Laserfiche WebLink
�r <br />`RICK r. MEMMEI• <br />t fCLDOM M. GiWCLL <br />Cu►rr0•4 PIARK6. JR. <br />TRUCE L. BECK ' <br />Planning Commission <br />City of Little Canada <br />_ <br />c-AEmmEz, &iwett, _�Paxki Bec4 . <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br />1500 WHITE BEAR AVE.. ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55106 <br />PHONE 774-0731 <br />April 13, 1977 <br />Mr. Chlebeck has advised me that your Board is examining some <br />problems in connection with the proposal by Mr. Villieaux to.expand his <br />mobile home park.. Mrs. Rydel owns a home near the park and -objects to <br />the proposed expansion because of the close proximity to her home. She <br />also states she was assured of a 200 foot buffer when the last expansion <br />took place. <br />Our Code is not very helpful in this case because there are no <br />clear-cut provisions covering mobile -home parks, -which are permitted in <br />B-2 districts only. There are no side yard setback requirements for <br />B-2 districts except where there is an adjacent residential district <br />.'R-1 or R-2. (See Section 911.050 (a) page 110) In this case Mrs. Rydel's <br />• home is not in a R-1 or R-2 district but rather on an R-3 lot, so the <br />r.., 50 foot setback would not. apply. Inasmuch as setback regulations are <br />1• created by legislation•and not_by common law, there can only be a <br />_ :setback if the Ordinance spells it out.' Even though common sense and. <br />• -good judgment would dictate some sort of a setback in this case; it.. _ <br />doesn't appear as though there is a setback regulation, which would. apply <br />here: Obviously; this is an area which was not considered when our•' <br />Ordinance was -enacted but it certainly should be remedied by an amendement- <br />to.the Ordinance • <br />Yours respectfully, T <br />• _ Clayton Parks, Jr: i <br />• �CPJr:po <br />r^ <br />not 1Q43 <br />Clerk's exhibit I <br />Meeting-4-13-77 <br />