11/18/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e ,NOV 18 1986 BOOK 66 FAGE392 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). The ROSE -4 zoning district was drafted based on the County's existing mobile home zoning districts. Those districts require site plan approval for mobile home parks and the ROSE -4 district contains the same requirement. On October 28, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners heard from a citizen from the Roseland area who complained about the site plan requirement for mobile homes on individual lots. The staff feels that the County should eliminate the site plan requirement for mobile homes on individual lots and that requirement is not included in the ROSE -4 district. Alternative 3, rezone part of this area to RS -6. Under this alternative, part of this area would be rezoned to RS -6. The advantage of this alternative is that the existing sin- 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 When the Board of County Commissioners considered this issue in June, they indicated that there may be a need for a new zoning district for part of Roseland that would allow mobile homes and single-family residences. The Board directed the staff to delineate the specific boundaries of this area, prepare -a proposed. zoning district and have the_ Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation on the new zoning district and the specific area where it should be- established. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that the_ ROSE -4 zoning district be adopted. The planning staff still feels that the County should not estab- lish a zoning district allowing both mobile homes and single- family dwellings. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve alternative 3 which is rezoning part of the area in question to RS -6. 36