6/25/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M r M gle-family residences could be rezoned to become conforming uses. The disadvantage of this alternative is that it may be necessary to rezone some existing mobile homes also to avoid spot zoning. The staff prepared a rezoning proposal for this alternative which would rezone the existing single-family dwellings and many of the mobile homes in this area to RS -6. It is the staff's position that mobile homes and single-family units are not compatible and, therefore, should not be allowed in the same zoning district. Since a principal objective of zoning is to protect property values and because such a zoning district would fail to protect the property values of sin- gle-family home owners in areas zoned for both single-family and mobile home uses, the staff feels that no such zoning district should be established. For these reasons, the staff feels that Alternative 3 is the most appropriate option. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the County not establish a zoning district which allows both mobile homes and single-family units. The staff also recommends that the Board direct the staff to prepare a recommendation concerning rezoning part of this area from RMH-6 to RS -6. Vice Chairman Lyons asked if there isn't a small area plan in process for this area and if so, why it isn't with the Planning 6 Zoning Commission. Planner Shearer explained that they tabled action on it to find out if the Board felt it is appropriate to have this type of district. Vice Chairman Lyons believed they are supposed to make the recommendations to us and not vice versa. Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commis- sion, was under the impression they had made a recommendation, which is that they did not feel they could go on with the plan until they had the Board's decision as to what they felt should be happening in this one area. She advised that the Planning 6 Zoning Commission felt the old zone should be recreated, and the Planning Department did not agree. Commissioner Bird believed the Board felt the mixed use desired could work up there, and Commissioner Wodtke stated that he preferred Alternative 2, i.e., creating a new district to allow both single family and mobile homes, but did not know that he could delineate the specific area. He did feel this is unique 43 JUIN 2 5 1986 BOOK 64 FA11 8�Q