Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6904 Staff AnalysisSeptember 14, 2000 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-6904 NAME: LaBee Accessory Dwelling - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 11401 Sardis Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Kenneth & June LaBee PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit for a single -wide manufactured home to use as an accessory dwelling on property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, located at 11401 Sardis Road. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: The proposed site is located at the rear of a 0.76 acre property located on the east side of Sardis Road, a short distance south of the intersection of Sardis and DeWitt Roads. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The proposed site and all the surrounding property is zoned R-21 Single Family Residential. The properties across DeWitt to the east are vacant and tree covered. The area to the north, south, and southwest consists of single family residences. There are other single and double -wide manufactured homes in the immediate surrounding area, as well as several site -built houses. Staff believes that if the accessory dwelling is installed according to City standards, it would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Association, all property owners within 200 feet, and all residents within 300 feet that could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: FILE NO.: Z-6904 Currently the property has one driveway from Sardis Road, and an access gate to DeWitt Lane which abuts the east property line at the rear of the property. None of that would change. Normal single family parking would be provided. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: No comments. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No comments. 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Water: No objection. Wastewater: Existing sewer main located along Sardis Road. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. ARKLA: No comments received. Entergy: No comments received. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. CATA: No comments requested. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a single -wide manufactured home to be used as an accessory dwelling on 0.76 acres of property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. The applicant lives in the existing site -built home on the property fronting on Sardis Road. 2 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6904 This issue was originally raised through zoning enforcement action which identified an unauthorized installation of both a travel trailer, with permanent utility hookups, and this regular manufactured home all on the same property. The applicant was informed that he could have only one accessory dwelling, and that a travel trailer did not qualify for permanent installation as an accessory dwelling. The travel trailer was removed. Since this was intended as an accessory dwelling for the primary house, Staff believes that the utilities should come from the main house. The applicant was in agreement for the water and sewer, but he asked that the electricity be allowed to come from a nearby electric service near the unit. He asked for that to prevent the extra cost to run electricity all the way from the house when service already existed right by the unit. This closeness of existing utility service does not exist for the water or sewer and would have to come from the direction of the house anyway. Staff believes this is reasonable. All siting requirements are met or exceeded by the proposed site plan. The unit, however, is a little larger than the ordinance allowed square footage for an accessory dwelling of 700 square feet. It has 728 gross square feet. Therefore, a variance would be required for the proposed square footage. There is already another single -wide manufactured home next door to the south of this property, and a double -wide manufactured home is located two lots north of this site. Therefore, Staff believes this accessory dwelling would be compatible with the neighborhood if installed according to City standards for manufactured homes. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: 3 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6904 (1) The accessory dwelling must be set up and anchored according to City Building Code requirements and Little Rock City Ordinance Section 36-254 (d)(5) as follows: 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.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard. (2) Water and sewer are to be hooked -up to the principal dwelling. Separate electric service is permitted. Staff also recommends approval of the variance to allow the unit to have 728 square feet. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (AUGUST 24, 2000) Kenneth & June LaBee were present representing their application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal, briefly reviewing the comments provided to the applicant. The only item the applicant had any question about was the utility hookups. A brief discussion took place regarding Staff's comment that the utility hookups for the accessory dwelling must come from the main house except electric. There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 4 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6904 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2000) Kenneth LaBee was present representing his application. There were two registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation," paragraph 8 above. A third condition was added: That the use be for this current owner for the use of his mother. Once his mother no longer lives in the manufactured home, it would be removed within 120 days. Jeff Olive and his wife spoke in opposition. They live in the house immediately to the north of the proposed site. His main concerns were that the proposed manufactured home would decrease his property value, that it was not nice to look at, had no skirting, and was very close to their property, right next to where they park their cars. He added that there was also a travel trailer parked nearby on the same property. His wife read a notarized letter from another opposing neighbor, Walter Plumb, living at 11314 DeWitt Lane who was unable to attend. That letter requested the accessory dwelling be moved toward the LaBee house so that it would be behind the front of the other houses along DeWitt where they could not see it. They showed several pictures of the proposed manufactured home, their home and the applicants property. Chair Adcock raised a question about whether the home met ordinance requirements for the manufactured date. Staff responded that ie did. Commissioner Faust asked about the travel trailer parked on the property. Staff responded that a travel trailer could be parked on residential property as long as it is not hooked to utilities and being lived in. Mr. LaBee, the applicant stated that the travel trailer is not hooked up to utilities. He then stated the manufactured home was a 1991, and it was not skirted because he was told not to do anything else with it until the use question was G� September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6904 decided by the Commission. He stated it would be skirted and fixed up the way it is supposed to be once he is released to proceed. Commissioner Faust asked Mr. LaBee if the manufactured home could be moved back further from DeWitt Lane. He said it could, but it would cost more money to move it. Janet Berry spoke on behalf of S.W.L.R. United for Progress in stating concerns that other neighbors, and another neighborhood association two to three miles away, had expressed to her. Two of the points were that the home be used only by a family member, never as rental property, and that it be removed when no longer needed by the mother. She acknowledged that Mr. LaBee had already agreed to those two conditions. She stated that the other neighborhood association would oppose any manufactured home for any reason and she wasn't in agreement with them. She concluded by stating that there was a mixture of opinions in the area and so she had not reached a firm statement for or against. Mr. LaBee acknowledged that he would remove the manufactured home once his mother no longer needed it. He added that he would estimate that he could remove it within five years, but he couldn't say for sure how long his mother would need it. Commissioner Rector asked the applicant if he was aware of what would be required to place the manufactured home according to City standards. Mr. Labee stated he wasn't sure what was required. The discussion then turned to what could be allowed with the idea that this would be a temporary placement. Mr. Lawson, City Planning Director, responded that he felt tie downs with skirting, without permanent foundation, could be acceptable for a temporary placement if the Commission agreed. Much more discussion took place trying to decide what could be acceptable placement standards as a temporary use, and whether the decision to permit this at all should be based strictly on the use in general or on the reason for, and expected duration of, this specific request. Mr. Lawson summarized acceptable placement criteria as follows: proper tie downs, skirting, porch, some landscaping, and then be 0 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6904 reviewed in five years. Steve Giles, City Attorney, suggested the overall use question should be decided based on the land use questions of compatibility, aesthetics, what it looks like on the property, and what is required under the accessory dwelling requirements in the ordinance. Commissioner Rahman made the point that a manufactured home is an allowable use within the City, and that a single -wide can be used as an accessory dwelling. The prime question he stated was whether this particular manufactured home is acceptable as is. He added that since this was being looked at as a temporary placement, that some relief should be granted because the applicant is trying to provide a home for his mother which is not a typical case. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations as revised. The revised conditions would be that the home would be properly tied down, skirted, have a deck porch on the front, transport elements removed, setback from DeWitt compatible with the other structures on DeWitt, limited to five years and have some landscaping. All the improvements would have to be accomplished in 60 days. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 5 nays and 1 absent. 7