Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6971 Staff AnalysisFebruary 8, 2001 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-6971 NAME: Brown Accessory Dwelling - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 12,725 Heinke Road OWNER/APPLICANT: James H. Brown PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit for a single -section manufactured home to be used as an accessory dwelling on property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, located at 12,725 Heinke Road. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: The proposed 5 -acre site is located on the east side of Heinke Road, approximately 0.2 miles north of the intersection with Johnson Road. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The proposed site is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, and is surrounded by R-2 zoning, containing large lots and tracts. This southern area of Heinke Road is just inside the City limits and contains a variety of lot sizes with a mixture of site built and manufactured homes. Both single and two -section manufactured homes are scattered along Heinke as both primary homes and accessory dwellings. There is an existing site built house on the property immediately north of the proposed site. There is a 14 acre tract of land immediately east owned by the applicant. The applicant's primary residence is south of the proposed site, and another single family house exists on the abutting property to the south. The proposed accessory dwelling would be in the rear of an 8.3± acre zoning lot consisting of two tracts. The structure would be behind an existing metal accessory February 8, 2001 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6971 building, on land which is elevated above Reinke Road. The unit would be very difficult to see from Reinke Road. Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible with the neighborhood. The Rolling Pines Neighborhood Association, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, all property owners within 200 feet, and all residents within 300 feet that could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: There is one main gravel driveway access from Reinke Road. The accessory dwelling would have a driveway splitting off the main driveway. No new access to Reinke would be made. More than normal residential 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: Sewer not available to this property at this time. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Entergy: No comments received. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. 2 February 8, 2001 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6971 CATA: Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling consisting of a new 2001 single -section, 16 by 80 foot manufactured home to be placed on an 8.3± acre zoning lot consisting of 2 tracts; 3.3± acres and 5± acres. The property is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. All siting requirements have been exceeded. The home would have to be set up and anchored according to City Building Code requirements and Little Rock City Ordinance Section 36-254 (d) (5) . The applicant has also requested that the accessory dwelling be allowed to have separate water and electric meters, and a separate septic tank. Staff has concerns with allowing that to occur. First, an accessory dwelling by definition is subordinate to the main home. The applicant has already divided his property into three tracts, each with its own legal description. For zoning purposes the two tracts abutting Heinke can be considered a single "zoned lot" since they have the same owner. That allows the accessory dwelling to be placed on this single zoned lot through a conditional use permit. However, the property the accessory dwelling would be placed on could be sold as a separate lot since it has already been made a "lot of record." That would create a zoning violation because the lot would then contain a single unit manufactured home on R-2 zoned property. Single unit manufactured homes can exist legally only on property zoned R -7A or in mobile home parks. Therefore, Staff believes the accessory dwelling utilities should be served from the main house in order to maintain its "accessory" status. This situation would be less of a potential problem if a two -section unit was installed because that type of manufactured home can be allowed in R-2 zoning by a conditional use permit without rezoning. 3 February 8, 2001 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6971 Another issue is the square footage of the accessory dwelling. The ordinance maximum allowed square footage is 700. The proposed unit is 1280 square feet. Given the size of the property and the size of the main house, Staff believes the proposed size is reasonable. Staff believes the accessory dwelling would be a reasonable addition to this property, but only if its utility services come from the main house. Staff also believes the accessory dwelling would not create an adverse impact on the neighborhood. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. Maintain the accessory status of the home by having its utility service come from the main house. b. Comply with the off-street parking ordinance standard for a single-family dwelling. c. The home must be set up and anchored according to City Building Code requirements and Little Rock City Ordinance Section 36-254 (d)(5) as follows: 1. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12 ) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. 2. Removal of all transport elements. 3. Permanent foundation. 4. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood. 5. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. 6. Underpinning with permanent materials. Staff also recommends approval of a variance to allow for the 1280 square foot unit. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (JANUARY 18, 2001) Mr. James Brown was present representing his application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly reviewed the comments provided to the applicant. 4 February 8, 2001 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6971 The only open issue was the separate utility connections. Staff explained its position and other approaches the applicant could take. The alternatives given were: install a two -section home rather than a single unit; or provide justification from the utility companies that serving the accessory dwelling would not be possible without an unreasonable or cost prohibitive upgrade to the main home's service; or replat the land into separate lots and attempt to rezone the property to R -7A. There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 2001) Mr. James Brown was present representing his application. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item emphasizing the need to maintain the two tracts of land as one zoning lot, and to provide utility service from the main house, in order to be able to install a single -wide manufactured home as an accessory dwelling. If that arrangement was maintained, then Staff would recommend approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation," paragraph 8 above. Mr. Brown addressed the difficulties in having utility service provided from the main house. He explained that he would have to upgrade service to his house for each utility and then run additional lines to the accessory dwelling. Janet Berry, President of Southwest Little Rock United for Progress (SWLRUP), spoke in opposition to the proposal. She stated that the membership of SWLRUP recently voted against the proposal because they objected to single -wide manufactured homes being placed in any zone other than R-7 or R -7A. Commissioner Adcock asked what the accessory dwelling would be used for. Mr. Brown responded that the accessory dwelling would be used by his son and his family, not for rental property. He added that it would never be used as rental property, he had no plans to sell the property to break up 5 February S, 2001 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6971 the zoning lot, and that his son plans to remove the manufactured home and build a site built house when they can afford to do so. Mr. Lawson, Planning Director, suggested that,a way the Commission could enable the applicant to do what he wants, but still limit the use, would be to make the C.U.P. for this applicant only. Then if he ever sold the land the C.U.P. would become void and the manufactured home would have to be removed. The applicant stated he would agree to these limitations. Ms. Berry stated that she would like to see an additional condition be made that the manufactured home would have to be removed after a certain number of years. In response to Commissioner Lowry's question of how long would she suggest, Ms. Berry said she felt that somewhere between 5 to 10 years would be reasonable. Commissioner Adcock agreed with the idea of a time limit and commented that a concern of neighborhoods is that a short term or temporary arrangement often becomes permanent, and old units remain and go into disrepair and become an eyesore. Mr. Brown stated that his son does plan to build a site built home, that it would be in front of the proposed location of the manufactured home, and that somewhere in the 5 to 10 year range would be reasonable. He added that after his son built a house they would remove the manufactured home. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations with the following added conditions: 1. a 5 year maximum time limit for the manufactured home, or until such time as a certificate of occupancy for a site built home on this tract is issued, which ever occurs first; 2. separate utility metering allowed; 3. the C.U.P. is limited to Mr. Brown's ownership; 4. no rental or leasing of the accessory dwelling allowed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 6