Loading...
1988-27571-Minutes for Meeting November 09,1988 Recorded 11/29/19880094 0549 88-2'75'71 PUBLIC HEARING Ordinances 88-023 and 88-024 MANUFACTURED HOUSING CRITERIA rv`19 November 9, 1988, 11:00 a.m. Hearings Room, County Administration Building Chairman Maudlin called the public hearing to order at 11:02 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Lois Bristow Prante, and Tom Throop. Also present was Craig Smith, Planning Director. Craig Smith gave the staff report. He stated that Ordinance 88- 023 would revise the housing policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan to reflect the change in the zoning ordinance relating to manufactured housing; and that Ordinance 88-024 would amend the County Zoning Ordinance to allow for new criteria dealing with manufactured housing and mobile homes. The planning staff, with the Board's recommendation, reviewed these standards, prepared a draft for the Planning Commission, which reviewed it and held a public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended that it be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Craig Smith stated that the amendments to the zoning ordinance would make some changes to the existing mobile home standards. They would require that new homes placed on individual lots be manufactured homes and meet the design criteria of manufactured homes, i.e., a minimum of 800 sq. ft., sited on a permanent foundation or support skirting system, have siding and roofing material customarily used in site-construction residences, and have a roof pitch of at least two in twelve or greater. He said these manufactured homes would be allowed as outright permitted uses in many of the zones of the County. Mobile homes that would not meet these criteria would only be allowed in mobile home parks, mobile home subdivisions, or could be used as an upgrade of an existing legally sited mobile home. Craig Smith stated that a decision on these ordinances would have to be continued to December 14 to meet the county's LCDC notice requirements. Commissioner Prante asked if adoption of these ordinances would remove the requirement for a conditional use permit for manufactured homes. Craig Smith indicated that was correct. Chuck Wilson, mobile home dealer, 736 N 5th, Redmond, expressed concern that the ordinance would devalue the homes of approximately 3,000 mobile home owners in Deschutes County, since single-wide mobile homes would no longer have a trade-in value. He indicated that of those 3,000 mobile homes, only 30% were currently in parks or mobile home subdivisions. At his dealership, single-wide mobile PAGE 1 - NOVEMBER 9, 1988 0094 0550 homes were still 40-45% of their business and many of them were under 800 sq. ft. and would not qualify as manufactured homes. He felt the current conditional use process was the appropriate way of dealing with locating mobile homes. Cathy Jensen, 20225 Harvest Lane, Bend, secretary for the Deschutes River Woods Homeowners' Association, stated she took a poll of their membership who felt that 1,000 sq. ft. should be the minimum allowed which would effectively eliminate single-wide mobile homes. Fred Janzen, 17240 Covina Road, Deschutes River Recreation Homesite, stated that his home had been devalued from $85,000 to $31,000 because, in his opinion, the Planning Department had not properly administered the conditional use standards. Since the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicated that mobile homes could be prohibited in areas "where protective covenants exclude such housing," he felt that the County should have refused conditional use applications for mobile homes where the subdivision had deeded covenants, conditions or restrictions against them. He was not asking that the County enforce the deed restrictions, realizing that deed restrictions were a civil matter and would have to be handled through the courts. He was, however, asking the County not to violate the deed restrictions by approving conditional use applications where deed restrictions prohibited them. He felt that mobile homes should be placed in mobile home parks or subdivisions that had been set up for them. Craig Smith read a memo from legal counsel stating that, "the County does not have authority to enforce or require compliance with subdivision CC and R's (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions). Like deed restrictions, easements, rights of way, etc, CC and R's are restrictions on the use of the property which are pertinent to the land and legally binding upon the property owner. Lawful CC and R's are enforceable only through private legal action undertaken by aggrieved property owners against the person violating the CC and R's." Ted Keener, property appraiser, 65711 Twin Bridge, Bend, agreed with Fred Janzen that if a subdivision had covenants against mobile homes then conditional use applications should be denied. He felt that a possible compromise would be to allow these older mobile homes in areas where there were no conflicts, i.e. large acreage. He felt they should continue to be allowed as a conditional use if the other property owners did not object. If the property owners did object, but the character of the neighborhood would not be changed by the additional mobile home, he felt it should be allowed. He also felt that older mobile homes should be allowed if they upgrade their siding and roofing (approximate installed costs are $2,000 for the roof and $1,000 for siding). Craig Smith stated that the Planning Department was required by the zoning ordinance to have clear and objective standards for the PAGE 2 - NOVEMBER 9, 1988 0094 0551 placement of mobile homes. Ten years ago the County required that the applicant get approval from the surrounding property owners, but that process was determined to be illegal. He stated that the County could not deny a conditional use application based solely on the concerns of neighboring property owners, but must base their decision on the standards in the County Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Throop mentioned that the criteria in the existing ordinance may need to be strengthened so that the County would have more flexibility to deny a conditional use application if there was opposition in the neighborhood. Steve Poplin, President, Deschutes River Woods Homeowners Association, 19411 Apache Rd., Bend, stated that they were in favor of the ordinance except they would like to increase the minimum size allowed, and they felt enforcement should be included. He said that Deschutes River Woods was not established as a mobile home subdivision, however there was a section of the subdivision that contained a number of mobile homes. He stated concern over the continued down trend of their property values which were clearly associated with the placement of single-wide mobile homes. He felt there were greater numbers of stick built homes which were adversely affected by mobile home placements than mobile homes that would be adversely affected by the ordinance. He said his research had also indicated that the ability to resell their property has been adversely affected by the placement of single-wide mobile homes in the area. He felt the conditional use permit system had not worked in Deschutes River Woods, and that there were mobile homes there that had probably not received conditional use permits. He also showed concern over how the new ordinance would be enforced and what would happen to existing mobile homes that were not in compliance with the new ordinances. He felt that enforcement was a key part of implementing the new ordinances because without it, people would do what they wanted on their own property. Florence , Sharp Drive, belongs to the Deschutes Recreational Area. Within the last five years, she has seen a number of single-wide mobile homes move into the area. She was concerned over the enforcement of the conditional use permit system since one mobile home didn't put in a septic tank and in another the people were using water out of the river. She felt that if mobile homes were already there, they should be allowed to stay but should be brought up to health standards. Commissioner Throop indicated that violation enforcement by the County has been poor, and the Commissioners were going to put a renewed emphasis in that area. Ted Keener spoke again stating that if 50% of an identified neighborhood wanted to improve their neighborhood and outlaw mobile homes, they should be allowed to do so and that it should be written as a land use law. PAGE 3 - NOVEMBER 9, 1988 0094 0552 Commissioner Throop stated that such a policy would be struck down by the courts. Commissioner maudlin indicated that the courts have decided that mobile homes are allowable housing. Fred Janzen spoke again indicating that the double-wide mobile homes were not a problem. Only the older single-wide homes were hazardous and brought down property values. John Woodruff, 740 SE 9th #1, Bend, was concerned with the definition of the support skirting system and was told by Craig Smith that the support system referred to the blocking and that the skirting did not need to support the mobile home. John Woodruff also stated that the size of the access crawl hole (181lx2411) was inadequate for mobile homes and that a 4-foot access would be necessary for plumbers. There being no futher testimony, Commissioner public hearing until December 14 at 11:00 a. would be accepted until December 7, 1988. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Z, Z~ 'Lois' 'stow Prante, Commissioner ro Tom hloop, Commissioner ;%Xv, Dick Maudlin, Chairman BOCC:alb Maudlin continued the n. Written testimony PAGE 4 - NOVEMBER 9, 1988