Laserfiche WebLink
\ <br />TO:Walter R. Benson & Bruce D. Malkerson <br />PROM:Alan P. Olson, City Planner <br />DATE:June 7, 1982 <br />SUBJECT: Effect of 1982 Minnesota Law Changes <br />This memo is written in response to Mr. Malkerson's June 3, <br />1982, legal notes regarding zoning changes enacted in the <br />1982 legislature. <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />Mobile Homes. We have no special zoning restrictions <br />or requirements concerning mobile or manufactured homes. <br />We have always treated th'*se the same as site-built <br />homes as far as zoning standards are concerned (ie: they <br />are allowed 1 per lot with the same minimum lot area, <br />setbacks etc). Thus we already comply with this new <br />statute - and have had no problems with it in the past. <br />The only zoning change we might consider is a requirement <br />for a permanent foundation and tie - down system for <br />otherwise - mobile homes. These are not automatically <br />required by the State Building Code, but can be required <br />by local option. I would recommend that this be <br />included in our zoning ordinance redraft. <br />Fees. As Bruce notes we already provide for fees to <br />cover all administrative costs. <br />Variances. I concur that we should include the amended <br />hardship language in our ordinance redraft. <br />The new requirement for filing a formal resolution in <br />the chain of title for each variance means more <br />administrative time required for what have been referred <br />to as simple or non-controversial variances. Boiler­ <br />plate forms will be used, but they will each have to <br />be customized and that takes time and copy-cost, plus <br />the actual cost of recording. <br />At the minimum, I recommend raising variance application <br />fees to cover this new cost. Beyond this it will mean <br />fewer applications can be processed for any given agenda <br />(or less staff research time available per application). <br />With limited staff available, we may need to seriously <br />look at limiting the number of applications on each <br />agenda, first-come first-served. This would delay some <br />reviews.