Opinion ID: 1608663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Challenged Factual Findings.

Text: A. Conformance to R-3 requirements. In ruling on the Bahls' petition for writ of certiorari, the court observed that [t]he record is replete with facts which support the conclusion that plaintiffs' proposed development would qualify for the R-3 zoning classification. The City claims the proposed development did not meet the density requirements for R-3 districts and so would not have been permitted in that classification regardless of the restrictions imposed upon manufactured housing projects. We find it unnecessary to consider this contention because any dispute with respect to the density of the Bahls' project is not germane to the issue before us. As we discuss below, section 414.28A prohibits any ordinance that disallows land-leased communities if one of the reasons for disallowance is the fact the development contains manufactured housing. Here, as the City concedes, even if the development proposed by the Bahls met the density requirements for an R-3 district, the development would still have been disallowed because land-leased communities of manufactured homes are not permitted in an R-3 district. Consequently, whether the project otherwise met the requirements of that classification is not determinative of whether the zoning ordinance violates section 414.28A. Accordingly, even if the court's comment could be construed as a finding that the Bahls' project satisfied the density requirements for an R-3 district, that finding is not pertinent to the legality of the zoning ordinance challenged by the Bahls. B. Basis for City's denial. With respect to the second finding disputed by the Citythat the City's decision was based on the use of manufactured housing in the proposed developmentwe disagree with the City's contention that [t]here is not a shred of evidence to support this finding. To the contrary, the record is overflowing with evidence that the City's desire to preclude such housing in this area was at the very heart of the City's action. Prior to the hearings reviewed above, council members had indicated approval of the Bahls' plan to build a mobile home park as reflected by the council's approval in 1997 of a letter of intent in which the council agreed to support rezoning of [the Bahls'] land after it has gone through the annexation process to [R-4] for the development of a mobile home community. Later, the City's outside consultant who was hired to update the City's comprehensive plan suggested that the Bahls' property be designated as R-4, a designation that would permit a manufactured housing development. Even the planning and zoning commission initially recommended that the city council approve the Bahls' rezoning request. Nonetheless, the City, after hearing a public outcry against trailer parks, specified the Bahls' land as R-3 in the City's land use plan and thereafter refused to rezone the property to R-4. Although several relevant considerations came up at the various hearings, the discussion was overwhelmingly focused on the use of manufactured housing in the proposed development. This scenario of events supports the district court's finding that the City relied on its exclusionary zoning ordinance to disallow the Bahls' project because it contained manufactured housing. We turn now to the definitive issue.