6/25/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r JUN 2 5 196 BOOK 64 Fv 819 and the Board of County Commissioners approved, down -zoning this area to RMH-6 when the nonresidential zoning conversion ordinance was adopted on January 29, 1986. The staff felt that down -zoning this area to RMH-6 would lower the permitted residential densities and would provide an* interim .zoning until the staff could study the situation further. In March, the staff completed a draft of the Roseland Small Area Plan. Several copies of this draft were sent to the Roseland Property Owners Association for their review and comment. The draft plan discusses the various issues in the Roseland area including the mobile home zoning. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Roseland Small Area Plan does not specifically address the issue of mobile homes and single-family homes in one area. While the plan recommends that density be limited in certain areas, it also recommends that additional study be done on the mobile home/single-family issues. In further reviewing the area zoned RMH-6 which does contain approximately six single-family residences, the staff has considered several alternative zoning provisions for this area. The following alternatives were reviewed: 1) No change in the current RMH-6 zoning; 2) Create a new zoning district that allows both single-family houses and mobile homes; 3) Rezone part of this area to RS -6, Single -Family Res ict. Alterna.. _ i, no change current RMH-6 z;.- n, j. alternative requires no rezoning action and would allow only mobile homes to be located in this area in the future. Based on the existing land uses in this area, including the existing single-family residences which are nonconforming uses, staff does not see any advantages to this alternative. The disadvan- tages to this alternative are the facts that the existing houses are nonconforming uses which cannot be replaced or expanded and the fact that individuals living in mobile homes cou-1-%-not replace them with single-family residences. Alternative �2, create a new zoning district that allows both single-family residences and mobile homes. The advantage of this alternative is that all existing mobile homes and sin- gle-family residences would be conforming uses and individuals would have flexibility as to which type of dwelling unit they could place on their lots. A disadvantage of this alternative is that the staff does not feel that it is appropriate to allow single-family residences and mobile homes in the same zoning district. One of the purposes of zoning is to group similar land use activities together and separate conflicting land uses. Another purpose of zoning is to protect property values. Allowing mobile homes to locate next to single-family residences would not protect the property values of the single-family residences and would be undesirable to most owners of single-family house. The staff did prepare a draft of a new zoning district (the ROSE -4 district which is attached) which could be utilized under this alternative. In addition, two alternative zoning proposals were prepared for rezoning the subject area utilizing the ROSE -4 district (these alternatives are attached). Alternative 3, rezone part of alternative, part of this area advantage of this alternative 42 this area to RS -6. Under this would be rezoned to RS -6. The is that the existing sin-