11/18/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In December of 1985, the staff met with the Roseland Property Owners Association's Board of Directors to discuss land use issues in the area and to set boundaries for the Roseland Small Area Plan. In January, the staff met with the Roseland Proper- ty Owners Association to describe the process of preparing the Roseland Small Area Plan and to discuss land use issues in the area with the Association's general membership. One of the main issues of concern to the Association was the RMH-8 zoning of the area previously zoned R-1RM and the permitted density of 8 units/acre. Based on these concerns, the staff recommended, 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. On September 25, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 -to -0 to recommend approval of alternative 2. 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 Residential District. Alternative 1, no change in the current RMH-6 zoning. This 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 could 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 35 BOOK 66 F-AGMI