Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1',li nutes of Spec! a I COline! I Heeti ng <br />Page s" ven <br /> <br />Apri I 21, 1975 <br /> <br />Secti~4.14 )~k <br />There'~""~e"tfeed for corner irons; lots not platted. <br /> <br />Se CT i on 4. I 8 <br />Adams requests 2 signs (one at each entrance to the park) <br />asking variance of 10' from front setback of 25' (15' from <br />property line) because to locate signs 25' back would place <br />them in a mobile home lot. <br /> <br />Counci I reserved comment on th I s request for vari ance until <br />plan is submitted indicating location of signs and description <br />of signs proposed. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Section 5.1 <br />Mobile home lot requirement variances requested are as follows: <br />a) l.ot area/dwelling unit - 4,500 sq. ft. (9,000 sq. <br />ft. - 0 rd. 147) <br />b) Lot width of 45 ft. (Ord. 147 - 75 ft.) <br />cl Front yard setback of 20 feet lOrd. 147 - 3C feet) <br />d) Rear yard setback of 0 (Ord. 147 -,25 ft.> <br />. ~~~to <br />CounCil agreed that changes In lot area and width .-v be <br />practical, sin~e uti I ittes and street.s are~l:.'1I!t~.JL,,-9!J.q...~;q.o~.,...... <br />lots were prevl_~l!~j1- approved. Council als~....IiIIrKZU".-.-r- <br />front setback ~ .-?.tff<<'" ' <br /> <br />Request for 0' rear setback WciS denied by the Counct I - State <br />Code requires a minimuM of 20' between homes (according to <br />~1rs. Adams); explaining that some trallors are 80' long - with <br />lot depth of 100', home would extend to rear lot line, but stze <br />of home on lot abuttin~l this 1'01' coui'd be limited to 40' in <br />length - allowing for 20' between the 2 units. <br /> <br />In discussion, Counci I noted that the 25' reM.~tt1-"ck was <br />requi'red in the original Special Use Permit;'iiiiIiiiiiiM permit a <br />10' rear setback requirement, but not 0' as suggested. <br /> <br />Section 5.3 <br />Lot coverage requirement Is 25% (Ord. 147>. Vogl explained <br />that I fawn i ng and/or car ports are -I nsta 111~d th i s 25% lot <br />coverage minimum Is no~ feasible; therefore a variance is <br />requested to exclude these items from the lot coverage requirement. <br />t.. 4..J~ ~ ~ <br />After _dj_~,",~s ion, Councl I concurred tha" maxf mum lot coverage <br />of 30'h,,;"'T57"Permltted, Including car ports, awnings etc:. <br /> <br />Section 5.4 <br />Vogl described offstre~t parking for 2 cars (tandem) 400 sq. <br />ft. in size. Ord. 147 requires 2 stalls/lot (600 sq. ft.), <br />therefore a varl ance is requested. Counci I expressed no concern <br />as long as cars do not extend into sidewalk area. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Section 5.5 <br />Di scussed earl ier, but not yet resol ved. Vari ance is requested. <br /><Landscaping) <br />Section 5.6 <br />Variance is requested. Adams said that concrete slabs or piers <br />are not standard In mobile heme parks, and described how homes <br />arG Installed on concr~te blocks and shimmed to level - could <br />not provide concPete slabs at this point - they are only needed <br />for movilla models. Ii' ::ecessary, he will not admit any more <br />movl II a homas. <br /> <br />Crichton stated that the intent of Drd. 147 Is to prevent <br />homes from leaning, shi fting and settling, due to frost action, <br />inadequate drainage, vibrations etc. <br /> <br />Adams said State Code accepts the blocking method he uses - he <br />Installs homes according to directions accompanying each home <br />when delivered. <br /> <br />Council noted that original Special Use Permit was for movllla <br /> <br />-7- <br />