Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/09/2002BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. July 11, 2001 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Communications 6. Unfinished Business a. Larpentuer Avenue Properties 7, New Business a. Hillcrest Village Smart Growth Study Update b. Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance 8. Date of Next Meeting 9. Adjournment' c:memo~RAAGEND.MEM I T [ I I I1. III. IV. VI. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JULY 11, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL HRA Commissioners: Lorraine Fischer, Gary Pearson, Beth Ulrich. Absent: Tom Connelly, Joe O'Brien Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl, City Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 14, 2000. Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the minutes of November 14, 2000, as submitted. Commissioner Ulrich seconded. Ayes-3 (Fischer, Ulrich, Pearson) The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson requested that Item 6a., Unfinished Business, be discussed before Item 5, Communications. Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda, as amended. Commissioner Uldch seconded. Ayes-all UNFINISHED BUSINESS Home Replacement Program-Property Purchases. Mr. Roberts presented the staff report for the city. City staff is asking for city approval to buy three properties on Larpenteur Avenue as part of the Housing Replacement Program. The properties under consideration for purchase are at 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue. Unfortunately, these homes were flooded dudng the rainstorm on April 23, 2001, and received a large amount of damage. Since then, the city has been trying to work with the property owners to help them in any way possible. After reviewing this matter with the city attorney and with the League of Minnesota Cities, staff has determined that the best available remedy the city could provide to the property owners would be to buy the properties. T [ I ] I 2 HRA MINUTES 7-11-2001 The city recently had appraisals done for each of these properties and has reached tentative purchase agreements with each of the property owners. The following is the information about these properties: property Address 209 Larpenteur Avenue 211 Larpenteur Avenue 215 Larpenteur Avenue Total 2000 Tax Market Value* Negotiated Purchase Price $102,800 $145,000 $110,000 $155,000 $102.100 $146,000 $446,000 *Note: The tax-market value can be 20-25 percent below market value. Property values have increased about 10-15 percent for 2001. The city's net cost for the purchase of each property (after reselling the lots) will range from $80,000 to $100,000 for a total city cost of about $250,000 to $300,000. Chuck Ahl, the Maplewood City Engineer, gave the HRA more background and history about the sewer back ups and flooding at these properties. Mr. Ahl said that the various insurance carriers for the various agencies were starting to come to the table and may agree to pay for some of the damage and loss suffered by the property owners. Commissioner Pearson commended the city on taking the high road in trying to help the property owners. Commissioner Pearson moved that the HRA recommends to the city council that they authorize city staff, including the city manager and city attorney, to complete negotiations with the property owners of 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue to purchase their properties. Staff will: Conduct these negotiations and purchases under the Maplewood Housing Replacement Program. 2. Have the city council approve any purchase agreements. Commissioner Ulrich seconded the motion. Ayes all. The motion carried. Staff has scheduled this item to go to the city council on July 23, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS Ken Roberts, associate planner, noted that the annual city tour will be July 30th. He discussed possible sites of interest including the homes on Larpenteur Avenue that the city may buy and Sandy Lake with the HRA. All three commissioners in attendance said that they plan on going on the tour. HRA MINUTES 7-11-2001 -3- VII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business scheduled. The HRA discussed the city rental housing and owner- occupied housing maintenance codes. The HRA decided that they may want to discuss ideas for strengthening these codes with the city council at a workshop session. VIII. DATE OF NEXT MEETING The date of the next HRA meeting is unknown. The HRA did discuss various truth-in-housing programs in other cities in the metro area. This discussion centered around the issue of programs having disclosure only versus requiring code compliance and enforcement. IX. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. I ! [ ] I MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager shann Finwall, Associate Planner Larpenteur Avenue Properties 209, 211, and 215 Larpenteur Avenue East April 3, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description In 2001, Maplewood purchased three single-family homes on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street with funds from the city's Housing Replacement Program (see attached location map on page 5). The homes had been flooded after the pond located to the north of the properties overflowed during a rainstorm in April 2001. The flooding caused a large amount of damage to these older homes. None of the property owners were eligible for flood insurance coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust or through their private insurance companies. The purchase of the three homes by the city with the Housing Replacement Program funds helped cover some of the flooding damage expense as well as addressed an older housing stock within the city that needed upgrading. Staff is now exploring several options for redevelopment of these properties. First, the city could sell the lots for redevelopment of three new single-family homes; second, the city could rezone the properties to a higher density for the development of townhouses; and third, the city could purchase two adjacent lots allowing for a more comprehensive land use plan to include rezoning all five properties to a higher density for the development of townhouses. Background On December 13, 1999, the city council approved a Housing Replacement Program in order to improve the condition of the single-family housing stock in the city (see attached Housing Replacement Program Operations and Procedures Plan on pages 6-9). This fund was created from surplus tax increment proceeds and was approved with an initial budget up to $687.,000. On July 23, 2001, the city council authorized the purchase of the properties at 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue with Housing Replacement funds as follows: Property Address 2000 Tax Market Value* Negotiated Purchase Price 209 Larpenteur Avenue 211 Larpenteur Avenue 215 Larpenteur Avenue Total $102,800 $145,000 $110,000 $155,000 $102,100 $146,000 $446,000 *Note: The tax-market value can be 20-25 percent below market value. Property values have increased about 10-15 percent for 2001. I T ~ I I At the time of purchase it was estimated that the city's net cost for each property (after reselling the lots) would range from $80,000 to $100,000, for a total city cost of approximately $250,000 to $300,000. This cost, however, did not include grading and drainage improvements that must be made to the site to ensure that the properties will not flood again. Prior to the purchase of the three properties, the fund equaled $547,000. After'the sale of the three lots and without adding in the grading and drainage improvement expenses, the Housing Replacement fund will be left with approximately $247,000 to $297,000. After reviewing these figures and the housing needs within the city, staff proposes exploring the options available for redeveloping the land at a higher density. Creating a higher density development would make available a larger number of housing units within the city and should create a profit rather than a loss for the city's Housing Replacement Program. DISCUSSION Preparation of the Site for Redevelopment In order to ensure that these properties will not flood in the future, several grading and drainage improvements must be made to the site. After preliminary review by the city engineer it was determined that the following improvements should be made: the pond located on the north side of the properties should be enlarged for more water storage (the enlargement of this pond would require watershed district approval and permits), an overflow storm water outlet must be installed from the pond to the Larpenteur Avenue storm sewer line, and the grade of the building pads must be raised to ensure they are above the overflow outlet level. The proposed grading and drainage improvements could be completed by the city before the sale of the properties, or required as a condition to the sale of the properties. Currently the Adolphus Street right-of-way is only 30 feet wide at the intersection of Larpenteur Avenue. In order to ensure that the city maintains the required 60-foot right-of-way in this area, 15 feet of the corner lot (215 Larpenteur Avenue) and, if possible in the future, 15 feet of Sinclair Gas Station's property should be acquired for the Adolphus Street right-of-way. This will reduce the lot size and width of the corner lot. Zoning and Land Use The three properties are zoned and guided in the comprehensive plan as Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) (see attached zoning and land use maps on pages 10 and 11). Within the R-1 zoning district, the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet and the minimum lot width is 75 feet for interior lots and 100 feet for corner lots. Surrounding properties include land zoned Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) and Business Commercial (BC) located across Adolphus Street where the Sinclair Gas Station and Champs Restaurant are located. Higher density zoning is located to the west of the city-owned lots including the northeast corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Agate Street (one lot to the west of the city-owned lots) which is zoned Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) and contains two duplexes and the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Agate Street which is zoned Multiple Dwelling Residential and contains a multi-dwelling building. Larpenteur Avenue Properties 2 April 3, 2002 Redevelopment to Single-Family Housing The three Larpenteur Avenue properties have the following lot area and lot widths: Property Address 209 Larpenteur Avenue 211 Larpenteur Avenue 215 Larpenteur Avenue Total Lot Area Lot Width 16,873 s.f. 16,873 s.f. 16,877 s.f.. 50,223 s.f. 75 feet (interior lot) 75 feet (interior lot) 135 feet (corner lot) All three lots meet or exceed the lot area and lot width requirements. No additional single-family lots could be created with the existing zoning without lot width variances. Therefore, the redevelopment of the property with the existing zoning is limited to three single-family houses. Redevelopment to Multi-Family Housing Because of the double and multiple dwelling zoning districts to the west of the site and the commercial zoning district to the east, rezoning the properties to a higher density is an option to consider. If the city rezoned the property to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2), the allowable density would be up to 7.26 units per acre (one double dwelling per 12,000 square feet). If the city rezoned the property to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3), the allowable density would be based on one of three categories: Low (R-3L) 5.4 units per acre, Medium (R-3M) 6 units per acre, and High (R-3H) 10.4 units per acre. For discussion and comparison, staff has prepared five redevelopment proposals that are attached and described below, 2. 3. 4. Rezoning the three city-owned lots to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) - 4 townhouse units (3.45 units per acre). Rezoning the three city-owned lots to Multiple Dwelling Residential - Medium (R-3M) - 6 townhouse units (5.17 units per acre). Combining 1701 Adolphus Street to the three city-owned lots and rezoning to Multiple Dwelling Residential - Medium (R-3M) - 8 townhouse units (5.44 units per acre). Combining 1701 Adolphus Street and 189 Larpenteur Avenue to the three city-owned lots and rezoning to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) - 6 townhouse units (4.08 units per acre). Combining 1701 Adolphus Street and 189 Larpenteur Avenue to the three city-owned lots and rezoning to Multiple Dwelling Residential - Medium (R-3M) - 11 townhouse units (5.97 units per acre). .. Three of the proposals would require that the city purchase one or two adjacent homes in addition to the three city-owned lots. Staff has contacted these property owners to discuss the redevelopment of the city-owned lots and the possibility of purchasing their homes. These property owners may be willing to negotiate for the sale of their homes and are conSidering this possibility. The redevelopment proposals show two different styles of townhouses. These include the front- loaded garage style townhouses constructed by Masterpiece Homes at the Highpointe Ridge and Gardens developments and the tuck-under garage style townhouses constructed in the New Century Development. Larpenteur Avenue Properties 3 April 3, 2002 T T I T Alternative Development Recently the city received a proposal for redevelopment for the three city-owned lots by Lisa Brass of Welsh Companies and Terry Miller of T.J. Miller and Associates, Inc. The development proposal includes an 11-unit transitional housing program for woman (and their children) released from the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Shakopee or the Challenge Incarceration Program in Willow River (see Glory House details attached on pages 12-19). The city has not actively marketed the three city-owned lots or asked for request for proposals for redevelopment of the lots. This proposal was presented to the city after these two real estate professionals became aware that the city purchased the lots for redevelopment. Such a development would entail rezoning and amending the land use plan on the three lots to a higher density and may also require a conditional use permit for a state licensed residential program. This development proposal is included for discussion only. COMMITTEE ACTION On March 4, 2002, the planning commission reviewed the redevelopment options for the Larpenteur Avenue properties (see attached 3/4/02 planning commission minutes on pages 20- 22). A majority of the planning commissioners agreed that redevelopment of the three lots alone should be limited to single-family housing. However, if the city was able to purchase one or both of the adjacent homes, the planning commissioners felt that rezoning the lots to a higher density would be a good redevelopment strategy. The planning commissioners were split between the higher density redevelopment options. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the housing redevelopment authority make a recommendation on the following items: o o Should the city redevelop the properties with three single-family homes or redevelop the properties with townhomes? Should the city negotiate the purchase of the properties at 189 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street to include in the redevelopment? If the properties are developed for townhomes, should the city rezone and amend the land use classification for the properties from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2)? If the properties are developed for townhomes, should the city rezone and amend the land use classification for the properties from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Multiple Dwelling Residential - Medium (R-3M) to allow for 6 units per acre? Should the city pursue other redevelopment options as seen in the Glory House redevelopment proposal? P:HRA\Larpenteur Avenue Properties Attachments: 1, Location Map 2. Housing Replacement Program 3. Zoning Map 5. 6. 7. Land Use Map Glory House Redevelopment Proposal 3/4/02 Planning Commission Minutes Redevelopment Options (5) Larpenteur Avenue Properties April 3, 2002 Attachment 1 215 LU Larpenteur Avenue LOcation Map 5 I I 1 I I Attachment 2 MAPLEWOOD HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES PLAN Janua~ 22,2001 Introduction The Maplewood City Council has been discussing the condition of older housing in Maplewood for several years. A concern of the council has been that if a single dwelling deteriorates to the point of becoming a detriment or an eyesore it will have a negative affect on the surrounding area. As such, the city council has made a commitment to improve the condition of the single- family residential housing stock in scattered sites with the Maplewood Housing Replacement Program. ~ Goals The following are the goals of the Maplewood Housing Replacement Program: 1. To keep the Maplewood housing market viable and values increasing by constantly improving and upgrading housing. 2. To eliminate problem housing by removing housing that can only deteriorate because its basic quality is inherently Iow. 3. To have a program and plan that will benefit the whole city and each of its residents. History The Maplewood City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) have been discussing and reviewing the condition of housing in Maplewood for several years. In 1992, the comprehensive plan identified two related issues about housing and neighborhood quality. The first issue is naming the steps the city can take to prevent the deterioration or abandonment of its older housing stock. A second issue is to identify the steps the city can take to prevent neighborhoods from deteriorating. Specifically, if a single dwelling deteriorates to the point of becoming a detriment or an eyesore, it will have a negative affect on the surrounding area. That is, other property owners may not be motivated to care for or to improve their properties if they live next to or near a rundown house. Because of the above concerns, the city council hired Quam and Associates in 1996 to do a housing program concept evaluation. This evaluation was to provide the city with a summary of the following program issues: 1. The type of programs (home replacement, existing home transformation, area redevelopment) that would be most effective in updating neighborhoods and conserving existing open lands. 2. The possible funding sources for such a program. 6 3. The cost effectiveness of any housing initiatives and the positive impact they might have on the taxes and revenues of the city and the school district. The housing program evaluation completed by Quam and Associates determined that a home replacement program would be the best program for Maplewood. This is because there are properties that have deteriorated and are inconsistent with the character of the rest of the neighborhood. It is important to remember that much of the housing in older Maplewood neighborhoods was built before zoning and building restrictions were in place. These are often the houses that are now deteriorated and an eyesore. Removing an existing eyesor, e property and replacing the worst home with a new home that sets a new quality standard is an effective action for change. In a meeting on August 2, 1999 with the HRA, the city council again discussed possible future housing programs. At this meeting, the council directed staff to prepare a housing plan that would replace dilapidated houses with new, higher-value replacement homes. On August 23, 1999, the city council approved developing a Housing Replacement Program that would: Use the surplus tax increment proceeds (up to about $687,000) from Districts 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6 to fund the housing program. The city must reasonably expect to spend this money within 3 years. 2. Buy vacant or dilapidated properties from willing sellers at fair market value. 3. Demolish any dilapidated houses and other structures and rough grade the lots. o Deed the vacant properties at no cost to an agency or group that will use the lots to provide new housing for Iow-to-moderate income persons. Such a transaction would be subject to all Maplewood zoning and building requirements. Note: Because the city was going to be using tax-exempt bonds to fund this program, the city may only do no-cost grants of property. The city cannot sell the property or provide Iow interest loans with the tax-exempt money. The council also adopted resolutions at this meeting that provided preliminary approval for the sale of $719,094 1999 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds and authorized the use of excess tax increment revenues from the Carefree Cottages to finance debt service on the bonds. On September 27, 1999, the city council approved a resolution approving changes for the Development Distdct No. 1 and changes to Housing Districts Numbers 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6. These changes designated that the city will spend the excess funds from the three TIF Districts on a housing replacement program. The total funds available to the city to spend from this program should be about $687,000. 7 I I I ] I On December 13, 1999, the city council approved several city staff requests for the Housing Replacement Program. These included amending the resolution for the 1999 Tax Increment Bonds. The council made the amendments so that the proceeds can be used to reimburse the Sanitary Sewer Fund for the cost of sanitary sewer improvements directly related to the Carefree Cottages Phase I, II and III. The improvements involved slip lining a sanitary sewer main to decrease leakage into it and to increase its capacity. Decreasing the leakage has caused a decrease in the flow through the sanitary sewer main and a corresponding decrease in sewage treatment costs. This will result in about a ten-year payback of the improvement costs by decreased treatment costs. There was no need, therefore, for the Sanitary Sewer Fund to keep the $646,929.86 reimbursement for sanitary sewer improvement costs. At this meeting the council also established a Housing Replacement Fund and transferred $646,929.86 from the Sewer Fund to the Housing Replacement Fund. These actions created the Housing Replacement Fund, set a budget for the fund, and most important, gave the city more flexibility in how the city may spend the money in the fund. General Policy Guidelines The city shall follow the standards and guidelines in the Maplewood City Code of Ordinances and in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan when administering and operating the Maplewood Housing Replacement Program. The Director of Community Development shall make the final decisions in cases or issues of uncertainty in the Program. Anyone may appeal the Director's decision to the Maplewood City Council for review and possible change. Practices and Methods of Property Purchase and Resale 1. Maplewood will only buy vacant, substandard or dilapidated properties from willing sellers. 2. The city will have an appraisal done and will only pay fair market value for a property. 3. The seller of the property is responsible for properly sealing or capping any wells on the property. 4. After the city closes on the purchase, the city will hire a contractor to remove the structures on the property and rough grade the site. The city also may have a survey of the property done. For a buildable site, the city may do one of two things with the property. First, the city may · choose to deed the property at no cost to an agency or group that will use the lot to provide new housing for Iow-to-moderate income persons after the contractor has graded the site. The other option the city has would be to put the property up for sale by sealed bid. In either case, the new construction would be subject to city staff review and approval as outlined below and all Maplewood zoning and building requirements. The city council shall approve any property ownership transfer. The Community Design Review Board (CDRB) will review and approve all new house design and site plans. The construction shall include a garage at least big enough to hold two motor vehicles. The design of the new construction shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby houses. Staff shall consider the following when reviewing these house plans: 8 a. The height, bulk and area of the existing and proposed buildings. b. The color and materials of the proposed buildings. c. The physical and architectural relationship of the proposed structure with the existing buildings (including the architectural elements). d. The site, layout, orientation and location of the proposed and existing buildings and their relationship with existing topography, landscaping and vegetation. City staff or the CDRB may require changes to the plans or may add conditions they deem necessary to ensure that the proposed design is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The city must make the following findings to approve the proposed plans: The design and location of the proposed construction and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments are such that it will not impair the desirability of the existing neighborhood. b.. The proposed design and location of the construction are in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood. c. The proposed design would be aesthetically pleasing in composition, materials, textures and colors. The developer or builder may appeal the staff decisions about design issues to the city council. If the property the city has bought is substandard in width or area for the neighborhood or area and it is next to publicly owned property, the city may choose to keep the property for open space rather than transfer the property to another owner. The city council shall approve any property transfer or decision to keep a property. 8. If the property the city has bought does not meet the city's zoning standards for lot size or lot width, the city may choose to: a. Grant variances to allow the construction of a new house. b. Keep the property for open space rather than transfer the property to another owner. c. Divide the property and sell the pieces to the adjacent property owners. The city council shall approve any property transfer, variance or decision to keep a property. This plan was approved by the Maplewood City Council on January 22, 2001. I I I ] I Attachment 3 0.06 0 0.06 0.12 L/J Miles 1'4 Zoni, ng Map 10 Attachment 4 · (R-l) al 0.06 ,: ,City.of St.~-~U'i~--- ,-- 0 0.06 0.12 Miles Land Use Map 11 Attachment 5 Glor~ House Glory House is a transitional housing program designed to educate and prepare women to be a positive role model for their families and be responsible in their communities. The women who reside at Glory House have been released from the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Shakopee (MCF-SHK) or the Challenge Incarceration Program (CIP) in Willow River. Glory House is a collaborative of Walking In Faith Ministries and Parenting With Purpose, a parenting program that serves over 400 individuals and families each year within the prisons and communities in the seven county metro area. Through this collaborative effort, Glory House will provide housing to women and their children, as well as support services that will help develop these families emotionally, spiritually, physically and intellectually. We believe Glory House will be a success due to the expertise of its staff and the relationships that the residents have already formed with this staff during their incarceration. Glory House will also have an everlasting effect on the families as well as the City of Maplewood and its residents. The requirements for those who reside at Glory House consist of the following: · The woman must have been involved in parent education and support with Parenting With Purpose while she was incarcerated at MCF-SHK or CIP. The woman must have made a commitment to be involved in all facets of programming at Glory House (including weekly support groups, parenting, career seminars, budgeting, church attendance, community service programming, and home buying seminars). The woman must obtain employment within 2 weeks of her moving into Glory House or be enrolled in full-time schooling within 1 week of her moving into Glory House. If the woman does not have her child(ren) living with her upon residency at Glory House, she must have a written plan of action for reunification with her child(ren) within 1 week of moving into Glory House. The woman must have a commitment to a local community program to serve monthly as.a volunteer for the entire duration of her residency at Glory House (up to 2 years). · The woman must commit to remaining drug- and .alcohol-t~ee during her residency at Glory House. · The woman must commit to remaining crime-free during her residency at Glory House. 12 The woman cannot have any past sexual offenses or any past crimes against a child in order to be a resident at Glory House (this protects those within the program as well as the neighbors and community of Maplewood). What are the advantages of Glory, House for the families involved? Currently there are very limited resources available for families who have an incarcerated parent. Parenting With Purpose (who will provide all the support services at Glory House) works with over 150 women and their children each year. These relationships have been established while the women are incarcerated and continues when they are released into the community. If left without support~ studies have shown that these women will likely return to prison, and their children will return to foster care or another family member will have to take care of their children--sometimes for the 3rd, 4th or 5th time in these children's lives. Glory House provides a stable, consistent and safe environment for these families. These children will have an opportunity to attend the same school, build new friendships that will hopefully last, and break the cycle of violence and criminal behavior that has flowed down their family lines; sometimes many generations. These families will have the oppommity to learn new life skills and also have an oppommity to build a career. Due to the intensity of the services provided while living in Glory House, these families will learn that there is a better way to live than a life of crime and drugs. Families who reside in Glory House for more than 1 year will leave with a down payment for a home and a solid plan for'their furore. Use of Land Plan Glory House will have 11 units total--7 two-bedroom apartments, 3 three- bedroom apartments and a staff apartment for the overnight staff. There will also be a community room with a full kitchen, as well as kitchenettes in each apartment. There will be a child care center and a staff office. In addition, there will be a four-season porch and a playground for the children located in the back of the apartment building. There will be a small parking lot for staff and residents (most of the residents rely on public transportation). · At any given time there will be up to a maximum of 21 children and 13 women residing at Glory House. I I ! Employment and Volunteer Opportunities Glory House will provide many opportunities for the residents and businesses in Maplewood. Glory House will hire a minimum of 10 employees to provide care and supervision to the residents. These full-time jobs will begin at wages of $9.00 per hour to $14.00 per hour (with benefits, there will be a revenue of $284,000 to be disbursed to residents of Maplewood for employment). [In addition, Glory House will be a great source of employees available in various skill areas]. There will be women who can fill. employment in areas such as data entry, secretarial, customer service and construction work at local businesses. Because of the rotation of residents at Glory House over the years, the number of women available for employment would remain constant. The community volunteer requirement at Glory House also offers many contribution hours to local community efforts through our women, and when appropriate, with their children. Aceountabili ,ty Unlike other apartment buildings, Glory House residents will have a greater responsibility to be accountable to the program, as well as to their employers and neighbors. They will have to report to Glory House staff during their time away from their residence, as well as while they are at home. Most of the residents are required to be involved in regular drag screening and are involved in AA, NA or other support programs, as well as the program at Glory House. Future Housing Opportuni ,ty Each resident will be required to participate in a home buying seminar along with the Future Homeowners Program at Glory House. Upon their completion of residency at Glory House, residents will have substantial down payment to purchase .their home. We. feel that most will remain in Maplewood as a homeowner due to their local employment and support that they will have received during their stay at Glory House. With the collaborative efforts of Glory House and the City of Maplewood, we can impact the percentage of homeless families and children who are the highest percentage of those represented in the poverty statistics in the United States. Traffic Reduction Unlike other apartment buildings, Glory House will reduce traffic rather than increasing it. Most of the residents will not have their own vehicles, therefore there will not be an immense amount of traffic. In addition, there will not be many visitors to these residents due to the stringent roles that they must follow to reside at Glory House. 14 City Compliance Glory House is prepared to design, maintain and operate the facility in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. Glory House will be well- groomed inside and out. We plan to have a fence that will provide a higher standard of appearance to its structure. There will be a sprinkler system installed as well as professional landscaping to exhibit the high standards that the City of Maplewood has risen to over the years. This structure and its purpose are in compliance with appreciating property values. There will be a 24-hour staff on-site, therefore Glory House will not be involved in any activity that would be hazardous or disturbing to any person or property in the City of MapleWood. The use of this land will maximize the preservation of the site's natural and scenic features. Where are these women and children residing currently? Glory House will be an innovative alternative to what is currently a societal shortfall for these families. Currently when a woman is released from prison, she can go to several places. She may be released to work release for up to eight months. She most ot~en will exit work release and end up in the same neighborhood she was in when she committed her crime, or she may end up in Maplewood or any other suburb without support or accountability. Many women leave pr/son and plan to succeed, but find themselves in the same situation they were in prior to prison, i.e., homeless, unemployed, involved in drugs and/or in an abusive relationship. Housing is the biggest barrier to success for people who have committed a felony. Landlords will not rent to a person with a felony for many reasons, therefore these families have no choice but to live in the negative environments they are trying so hard to stay away from. Ultimately, the goal of Glory House is to reduce recidivism and create a new way of life for these families. I I [ I I \ \ 16 ~AR 2 6 2002 I [ I I I 19 Attachment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2002 b. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Plan (at Adolphus Street) Commissioner Trippler said there is no indication in the staff report of how much it would cost to do these five homes and he believes this would help him make a decision as to which way he wants to go with this project. Chairperson Rossbach asked how the fund is funded, is it a one-time funding source or a continual tax increment fund? Mr. Roberts said it was a one-time funding source. Anything that is spent out of the fund with the sale or redevelopment of properties, then that money is put back into the fund to help replenish it. The fund will go down unless the city can make a profit off a redevelopment site. Staff did not want to get into a lot of financial analysis until staff got a better feel from the city and the commission what everyone would be comfortable with and what type of land use is used there. Staff wanted to come to commission members early in the process to get a feel for what members thought and not spend too much doing any analysis if three out of the five ideas are a waste of time. You may be able to make a better decision by having some of the financial information available but if it is not a good land use scenario, then it was a waste of time. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if the city has to build on these sites or can it be left as open space? Does it have to be developed as multiple family? The front page of the staff report says the city council approved a Housing Replacement Program in order to improve the condition of the single-family housing stock. Are they going to be single-family houses or multiple? Or is it not likely that someone would buy because of the business of the site on Larpenteur? Mr. Roberts said one of the recommendations on page 4 asks should it stay as three single-family homes or should it be multi-family, the staff is open to ideas. The thought of getting more units on the site is to sell the property for more money and to replenish the Housing Replacement Program fund. If the city redevelops the sites as single-family sites the city does not believe it-will generate as much income. The city is not bound to building single family homes in that area. That is what is currently there and will be removed. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff if the wetland has been classified? Mr. Roberts said it his understanding it is a Class IV wetland. Commissioner Ledvina asked if traffic concerns have been reviewed as it relates to Larpenteur Avenue and whether you can have multiple driveways at that location backing out onto Larpenteur Avenue? Mr. Roberts said that has been a design consideration. He knows that when Ms. Finwall was designing the project and reviewing these with staff, for example, one of the plans takes three driveways and turns it into one driveway exiting out onto Larpenteur Avenue. Another plan 'puts the driveway exiting off onto AdOiphus Street. Staff is trying to minimize the driveways onto Larpenteur Avenue so that would be an improvement over the three existing homes that back onto Larpenteur Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -2- Commissioner Pearson said at the time the HRA purchased _these properties, they were looking at maintaining the R-1 and putting the three homes in. But when you look at the area, if you had two willing sellers that area would be better approved with scenario four and access onto Adolphus Street. But it is hard for the commission to make a decision on anything until the commission knows if there are willing sellers living in the other two homes. Another possibility would be to develop those sites as four R-1S lots to get another house in there. In addition to the flooding, there has been a problem with sewers being backed up that effected the resident's foundations also. There was discussion of getting some type of a backup or check valve in place if the city was going to purchase three more homes. He asked if there was anything different with the sewage situation that would make a radical change by changing the grade? Mr. Cavett said depending on the scenario that is chosen, one would be to extend a new main off of Adolphus Street that would greatly reduce the problem that had occurred was on the sewer service. The buildings would be raised and they would not have basements so that would eliminate the problems that had occurred. Commissioner Mueller said this site is in his backyard. On Adolphus Street is Western Hills Park that is a nice park. Having the apartments and the double dwelling residential it seems to make a lot of sense if the city can get the whole corner and make it all double dwelling residential, apartments, or town homes. According to the newspaper article he cut out awhile back, it states that people need rental property from $375 to $1,250 a month or homes below $125,000. Even without a basement he doubts the city will be able to put a house in that area for under $125,000. The city needs homes available for people that need them and this is the city's opportunity to provide them. He will really be against this is somebody puts a home for $200,000 in there. If the city is going to use this project for an appropriate way for the community he would hope that whatever the city does that it be affordable to whomever comes in there to rent or buy. Commissioner Trippler said he would agree that is extremely difficult to make any kind of conclusion about how the commission should vote without knowing if 189 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street are interested or are willing to sell. He would recommend to staff and to the city council that if they can get those two parties to be willing sellers at a reasonable cost to include them in a broader development. Because that whole open space and the pond sits there, he would think this would be an excellent opportunity to find a developer to come in and maximum the number of units there. If he understands this correctly, any money that can be made on this project can go back into the fund and that can be used to do this again some place else. If that is the case and the city can make money on developing this and regenerate the fund than the city can continue doing this same kind of treatment in areas that need it. Chairperson Rossbach said his thought is that if the city cannot get both properties to get the whole corner than it should stay as single-family homes. It would not be appropriate to leave one house and have it be trapped bY itself. When you take single-family residential and you turn it into anything else, unless you are making it open space, it becomes the new outer tier and the next homes that are subject to decay are the ones that sit in front. He feels that happens whether you put in commercial or higher density residential. The current lots that the city has should stay as single-family residential lots if the city cannot get the two other lots. He said he would be open to making it an R-1S scenario to get. another house in there and help the fund out more that way. If the city can get the two other homes his feelings would change a little bit because then you would not be trapping any homes. He would like to stay away from the highest density and stick more Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -3- with twin homes or something along those lines. There is already a lot of density in that area and the city does not have to pack the homes in. Commissioner Dierich said she would agree with Mr. Rossbach. She would not like to trap any of those two homes either. She would like to see lower density. Staff made a comment several meetings ago that the City of Maplewood has met the housing density needs for Metropolitan Council. She does feel that the city needs affordable housing but she does not want to see it higher density. Affordable housing should also be nice for people to live in and not so high density. She liked the number 4 plan that shows the driveway going out onto Adolphus Street with the six units. Commissioner Ledvina said he agrees with Mr. Rossbach if the city can get both lots and do a development proposal. Scenario five is his choice but scenario four is also acceptable to him. He would not like the units to back onto Larpenteur Avenue. He asked staff if the homes that exist are a health hazard from the sewer backup etc.? Mr. Roberts said the fire department has been using the homes for drills and once they are done then the homes are coming down. Since these homes will not have basements they will be small and not have a lot of square footage in them. Mr. Roberts asked the commission to clarify if it was the consensus of members to have the city pursue the two adjoining properties? Chairperson Rossbach said to summarize, if the city cannot get the two properties that the city should not pursue the higher density and would require that they stay with the single-family residential arrangement. It sounds like members would not want to trap one of the houses in a development. It sounded like there was varying thoughts if the city could get the two other homes there was varying thoughts as to what the density would be but it seemed to be somewhat split between the medium and the high density. Chairperson Rossbach asked staff if there is no action needed right now because there is going to be more discussion on this item correct? Mr. Roberts said yes it will be discussed again, this was just a starting point for discussion. Chairperson Rossbach said there was discusSion aboUt who should be grading these lots. His thought is if the city does town homes, and the whole area is developed at once, the developer should do it. If it is going to remain as single-family lots then the city should do the grading. 22 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director "Hillcrest Village"-Smart Growth Study Update White Bear Avenue between Ripley Avenue in Maplewood and Hoyt Avenue in St. Paul March 19, 2002 HILLCREST VILLAGE SMART GROWTH STUDY Over the past year, the community development staff has been involved in a "Smart Growth" study with the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council is studying six commercial neighborhoods in the metro area. The Hillcrest Shopping Center, including the contiguous part of Maplewood north of Larpenteur Avenue, is one of these. The Smart-Growth study is a new initiative that involves citizens in shaping the future growth and redevelopment of their neighborhoods. The goal is to create livable neighborhoods where homes, jobs and services are linked by walkable streets. BACKGROUND On April 26, 2001, the Metropolitan Council, Calthorpe and Associates (an urban planning group) and HGA (a local architectural firm) held a workshop at Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood. This workshop allowed area residents, business owners and St. Paul and Maplewood staff and government personnel to participate by offering their desires and preferences on how they would like this area to redevelop. On May 24, 2001, the group met again at Woodland Hills Church to present the consultants' two development alternatives to the community. Refer to pages 3-4. Since this last session, the consultants have been working on a final development concept taking into account comments from the participants and the community. On July 2, 2001, the planning commission reviewed the two development alternatives and had the following comments: Features the PC liked 1. Realignment of North St. Paul Road to meet White Bear Avenue at a right angle. 2. Grocery store. 3. The walkable/bikeable aspects of the plans. 4. The large Neighborhood Square ("village green" concept) 5. The townhouses--provided they are affordable to the average person and not overpriced. 6. Attempts at traffic calming and slowing on White Bear Avenue. Features the PC did not like 1. The potential nuisance of parking spaces behind buildings visible to residential units. 2. Possible difficulty for the elderly or disabled in having parking in back, unless there are back doors. Qn July 9, 2001, the city council reviewed the two concept designs and concurred with the planning commission's comments. On November 13, 2001, the Maplewood City Council passed a development moratorium for that portion of the Hillcrest neighborhood in Maplewood. This moratorium will allow staff to coordinate the development of design criteria for this area with all interested parties and smart- growth participants. FINAL DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The design consultants have now drafted a final Hillcrest Village redevelopment concept plan. Refer to page 5. This final version consists of 98 townhouse units, 291 apartment units, 10 single dwellings, 36,400 square feet of office space and 151,300 square feet of commercial space. In Maplewood there would be 16 townhouse units, 129 apartment units, 36,400 square feet of office space and 76,000 square feet of commercial space. NEXT STEP The Metropolitan Council, the design consultants and the St. Paul and Maplewood staff will present this final concept plan to the community at an upcoming meeting at Woodland Hills Church on Thursday, April 25, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. This plan will be used as a guide for both cities in planning redevelopment. The design criteria Maplewood plans to create will become part of the development guidelines for Hillcrest Village. HOW WILL THIS CHANGE OCCUR? The city has generally experienced new development up to this time, but our aging areas will undergo pressure to upgrade as time goes on. Maplewood is working on an economic development study with Spdngsted Incorporated to learn what financial tools are available to facilitate redevelopment. We will also apply for any Metropolitan Council grants that become available to help facilitate redevelopment. Staff is excited about entedng a new era for Maplewood and working with the city council, planning commission and community design review board to guide the future development of the city. p:com_dvpt~rniscel~illcrst 3'02.mem Attachments: 1. Hillcrest Village Alternative A 2. Hillcrest Village Alternative B 3. Hillcrest Village Final Concept 2 Attachment 1 ,I J LEGEND HILLCREST VILLAGE ', PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE A D Smart Growth Twin Cities F MAY 24, 2(}01 Metropolitan Counci| City of Maplewood City o£ Saint Paul Mews Townhouse Office/Retail Apts/Retail Commercial/Retail 1 Level Townhouse Commercial/Retail Senior Parking H Commercial/Retail I Townhouse J Retail K Twinhouse I, Commercial/Retail M Commercial/l~etail N Townhouse O Transit Stop P Apts/Retail Q Office/Retail R Commercial/Retail S Townhouse T Green I TOTAL Calthorpe Associates FONIT$ SF PARKING 16 14,950 55 32 16,900 56 10,000 52 10 13,800 56 11,000 56 4,200 21 4 2],775 93 20,450 78 16 50 26,900 24,000 122 8,150 45 179 172,125 589 ! I 1 LEGEND A Office/Retail 11,375 72 HILLCREST VILLAGE PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE B Smart Growth Twin Cities MAY 24, 2001 Metropolitan Council City of Maplewood City of Saint Paul Calthorpc Associates T ¥ Commercial/Retail 14,300 100 Commercial/Retail 19,500 112 Commercial/Retail 20,000 98 Commercial/Retail 10,000 56 Townhouse 6 Commercial/Retail 4,200 :21 Commercial/Retail 19,800 90 Apartments 46 Twinhouse 4 Commercial/Retail 26,250 144 Apartments 22 Transit Stop Neighborhood Square Office/Retail 41,600 Parking Ramp 182 Apts/Retail 14 8,000 Apartments 46 Apartments 70 Apartments 46 Grocery 36,000 240 Office/Ratail 32,000 48 TOTAL 254 243,025 1,163 Attachment 2 CONCEPT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Maxch 15, 2002 I Commercial/Office Building [] Mixed-Use Building Residential Building I'--1 I__l Future Commercial Building - Indicates Number of Stories BLOCK W1 ~ 12,900 SF Commercial ~. ..... 16 Townhome Units ~ 42 Off-Street Surface Spaces ~1 BLOCK W2 16,800 SF Commercial 71 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS W3a & W3b 17,400 SF Commercial 4 Single-Family Units 50 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCK W4 38 Apartment Units 16 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS WSa & WSb 16 Townhome Unit~ 2 Singte-Family Units BLOCK W6 12 Townhome Units LARPENTEUR iD HO AVE HOYT AVE ;L ', 49,400 ...... ~ 36,400 ~ ~ 28 Apa~ ', 351 off Attachment iiAVENUE I [] :: : : : :: [3t3 ;S Ela &Elb F Commercial t Office nent Units Street Surface $ BLOCKS E2a & E2b 13,700 SF Commercial 57 Off-Street Surface Spaces , BLOCK E3a I_ ...... t 21,700 SF Commercial ~] ~ 42 Apartment Units t 81 Off-Strent Surface Spaces ~ BLOCK E3b [ 19,400 SF Commercial ~ 44 Apartment Units 71 Of£-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS E4a & E4b 10 Townhome Units 2 Single-Family Units 38 Apartment Units ~ BLOCKS ESa & £Sh ............ ti 22 Townhome Units [ 2 Single-Family Units BLOCKS E6a & E6b 22 Townhome Units Calthorpe Associates T I HILLCREST VILLAGE Smart Growth Twin Cities 5 Metropolitan Council Cit~ of Maplea~ood City of St. Paul 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 majodty 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. ~ T T I i 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 headng 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 tal~ing. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld Bloomington's ordinance in Arcadia vs. City of Bloomington, 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 pdce of the park or the assessed value of the park. Two cities within the State of Minnesota, Brainerd and Willmar, 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. APAC'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 Toudst Cabins, submitted a letter to the city regarding her experience with park-closing ordinances passed in the Cities of Fddley and Shakopee (see attached St. Paul Manufactured Home Park Closings 2 April 3, 2002 Toudst 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 254 254 2425 Maryland Ave. Maplewood Man. Home Park Approx. 1957 1880 English Street N. 19 19 Rolling Hills 1984 357 357 1319 Rolling Hills Ddve 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 Tourist 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 vades 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 I I I ] I 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 25-mile 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. Cons: 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:or~man. 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 3/11/02 including Fridley's and Shakopee's Ordinances Maplewood Manufactured Home Parks Map Manufactured Home Park Closings 4 April 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 hearing 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 notice at least ten days before the headng 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 vadance 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 hearing. 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 headng. 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 headng 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. ! 5 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 pedod 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 dght 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 pdce 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 price 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 period 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 I I I I I 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 $ 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) (65 0 644-5525 (fax) (65!) 523-0173 nail) apac~rntn, 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 if a park closed it would be catastrophic. We plan to present the proposal before the city council on February 25t~, 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, Jeff Swanberg, Chair of the St. Paul Cabins Resident Association www. allPark, allianceforc, hange, org I I I I Attachment 3 City of Maplewood, Minnesota Ordinance NO. - Manufactured Home Park Closings Section X3LXX.O0 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 lVfinnesota Statute 327C thus, the City of Maplewood feels that since these homes fall 10 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 XX)CX. 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: At~er 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 1 I I I I 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 at~er 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 parr: owner's liability to pay relocation expenses. Section XXXX. 10 Payment of Additional Compensation: If a 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 12 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 1 T T I I Attachment 4 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert 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 Deerfield 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 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 Deerfleld 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 15 I I I 'I I Arnold North Beaver Lake Estates 2469 Elkhart Lane Maplewood 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 Deer-field 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 2424 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 ~6 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 I i I I I 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 Qakdale, 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 Rolling 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, Maplewood 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 Klm 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 Peai'son 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 ! ! I ~ I 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 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 2O William Thaluber Rolling Hills 1339 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Eldridge 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 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 Alvarado 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 !096 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 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 Beverly Winston Town & Country 1056 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 24 St. Paul Cabins 250i Lowry Avenue NE St. Anthony, MN 55418 612-781-3149 Attachment 5 March 11, 2002 Maplewood City Council Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 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-to 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, Agent 25 T I I I CHAPTER 223. FRIDLEy CITY CODE MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSINGS ('P-et etd 1151) 223.01. PURPOSE In view oft. he peculiar nature and problems presented by the closure or conversion of manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that the ubhc h welfare will be promoted b,, r~,,;,4 ........ . ,. p. ealth, safety and general -, -'~,'~ uumpensauon to displaced residents of such parks. The purpose of this ordinance is to require park owners to pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and purchasem of manufactured home parks to pay additional compensation, pursuant to the authority granted under Minnesota Statutes, Sect/on 327C,095. 223.02. DEFINITIONS The following words and terms when used in this ordinance sha/I have the following meanings unless the context clem-ly indicates otherwise: 1. Closure Statement. A statement prepared by the park owner clearly stating the park is closing, addressing the availability, location and potent/al costs of adequate replacement housing within a twenty-five (25) mile radius oft. he park that is closing and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured homes located/n the park. 2. Displaced Owner. A resident of au 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 thc City's Planning Commi.qsion. 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 Fr/dley City Code Chapter 223 Sec~on 273 02 10~ Manufactured Home. A structure, not affixed to or part of real cst. ate, transportable in one of more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or, where 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, c,r t~,fination of use, whether in whole or in part, of a manufactured home park. For purposes of this definition, use shall mean any use related to the manufactured home park and related s~vices. 7. Park Owner. The owner ora manufactured home park. 8. Person. Any individual, corporation, firm; partnership, incorlmrated and unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity. 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 owner. 10. Relocation Cost. The reasonable cost of relocating a manufactured home from a mmufactured home park within the City of Ffidley 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. Thc reasonable cOsts incurred to prepare the eligible manufactured home for transportation to another site. This category includes crane services if needed, but not the cost of wheel axles, tires, flame welding or trailer hitches. 27 Fridley City Code Cl'mpter 223 S~cfion 223.04 ]3. Transportation to Another Site. Reasonable costs incm:red to transport the eligible manufactured home and personal ' property within a twenty-five (25) mile radius. This category also includes thc cost of insuring the manufactured home and contents while the home is in thc process of being relocated, and the cost of obtaining moving permits provided that the park owner shall not bc required to pay delinquent taxes on a manufaCtured home if necessary in. order to obtain a moving permit. This category also includes the reasonable cost of disassembling, moving, and reasse,~nbling sheds and any attached appurtenances, such as porches, steps, decks, skirting, air conditioner units and awnings, which were acquired before the notice of closure or conversion of the park. C. Hook-up at New Local/on.' The reasonable cost of connecting the eligible manufactured homc to utilities at thc [o elOcatio,n site, '.including crane services if needed. The park owner shall not be required upgraae the electrical or plumbing systems of thc manufactured home. D. Insurance. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of thc property being moved. Kelocation costs do not include the Cost of any repairs or modifications to thc manu-faCtured home needed to bring the home into compl'iance with the state and federal manufactured home building standards for the year Lu 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 with the rules and regulations of the manufactured home park to which the manufactured home is to be relocated, if those rules and regulations are no more stringent than the rules and regulations of thc park in which the home is located and the resident was notified ofnon-comphance with the rules and regulations of the park in which it is located within sixty (60) days prior to del/very of the closure statement. 223.03. PARK CLOSURE NOTICE If a 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 pr/or to the closure, conversion to another use or termination of use, provide a copy of a closure statement to a resident of each manufactured home and to the City's Planning Commission. 223.04. NOTICE OF PUBLIC I:[EARING 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 ma/1 a notice at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating 28 Fridlzy Civ/Code Cl~apUx 223 Section 223.07.4 the time, place and purpose oft. he heating. The park owner shall provide the City with a list of the names and addresses of at least one displaced resident of each manufactured home in thc park at the time the closure statement is submitted to the City's Planning Commission. 223.05. PUBLIC II'EARING A public hearing shall be held before the City Council after receipt of the closure stateme~at 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 of receiving 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 estimate, the park owner must arrange for relocating the manufactured home and pay the actual relocation costs"incurred. In the alternative, the displaced resident may submit a written statement to the park owner, identifying that the displaced resident either cannot or chooses not to relocate his or her manufactured home to mother 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. A_~er 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 costs as defined in 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 ase, or ceasing operation. 2. If a displaced resident cannot or chooses not to relocate the manufactured home within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park which is being closed, and thc displac'ed resident elects to retain title to the manufactured home, the displaced resident is entitled to relocation costs as deflated in 223.02 based'upon an average o~the actual relocation costs paid to other displaced residents in the manufactured home park_ For pm-poses of this section, in the event that it is not possible to calculate the average using this formula, the amount of compensation shall be based on the average of the estimated relocation costs submitted by other residents in the park. 3. A displaced resident compensated under this section shall retain title to the manufactured home and shall be responsiblc for its prompt removal from the manufactured home park. 4. The park owner shall make Se 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 reimburse the displaced resident for such costs. t t I I 29 Fndley City Code Chapter 223 Sacfion223.1I 5. The disp!aced resident must submit a contract or other verified cost estinaate for · relocating the manufactured home to thc park owner as a condition to the park owner's liability to pay relocation expenses. 223.08. ELECTION TO I:~ECEIVE COMPENSATION Ifa displaced resident chooses not to relocate the manufactured home within a twenty five (25)~ mile radius of the park that is being closed and tenders title of the manufactured home to the park owner, 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 thc manufactured home as determined by a real property appraiser licensed by the State of M~nne~ota, or 2. If no appraisal exists, the current assessed value for tax 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 tke purchaser. Any disputes over valuation shall be resolved through judicial action in Anoka County Distr/ct Court. The purchaser shall pay such compensation into an escrow account, established by the park owner, for distn~bution upon trausfer 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 shah receive title and possession of the manufactured home upon payment of such compensation. 223.09. LIMITATION ON TOTAL AMOUNT OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND COMPENSATION PAID TO DISPLACED RESIDENTS The total amount of relocation assistance and compensation paid to displaced residents of the manufactured home park, shalI not exceed the greater of twenty percent (20%) of the County Assessor's estimated market value of the manufactured home park, as determined b the Assessor for the year in which the hark is scheduTM ~^ -, ....... Y County purchase price of the park. " ,~-~, ,~ ~4u~e, or twenty percent (20%) of the. ' 223.10. APPLICABILITY Relocation assistmace a.ud related compensation described under 223.02, 223.07 and 223.08 of this ordinance sha/l not apply in the event that a displaced resident receives compensation under the Uniform Relocation Act et. al. (42 U.S.C. '*6014655). 223.11. PENALTIES 1. Violation ofauy provision of this ordhaance shall be a misdemeanor, 30 Fridl~ City Code Chapter 223 Section 223.11 2. Any provisions of this ordinance may be enforced by injunction or other appropriate civil remedy. 3. The City shall not issue a building permit in conjunction with reuse of manufactured home park property ,mless the park owner has p~id 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 eonversionshall be conditional on compliance with the requirements of this ordinance. . TOTAL P.O? ORDINA~CK NO, 563_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF $HAKO?EE, MINNESOTA, PERTAINING TO MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSINGS AND ADDING SECTION 4.61 TO THE CITY CODE THE CITY COUlqCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section l, - The Shakopee City Code is ~mended by adding a new section to read: ,N46 p S Subd. 1. PURE_ S ' f t : na re d ro r ci r -nv io ofmanul~ h me ar t e ' ' fill that · blic h eneraI el~ ' be omoted r '' eom en tio to ' i sidents /'sa h . Th eof'thi~ 'o is r u' ko d h of om d' i re id sreaso abi tel 'on co sand d" co ,ti todi I 'dens. wh ib to ro ' e i~cr~n~nt nd the C a.sslth r c in e · uthon'~n-an~ un~ cc-ti n32~ _09 a ent fthes~cos tto nea Subd. 2. DEFIN[I-IONS. The followin_~ words and t~m~s when used in rigs Articl.e s..h~ll, have the foliowin~ rne. anings uvJcss the cor~ext cle.~' _fy indic4tes ~se: A. o re St nt- sta ment r edb e wrier cl atin the ark is os' dr in he vail iii i ti n ot iisi c~ o ate I ent us' ' ' 25 'e radius of e ark hat i closin and ob relocation sts the man ho es ~c~ed in the B. Displaced Kesi&'~t - A resident of ala owper-oco__mied ma~u~.~iu~d home who rents a lot ma~.~.~. ~red home va~k. inct~dil~_ collectively thc mem~ 0fthe ~e.iident:s hou_-~hold, as ofth~ t ark owner b -'ts Io Iement th i 'sPlannln o 'ssi n. Lot - An area within a m~,, _~_ r~ home park. designed or used for the ~commodalion ora rna~,kf-~-l'ur~ home. D, lvIa~___~,r~d Home - A structure, not ~xed to or pa.,I of ~ e~i~te, transvortable in one or more sec-tiom, which in the t~ave',L-~, mod~ is g body f~ or .more in width or 40 l~xly feet or more lengtk or. when erecte, d on site, is 320 or more square fee~. a.nd whiqh is built on a p~ii~ane~ lnd design,'Ii to be us~! as a d,~drm= wilh or without a o~-niai~cm fou~__a~.ii¢,r~ w_,'..~ a_,r,r,~-'t~d to ~.~uired ,_,~lltles Ired includes ~he plumbin~ he:;;,,g ~ir wnditlor~- and el_~tri~'cal system ~. Mlmufat-'l~_red Home l%-k - Any s~te. lot. field or tract 9f land u.~n wbJ~ two i)r more ~cu_vie~i m~.uf'~t~red ho~n~s ar~ 1o_,~_!¢~ whether f,,~.- t~f charge or for c~'~i;or,- and ~ buildin~ stracture, tent. vehicle Or enctgsur~ lised or ~n~-d~ for use as part of fl~ eq_ui_~m~-~t 32 .PR O 3 2002 .................... the ma~,~.~-iured home ~ark. This d~!~.on dow not include ~lllies w~ch ~e o~ o~ du~ ~ or ~ ~m of the y~ F. ~-k ~ - ~ o~ of a m~~ ~me p~k ~d ~v p~n ~g on be~ of ~ubd. 3. NO~ OF ~OS~G: ff a m~o~ ho~ ~k is to ~ ~o~- ~nv~ ~ whole prior to ~e ~!o~. ~s~on ~ ~o~ u~ ~ t~,~-afion-of ~ ~o~ a ~y of a t mt oa~' ~t f hm ~ ~ me dt he i '~PI ' o ~d ion. ~ubO. 4. T~ ~~ ~C~G, At ~ ~e o0or t9 or ~ de~ of the Clos~g ~o ~e Pl~ng Co~$sio~ but prior t~ ~e ~b~c H~e ~ .fo~ ~ SUM. 6. ~ ~ o~ or pros~ive ~rch~ of the ~ may ~e apO~c~6on to th~ Ci~ for the u~ of ~cn~t ~g to fina%e the ~ ofr~lo~Xing ~ pur~ing thc disp!~c~ m~r~ aoproofiate or dirble for ~ch ~g, ~e Ci~ ~ ~ ~ie ~d ~t~ ~on ~y d~ ~h~ ~ ~ci~ent ~g should be u~ ~r ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ O~i'-~ ~at ~,~,~nt ~g should not be p~ for ~ch ~oses. the p~ o~ ~ el~ tO re~d i~ Notice of Cio~re ~d re.me op~tion of the .~~r~ home p~ pro~. ~w~. ~ofcg ~ ~ ~ch re~s~on sh~l be ~v~ to p~ ~d~ts no lat~ t~ 90 ~ ~er the Nofi~ of ~u~. 5, NO~CE OF P~LI~ ~~G. ~ Piing Co~J~sion ~ ~b~t ~e c]o~e m~ a ~0~ ~ 1~ ten ~vs 9flor to the pubic ~e~ to a r~ident or.ch ~~ home ~ p~k ~_~;~g the time. ~la~ ~d ~ose of~e ~e~g ~ ~k ~ ~ ~r~de ~e C~ ~ ~a of ~ ~ ~n8 ~d~ of at !~ one ~5~ of eoch m~~~ hom~ ~ the p~ ~ ~e ~e clo~e ~at~t i$ ~b~R~ to the PI~ Co~ssion~ Subd. 6, P~LIC ~~G. A pubic hea~g s~ ~ held b~9~ ~e Ciw Coun~ ~t~n 90 ~ h-gain that ~e p~k cl?~_ng may have on ~sp!~ ~sid~nts ~d the ~ SubO. 7. PA~ OF ~L~A~ON COSTS~ ~ ~ ~ca of~ cio~e aat~t ~ ~e g~ ~er ~d ~mpl~on of~e pubic h~a ~d u~on 5~h~i~ by the disp~?~ ~de~ ora ~m or ~.v~~ ~ ~1~6~ ~ ~k ~ ~ ~av to the 81~t~c~ ~d~t ~ ~n~le ~ of ~l~srng the m~~ home to ~o~ m~ufi~f~ homq p~ Ioc~ ~ a 25 ~ ~ of ~e ~ ff~ ~ ~los~ ~n~M to ~r ~ ~ ceding o~fio~ Rele~6on ~s mua be '~d not le~ ~ ~y~ prior to ~he closing of~ ~k or its ~nv~sion ~o ~O~h~ u~. R~o~ie ~lo~6on ~s 33 I I I I I I e ' cu ' mo ' th dis i t's me ~ an n r inc din the nabl co f ' ' ' ,r lin a h a hen m as rc ' ' a ' w ' h e ~redafternoti of re r v ' n ut:aitv"book-up" ~:har~_es. (2) The cost of insurance for the reulacemqmt value of the uro~_ ert'y bein_~ moved. {:1) The c~st of reasonable ~r.,air~ or modifications that ar~ _r~_,_,ired ~n order to m the ~ ed me m it exl to · i-~ - i l~L · ''oll Il ' e I' ' rn~uf~ home uar~ B, p.~lo,:.~r;oll costs shall not include uavrn~-~ts paid on behalf ora disvi~c~ r~sidc, nt by the park owner or purchaser or by th~ ownr. r of any ~a~ifactured home va.,k to which thc ~li~_r,!,,meg ~',rl,~ C. The i~tal amoun~ of reloc!.6on _~a_vrnents pa~d to a displa¢_-~_ re~-'ident shall not 0xceed thq ~~errnin~' ub 'on ioft' $ 'on. Subd, 8. PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COMpENSATIOI~ & If) r~sident cannoi or chooses not ti) reiocJ,~e the manuf~__,r~ home within a 25 mile radius of the park that is bein~ c)osed due to a str~_,_,'al or a_~e limitation Of bbc man~n~l ho,-r.~- or th.. lar~ of any a.v~ilnhle lot.$a~e withi~l the 25 mile radius, then in lieq ~fth~ above relooadon _vawnent... dispi~ed resident is e,alitled to tender the tide to tho manufactured home and be paid an amount to the ~-_=~i~ated market v-alue .of the __.man_ .f-actured home ~ cl_~.,"krJned by an Endeoendent know)ed~hle in the w,J,,~ion of manufa~_,re(! homes and izivine due co~sld~-~6on t~ the value and condition of the home. The C. it? shall ~I~ ~ a~i~ anJ thepaltc uu~h~ shall _var for the co-_' of the a~,o,-aisal. The pu~._-~-,~r_ or p~k owner shall pay such cornl~on u~on tran~ oftitl~ to ])gme. -Such compensation shall be. paid lo the Hi~_rn!~c-'Xt nssident nO )~ ~ !lO da_w. prior to ~l,~,inu of the uark or'~ conv,~on to another use. and the uark .owner shall r--~-~ive litle a~.__I'. B. If a displ~_-ed_ r¢~ident cannot or choo_~_,i~_ not to relocate the mara~a~ home within a 2~ ~ radius ~f th~ oark thai is b~-~ closed due to a structural or age ~,¥,i~_~_~tion of tll~ manufa~ home· and the ~e~i~lent ~_~__s, not to tendei' litle to ~he manufactured home, Ihe resEdent is m~ii~ded t~. reI~_6,;,~, co, ts equal to an average of relo:~;;,~n costs oaid to other r~.d~m',~ in the p~,i. Pa'~-~,,--'~t or the averaee relo.;~6on cost~ shall be m~e as fo_~ows: 5-0'/o within 10 da~ of application for the fu~Ls and 50~/~- upon the ~e,-novi~l of ~,e ~-,~.~_-~ed home and ---'w _,w~,.~,)~e, and debris f~oa man,, _r-set,ed home uark Pa_~¢at for doublewide mmnufactu~t homes shall be in an i~nount eq_ual to twic~ the avora~e.r~locafim costs 0aid to owners of s'm~ewlde nr4n,, _r-ache-ed 34 - · ~ - -'-- is uscd~st in the pevm~ como~sation reauired by tluS $~eaa~d 20% of the our~h~ --' ~ .ti n st an ot er co Oll natuu-u - ~s o or' such ~-umcin is ret fllc,~" to ~av thc fifll amou~ re~uh-ed w be raid w all dis~sic~ents~ the total reloc~~ ~;°n'Om~e~i°n w followinn oercent ch" ' pfic: 0ftfe Oar et value of $90,000 4- 7.5% 20o10 V e $6oo.0oo-~999 -- ' City's oortion shall e 'd if the o ntr u' to b id b he ark owner is il~d~icienl tota~ amo~jnt ired ' ~ ns 7 d 8 If e tal u du~: to displaced re,-sid~g~~gve vercentaees' va_wnents tO dispi~ id~ ng_~M2~L3~' . the park includes all consideration ~?~ived by th~ p~rk 9wngx includiag ur ha.~on~e Of' · -u.~:~.s~t mormmzes or other C-- The ? 5 -. , _, e~a,,~,~ of ~~'- .~--~ gens. ut not ' 'ted to cas u a ,, ..... . . · ~heCitv. theo k d rc sh ! r vide th Ci wi and docum~tation of the salg erior ~o the uublic beariag~ · · · - CB' 0 ' ltl D or' in 's c-ti n is' event or th~ park . econ____omic assi~ancc in add' ' n i cr ent 'fro - eh' o ' in _o~vxn~t of amounts d~e to · . · a CO~ 9r other sudO. A 0 0 C S . The is ed 'd " v ' co ' r io ' th u me to k er val · "on . th wner a th itiontothe own ' ii iii to ~: relo I . . eem~--,~-"t or othel' verified costs estim e the ark wn S for rcl ca n e th tel n st~ide,bfi ' ub ?. _Subd. 10. PENALTY. A. An r vlsi n f t ' S cti ben orc b in' ' n or other a.optoptiate civil .L~f.15984~, SH15~-2~' T I I I 35 B. T.h~ C[LT ~ha~ not ia~ue I~ buildin_~ p _er~ni. '! Lq conjunction w~th r_etlse of ll~an~ home park ~ooer~_ unle~ the padc owner hq paid reasonable r~location oosts md the _zx~'chaser of the ~ has purchased those m~ homes tender~ for ~e ~ot less than 30 da~s.~er the closing_ of' parkor its conversion t~ another use_ ThePa~k owner.~ll nQt have any i~ab~_ for the payment of .any claims made si%r such date, Subd. 11. APPLICAB]~[~tr, Ti~$ section ap_o[ies 9n]v to ~he closer of~ home _oat[cs bat are e~dsting Lq the City ~s or'the effective date ~thls section. Secgon 2 - ~ve Date. 'rigs ordinance becomes effective from and after/ts passage and, publication. Adopted h ~ se~ion of the City Co~.cli of the City of $hai~pee, M_inn~nta~ held ~_he /~ 7';,, day yor of the City of Shaimpee AT'TEST: / TOTRL P. 86 36 Attachment 6 Maplewood Manufactured Home Parks Town and Country 2557 Highway 61 Rolling Hills 1319 Rolling Hills Drive St. Paul Tourist 940 Frost Avenue Man. Home Park 1880 English St. N. Beaver Lake 2425 Maryland Avenue Manufactured Home Parks S 37 I ! ~ I I