Laserfiche WebLink
<br />('- <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson noted that the proposed RV storage spaces under the power lines would be an <br />appropriate use of that space. The occupied RVs near the power lines have been in that location <br />for some time, and they would remain there as long as the residents desired. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson replied that when PG&E <br />performed the 230KV upgrade, this line would probably stay the same. He noted that the <br />applicant would be responsible for relocating the sewer line which would be relocated to the <br />driveway on the site. The applicant would extend the walkway around the perimeter of the park <br />within the area of the arroyo. At staff's request, the applicant performed a soils investigation for <br />the banks along the arroyo. It was determined that repair work would need to be done, including <br />stabilization of the banks and replacement offill. The recommendation of that report was a <br />condition of approval so the area would be made safe before the new mobile homes were placed <br />near the arroyo, and before the new trail was constructed. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson advised that the variance involves the fact that the mobile homes will be three feet <br />from the rear property line where a thirty-foot rear yard setback is required. Staff supported this <br />variance for the following reasons: <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />The other units adjacent to the arroyo were approved with a lesser setback when <br />the park was originally approved. <br />The site backed up to an arroyo, and there were no issues of separation from other <br />units or other uses. <br />The applicant had dedicated a recreational use easement, which took a significant <br />amount of property. The property would have gone into the arroyo or to the other <br />side of the arroyo, and there would have been no need for a variance. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />,-. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson noted that from a design review point of view, the new coaches would be similar to <br />the existing mobile homes. The mobile homes would be double-wide trailers with hardy wood <br />plank siding, a composition roof, and the HV AC units behind the units would not be visible. <br />Staff also required a noise report regarding noise impacts from Stanley Boulevard and the gravel <br />pits beyond. The noise report recommended that the existing 42 inch high fence along the arroyo <br />be replaced by a six foot fence to mitigate the noise, which staff included as a condition of <br />approval. <br /> <br />The park owners signed an agreement with the City to maintain the mobile home park for <br />seniors, and had signed a rent stabilization agreement with the City. No increases would accrue <br />to the residents in the park, and the addition would not be considered a capital improvement to <br />park which would be passed on to residents. There would be no rent increases that would be <br />allowed as a result. <br /> <br />Residents of the mobile home park expressed concerns to staff in terms of maintaining the level <br />of amenities. There are currently eleven parking spaces provided for the residents, and ilie <br />applicant only has room for seven in the PG&E easement, leaving a shortfall of four spaces. The <br />applicant proposes that if any resident would like to store an R V or boat, and the seven spaces <br />were occupied, the applicant would pay for off-site storage. <br /> <br />,-- <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br /> <br />October 23, 2002 <br /> <br />Page 15 <br />