Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7009 Staff AnalysisMay 3, 2001 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-7009 NAME: Moore Manufactured Home - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 3820 Foster Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Marion Ruth Moore PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit for a two -section manufactured home to be used as the primary residence on property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: This quarter acre site is located on the west side of Foster Street, a short distance south of 38th Street. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The proposed site is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, and is surrounded by R-2 zoned properties. This particular section of Foster is sparsely developed. There are vacant lots on either side of the proposed site and across Foster to the east. There are residences to the northeast, on the second lot to the south, and to the west behind this property facing Weldon Street. There are not any other manufactured homes on this portion of Foster, but there is one other two -section manufactured home on Weldon Street, southwest of this property. Further south along both sides of Foster there are more vacant properties. Staff believes that if the manufactured home is set up and anchored according to building code and zoning ordinance requirements, that it would be compatible with the neighborhood. The John Barrow and Westbrook Neighborhood Associations, all property owners within 200 feet, and all residents within 300 feet that could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. May 3, 2001 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7009 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The proposal includes a single driveway from Foster wide enough for two vehicles, which provides access to a two -car site -built garage and the manufactured home. The ordinance requires only one space for a single family residence. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: No comments. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No comments. 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Water: Water service is not available to this parcel at this time. Installation of a water main extension at the expense of the Developer would be required. Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. ARBA: No comments received. Entergy: No comments received. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. CATA: Site is close to bus route #14 but has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a two -section, 1,792 square foot manufactured home to be used as the primary residence located on property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. The proposed site is in a residential area that currently is sparsely developed. There are vacant tree covered lots on either side and across Foster from this proposed site. There 2 May 3, 2001 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7009 are residences to the northeast, on the second lot to the south, and behind this property to the west facing Weldon Street. There are no other manufactured homes on Foster near this proposed site, but there is a two - section manufactured home on Weldon Street southwest of this site. The proposed plan meets requirements for height, and front and rear setbacks, but not side setbacks. The home would be only 5.5 feet from either of the side property lines versus a requirement for a 7.5 foot setback on each side. Staff suggested to the applicant that she consider purchasing a manufactured home that was not as wide, but she said she had already purchased this one. Staff believes that this would be a reasonable use of this site and that if the new manufactured home is set up and anchored according to building code and zoning ordinance requirements, that it would be compatible with the neighborhood. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: a.The home must be set up and anchored according to City Building Code requirements and Little Rock City Zoning 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. 5.0rientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. 6. Underpinning with permanent materials. 7. All homes shall be multisectional. Staff also recommends approval of the variance for a reduced side setback to 5.5 feet for both sides. 3 May 3, 2001 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: FILE NO.: Z-7009 (APRIL 12, 2001) Marion Moore was present representing her application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly reviewed the comments provided to the applicant. Staff reviewed the inadequate side setbacks and alternative size units that could meet the required setbacks. The applicant stated she had already bought the home shown in the site plan and so she would pursue a variance. In response to the Committee Member's question if the garage would be built on site, the applicant responded that it would. She added that she just wanted to have a home she could afford and that there were other manufactured homes in the area. Staff reminded the applicant to provide notification by certified mail to property owners within 200 feet no later than April 18, 2001, and that the applicant must provide postmarked certified outgoing receipts, the abstract list of property owners, and the original notification letter with affidavit completed, to Staff no later than six days prior to the public hearing. There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 2001) Marion Moore was present representing her application. There were four 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. Betty Snyder, representing the John Barrow Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition. She stated that the Association had met with the applicant Ms. Moore, and explained their opposition. Ms. Snyder added that the Association had met and discussed trying to determine an area in their area that they felt would be appropriate for manufactured homes but were unsuccessful. She said that 4 May 3, 2001 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7009 there were 40 people at the meeting who did not want manufactured homes anywhere in the John Barrow area. Doris Wright, President of the John Barrow Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition. She presented a petition of over 380 residents opposed to the proposed manufactured home. She added that manufactured homes were not in agreement with their neighborhood plan. She stated that revitalization was occurring in the John Barrow area and rebuilding and remodeling of existing homes was increasing in the Kensington neighborhood particularly. In response to a question by Commissioner Faust, Ms. Wright said that the Kensington neighborhood was on the north side of 36th Street, which is three blocks north of the proposed site. Ms. Wright showed pictures of existing manufactured homes in the area that she felt demonstrated how that type of housing deteriorated quickly. She added that she did not believe the argument that manufactured housing was more affordable based on statistics she quoted from a Consumer's Report article dated February 1998. She continued that she and other John Barrow residents felt that manufactured homes would decrease property values in their neighborhood, a problem they were already facing. She added that the trend was changing for the positive and they didn't want manufactured homes to turn that trend negative again. She stated that they would like Ms. Moore to build a site built house on this site. Norma Walker, a resident on Holt Street, spoke in opposition. She stated that the John Barrow area had come a long way in improvements and they would like to see it continue to develop. George Brown stated he was a member of John Barrow and Campus Place Neighborhood Associations, and was opposed to the proposal. He pointed out that there were 66 names on the petition presented by Ms. Wright from Campus place saying they did not want manufactured homes in Campus Place. He stated that because of the way manufactured homes were constructed, installed and anchored, they were frequently uprooted and flipped on their side during severe storms. He said he agreed with the other reasons for the opposition previously stated, especially decreased property values. Marion Moore responded that the areas mentioned and pictures shown were not near the proposed site on Foster Street. She 5 May 3, 2001 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7009 added that another manufactured home had been permitted in 1998 on Weldon Street, the next street to the west, not very far southwest of her location. She said that occurred after the time Ms. Wright stated that John Barrow prohibited manufactured homes through their neighborhood plan. She continued that she planned to brick the front of her manufactured home, and add a front porch with big posts, which would look better than many of the existing homes. She added that the property owner she purchased the land from and the dealer she bought the manufactured home from, both told her she could put it at this location. Commissioner Lowry asked Staff questions about several points listed in a recent court decision regarding manufactured homes and how he should apply them in his decision process. These included impact on property values, and compatibility in appearance with surrounding houses. Commissioner Nunnley asked Ms. Moore if she would be willing to brick the outside of her proposed home should it be approved. In response to Commissioner Rector, Ms. Moore stated she would brick the home from ground to eave on all four sides by Spring 2002, but she would be putting a bricked front porch with four big posts, a two car garage on the front, and a deck on the rear with the initial installation. Commissioner Rahman asked what recourse there would be if she did not do the brick by Spring 2002. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that it would fall under normal enforcement action the same as any other violation of conditions placed on a conditional use permit by the Commission. She would have to correct the violation or come back to the Commission for an extension or change to the conditions. Commissioner Rahman asked the applicant if she would be willing to brick the entire front now since it would be the most visible. She responded she could do that if she did not construct the garage now. Commissioner Nunnley asked the City Attorney, Mr. Giles, what would happen if conditions occurred that prevented Ms. Moore from completing the brick by next Spring. He responded that if the violation was not corrected the C.U.P could be revoked, putting her in violation of the zoning ordinance. Then further action would be decided in Municipal court. 6 May 3, 2001 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7009 Betty Snyder further commented that if this application was approved, more would follow. She reminded the Commissioners that 40 residents had said at the neighborhood meeting that they do not want manufactured homes anywhere in John Barrow. She asked if the City could inform applicants what areas are opposed to manufactured homes. She added that if more are allowed, a cluster of manufactured homes would develop and look like a little mobile home park in this neighborhood. Commissioner Faust commented that she saw the attitude towards manufactured homes in some neighborhoods as an "unreasoning prejudice towards people of moderate means". She reminded the Commission that the Rolling Pines court decision was in part based on a cluster of incompatible manufactured homes, which is not the case here. Each application would have to be considered separately by the Commission. Ms. Snyder stated she felt the City should take a stance as to where manufactured homes "fit" and set rules and regulations accordingly. She said she felt it was unfair to make the neighborhoods come to the Commission meetings each time to say what fits in each instance; the City should make a clear policy for where manufactured homes would be allowed. Commissioner Nunnley stated that he had a disdain for manufactured homes, but he realized that they provided an option as affordable housing. Therefore, the question of where would they best fit needs to be addressed. Along with where they would best fit, possibly the Commission should have conditions and stipulations on how they should look. He added that he did not believe they should be placed next to site built homes, but since this site is not next to existing site built homes, this might be a good location. He added that he didn't believe it would have a negative impact on surrounding property values in this instance. Ms. Wright reminded the Commission that the Neighborhood Association thought this site might be the right place too, but 40 residents say they don't want a manufactured home at this site or anywhere in the John Barrow area. She added that the bill of assurance for this neighborhood restricts mobile homes. 7 May 3, 2001 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7009 Commissioner Rector stated that Ms. Wright's statement brings up the point that there are differences between "mobile homes" and "manufactured homes", and reminded her that bills of assurance are private contracts. A discussion occurred regarding the impact of an appeal of the Commission's decision on Ms. Moore. Staff stated that if the Commission approves the application she would have an approved C.U.P. and could move the home onto the property. Then if the City Board repealed the Commission's decision she would have to remove the home. In response to questions from Commissioner Lowry, Ms. Moore stated she would commit to having the brick front facade constructed by August 1, 2001, and the brick facade on the other three sides along with the garage constructed by August 24, 2002, if the C.U.P. is approved. Ms. Wright asked the City Attorney for clarification on the authority of the bill of assurance. Mr. Giles stated that the bill of assurance is a private contract which has no legal significance with the Commission. The .property owners would have to sue in Chancery court for resolution of an alleged violation of the bill of assurance. He added that would be the same anywhere in the City including Chenal, in response to further questions from Ms. Wright. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations, and the agreed dates for completing the brick fagade and garage. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 nays and 3 absent. 8