Laserfiche WebLink
Case Number: 850-74 <br />De�ember 4, 1974 <br />Page Two <br />� <br />agreed that if a plan were approved, ii would be appropriat� #o chonge fih� underiying <br />zoning i-o a mobile hame district. At its Navember 18th meei-ing,the Council referrF �he <br />rezoning request and rev'ssed plan to �the Planning Commission far i-heir Decerr�ber �4th <br />�rteeti ng . <br />4, We then began i-he preparafiion of a new mobile �zame district t�at could be adopted <br />by the City Planning Commission an�! Council as Q basis for review of the revis�ci plan <br />and/or oth�rpt�nsafter its a.cioption. <br />�, On November 25th, irhe City received anofiher letter fram the appticant's attorney <br />nati�g that Mr. Klucsar would agree to the use of a new mobile home disfisict for <br />the current "R-2" land in question, but �ha# they do not concur with the rezoning <br />of the land curreni'ly zoned B-3 fio a mobile home distr'sct. A capy of ti�afi letter is <br />also attached for your considera#ion . <br />b. Though the changes c�rrently proposed in the plan offer improvemeni- to the design, <br />we feel thafi additiona! chang�s can be made ta bring the d�5i�n to appropria�-e stancfards. <br />Of particular concern are the substantial nucr►6er of 34 foot wide iots ger�erQlly recognize� <br />in the industry as inadeqvat� for the large rrsobi�e hame units proposed. Recommenda�ion�� <br />a5 to apprapriate standards on lot sizes and other key points of the design wili be <br />included in th� recommended mobile home district which wElf be pres�entecf a� the <br />� Plpnning Commission hedring. <br />�, A# �-his point, we strongly sugg�st that t4,e basic issue to b� decided by #he Planninc <br />Cammission and Coun�i4 is whether or not th� deveiopment will be cansid�reci under <br />a B-3 zoning or under the proposed mobile hame disfrict. We suggest that the ex�ension <br />of �he B--3 zone into the resic3entia4 area �o the wesi- is incQnsisfient with past p�anning <br />policies of the Cifiy and cannot be jus#ified in terms of good planning and development <br />policy c�s practicecf in this Country. <br />8. Good planning praci�ice cansistentiy recommends the use of "mabile horrs� zoning <br />districts" as a v��icle For allawing the development of �sw ar expansion of a new <br />modern moi�ile {�ome courfi. This practice has been weil estabfished in Minr�esota <br />and fihe Couni'ry as a whoie, and is endorsed by the Mobile Home lndusfir a�d ��eir <br />planning consultants_ <br />q, As no#ed in Mr. Seilergren's letter, they propose to accept fihe use of the new mobife <br />home zone for the expansion area, bvt, not for the existing S-3 lanci. Under these <br />, conditions, one wonders about the true o�jec�ives of the applicanl-'s propasal: <br />c�, Does he in facfi intend to red�velap the whole of tS�e site for a new mobiie <br />hame cour�? <br />�, Was the arigina! request for the ad�ii-ional 5.3 acres af B-3 zaning done v�ifii, <br />the intent of achieving the xoning, or for t�he development of a long�range <br />�. permanent mobile home land us�? <br />