Laserfiche WebLink
MINUT~S <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 16, 1997 <br />NIorelan pointed out that the City could support North Star Estate's <br />variance request. However', until the State changes the Statute any action <br />the City takes is melningless given that State Statute is more restrictive <br />than the City's Code. <br />A member of the audience indicated that residents of the park may want to <br />replace an existing mobilehome with a better one, and the 10-foot parking <br />separation is restricting that. This gentleman felt the off-street parking at <br />North Star Estates was preferable to on-street from a public safety <br />viewpoint. <br />The Council discussed the fact that North SYar Estates' variance request <br />contains no specific standard, but seeks an exemption from the 10 foot <br />separation requirement. Council felt there should be some standard <br />separation. <br />A member of the audience reported that when the park was first <br />developed, mobilehomes were 10 to t4 feet wide. Parking spaces were <br />installed for each home. The problem is that these homes have become <br />wider over the years which brings parking pads closer. It was pointed out <br />Yhat the minimum distance between moUileliomes is 10 feet, and in most <br />cases there is 30 feet between homes. <br />Scalze pointed out that the Council has not studied the parking distance <br />issue. Therefore, it is unfair to expect a determii~ation on the minimum <br />distance between mobilehomes and parkin~ areas. The issue before the <br />Council is whether to ratify the position outlined by the City <br />Administrator at Che County's hearin~ on the variance, or wheYher to take <br />a different position. <br />Fahey indicated that he supported the City AdminisU'ator's position on the <br />blanket variance. Morelan agreed, again pointing out that the State Statute <br />needs to be changed since it is more restrictive tl~an City Code and takes <br />precedence overthe City Code. <br />The City Administrator repoirted that the position he indicated at the <br />County's hearing was: <br />~`The application is not specific, and appears to be a total <br />exemption from the ten-foot setback rec~uirement from adjacent <br />parking. Therefore, the City opposes the variance request given <br />there was no amount of variance specified; <br />'~`The State is studyin~ the issue from a policy standpoint. <br />8 <br />