My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-16-97 Council Special Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
04-16-97 Council Special Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:55:03 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:58:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 16, 1997 <br />determined. The State is now lookin~ at this section of the Statute, and the <br />County indicated the State might decide to enforce the Statute on a <br />statewide basis. <br />Fahey indicated that the issue must not be one of public safety if a <br />mobilehome park tenant is allowed to park his or her own car closer than <br />10 feet to their mobilehome. Scalze suggested it might be a noise issue. <br />The City Administrator indicated he assumed the issue was life safety <br />similar to the 10 foot separation required between mobilehomes. When <br />the law was adopted in the 1950's, mobilehomes were not as large and the <br />design of cars was different. No documentation exists for why the 10-foot <br />parking separation from adjacent units was adopted. <br />Fahey asked if it was clear that the State has delegated enforcement <br />authority to the County. The Administrator replied that it was. <br />Fahey suggested the State be asked to make their position known to the <br />County so the County does not take some action the State is not in <br />agreement with. <br />Morelan felt there were two reasons the Noirth Star Estates variance <br />application should be denied. The first is that a variance should not be <br />approved when there is no specific amount of setback included as part of <br />the request. Secondly, the State is in the process of looking at the entire <br />issue, and there is the possibility the Statute will be amended. Morelan <br />felt this is the position that should be presented to the County. <br />7ohn Konek, an attorney representing North Star Estates, reporYed that the <br />City Administrator presented the City's official position at the County's <br />hearing. At that hearing IConek asked if the Council had an opportunity to <br />address the issue, and the Administrator replied that the Council had not. <br />Konek indicated that North Star Estates' variance request is very specific <br />about where they want to plrk cars. North Star Estates has submitted a <br />site plan to the County, which sl~ows the location of existing driveways. <br />Fahey asked if all driveways were non-conforming. <br />I{onek replied that about 98% are non-conforming. IConek also pointed <br />out that the mobilehome park has been in existence since 1971, and the <br />parkin~; conditions have existed since that time. Konek felt the variance <br />application could not have been more specific. <br />Scalze pointed out that tl~e applicatioi~ does not specify a distance between <br />parking area and the adjacent mobilehome. Scalze noted that should <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.