HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-08-80 PLANNING COMMISSION � :�'`� , • �� � �V��� '
� �
:�; � ... CI�.�O�. �Y���'7'QOD .
= .�,., .
1����' • 0��1 �� �'�`l �'��
Op;r_ May 8, 198t
n2EA2BERS OF THE
��� PLANNING COMMISSION �'�� i�1�E7i.`IG Cr:
G ,��� May L2, 198t
� CHARLES GOMEZ, DIRECTOR
, CO�Zl2UNITY DEVELOPME?�T
SU5J=�7:. MOBILE HOI�ZES IN SINGLE FAA2ILI ZOnTF'G
BACKGROUND � --
In September of 1980, SB L960 was signed into law by the governor. This taw pro-
vides for the pLacing of mobile homes in single-fami�y residentiaL zones; it
goes into effect on Jutv l, 1981.
In summation, the new lau� states that a city or county cannot prohib'it the in-
statLation of mobile homes on lots zoned for single-family residences, if they
were built since 1976 and are instatled on permanent foundations. Hovvever,
the 1ocaLity may designate sites for mobiLe homes in single-famiLy zones that
are determined to be compatible for such use. Also, the locality may appiy
setback, sideyard, parking and other development standards as Long as they
apply equally to a conventionat residence on the same lot. Architectural stan-
dards may be applied to the mobile home, but are limited to its roof overhang,
f roofing material and siding.
OPTIONS
Th�- language of the tegislation allows some flexibitity for cities and counties that
are preparing ordinances in response to SB L960.
� One approach wouLd be to prepare an ordinance which would atlow the installation
of certified (under the National Mobite Home Construction and Safety Standards
Act of 1974) mobile homes on aLl lots zoned for single-family residences. These
mobi!e homes must be constructed after October, 1976. In addition, they must be
instalted on a permanent foundation and meet the same devetopment standards as
conventionat single-family residentiaL dweliing. Architectural standards mav be
i imposed on the structure itself regarding roof overhang, roofing material, and
; siding materiaL
I '
( An alternative approach wouLd be to designate specific lots zoned for single-family
� dwettings where mobi!e homes may be installed. These Lots must be determined to
I be compatible for such mobile hoirie use. The same certification requirement and
� development and architectural standards-wrould apply as above.
{ RECOMMF.ND9TION � ' ,�
I Staff recommends the first of the approache� mentioned above. This type of
' I crdinance would allo�v the placement of approved mobile homes on individual
�' lots zoned for singte-family residences. The mobiLe homes would have to
coniorm to development and architecturat siandards. The recommendation is
based on:
t
,
j � , � �
TO: PLANNING COM:�4IS5ION -2- May 8, 1981
RE: MOBILE HOMES - CASE NO. 81033
L The fact that Lvnwood is an older, built-up city with littte
vacant residential land that could feasibly be designated for
mo�ile home use.
2. The potential probtem that may be created if certain lots
are designated for mobile homes and the tot owners choose to
construct conventionat d�uellings on tho�e lots. The city �
would then have to designate other "compatible" lo!s for
mobile homes. Conventionat singte-family dwellings would
no* be excLuded from these designated lots as they are
"permitted uses. " �
If the Commissioa so ��ishes, a proposed ordinance ���i11 be drafted and a public
hearing advertised. :,
CGG/d
I
�
�
I
�
i
I
i
� �
�.
, �I
I
I