HomeMy WebLinkAbout1305 ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 1305
A RESOLUTION establishing guidelines to be consulted in the
consideration of land -use classification actions for
mobile home development within the City of Pasco.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, through zoning provisions, recognizes
mobile homes as necessary and desirable components of the housing stock
within the City of Pasco; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco finds the recent, current, and
projected trend toward mobile home structures in lieu of conventional
structures may result in a disproportionate share of the regional
housing market for mobile home units; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco desires to accomodate and encourage
and appropriate share of the regional housing market for mobile home
units; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
That the following policies shall be consulted in a consideration
of land -use classification requests relating to the provision of mobile
home units within the City of Pasco:
1. Land -use classifications for development of mobile home units
should not be assigned to lands which are considered undesirable for
residential development.
2. Mobile home subdivisions (RMH-1) should be located only on those
lands deemed desirable for long term residential use.
3. Mobile home development on lands which are of substantial
potential for higher use (commercial or industrial) should only occur
in accordance with the following criteria:
a. The site is on the fringe of the "higher" use area;
b. The site is not anticipated to be subjected to conversion
pressure :for at least ten (10) years;
c. The site remains under single ownership and is classified
RMH-2 or RMH-3.
4. Of the total number of mobile home units, the following
proportions should generally be maintained:
a. RMH-1: 50%
b. RMH-2: 40%
c. RMH-3: 10%
5. The number of mobile home units (in RMH-1, RMH-2, and RMH-3
combined) should not exceed 25% as a proportion of the total number
-2 -
of dwelling units within the greater Pasco housing market (incorporated
area plus the unincorporated residential development east of Road 68
and south. of Argent Road).
6. Due to the volatility of the regional housing market, the
desirable proportion of mobile home units should be reviewed annually.
P'SS)ZD by the City Council of the City of Pasco this .1,-;7 day of
1979.
Chet Bailie, Mayor
ATT ST:
E ells, City Clerk
APPRO�VE'D" ' AS TO FORM
Dennis J. De F lice, -City Attorney
November 6, 1979
MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING
FROM: GARY CRUTCHFIELP,/City Planner
Mobile Home
As the Planning Commission was informed last month, the City Council has
directed that the.CaTmission investigate the current proportion of mobile
home develolmlent and reccmmQ nd- to the Council a policy to be used in
guiding zoning decisions for mobile home development. The basic question
being :raised is: How much of the city's residential land should be
classified for mobile home development?
To aid the Commission in arriving at a recomrrendation, the following information
is provided.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Regional Characteristics:
Within'a regional context, mobile homes presently represent approximately
12% of all housing units (one of every eight units is a mobile home).
Whale the outlying areas such as Benton County and the urban area fringe
(West Richland) reflect the greatest proportion of mobile hares, all three
of the Tri -Cities urban communities reflect mobile hcM development.
Richland, with only 4% mobile homes, does not presently provide for mobile
hoe subdivisions within its corporate limits; all of its mobile hares are
located within mobile home parks. Table 1, below indicates the data
available for each jurisdiction as of April 1, 1979.
TABLE 1
MOBILE HOME UNITS IN BI -COUNTY AREA,
BY JURISDICTION, 4/79
N/A: NotAlppl
-
AW libis
A6011,,.,11 lit
WEST
RICHLAND
KEN MgICK
PASCO
RICHLAND
BENTON CO.
FRANKLIN CO.
TOTAL
Total Units
11,792
10,577
6,595
1,289
10,251
N/A
40,504
Iii Units
472
1,185
789
371
2,278
N/A
5,095
Pprcerrt
4.0
11_2
11.9
28.7
22.2
N/A
12.5
N/A: NotAlppl
-
AW libis
A6011,,.,11 lit
W
's
When the data for municipalities within the metropolitan area is viekkd,
the proportion of mobile homes drops to about 9% (this figure drops to
8.5% when West Richland statistics are excluded).' Table 2, below reflects
the urban area data.
TABLE 2
MOBILE HOME UNITS, INCORPORATED JURSIDIC.TIONS
WITHIN METROPOLITAN AREA, 4/79
B. Pasco Characteristics:
Although the foregoing data indicates nearly 12% of Pasco's housing units
are nubile homes (equivalent to the regional average discussed above, it should
be noted that the data is restricted by municipal boundaries. In order to
obtain a true picture of what should be regarded as the "Pasco housing market",
Table 3 (below) includes tze unincorporated portion of Franklin County (to
Road 68, south.of Argent Road) with the municipal statistics.
'-ABLE 3
UNITS IN PASCO HOUSING MARKET, BY TYPE OF UNIT, 4/79
CITY
COUNTY
TOTAL
WEST
%
#
RICHLNIZ
MRMWICK
PASCO
RICHLAND
TOTAL
Total Units
11 792
10,577
6,595
1,289
30,253,
MH Units
472
1,185
789
371
2,817
Percent
4.0
11.2
1 11.9
28.7
9.3
B. Pasco Characteristics:
Although the foregoing data indicates nearly 12% of Pasco's housing units
are nubile homes (equivalent to the regional average discussed above, it should
be noted that the data is restricted by municipal boundaries. In order to
obtain a true picture of what should be regarded as the "Pasco housing market",
Table 3 (below) includes tze unincorporated portion of Franklin County (to
Road 68, south.of Argent Road) with the municipal statistics.
'-ABLE 3
UNITS IN PASCO HOUSING MARKET, BY TYPE OF UNIT, 4/79
Since zoning is the principal tool used in managing ,the various types of
residential and the number of units, zoning patterns must be considered.
In order to project the effect of full development under current zoning
conditions, Table 4 (below)estimates the number of acres currently vacant in
each zoning classification and the number of housing units which might result
from. full development.
lit'
CITY
COUNTY
TOTAL
#
%
#
%
#
%
Conventional
Apartments
:Mobile Hones
TOTAL
3472
2334
789
6595
52.6
35.4
11.9
1453
47
-0-
1500
96.8
3.2
-0-
4925
2381
789
8095
60.8
29.4
9.7
Since zoning is the principal tool used in managing ,the various types of
residential and the number of units, zoning patterns must be considered.
In order to project the effect of full development under current zoning
conditions, Table 4 (below)estimates the number of acres currently vacant in
each zoning classification and the number of housing units which might result
from. full development.
lit'
TABLE' 4
SATURATIO14 DEVELOPMENT OF PASCO HOUSING
MARKET, BY ZOZZ AND TYPE OF UNIT
TYPE !DF
ESTIMATED
PO'=- IAL
EXISTING
POTENTIAL
POTENTIAL
UNIT
ZONE
VACANT
ADD'L UNITS
UNITS
TOTAL UNITS
PROPORTION,
-
R -1S
1200
3600
4925
8605
58.8
p
R-.1"
20
80
U
'
R--2
80
800
2381
3681
25.2
R3
20
500
Rivni-1
85
340
G
RMH-2
150
1200
789
2329
15..9
RMH-3
-0-
-0-
1555
6520
6595
13115
As indicated in Table 4., full development under.existing zoning designations
could result in a proportion of nearly 16%.mobile homes (one out of every
six units). Given current trends in mobile home demand, mobile hone improvements,
and the increasing cost of conventional structures, the projected 16% may well
be below the level of demand and the proportion of housing -stock in mobile home
units a decade from now.
a
ADVANTAGES/DISADVAN.PAGES
A. MOBILE; HOME SUBDIVISION
Advantages:
1. Individual ownership usually generates greater interest in conviu ity
functions, much as in conventional subdivisions. (Greater stability.)
2. Individual ownership generally means a higher level of maintenance of
subdivision and individual lots (pride of ownership).
3. Property values (land and structure).are usually higher due.to land
costs (information provided by Franklin County Assessor).
4. Provides greater opportunity for low and moderate income households
to achieve home ownership.
Disadvantages:
1. Individual ownership of lots generally represents a more permanent
commitment of land resource to residential develogment than would a
mobile home park under one ownership.
2. Long-term depreciation of mobile homes in a subdivision may be greater
than conventional structures; however, given the contemporary factors
of inflationary costs of conventional structures, increasing demand for
mobile homes, and the ever -improving quality of homes produced by the
mobile home industry, the rate of depreciation may become (or already be)
quite comparable to that of conventional structures. Depreciation also
•depends, of course., on'the quality of maintenance affored the structure;
it is usually assumed that higher -valued structures receive a higher
level of maintenance due sinply to the financial ability of the owner.
3. Greater municipal costs for maintenance of streets and utilities.
Advantages:
1. Greater long-term ability to convert use of land. .(This advantage
loses its potential as improverent requirements increase.and as demand
increases for mobile have rental sites).
2. Provides greater opportunity for low and moderate income households
to own their here without loXsing mobility (which may be essential
to nature of employment).
3. Less maintenance cost to municipality due to private streets and utilities.
Disadvantages:
1. Property values (land and structures) are usually lower (information
provided by Franklin County Assessor) .
'2': Due to mobility of renters, mobile here parks generally represent a
less stable population.
CnNCT d ]S TnNS
1. Both types of mobile home development are necessary elements of the community's
housing opportunity.
2. Subdivisions, due to their relative stability, maintenance and value factors,
appear to be preferrable to mobile home parks.
3. Mobile -home parks offer a unique opportunity to provide an interium use of
those lands with long-term potential of higher use (commercial, industrial);
however, this opportunity has an equally great potential for abuse in terms
of location and, more importantly, the likelihood of ultimate conversion to
a higher use. With present improvement requirements, mobile home parks may
well prove to be a more permant land use than has been considered in the recent
past.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Mobile homes, whether in a subdivision or park represent a decent form of
housing for their occupants; therefore, mobile home zoning (PMH -1 and RMH-2)
should not be assigned to lands which are considered undesirable for
residential develoFanent.
2. Mobile hone development on .lands which are of substantial potential for higher
use (commercial or industrial) should only occur in accordance with the
following criteria:
A. The site is on the fringe of the "higher use" area;
B. The site is not anticipated to be subjected to conversion pressure for
at least ten years;
C. The site remains under single ownership and is classified R4H-2 or RMH-3;
D. The zoning action is conditioned by concomitant agreement to require review
of pertinent factors in ten years and, if deemed appropriate by the City
Council, reclassification to the higher use.
3. Mobile home subdivisions (RMH-1) should be located only on those lands deemed
desirable for long-term residential use.
4. Mobile here units WMH-1, RMH-2,and R4H-3, combined) should not exceed 25%
as a proportion of the total number of dwelling units within the "Pasco
housing market" (incorporated area plus the unincorporated residential develop -
went east of Road 68 and south of Argent Road).
5. Of the total number of mobile hcme units, the following proportions should
generally be maintained:
RMH•-1 : 50%
RMH•-2 40%
RM14-3,1d' 10%