Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-23 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 23, 1984 at 5:00 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Hall. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: The regularly was called to MINUTES Barbara Crook, Stan Green, Melanie Stockdell, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, Ernie Jacks, Joe Tarvin, and Newton Hailey, Jr. David Williams Larry Wood, Freda Poore, Lloyd Boling, Larry Battle, Dr. Perry Crawford, Richard Rogers, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others. scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission order by Chairman Newton Hailey, Jr. The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1984. Ernie Jacks advised of a correction of the name of Mr. Maglothin, on Page 5. The minutes were approved, with the correction, as mailed. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A REPLAT OF BLOCK 2 COLT SQUARE The second item on the agenda was the approval of the preliminary plat of a replat of Block 2, Colt Square, located on Green Acres Road and Colt Square Drive. Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Bobbie Jones reported that proof of notification of adjoining property owners was not received in the Planning Office as required. Melanie Stockdell moved that this item be tabled until such notification is received. Motion was seconded by Barbara Crook and passed 8-0. WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR IDT SPLIT: J.B. HAYS - GREEN ACRES ROAD The third item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the minimum lot size required for lot split for J. B. Hays located on Green Acres Road, North of Elm Street. Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Chairman Hailey advised the Commission of an error in the location of the property in the agenda packets. He said the actual location is Hays' existing office building which is on the West side of Green Acres Road, South of Poplar Street and zoned R-0, Residential Office. MOTION A motion was made by Sue Madison to conduct a hearing on this request. Melanie Stockdell seconded and motion passed 8-0. 8) Planning Commission April 23, 1984 - Page 2 Hailey reported that Bobbie Jones was concerned about the bulk and area requirement, maximum building area and some setback and parking requirements. Jones stated that Harry Gray was present to address these questions. Gray, of Northwest Engineers, Inc. advised that, after speaking with Jones, he didn't think that a lot split would accomplish what Dr. Hays wanted to do with the property. Gray suggested tabling this hearing until he could get further input on alternative ways to accomplish what Dr. Hays wants to do. MOTION Ernie Jacks moved to table the hearing. Fred Hanna seconded, followed by comments. Jones explained that the existing building would have to maintain a 25 ft. rear yard setback, as well as maintaining one parking space per every 300 sq. ft. of total floor space, and could not exceed 60% in coverage of the lot. Jones said the only problem that may be unsolvable would be the rear yard setback because Hays wants to place the new lot line immediately behind the existing building and then continue with an addition which would have a zero lot line under separate own- ership. She said she has suggested to the parties involved that they check to see if this could be accomplished under the Horizontal Property Regime. Jacks asked if this would qualify under Commercial PUD to which Jones replied that the Horizontal Regime is less complicated. Jacks thought it could be done either way. Motion passed 8-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR TANDEM IAT RICHARD L. ROGERS: LOCATED NORTH OF EAST TOWNSHIP RD. The fourth item on the agenda was a Conditional Use request for a tandem lot owned by Richard L. Rogers, located North of East Township Road. Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Hailey stated that the intention of the Tandem Lot Ordinance was to allow the developing of properties that could not be gained access to a public street because of a topography problem. He also said that two items to consider were determination of proposed lot size compared to surrounding properties and the property value as pertaining to particular lot sizes. SR • Planning Commission April 23, 1984 - Page 3 • Mr. Rogers was present to speak for the request. He stated that he would like to build a 4000 sq. ft. home on this property which is on the East side of the high ground North of Township Road. Kent Theral, Attorney, 103 N. College, was present to speak for Ruth Ostmeyer in opposition of this request. Ostmeyer, of 1140 E. Township Rd., owns the 5 acre tract that adjoins Rogers' 4 acre tract on the South. Theral handed out copies of the original easement deed referred to in Rogers' application. Theral explained that at the time Mr. Rogers approached Mrs. Ostmeyer to purchase his 4 acres from her, she said that she had told Rogers very clearly that she did not want any road or permanent right-of-way crossing her property as access to the 4 acres. Theral also said that, at that time, Rogers told Ostmeyer that he thought he could gain access to his 4 acres from the North on Elizabeth Avenue or from the West from Dr. Brandon. The original Right -of -Way Easement indicates that Mrs. Ostmeyer had said that this right-of-way was to be temporary, and not to be of a perpetual nature. Theral also pointed out that Ostmeyer has a right to maintain the gates that are installed at each end of the driveway easement. He summarized that he felt that applicant has failed to provide for himself the requisite quality of access to his tandem lot development. At this time, Mr. Theral said he would like the Commission to deny the Conditional Use request. Conrad Krauft, 2603 Rosewood Dr., a neighbor with property adjoining that of Mr. Rogers, wished to express his concerns with this proposal. He stated that he was afraid Rogers might install a septic system on his property and since Rogers' property is uphill of Rosewood Estates, Krauft said that this would affect both the value of his property and the living conditions. He requested that if the Commission approve Rogers' request that a requirement be imposed against Rogers' installing a septic system. Krauft stated that he was also concerned about the use of land on Rogers' property. Pete Partain stated that he is a neighbor that lives further down the hill from Krauft and that he had the same concerns. Mr. Rogers advised that he had never met with Mrs. Ostmeyer but had bought his property from her husband, Gus Ostmeyer. Rogers stated that he had intended to use the temporary easement until another access adjoined his property. He said that he inquired of several developers about bringing another access to his property and that he felt it was cost prohibitive at the time. Rogers stated that he intended to build a home that would not be lower in quality than the other homes in the area. 83 8w J • Planning Commission April 23, 1984 - Page 4 • • Melanie Stockdell stated that she had received a call from Sterling Anders, 2465 E. Township Road, a property owner in the general vicinity. Stockdell said that Anders' told her his kitchen window was within 25 feet of Rogers' proposed structure. This point was clarified to show that it is the temporary easement which is within 25 feet of Anders' window. Anders told Stockdell that there is a piece of property for sale on Elizabeth Avenue that Rogers could purchase and use as access to his 4 acres. Barbara Crook inquired of Rogers whether he could have a road built from existing Meadowcliff Drive to which Rogers replied that this would cost a minimum of $100,000. He explained that even if he built a road at the suggested site, it could only serve his own lot. Jones stated this could be done with adjoining property owners as a private street in a planned unit development or as a public street. Ernie Jacks explained that the Tandem Lot Ordinance was created to reach properties without access. He said that on the surface Rogers' property seems to qualify fairly well. Newton Hailey addressed the concern of the sewer connections. He said that if the property is over one and a half acres and the County Health Department has approved the percolation test that the Commission could not deny the request. Mrs. Jones read from the Ordinance book Art. 7, Sec. 21 regarding Tandem Lot Development and Art. 9, Sec. 6 regarding Conditional Use so as to clarify the Commission's questions on these issues. Hailey stated that it appeared to him that the lot size is alright but that there is a discrepancy as to the width of the easement. Joe Tarvin reported that it appears that Rogers does have perpetual access until he sells the property or until some other access becomes available. Lonnie Bassett, 2601 Rosewood, another property owner in the area, expressed that he believes that any new structure must be connected to the City sewer unless such service is not available. Basset said he is concerned with the property value in the area. Rogers stated that he intended to check into connecting with the existing sewer system. MOTION Stockdell expressed her concerns in regard to property values and made a motion to approve the request contingent upon there being a perpetual private easement for the driveway. She also strongly recommended that the property be put on City sewer lines. Planning Commission • April 23, 1984 - Page 5 • • Mr. Hanna requested to know from Bobbie Jones how water would be brought to the property. Mrs. Jones replied that there is a high pressure line in Township Road. The motion was not seconded and further discussion followed with Tarvin explaining that, with regards to sewage disposal, the size of the house was not as relevant as the number of people living in the house, soil conditions and percolation rate. Stockdell said that she would recommend the property be on City sewer even it were much smaller. Tarvin replied that he agreed but that Rogers was not required to connect with City sewer if said sewer line was over 300 feet away or if he had to cross private property to do so. NOTION Barbara Crook moved to deny the request for two reasons: 1. Access could be available from another direction. 2. Property does not meet the requirement for a 25 ft. perpetual easement of right-of-way access. Sue Madison seconded the motion which was followed by further discussion. Stan Green stated that Anders had called him as well and told him that he thought the property owner to either the North or the East would be willing to let Rogers have access through his property with no cost to Rogers. Green said that he was not opposed to Rogers developing his property but he would like to see Rogers explore some of the other alternatives. He advised that he would be in favor of approving the conditional use of the tandem lots and have Rogers work out the problems with the neighbors. Green told Rogers that if the Commission denied his request that he would have to ask for a re -hearing which is not always easy to obtain. Rogers replied that the neighbor to his East had offered to let Rogers buy his land but that would leave Rogers with twice as much land. He also said that he was certain that access through the property would not be free. Green advised tabling this request until some of the problems could be worked out. He also said that Rogers was bound by what was stated in the original easement right-of-way. Crook wished to know how long it would be before Rogers could come before the Commission with this request again if it were denied at this point. Jones replied that Rogers could not come back in less than 12 months with another request for Conditional Use unless there is evidence of changed conditions regarding the matter. S5 • • • Planning Commission April 23, 1984 - Page 6 Rogers stated that when he purchased the land for his specific purpose of building a single family structure he had done everything he was required to do. Crook replied that, perhaps the development to the West of Rogers' property had not been completed so there remained a question as to whether or not Rogers had access because of the changes taking place. Jones reported that Rogers had spoken to her prior to purchasing the land and that she had recommended he work out the problems before actually purchasing it. MOTION Stan Green moved to table the passed 7-1 with Madison voting MOTION request, seconded by Fred Hanna. Motion "nay". Newton Hailey moved to table Item L5 because, while it could have been approved administratively were the Tandem Lot request (Item #4) approved, without approval of the Tandem Lot request, the Lot Split request could not be approved either administratively or by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Stan Green, and passed 8-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR TANDEM IAT DR. PERRY CRAWFORD — NORTH OF JOYCE ST. Item 6 on the agenda was a Conditional Use Request for a tandem lot for Dr. Perry Crawford. Property located North of Joyce Street between Old Missouri Road and Highway 265. Zoned A-1, Agricultural District. Hailey reported that if this request was granted it would have to go before the City Board because this would be the fifth split. Jones stated that even though this would be the fifth split on this property, all of the splits were not for the benefit of Crawford. Previous to this request, Jones reported, Crawford had requested a fourth lot split approximately a year ago which was granted by the Board of Directors. When Crawford requested a fifth split, Jones told him that the Board would not consider it without a percolation test. Jones told the Commission that she had received a call indicating that when this issue comes before the Board, they will probably ask about a contribution towards the improvement of Joyce Street. Crawford was present to speak for the request. He stated that he had given 40 feet at the time of purchase. Jones replied that the contribution refers to improvements such as pavement, curbs and gutters. • Planning Commission April 23, 1984 - Page 7 Jones went on to clarify the lot splits that have been granted to this property. She said that the second split came before this Commission because it was a tandem lot. She said the one labled "first split" actually has 70 feet of frontage on Joyce Street and so was not a tandem lot; it was seen as a re -zoning. The third one, Jones stated, was probably handled administratively because, at the time, this policy was allowed. She said the fourth one came before the Commission and went on to the Board of Directors. Jacks stated that this was a good example of why the Tandem Lot Ordinance was written. He said there seems to be a good deal of developing of subdivisions taking place without any prudence and he was very concerned about this. Hailey suggested the request could be approved subject to contribution. Madison requested to know the number of acres originally on the plat. Jones responded that it was 40 acres less the property on the Southwest corner. Madison stated that she felt very strongly that this type of division of property flies in the face of planning. She said she thought it looks like a subdivision now. Crook said it is a subdivision by lot splits when it should be considered Large Scale Development. She stated that a tandem lot has to be granted on the basis of a terrain which will not allow development in a normal way and that this property does allow normal development. Crook said that she felt this could be developed as a subdivision. NOTION Stockdell moved to deny Conditional Use because it doesn't meet the set guidelines in Art. 7, Sec. 21. Madison seconded the motion. Crawford asked to be shown how this request doesn't meet the guidelines. Hailey told Crawford that it was incumbent upon him to prove that the lot cannot be developed by normal subdivision means. The only way the Commission could approve the tandem lot would be to prove that there is no other way it could be developed, the primary objective being the topography. Crawford responded that there is a 50 ft. elevation difference between the front and back of this property. Crook reported that the access is implied by the easement for access which is on land that could be easily developed as a normal subdivision. • Planning Commission April 23, 1984 - Page 8 • • r Crawford stated that precedent has been set by property bordering his on the West. He said that neither one of these lots has frontage on Joyce Street. It was explained by Crook that the lots Crawford indicated were tandem lots, and also, that there was no reason to continue this process. Jones advised that the tandem lots that Crawford was referring to were approved prior to the 1981 ammendment of the Tandem Lot Ordinance which made the terrain a condition of approval. Jones also explained that there is a minimum lot size in a lot split question but in this case a fifth lot split is being requested which can only be approved by the Board of Directors. Motion to deny Conditional Use passed 7-1, Joe Tarvin voting "nay". REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF MINIMUM IAT SIZE PERRY CRAWFORD — NORTH OF JOYCE STREET Item 7 on the agenda was a request for a waiver of minimum lot size for Dr. Perry Crawford. Property located North of Joyce Street, between Old Missiouri Road and Highway 265, zoned A-1, Agricultural District. This item was no longer pertinent, according to Mrs. Jones. Crawford could, she said, take Item #7 to the Board of Directors but the only way to appeal Item #6 would be through a court of law. MOTION A motion was made by Ernie Jacks to recommend that the Board of Directors deny the request for waiver of minimum lot size. Motion seconded by Sue Madison; passed 8-0. REQUEST FOR TWO LOT SPLITS AND WAIVING OF REQUIREMENT FOR LATS TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON PUBLIC STREET The eigth item on the agenda was a request for two lot splits and the waiving of the requirement for the lots to have access to and frontage on an improved public street, Freda P. Poore, for property located east of Highway 265 and south of Old Wire Road. Mrs. Jones stated that this property does meet the minimum acreage requirement but she was concerned that the nearest water is on Crossover Road. Jones said she could not approve this administratively because of the access plan. Hailey stated that the water was not a pertinent factor for the Commission to consider in this case. He also explained that the Commission could not approve a "piggy -back" tandem lot, or one tandem lot behind another. g8 Planning Commission April 23, 1984 - Page 9 Jones reported that while checking private easements for access to said property she found that the sketches had been prepared for Josephine Burson. She also said she wasn't sure who the owner of the properties shown on the easement sketches actully are. Jones then described the easements in the sketch. Madison commented that one of the easements didn't seem to adjoin the property. Jones replied that it joins the first easement at the tract. Barbara Crook asked whether the third easement was necessary for access to which Jones replied that it was. Crook was also concerned about access to Tract II. Mrs. Jones stated that some of this area may be subject to Flood Plain. Jones further stated that she thought the property was on the high side of the creek. Mr Lloyd Boling, 2360 North Crossover Road, requested to know why this was being considered a "tandem on tandem" lot. Crook advised that Tract III appeared to qualify for a Tandem Lot because it is behind another lot. She also stated that Tracts I and II do not appear to qualify under this ordinance. Jones replied that Tract II should have 80% of the original 200 feet lot width at the street line because it is zoned A-1, Agricultural. Ernie Jacks wished to know if the easements were assured to which Mr. Boling replied that they were perpetually assured. MOTION Jacks moved to approve the request contingent upon proof of perpetual easements being submitted to the Planning Office. Melanie Stockdell seconded the motion. Madison requested to know if this property would be connected to City sewers to which Mrs. Poore replied that she would probably install a septic system until such time as it was possible to connect with City sewer. Motion passed 7-1, Sue Madison voting "nay". REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF REQUIRED DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE: MARK FOSTER — 3251 CHARING CROSS: R-1 The ninth item on the agenda was a request for variance of the required driveway safety zone of 12.5 feet between the property line and the driveway, for Mark Foster, 3251 Charing Cross, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. �9 J • • • Planning Commission April 23, 1984 - Page 10 MOTION Ernie Jacks moved approval of the variance seconded by Fred Hanna and motion passed 8-0. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE LARRY BITTLE, 2455 EAST GENTLE OAKS: R-1 The tenth item on the agenda was a request for variance of the required safety zone of 12.5 feet between the property line and the driveway, for Larry Bittle, 2455 East Gentle Oaks, zoned R-1 Inw Density Residential. MOTION A motion to approve was made by Sue Madison and seconded by Ernie Jacks; motion passed 8-0. - LETTER FROM FRANK SHARP The eleventh item on the agenda was for the sidewalk concern expressed Frank Sharp, Chairman of the Street REPORT FROM BARBARA CROOK ON MANUFACTURED HOUSING a self-explanatory letter of thanks by the Planning Commission, from Committee of the Board of Directors. The twelth item on the agenda was a report from Commissioner Crook on Manufactured Housing. Crook explained for new Commission member, Joe Tarvin, that the Planning Commission had recently been in the process of developing new definitions and zoning qualifications for mobile homes, modular homes and prefabricated homes. The first proposed ordinance which the Commission was requested to examine was to amend Article 7, Sec. 12(B) of Appendix A, Zoning to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, which would allow the use of a mobile home as a temporary construction office on property for which a building permit has been issued, and for other purposes. The second ordinance was one that was drafted by the City Attorney to amend the Mobile Home Park Ordinance (Chap.13B) with a definition of mobile homes (a separate definition for prefabricated residential units) and limit their locations as regulated by Appendix A, Art. 7, Sec. 12(B). Crook went on to say that the HUD office in Washington, D.C., was contacted for clarification on these definitions. D.C. had sent her a copy of their regulations. the information she had received via telephone: She reported that Crook then quoted "...Congress had RD Planning Commission • April 23, 1984 - Page 11 • • not intended for this to apply to anything other than what we have always thought of as mobile homes". She stated that the only area of confusion seemed to be surrounding "modular homes" which were speci- fically excluded from HUD regulations. Crook explained that HUD is using the term "manufactured home" which is what we consider "mobile home" manufactured after 1976. She proceeded to read from the regulations, "...any structure that meets the definition of manufactured homes...is excluded from the coverage from the National manufactured House and Construction and Safety Standards...the definition of manufactured homes...designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation...". Crook stated that the Commission cannot require moblie homes (manufactured homes) to be built to any standard construction standards which are any more strict than the HUD Ordinance. She then recommended that the Commission approve the second Ordinance and send it on to the City Board. Crook stated that if the Commission recommends to the City Board the passing of the second Ordinance that the recently received information would clearly separate manufactured homes from modular housing. Hailey asked if Crook would suggest a Public Hearing to which Crook responded that a Public Hearing had already been held with only one person attending. Green stated that he was not prepared to vote on this issue at this time and Crook stated that she would answer any questions Commission members might have regarding this item. Jones reported that the City had not yet amended the code in any way. Crook stated that the Planning Commission had recommended passage of the first Ordinance but she was not sure if the City Board had discussed it or not. Green asked if Crook would write a brief report for members of the Commission and Crook said she would. Crook added that the Federal Government had passed a law instructing HUD to draw up regulations to govern manufactured housing. In these regulations is a clause that states that where the regulations are in effect, no other City or State regulations could take prededent over them. Crook said that the Planning Commission cannot write any regulation that is stricter than those imposed by HUD if the mobile home were to be placed in a residential area. Jacks inquired whether the Commission was getting bogged down in term- inology and Mr. Tarvin wished to clarify the fact of whether or not "mobile homes" existed anymore. 9/ qa J • Planning Commission April 23, 1984 - Page 12 • • Crook answered that they do not exist in the industry. Tarvin said his concern, then, was that if the Mobile Home Ordinance was updated, 1t would allow someone to bring a post -1976 mobile home into a residential area. Stockdell reminded the Commission that the purpose of updating the Ordinance was to allow people with elderly or disabled relatives (or other qualified persons under their care) who needed special care to live near them. She mentioned "Echo Cottages" which consist of approximately 300 square feet and are built with these special cir- cumstances in mind. These cottages are pre -fabricated houses. She said that she thought what the Commission was seeking to do is to allow economically feasible housing for people meeting these special conditions. Crook stated that the information she had gathered did not effect the situation mentioned by Stockdell. Stan Green inquired about a similar situation which took place recently in Springdale. Ms. Crook replied that Springdale had made a request to allow manufactured housing in subdivisions in such a way that the City still had some control over the situation. Jacks asked if the present Ordinance could not continue to say that anything in an R-1 district must meet the standard building code. That is what the existing Ordinance says, stated Crook, and in the definition of "mobile home" it includes the phrase "...with or without a permanent foundation". Mrs. Don Mills asked what Commission members' thinking was on a person setting up a manufactured home on a foundation and then add on such items as a carport, porch, etc. Crook stated that the way the present ordinance reads is that this would only be possible if the manufacturer certified that the home was a modular home and designed to be placed on a permanent foundation. Mills said that some mobile homes will meet FHA requirements and that there are a lot of people who cannot qualify for conventional loans but who could afford to purchase a mobile home and place it on a permanent foundation and intend to live there for the rest of their lives. She wished to know if there were places in Fayetteville where a person could do this. Jacks advised that if the home meets the standard building code, it could be set up in the way in which Mills suggested. • Planning Commission April 23, 1984 - Page 13 • Crook stated that the Commission could not require a manufactured home produced before 1976 to meet the building code. She said if it is a modular home it could have additional requirements imposed upon it. Jacks reiterated that anything built has to meet the standard building code. He stated that this provision has worked well for many years. B obbie Jones said that the City has a provision for mobile home park - type subdivisions where a person could purchase their lot. She also stated that the lots could have a width of 50 foot and be located in an R-2 or R-3 District and be approved by the Planning Commission. Crook continued to try to clarify the distinction in the existing Ordinance between manufactured housing and modular or other types of pre -fabricated housing. She said that the Committee on Housing for the Elderly and Handicapped may come in with a recommendation that all of these types of housing be allowed with accessories added on a temporary basis. She added that this would have to come as an exception to the existing Ordinance. Crook recommended that no'changes be made to the existing Ordinance. The words "with or without permanent foundation" clearly separates it from modular and pre -fabricated homes. In the Mobile Home Ordinance, which is a separate ordinance, the definition would be "any house trailer or pre -fabricated structure capable of being transported". To amend the Mobile Home Ordinance, added to the above would be "for use upon being placed on a temporary or permanent foundation". Another section of the Mobile Home Ordinance would say that they could be permitted in mobile home parks but not in any other location in the City except under provisions of Art. 7, Sec. 12(B). Hailey suggested putting this recommendation on the agenda for the next meeting. Crook stated that the books of regulations on this matter could be seen in the City Attorney;S office. E rnie Jacks moved adjournment, seconded by Stan Green, motion passed 8-0 and the meeting adjourned at 7:00. y 93