Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6181-A Staff AnalysisDecember 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 19 NAME• LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL• ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: NO.: Z -6181-A Hodges - Conditional Use Permit Woodland Drive (East End) Rolling Pines Limited/ Thomas L. Hodges A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of five (5) multisectional manufactured homes on five (5) lots within the Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II (Lots 18-19, 54, 61 and 99). The property is zoned R-2. The Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II is located at the easterly end of Woodland Drive. woodland Drive runs east off of Sardis Road, approximately 3/4 mile south of Alexander Road. 2. Comatibility with Neighborhood: The Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II is surrounded by single family residential uses and zoning. The property north, south and east of this site is vacant and wooded. There are a number of single family residences located to the west (along Woodland Drive) between this subdivision and Sardis Road. There are two existing single family residences within the Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II (Lots 22 and•63). With compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards, the placement of these manufactured homes should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. The Rolling Pines Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6181-A 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: A residential driveway will serve each of the five lots. The applicant will provide off-street parking for each of the five manufactured home sites. 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments. 5. Public works Comments: No Comments. 6. utility and Fire Department Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of five (5) multisectional manufactured homes on five (5) separate lots within the Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II (Lots 18-19, 54, 61 and 99). The property is zoned R-2. On October 10, 1996, the applicant requested a conditional use permit for the placement of multisectional manufactured homes on 19 of the lots within this subdivision. That application failed to receive enough votes for passage (5 positive votes with 9 commissioners present). The applicant appealed to the Board of Directors, who upheld the Planning Commission's decision. The case is currently pending in Pulaski County Chancery Court, Fourth Division. Staff has asked the City Attorney's Office to update the Commission in this matter. The applicant is proposing a building envelope (buildable area) for each of the five lots which will allow for a multisectional manufactured home. It appears that all of the building envelopes meet minimum ordinance requirements regarding building setbacks and no variances are required. There will be a single access point to each of the lots and the applicant will provide at least one (1) off- street parking space for each of the proposed dwellings. K December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6181-A The majority of the land surrounding this subdivision is vacant and heavily wooded with approximately two dozen existing single family homes west of this subdivision along Woodland Drive. With compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards, the placement of these five (5) manufactured homes should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. As part of this proposal, the applicant is requesting that the $135.00 filing fee be waived. Based on the fact that staff took this item as a new application, conducting site inspections and complete staff review, staff cannot support this request. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions. 1. Compliance with the following minimum siting standards as required by the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance, Section 36-254(d)(5): a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. b. Removal of all transport elements. c. Permanent foundation. d. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood. e. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. f. Underpinning with permanent materials. g. All homes shall be multisectional. h. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard. 2. The applicant pay the required $135.00 filing fee. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Clayton Blackstock was present, representing the application. Staff gave the Committee a brief history of the property and a description of the current proposal. Staff noted that the site plan submitted for each of the five lots were the same site plans previously reviewed by the Commission. Each site plan shows a building envelope which conforms with the ordinance setback requirements. 3 December "-•5, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 After a brief discussion, the presentation and forwarded the for final action. FILE NO.: Z -6181-A Committee accepted the issue to the full Commission PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) Tommy Hodges, J. D. Harper and Marsha Barnes were present, representing the application. There were three persons present to oppose the application. Staff gave a brief description of the project and a recommendation of approval. Tommy Hodges addressed the Commission in support of the application. He stated that the proposal manufactured homes would comply with the minimum siting standards as required by ordinance. Steve Giles, City Attorney, addressed the Commission concerning the pending lawsuit on this property. Mr. Giles stated that if this application were approved, Mr. Hodges would dismiss his lawsuit. He presented the Commission with a memorandum outlining the issues to be concerned with in this matter. Mr. Hodges stated that he would dismiss his lawsuit if the application were approved. J. D. Harper of the Arkansas Manufactured Housing Association spoke in support of the application. Roger Free addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. Mr. Free presented a petition and letter to the Commission. Mr. Free stated that the manufactured homes would have a negative impact on his neighborhood. Mr. Free reviewed his letter with the Commission, including the distinction between manufactured homes and mobile homes and the codes relating to building construction. Mr. Free also discussed the Bill of Assurance for the neighborhood. Mr. Giles asked Mr. Free what aspects of the application he was opposed to. Mr. Free stated that he was concerned as to the quality of the proposed manufactured homes and the depreciation rate. He stated that manufactured homes are inferior to site -built homes. Chairman Lichty stated that there is a difference between manufactured homes and mobile homes. He asked Mr. Hodges if he planned to use a higher quality manufactured home. Mr. Hodges responded in the affirmative. Mr. Lichty stated that the Commission has no authority over a Bill of Assurance. 4 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 Cont. FILE NO.: 5-6181-A Brent Reeves also spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that if this application is approved the neighborhood would go down. commissioner Adcock asked Mr. Harper the life expectancy of a manufactured home. Mr. Harper stated that the life expectancy of a manufactured home is 55.8 years based on a recent study. There was a brief discussion regarding the transportation of manufactured homes and the various building codes and construction standards. commissioner Rahman asked about the financing of manufactured homes. Mr. Harper stated that the financing of manufactured homes is the same as site -built homes; conventional 30 -year loans, etc. There was a brief discussion pertaining to the definition of a manufactured home and the nation-wide trends of manufactured homes. commissioner Nunnley asked how the value of manufactured homes is retained. Mr. Harper quoted another recent study which showed that the value of manufactured homes appreciated at a rate at least equal to site -built homes. A motion was made to approve the application. There was additional discussion relating to the existing law suit. The previous motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 5 nays, 3 abstention and 1 absent. The application was denied. Several of the commissioners explained their vote. 5 FILE NO.• Z-618 NAME• LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL• ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: Hodges - Conditional Use Permit Woodland Drive (East end) Thomas L. Hodges A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of 19 multisectional manufactured homes on 19 lots within the Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II (Lots 18-21, 23-29, 52-54, 61-63, 98-99). The property is zoned R-2. The Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II is located at the easterly end of Woodland Drive. Woodland Drive runs east off of Sardis Road, approximately 3/4 mile south of Alexander Road. 2. Comp-atibility with Nei hborhood: The Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II is surrounded by single family residential uses and zoning. The property north, south and east of this site is vacant and wooded. There are a number of single family residences located to the west (along Woodland Drive) between this subdivision and Sardis Road. There is also a single family residence on what is shown as Lot 22 on the attached site plan. With compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards, the placement of these manufactured homes should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. on -Site Drives and Parkin : The applicant proposes a single access point to each of the 19 lots. The applicant will also provide at least one (1) off- street parking space for each of the 19 proposed manufactured homes. FILE Na.: Z-6181 Cont. 4. Screening and Buffers: No comments 5. Public Works Comments: If developer intends to clear all sites at one time, a grading plan with soil loss calculations is required prior to construction. 6. Utility comments: Little Rock Fire Department - A fire hydrant is required within 800 feet of any of the proposed buildings. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of 19 multisectional manufactured homes on the 19 lots within the Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II (Lots 18-21, 23-29, 52-54, 61-63, 98-99). The property is zoned R-2. The applicant is proposing a building envelope (buildable area) for each lot which will allow for a multisectional manufactured home. It appears that all of the building envelopes meet minimum ordinance requirements regarding building setbacks and no variances are required. There will be a single access point to each of the lots and the applicant will provide at least one (1) off- street parking space for each of the proposed dwellings. The majority of the land surrounding this subdivision is vacant and heavily wooded with approximately two dozen existing single family homes west of this subdivision along Woodland Drive. With compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards, the placement of these 19 manufactured homes should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works Comments 2. Compliance with the Little Rock Fire Department Comments 2 FILE NO.: Z-6181' (Cont.) 3. Compliance with the following minimum siting standards as required by the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance, Section 36-254(d)(5): a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. b. Removal of all transport elements. C. Permanent foundation. d. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood. e. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. f. Underpinning with permanent materials. g. All homes shall be multisectional. h. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) Tommy Hodges was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. There was a brief discussion pertaining to this general area and the type of manufactured home proposed. Staff informed Mr. Hodges that side yard setback variances would be required for Lots 54, 61, 63 and 98. Mr. Hodges responded that these lots would be revised to meet the required setbacks. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) The applicant was present. There were several persons present opposing the item. The applicant requested that the item be deferred to the October 10, 1996 agenda, as offered by Chairman Woods, due to only eight commissioners being present. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the October 10, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. 3 FILE NO.: Z-61$1 Cont. The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Tommy Hodges was present, representing the application. There were several persons present opposing the conditional use permit. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Tommy Hodges addressed the Commission. Mr. Hodges gave a brief description of the proposal. Mr. Hodges stated that he has been unable to sell the lots to the public or to builders for the past couple of years. He stated this is the reason he is pursuing the manufactured home aspect. Mr. Hodges stated that he would comply with the ordinance established minimum siting standards and the manufactured homes would blend into the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Hodges also stated that he owns approximately 100 of the lots within this subdivision and he felt that this proposal would not adversely effect his lots or the lots owned by others in this subdivision. Susan Myers spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit. She read a letter of opposition from her husband, David Myers. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Hodges about the Bill of Assurance for the subdivision. Mr. Hodges stated that the Bill of Assurance prohibits mobile homes but not manufactured homes. Susan Whitson spoke in opposition to the application. She stated concerns as to the materials that these proposed homes are made of and whether they would have garages or carports. She stated that manufactured homes would not retain the value of a stick -built home and would devalue the neighborhood. Mike Whitson also spoke in opposition to the application. He also stated concerns that the manufactured homes would lower the property values in the neighborhood. Roger Free also spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Free stated that manufactured homes depreciate in value more than stick -built homes. He stated other property value concerns. Commissioner Adcock asked Roger Free if he had any evidence as to the depreciation rate of manufactured homes. Mr. Free stated that he did not. 4 FILE NO.: Z-6181 Cont. Commissioner Rahman asked why Planning Commission approval is needed for a manufactured home when it is going to be used as a single-family dwelling in single-family zoning. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission review insured that the ordinance requirements regarding manufactured homes were met. There was a brief discussion regarding the difference between a manufactured home and a multisectional manufactured home. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Hodges if he could assure the neighbors that the manufactured homes he would place on the sites would be of the same or greater quality than those shown in the pictures he passed out to the Commission. Mr. Hodges stated that they would be. He stated that the homes would have a value of at least $50,000 to $60,000. Commissioner Lichty asked Mr. Hodges if a manufactured home is taxed as personal property or real estate. Mr. Hodges responded that they are taxed as real estate. Commissioner Lichty asked if the homes would be brought in on a flatbed truck or if the units would have built-in axles. Mr. Hodges stated that it could be done either way. It depended on the manufacturer. Commissioner Lichty asked the neighborhood representatives if there was anything in the Bill of Assurance which regulates the quality of a stick -built home. The neighborhood representatives responded that there was not. There was a brief discussion concerning the quality of stick -built homes as compared to manufactured homes. A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit as recommended by staff. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 4 nays and 2 absent. 61