Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />October 8, 1987 <br />Anderson reported that the garage would be used for the storage of <br />his vehicles and some trailer court equipment. He would also use <br />the garage for repair of trailer court equipment. <br />Timmons reported that she visited the site and felt the property was <br />crowded. Timmons pointed out that this garage would be very close <br />to the last trailer at the rear of the court. <br />Anderson reported that the garage would be 6 feet from the trailer. <br />Timmons pointed out that there is a road in the court that is not <br />paved. <br />The Planner pointed out that the property is zoned commercial and <br />pre- existed the adoption of the City's mobilehome court zoning. <br />Anderson reported that he has intentions to pave the road in the spring. <br />Timmons felt the road should be paved, and that residents of the court <br />should not have to live on a dirt road. <br />Davison asked if Anderson lived in the trailer that would be adjacent <br />to the garage. <br />Anderson replied that he did not, but the residents of that trailer <br />are aware of his plans and have no objection. <br />The Planner indicated that he felt the proposal acceptable as the <br />area abutts the railroad property and would have no impact on any <br />surrounding property. Also, 6 feet is adequate building separation <br />from a building code standpoint. The Planner also pointed out there <br />is no other reasonable area in the court for the storage building. <br />Timmons felt the use of the property was at its maximum. Timmons <br />pointed out the City's requirement of another access in the trailer <br />court on Country Drive, that when a site was vacated, a second access <br />had to be provided. Timmons felt that in this instance when a site <br />is vacated, then the garage could be allowed to be built on the site. <br />Anderson felt that the garage would look out of place in the middle <br />of the court. <br />Timmons expressed concern with the appearance of the trailer court <br />as it was very dense. Timmons did not see a reason to put another <br />building on this property. <br />There was no one present wishing to address this matter. <br />Herkenhoff asked if approval of this variance would set a precedent. <br />The Planner noted the principle difference in this instance is the <br />existence of the railroad property adjacent to the court. <br />Page 4 <br />