This is a zone change request from Residential 6,000 (R-60) to Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) on a 7,500 square foot parcel described as Lots 53 & 54, Block 2, North Park Subdivision. The property has one manufactured home recently placed on the property and previously had two manufactured homes. The property is owned by William Saunders, III. A pre-application meeting was held on February 24, 2014 and the meeting notes are included as Attachment C. The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 1, 2014 and is recommending denial of the request on a 5-0 vote based on the findings of the 10 criteria for zone changes.

State law at Section 76-2-304, MCA, requires that all zone changes be reviewed in accordance with 10 criteria. Using the 10 criteria to determine the appropriateness of the zone change request, the City Council may:
1. Approve the zone change request
2. Deny the zone change request
3. Allow withdrawal of the application
4. Delay action for up to thirty (30) days

There should be no financial impact to the city to either approve or deny the proposed zone change. If the zone change is denied, the owner will need to remove the manufactured home from the property and services will be disconnected.

The applicant is requesting to rezone a 7,500 square foot parcel described as Lots 53 & 54, Block 2 of North Park Subdivision from R-60 to RMH. The current owner purchased the property in 2001 and it had 2 manufactured homes on the property at the time. The manufactured homes deteriorated over a number of years and were subsequently removed in 2009 and 2010. The property had been vacant since 2010. The owner was not aware of the zoning restrictions on the property that required him to replace the removed manufactured homes within 1 year to maintain its legal nonconforming use.  In December of 2013, the owner requested and received an electrical permit to re-activate a manufactured home power supply on the property. He subsequently applied for and received a permit to install a new natural gas line and street opening permit for its installation. The issuance of these permits does not require the approval of staff from the Planning Division, although it is good practice for the approving agencies for the electrical and gas permits to check on zoning compliance before permit issuance. Planning Division staff in this case was not consulted.
 
In January 2014, the Code Enforcement Division staff received a complaint from a neighbor regarding the placement of a manufactured home on the property. The owner was contacted regarding the zoning regulations and the lapse of the legal nonconforming use. The owner did not want to remove the manufactured home. He was advised of the alternative to apply for a zone change to allow the manufactured home to remain on the property. The owner was also advised the property can only have 1 manufactured home and that if the zoning were approved, the manufactured home would have to be moved to meet the required setbacks to the front, rear and side property lines. If the rezoning request is not approved, the Code Enforcement Division staff will work with the owner to have the manufactured home removed in a timely manner.
 
The Planning Division staff assisted the applicant with the zone change process including attendance at the required pre-application neighborhood meeting. The meeting was held on February 24, 2014 and was attended by John Armstrong, Jim Armstrong, Carol Moore, Valorie Griffith and John Griffith. Nicole Cromwell and Candi Millar attended as representatives of the Planning Division and Tanya Punt attended as a representative of the Code Enforcement Division. Candi Millar provided a brief explanation of the history of the property and the permits that were erroneously issued by the City. Nicole Cromwell described the zone change process and the opportunities for surrounding owners and interested property owners to submit testimony to the Zoning Commission and City Council. John Armstrong and John Griffith voiced objections to the proposed zone change and stated the proposal was not in character with the North Park neighborhood and neighborhood plan. Mr. Griffith stated his home at the top of N 15^th Street was appraised several years ago and the appraiser significantly reduced the appraised value due to the mobile homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Armstrong was provided with information on how a valid protest against the zone change might be submitted. A valid protest of the zone change would require the City Council to vote by a 2/3 majority to approve the request. The pre-application meeting notes are in Attachment C.
 
The property is within the North Park Neighborhood Plan area. This neighborhood plan was adopted into the 2008 Growth Policy for the City of Billings. The Growth Policy and the neighborhood plan are guiding documents and have no regulatory effect on their own. The policies and plans inform and guide decisions on zoning, land uses, subdivisions and development in areas of the City and County. The North Park Neighborhood Plan has a land use goal of preserving the residential character of the area, ensuring adequate off-street parking for new development, improving pedestrian and neighborhood safety and encouraging more affordable housing options in the area. The age of homes on N 15^th Street ranges from 1906 to 1971 and assessed building values range from $112,000 down to $26,000. Eleven homes were built between 1906 and 1939, 10 more during the 1940s, four in the 1950s and two after 1960. No new homes have been constructed in this neighborhood since 1971. The 2008 update to the North Park Neighborhood Plan noted the neighborhood had lost housing units in the previous decade and older residents seemed to be moving out of the area. In addition, 75% of the housing units were renter–occupied, and households tended to be smaller than the city average.
 
The proposed zoning and existing zoning are residential and neither allow commercial uses of the property. The significant difference between R-60 and RMH is the type of construction for dwellings on the property. The RMH zone allows manufactured homes of any year to be placed on the property. A manufactured home is built to a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) code and is not built to the same standard as a site-built home. The RMH zone also allows modular factory-built dwellings and site-built homes. Both of these structures are built to the residential building code adopted by the city. Staff consulted with a local appraiser concerning the possible reduction in surrounding site-built home values if manufactured homes existed or were allowed to exist in the neighborhood. The appraiser stated in some cases “external obsolescence” may affect appraised property value but this is not related to the type of home construction. He stated external factors mainly include poor property maintenance in the neighborhood or nearby commercial or industrial uses. For example, a backyard that is full of junk and debris adjacent to the home appraised may have a reduction in value due to this “external obsolescence”, regardless of the type of home constructed on the adjacent property. The appraiser stated it is not common to reduce an appraised value based on manufactured homes in the area.
 
The property has access to N 15^th Street, a local residential street. There is on-street parking but there are no existing sidewalks or street lights on N 15^th Street. The property has off-street parking for at least two vehicles, the minimum code requirement. There should be no impact on surrounding traffic patterns or pedestrian safety.
 
The proposed RMH zone requires a maximum building height of 34 feet and a front and rear property line minimum setback of 20 feet. The manufactured home does not currently meet the required front setback and likely does not meet the required 8 foot side setback. If the zoning is approved, the manufactured home will need to be re-set to meet these setbacks. The current R-60 zoning allows a 15 foot front setback. The maximum lot coverage in the R-60 zone is 40% and the maximum lot coverage in the RMH zone is 30%.

The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 1, 2014 and received the staff report and recommendation. The Zoning Commission received testimony from the applicant, William R. Saunders, III. The Zoning Commission received testimony in opposition to the request from John Armstrong of 903 N 18th Street, Carol Moore of 615 N 15th Street, J.D. Kober of 2213 Hyacinth Drive, Valorie Griffith of 809 N 15th Street and Emilio Campos of 1448 Granite Avenue. Mr. Kober and Mr. Campos own several rental properties in the neighborhood.

Mr. Saunders, III, stated he has owned the property since 2001 as an investment property. He testified the manufactured homes on the property when he purchased the lot 13 years ago were older and run down. He stated eventually the homes were no longer habitable and he hired someone to remove them in 2009 and 2010. He stated it was never his intent to put another manufactured home on the property and that he was unaware of the need to place another manufactured home on the property within one year. He stated his sister recently became a single mother with two children and needed an affordable rental home. His mother and her significant other decided to assist his sister by purchasing a manufactured home for her. His mother asked if he would be willing to allow his sister to live on his property rent-free and he agreed as long as his sister and mother took care of the permitting and utilities for placing the manufactured home. He stated this is not a permanent solution for his sister but a temporary situation until she no longer needs to live in the manufactured home. He testified he would remove the manufactured when his sister no longer needs to live there. He stated regardless of the decision on the zone change he will continue to own the property as an investment and will eventually build a site-built home or duplex on the property.

Mr. John Armstrong testified in opposition to the request. He stated he was involved in the development and adoption of the North Park Neighborhood Plan and he disagreed with staff the zone change is conforming with that plan. He stated there are many ways this zone change goes against the plan goals including 1) ensuring North Park residents have an active role in any zoning requests; 2) that land use decisions increase pride in the neighborhood; and 3) increase and promote home ownership in the neighborhood. He stated he has gathered signatures from 62% of the property owners within 150 feet that are opposed to the zone change. He stated he has also gathered many more signatures from property owners with parcels more than 150 feet from Mr. Saunders lots. He stated he has also received a letter from the B.I.R.D in opposition to the request. He stated Mr. Saunders property is not well maintained and provided recent pictures of the back of the lot taken from alley. He stated Mr. Saunders had 1 year to bring in another manufactured home and this zone change should not facilitate the placement of another manufactured home in the neighborhood. He stated it has been a lot work for the neighborhood to mount opposition to this request.

Ms. Carol Moore testified in opposition to the zone change. She stated approving the zone change would set a bad precedent in the neighborhood. She stated the zone change would be rewarding Mr. Saunders for doing something against the zoning rules. She stated most of the neighbors are opposed to the zone change.

Mr. J.D. Kober testified in opposition. He stated he owns several rental properties in North Park and has been active with the task force in the past. He stated he has worked hard to improve his rentals. He testified he is opposed to any manufactured home on this property.

Ms. Valorie Griffth testified in opposition. She stated Mr. Saunders has shown a disregard for the neighborhood since the day he bought the property. She stated the manufactured homes that used to be on the lot always had a lot of trash in the yard, junk vehicles and were unsecured and vacant for many months before the city finally forced Mr. Saunders to get them off the property. She stated the neighborhood has tried to improve over the years and placement of the manufactured home by Mr. Saunders was circumventing the law for his own benefit. She urged the Zoning Commission to deny the zone change. She stated once before the city allowed a manufactured home on property at 717 N 15th and the owner promised it was a temporary situation and he would remove it when his relative moved out. She stated the relative has been gone for many years and the manufactured home is still there.

Mr. Emilio Campos testified in opposition. He stated the North Park neighborhood has been improving in recent years and the zone change would not help this improving trend. He stated manufactured homes tend to deteriorate faster than other homes and the renters tend not to care as much about the property or their neighbors.

In response to questions from the audience and the Zoning Commission, Mr. Saunders stated he was not involved in the permitting or purchasing of the manufactured home so he does not know its date of construction or its size. Mr. Saunders also stated he did not install the mailboxes but his sister or mother would have so his sister could get mail. Mr. Saunders reiterated his desire to help his sister with her housing issues and his intent to remove the manufactured home when she no longer needs to live there. He stated he agrees with some of the testimony regarding the prior manufactured homes and that is why he had them removed in 2009 and 2010.

The Zoning Commission closed the public hearing. Member Dan Wagner made a motion to recommend denial of the zone change based on finding the proposed zoning inconsistent with the North Park Neighborhood Plan goal of increasing home ownership, neighborhood pride, and increasing public safety. The motion was seconded by Dennis Ulvestad. Mr. Wagner stated he understood the error the owner made was not intentional but the city should not change a zoning plan in place since 1972 to restore an owner's prior nonconforming use. Mr. Wagner stated in his experience as a professional real estate broker, manufactured homes do not add value to neighborhoods and can change the character of a street or block. He stated the existing R-60 would be a better zoning and use of the property and in character with the improving nature of the area. Mr. Wagner also stated he believes the manufactured home would have negative market effect on the area. Mr. Ulvestad stated while he understood the situation of the owner and it was unfortunate, the Zoning Commission should look at the character of the whole area and make decisions based on the criteria. Chairman Dailey stated the application has received a lot of opposition and he does not believe the zone change will be conforming with the neighborhood plan. Chairman Dailey explained the process as the application moves forward to the City Council on April 28.

The Zoning Commission voted 5 in favor and none opposed to the motion to recommend denial of the zone change based on the findings as stated by members Dan Wagner and Dennis Ulvestad.

The Planning Division reviewed the application and recommended approval to the Zoning Commission based on staff's findings of the ten (10) criteria for zone changes. The Zoning Commission did not concur with the staff recommendation or findings. The Planning Division recommended approval because of its location in an area of similar single family residences including manufactured homes and site-built homes. The staff found the zone change should have no effect on transportation or pedestrian safety. The staff determined there are surrounding properties with manufactured homes although the zoning is primarily R-60 and the manufactured homes were either legal and conforming or legal and nonconforming to the zoning. The staff determined the proposed zone change was consistent with the 2008 Growth Policy which encourages predictable land use decisions that are compatible with neighborhood character and land use patterns.

The Zoning Commission, however, did not concur with these findings. The Zoning Commission found the proposed RMH zoning to be inconsistent with the neighborhood character and inconsistent with the North Park Neighborhood Plan goals of increasing pride and good property maintenance in the area. The Zoning Commission found the existing zoning of R-60 to be the preferred and most prevalent zoning in the neighborhood despite the existence of legal nonconforming manufactured homes in the area. The Zoning Commission is recommending denial of the zone change on a 5-0 vote based on their findings of the 10 criteria for zone changes.

Prior to any decision on the proposed zone change the City Council shall consider the findings of the Zoning Commission as follows:

1.   Is the new zoning designed in accordance with the Growth Policy?
The proposed zone change is inconsistent with the following goals of the Growth Policy:
Predictable land use decisions that are consistent with neighborhood character and land use patterns. (Land Use Element Goal, page 6) 
The proposed zoning would permit the manufactured home placed on the property in January to remain in place. The neighborhood character is primarily site-built homes with very few manufactured homes. Most of those manufactured homes are legal nonconforming uses in the area and may be replaced in the future with site-built homes. The owner of this property did not act to protect his legal nonconforming use within the 1 year time limit.

The goals of the North Park Neighborhood Plan encourage increasing home ownership in North Park and the manufactured home is not owned by the resident but is rented. The neighborhood plan encourages increasing pride in the neighborhood and rental homes tend to decrease in value and do not encourage community cohesiveness.

Preserve the residential character of the North Park neighborhood, increase off-street parking, pedestrian safety and public safety in the area. (Land Use Goal, NP Neighborhood Plan 2008). The 2008 North Park Neighborhood Plan emphasized the need to increase the number of affordable housing units, home ownership and increase neighborhood pride and quality of life. The proposed zoning would allow a manufactured home on the property that does not increase home ownership, does not increase neighborhood pride or the value of adjacent properties.

2.   Is the new zoning designed to secure from fire and other dangers?
The new zoning requires minimum setbacks, open and landscaped areas and building separations. The new zoning, as do all zoning districts, provides adequate building separations and density limits to provide security from fire and other dangers. The proposed zoning allows older manufactured homes (<1976) built to a lower fire safety rating than site-built homes. This may not secure adjacent property from fire danger. The manufactured home as currently placed may not meet the proposed zoning setbacks. If the zoning is approved, the manufactured home will need to be re-set to meet these minimum setbacks.

3.   Whether the new zoning will promote public health, public safety and general welfare?
Public health and public safety may not be be promoted by the proposed zoning. The proposed zoning would encourage lower quality rental housing that may effect public health and safety. The general welfare may be negatively affected by reducing marketability of site-built homes in the area.

4.   Will the new zoning facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirement?
Transportation: The proposed zoning will have minimal impact on the surrounding streets. Only 1 manufactured home is allowed and this home is already in place.

Water and Sewer: The City is providing water and sewer to the property. There should be no additional impact to the system from the proposed zoning.   

Schools and Parks: There will be no impact to schools from the proposed zone change since both are residential zones.  

Fire and Police: The subject property is currently served by the city Public Safety Services.

5.   Will the new zoning provide adequate light and air?
The proposed zoning provides for sufficient setbacks to allow for adequate separation between structures and adequate light and air. As stated above, if the zoning is approved the manufactured home will need to be re-set to meet the minimum setbacks.

6.   Will the new zoning effect motorized and non-motorized transportation?
The new zoning will have no effect on vehicle or pedestrian traffic. The existing and proposed zoning allow residential type traffic.

7.   Will the new zoning promote compatible urban growth?
The new zoning does not promote compatibility with urban growth. The proposed zoning allows older manufactured homes (<1976) built to a lower fire safety rating than site-built homes. The existing R-60 zoning could allow 2 site-built residential homes on this 7,500 square foot parcel. The proposed zoning allows 1 manufactured home for each 6,000 square feet of lot area. This is a lower density than the R-60 and is not compatible with the urban growth in the neighborhood. 

8.   Does the new zoning consider the character of the district and the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses?
The proposed zoning does not consider the character of the district and the suitability of the property for the proposed zoning. The RMH zoning is not in character with the primarily site-built homes in the area. 

9.   Will the new zoning conserve the value of buildings?
The property has 1 nonconforming manufactured home. A consultation with a local appraiser determined that exterior property maintenance is a key factor when examining external factors that may affect property value. The type of construction – on-site construction or factory built dwellings – generally is not an external factor considered in the value of adjacent homes. However, the marketability of adjacent site-built home may be negatively affected by the zone change to allow the manufactured home to remain on the property.

10. Will the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the City of Billings?
The proposed zoning will not encourage the most appropriate use of land in the neighborhood.