My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Res 1978-059
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
03 Resolutions
>
1970 s
>
1978
>
Res 1978-059
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2008 4:02:12 PM
Creation date
8/18/2008 4:02:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Resolutions
Number
1978-59
Date
7/24/1978
Volume Book
49
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />s <br /> <br />the city. Another advantage is that those mobile homes <br />wishing to locate outside of parks will have to meet more <br />stringent requirements. This would hopefully reduce the <br />negative impact a mobile home can have on a residential <br />neighborhood. The use of a floating zone gives the City an <br />advantage through the flexibility it provides in locating <br />mobile home parks. <br />The major disadvantage is that mobile homes will still <br />be able to locate throughout the city. In addition, this <br />alternative may require the hiring of personnel to process <br />applications and enforce the new provisions. <br /> <br />The third alternative is to modify the existing ordinance <br />to make it more workable and more enforceable. The major <br />modification would be to change the application process to <br />an administrative function. The application procedure would <br />be very similar to the one outlined in the second alternative. <br />A mobile home owner who wished to locate within the city <br />would file an application with the Department of Planning <br />and Zoning. The staff would review the application on the <br />basis of previously established criteria and on-site inspec- <br />tions. The criteria would include (1) the basis for approval <br />or disapproval and (2) minimum lot standards. The renewal <br />procedure would be, for the most part, an automatic process. <br />The mobile home owner would send in a renewal form. The <br />staff would,make ,an on-site inspection to note if there were <br />any changes. If there have been, then the renewal would be <br />processed against the application criteria. If there have <br />been no changes, the renewal would be granted. <br />The final modification would be the provision of an <br />appeals body for those applicants who feel their applications <br />have been unfairly denied. The Board of Zoning Appeals <br />could be given jurisdiction over such decisions made by the <br />Department of Planning and Zoning. The advantages of this <br />alternative are: (1) it is less time consuming, (2) it <br />requires less paperwork, (3) it is more equitable, and (4) <br />it provides for a Board of Appeals. The disadvantage of <br />this alternative is that it really does not control the <br />location of mobile homes. <br /> <br />The final alternative is to eliminate the ordinance and <br />let the marketplace govern the location of mobile homes. <br />The premise for this alternative is that since the existing <br />ordinance is not working effectively, then perhaps all <br />control should be lifted. <br />Staff considers this to be the least desirable alterna- <br />tive. The only advantage to this alternative is that it <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.