PINES MOBLIE HOME COURT
April 20, 1983
To:
City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission
From:
Jim Kerrigan
Subject:
Pines Mobile Home Court
At the 4/5/83 City Council meeting, the staff was directed to work with
the City Attorney on a revision to the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance, Sec.
426.33(L) concerning Mobile Home Parks. It was proposed that this item
be considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission on 4/26 and the
Council on 5/5. This request was a direct result of the recent variance
request to allow a 14' wide unit in the Pines Trailer Court, reviewed by
the Planning and Zoning Commission at their 3/29/83 meeting. However,
in my review of this matter, it seems that at this time an ordinance
change may not be the most logical approach, although it should probably
be considered at some time in the future.
Attached is State Statute 327., Sec. 09. As you will note under Subd.8,
Improvements, it appears a city has the ability to enforce compliance
with an improvement plan for a Mobile Home Park which directly addresses
health and safety concerns. It seems this legislation could be used
by the City of Hopkins to facilitate allowing units wider than specified
in the present Hopkins Zoning Ordinance in the Pines, while at the same
7 time, insuring that a number of the concerns the City has as relates
to the Park are addressed. This could be done by granting a variance
to allow units wider than 12' into the Pines (not just for the one unit
as proposed under the present application). The variance could be granted,
subsequent to a determination of hardship, contingent upon certain
conditions being met by the applicant. These conditions would basically
be a plan as specified in 327C. If there was a violation relating to
compliance, the City would have the ability to bring suit against the
applicant to insure compliance.
Basically, I feel the variance route detailed above is more logical
than an ordinance change for a few different reasons. One reason is that
it is difficult to write an ordinance that addresses the possibility of a
new mobile home park in Hopkins, while at the same time being lenient
enough to address the health and safety concerns of an existing park.
A second reason in recommending the variance procedure is that this is a
more expedient process than an ordinance change, which can take up to
3-4 months to become effective. The question of enforcement of new
regulations on an existing non-conforming park, such as the Pines is also
a concern I have.
I have met with the Fire Marshal and Housing Inspector on a number of
occasions to discuss what would be the requirements of a plan tied to
the variance request. Enclosed is a plan which we feel adequately
addresses health and safety concerns and State requirements, but should
be able to be implemented with as minimal hardship as possible to either
the owner of the Park or the residents. These requirements are less
restrictive than in the existing Ordinance and much less restrictive
than most other communities (see attached comparison)
On 4/18/83 a meeting was held with the owners of the Pines to discuss
the plan as enclosed. For the most part they seemed fairly agreeable
Pin~s Mobile Home Court
April 20, 1983
Page 2
at attempting to improve the Park. They intend to meet with the Fire
Marshal at some time in the near future to discuss the parking situation
in more detail. The owners have stated that they will probably need 2-3
weeks to adequately respond to the proposed plan we presented to them.
I have informed them that we should try to resolve this matter by the
end of April. If this was accomplished, the City Council could real-
isttcally review this matter on May 5th in conjunction with the variance
request for the 14' wide continued from their meeting of April 5th.
If the plan was found to be acceptable, and a determination of hardship
was made, a variance as detailed above could be granted at that time.
This action would allow the 14' wide in question to remain in the park.
In conclusion, I do believe that no matter what action or procedure
the City takes on the variance request, the legal basis exists for the
City to require changes to the Pines to have it comply with today's
health and safety standards. Attached I have included an article from
the League of Minnesota Cities publication discussing the non-conformity
of manufactured homes and local ordinances that require their compliance
~ith updated regulations.
DATE:
April 14, 1983
TO:
William P. Craig, City Manager
FROM:
Jim Kerrigan
SUBJECT:
Improvement Plan - Pines Trailer Court
1. File with the City a site plan. The plan will detail in scale the location of
all lots, streets, off-street parking areas, yards and other information as re-
quested.
~
2. Each lot containing one unit shall have at a minimum the following requirements:
a. 2' front setback from street
b. 3' rear setback from lot line
c. 5' side-yard setback from lot line
No structures or parking shall be allowed in any setback. All setback areas shall
be maintained as a greenspace. ·
3. Streets within the park shall be 24' wide with one side of the street designated
a fire lane with no parking. Entire 24' width shall be maintained free and clear
of snow and other obstructions impeding access and parking.
4. A maintenance code of dwelling units shall be enforced by the owner of the Park.
Such code shall be subject to review and approval by the City.
5. All mobile homes moved into the park shall comply with the requirements of Minn
Statute Sections 327.31 through 327.34. All mobile homes moved into the park
shall bear the seal of approval as stated in Minn Statute Section 327.32.
Application for dwelling unit move-in shall be submitted to the City of Hopkins
Inspection Department for approval prior to the actual move-in.
6. An occupant of any dwelling unit wishing to undertake any improvement to a structure
or construct an accessory building or structure shall first receive written approval
of the park owner and a building permit from the City Inspection Department.
7. Each lot containing a dwelling unit shall at least have a concrete or asphalt
off-street parking area for one vehicle. Such parking area shall be a minimum
of 9' x 20', not less than 2' from any dwelling and not located in any lot
setback. For any lot on which off-street parking is not to be provided, off-
street parking space meeting the above requirements shall be provided within 150'
of the unit it is designated to serve. All other common parking areas shall be
concrete or asphalt.
8. Enforcement of 15 year Rule as specified in Minn Statute Section 327.07.
9. The park shall meet all other applicable requirements of Minn Statute Section 327
and applicable rules and regulations of the Department of Health.
-
~,
3 The structure has a c.onventional roof and
roof Ime.
4. Thl' de!>lgn, construction and materials are
not so inconsistent with surrounding
buildings and areas as to devalue property
or constItute blight.
5. Minimum floor area requirements of the
code are met.
6. All other requirements of law and the city
code are met.
Under this approach, all manufactured homes
which do not exceed 16 feet in width over 30 feet
of their length retain the old title of mobile homes
and are confined to mobile home parks.
SEE PAGE 8a.
There IS no reason why a city may not still
provide for and regulate what used to be called
mobile home parks and confine to such parks those
manufactured homes that do not meet property
desIgn standards for single family residence dis-
tncts. When this approach is taken, the design
standards applying to any type of single-family
district in which some manufactured homes are
permitted should apply to both manufactured
homes and conventional housing. Furthermore,
ordinances that set up separate districts for manu-
factured housing rest on firmer legal ground if they
do not also forbid all manufactured homes in all
single-family residential districts.
El!>ewhere in the country, if not in Minnesota,
some cities have provided for manufactured home
subdivisions and manufactured home condo-
miniums. It IS recommended, however, that
conventIonal housing types as well as all manufac-
tured housing be permitted in manufactured home
communities if they are appropriate in the general
neIghborhood. (Frederick H. Ban, J r. "Regulating
Mobile Homes", ASPO, 1981, p. 5.)
In dIStinguIshing between mobile and other
manufactured homes (the narrower and the wider
manufactured homes), the Lindstrom ordinance
p/eviously mentioned attempts to recognize that
some manufactu red homes more than others have
an appearance sufficiently like conventional
hous:ng to Justify permitting them to be located in
single family districts. Some cities may prefer....
dl)tlOgul!>hing between Class A and Cla!>s B manu-
factu/ed homes to avoid uSing a term (mobile
home) outdated in a sense by its statutory elimina-
t.on As Mr - Balr pOints out In the work Just cited,
what cities may be asked to permit m single family
.8-
\
districts is the manufactu(ed home that I('oks like a
house. He suggests these general attr Ibutt:s of such
a house:
1. The main body of the house should be a
rectangle, not too narrow in its least
dimension.
2. The main roof should be pitched rather
than flat.
3. The hou!>e should appear to face the street.
· Usually, this means that the long axis will
be parallel to the street.
4. The exterior walls should look like wood or
masonry, regardless of their actual compo-
sition.
5. The main roof should appear to be
shingled.
6. The foundation should form a complete
enclosure under exterior walls.
7. Apparent bulk should be about the same
throughout the neighborhood.
8. There should not be weird colors, peculiar
window designs, odd ornamentation, or
excessive reflection from exterior finish.
9. Houses should look enough alike, but not
too much alike. (Bair, Ope cit., pp. 7-8.)
Some of these "norms" can be incorpor-
ated in ordinance specifications getting at
them directly or indirectly. They are also
the sort of guidelines used at least impli-
citly under architectural design and review
ordinances, a subject discussed later In this
part of the memorandum.
2. Non-conforming uses. One problem that
often occurs when a city for the first time regulates
the location of manufactured homes, as by con-
fining them to particular residential districts, is
the prior existence of mobile homes that do not
comply with the new requirements. These homes
are ordinarily allowed to continue where located;
however, the principle that such uses may be
terminated after a reasonable time sufficient to
amortize the owner's investment has been accepted
by the Minnesota court as applied to billboards.
(Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Vilfage of
Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 162 N.W. 2d 206
1968.) The application of this principle to manu-
factured homes has never been judICially tested. If
the rule of the Naegele case were to apply, it
should be possible to include re~sonable provisions
in zoning 'lrdinances for the eventual elimination
of nonconforming manufactured homes. The
reasonableness of the time period for elimination is
crucial in determining the validity of such provi-
sions. Some Minnesota ordinances use a period of
ten years, but without a test of the application of
such a provision to particular circumstances, its
reasonableness is uncertain. Factors involved are
the time required for the owners to amortize their
investment and the possibility of salvaging the
investment by moving the property elsewhere -
higher in the case of a truly mobile home than of a
modular home that may have become as much a
part of the site as a site-built home. Sample
ordinance provisions and further comments are
included in Part III, E of this memo.
3. Architectural review ordinances. Though
manufactured homes are not as objectionable to
residents of established neighborhoods as earlier
mobile homes were, it is still often a neighborhood
concern that a manufactured home proposed
to be located on a vacant lot in a residential district
will be so incompatible with other residences that
it will have a depreciating effect on property
values. Yet in the right location, a new manufac-
tured home large enough to meet ordinance
requirements for minimum area, width, and length
and is compatible with the neighborhood may not
be objectionable. One way that some cities at-
tempt to deal with this problem involves the use of
an architectural control ordinance aimed at new
residential construction generally, not specifically
at manufactured homes. Under such an ordinance,
any building constructed or moved into an estab-
lished neighborhood must be approved by a local
architectural review or control board for compa-
tibility. In this way, modular units which meet
appearance and design standards of homes in the
neighborhood would be acceptable but those more
closely resembling their mobile ancestors would be
restricted to areas where they were more appro-
priate. Such ordinances have been used but never
judicially tested in Minnesota. The more specific
the standar{j by which the review board is to judge
acceptability and the more protection that is given
the prospective home purchaser through hearings
and appeals, the more likely the ordinance is to be
sustained and be acceptable in practice. A few
courts have upheld such ordinances (see State ex...
rei. Saveland Park Holding Corp. v. Wieland,
269 Wis. 262,69 N.W. 2d 217, 1956), but the fact
that such provisions rest largely on aesthetic
grounds makes their legality questionable. See the
annotation in 41 A.L.R. 3d 1397.
Some metropolitan suburbs have adopted such
ordmances, often using them as vehicles for advice
and persuasion rather than compulsion. See, for
example, "St. Louis Park's Architectural Control
Ordinance," Minnesota Municipalities, September,
1969, p. 265. Sample ordinance provisions of this
type appear in Part II I of this memo.
4. Regulation of manufactured home parks.
The state statutes do not prevent local govern-
mental units from regulating manufactured homes
and parks (M.S. 327.16, Subd. 5; A.G. Ope 283i,
June 1, 1964) although municipal licensing of such
parks is prohibited. (M.S. 327.26.) Such regula-
tion must be rea~onably related to the public
welfare and be consistent with applicable state
laws.
With respect to IGcal control over conditions
within the manufactured home parks, the most
common approach is through the requirement for a
building and zoning permit in advance of the state
license. State licenses will not be issued to opera-
tors unless they have first acquired an approved
permit, if necessary, under local ordinance. (M.S.
327.16.)
State regulations cover such health and safety
matters as drainage, water supply, plumbing,
sewage disposal, garbage and refuse, facilities
building, insect and rodent control, domestic
animals and the like. Stricter but not inconsistent
provisions on these matters may be included in
local ordinances on manufactured home parks, but
in addition ordinances may deal with such subjects
as minimum park area, density, street system
and design and car parking, trees and the like. The
state law sets a ten-mile-per-hour speed limit within
manufactured home parks (MS. 327.27, Subd. 2)
but now allows a city by ordinance to set and
enforce in a manufactured home park a speed limit
between 11 and 30 miles an hour. Such a local
speed limit must be clearly posted throughout the
park (M.S. 327.27, Subd. 2a).
It is not necessary to repeat state laws and
regulations in a local ordinance providing for
manufactured home parks, but some ordinances do
so. Representative local ordinance provisions on
manufactured home parks are given in Part III of
this memo.
One legal issue that may arise concerning local
regulation of manufactured homes and manufac-
tured home parks is whether the ordinance is, in
effect, a zoning ordinance and subject to the
procedural requirements of the state municipal
- 9 -
h
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK LOT RENTAl...';
~ 327C.IO
l-
e
Subel. 4. Rule violations. The resl<ltmt f.uls t.o comply wllh .l rule wlthm 30 days after
receiving written notice of the .llleged noncompliance eXl'Cl-lt the 30 day notice requirement
does not awly to nonpayment of rent
Subd. 5. Sublltantial annoyance. The resident .lCts III the park m a manner which
endanger:t ot.her resldent.'1 or park personnel, caUge:t suhstdntial d.lmage to the park
premllleS or ~ubstdntlally annoys other reSidents, and has rt.'celved 30 days written notice to
vacate, except the park owner may reqUire the resident to vacate immediately if the
resident violatc~ this subdiVision a second or subsequent time after receipt of the notice. A
park owner seckmg to evict pursuant to this SUbdiVISion need not produce evidence of a
crimmal conviction, even ir the alleged misconduct constitutes a cnmmal offense
Subd. 6. Repeated serious violationll. Tht' resident has repeatedly committed serioU15
VIOlations of the rental agreement or provllllons of a 10cllI ordmance or state law or state
rule relatmg to manufactured homes, and the park owner has gIVen the resident written
notice of the violations and has given the reSident a written warRIng that any future
senous violation will be treated a.~ cause for eViction as provld(,'<l In this subdivision, and
within SIX months of receiving the warnmg the reSident commits a serious violation of any
park rule or any provision of a local ordmance or state law or state rule relating to
manufactured homes
Subel. 7. Material miutatement in application. The resident's application for tenancy
contained a matenal misstatement which induced the park owner to approve the applicant
as a n..sulent, llnd the park owner discovers and ads upon the misstatement within one
year of the time the resulent began paying rent ---
Subd. 8. Improvements. The park owner has i11)CI'ifIC plans to mc1ke improvements to )
the park prelnlses which Will substantially benefit the health and safety of the residents or r
have been ordered by a government agency, and which necessitate removal of the I
resident's manufactured home from the park The park owner must give the resident 90 I
days written notice If another lot IS available in the park, the park owner must allow the :
reSident to relocate the home to that lot unless the homc, because of its size or local \
ordmance, IS not compatible with that lot. ~
Subel. 9. Park closings. The park owner voluntanly cealles to operate as a park the
part of the manufactured home park occupied by t.he resldenl, and gives the resident nine
months written notice of the planned cessatIOn of operation If another lot is a..adable in
Ii sectIOn or the park, still being operated as a park, the park owner must allow the resident
to relocate t.he home to that lot unless the home, lx.'Cause of It.<. Size or local ordinance, is
not compatible With that. lot
If the planned ce!lSation of operation IS for the purpo~e of converting the part of the
park occupied by the resident to a condominIUm pursuant to chapter 515A, the provisions
of section 515A 4-110, except clause (a), shall apply. The nine month notice required by
thiS subdiviSion shall state that the cessation is for the purpose of conversion and shall set
forth the rights conferred by this subdiviSion and section 515A.4-110, clause (b). Not less
than 120 daylt before the end of the nine month notice, the park owner shall serve upon the
reSident a (orm of purchase agreement setting forth the terms of sale contemplated by
section 515A.4-110, clause (b) Service of that form shall operate as the notice described
by section 515A.4- 110, clause (a).
Added by Laws 1982. c 526, an 2, ~ 9, err Aug I. 1982
327C.lO. Defenses to eviction
Subdivillion 1. Nonpayment of rent. In any action to recover possellSlon for failure to
pay rent, It shall be a defense that the sum allegedly due contains a charge which Violates
section 327C 03, or that the park owner has injured the defendant by failing to comply
With sectIOn 504 18
Subel. 2. Nonpayment of rent increase. In any actIOn to recover possession for failure
to pay a rent Increase, It shall be a defense that the park owner'
(a) failed t., comply With the prOVisions of section 327C 06, subdivision 1 or 3,
(b) mcreascd the rent In violation of section 327C 06, subdlVl~lOn 2.
35
a
e
y
Lot area
r
ear
ide
arking
ot width
,
pabetween
rWers
Lindstrom
ot Area
ot width
Blaine
4500 sq. ft.
10' curb
5' sidewalk
5' alley
10' no alley
5'
440 sq, ft.
per lot
50'
20'
5,000 sq. ft.
200 feet
Coon Rapids
4500 sq. ft.
25'
10'
non-entry - 5'
" 20' corner
entry side 20'
45'
Cottage Grove
7600 sq. ft.
short side 20'
long side 30'
20'
7.5'
.
off street
2/unit
60'
North Mankato
5000 sq. ft.
( 20'
( 20'
30' if
abut public
street
( 20' )
_/
off street
2/lot
20' side by side
15' end to end