Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8076 Staff AnalysisMARCH 26, 2007 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-8076 Owner: R.S. Keathley, JR. Applicant: Regina Haralson, Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey and Haralson, P.A. Address: 8223 Baseline Road Description: South side of Baseline Road, between Production and Distribution Drives. Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to determine that a nonconforming use/status of the property (mobile home park) is valid. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 8223 Baseline Road is currently vacant. For a number of years the site was used as a mobile home park. Evidence of its previous use still exists in the form of concrete/asphalt pads, utility stub -outs, etc. There are two (2) asphalt drives on the property. There is a main access drive from Baseline Road down the center of the property. This drive connects to a drive along the west property line which accesses Victoria Street to the west. There is one (1) unoccupied mobile home at the northeast corner of the property. This R-2 zoned property had a nonconforming R-7 status for many years during its use as a mobile home park. However, on July 20, 2004 the property MARCH 26, 2007 ITEM NO.: A fCON'T. ceased being used as a mobile home park. Water to the property was cut-off on July 19, 2004. The City's Zoning Ordinance does not permit the operation of a mobile home park as a by right use in R-2 zoning. The mobile home park which previously existed on this property was in existence before the property became part of the City, and was allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. Such a use can continue as long as the use is not ceased for a period of one (1) year, according to the following Section 36-153( c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance: "( c) Abandonment or discontinuance. When a nonconforming use has been discontinued or abandoned, and the appearance of which [such use] does not depict the identity of an ongoing use, and further if said situation exists for a period of one (1) year, such use shall not thereafter be reestablished or resumed. Any subsequent use or occupancy of such land or structure shall comply with the regulations of the zoning district in which such land or structure is located." Shortly before July 20, 2005 the mobile home which exists near the northeast corner of the property was placed on the site. There was no evidence that the mobile home was inhabited by July 20, 2005. Therefore, the City determined that the nonconforming status of the property has been lost. According to a letter dated February 8, 2006 from City Attorney Tom Carpenter to Phillip Kaplan, the property owner's attorney: "The City considers this property abandoned as a mobile home park and will not permit any owner to engage in such a use. The ordinance clearly notes that abandonment or discontinued use includes situations in which "the appearance... does not depict the identity of an ongoing use." Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code §36-153( c) (1988). Arkansas law does not require the City to prove an intent to abandon a use, merely that there has been a discontinuance of such use." The property owner is appealing the City's determination that the nonconforming status of the property has been lost. The property owner is asking the Board to determine that he has not abandoned the nonconforming mobile home park use of the property and that he be allowed to continue said use. A separate packet of information, including letters from the City Attorney's office, has been provided by the applicant and will be given to the Board members for review. A member of the City Attorney's office will be present at the public hearing to provide additional information. MARCH 26, 2007 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the August 28, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the September 25, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the November 27, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 open position. MARCH 26, 2007 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 18, 2006) Philip Kaplan and R.S. Keathley, Jr. were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application. Philip Kaplan addressed the Board in support of the application. He provided the Board with a history of the property. He explained that Mr. Keathley had cleaned up the property and presented photos of the property and surrounding properties to the Board. He noted that the mobile home on the property was hooked up to utilities. He referred to Section 36-153( c) of the Code, noting that the appearance of the property had the identity of an ongoing use, in the placement of the one (1) mobile home. He discussed the condition of the surrounding properties. He noted that there were no other suitable uses for the property. He explained that Mr. Keathley would provide a unit on the property for a police sub -station. He noted that there would be on-site care takers and the property would be kept clean. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked if water and electricity were hooked -up to the mobile home. Mr. Kaplan noted that they were. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked if the mobile home was ever occupied. Mr. Kaplan responded that it had not been occupied. Chairman Francis referred to advertisements that were placed in the paper for the rental of the mobile home and asked if there was any response. Mr. Kaplan noted that there were several responses soon after the ad was placed. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked about requirements to tie down mobile homes in a mobile home park. Staff noted that the nature of a mobile home park, with units being moved in and out, does not require that units be tied down. Chairman Francis asked about the city's position regarding the appearance of an on- going use. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, explained that there was no appearance of an on-going use since there were no residents on the property. Chairman Francis noted that he seemed to agree with staff's position, but was concerned with the fact that the applicant had tried to rent the mobile home. Mr. Kaplan explained that Mr. Keathley had spent much money on cleaning up the property for use as a mobile home park. There was a brief discussion as to whether rental units within a mobile home park should be treated differently from owner -occupied units. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked how many mobile homes had been on the property in the past. Mr. Kaplan stated that there had been as many as 60. Vice -Chairman Burruss explained that his opinion was that placement of one (1) mobile home on the property did not re-establish the mobile home park. MARCH 26, 2007 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. Staff asked Mr. Kaplan questions related to the time the property was cleaned up and the time the mobile home was moved onto the property. There was a motion to uphold the City's position that the nonconforming use of the property as a mobile home park has been lost/discontinued. The vote was 2 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent and 1 open position. Based on the fact the item failed to receive three (3) votes for or against, the application was automatically deferred to the January 29, 2007 Agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the March 26, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2007) Philip Kaplan was present, representing the application. There was one (1) objector present. Staff presented the application. Philip Kaplan addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the manufactured home had been removed from the property because of vandalism and not an attempt to vacate the use. He gave a brief history of the property. He explained that the property owner had advertised the property for sale and the manufactured for rent. He explained that the issue was that there was never an intent to abandon the mobile home park use. There was a discussion of the Board of Adjustment's review of this type issue. Chairman Francis explained why he voted for the appeal previously. He noted that a substantial evidence rule made the decision more difficult. The issue of how the appeal should be reviewed was discussed further. Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, addressed the Board. He referred to case law in explaining the City's position of why the nonconforming use had been lost. He briefly discussed the history of the property. He explained that the steps taken by the property owner to re-establish the mobile home park were not substantial. He referred to and quoted from Section 36-153( c) of the code. Pat Gee, of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association and SWLR UP, spoke in opposition to the issue of re-establishing the mobile home park use. She noted that the mobile home was still on the property and in a state of disrepair. MARCH 26, 2007 ITEM NO.: A CON'T. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that the issue of having a police sub- station on the property was not an issue to be considered by the Board. Robert Winchester asked about the property being developed as something other than a mobile home park. Mr. Kaplan explained that single family lots could be platted, but the condition of the property made it a problem. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 5 nays and 0 absent. The appeal was denied.