Laserfiche WebLink
April 27,2021 Page 5 of 8 <br /> would allow manufactured home owners to own their lot which would assist in creating house stability.He <br /> questioned if a vacant lot in New Brighton could be used for several manufactured homes.Assistant Director <br /> of Community Assets and Development Gozola stated in terms of new parks opening,he had not had any <br /> requests.He stated this could be given greater consideration going forward after this Ordinance was in place. <br /> Mayor Niedfeldt-Thomas asked how this Ordinance will apply to the existing Ordinance regarding tiny <br /> homes.Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola discussed Section 2 of the <br /> Ordinance and explained the proposed Ordinance addresses the creation or expansion of manufactured park <br /> areas. <br /> Mayor Niedfeldt-Thomas questioned if hook ups to City water could be done to each individual lot for any <br /> new manufactured home park,in order have each individual lot metered.Assistant Director of Community <br /> Assets and Development Gozola stated he did not believe this was prohibited,but was a detail that could be <br /> decided during the SUP process. <br /> Councilmember Abdulle inquired if two smaller units could be combined.Assistant Director of Community <br /> Assets and Development Gozola commented this was not prohibited.He explained the City was most <br /> concerned about the proper separation of the units. <br /> Mayor Niedfeldt-Thomas questioned if the leases address the location of lot lines and if City Code could be <br /> causing issues with this matter.Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola stated he <br /> was not sure how City Code would interplay with the lease structure. He anticipated the lease structure has <br /> the same problems the City has with the units,in that they don't match the outline of the old unit lots as they <br /> presently exist. He stated the park owners may have some work,but noted the proposed Ordinance would <br /> provide more flexibility for updates. <br /> Councilmember Allen reported many of the mobile home parks have sheds and these were closer to the street <br /> than the proposed setbacks.He questioned if these sheds were in violation.Assistant Director of Community <br /> Assets and Development Gozola explained these sheds would be considered legal nonconforming uses if <br /> they received a permit from the City and would be an illegal nonconforming use if they did not receive a <br /> permit. He reported the City would not be demanding people to move their manufactured homes or sheds at <br /> this time.However overtime,as units are placed,the City would like to have proper setbacks in place.City <br /> Attorney Sonsalla reported sheds that received a permit were considered a legal nonconforming use and <br /> could be replaced with a shed the same size,but could not be expanded. <br /> Councilmember Allen anticipated that the majority of these sheds that were built decades ago,did not go <br /> through a permit process.He indicated this meant a lot of residents would be losing their sheds.Assistant <br /> Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola explained the new regulations do not change any of <br /> the old regulations,which meant the status for these sheds would remain the same. <br /> Councilmember Dunsworth asked if there was a standard size for manufactured homes.Assistant Director of <br /> Community Assets and Development Gozola reported the size varied.He reiterated that the City was simply <br /> asking the lots to meet Minnesota Department of Health separation requirements. He indicated the City was <br /> not placing a burden more than that when it comes to lot size. <br /> Councilmember Dunsworth was of the opinion the owners of the manufactured home parks needed to work <br /> with the current tenants to address separation concerns. She stated in the past the City has not had the best <br /> relationship with some of the owners of the manufactured park areas.She feared that if the City enacted this <br /> Ordinance residents would be displaced if asked to come into conformity.She questioned if the owner would <br /> have to incur the future costs or would it be the resident of the manufactured home park.Assistant Director of <br /> Community Assets and Development Gozola commented there would be no new cost than there is today.He <br /> reported if a resident wanted to put a 10 foot porch on today,the City would look at the separation. If the unit <br /> had to be moved,whoever paid that cost in the past would be the same as who pays this cost in the future. He <br /> reiterated that the City was not creating any new costs through this Ordinance. <br /> Councilmember Dunsworth understood there were sheds and homes that were not conforming,which was <br /> why this matter was being revisited.She understood the parks had to be brought into conformance in order to <br /> address the health and safety issues.She expressed concern with having a negative impact on the current <br /> residents unintentionally.She noted these are some of the City's most vulnerable residents.Assistant Director <br /> of Community Assets and Development Gozola explained that the proposed Ordinance would put into code <br /> how the City has been operating for the last 20 to 30 years within manufactured home parks. <br />