Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 9, 2005 <br />indicated that the park is well maintained, and felt the storage building <br />was ideal for getting outdoor storage inside. <br />Graczyk reported that they are constantly trying to improve Che park, <br />replacing older homes in order to attract better renters. Duray felt thaC <br />Little Canada was fortunate to have this kind of operator. <br />Socha asked if the Graczyks would consider astick-built garage. Randy <br />Graczyk indicated that if their request for the metal building was denied, <br />he was not sure what they would do. He indicated that astick-built garage <br />was priced out and it would be roughly $10,000 to $12,000 more for that <br />type of construction. Graczyk pointed out that the mobile home park has <br />186 units (reduced to 183 to make room for this building) that are either <br />metal or vinyl sided. Therefore, he felt a metal sided building was a better <br />fit in the environment that exists. He noted that the storage building <br />would be located in the oldesC parC of Che park. <br />The Commission asked how many units were vinyl. Graczyk estimated <br />that a little more than half the units are metal and the rest vinyl. Roofing <br />materials vary from metal to asphalt shingles. <br />Knudsen felt there was a happy medium that was an improvement over <br />what was there, but not nicer than anything else in the park. He suggested <br />if the newer mobile homes are vinyl sided, perhaps the storage building <br />should be vinyl sided. <br />Graczyk described the types of mobile homes that would be adjacent to <br />the proposed storage building, noting that most of them are metal with <br />metal roofs. There were three mobile homes in this area with vinyl siding <br />and one with a shingle roof. <br />Barraclough indicated that his experience with Lester Buildings is that <br />they are very durable and a good solid product. Barraclough noted that a <br />stick-built building would require maintenance. <br />The City Planner indicated that this is not a building code issue, but an <br />aesthetic issue. He noted that the direction of the City has been against <br />metal, pole buildings. However, this site is unique onto itself and the <br />City's codes have established a special set of rules and regulations for <br />non-conforming mobile home parks. Therefore, any Code amendment <br />relative to this issue would have the limited application to non-conforming <br />mobile home parks. The Planner indicated that if the City's objective is to <br />eventually see a redevelopment of the mobile home parks, it would be <br />better to allow a lesser valued building that would be easier to demolish <br />and start new. The Planner noted, however, that the City could enhance <br />the aesthetics of what is proposed given its visibility. <br />-4- <br />