Laserfiche WebLink
<br />appropriate steps to return the property to its legal non-conforming status as a 32-unit mobile home <br />park; and to urge the applicant to apply for a General Plan amendment and a PUD rezoning to <br />legalize the park in a manner which would upgrade it and allow for the additional (33rd) mobile <br />home space. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright inquired that the case is for a conditional use permit but the applicant has <br />requested a variance. Mr. Iserson stated that the Code specifically states that the use permit is the <br />correct procedure to get this before the Commission. Commissioner Wright clarified that the <br />Commission is only charged to look at the use permit application for an additional space. All other <br />issues are supplementary. Mr. Beougher advised that the Commission can only make a <br />recommendation to the applicant to keep Space 12A and eliminate a vacant space; the final <br />determination is the applicant's choice. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cooper clarified that the definition of a mobile home is made solely on the length of <br />stay. Mr. Beougher advised Commissioner Cooper that there are Mobile Home Residency Laws that <br />prohibit the eviction of tenants as can be done in apartments. Mobile home residents have more <br />rights under the law. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson also noted that the State Department of Housing and Community Development is on <br />record stating they support the 32 space maximum and they support that any vacant space can be <br />eliminated (not specifically Space 12A). Conversely, if the City decides to allow the 33rd space, the <br />State would agree, as well. <br /> <br />Chair Barker clarified that the park now has a maximum unit capacity of 36 units; however, only <br />33 units are allowable. She also noted that the Commission has approved single-family units on lots <br />smaller than 4,000 sq. ft., but a mobile home park must have at least 4,000 sq. ft. per unit. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> <br />Chris Schlies, 699 Peters Avenue, Suite B, advised the Commission that he does not regularly <br />represent Mr. Wagner, Mr. Spangenberger is Mr. Wagner's regular attorney of record. <br /> <br />Mr. Schlies advised he and the applicant are of the opinion that this application should be for a <br />variance and object to it being considered a conditional use permit; their original application for a <br />use permit was withdrawn. Mr. Wagner does not feel his application represents a substantial change <br />from the original nonconforming use. The space has been occupied for at least the last 20 years and <br />their desire now is to legitimize it. <br /> <br />Regarding the recreational vehicle use issue, this does not need to be discussed or decided at this <br />meeting. State law governs this. They are not talking about RV campground uses. People who live <br />in the recreational vehicles do so for extended periods of time while on temporary jobs, building or <br />remodeling in Pleasanton, etc. They are also opposed to the allegations that Mr. Wagner is running <br />people out of the park. <br /> <br />Mr. Schlies stated that the bathroom conversion to a dwelling unit, the addition of Space 12A and <br />Space 17 were done before Mr. Wagner's purchase of the property. <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />April 9, 1997 <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />