Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends SPUD to allow up to four manufactured homes after concessions to neighbors
Summary
A special PUD to allow multiple manufactured homes on a 5‑acre parcel was recommended for approval after the applicants and staff added conditions limiting density, lot coverage and requiring septic/well configurations and other safeguards; opponents had submitted protests but no one spoke at the hearing.
The Planning Commission on Feb. 27 recommended approval of SPUD 1673, an application to allow up to four detached dwelling units — including manufactured homes — on a roughly 5‑acre parcel on Hope Road. The application had been revised following staff and commissioner requests to incorporate standards addressing unit types, setbacks and site coverage.
Applicant representatives said the SPUD is intended to allow an intergenerational family compound using contemporary manufactured homes built to single‑family building code standards. Brandy White and counsel Charles Allen told commissioners that financing limitations make manufactured homes the practicable pathway to provide affordable homeownership for the family; staff and the applicants added protections in the draft SPUD intended to reduce potential impacts on neighbors.
Key conditions captured in the revised SPUD include: - Manufactured homes limited to a maximum of three new units in addition to 1 existing mobile home; if the existing mobile home is removed its replacement must be a manufactured home or single‑family residence. - A 5% lot coverage cap for accessory and residential structures (equivalent to 10,890 square feet on 5 acres). - Setbacks adjusted along the west side (25‑foot minimum) and restrictions on re‑building in places where existing nonconforming carports might be removed. - Applicants noted the site already contains two wells and two septic systems; the SPUD text anticipates individual wells and on‑site septic or aerobic systems for each lot or unit, subject to Health Department approval.
Public comment included letters both supporting and opposing the application; no members of the public spoke against the SPUD at the hearing. Commissioners discussed protest letters and neighborhood opposition, the nonconforming status of the existing mobile home, and protections written into the SPUD. One commissioner said the application “inclines me to vote in favor” after the added protections, while another emphasized that the proposal is unusual and that protests from adjacent landowners informed a cautious approach.
Motion and outcome: A motion to recommend approval of SPUD 1673, removing Technical Evaluation (TE) number 1 (the applicant did not agree to the TE as written), passed and the item was recommended for City Council action.
Ending: The SPUD will be considered by City Council. The office of Planning noted that the SPUD includes additional written limits intended to preserve neighborhood character while allowing family‑oriented, affordable homeownership via manufactured housing.
