12102001 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

176. Regular Meeting December 10, 2001 Page 2 STREET, FROM "M" (SINGLE-FAMILY, DUPLEX AND NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO "MR" (MOBILE HOME AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT); INCLUDING PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied this zoning request, which would require at least six votes of approval by the City Council for adoption. Mayor Chiu opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. (1) Rose Brooks stated she is in favor of a mobile home being placed on this property. Ms. Brooks stated Mrs. Williams is elderly, and it would be too costly for her to build a home on her property. (2) Lena Clark Tatum stated she wanted to speak on behalf of Mrs. Williams. Ms. Tatum stated there are other mobile homes located in the area, and Mrs. Williams' income would allow her to place a double-wide home on this property. She stated Mrs. Williams' present home contains mold. She wants to stay in the community where she has resided. No one else wished to speak, so Mayor Chiu closed the public hearing. Mr. Cox moved for adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Ms. Tatum seconded the motion. Mayor Chiu advised it would take at least six votes of approval to overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of this zoning. Mr. Cox stated the Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff have recommended denial, and he inquired if there was any other process Mrs. Williams could consider, such as a specific use permit. Mr. Patterson stated the answer is no, that the mobile homes already there were grandfathered. Ms. Hughson stated trailer homes were more mobile, and the type home Mrs. Williams' wants to place is more permanent, and Mr. Patterson stated that is correct. Mr. Montoya stated the new manufactured homes are more permanent and durable in structure and not as portable. Ms. Tatum stated she assumes Mrs. Williams' double-wide would be a caliber home she would be placing on her land. Ms. Tatum stated the mold problem could come back and inquired what is the difference between the double-wide manufactured home and the home that is presently on this property. Mr. Patterson stated the Planning and Zoning Commission struggled with this matter and viewed this as a land use issue and possibly setting a precedent. Mr. Mihalkanin stated he thought the City Council had directed manufactured home designation as a new zoning designation and requested Staff look at other cities. Ms. Hughson stated the Development Ordinance Review Task Force also directed this be looked at. Mr. Mihalkanin stated he wants a Staff direction to look at other cities regarding manufactured homes as its own zoning designation. Mr. Cox stated he thinks there is an agreement among the Council Members that we need to have a zoning designation without jeopardizing land uses. Mr. Patterson stated there are two zoning categories which allow mobile homes. Mobile Home Residential does not allow pre-1976 models. The only ones allowed are HUD Code manufactured after 1976. Mr. Patterson stated the Mobile Home Residential designation requires a foundation mounting and skirting. Mr. Montoya stated the mold was removed from Mrs. Williams' home and it has returned. He asked if it would come back if replaced with a mobile home. Mr. Patterson stated mold is caused from moisture accumulation, and there was a return of moisture in Mrs. Williams' home. Sources of moisture are sometimes caused by roof and plumbing leaks. Mr. Mihalkanin asked Mr.