CASE # 83-07
(
.
~
(
.
~
~
March 25, 1983
Case No:
83-07
Applicant: Spagenski, Mobil Home Transfer Inc.
Location: SE corner Shady Oak Road & Excelsior Avenue
Request: Approval of Variance to locate 141 wide mobile home
STAFF FINDINGS & COMMENTS: Kerrigan - Norris
1. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 14 foot wide mobile home unit
into the Pines Mobile Home Court. The maximum width allowed at this time is 12
feet. The subject unit has already been moved into the park.
2. The Pines Mobile Home Court is zoned R-4 which permits the subject use. 427.33
states that courts in a residential district are allowed only by Conditional Use
Permit and must meet the following requirements:
a) have no wider than 12 feet
b) 24 foot private roadways designated as fire lanes
c) two parking spaces with each site and guest parking at a ratio of one-half
space per home.
The park as it presently exists does not meet these requirements of the ordinance.
3. At the time the Pines was annexed into Hopkins in 1966 it was classified as a non-
conforming use. 427.06(1) states that a non-conforming use or structre is any
obstruction or structure or use lawfully existing upon August 11, 1966, but which
would not now be permitted under the same standards, may be continued as a non-
conforming use at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon August 11,
1966, except as herein specified.
4. The applicants unit is proposed to occupy the site of a unit which was recently
destroyed by a fire. 427.06(5) states that when a lawful non-conforming structure
is destroyed or damaged by any means to the extent that the cost to repair such
damage would be 50% or more of the appraised value of the structure after such
repair, then the use of land and structure shall not be repaired except in con-
formance with the ordinance. It appears the subject site would not be able to
provide adequate parking in compliance with the ordinance.
5. 427.04{l03) states that a variance means a modification or variation from the
provisions of the ordinance granted by the board and applying to a specific parcel
of property because of undue hardship due to circumstances peculiar and unique
upon such parcel. The applicant has stated that the variance is being requested
to avoid hardship to the owner. Although a zoning ordinance change would probably
be a more logical approach to this situation the applicant is requesting the
variance because of the shorter approval period.
6. In 1979 a similar application for a variance was made to allow a 24 foot wide unit
into the park. At that time it was generally agreed that the width requirements
of the ordiance as it presently exist does not reflect todays standards. However,
it was the basic conclusion of the Commission that prior to considering any change
in the existing requirements, they wanted the owner of the park to convert the
park to accommodate units of todays standards. Most specifically, this plan
would deal with health and safety concerns. No positive action was subsequently
taken by the owner on this request.
(-
,
e
(
.
(,
~
Case No: 83-07
~~ 2
7. Recently a number of the City staff met with the owner to discuss the possibility
of an improvement plan to the park. Basically the staff detailed a number of con-
cerns they have related to the park.
8. The City Housing Inspector and Fire Marshal have recently detailed a number of
concerns and possible corrective measures they feel are necessary to upgrade the
park as it presently exists. (see attached).
~
(
(
.
(
,
;V&?U dN//
Ex I~r //1/1
E)( 1.:57//V/,