The East Bethel City Council unanimously voted to deny a concept plan that would have added 33 new homes at the Cedarwood Estates manufactured home park, while giving the applicant the opportunity to return with revisions addressing council concerns.
Kendra Lindahl, a planner with Landform, presented the proposal, which would expand the park onto two adjacent parcels through a Planned Unit Development and establish standards for both the existing park and the proposed expansion.
The park, located along Highway 65 NE, was originally permitted in 1969, when East Bethel was still a village. Manufactured home standards were adopted by the city in 1987, Lindahl said.
Under the proposal, the PUD would apply to approximately 178 existing lots and 33 new lots. Manufactured home parks are permitted only in B-1 zoning, and the PUD would establish site-specific standards for the property. The land is guided Medium Density Residential and zoned R-2 for single-family and townhome residential.
A separate parcel northwest of the park contains a shared septic system but is not included in the application. That property is guided for light industrial use and zoned B-3 for highway commercial.
The applicant’s narrative requested flexibility for lot size, lot width and setbacks, Lindahl said. The submittal did not clearly address existing conditions, and the expansion showed lots sized for 16-foot-by-76-foot homes.
Residents would own the homes but not the land. If approved, staff would have recommended platting the entire development as a single lot with individual unit lots for each home.
Lindahl showed council members that boundary lines overlap in several areas of the park, a condition the city generally seeks to avoid.
“Generally, the building code doesn’t want to see that happen,” she said.
The fire department also raised concerns about a dead-end road at the north end of the park. Lindahl said the road would need to be connected or redesigned with a turnaround cul-de-sac that meets code requirements.
Lindahl said the proposal did not demonstrate compliance with city code standards and would require substantially more information. She outlined several deviations requested by the applicant, including reduced setbacks from Highway 65, front yards, rear yards and side yards, as well as reduced building separation.
The city also needs additional information about existing conditions, she said, including parking for both existing and proposed lots and how decks and storage sheds would comply with code. Many existing structures appear to be nonconforming and are likely not legal nonconforming structures.
Several encroachments into Minnesota Department of Transportation right of way would also need approval or removal, Lindahl said.
The applicant indicated a willingness to abandon the shared septic and well and consider a phased connection to city water and sewer. That process would likely require stormwater ponding, wetland delineation and review under the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method.
Lindahl said the private park space shown in the proposal would be eliminated with the expansion. Staff recommended that park space for residential use be maintained somewhere on site.
The park itself is a legal nonconforming use because it was established before the ordinance prohibiting it in the district. Many individual homes, however, are nonconforming structures that do not meet setback requirements. Those homes may remain but cannot be replaced unless current setbacks are met.
The Planning Commission, which reviewed the concept earlier, agreed that additional discussion was needed on existing conditions. Commissioners supported a requirement that 15 percent of the site be park space and requested more information on wells, septic systems and plans for abandonment and city connections.
The commission also raised concerns about the lack of housing size variety, questioned whether larger homes could be accommodated, and expressed interest in both affordable housing and the ability to replace existing homes with newer models. Commissioners also sought clearer justification for the requested flexibility.
Council Member Suzanne Erkel asked whether the city could require double-wide homes, saying larger living spaces would be more desirable. Lindahl said that feedback could be provided but she was unsure whether the city could mandate lot size.
Erkel also asked about accessibility requirements, noting that manufactured homes are often chosen by people with disabilities. Lindahl said some homes could add wheelchair ramps and still meet setbacks, but many could not.
Lindahl confirmed to Mayor Ardie Anderson that the site would need to be rezoned from R-2 to a Planned Unit Development consistent with B-1 zoning.
Anderson said he was concerned that the concept plan covered both the existing park and the proposed expansion.
“Because if we’re allowing these sizes in the new part of the concept, then they can address that in the old part and they’re going to improve their density a lot more with more trailers,” he said.
Lindahl said her recommendation was intended to formalize the existing park layout, noting that overlapping lot lines need to be corrected regardless.
Anderson questioned where the park would connect to the city’s sewer system, noting the nearest connection point is about 1,320 feet away, with an estimated cost of $462,000.
“They would have a lot of work to do that,” Lindahl said. “I do not have the answer to that. I don’t know if the applicant has given that detailed thought, but that would be their responsibility to do.”
Council Member Brian Mundle agreed the proposal raised many unanswered questions and commended the Planning Commission for its review.
Council Member Jim Smith suggested compiling a list of concerns for the applicant and working collaboratively to address them.
Erkel expressed concern about the condition of some older homes and asked what would happen in the event of a storm, noting that some homes could not be replaced under current rules.
Lindahl said nonconforming structures that are damaged or removed can only be replaced if they meet current setbacks, which is not possible given existing lot sizes.
“The solution today is you either keep it empty or you request a variance,” she said. “My understanding is that a couple years ago there were a couple variances that were requested.”
Mundle said a PUD would be the best long-term solution because it would eliminate the legal nonconforming status and allow improvements without repeated variances.
Lindahl noted that some homes on the site have already been replaced with double-wide units, highlighting the challenge of balancing safety improvements with setback requirements.
“I wanna work with them, definitely,” Smith said. “Because it can help our city as well, bring in tax dollars, and the people that are buying and living there are spending money in our city. So if we can come to a decent PUD that works, I have no issues with that.”