Laserfiche WebLink
MLNULh5 <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Jan. 12, 1984 <br />Buechler <br />PUD <br />Conditional <br />Use Permit <br />(Cont.) <br />Manufactured <br />Homes Text <br />Amendment <br />The Planner replied that it did. <br />?4r. Herkenhoff asked what a zero lot line was. The Planner explained <br />that this concept would eliminate any side yard setback. Another <br />concept of zero lot line, would be to move a unit to one side of the <br />property and then all the lot's open space would be to the other <br />side. <br />Mr. French asked if the lot size for a duplex was greater than a <br />single family home. Mr. Crittman explained that the PUI) concept <br />was recommended so that lot size would not be a factor. The <br />Planner explained that the front yard and exterior setbacks would have <br />to he met. <br />Mr. Ducharme asked if there was a problem with ownership on one side <br />and renters on the other. Mr. Grittman replied that basically there <br />are two owners, but one is renting his side of the property. <br />Mr. Buechler stated that the problem is when you sell a duplex to an <br />investor, they let the property deteriorate. Buechler stated that he <br />will be selling the building regardless of the outcome of this request. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury asked if the City has dealt with this concept in the <br />past. Mr. Crittman replied that there is no provision for it in the <br />ordinance, but it can be handled under a PUD. <br />Mr. Ducharme pointed out that the City has approved this concept in <br />the Old Little Canada School and with the conversion of apartments <br />to condos. Mr. Ducharme felt that this is something that the City <br />will see more and more of. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff asked if the Planner foresaw any problems with this. <br />The Planner stated that he did not if it were handled properly. There <br />is no additional impact on the City with regard to services. The same <br />unit will be present, but now two people would be owning it. <br />Mr. Buechler explained that under the P11D each side of the duplex could <br />not bepai.nted a different color and the driveway layout could not be <br />changed without permission of the other owner. <br />Mr. French recommended approval of the PUD Conditional Use Permit for <br />Carl Buechler which would allow for zero lot line. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury seconded the motion. <br />Motion carried 6 — 0. <br />The Planner reported that the Commission recently passed a manufactured <br />homes text amendment borrowed from the City of Blaine. However, the <br />Building Inspector has indicated that he can foresee problems with this <br />amendment as he feels it will overly restrict construction of regular <br />single family homes. <br />Pale —2— <br />