Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/13/2002BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. May 14, 2002 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Communications a. City Board Appreciation Event - Thursday, September 5, 2002 6. Unfinished Business None 7. New Business a. Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Amendment b. Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Concept Plan 8. Date of Next Meeting 9. Adjournment c:memo~RAAGEND.MEM MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Tom Connelly Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Joe O'Brien Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Beth Ulrich Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Larry Bunce, Building Inspector Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the HRA minutes for April 9, 2002. Chairperson Fischer had an addition to page 8 in the third paragraph starting before the sentence the committee also discussed. Please add "Chairperson Fischer questioned whether or not staff has questioned the city attorney to verify if when we received notice of a park closing, the city would still have sufficient time to enact an ordinance that would be applicable to that closing or if it would only apply to future closings in the city." Commissioner Connelly moved to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Pearson, Ulrich, Connelly Abstention - O'Brien The motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts had an addition to the agenda. Add item 7. b. for new business regarding the Springsted Study. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda with a change. Commissioner Connelly seconded. Ayes-Connelly, Fischer, Pearson, Ulrich The motion carried. T ~r · Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of 05-14-02 -2- V. COMMUNICATIONS a. Annual Tour - Monday, July 29, 2002 Mr. Roberts said to put Monday, July 29th on the calendar for the annual tour. Mr. Roberts said the CDRB would be working with the planning commission on selecting sites for the annual tour. Someone had mentioned they would like to visit some manufactured home parks. Chairperson Fischer asked if there would be a theme for the tour? Mr. Roberts said that is something to discuss with the planning commission. Please call if you have any suggestions for the tour. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS a. Truth-in-Housing Ordinance Code Amendment Mr. Roberts said the city building inspection staff concludes that the existing truth-in-housing ordinance has served Maplewood well since the city adopted it in 1990. Staff is now considering an amendment to this code to include the inspection of manufactured homes. The city excluded manufactured homes from the original truth-in-housing ordinance at the request of the inspectors/evaluators. The purpose of this code amendment would be to maintain a higher quality of housing in all areas of the city. The adopted ordinance did not require the owners of manufactured homes to have them inspected before they list or show them for sale. Specifically, Section 9-236 of the code excludes manufactured homes as housing unit and thus from the truth-in-housing ordinance requirements. Mr. Roberts said the Maplewood Building Inspection Department and Minnesota State Building Code Division recently compiled a list of common violations and corrections for manufactured homes. The city could use this list as a tool for the evaluators, for inspections and for reports. The city building inspectors intend this list to be the minimum items mandatory for inspection for manufactured homes as part of the truth-in-housing report. They also suggest that the evaluators use the existing single-dwelling form when reviewing a manufactured home. Commissioner Pearson said the truth in housing ordinanceconversation began when owners of manufactured home parks had discussions with the building officials in the city of Mounds View. They met with the city and told them what they were trying to accomplish for the manufactured home parks. Using the point of sale and what statute powers went with the landowner as a means of doing the appearance standards that would be instituted in advance so people would know what would be expected of them. Anything that is built on the exterior of the home comes under the UBC inspection and the city. Anything on the inside of the home since June of 1976 forward is a HUD home and there the city is responsible to make sure there is a fire extinguisher, smoke detectors, and address on the home. Everything else is under the HUD code and supercedes the state UBC code. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of 05-14-02 -3- Commissioner Pearson said when these homes are coming up for sale and they would have some bad additions put on them (which should have fallen under the UBC) and when park owners started enforcing the rights given to them at a point of sale, it became a requirement that the people be able to certify either that the addition was built with a permit from the city or they have an inspection to certify that it meets UBC or that it can be brought up to UBC standards. All this is to occur before a sale is consummated. This is where this all came into play because building inspectors did not want to be involved with the inspections. The state building codes said it was their requirement to inspect those homes and the people would have to pull permits as if it were being built. The city would assess a minimum value of a $1,000 and they would go out and check for four items. Including the blocking piers, the support on the walls, the wall that joins the home, and how it is built including or attached on the side of the home. In addition, the inspectors should establish if they have 16-inch centers on the wall studs and the ceiling joists, and what the floor is built on underneath and what the piers are underneath. Those were the only things. Commissioner Pearson said the 24-point inspection that was not a part of that but ended up being thrown into the mix as a part of that inspection. Up until now parks that want to run a nice manufactured home park and provide a clean place for people to leave they have had the weight of all of this. Consequently the residents get the feeling you are trying to make their lives miserable and to make their homes worthless. APAC then comes around the backside and says you are trying to close a park and that is exactly what happened at the St. Paul Tourist Cabins. Mr. Roberts said on the books with the state right now there are most of these standards that are on the form? Commissioner Pearson said yes with the exception of items 22, 25, 26, and 27. Mr. Roberts said if the city did not do anything we would still require permits for changes on the exterior and require inspections. What would happen at a point of sale if the city does not change anything? Commissioner Pearson said basically what they have done now for the most part they have had about 7 additions that did not meet any requirement what so ever. Those were put on the homes in the 1970's. Basically they put up a deck and enclosed the sides and put a roof on. The state Health Department requires that wheels and axels remain underneath the home. Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Pearson if the city doesn't change anything now what would happen at the point of sale, is there an inspection done by somebody? Commissioner Pearson said just the individual parks and the inspection is only as good as the park puts into play. Commissioner Pearson showed members the safety-feature-disclose code form that has the compliance requirements. This important notice is a list-of-residents' rights in a community and it also deals with the sales of homes. Mr. Roberts asked if the HRA thinks this is a worthwhile item to pursue or is it something that is not necessary for the city to do. ~ [ I I Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of 05-14-02 -4- Mr. Larry Bunce, the building inspector said a manufactured home is supposed to be treated as a house. Commissioner Pearson said personally he would like the city pursue this. They have been requiring the homeowner to keep up with the requiring people to keep up their properties. Mr. Bunce said the Truth-in-Housing would not be any different than for a house. It is just a record of looking at a few different items for a manufactured home than for a house. He said if you thing there is value in doing a Truth-in-Housing for a single-family dwelling then there is value in doing it in a manufactured home as well. Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Pearson if the City of Maplewood wanted to pursue doing the Truth-in- Housing for the manufactured homes, how would you recommend getting the word out to the residents? Commissioner Pearson said one thing he thinks the city should do is to talk to the Truth-in- Housing Inspectors for the city first before going too much further. Mr. Roberts said he sent a copy of this to Mike Moser who has worked with the city updating the forms and has been sort of a liaison between him and the Inspectors Association. He had a couple of concerns and Mr. Moser spoke with Dave Fischer, the Building Official about them. A few of the things on the proposed form were a little too vague. He wanted to make sure they were very specific. Commissioner Connelly asked Mr. Pearson if any of the manufactured home parks have Truth- in-Housing? Commissioner Pearson said not to his knowledge. Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Bunce if he knows how they could get this process started? Mr. Bunce said there is always somebody that wants to make money. The question of how to get it started and who will set up the testing process and the standards. Chairperson Fischer said both St. Paul and Minneapolis give the test to be a Truth-in-Housing Inspector. Maybe somebody there would be somebody in one of those cities that would know whether there are procedures that cover these things and what the time frames we would need be? Mr. Roberts said some of the issues or questions he has observed are: What does South St. Paul' do for Truth-in-Housing? Would any existing evaluators be interested or would they be capable of doing this? What are the comments from the evaluators in general? Mr. Bunce asked when the city stopped requiring permits for to move the manufactured homes and requiring them to be blocked? Commissioner Pearson said most of the communities it started with the HUD code in 1976. The anchor ordinance started across the twin cities in 1974. VIII. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of 05-14-02 -5- Mr. Bunce asked Mr. Pearson weren't most of his manufactured homes permitted and inspected? Commissioner Pearson said they took over his park in 1982. Everything since 1982 had permits in his park since he took it over. Commissioner Pearson said if the manufactured home park had the truth-in-housing ordinance, they would require the homeowner before they put the home on the real estate market to have an inspection done and require a copy of that report be submitted to the manufactured home park office. If on the inspection it stated that they had an addition on the home and it doesn't meet the UBC standards the park office will require that the addition be removed from the house and the exterior of the home be put in the proper condition to meet the appearance conditions. Chairperson Fischer asked if all manufactured home sales involve financing? Commissioner Pearson said no they don't all involve financing. Many of the older homes are cash sales. Conseco is the only company that will finance manufactured homes now. Mr. Bunce asked if Mr. Pearson has had any experience with people leaving the home in the middle of the night and moving out leaving the home for the park office to take care of? Commissioner Pearson said no, very rarely. Mr. Roberts asked if it safe to say the HRA would like some more information on this? Chairperson Fischer said yes. Commissioner Connelly moved to table the Truth-in-Ordinance code amendment. Commissioner O'Brien seconded. Ayes- Connelly, Fischer, O'Brien, Pearson, Ulrich The motion is tabled for further information. b. Springsted Tool Study On Monday, May 20, 2002, from 5:30-6:30 p.m. the city council will be discussing the Springsted Tool Study prior to their regular city council meeting in the chambers. Everyone is welcome to attend. DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next HRA meeting will either be June 11,2002, or July 9, 2002, depending on the agenda. IX. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance August 7, 2002 INTRODUCTION On June 17 and July 15, 2002, staff presented a request by All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC), and several manufactured home park residents in Maplewood, that the city adopt an ordinance guaranteeing park residents financial assistance to relocate if their park closed. On February 25, 2002, the city council directed staff to study this request and to forward a recommendation to them. Refer to the attached April 3, 2002 memorandum for details. Dudng their discussions on this subject, the planning commission raised several questions and discussed these points. Six of these are listed below. I also enclosed the July 10, 2002 staff report that addressed some of the planning commission's previous concerns and questions. BACKGROUND April 9, 2002: The Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) discussed this matter. The HRA tabled this issue until the city receives notification of a manufactured home park closing. They felt that since there are no proposed or pending closings at this time, there is no urgency to act immediately. The HRA discussed the needs-vs.-greed aspects of APAC's suggested ordinance. The HRA also wanted to know from the city attorney if the city would have sufficient time to enact an ordinance at the time of a proposed park closing that would be applicable to that park or if it would only apply to future closings in the city. (The city attorney explained that an ordinance must be adopted and published before it becomes effective. He further stated that the city could adopt an ordinance after an announcement of a manufactured-home park closing which would include that park. Procedurally, though, for fairness to all, the City of Maplewood wants to give involved parties ample time to respond to any potential ordinance change before the city council would amend the code.) June 17 and July 15, 2002: The planning commission discussed this request and tabled action so staff can address their questions. August 5, 2002: The planning commission recommended that the city council pursue the adoption of a manufactured home park closing ordinance. DISCUSSION Planning Commission's Questions 1. As manufactured-home parks have closed, what has been the relocation costs paid by developers or park owners? Of the 14 cities that have adopted manufactured-home park closing ordinances, three have had park closures. These cities are: Bloomington, Elk River and Hopkins. APAC has provided data on the payments made to park residents in the Collins Park in Bloomington and in the Hopkins Pines Trailer Park in Hopkins. They did not have data for the park in Elk River. Refer to the data on pages 5-7. In summary, at the Collins Park in Bloomington, each owner of a singlewide home received an average of $2369.44 (51 homes). Each owner of a doublewide home received an average of $3425.38 (39 homes). At the Hopkins Pines Trailer Park, the average payout to the 34 displaced residents was $4818. There was no breakdown as to single vs. doublewide homes. 2. What would displaced apartment or townhouse residents be paid when an apartment building gets sold or is condemned by the government? Displaced apartment residents would not be reimbursed if their complex were sold for redevelopment. If residents were displaced by a governmental agency due to condemnation, they would be entitled to relocation costs that would include moving expenses and assistance in finding a new place to live. 3. What other programs would be similar to this ordinance that would compensate people for displacement? None, other than receiving relocation costs due to governmental condemnation as previously noted. Of the cities that passed park-closing ordinances, how many parks does each city have in their community? Among these communities, if they have parks that are dissimilar in value, size and occupancy, how did they come to their conclusion on caps for reimbursement? Fourteen cities have adopted park-closing ordinances. Refer to page 8. Payment Caps Staff checked with three cities that have payment caps in their ordinances. The City of Fridley has two parks. One is larger, nicer and newer than the other. The Fddley City Planner explained that they chose a 20 percent cap based on two reasons. One was comparison with existing park-closing ordinances. They felt that this was a percentage that was used in other ordinances they studied. The other was a compromise between those wanting a higher payoff amount and those wanting a lesser, or zero, amount. The City of Oakdale has two parks that are comparable in age and quality. According to the Oakdale City Planner, the establishment of a cap on payment was not debated to a great degree. They established a maximum payment of the greatest of either 25 percent of the sale or purchase price by the park owner to a buyer for the closure, or the Washington County Assessor's assessed value of the manufactured home. The City of Shakopee has one park. According to the Shakopee City Planner, they established their cap on payment by caps stated in other ordinances. What is the tax base for the manufactured-home parks in Maplewood? (This would help the commission know, if a park closing were to happen, what financial impact this would have on the city.) The following chart lists the land/building values and the tax amounts of each of the five Maplewood manufactured home parks from Ramsey County data. Park Name Acres #of Lots Value *Taxes St. Paul Tourist Cabins 6.22 45 $540,000 $11,842 1880 English Street 1.15 19 $254,000 $6,944 Town & Country 6.00 120 $1.25 mil $22,168 Beaver Lake 37.8 254 $3.42 mil $69,112 Rolling Hills 37.5 357 $4.50 mil $84,880 * According to Ramsey County tax records, the above tax amounts are charged against the manufactured-home park property. Each resident also pays taxes for their home based on the structure's age, size, and condition. ^ representative of the Ramsey County Department of Taxation told me taxes on the structures range from about $40 to $500 per year. Any redevelopment would result in a new use of these properties that would also be taxable. Town & Country is the only manufactured home park of these five that might possibly become something other than another residential use due to its highway-frontage location. Staff compared taxes with similar-sized properties in the neighborhoods around St. Paul Toudst Cabins and Beaver Lake/Rolling Hills manufactured-home parks. One block east of the St. Paul Toudst Cabins, staff evaluated a six-acre block with 18 single dwellings. The total of taxes paid by these 18 property owners is $28,902 ($1,605 per lot). An existing, comparable-size development with 20 townhomes generates $29,662 in taxes. A 40-acre single-family tract in the Oakridge Estates development near Beaver Lake and Rolling Hills generates a total of $200,854 ($2,954 per lot) in taxes. There are not any existing 40-acre townhouse or apartment developments in this area for comparison. County records, however, show that the Rosewood Estates property and the adjacent future Beaver Lake Townhomes site presently generate a total of $145,656 in taxes per year. This amount will certainly increase after the Beaver Lake Townhome development is constructed. 3 What might the range of additional costs to manufactured-home park residents be if rates were increased due to the adoption of a park-closing ordinance? There is no data indicating what rents could be increased to in the event a park-closing ordinance was enacted by a city. There is state law that requires that rule and rate changes be done in a "reasonable" fashion. Laura Mapp of APAC stated that there have been cases supported by the courts where rent or rate increases have been made that fall within a $30 to $50 range. LETTER FROM A RESIDENT Robert and Bevedy Ogilvie, of 1249 Antelope Way in the Beaver Lake Manufactured Home Park, spoke at the last planning commission meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Ogilvie have submitted the letter on page 9 for the planning commission's review and consideration. CONCLUSION Staff has not formed a recommendation about this matter. The input received at the planning commission and HRA meetings will aid staff in forwarding a recommendation to the city council. Staff will schedule this item for city council review at their second meeting in August. p:com_dvpt\ord\manufactured home parks.7(2)'02.doc Attachments: 1. Relocation costs paid in Bloomington 2. Relocation costs paid in Hopkins 3. Cities that have passed park-closing ordinances 4. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Ogilvie dated July 18, 2002 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 15, 2002 6. Memorandum dated April 3, 2002 7. Memorandum dated July 10, 2002 Attachment 1 ~L~APAC (City of Bloomington): APAC stated that it would protect the Park Closing Ordinance first passed in this city in 1989 from any challenges and attempts at weakening it. In the Fall of 1992, it became apparent that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ~as attempting to purchase the property to convert it to a retail store. Residents once a~ain packed Planning C~t,i'ssion hearings and City Council Meetings to advocate that no approval of this project be given ~-ithout clear assurances by Wal-Mart officials and the park owner that all provisions of the ordinance would be complied with. Residents gained those assurances after many public and private meetings. Additionally, APAC leaders called for an interpretation of the ordinance by Bloomington city attorneys to clear up some issues'related to moving expenses, home c~t,~ensation, and personal property moving expenses. The city attorneys returned a favorable interpretation and residents utilized this in sit down negotiations with the park owner's attorneys. ~everal park meetings were then held in late Spring of 1993 to allow residents of Collins to understand the park closure process. It w~s agreed that residents would receive reasonable relocation funds for all costs incurred during the relocation process. An official park closure not'ice ·ras delivered to Collins Park households on May 21st, 1993. The residents had until February 21st, 1994 to vacate the premises. Most residents moved out between the 3rd and the 6th month of the notice period. Each single wide home received ar] average of $2369.44 (51 hc~es) and each double wide home received an average of $3425.38 $3425.38 (39 hc~es), although some double wides cost 'as much as $5350! In addition, the ordinance required that each household be compensated for personal property moving expenses (furniture, fragile property, motel expenses). Resident leaders negotiated an amount of $900 per household. A process ~wlas also created for determining w~iCh homes could not be relocated, due to age, condition, or lack of available space. Residents in these homes will be compensated for the loss of their homes based on their tax assessed values. Eleven homeowners opted to sell their homes to private buyers and therefore received only the $900 personal property moving expense money. If no Park Closing Ordinance had ever been passed and no efforts to preserve the relocation and compensation amounts hadbeen made, the residents of Collins would have been devastated economically. Based on the final figures for implementing the park closing, Collins residents would have incurred at least $335,431,26 to remove their homes, decks, sheds, and personal property in nine months. 5 Projected relocation expenses based?on average relocation costs paid out dur'i~ng the closure of Collins Park (As re~rted by the City of Bloomington, 2/22/94) Single mride ]ucme = .. $120,841,44 ~ ~Double wide ~ i~.. 51 homes "~.. $2369.44 39 ~cmes ~ $254,431.26 90 hcmes x $900· = $ 81,000 $335,431.26 Household Janson Single wide $2300 .Double wide Thrond $2600 Berres $4125 Heath $3475 Olschla§er $5350 Olsen $3375 walters $3450 HOPCTLST 2 07/31/96 1 Attachment RAF. Tj A B I C I O E -t Hopkins Pines Trailer Court 2 Owner Phone 95.EMV Move Allowance. Total ~ 3 103 .Christ, Tom__-- ~ ~[*-'~'~/¢ $ 3,000.00 $1,950.00. $4*,950-00.. 4 104 Seads, Ed & Trisha-- 936-79§3 , $ §,100.00 $1,950.00 $8,050.00 · -- ~ ~ So.oo $o,0~'~ '~ $o.oo 5 105 ~ark Owns .~ -- ' ' 6 10~ Abandoned $O.00 $0.00 $0.00 7 109 Mathiouwetz, Harold ~33-169~-- "-~1,000.00 $i,950.00 $2~950.00 -8 110 *Maria M~-Renter .721-1288 $0.00 $1,950.00 $1,950.00 -9 111 vacant 1 10 113'Vacan~.~___ ~ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1"'~' --~16 Sutcli~s 936-0758 , ' $9,000.00~ '$1,950.00 $10,950.00 -12 117~Tu¥, Khoeum 938-6975 $1,000.00 $1,950.00 $2,950,00 938-2708 $4,100.00 $1,950.00 $8,050.00 _,~13 119 $orenson, .~_rol 14 ~2z'Ooan, i, ain~ l~tt't~!~L '935-0039 $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00 '1'-~'-'~03 Wenclel, Steve ' 933-06(~ "' $:~,000.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00.. '~' 938-0409 $4,200.00 $1,950.0° $~,~ 50.0__~0 t6 206 Hyllested, Marlys ~7 208 E~l~ Mark ' ~ 945-9239 $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00 18 215 Randy Helmer ~ ' A/j~ $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4,95o-00 19 '217 H & H Pines ~ i '$O.00 $0.00 $43.00 2---~' --~8 Earl & Glenda Dragert I/~ ' ~-77-;'~-~ $1,000.00 $1,950.00 $2,9.50.00 · ~ 21 308 Christi~'~-~-'~ovam-Renter $0.00 $1,950.00 $1,950.00 22 309 Dahl~nelr, Glen ~ 935-6002 $5,000.00. $1,950.00 $6,950.00 ....... $0.00 $0.O0 $0.00 23 313 Vacant 24 3i4 Waldoc~,, Jack 17' $1,000.00 $1,950.00 $2,959.00 25 315Vacant ', $0.00 $0.O0 $O.00 26 316 Smalt, Julie ~38-6265, ~ $5,900.00 $1,950.00 $'~,850.00, 27 323 Lamm. Uoyd -- ~.35-65i 1 Jl~':~. $3.000.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00 25 326 Amorson,' Denny --~'45-0823 z~,3 $ $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4;950.00 ,~'-;Z9 '335 Ebert, Brian (New Renter) ~0 $0.00 $1,950.00 $1,950.00 30 401 'Engstrom, DeaL ~ /~/~ $3,0~)0.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00 ~1 404 Peissig, Tom-- __ 933-5457 $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00 '32 405 Guadalupe Rodriquez -- $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00 33 412 Crosby, Biil 931-9913 $1,000.00 $1,950.00 . $2,950-00 ~ 34 5021Daniel Martin ,j ~o-~.ti~ $4,200.00 $1,950.00 $8,150.00 $3,000.00 $I ,950.00 $4,950.O0 .~ -35 504'Amrnbul~,'Gloria ~-I ~ .. 36 '"50---~' So---k-hoen, Mrs * Rej~ter ~, g~o.., $0.00 $1,950.00 $1,950.00 ' 37 510 William Kohlnhofer $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4,950.00 35 514 Whiteaker, David/Allen 938-8524 $3,000.00. $1,950.00 $4',950.00 -39 520 Evicted ~ ~).00 $0.00 .~::).00 ':40 528 Evicted ~! $0.00 ~$0.00 $0.00 4t 532 Tom & Nadyne Smert 93~":9210 $3,000.00 $1,95.0.00 $4,950.00 42 '534 Pulled Out $0.00 $0.00 $0:0_~0 43 540 ~/acant -- $0.00 $0.00 '$(3,00 ~ 44 543 IGa'~ino & Aurora Deilulwar $3,000.00 $1,950.00 $4.950.00 4~ 551 JBerge~: Jan 935-~621 $5,000.00 $1,950.00 $8,950.00 46 558 Sean Zam ~j~3'- ~'i~ $3,000.00 $1,950.00; $4,950.00 47 560 Gladys Roseu x'~ { ~'--~ ~ t:~ $1,000.00 $1,950.O0 $2,95.0.00 48 . 49 TOTALS 97,500-00 $C;~,300.00 $163,800.00 · .;;; Attachment 3 List of Cities that Have Passed a PCO and How Many Manufactured Home Parks They Have 'City # of Mobile Home Parks When the PCO was Passed # of Households(units) Apple Valley 2 550 Bloomington 4.+ 246 Burnsville 3 958 Dayton 1 33 Elk River 1. 60 Fridley 2 410 Hopkins 1. 146 Lake Elmo 1 505 Mounds View 3 597 Oakdale 2 240 Red Wing 2 240 Roseville 1 101 Rochester 1# 29 Shakopee 1 33 *- Indicates one park has closed since/at the passage of the ordinance, so currently Bloomington has 3 parks, and Elk River and Hopkins have zero. + - Bloomington at one time had $ parks. The first park that closed, Collin',s, brought upon the inception of the ordinance in the state law by the legislature. # - This ordinance was approved just last week due to a park closing notice that residents received in Rochester's only mobile home park. Attachment 4 7/18/02 Planning commission members, Madam chair person and Committee member~, From the last meeting I gather that most of you want more information. My name is Robert Ogilvie and I live in Beaver Lake Estates. Beaver Lake Estates is like a city in a city. All the. roads, lights, trees, tree trimming, snow plo'adng, is maintained by the park. it doesn't cost the city of Maplewood a dime, The only serVice provided by Maplewood is Police and Fire protection. At this time the estimated tax value on homes in the park are over $5.5 mit/ion. I call that a plus for Maplewood no maintennanee costs but all the mx money. In the second place this ordinance will not cost the city any money. It will even the playing field between manufactured home owners and other home owners. By other home owners I'm speaking about the people that technically lease from the .gOVernment, like I said when I spoke at the last meeting, in other words I could get a fare market value for my property. Manufactured home living at this time is the most economical way to go, for a new farrfily starting out by buying a manufactured hOme and leasing the land in a park it is as cheap as renting if not cheaper. For a new family starting out it provides a place to live while establishing an equity in there property. For us older people like me, according to guide lines I don't earn enough money to qualify to pay the rent in some of the apartments, and too much to qualify for low housing assistance. At this time I don't know of any park closings in Maplewood. This is a business and investers are making money on these parks. If not. No one would invest. 'For instance if an invester bought Beaver Lake Estates, with the new ordinance in place, should the new owner decide to close the park. home owners would be payed a fare market value fOr their property, in which case the invester would own all the houses and could sell them to recoUp some of their expense. When I irlyested in my home in the park there was no time fimils 0la the lease, or~y park rules, back 12 years ago no one talked about park closings, therefore I assumed like a/1 the rest that the lease ~'aS like'the other home owners leases. I would like to see home owners be on an equal base, Thank you Attachment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 15, 2002 Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Amendment Mr. Tom Ekstrand, the Assistant Community Development Director, addressed the commission. He reviewed the planning commission's questions from their previous meeting and the answers he received about those questions. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked Mr. Ekstrand to describe what the state statute says regarding manufactured home parks. Mr. Ekstrand said the state statute says that the state requires the park owner to notify the city at least nine months before the manufactured home would close. They then give direction to the city where the city would notify the park residents and hold a public hearing to discuss the closing. The city "may" require compensation by the city and others that may be appropriate. The manufactured home ordinances in the cities of Oakdale and Roseville state the city "shall" be required to compensate residents of the manufactured home park. Mr. Dick Pearson, the owner of the Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park, addreSsed the commission. They have 357 homeowners in this community. He feels this ordinance should not be applicable to his park. He feels their responsibility is to maintain the homes and the grounds, and he feels APAC should not be given power to make any decisions. Mr. Robert Ogilvie of 1249 Antelope Way, Beaver Lake Estates, addressed the commission. He said if a homeowner gets displaced, he gets fair market value for his home. The homeowners in manufactured home parks want fair market value for their homes as well. He said 19% of his rent goes for property taxes for his lot rent. He also pays taxes on his manufactured home. He wants fair market value for his manufactured home, and he wants it now. Commissioner Pearson asked Mr. Ogilvie if he has a copy of the proposed ordinance that APAC has? Mr. Ogilvie said he has a copy of the ordinance, but he did not have a chance to read the ordinance. Mr. JameS Paist, the Executive Director for APAC, addressed the commission. He said 13 out of 15 cities have passed a manufactured home park closing ordinance. (except for Brainerd and Willmar). State law does not give any compensation for park closing to its residents. This can be disastrous for homeowners in manufactured home parks. The ordinance can be written however the city would like it written. If the City of Maplewood wants to put a cap on the amount of money a homeowner can receive, they can do that. If a homeowner has a manufactured home that is worth considerably more than someone else's manufactured home, then a cap wouldn't provide enough relocation compensation. Oakdale goes by the tax-assessed value of the home for compensation. There are four or five cities that do not have any cap. Commissioner Rossbach asked how APAC came about? Mr. Paist said it was formed in 1980 when a group of manufactured home residents in Anoka County got together and formed Anoka People's Alliance. They got together to organize around the issue of no cause eviction. Previously people could be evicted for no cause and owners of manufactured home parks could arbitrarily evict people without any cause. It later grew into a statewide organization for APAC. They also have a statewide tenant hotline for people to use for questions about their manufactured home park. They occasionally work for park owners and park residents, but mostly they are advocates for the park residents. They share information about state laws, and they do community organizing. They may look at getting playground equipment in their park as well as other issues for the residents. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Paist of the 13 out of 15 cities that have passed this ordinance, how many of the cities have one manufactured home park in their city? Mr. Paist said he is only aware of the City of Shakopee that had only one manufactured home park. There were 26 manufactured homes in it. Commissioner Trippler said he understood that the ordinance read that the buyers would have to pay for the attachments, sheds, porches and the manufactured home to either be moved or for the compensation of the home. Mr. Paist said as far as the attachments, sheds, porches etc., the ordinance is designed to include that in moving it, but if it comes to buying out the home for the taxed-assessed value of the home, they would only be paid for the home, not the attachments. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Paist if APAC advocates raising the rents at the manufactured home parks. Mr. Paist said, in their experience, rent has been going up consistently enough without them getting involved. Chairperson Fischer asked if any of the cities that passed this ordinance had been challenged in court? Mr. Paist said the Arcadia Corporation challenged the City of Bloomington in court and it went to the Court of Appeals in 1986 and was upheld. When homeowners get displaced in a manufactured home park, it affects the city, the social service agencies, churches, shelters etc. because people turn to these agencies when they are in need of help. Commissioner Mueller said he would like to know from APAC or staff as parks have closed, what has been the relocation percentage of buy out costs for developers or park owners? Commissioner Rossbach asked staffto find out what residents would be paid when an apartment building gets sold or condemned and the residents get displaced? What other programs are out there that would be similar to this ordinance for people to get compensated for being displaced? Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she would like staff to research the same information for town homes as well. Mr. Roberts said as he understands, when the government is involved and they buy out an area or a property, there is compensation. If a private party does the buy out, there is no mandatory compensation for residents, but it can be negotiated. I · t Mr. Paist said a manufactured home park ordinance is not going to solve all the problems. However, it will provide some compensation for the people that are displaced. The City of Maplewood has the ability to designate the wording in the ordinance. The city can use the 20% cap rule or use the taxed assessed value for compensation. Commissioner Pearson said because of the possible conflict of interest for him, he will abstain from voting on this issue. He said a 20% cap bothers him. He wonders what is magical about 20% and why is that fair compensation. Mr. Paist said he does not know what is magic about a 20% cap, but some compensation for the homeowner is better than ending up with nothing. Beverly Ogilvie from 1249 Antelope Way, Beaver Lake Estates, addressed the commission. She wants to have the protection for her home in case something should happen. She would like to sell her home one day in good faith and not have to worry about someone else being stuck with this problem and not getting compensated. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to have timeto reflect on everything he has heard at the meeting before trying to vote on this ordinance. He moved to table this item until the next planning commission meeting before making a recommendation to the city council. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Rossbach Nay- Trippler Abstention - Pearson The motion is tabled. Commissioner Pearson said the City of Maplewood should get a task force together to decide what the city wants worded in the ordinance. Commissioner Rossbach said he thinks the commission should first decide if there should be an ordinance or not. Then the commission could recommend to the city council what they think should happen. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they could find out, of the cities that passed the ordinance, how many parks each city has in their community, and if theirs is disparate in value,' size, occupancy, and how they came to the conclusions on caps. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if they could get the tax base for some of these manufactured home parks such as Beaver Lake Estates? This would help the commission know if a park closing were to happen, what financial impact this would have on the city. Attachment 6 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Manufactured Home Park-Closing Ordinance Discussion Apdl 3, 2002 INTRODUCTION Background In 1987, the Minnesota State Legislature passed a law allowing cities and municipalities to pass park-closing ordinances (Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095). The purpose of such an ordinance is to help protect citizens living in manufactured home parks in the event of a park closing by requiring park owners to reimburse homeowners for relocation costs if their home can be moved, and if not, purchase the manufactured home. (See Section 327C.095 on pages 5 through 8.) The City of Maplewood received a proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance for the city council's review from All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC) (see attached APAC letter and proposed ordinance on pages 9 through 13). APAC is a non-profit organization that serves as a tenant's union for manufactured home owners. They help organize park residents to understand and protect their rights as specified in state law. APAC sent a mailing to a majority of the city's park residents regarding their proposed ordinance. In the mailing they requested that the residents show their support of a park-closing ordinance by signing their name and address to a postcard and sending it to the city. To date, the city has received 190 postcards in support of the proposed ordinance. (See the language used by APAC on the postcard and the names and addresses of the residents in support of the proposed ordinance on pages 14 through 24.) On February 25, 2002, after reviewing APAC's proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance, the city council directed staff to review the request and forward a recommendation to them. Request Staff is requesting input from the Maplewood Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to assist us in our review of APAC's request, and the many manufactured home park resident's request, for the city to pass a manufactured home park-closing ordinance. DISCUSSION Manufactured Home Park-Closing Legislation The park-closing legislation came out of a situation in Bloomington when Lyndale Lodge Manufactured Home Park was sold for redevelopment as a car dealership. Many of the homes were too old to move and therefore forced the residents to sell their homes for very little. This left many of the residents financially devastated and homeless. Alarmed by these events, the legislature passed the park closing law in 1987. The law states that a park owner must notify the city and the residents of a park closing nine months prior to the proposed closing. Once notice is received, the city must hold a public 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 taking. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld Bloomington's ordinance in Arcadia vs. City of Bloomin.qton, 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 Tourist Cabins, submitted a letter to the city regarding her experience with park-closing ordinances passed in the Cities of Fridley and Shakopee (see attached St. Paul Manufactured Home Park Closings 2 April 3, 2002 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 1880 English Street N. Approx. 1957 19 19 Rolling Hills 1984 357 357 1319 Rolling Hills Drive 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 ownere 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 ownere 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 $80,000 for a double wide. The average cost of an older manufactured home varies widely from $500 for the oldest models to $4,000. Rental space is appreximately $270 per month and usually covers sewer, water, garbage, and snow removal. There are no studies to indicate the average annual income of manufactured home park residents within the City of Maplewood. However, a study of manufactured home park residents in East Bethel, Minnesota, conducted by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs in 1998, indicated Manufactured Home Park Closings 3 April 3, 2002 that the mean annual household income of manufactured home residents was from $10,000 to $29,999. Possible Pros and Cons Pros: APAC points out that it would prove difficult to find an available manufactured home site within a 25-mile radius of a park within the City of Maplewood because of the Iow vacancy rates. Aisc, 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. Aisc, MMHA believes that the language in the law which states "other parties involved in the park closing may provide additional compensation to residents" is intended to not only mean the park owner or developer, but entities such as the city, housing redevelopment authority, or other entities that may be able to tie into reimbursement. Mr. Brunner states that the current law gives the manufactured home residents the protections needed because it allows cities to determine compensation to the residents at the time of a closing. MMHA is opposed to such an ordinance because it could be considered a land taking and would put a burden on the property owner. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the HRA provide input into the proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance. P:ord~rnan. 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 Apdl 3, 2002 Attachment 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 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 application is made for a variance or zoning change. Subd. 3. Closure statement. Upon receipt of the closure statement from the park owner, the local planning agency shall submit the closure statement to the governing body of the municipality and request the governing body to schedule a public headng. The municipality must mail a notice at least ten days before the hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place, and purpose of the public 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 hearing to review the closure statement and any impact that the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. Before any change in use or cessation of operation and as a condition of the change, the governing body may require a payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced resident for the reasonable relocation costs. If a resident cannot relocate the home to another manufactured home park within a 25 mile radius of the park that is being closed, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation costs awarded to other residents. The governing body of the municipality may also require that other parties, including the municipality, involved in the park closing provide additional compensation to residents to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon the residents. Subd. 5. Park conversions. If the planned cessation of operation is for the purpose of converting the part of the park occupied by the resident to a common interest community pursuant to chapter 515B, the provisions of section 515Bo4-111, except subsection (a), shall apply. The nine-month notice required by this section shall state that the cessation is for the purpose of conversion and shall set forth the rights conferred by this subdivision and section 515B.4-111, subsection (b). Not less than 120 days before the end of the nine months, the park owner shall serve upon the resident a form of purchase agreement setting forth the terms of sale contemplated by section 515B.4-111, subsection (d). Service of that form shall operate as the notice described by section 515B.4-111, subsection (a). Subd. 6. Intent to convert use of park at time of purchase. Before the execution of an agreement to purchase a manufactured home park, the purchaser must notify the park owner, in writing, if the purchaser intends to close the manufactured home park or convert it to another use within one year of the execution of the agreement. The park owner shall provide a resident of each manufactured home with a 45-day written notice of the purchaser's intent to close the park or convert it to another use. The notice must state that the park owner will provide information on the cash price and the terms and conditions of the purchaser's offer to residents requesting the information. The notice must be sent by first class mail to a resident of each manufactured home in the park. The notice period begins on the postmark date affixed to the notice and ends 45 days after it begins. During the notice pedod required in this subdivision, the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park or a nonprofit organization which has the written permission of the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park to represent them in the acquisition of the park shall have the right to meet the cash price and execute an agreement to purchase the park for the purposes of keeping the park as a manufactured housing community. The park owner must accept the offer if it meets the cash price and the same terms and conditions set forth in the purchaser's offer except that the seller is not obligated to provide owner financing. For purposes of this section, cash price means the cash price offer or equivalent cash offer as defined in section 500.245, subdivision 1, paragraph (d). 6 Subd. 7. Intent to convert use of park after purchase. If the purchaser of a manufactured home park decides to convert the park to another use within one year after the purchase of the park, the purchaser must offer the park for purchase by the residents of the park. For purposes of this subdivision, the date of purchase is the date of the transfer of the title to the purchaser. The purchaser must provide a resident of each manufactured home with a written notice of the intent to close the park and all of the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park or a nonprofit organization which has the written permission of the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park to represent them in the acquisition of the park shall have 45 days to execute an agreement for the purchase of the park at a cash price equal to the original purchase pdce 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 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 attorney who prepares, furnishes, or examines evidence of title may rely on the truth and accuracy of statements made in the affidavit and is not required to inquire further as to the park owner's compliance with subdivisions 6 and 7. When an affidavit is filed, the right to purchase provided under subdivisions 6 and 7 terminate, and if registered property, the registrar of titles shall delete the memorials of the notice and affidavit from future certificates of title. HIST: 1987 c 179 s 10; 1991 c 26 s 1-7; 1997 c 126 s 6; 1999 c 11 art3s 10 Copyright 2001 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. 8 An Organization of Manufactured Home Residents Attachment 2 January 11, 2002 Shann Finwall Maplewood Planning Dept. 1830 E. County Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ms. Shann Finwall, 2395 University Avenue West, Suite 302 St. Paul, MN 55114 (phone) (651) 644-5525 flax) (651)523-0173 mail) alaac~ntn, org We are writing to ask for your support in the passing of a park-closing ordinance for the city of Maplewood. This ordinance would Protect manufactured homeowners' families from displacement in the case of their park closing for redevelopment. A park-closing ordinance would ensure that the residents of manufactured home parks in Maplewood would receive fair compensation for their homes, which likely cannot be moved, in the event that their manufactured home park would close for redevelopment. Residents living in conventional homes receive compensation when their property is sold for redevelopment. However, residents that own a home within a manufactured home park are not guaranteed any kind of compensation if their park is closed because they do not own the land that their home sits on. Under a standard park-closing ordinance, if a home is a newer model and can be moved to another park, the owner and/or new buyer of the park would have to pay to relocate the home to another park within a 25 mile radius or buy the home at its assessed value. Under Minnesota State Law (§327C.095), cities and municipalities have the authority to pass a park-closing ordinance. Thirteen cities in Minnesota have already passed Park Closing Ordinances because they understood the necessity of an ordinance to protect their constituents. This ordinance is very important to your constituents in Maplewood that live in manufactured home parks. These voters and taxpayers make up nearly 5% of the population of Maplewood, almost 900 households. Many of the parks in Maplewood are very large and ifa park closed it would be catastrophic. We plan to present the proposal before the city council on February 25th, 2002. We hope that you and the other Council Members will decide to pass this ordinance for manufactured homeowners in Maplewood. Enclosed with this letter are some informational materials for your perusal, including a copy of the proposed ordinance and Minnesota Statute 327C.095. If you have any questions regarding this issue we urge you to contact us. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to meeting with you on the 25th. Sincerely, Jeff Swanberg, Chair of the St. Pau3 Cabins Resident Association www. allparksallianceforchang~org 9 Attachment City of Maplewood, Minnesota Ordinance NO. - Manufactured Home Park Closings Section XXXX.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 ora manufactured home. ,M, anufactured Home: A structure not affixed to or pan of a real estate, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is three hundred and twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical system contained in it. The City of Maplewood also elects to expand these provisions of protection to manufactured homes that are smaller than the dimensions of, eight (8) feet or more in width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, are three hundred and twenty (320) or more square feet, and which are built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as dwellings with or without permanent foundations when connected to the required utilities, and include the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical system contained in them. Some manufactured homes that are currently in Maplewood are smaller than the definition for manufactured homes provided in Minnesota Statute 327C t'hus, the City of Maplewood feels that since these homes fall l0 under the definition of a manufactured home, except for their size, that these home should also be covered under this ordinance. Park Owner: The owner of a manufactured home park and any person acting on behalf of the owner in the operation or management of a park. Person: Any individual, cooperation, firm, partnership, incorporated and unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity. Section XXXX.04 Notice of Public Hearing: The Planning Commission shall submit the closure statement to the City Council to schedule a public hearing. The City shall mail a notice at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place and purpose of the hearing. The park owner shall provide the City with a list of the names and address of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time the closure statement is submitted to the Planning Commission. Section XXXX. 06 Public Hearing: A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for the purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating What impact the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. Section XXXX.08 Payment of Relocation Costs: After the service of the closure statement by the park owner and upon submittal by the displaced resident of a contract or other verification of relocation expenses, the park owner shall pay to the displaced resident the reasonable cost of relocating the manufactured home to another manufactured home park located within a twenty five (25) mile radius of the park that is being closed, converted to another use, or ceasing operation. Reasonable relocation costs shall include: Ao The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced resident's manufactured home and personal property, including the reasonable cost of disassembling, moving and reassembling any attached appurtenances, such as porches, decks, skirting and awnings, which were not acquired after notice of closure or conversion of the park and utility "hook-up" charges. B. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the property being moved. C. The cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order to take down, move and set up the manufactured home. 11 Ifa resident cannot relocate the manufactured home within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park which is being closed or some other agreed upon distance, and the resident elects not to tender title to the manufactured home, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation costs awarded to other residents in the park. A displaced resident compensated under this section of the bill shall retain title to the manufactured home and shall be responsible for its prompt removal from the manufactured home park. The park owner shall make the payments under this section directly to the person performing the relocation services after the performance thereof, or, upon submission of written evidence of payment of relocation costs by a displaced resident, shall reimburse the displaced resident for such costs. The displaced resident must submit a contract or other verified cost estimate for relocating the manufactured home to the park owner as a condition to the park owner's liability to pay relocation expenses. Section XXXX. 10 Payment of Additional Compensation: 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 pa~k closing. In such instance, the additional compensation shall be in an amount equal to the estimated market value of the manufactured home as determined by an independent appraiser experienced in mobile home appraisal approved by the City Administrator. The purchaser shall pay the cost for the appraisal. The purchaser shall pay such compensation into an escrow account, established by the park owner, for distribution upon transfer of title to the home. Such compensation shall be paid to the displaced residents no later than the earlier of sixty (60) days prior to the closing of the park or its conversion to another use. Section XXXX. 12 Penalty. 1. Violation of any provision of this Section shall be a misdemeanor. 2. Any provisions of this Section may be enforced by injunction or other appropriate civil remedy. The City shall not issue a building permit in conjunction with reuse of the manufactured home park property unless the park owner has paid reasonable location costs and the purchaser of the park has provided additional compensation in accordance with the requirements of this Section. Approval of any application for rezoning, platting, conditional use permit, planed unit development or variance in conjunction with a park closing or conversion shall be conditional on compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. Section XXXX. 14 Effective Date: This ordinance shall be effective upon publication. 13 Attachment 4 Dear City Council Members and Mayor 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 Mc, Amis Beaver Lake Estates 1224 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Dorothy Metzger Beaver Lake Estates 1238 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 ! ] I Lawrence Giles Beaver Lake Estates 1269 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Lillian Hanna Beaver Lake Estates 2412 Amberjack Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Steve Hill Beaver Lake Estates 1268 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Darleen Hofland Beaver Lake Estates 2408 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Jim Kallio Beaver Lake Estates 2425 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Euphemia Kroll Beaver Lake Estates 1283 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Jeannine Latterell Beaver Lake Estates 2420 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Ray Mann Beaver Lake Estates 2453 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Michael McCormack Beaver Lake Estates 1228 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Michael Mierva Beaver Lake Estates 2473 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 15 Tina Gray Beaver Lake Estates 1211 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Anthony Herbert Beaver Lake Estates 2461 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Warren Hobbick Beaver Lake Estates 1216 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Carol Johnson Beaver Lake Estates 1227 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Wendy Kelley Beaver Lake Estates 1212 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Casey LaCasse Beaver Lake Estates 1208 Deerfleld Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Harold Lee Beaver Lake Estates 2400 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 William McAmis Beaver Lake Estates 1228 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Margaret McCrank Beaver Lake Estates 2472 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Catherine Minnear Beaver Lake Estates 2413 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Arnold North Beaver Lake Estates 2469 Elkhart Lane 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 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Richard Stevens Beaver Lake Estates 1220 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 L. Odden Beaver Lake Estates 1224 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Kathleen Pakulski Beaver Lake Estates 1272 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Donna Peick Beaver Lake Estates 2416 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Tricia Quaale Beaver Lake Estates 2460 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Carol Ristau Beaver Lake Estates 2424 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Elba Schirner Beaver Lake Estates 12131 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 David Schreier Beaver Lake Estates 1236 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Mike Sheehan Beaver Lake Estates 1247 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Tina Sorenson Beaver Lake Estates 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 David Toff Beaver Lake Estates 2420 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Robert Warner Beaver Lake Estates 1214 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 Lisa Williams Beaver Lake Estates 2449 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Sandra Zimmerman Beaver Lake Estates 1255 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 17 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal, I am a resident of Maplewood Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would help protect and preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting Iow-income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its Iow to moderate- income residents. Thank you for your consideration. Douglas Chestnut Maplewood Mobile Home Park 1876 English Street Maplewood MN 55109 Mike Cobb Maplewood Mobile Home Park 1880 English Street North Maplewood MN 55109 18 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal, I am a resident of Rollin_cl 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 Kim Atkinson Rolling Hills 2638 Angela Court Maplewood MN 55119 Myron Axtman Rolling Hills 1324 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Scott Benson Rolling Hills 1340 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Floyd Brown Rolling Hills 1398 Pearson Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Carol Brown Rolling Hills 1394 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Richard Bunde Rolling Hills 1387 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Dan Charboneau Rolling Hills 2628 Benlana Court Maplewood MN 55119 Shelly Christensen Rolling Hills 1358 Pearson Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Larry Coffman Rolling Hills 2676 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Rene Comstock Rolling Hills 2633 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 John Cournoyer Rolling Hills 2655 Oakhill Court Maplewood MN 55119 Fred Creager Rolling Hills 2644 Benlana Court Maplewood MN 55119 Dorothy Dickinson Rolling Hills 1341 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Denise Elmquist Rolling Hills 2700 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Mona Lou Emerfoll Rolling Hills 2638 Oak Hill Court Maplewood MN 55119 Ray Garcia Rolling Hills 2637 Benlana Court Maplewood MN 55119 Carolyn Ann Garrison Rolling Hills 1373 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Judith Gilmore Rolling Hills 1332 Birch View Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Frank Goddfrey Rolling Hills 2642 Angela Court Maplewood MN 55119 William Guerin Rolling Hills 1342 Pine Tree Drive Maplewood MN 55119 19 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 20 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 985 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 Orris Bixby Town & Country 1044 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Richard Buckley Town & Country 1058 AIvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Roger Erickson Town & Country 2563 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Aimee Evanson Town & Country 1059 Deauville Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Joyce Fernette Town & Country 1048 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Rogert Fritz Town & Country 1059 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 William Gilbert Town & Country 1046 Deauville Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Robert Grillickson Town & Country 1050 Deauville Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Donna Gutwiler Town & Country 1066 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Linda Harmeling Town & Country 2565 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 D. Hermann Town & Country 1063 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 David Huot Town & Country 1046 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Donna MacRunnel Town & Country 1040 Deauville Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Pat Nau/JV Properties Town & Country 2557 Highway 61 Maplewood MN 55109 T.V. Nordstrom Town & Country 1036 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Pearl Pitlick Town & Country 2581 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Rebecca Potthoff Town & Country 1096 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Sandy Private Town & Country 1050 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 23 Geraldine Pullen Town & Country 1065 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Ronald Richardson Town & Country 1050 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Tammie Schweiker Town & Country 1062 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Charlene Stansbury Town & Country 2568 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Ron Strong Town & Country 2565 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Paul Vankirk Town & Country 2573 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Betty Verdick Town & Country 1042 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Joanne Wagner Town & Country 1061 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Carol Whaley Town & Country 2562 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Beverly Winston Town & Country 1056 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 24 Maplewood City Council Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 St. Paul Cabins 2501 Lowry Avenue NE St. AnthOny, MN 55418 612-781-3149 FYI Attachment 5 ~A~ i3 Z~02 March 11, 2002 Dear MayOr Robert Cardinal and City Council Members: I am writing in regards to .the city council meeting held Monday, February 25, 2002. I attended the meeting to hear all of the comments and concerns regarding 'the Manufactured Home Park · Closing Ordinance Discussion. I represent the owners of St. Paul 'Cabins Manufactured Home Community. I received information about the meeting from a letter sent by the City of Maplewood. I am happy to hear that staff is directed .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 CHAPTER 223. FRIDLEY CITY CODE MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSINGS ~ef Ord I~51) 223.01. PURPOSE In ~ew of the Peculiar nature and problems presented by the closure or convgzion of manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and general welfare will be promoted by requiring compensation to displa~ed residents of such parks. The purpose of this ordinance is to require park owners to pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and purchasers o£manufaetured home parks to pay addition~ compensation, pursuant to the authority granted under Minn~ota Stalutes, Section 327C.095. 223.02. DEFINITIONS The following words and terms when used in this ordinance shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: 1. 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 pa~k that is closing and the probable relocation oosts of the manufactured homes located in the park 2. Displaced Owner. A resident of an owner-occupied manufactm'ed home who rents a lot in a manufactured home park, including the members of the resident's household, as of the date the park owner submits a closure statement to the City's Planning Commission. 3. Displaced Resident. A displaced owner. 4. Lot. An area within a manufactured home parlq designed and used for the accommodation of a manufactured home. 26 Fridley City Code Chapter 223 Section 223.02.10~. 5. Manufactured Home. A structure, not affi.xccl to or part of real cstatc, transportable in one of more sections, which in the traveling mode, is ~ight (8) feet or more in width or forty (zt0) feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is three hundred twenty 020) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling w/th or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditio-i~g, and electrical system contained in it. ' 6. Park Closure. A closure, conversion of usc, or termination of usc, whether in whole or in part, ora manufactured home park. For purposes of this definition, use shall mean any usc related to the manufactured home park and related services. 7. Park Owner. Thc owner ora man-tacturcd home park. 8. Person. Any individual, corporation, 5rng partnership, incorporated and unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity. 9. Purchaser. Thc person buying the manufactured home park from the park owner. In the event that/he 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 manufactured home park within the City of Fridley that is being closed or converted to another use to another manufactured home park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park as follows: A. Preparation for Move. Thc reasonable costs incurred to prepare thc ehgible manufactured home for transportation to another site. This category includes crane services if needed, but not thc cost of wheel axles, tires, frame welding or trailer hitches. 27 Friflley City Code Chapter 223 Sec~on 223.04 B. Transportation to Another Site. Reasonable costs incurred to transport the elig/ble manufactured home and Personal ' property within a twenty-five (25) mile radius. This category a/so includes the cost of insuring the manufactured home and contents while' the home is in the process of being relocated, and the cost of obta/ning moving permits provided that the park owner shall not be required to pay delinquent taxes on a manufactured home if necessary in, order to obtain a moving perrrfit. This category also includes the reasonable cost of disassembling, moving, and reassc~ubl/ng 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 Location.' The reasonable cost of connecting the eligible manufactured home tn utilities at the relocation site, including crane services if needed. The park owner shall not be required to upgrade the electrical or plumbing systems of the manufactured home. D. Insurance. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the property being moved. Relocation costs do not include the Cost of any repairs or modifications to the manu-faetured home needed to bring the home into compliance with the state and federal manufactured home building standards for the year in which the home was constructed. Relocation costs also dO not include the cost of any repaim or modifications to the home or appurtenances needed to bring the home or appurtenances into compliance with the roles and regulations of the manufactured home park to which the manufactured home is to be relocated, if those rules and regulations are no more stringent than the rules and regulations of the park in which the home is located and the resident was notified ofnon-complianoe vhth 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 Ifa manufactured home park is to be closed, converted in whole or part to another use or terminated as a use of the property, the park owner shall, at least nine (9) months prior to the closure, conversion to another use or termination of use, provide a copy of a closure statement to a resident of each manufactured home and to the City's Planning Commission. 223.04. 1NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City's Planning Commission shall submit the closure statement to the City Council and request the City Council to schedule a public hearing. Thc City shall mail a notice at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating 28 Fridl~ City Cod~ Chapter 223 Section 223.07.4 the time, place and purpose of thc hearing. The park owner shall provide thc City with a list of the names and addresses of at least one displaced resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time the closure statement is submitted to the City's Planning CommissiOn. 223.05. PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing shall be held before the City CounciI after.receipt of the closure statement for the purpose ofrevivwing thc closurc statement and evaluating what impact the park closing may have on the displaced residents and thc 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. Ii'the park owner refuses ,to pay the contract or other verificcl cost cstirnate, 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 thc park owner, identifying that the displaced resident either cannot or chooses not to relocate his or her manufactured home to another manufacUned home park within a twenty-five (25) rn/le radius of the park to be closed and elects to receive either relocation assistance as defined in 223.07.02 or compensation as defined in 223.08. 223.07. ELECTION TO RELOCATE 1. After service of the closure statement bythe park owner and upon submittal by the displaced resident of a contract or other v~dfication of relocation expense, s, thc park owner shall pay to the displaced resident the reasonable costs as defined in 223.02.10 of relocating the m~nufactured home to another manufactured home park located within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park that is being closed, conves~ed to another use, or ceasing operation. 2. If a displaced resident cannot or chooses not to relocate the manufactured home within a twenty-five (25) mile radius oft. he park which is being closed, and thc displa~'cd resident elects to retain title to thc manufactured home, the displaced resident is entitled to relocation costs as defined in 223.02 based upon an average of the actual relocation costs paid to other displaced residents in thc manufactured home park. For purposes of this section, in the event that it is not possible to calculate the average using this formula, the amount of compensation shall be based on the averag~ of thc 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 respons~le for its prompt removal from the manufactured home parle 4. The park owner shall make.thc payments under this section directly to the person performing the relocation sci'vices after performance thereof, or, upon submission of written evidence of payment of relocation costs by a displaced resident, shall reirnbursc the displaced resident for such costs. 29 Fridley City Code Chapter 223 Section 223.11 5. The displaced resident must submit a contract or other verified cost estimate for .relocating the manufactured home to the park owner as a condition to the park owner's liability to pay relocation expenses. 223.08. ELECTION TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION Ifa displaced resident chooses not to relocate the manufactured home within a twenty five (25)- mile radius o£thc park that is being closed and tender~ title of the manufactured home to the park ov~ner, 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 parkclosing. In such instance, the compensation shall be au amount equal to: 1. The current fair market value of thc mauufacturcd home as detenninecl bY'a real property appraiser licensed by the State of M~nnesota, 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 Re purchaser. Any disputes over valuation shall be resolved through judicial action in Anoka County District Court. The purchaser shall pay such compensation into an escrow account, established by the park owner, for dism'bution upon transfer of title to the manufactur Such compensation shall be paid to the dis,qace,~ .--o~,~-.. ~:-.-~ ,,~,-- -· ed home. ~- ~. ,,,o,,~,L ~xLy tou) aays prior to closing of the park, conversion to another usc, or later at resident option and the park owner shall receive title and possession of thc manufactured home upon payment of such compensation. 223.09. LIMITATION ON TOTAL AMOUNT OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE - ANI) COMPENSATION PAID TO DISPLACED RESIDENTS The total amount of relocation assistance and compensation paid to displaced residents of the manufactured home park, shall not exceed the greater of twentY percent (20%) of the County Assessor% estimated market value of the manufactured home park, as determined by the County Assessor for the year in which the park is scheduled to close, or twenty percent (20%) o£the purchase pricc of the park. 223.10. APPLICABILITY Relocation assistance aud related compensahon described under 223.02, 223.07 and 223.08 of this ordinance shall not apply in the event that a displaced resident receives compensation under the Uniform Relocation Act et. al. (42 U.S.C. ~601-4655). 223.11. PENALTIES 1. Violation ofauy provision of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor. 30 Fridl~ City Cod~ Chapter 223 Section 223.11 2. Any prov/sions of this ord/nance may be caromed by injunction or other appropriate civil remedy. 3. Thc City shall not issue a building pcrrrtit in conjunction w/th reuse of'manufactured home park property unless the park owner has paid reasonable location costs aud the purchasg of the park has provided compensation in accordance with thc requ/remcnts of the ordinance. Approval of any application for rczoning, plattiug, cond/tional usc permit, planned unit development or variance in conjunction with a park closing or convcrsionshall bc conditional on compliaucc with thc r~quircrnents of this ordinance ..... 3] TOTAL P.O? I I I I A.,N OI~INANCE OF THE CrI'Y OF ~OP~ ~SOT~ ~T~O TO ~A~ HO~ P~ ~OS~S ~ ~D~O ~C~ON 4.61 TO ~ C~ CODE ~ ~ CO~C~ OF ~ C~ OF S~OP~ ~SOT~ O~~: '~="~ - The Shalmpee City Code is nmended by adding a new section ~o re, i: ub . 1. P S ' f ! ' .ha re .d re r . el r eofthls 'o is r u' ko d of d' I r id sr~ abl tel 'on sand " ' tod' I 'den. wh ib to m ' e ~crement nd theC ass~th r c m e · "-or'tv eoti n 327 .09 [ eflt fthese ~ ~o I~e aum .2. D S. Thefo w s dt wh u ' ' 'cles follo-',vine ~-,~nin~$ u~,J~_~:* the co~_.,~X clear .E' indlc~es otherwise: o re St - st~ ment r b wner cl ntin the ark is os' dr ' he ,v~ iii ! ,ti n ~ ~ialco o ate I ent u' ' ' 25 e 'us of hat i elosin snd ob relocation s~ the ho Dis laced sid t- resident of o er man ho w ten a t hme inc d' 'v member,a f res' ent' h f t ~own~ b 'ts [o ement th i 'sPJannm' o 'ssi n. C. Lot-Afl m'ca ~'-'-:'-~ o, moA'~ -Factured h°me -Dm'k' -d-''~;-'-~ned °r used f°r the ~cOmm°dati°n °f-~ D Man Ho e- st ctu no to of te leino ._or r 'o hich in the ' m is g bed or e' 'd h or 40 mo m en or h er onsit¢ is 320 or mo nn 'h~s ~t n~ c and d_~!~l to be used as a dw~l'tne wi~h or without ,, nermnnent fou .~__~on ~ ~nnected to _r~,_ul. red ,_t.~l~ti~_~ 0fid includes +,he pl~mbin_e, h~,~ air-~oMifior~ and ~_1 ~stem ~. Manuf~__~.~od Home ]~k - Am' s~te. lot. field or u'ac-t of' innd u_m)n which two 9r more _~__~_?ied ~_~-~-at.-~1'ed homes are lc,~==~-c~L wheth~ ~ Of chnree or £o~ co~c,~.-~t~on- and any_ b,_,~d~ structure. ~-~L v~cle or enclosure used or iraqi---~ for ,~ as Dart of i;,e _eau~_~-~'~.. ~' JJT- 1 32 APR 0 3 2002 ov,~ in th~ o_ueration or management of 3 N S If_ ho is nv ' w i or t ano her or _ . . __~ .... ,~-~of r vide a cl · ri r to +,he .io nv n an ~, . . · t t oaresl ent f hm · ! he ~ 'sPI o ion. et tax' nt an' sh Id usedf~r . tf~he ' ' ~hattax 'ch the o elect t re ' its · t ....-:'-- should not_ be u~cl for . CIo_~,~re has been - - -~ ~n:~nTNG. The Plaruu'n ' ion bruit the G e u . S N OFPUBL1 .......... -, m., ~,~,, tt~ C~v f~tmct~ tO le ' ' ' tin he 'me lace d eof the The ark ' C' ' a - - - ,,,d ,dare_q~ of at · ' f h m ho in at · ot es time cio · .tern t' submitt tot PI ' mml' · t t e]~ 'ce fC ' f~ t se ' ' thecl su ent al ' · a .t the ark cl sin ma .ye o di I resid nts the ark owner. Subd. 7. PA~ OF RELOCATION COSTS; - '* trot' ~ ' ~ocatln on ' b thc dis men . J-J*r.159~42 (2] The .cost Ofin_mrance for the re~lacem~t value of the _oropeIw being movecL The cost of rut4onal)le r _epni~ or _moa_ ifie-**ions that ~ ~ ~ ord~ ~ p~y ~ ~e ~~ ~ ~m its ~g ~ to ~e ~1~ ~ ~ ~~ ho~ ~ B. Relo¢_-atiou costs eh,l{ not inch_,de- payments _paid on behalf of.a dimla;~d re,.sid~'~nt by ~he park ovmer or purc~qe_r or bv the ovmer of any_ manut'~ed home _ua~k to which tl~ dim{aced resident C. The total amount of r,,elo_m.~on pa_wnents paid to ~ displaced IT~lent shall not exceed tl~ _estim~_J__~d market valu_¢ ~fthe home as determined in Subs~aJon.S.A of this Section. Sub~l, 8. PAyMEbrT OF ADDITIONAL ¢OM~ENSATION~ A. , ff il re~de.t cannot or chgosesi not to relocate the lnanufllcturlg home within a 2.~ mile radius of ~he P~rk t_hn~t is _lx4_'_,~_~ c{o__*ecl_ due tO a structural or n_ge. limitation 9fthe manuftg~red home or the bric_ of a.ny awilnMe lot wacewithin the 25 mile _r~l_ iu~ ~en ~ li~ 9fthe above relocation va_vmem_ a di~l~_-d_ resident is .enftled to tender l~he title to the manuf-sctured home and be paid an amount ~ to .the estin~t~___, market value of the m~nufacRu~ home ils de, v-trained by an indeuendent a_upraiser knowledgei~ble in the ~on of .m. anufacture(I homes and giving due considgm-4tion tO the value _aud conditi.o~ of the home. The City_ shall sele~ the al~_ raiser mhd the park_uur~r shall pay for the cost of the aoor~i~! The pu~ or .t~rk owner shall pa_v such co _muens~tion upon trans~ of title to the home. Such compe,~_~tion shall 1~ paid to the displaced r~dent ~ later than 90 days prior to th~ c!_o~n_~ of the _park or its conve~on to another use. and the oark .owner shall receive title and possession of the manufaqptred.home _upon pa_vment ofs~ch com_~on. B. , If s~ di?!!.eed__ ~.~{dent cannot or choost~ not tO relocate the manufa~ home within,' ~t 25 mile radius of the pa~k that is beinR closed due to a stmcm, ral or age limitation of tile mnnufacmr~ home. and t~e resident e..lects not to,,~end~ litle to {he manufactured home, the resident {{ entitled to reliction costs ~_t~_ to ~p avemFe of r~ costs paid to other re~len~ in the park. Payment of the averatte relocation costs shall be made as follows: 50% within 10 ~ of ap_ollcation for the fu~, ,s, and $0% upop the. removifl of ~e mamfactm'ed home Ind any mugure~ and 4ebris fi'om t~e rnn~u _factwed home oark Pa_vment for doublev4de manufactured homesshall be in an amount ~ual to ~vice the average,relocalign costs paid to ov,'l~rs of sin~ewi~l~ m'4nufactm~ homes. 34 $,_,_hd 9- CAP ON - tax ...... -'-~ is u~,a ,~ assist in a of · . 'o..~ .... :..~ ,^ · . ops~a~~ · . th fo win t · i o~o - 2O% Subd. 10. PENAL'I'~. 5111:S:5-2~ 4 APR 0 3 ZOLI2~ 35 B The Ci~ ~hall not is_~,e_a b,_,i_~d'_~_ _~"mit in ~'.~:~on with r?,e of. ~_t~'~umd hom~ park ~.c.~._~y un?~ the park owner h~ ~_;~ reasonable rciO,-*tion ~_~ znd ~ ~ of th~ _mtdc has ~ or i~s conver~_'_o~ ~o nnathcr ~?- Thc Pm'k owner ~ ngt haw any li~ity ~or the ~vmem of any ~sims msde z~%*r tach date.. Subd, 11. APPLICAI)~YrY. This ~n mpplies only to the ¢lo~_n~. of mmn,,~ home pmrics Sec6on :l - ~ Date. This ordim~ bec__omes effective from and d~er its pas.~o mi publication. Adopted in ~ scssion of the City Co~i~cil of thc City of Shakopee, M._'o.t,qot~ ~M~'yor of thc City of Sbtkopee ATTEST: / ~JT-IS~8~2 5 SH1~$-23 APl? 0 32002 / TOTRL P. (]6 36 Attachment 6 Maplewood Manufactured Home Parks Town and Country 2557 Highway 61 St. Paul Tourist Cabi 940 Frost Avenue dewood Man. Home Park 1880 English St. N. Rolling Hills 1319 Rollin Hills Drive Beaver Lake 2425 Maryland Avenue Manufactured Home Parks s 37 Attachment 7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance July 10, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Ail Parks Alliance for Change (APAC), and many manufactured home park residents in Maplewood, have requested that the city council pass an ordinance that would guarantee park residents financial assistance to relocate if their park closed. On February 25, 2002, the city council directed staff to review this request and forward a recommendation to them. Refer to the attached Apdl 3, 2002 memorandum for details. On June 17, 2002, the planning commission discussed this request and tabled action so staff can address their questions. Refer to Discussion below. BACKGROUND Apdl 9, 2002: The Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) discussed this matter. The HRA tabled this issue until the city receives notification of a manufactured home park closing. They felt that since there are no proposed or pending closings at this time, there is no urgency to act immediately. The HRA discussed the needs-vs.-greed aspects of APAC's suggested ordinance. The HRA also wanted 'to know from the city attomey if the city would have sufficient time to enact an ordinance at the time of a proposed park closing that would be applicable to that park or if it would only apply to future closings in the city. (The city attorney said that, in such a case, an ordinance enacted would apply to future closings, not to a current one.) DISCUSSION Planning Commission's Questions A. What government programs support affordable housing? Affordable housing can be funded by: tax-increment financing (TIF), community development block grants and livable communities grants. B. Why didn't the Cities of Brainerd and Willmar paSs the manufactured home park-closing ordinance? What were their reasons for not passing an ordinance before making any decisions? - Brainerd The City of Brainerd discussed a park-closing ordinance on May 7, 2001 and after much discussion and testimony denied the proposed ordinance (the motion died for lack of a second). The Brainerd City Council stated the following reasons for not adopting their proposed ordinance (dedved from the Brainerd City Council minutes): 1. This is a social issue that shouldn't be solved by adopting an ordinance that may not be in the best interest of all parties involved. 2. It should be discussed on a regional basis rather than just a City of Brainerd issue. 3. There is no eminent park closing and there is time to come up with a better solution to the problem. One problem with this is the compensation issue. There are only two reasons that a park would close; it is on a lakeshore property and the value has increased or it is adjacent to a shopping mall that wants to expand. 5. Perhaps agreements should be worked out between the owners and the residents of the parks on an individual basis. Regarding a sunset clause: The residents may feel that this will benefit them, however they may never move and their park may never close and in the long run, they will be out more money, as the park owners have already stated that rent will have to be raised in order to compensate for the possibility of the closing. 7. Taking "no action" would not leave the tenants high and dry, as there is state statute language that provides for tenants if their park is closed. Willmar The City of Willmar initiated the closing of a manufactured-home park due to health and safety code violations. The park owner refused to correct the code infractions. Michael Schmit, the Willmar City Manager, said that they decided not to enact a park-closing ordinance since the state statute already covers this situation and provides guidelines for public notice, public headngs and requires compensation should the city council deem it to be warranted. The Willmar City Council did require compensation. Mr. Schmit did not see any reason for a city to enact such an ordinance since state law already covers this. C. How/why did the city attorney come to the conclusion that an ordinance enacted at the time of a proposed mobile home park closing would not apply to that one, only to a future closing? The city attorney explained that, in his earlier statement, he meant that an ordinance must be adopted and published before it becomes effective. He further stated and clarified, however, that the city could adopt an ordinance after an announcement of a manufactured-home park closing which would include that park. Procedurally, the City of Maplewood wants to give all involved parties ample time to respond to any potential ordinance change before the city council would amend the code. Oakdale and Roseville The cities of Oakdale and Roseville have adopted manufactured home park closing ordinances. I have enclosed copies of their ordinances for the planning commission's information. CONCLUSION Staff has not formed a recommendation about this matter. The input received at the planning commission meeting will aid staff in forwarding a recommendation to the city council. p:com_dvpt\ord\manufactured home parks.7'02, doc Attachments: 1. City of Oakdale Ordinance 2. City of Roseville Ordinance 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 17, 2002 4. Memorandum dated April 3, 2002 - MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan White Bear Avenue between Ripley Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue August 6, 2002 INTRODUCTION Hillcrest Village Smart Growth Study The Metropolitan Council and their design consultants, together with the cities of St. Paul and Maplewood, have developed a neighborhood redevelopment land use plan for the Hillcrest Shopping Center and the contiguous part of Maplewood north of Larpenteur Avenue. This plan, called the Hillcrest Village smart growth site, was developed over the past 1% years. Also involved with the development of this plan were concerned property and business owners. The Met Council presented this plan to the public on April 25, 2002. Refer to the Hillcrest Village plan on page 4. Since then, St. Paul and Maplewood have each held an informational meeting with their respective neighborhoods that would be affected by this plan. Request Staff is requesting that the planning commission, community design review board (CDRB) and housing and redevelopment authority (HRA) forward a recommendation on the Hillcrest Village plan to the city council. The council needs to decide whether the city should adopt the redevelopment plan for Hillcrest Village, some variation of it or not adopt it at all. BACKGROUND On Apdl 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 offedng their desires and preferences on how they would like this area to redevelop. On May 24, 2001, the Met Council held a follow up meeting at Woodland Hills Church to present the consultants two development alternatives they created from input received at the April 26 workshop. 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. , I t 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 eldedy or disabled in having parking in back, unless there are back doors. On 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 cdteda for this area with all interested parties and smart- growth participants. This moratorium expires on November 13, 2002 or at such time as the city council adopts amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map or comprehensive plan. On Apdl 1, 2002, staff presented the final Hillcrest Village plan to the planning commission for their information. Since this presentation was informational only, no action was taken. On Apdl 22, 2002, the staff presented the final Hillcrest Village plan to the city council at the council/manager workshop to update them on the plan. No action was taken. On Apdl 25, 2002, the Met Council gave a presentation of their final draft of the Hillcrest Village plan to the public at Woodland Hills Church. On June 18, 2002, Maplewood planning staff held a neighborhood informational meeting to get comments about the Hillcrest Village plan. On June 19, 2002, the City of St. Paul Planning and Economic Development (PED) staff held their neighborhood informational meeting. DISCUSSION Neighborhood Meetings Maplewood's Neiqhborhood Meetin,q On June 18, 2002, the Maplewood planning staff hosted a neighborhood meeting at city hall to present the Hillcrest Village plan to the residents along White Bear Avenue between Frost Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue as well as the owners of the involved business properties on White Bear Avenue and Van Dyke Street. The majodty of those attending this meeting were not in favor of any redevelopment. ManY wanted to know when redevelopment would happen and how much they would be paid for their properties. Business owners wanted to know what would happen to their businesses dudng redevelopment. Refer to the comments on pages 5-9 which are responses to a questionnaire we mailed to property owners and comments received at the meeting. 2 St. Paul's NeiRhborhood Meetin.q On June 19, 2002, the St. Paul PED staff held a neighborhood informational meeting. Virginia Burke, of St. Paul's staff, told me that the residents and business owners in St. Paul had a more favorable response than Maplewood received. The Met Council's redevelopment plan remains the preferred plan. Ms. Burke explained that there was support of this plan by residents, business owners and groups like the White Bear Avenue Business Association and neighborhood planning councils. It should be noted that St. Paul is working with Centex Corporation for the redevelopment of the Hillcrest Entertainment Center (formerly Hafner's Bowl) property into multiple-family housing. Final Development Plan In total, the final Hillcrest Village redevelopment plan 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 alone, there would be 16 townhouse units, 129 apartment units, 36,400 square feet of office space and 76,000 square feet of commercial space. Conclusion This plan is to be used as a guide for Maplewood and St. Paul redevelopment activities. The design criteria the Maplewood planning staff is drafting will also become part of the development guidelines for Hillcrest Village. The Maplewood City Council needs to review the plan, decide if they agree with this plan or would like to change it in some way. The council may also choose not to pursue the adoption of the plan at this time. The Met Council has said that Maplewood would be considered more favorably for grant funds if we adopt this plan or a close variation of it. They realize, of course, that each city's council may not find all aspects of their redevelopment plan totally to their liking. The Met Council would hope, though, that the smart growth concepts and design elements depicted in their plan would be promoted by each city. (There are six smart growth redevelopment sites throughout the metro.) RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to the city council on the Metropolitan Council's Hillcrest Village Redevelopment plan. p: co m_dvpt~miscell~hillcrst.7'02, mem Attachments: 1. Metropolitan Council's Hillcrest Village Final Concept Plan 2. Questionnaire Replies 3. Comments from Property Owners 3 CONCEPT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 100' 200' 300' March 15, 2002 Commercia//Of~ice Building Mixed-Use Building Residential Building Future Commercial BuiMing [ } L ~Attachment ~I II/~/ ', 49,400 :i~ Commercial Il ill~/l ..... 4 36,400:FOffice ~1 Ch t~ ~ m ~ 351 Off Sueet S~ace S1 ces l~To~omeU~~---: ~------ ' ,~" , 42Off-S=eetS~aceSpaces. ', t I II/__l~I IIF~I',,~ ~13700SFCo~erd~ ta~[~*~u~ ~VE~U~ BLOCK W2 16,800 SF Commercial 71 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS W3a & W3b 17,400 SF Commercial 4 Single-Family Un/ts 50 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCK W4 38 Apartment Units 16 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS WSa & WSb [ [_ 16 Townhome Units .... 2 Single-Family Units I BLOCK W6 12 Townhome Un/ts CALIFORNIA AV [ ..... l ~ L IDAHO AVE OWA AVE HOYT AVE ~ ~ BLOCK E3a ..... [ ~21,700 SF Comm~cial [--I It / I 42 Apartment Un/ts ~, 81 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCK E3b 19,400 SF Commercial 44 Apartment Units 71 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS E4a & E4b I0 Townhome Units Single-Family Units 38 Apartment Units BLOCKS ESa & E5b 22 Townhome Units 2 Single-Family Units BLOCKS E6a & E6b 22 Townhome Un/ts Calthorpe Associates HILLCREST VILLAGE Smart Growth Twin Cities Metropolitan Council City of Maplewood City o£ St. Paul 4 Attachment 2 HILLCREST VILLAGE QUESTIONNAIRE Of 116 questionnaires sent out, 10 people responded as follows: 07/10/02 1. I like the concept of redevelopment for this area: 4 Yes 4 No 1 Unsure Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work): "Unsure, not afraid of added housing, but not sure of design mix." 1789 T. Bottad, 6-7-02: "No." Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Yes." Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "No." Anonymous: "Yes." Anonymous: "Yes." A concerned Maplewood Resident: "Yes" ' Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "No." Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651-777-7184: "No." I agree with the proposed locations for business and i'esidential uses. 2 Yes 2 No 5 Comments If not, what would you like to see changed? Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work): "Keep North St. Paul Road in place. Leave existing housing in place." 1789 T. Bottari: "Keep business separate from housing. This plan reminds me of old (turn-of- the-century) neighborhoods in Chicago, II1., built before cars, when people walked to stores, work, etc., lived over their bakery, behind their Mom & Pop grocery store, rarely left the neighborhood, except to go downtown on the trolley or 'el'. Also they didn't have checking acc'ts - check cards or credit cards or pc's." Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Encourage commercial use." Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Too much traffic as is! This plan would re- route traffic making White Bear Ave. more congested!" Anonymous: "Yes." A concerned Maplewood Resident: "Yes" Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "No. Face lift on White Bear Ave and leave Van Dyke alone." Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651-777-7184: "No." I T I 3. I like this plan because: Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home)651-296,5485 (work): "Some green space - that's good." 1789 T. Bottad: "We could use a little spit and polish." Anonymous: "Area needs a face lift." Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651-777-7184:"1 don't like anything about it.~ 4. I don't like the plan because: Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work): "Seems so abstract this is causing clear anxiety tends to cause folks to let property run down due to uncertainty of future. Neighbor already muttered that he wouldn't put another dime into his house if the intention was to take our homes gradually or right now for other uses." 1789 T. Bottari: "Where's White Castle, Jerry's Chicken, Steve's Market (he's getting better), the Dollar Store, Snyder's etc? When people are force to move out they don't come back. Is the plan child friendly? Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Don't want too much Iow income housing:" Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Traffic noises, traffic congestion and Iow income housing attracts problem families." Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "If the people in the Hillcrest and Maplewood community want to redevelop this community let them do it the way they want to not thru the Metropolitan Council." Other Comments: Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work): "It doesn't look much like what the neighbors planned at early meetings and the business owners sure seem upset. Change is difficult but it's the unclarity of this plan that is exacerbating that. Also don't replace $100,000 homes with $170,000 townhomes and call it affordable housing. Also the uncertancy about piecemeal dev do it all or nothing.~ 1789 T. Bottad: "1 live on White Bear Ave., have since 1976. I don't know what plan you have for my part- more mix??? More traffic? County 5 coming through from Century Ave (120)? Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Area businesses concerned that they will be 'forced out'." A concerned Maplewood Resident: "No more tattoo shops. No 'Mr. Nice Guy drug paraphernalia type shops. No adult book/video stores. ^ _aood grocery store like Kendell's or Knowlan's. NOT Steve's warehouse. No more Chinese restaurants - we have enough now. Nor more bars or liquor stores. 'No "hang-out" shops. Well lit - well patrolled area. No sex offenders. No traffic detoured to residential streets. I look forward to seeing the area beautiful - but not a lot of businesses that we don't need or want in the area. Office space yes - good reputation businesses." Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651-777-7184: "If the east side of Larp & White Bear in Maplewood is such an eye sore - start with Xcel and the phone co. putting the utilities underground. That would be an improvement alone. It probably would be best if you find the money first and start buying us out." P:/com_dvpt/Hillcrest Village Questionnaire 7 ~[ I I ]' I Attachment 3 HILLCREST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS 6/18/02 1) Larpenteur resident: "No way." 2) Brad & Marian Whitney, 1763 East Larpenteur: "1. Concern about property value. 2. Concern with inability to say no. 3. Concern on time frame of development. 4. Roundabout." 3) Jean Nelson, 2201 Birmingham, Maplewood, MN, 55109: "The northeast corner of White Bear & Larpenteur needs a face lift more so than any businesses on Van' Dyke but it appears the owners of the property do not understand that these meetings are for input. And they also said we have no intention of fixing up the property. They could at least be a little more open to the concept - of appearances and be willing to work with the community and not against it. I live in Maplewood but work on the St. Paul side of the proposed project at H&R Block. There needs to be a balance of commercial and residential. We were originally in Hillcrest which leaked and the new front may look ok to the public but if you go-in the back rooms - the walls are falling apart - hundreds of electrical and phone wires everywhere - inside is a dump. We are now in Hafner Center and the structure of the building is a little better but also needs improvements." 4) Nathan Block, Plaza Theatre, (651-503-0434): 'I agree that something needs to be done to White Bear Avenue. I would prefer that it not displace the Plaza Theatre. I would love the city to intervene so that I could purchase the small parcel of land on which the Plaza resides from Woodland Hills Church. So far, the church is unwilling to sell. I want to keep giving the community of Maplewood/St. Paul an affordable alternative to seeing movies." 5) Gary and Claudia Lonetti, 1956 Price Ave, Maplewood, MN, 55109, 651-777- 8220:"6-18-02. We do not want subsidized and (Iow income) housing. Keep the businesess but fix them up, including, do some landscaping. Take a close look at sinnage and class it up. There is nothing wrong with No. St. Paul Rd. except it needs to be re-surfaced." 6) R. Meissner: "1 agree that the Ave needs to be redone'so keep up the good work. Most of the Ave is rented with absent landowners. All the tenants can be replaced in new units (business units)." 7) David L Johnson, 1743 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, MN, 55109: "Plan for more commercial/office b!dg on White Bear Ave and less resident housing on White Bear Ave." 8) Ken & Jackie Schwartz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St.: "Against the proposal completely. Area needs facelift. Why don't we see what St. Paul agrees to? That's the area that really needs work." 9) Len & Irene Klein, 1741 E. Larpenteur: "Plan not acceptable." 10) Gene Tschida, 1721 W.B.A.: "Start with redevelopment going further up W.B.A. on residential side." 8 11) 12) 13) North Suburban Tile & Carpet, 1715 Van Dyke St.: '~,Ve don't want to move. Redevelopment of our street will close our business. We need help keeping the neighborhood clean and safe. The buildings don't cause this problem." Minn. Health Family Physicians, 1814 No. St. Paul Rd.: "No. St. Paul Rd. is a dangerous intersection. It is hazardous for our employees to cross the street to SA. Over the last 5 years we have had homeless people sleep in the wooded area behind the old Berger King building and trash is dumped off monthly. Traffic crosses through Blockbuster parking lot all day long. Junior Achievement parking would be an option for us if plowing a walk way for people and a safer North St. Paul Rd or another option would be to close the road allow us to p'urchase more land for parking." Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments: "Show us the money and we'll be out." p:/com_dvpt/Hillcrest Development comments