Richmond planners review state-driven manufactured-housing ordinance, flag limited local options

The Richmond Planning and Zoning Commission spent the bulk of its June 17 meeting examining a draft ordinance to implement state rules on manufactured housing.

City planning staff said the draft largely mirrors state requirements under KRS and that only a few sections offer local discretion. The director told commissioners the draft highlights the narrow areas the city can tailor, such as roof pitch, minimum livable square footage, the type of skirting or foundation treatments, orientation of the entry, and inspection coordination with state agents.

Why it matters: If adopted, the ordinance would allow certain manufactured homes in residential zones where they meet the state standards and any locally adopted conditions. Commissioners noted the change could affect vacant lots, replacements after fire or disaster, and could raise concerns among homeowners about comparability and property values.

Staff presentation and local options The director said staff and city legal counsel drafted the ordinance to follow the state law and called out the sections where local input is permitted. He urged caution about choosing some controls: specifying a roof pitch could disqualify factory-built models that are manufactured to fixed profiles; setting square-footage minima could prevent smaller replacement units from being placed on existing lots; and specifying skirting and foundation aesthetics could affect whether a manufactured home qualifies as real property for lending purposes.

On minimum size and pitch, commissioners discussed specific numbers mentioned in the draft. The draft includes references to a "900 square foot" minimum in some places and commissioners debated whether setting a higher local minimum (one speaker noted "1,200" as an example) would be permissible or practical. Staff also referenced the dimensional requirement in the draft that effectively prevents single-wide units by requiring a minimum width of 20 feet.

On foundations and skirting, commissioners said they wanted a requirement that skirting be durable and compatible with surrounding homes; staff noted a vinyl skirting prohibition was suggested by some commissioners and that matching surrounding materials was a possible approach. Staff and the building inspection director said the department will still inspect factory-installed supports and that some aspects of the inspection regime are governed by the state while the city will need to define its inspection handoff and any local site-development submittal required for local inspections.

Covenants, HOAs and replacements Commissioners asked whether covenants or homeowner association restrictions supersede the ordinance; staff repeated that recorded covenants and restrictions written by developers can prohibit manufactured housing in a subdivision and that those private restrictions remain enforceable. They also clarified that local control over replacements after disaster is limited if the structure can be replaced within its existing footprint, but that longer-term absences or changes beyond that footprint could trigger board of adjustments or other process requirements.

Next steps No vote was taken. Staff said they will meet with council and building inspection staff to refine the draft and return to the commission in July with an amended ordinance for further consideration and a possible recommendation to the city commission.

Attribution note: Direct quotations and paraphrases are drawn from remarks by the planning director and comments recorded during the June 17 meeting. The draft references state statute KRS as the underlying authority for manufactured-housing standards.