residents. Thank you for your consideration. William Bailey Town & Country 1055 Deauville Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Kenneth Bennett Town & Country 1100 AIvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Orvis Bixby Town & Country 1044 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Richard Buckley Town & Country 1058 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Roger Erickson Town & Country 2563 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Aimee Evanson Town & Country 1059 Deauville Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Joyce Fernette Town & Country 1048 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Rogert Fritz Town & Country 1059 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 William Gilbert Town & Country 1046 Deauville Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Robert Grillickson Town & Country 1050 Deauville Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Donna Gutwiler Town & Country 1066 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Linda Harmeling Town & Country 2565 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 D. Hermann Town & Country 1063 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 David Huot Town & Country 1046 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Donna MacRunnel Town & Country 1040 Deauville Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Pat Nau/JV Properties Town & Country 2557 Highway 61 Maplewood MN 55109 T.V. Nordstrom Town & Country 1036 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Pearl Pitlick Town & Country 2581 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Rebecca Potthoff Town & Country 1096 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Sandy Private Town & Country 1050 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 23 Geraldine Pullen Town & Country 1065 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Charlene Stansbury Town & Country 2568 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Betty Verdick Town & Country 1042 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Beverly Winston Town & Country 1056 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Ronald Richardson Town & Country 1050 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Ron Strong Town & Country 2565 ,Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Joanne Wagner Town & Country 1061 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Tammie Schweiker Town & Country 1062 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Paul Vankirk Town & Country 2573 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Carol Whaley Town & Country 2562 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 24 Maplewood City Council Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 St. Paul Cabins 2501 Lowry Avenue NE St. Anthony, MN 55418 612-781-3149 "FYI Attachment 5 March 11, 2002 Dear Mayor Robert Cardinal and City CoUncil Members: I am writing in regards to the city council meeting held Monday, February 25, 2002. I attended the meeting to hear all of the comments and concerns regarding 'the Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Discussion. 'I represent the owners of St. Paul Cabins Manufactured Home Community. I received information about the meeting from a letter sent by the City of Maplewood. I am happy to hear that staff is directed lo research and gather information to make an informed decision about · whether a park closing ordinance is appropriate for the City of Maplewood. . Just last year I worked with the City of Fridley on the wording of a park-closing ordinance. I have attached that ordinance for your review. When taking on such a large task, there is no way to satisfy the residents, the owners or even all city officials. Despite some wording I'd like changed in the City of Fridley ordinance, I believe the staff did a terrific job of diplomatically listening to all the party's viewpoints and coming to a fair compromise. Also enclosed please find the City of Shakopee park-closing ordinance. I represent the owners of a Manufactured Home Community in Shakopee as well. Many of the owners worked with the City of Shakopee officials to word the ordinance currently in effect. I believe this particular ordinance has the most flexibility for possible future city development of the property Manufactured Home Communities are on. In closing I'd like to offer any support or assistance I can. I'd appreciate the opportunity to work with staff on the wording of a park-closing ordinance if you decide to proceed. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, is. Agent 25 CHAPTER 223. FRIDLEY CITY CODE MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSINGS 223.01. PURPOSE In .vie~v, of the Peculiar nature and problems presented by thc closure or conversi welfare will be promoted by requ/fing compensation to displaced residents o£such parks. The purpose o£this ordinance is to require park owners to pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and purchasers o£manufactured home parks to pay additional compensation, pursuant to the authority grauted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095. 223.02. DEFINITIONS The following words and terms when used in this ordinance shall have the follow/ng meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: 1. Closure Statement. A statement prepared by the park owner clearly mating the park is closing addressing the availability, location and potential costs of adequate replacement housing within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park that is closing and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured homes located in thc park. 2. Displaced Owner. A resident of an owner-occupied manufactured home who rents a lot in a manufactured home park, including the members of the resident's household, as of the date the park owner submits a closure statement to the City's Planning Commission. 3. Displaced Resident. A displaced owner. 4. Lot. An area within a manufactured home park, designed and used for the accommodation of a manufactured home. 26 Fridley City Code Chapter 223 Sec~on 223,02. lO.A, 5. ManufacmredHome. A structure, not affixed to or part of real cstatc, transportable in one of more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight (8) fe~t or more in width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical system contained in it. ' 6. Park Closure. A closure, conversion of use, or termination of use, whether in whole or in part, cfa manufactured home park. For purposes of this definition, use shall mean any usc related to the manufactured home park and related services. 7. Park Owner. Thc owner of a manufactured home park. 8. Person. Any individual, corporation, firna: partr~ership, incorporated and unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity. 9. Purchaser. The person buying the manufactured home park from the park owner. In the event that fhe park owner intends to retain ownership and convert the park to a different use, all references to the purchaser refer to the park ownea'. 10. Relocation Cost. The reasonable cost of relocating a manufactured home from a manufactured home park within the City of Fridley that is being closed or converted to another use to another manufactured home park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park as follows: Preparation for Move. The reasonable costs incurred to prepare thc ehgible manufactured home for transportation to another site. This category includes crane services if needed, but not the cost of wheel axles, tires, frame welding or tr~ler hitches. 27 Fridley City Code Chapter 223 Section 223.04 B. Tramponation to Another Site. Reasonable costs incm-ted to transport the elig/ble manufactured home and personal ' property w/thin a twenty-five (25) mile radius. This category also includes the cost of insuring the manufactured home and contents while' the home is in the process of being relocated, and the cost ofobtainhg mov/ng 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 perrait. This category also includes the reasonable cost of disassembling, moving, and massaaub~g sheds and any attached appurtenances, such as porches, steps, decks, skirthg, s/r cond/tioner un/ts and awninss, which were acquired before the notice of closure or conversion of the park. Hook-up at New Location.' The reasonable cost ofconnect/ng the elig/ble manufactured home to utilities at thc relocation site, including crane services if needed. The park owner shall not bc required to upgrade the electrical or plumbing systems of thc manufactured home. D. Insurance. The cost of insurance for the replaCement value of the property bcing moved. Relocation costs do not include the Cost of any repairs or modifications to the manu-factured home neexled to bring the home/nrc compliance with the state and federal manufactured home build/ng 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 needed to bring the home or appurtenances into compliance w/th the rules and regulations of the manufactured home park to which the manufactured home is to be relocatcd, if those rules and regulations are no more stringent than the rules and regulations o£thc park ha which the home is located and the resident was notified of non-compliance w/th the rules and rcguIations of the park in which it is locaWxi within sixty (60) days prior to del/very of the closure statement. 223.03. PARK CLOSURE NOTICE Ifa manufactured home park is to be closed, converted in whole or part to another use or terminated as a use of the property, the park owner shall, at least nine (9) months prior to the closure, conversion to another use or termination of use, provide a copy of a closure statem~t to a resident of each manufactured home and to the City's Plarming Commission. 223.04. NOTICE OF PUBLIC }tEARING The City's Planning Commission shall submit the closure statement to the City Council and request the City Council to schedule a public hearing. The City shall mail a notice at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating 28 Fricll~y City Code Chapter 223 Scction 223.07.4 the time, place and purpose of thc hearing. The park owner shall provide the City with a lis~ of the names and addresses of at least one displaced resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time the closure statement is submitted to thc City's Planning Commission. 223.05. PUBLIC HEARING A Public hearing shall be held before the City Council after.receipt of the closure statement for the purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating what impact the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. · 223.06. DISPLACED RESIDENT OBLIGATIONS As a condition ofrecdving assistance under this Chapter, a displaced resident shall submit a contract or other verified cost estimate of relocation costs to the park owner for approval. If the park owner refuses ,to pay the contract or other verified cost estirnate, the park o ,Wrier must arrange for relocating the manufactured home and pay the actual relocation costs incurred. In the altemative~ the displaced resident may submit a written statement to thc park owner, identifying that the displaced resident either cannot or chooses not to relocate his or her manufactured home to another manufactured home park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park to be closed and elects to receive either relocation assistance as defined in 223.07.02 or compensation as defined in 223.08. 223.07. ELECTION TO RELOCATE 1. After service of the closure statement by the park owner and upon submittal by tho displaced resident ora contract or other verification of relocation ex:pomes, tho park owner shall pay to the displaced resident the reasonable costs as defined/n 223.02.10 of relocating the manufactured home to another manufactured home park located within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park that is being closed, converted to another use, or ceasing operation. 2. If a displaced resident cannot or chooses not to relocate the manufactured home within a twc'nty-fivc (25) milo radius of the park which is being closed, and the displaced resident elects to retain title to the manufactured home, the displaced resident is entitled to relocation costs as defined in 223.02 based upon an awtage of the actual relocation costs paid to other d/SI)laced residents in the manufactured home park For purposes of this section, in the event that it is not possible to calculate the average using this formula, the amount of compcasation shall be based on the average of thc estimated relocation costs submitted by other residents in the park. 3. A displaced resident compensated under this section shall retain rifle to the manufactured home and shall be respons~Ic for its prompt removal fi'om thc manufactured home park. ,~. The park owner shall make.t3c payments under this section directly to the person performing the relocation services after performance thereof, or, upon submission of written evidence of payment of relocation costs by a displaced resident, shall roL'nburse the displaced resident for such costs. 29 Fridley City Code Chapter 223 S~-ction 223.11 5. The displaced resident must submit a contract or other verified cost estimate for .relocating the manufactured home to the park owner as a condition to the park owner's Iiability to pay relocation expenses. 223.08. ELECTION TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION Ifa displaced resident chooses not to relocate the manufactured home with/n a twenty five (25)- mile radius of the park that is being closed and tenders title of the manufactured home to the park ovmer, the displaced resident is entitled to compensation, to be paid by the purchaser of the park in order to mitigate the adverse financial impact of thc park' closing. In such instance, the compensation shall be an amount equal to: 1. The current fair market value of the mmaufaetured home as determined by a real property appraiser licensed by the State of Minnesota, or 2. If no appraisal exists, the current assessed value fortaz purposes of the manufactured home as established by Anoka County. Under 223.08.01, the appraisal may be provided by either the displaced resident, the park owner or the purchaser. Any disputes over valuation shall be resolved through judicial action in Anoka County District Court. The purchaser shall pay such compensation into an escrow account, established by the park owner, for distn~bution upon transfer of title to the manufactured home. Such compensation shall be paid to the displaced resident sixty (60) days prior to closing of the park, conversion to another use, or later at resident option and the park owner shall receive title and possession of the manufactured home upon payment of such compensation. 223.09. LIMITATION ON TOTAL AMOUNT OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ANI) COMPENSATION PAID TO DISPLACED RESIDENTS The total amount of relocation assistance and compensation paid to displaced residents of the manufactured home park, shall not exceed the greater of twenty percent (20%) 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 twenty percent (20%) of the purchase price of the park. 223.10. APPLICABILITY Relocation assistance mad related compensation described under 223.02, 223.07 and 223.08 of this ordinance shall not apply in the event that a displaced resident receives compensation under the Uniform Relocation Act et. al. (42 U.S.C. 4601-4655). 223.11. PENALTIES 1. Violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor. 30 Fridley Cit~ Code Chapter 223 Section 223.11 2. Any provisions of this ordinance may be enforced by injunction or otb= ~propriate civil remedy, 3. The City shall not issue a building permit in conjunction with reuse of manufactured home park property unless the park owner has paid reasonable location costs and the purchaser of the park has provided compensation in accordance with the requirements of the ordinance. Approval of any application for rezoning, platting, conditional use permit, planned unit development or variance in conjunction with a park closing or conversion.shall be conditional on compliance with the requirerngnts of this ordinance. 31 TOTAL P.O? 'r '! .... ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF 5HAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, PERTAINING TO MANUFA~ HOME PARK CLOSINGS AND ADDING SECTION 4.61 TO THE CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEF., M~lqN~$OTA, ORDAINS: ~ - The Shakopee Cit~ Code is ~ra~d~d ~ ~ldint a n~v se~ion to re, sd: ~ECTION 461 MANUFA~~ HOME PARK CLOSINGS Subd. 1. PURPOSE. ~ view of the 9e--~d;_nr nature and problems pr__e~qt_ ed by_ the cloeare or conve~a~oa of ma~uf'acture~ home _parks. the CiW_ Cotmcil finds that the public heath. ~e~,-~al W,~]t'rm~ will be vrornoted by_ re~i_ri_n_~_ com~'-~_fion to dis_p!*~ ~..idents 9f such parks. Th., ou,~_ose ofthls 5e,.-~ion is to require oark owners and rna'chars of mar~_, _c'~,__~red hom~ parks to pay disolac~d residents ~r.~sopable re,u-_~u,, costs m~d ndd~l co_rnr~m~fon tO d~_,l~mgd W~-~ posslhlc, to provide tax ~cr~m~nt fimds by the City t¢ ~sist the gark o~,~ or pa_,~-n~-~t of these costs, pur~mnt to ~he ~,,t_ho,'~[v_-~-~-~od-under ]v~n~ta Sta_~,~_~= Section 327C.095~ Subd 2. DEFIN[I'~ONS, The following words .and terms when used in !hi.~ Article shall have the foHowint meanings m,J~s the contex~ cle~ _ly indicates otherwise: A. Go.re St~cm~a~ - A ~.zt. ement prepared by the ~ark owner clearly ~ntin$ the _trarlc is closing_ adA~e_~_~in_e the nv,,~inbility_, lc-~_~on and _pot,~fi_nl costs o-f adeqm~te rep!n_c~-io-il hon.sin_~ within t 2:_ mile r,~4~,_,_, of lhe park ~het i~ cl_n~k~, and the t~o~'-.-~ relocation cn_~s of the ma~-~3~'tured horc. a,. _~cated in the B. Displaced l~d,.~ - A resident of a~ owi~er-oco_~ed ma~,~ _C~mred home who rents a lot in r~.,_,_~_ aured home ~a,~ i_~!odi~_ collectively the ~ of the resident:s h_~_,?.hold, as of the dat, the park ow~ ~t_h_ mits a clo_~re st~_.,~aent I0 the Ci _ty's Plannin_~ Commission. C. Lot - An area with~ a m~-'---~':m- red home _park. d~ed or ,_,__~_ for the iw. commodafion manufncl~ed home. D, lV~~ Home - A structure, not sfflxed to or part of ~ ,~stnte. tynn~_oortable in one or more =,o~_-'..ons. Which in the t~ava:;.-.g mod~ is g body feet or more in widlh or 40 body feet or more length, or. wh~i e,-eaed on site. is 320 or more square _f,~__ and which is built on a p~i~a~i ~nd d_esi~-q.r~l to be used as a dwe~a_iz wkh or without a _oennanent foundation wh~ connected to _required ~iitie~ and includes the plu~nbin_n, h~f~_e_ air ~ndifionine. and el__e~ifcal ~st~ contain~ E. Manuf,_.---,'~---~ Home F~-k - ApY_ s~tc. lot. field or tract of land upon which two or more _¢c_~i~ m"~'.)~"--~ homes are loft_ed_ whether r~e of' char_~e or for com~on- and include,, any ~j~din~_ stru_e~_Jre, t~ft. vehicle or enclo~J~ psed 9r in~_d__ea for ~ as _oart ofth~ _mui_oment o~ SBl~$-23 32 APR 0 3 2{}02 the n~-~,_--g-.m-ed home _~k. This definition does___not include fa,~llti~ which are open only duri~_ _thrqe or fewer seasons of the yea~. P. park O~e~ - The ow~' ofa rn~,~-,'ed home park and any Verson actin_sz on behalf of the ~-wner in th~ operation or managemelat 9f a ~ G. l%,-~n- A~ h-idivid'mL corn_oration, firm, .partnership, incorpormed or n_~ation or any_ other I_e~l or commercial entity_. Su~ 3. NOTICE OF CLOS~IG. If a m~.~_c~__m~__ h~me oark is to be clo~_,ed_ converted in whole or part to another us~ or termin~_ as a use of t~e _pm_t~ty_. d~e oark owner shall nt least ~ months prior to the closure, ceonm~'s~on ~ nnother u~ or ~ of ~ee__ ~(}vide a ~ of a closure ~_~_~_~_ ~o a _r~_id~t or--ch m~.~_~mr_ ed bQme and to the City's Planning Commission. ~_t~l. 4. TAX ~I~.FI~AN.CING, At any_ time prior to or ~ deliv~T 0fthe Notice~f Closh~t to th~ Pl~nin_n Commission_ but prior t~ the .Public Henrin,, set forth owner, or prosc~ purch~ of the p~k may __m~k~ e application tO the City for the use of tag in¢-~i~n! financing m financ~ the cosl; ofrelocat_in~ Ired purcha~i_ng th(: displaced manufactured homes. any incidental costs a~so~a_Led therewith, and.., any oLh~ development e0cpense that the City deems approp~n_te or cli_eible for ~uch finaqcing. The City_ in its ~ole and unlhoit~ .discretion may.determine y~hheth~ tax increment fipancirl~ shguld .be u__~d for ~ puWose~, tf the City_ determineq flint tax inc~ea~:nt fimmcing should not be used. for ~_~ch purpo.~ees, the _o~ owner can el.ect to rescind its Notice of Closure and rep_~e ooeration of the nx~ _~_~re~l home parle provided, however, that ootic~ of any such res~_'_~on shah be ~iv(~n to ~ residents no !*_!~ than 90 days ~lRer the .Notice Closqre has been ~ven. Subd. 5, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HF.,ARI~G. The Planning Commlt, ion shag ~ubmit the cJomre ~amment to the Ci.ty Counc~ and re~v~t the City_ Co,'ii to F: .-hed,~ a mail a pQtice at !_*~t ten days prior to the Vul~lic heating to a reside~nt of earth mamLfaCtUred home in the oark _~.atlng ~he time. V!ace ..and puroose of the hearing. The Dark owner ~ ~ovide the City with a list of the na~__~ n~nd addre~se_* of~t [.e,~ one ~ of ~h.m,mt~ured home in the park at the time th~ closure ~at_ement i~ submitted to the Plannir~ Commlssion~ Subd. 6, PUBL!C H~AR]~.. G. A pq~lic hearing shall ~ ~ld b~gm ~ Ci~ Coun~ ~t~n 90 ~ ~ ~e~pt of the Nofi~ of C~g for t~ ~m ~~g ~ clqmre ~mt ~ ~n ~ impa~ that ~e p~k c!~sLng may have on displ~ ~id~nts ~d t~ p~ o~ Subd. 7. PA~ OF RELOCATION COSTS. A. A~er sqrvice of the closure stat_.-m~t by_ the park owner and completion ofthe public hearina _and upon .a,hmittal by the &sp!a~'_~J_ resident of a contract or oth~ ~ 9f relocatlon exmms~ the o~k owrgx shall pay to the di~l~c_,~d_ resident the resteo_R.nhle Co~t of relocating the manufactmed hong to.another manufactured home park located within a ~5 rm'le radius of' the _o~ that is beint ~Losed. conyg:rted to ~r u~_ or ?-~_sin_g ooera~o.,g Reioemti_ola costs must be .maid not less than 90 _days prior to the dosing of the park or Rs conversion ~o *_~gther ug. Rea~ormble yclocation .costs.shall include: 33 APR 03Z~02 i a ' w' e ir ernoti of re r v ' n u w"lwo -uP" char _ s. m the ed me it e~ ' to · · on n ' m~.,,_~__,~.,ed home pad~ · k~ f ho d~~' ubs 'on Aoft' S 'on. Sub 8. PK O O ~ O ~S a~' I lot ~t' · e ius en' ~ f ~e . ' n n to ' m~ ~ e ~ h me d Miff of~e ~. ' ~ ~ t~ of~ ' . e u or k o ~ ch ' no · ~ ~ ~ of h~ ' n. B. ~ disl ~~oto c~ nott relate . . ~me d er~ ~ ~notto md ' eto hero,ufa ~me e r ' n~t to ave eofr ' ' t o r '~~ ~. P~ f ~ , u n ~ r~ of&e ~ h~e ~d ~6s · home k e ford bi 'dem~ md m b ' eav e ! ~6 ~ ~' too of' 34 sub& f). CAP Obi pAyMENTS. tax' ' isu i in · · of' erel 'o co or ~he as~-e_-~ w_k~ of the oark. whk~-ver is _m~eat~ .. , .... =,-'- e__-'-- :. not a,ff~4p~ to-oar tl~ full anou~ · to nidtoall di si t t .... n aa · k Of · to.n& I ' th fo ~ f · rh 'ce ~ or ueof wlicbev~ is _~eat~ Park Owner City. Portion (IfN-_--e,:'i. ed) - 35% 9 000+7.5¥ 600 699 i ' onion shall e 'd if the o ntt u' to ' b he ark owner's' ' o ;~ , resi t t ired '"ns7 8 If tal u du$ tO displnc~ t~sid~ exc~ds the above perc~?s, oa_vrnent~ to disp{a-"pd residents will be on a pm rata ~ The pUrC,",'L~ pr, Ce ofthc pa,-k includes ail con~d~,L,'afon rmeived tn the park owno' including_ .~__,~-nbr-,~ces p~d b_v bu_ver on sell~r's~-~~'~he or sp_~_'~l .~_,e-_s_qm,~-~ paid or as_~.~ _~d by_ buyex. T~r.,~ renuest by. the City_. the p.m-k owner and v~chaser shall provide the Ci~ with a coir, p|~¢ and clocum~ta6on of the sale _orior w the _~ublic hearing._. D. Notb;%~ in this _,e~on is is~t~q~ to erev~, the City or the park owner from Qbtainin~_ p _m/merit of am_o_unts doe to displaced residents. Subd 10. ¥1=RIFICATION OF COSTS. The dispL~ r,.~H__~t ~-~ submit a contract or other ~=;8ed cost __-~_'r~ate fo~ relo¢~.'-.n_a the h-:~-,_%?~ared hom~ to the ~k ov,~' for aO_-_~-oval as ~nu~Gon to the park o~,~er's l~ah. ai~ to oar relo.~tion _,e~___ e~_~s___ lfthe oark owner refuses to ~,,h-~t or o~r verified costs ~i~,ate.-th~ pa~k Own~r shall a~raa~ fo-r t~c_._-~__tin_~ the ~iue and Va_v the rdooa__fon costs ide0tifi~d in Subd. 7. Subd. 10. PENALTX,. A. Any provision of this Section may be enforced by inj,_metion or other appropriate civil remedy. jJT.159842 4 35 B T i' not' ¢ il ' '~ in con' 'on with r of m~ · h ' n~b! ! ' ~nd f bas fo · less ~ er cl ' f ri nv ' n . eP wner thave~n ' ' r ~ ~o · nv ¢!*~s w,a,~ ~ such date. [ llllI publicalio~ Adopted in ~ scs~ion of the City Council of thc City of Sh~opee, MJnmsot~ ~yor of the City of Sbakopee ATTEST: 0% 36 Attachment 6 Maplewood Manufactured HOme Parks Town and Country 2557 Highway 61 St. Paul Tourist 940 Frost Avenue )lewood Man. Home Park 1880 English St. N. Rolling Hills 1319 Rollin Hills Drive Beaver 'Lake 2425 Maryland Avenue Manufactured Home Parks S 37 I I [ I