Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-14 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 14, 1984 at 5:00 p m. in the Director's Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey, Jr., Barbara Crook, Stan Green, David Williams, Joe Tarvin, Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Fred Hanna and Sue Madison None J.B. Hays, Harry Gray, Delvin Nation, Gary Harrell, Bob Robinson, Truman Yancey, Freda Poore, Lois Stratton, Gary Thompson, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Newton Hailey, Jr. MINUTES The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Commission on April 23, 1984. Ms. Crook requested several corrections be made to the minutes as follows: on Page 7, paragraph 7, "...subdivision by lot splits when it should be considered Large Scale Development.", should have said "...when it should be considered a subdivision."; on Page 11, paragraph 6, "...had recommended passage of the first Ordinance..." should read "...the terms of the first Ordinance were not needed."; on Page 13, paragraph 4 "...types of housing be allowed with accessories added on a temporary basis." should read "...all of these types of housing be allowed as accessory structures on a temporary basis."; Page 13, paragraph 5 "...changes be made to the existing Ordinance." should read "...changes be made to the existing Zoning Ordinance." There being no further additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as corrected. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A REPLAT OF BLOCK 2 COLT SQUARE GREEN ACRES RD.- ZONED C-2 The second item on the agenda was the approval of a preliminary plat of a replat of Block 2, Colt Square, located on Green Acres Road, zoned C-2. This was on the last Planning Commission agenda and was tabled because the property owners adjacent to this property had not received notification. Proof of notification has been received by the Planning Department at this time. qy • • • Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 2 Tommy Heflin, Edmiston-Prewitt Realtors, Northwest Arkansas Radiology Association, Mrs. Carolyn Madison, Tarver & Associates are the property owners adjacent who have been notified. MOTION Crook stated that the Subdivision Committee recommends approval of the site with the comments which have been mentioned about the easement and clarifing the street names. She said she felt that clarification of the street names could wait until another time and still warrant approval. The motion was seconded by Melanie Stockdell and passed 9-0. APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WINDSOR TOWNEHOMES — ZONED R-2 HIGHWAY 45 AND CAMBRIDGE ROAD The third item on the agenda was the approval of a Large Scale Development of Windsor Townehomes which is located on Highway 45 and Cambridge Road, zoned R-2. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has recommended collecting money in lieu of land for the green space of Windsor Townehomes since it lies within the Root Park service area. a. Dr. Hays is requesting a waiver of the 40' maximum driveway width on both access roads connecting with Cambridge Drive. b. Dr. Hays is also requesting Lot 2, Phase I, Cambridge Place to be subdivided into two lots because of financing. MOTION Crook stated that, at the May 11 meeting of the Subdivision Committee, it had been decided to leave the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Department for discussion by the Planning Commission. She also said that the Committee had voted approval of the Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review comments, the waiver of the driveway width and the owners willingness to widen the entrance drive to 30 feet. Chairman Hailey repeated the Subdivision Committee's recommendation and the motion was seconded by Ernie Jacks followed by discussion. Sue Madison stated that she had voted against this plat at the Subdivision meeting and she wished to explain why. First, Madison said that, after a discussion with the Traffic Superintendent, she felt the east side of the development, which will house 36 families, does not have sufficient access. She felt this problem was compounded by the fact that the streets within the lot are to be private drives and not public streets which makes them narrower and they also have no pedestrian walkways. Madison thought this situation might lead to an unsafe situation with parents leaving for work in vehicles and children leaving 95 • • Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 3 for school on foot at the same time, especially with vehicles being allowed to back into the private drives, which they could not do if these were public streets. Next, she stated that, as private drives, these will not be subject to street -light requirements. Madison explained that, because this development is not a PUD, the City is not a third party to maintenance and upkeep will be entirely up to the residents. She felt that this would be an unfair burden to these future homeowners. She added that the setback requirements for buildings would be different because these are not public streets. She concluded by saying that she would prefer to see another exit or entrance onto Cambridge and the streets be public rather than private. To Mr. Hailey's question, Mrs. Jones explained that under the Horizontal Property Regime, the developers are within the requirements. A planned Unit Development would include a 30% green space requirement. E rnie Jacks said he thought the developer could use either public or private streets. Jones stated the reasons for which a developer may be refused approval of a Large Scale Development, the most pertinent at this time being as follows: "...the proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition; for the purpose of this section, a dangerous traffic condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to such factors as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography or the nature of the traffic pattern...." Hailey suggested that because of the way the Ordinance is written the Planning Commission may have no recourse but to approve this request. David Williams asked to have clarified which issue was being addressed and it was noted that it was the issue of the traffic condition. Harry Gray, of Northwest Engineers, Fayetteville, stated that the density in this development will be about half of what the code allows t o which Madison responded that if the allowed density conflicts with traffic safety factors, then one shouldn't assume that the development could be automatically built. Madison reiterated her objections to the traffic plan in this plan. It was clarified by Jones to Ernie Jacks that this project was not as PUD as he had previously thought. Jacks expressed that the Planned Unit Ordinance was intended for a developer to set up a buffer zone around the proposed subdivision and then be allowed to proceed as developer and residents so desire. • Jones advised that the roads in this development are being considered as private "drives" and not public or private "streets". 16 • • Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 4 Stan Green repeated that he found no problem with the traffic pattern proposed and also, that homeowners do not have to choose to live in this particular development if they don't care for the maintenance program that has been set up for street care. In response to Stockdell's question of how the developer plans to deal with children getting to school, Gray replied that sidewalks are planned from Cambridge on up to Highway 45. Delvin Nation, architect, proceeded to show the Commissioners a sidewalk plan that had not previously been introduced in which there would sidewalks along both sides of the private drives from Cambridge back to the first structure on the west lot and back to where the drive divides on the east lot. Williams said that he would vote in favor of this development because of the fact that developers are continuously being requested to come up with aesthetic, well-planned environments that are alternatives to single-family homes and still live within the rules. He expressed that there might be trade-offs to take into consideration in these cases such as less sidewalks. Stockdell stated that she, too, would support this development because she was satisfied that there were at least some sidewalk to help move child -pedestrian traffic. Chairman Hailey asked for a vote on this item and the motion passed 8-1 with Madison voting "nay". Jacks requested to know whether Gray (Hays) would still be needing a lot split to which Gray answered it was no longer necessary. Hailey advised the Commissioners that they needed to review the issure of whether or not to accept the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's recommendation that money be collected in place of land or to waive both requirements. Jones explained that the developer may propose one or the other but the P & R Advisory Board makes the recommendation to the Planning Commission. She added that after the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, the Board of Directors may waive or vary the requirement provided that (a)the developer designates land for private work areas within the development and guarantees to provide recreational facilities in said areas within 12 months from final plat approval (b)the developer guarantees that said land and facilities will be permanently maintained for recreational use (c)the physical characteristics of the designated land are suitable for park purposes (d)the proposed park areas and recreational facilities within the development are sufficient to adequately serve the residents of the development and (e)the developer guarantees 417 • Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 5 that if said land and facilities are not properly maintained as determined by the City's Parks and Recreation Director, said land and facilities shall be dedicated to the City for use as a public park. (Ord. X12998) Hays, co -developer, stated that he is asking for a waiver of this requirement because the total development area planned for will be a 90 -acre area with a 5 acre fishing lake, hiking trails, a swimming pool and two tennis courts within a two year period. He said he felt that duplication of service is being requested by the Advisory Board asking for a cash donation. Hays said he thought that his development was begun before the Green Space Ordinance came into effect and he wasn't sure if it applied to his property. He added that he felt the Board would be putting a financial difficulty on this project. Stockdell asked Hays to clarify whether the park areas within this development would be open to the public or only available to the residents. Hays responded that it was for residents only. Hays advised the Commission that the overall acreage of the proposed development at this site is 90 acres of which 10% is being set aside for recreational facilities. Jacks reiterated that the Commission may waive the requirement for green space (or cash donation) if Commissioners think that this action is warranted. Crook stated that she felt the Commission needed to consider whether the residents of this development would be apt to use public facilities as well as their private facilities. She thought this could be used as criteria for making a decsion on the waiving of Green Space requirement. MOTION Crook moved that the Commission approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's recommendation to collect cash from this development. Williams seconded the motion followed by further discussion. Green stated that he agreed with Crook that the line needs to be drawn as far as waivers on park/cash donations but that when a developer makes a significant expenditure (as this appears to be) that a waiver would be reasonable. He said that he would be against the motion. Jacks agreed that there was no guarantee that the residents will use only these facilities and he would, therefore, vote for the motion. Stockdell said she felt that the Commission needed to follow the recommend- ation of the Advisory Board. Madison stated that she would be in favor of a waiver if there were some guarantee of the facilities being installed as Hays has mentioned Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 6 and with the provision that if it were not adequately maintained then the facilities would revert to the City. Green mentioned that this is the first time the Commission has had to consider this particular issue. He wished to know whether Dr. Hays could donate cash at this time and return to the Board of Directors at a later date with another plan. Green stated that he would like to see a plan with regards to time. Williams questioned whether the Commission wished to set a precident that private, exclusive use parks meet the intent of the Green Space Ordinance as far as public access. He said that there is no criteria for determining this issue. Gary Thompson, the owner/occupant of the only completed house in this subdivision, said that he would like a guarantee, as a resident, that the proposed facilities would be installed. He said that he is in favor of a neighborhood association and that it has been thoroughly explained. Crook stated that, even if the proposed park area came to pass in this development, there would probably be residents living there that would continue to use public facilities as well. Tennis tournaments, the swimming pool and ball fields were some of the specific possibilities Crook mentioned. Hays requested that this issue be tabled until Dewitt Smitth, codeveloper, could be present. MOTION Hailey moved to table this item. Stockdell seconded and motion passed 8-1, Williams voted "nay". APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH ON VANDEVENTER BETWEEN MAPLE AND LAFAYETTE STREETS The next item on the agenda was the approval of a Large Scale Development of the University Baptist Church on Vandeventer between Maple and Lafayette Streets. The Planning Commission has already approved this for a Wee Care Christian School (Conditional Use) at the June 13, 1983 Planning Commission Meeting. Property zoned R-3. MOTION Ms. Crook stated that the Subdivision Committe recommends approval of this development subject to all Plat Review comments, with a Bill of Assurance that at such time as development takes place on the west side of Vandeventer that all off-site improvements will be made including • • Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 7 the widening of Vandeventer to 31 feet as per City code. Secondly, if any deductive alternates are used, that the parking requirements will be checked with the Planning Office. Melanie Stockdell seconded the motion followed by discussion. Crook stated that there were two questions that needed clarification, the first of which was the ability to satisfy a Bill of Assurance. Jones stated that the Statute of Limitations is 5 years from the specified date on the Bill of Assurance. This Bill of Assurance could be written at the call of the City which would be understood to be "when development took place" or it could be written to say that when significant development took place that UBC would be required to upgrade Vandeventer. This information was clarified to mean that if upgrading did not take place "at the call of the City" or "when development took place on the west side of Vandeventer" that the City would then have up to five years (the Statute of Limitations) to require UBC to do said construction. Joe Tarvin wished to know if there were currently curbs and gutters on Vandeventer. Jones answered that there are. Tarvin stated that he thought it was wasteful to request upgrading of a street that the Street Superintendant has recommended be closed. Gary Harrell, a representative of UBC, stated that he thought that Street Superintendant Powell had given a very low priority to Vandeventer. Harrell recited the three options that Powell had stated: (1)let the property revert back to UBC (2)bring Vandeventer up to City code or (3)waive all requirements of widening Vandeventer. Harrell also reminded the Commissioners that Powell had said (at the Plat Review meeting of April 26, 1984) he would still recommend the closing of Vandeventer at this time. Crook stated that, while it was true Powell may have given recommendations concerning Vandeventer, she didn't necessarily agree with them. Crook then asked Jones what recourse this owner (UBC) might have if development took place on the west side of Vandeventer in such a way that absolutely did not impact the street in any way. Hailey responded that the motion could reflect that UBC return to the Planning Commission at such time as development takes place on the west side of Vandeventer. Joe Tarvin said he thought it a waste to bring Vandeventer up to standards when the Street Superintendent has recommended closing said street. • Crook advised that the City Board of Directors had voted against Powell's recommendation to close Vandeventer. She was corrected by Harrell Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 8 with the understanding that UBC had withdrawn their request to close Vandeventer. Bobbie Jones reported that the property that UBC owns between West and Vandeventer is more than an acre, although it was purchased in small lots. She said there is a remote possibility that UBC could sell this property the same way they acquired it and thereby not have to return to the Planning Commission. Jones stated that anyone who develops part of this property as an acre or more will have to bring the development plan to the Planning Commission and if it is a use other than multi -family dwellings it will have to have a Conditional Use approval as well. Crook stated that Vandeventer will become somewhat impacted by virtue of the long drive UBC has planned to empty onto this street. She said that it was the feeling of the Subdivision Committee members that this was not enough additional impact to insist that Vandeventer be upgraded at this time. Stockdell agreed that the motion was one of compromise. She stated that what she wanted her motion to reflect was that the City does not want UBC to have to pay undue cost but neither should the City have adverse impact. Stockdell said she wished the motion to be ammended to say "...at such time as development takes place..." instead of "...when development takes place...". Crook advised that there was another aspect to consider which was that of the need for off-site parking. She reported that the Subdivision Committee had suggested a time frame be place on the paving of UBC's "second mile parking lot" on the south side of Lafayette, but that the Committee had felt that it was up to UBC and not the Committee to offer this time agreement. Harrell stated that UBC has set aside $68,000 for this project and has retained McClinton Anchor to begin work as soon as the plan has been completed. Green also agreed the motion had been one of compromise and that he had voted for it but that he had a point to make. He said that the compromise was between two extremes and that if UBC had requested a waiver on requirements to widen the street completely rather than a Bill of Assurance, that he would have voted for it. Green felt that because UBC owns all the land on both sides of Vandeventer that there most likely wouldn't be any development along Vandeventer that would not come back to the Planning Commission and that the situation currently does not warrant widening the street. He stated that if any development takes place in the future, the Planning Commission would have a chance to make a recommendation at that time to widen the street. Green wished to amend the motion to protect the church from someone adversely requesting that UBC widen the street at such • • • Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 9 time of non -impacting minor development on the west side of Vandeventer. He suggested the motion be amended to say "...when development takes place which significantly impacts the flow of traffic on Vandeventer..". Crook said that she thought "significant" was a difficult entity to measure until the time that the development takes place. She added that she felt UBC had recourse at the time development takes place by coming back to the Planning Commission and requesting a voidance of the Bill of Assurance. Crook said she would.prefer the motion in its' unammended state. MOTION Green made a motion to amend Stockdell's motion as stated above. Motion seconded by Williams followed by discussion. Green stated that, although he had voted for the motion at the Subdivision Committee meeting, he really wanted the motion to reflect the true feelings of committee members. Williams said that he could not see paying in advance for something that may never come to pass. He also reminded the Commissioners that the City Street Superintendant does not view this street as crucial. The amendment to the motion in Subdivision Committee minutes passed 6-3 with Crook, Stockdell and Jacks voting "nay". The motion to approve this Large Scale Development, subject to previously stated conditions, passed as amended, 9-0. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR FIRST & SECOND LOT SPLIT — JULIE ROGERS, HALSELL, CROSS & MARKHAM ROAD PROPERTY ZONED R-1 The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the minimum lot size for a first and second lot split. Property owned by Julie Rogers, located on Halsell, Cross and Markham Road, zoned R-1. Haily asked Mrs. Jones to sum up this request for the Commission. Jones stated that there will be a requirement for additional right-of-way to widen the abutting streets to 50 feet unless this is waived by the Board of Directors. Also, she said, there will be a requirement for a Parks fee, unless waived by the Board. Jones stated that she had spoken with the City Engineer and learned that there is a 2" water line in Halsell Road and an 8" sewer line in Halsell which deadends at the intersection of Cross and Halsell. The engineer has said that the water and sewer will need to be extended in order to serve the south two lots and that the grade on the sewer will be critical because loQ • • • Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 10 of the invert elevation on the manhole which is 1,386.5 feet with a depth of about 6 feet. Hailey stated that if the owners were put on notice that they will have to tap the sewer, this issue was not pertinent to the Commission at this time. He said if the sewer could not be tapped, they would have to request a waiver from the Board to install a septic tank. Madison requested of Jones the reason Tract III does not go all the way to Markham. Jones answered that the west side may reach Markham. - Jones also stated that they will be required to widen the right-of-way` for Halsell, Cross and Markham. Jones clarified that these streets are classified as improved public streets (not necessarily to code) if they carry traffic, even if they are not paved. She also stated that, if this request had been for a subdivision instead of a lot split, that they would have been required to construct the off-site improvements which include water, sewer, street improvement and drainage based on rational nexus. MOTION Jacks moved approval of the waiver of minimum lot size with the provision they execute of a Bill of Assurance for future participation in their share of the cost of improvements to bring streets to City code. Motion was seconded by Stockdell and passed 9-0. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF MINIMUM IAT SIZE FOR 2ND LOT SPLIT — LOIS STRATTON LOCATED ON 6TH STREET E. OF ONE MILE RD The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the minimum lot size for a second lot split for Lois Stratton. Property located on Sixth Street, east of One Mile Road, zoned C-2. Chairman Hailey asked for a recap on this item from Mrs. Jones. Jones stated that this property had previously been approved for a first lot split on an area 100 X 150. She added that for a second split there should be 5 acres left in each parcel. Jones advised that, after two requests and two denials for re -zoning a portion of the north part of this property, it remains A-1. This split effectively ends the Large Scale Development plans that have been previously submitted by Mr. Stratton. Stratton reported that she had abandoned her plan for Large Scale Development and at this time would like to sell her two lots so as to reduce her obligation on the remaining lot. )03 Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 11 Madison asked what the minimum lot width requirement for C-2 is. Jones stated that there is no minimum but that, generally, she does not approve less than a 30 foot frontage administratively because she feels that 30 feet is the minimum necessary to move service vehicles and fire trucks in and out. She said that each of these parcels have sufficient frontage. Crook wished to know if approval of this lot split request, would nulify the Bill of Assurance which had been executed on the Large Scale Development. Jones stated that that was not necessarily true, as the Bill of Assurance goes with the property. MOTION Williams moved that the request be approved with the understanding that the Bill of Assurance will still apply. Williams clarified what a Bill of Assurance "running with the land" meant. Motion seconded by Sue Madison and passed 9-0. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF REQUIRED DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PARK — BUTTERFIELD TRAIL — LOCATED ON JOYCE STREET The seventh item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the required dedication of land or cash in lieu of land for public park by Butterfield Trail Retirement Village located on Joyce Street. Mr. Truman Yancey, representing Butterfield Trail spoke for the request. Yancy recited a phrase from the Statute from which the Green Space Ordinance is drawn from. "...such contributions to be used for the acquisition of facilities that serve the subdivision...". Yancey said he did not believe that phrase to mean to serve the City in general. He said he felt that if the Parks Advisory Board requested cash in lieu of land from a developer that the cash should be applied to serve that particular subdivision. Yancey continued by telling the Commissioners why he thought Butterfield Village should be considered for a waiver. He explained that the residents of this subdivision would not require the kind of facilities that are customary in public parks. The people in this development will need specialized facilities because of age and physical conditions. He stated that in this subdivision, these specialized services will be taken care of for the people involved. He said he thought that the City will never provide the type of recreation facilities that Butterfield Village plans to provide because of other demands on Park Funds. MOTION Fred Hanna made a motion that this request for a waiver be approved. Second by Stan Green, followed by discussion. 10t • • • Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 12 Crook advised that she would vote in favor of this motion because she saw a substantial difference between this development and Windsor Townehomes in the way the population might impact City park facilities. Williams stated that he felt that, if approved, private facilities for exclusive use would be provided for a population which is able to pay for its services. He added that he would to have consultation of an attorney on the meaning of the Green Space Ordinance to clarify it's intent. He said he thought the Planning Commission needed to be very clear on what precedent was set. He also said by the year 2005, over 25% of Fayetteville's population will be over 60 and that he did not wish to set a precedent of the City not providing or making plans for, whatever the population's needs may be. Williams pointed out that if the pattern of subdivsions providing (only for those people who can pay) exclusive green space, the population in general could wind up not having the City provide for it's citizens' needs. He said he thought that this would not be good City planning or good policy. Thirdly, Williams stated that he knew of a good number of older citizens who are in good physical condition who would still like to use City Parks. He said that there was a public precident to protect and he would vote against the motion in hopes that: a. The Green Space Ordinance intent will be clarified and b. Not set public policy to move away from responsiblility for specialized recreational space. Madison commented that funds from the Green Space Ordinance were the main support for City parks, that some support came from taxes. Williams answered that ownership of these units will ultimately revert to the corporation. Yancey stated that there are no exemptions from taxes for people over the age of 62. He added that if there were some doubt as to the intent of the Green Space Ordinance, he agreed that clarification by an attorney would be in order. Yancey reminded Commissioners that the phrase which he had recited was not in the ordinance itself, but in the State Statute under which the ordinance is based. Williams stated that he felt it was crucial for the Planning Commission to zero in on what is unclear and until things are clarified to take some action other than approval or disapproval. Yancey referred the Commissioners to Item D in the criteria: "...the proposed park areas and recreational facilities are sufficient to adequately serve the residents of the development...". Yancey stated that he took it be a discharge of City responsibility to assure that no waiver is given unless the facility in question does indeed serve the residents of that subdivision. Also, he said he thought that /05 • • • Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 13 this meant that when the City exacts money from the subdivision, the City is required to put that money back in to provide facilities to serve that subdivision. Hailey advised that the record should show that Yancey is having some of these problems because the Planning Commission has not had the opportunity to discuss this issue amongst themselves. NOTION Williams moved to table this item so as to get direction from the City Attorney that would enable the Planning Commission to make a "good intent" decision. Seconded by Stockdell, the motion failed to pass by a vote of 5-4. Tarvin, Stockdell, Williams and Jacks voted in favor; Hanna, Hailey, Crook, Madison and Green opposed. NOTION Jacks called for a vote on the motion which accepts the recommendation of the Parks Advisory Board. This motion carried 7-2 with Williams and Stockdell voting "nay". Bobbie Jones was asked to contact the City Attorney to get an opinion and to get the intent of the ordinance cleared up prior to the Commission's hearing on Windsor Townehomes waived request. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF REQUIRED DEDICATION OF LAND OR CASH FOR PUBLIC PARK BY FREDA POORE — EAST OF HIGHWAY 265 & OLD WIRE ROAD The eighth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the required dedication of land or cash in lieu of land for a public park by Freda Poore. Property located East of Highway 265 and Old Wire Road. Hailey stated that the Parks and Recreation Board recommended no waiver in this case. Land or cash is being required because this property has had a lot split which is included in the ordinance. Mrs. Poore was present to speak for the request. She stated that she didn't mind putting her fair share of cash for Green Space but she wanted to advise Commissioners that she is not a subdivider who went divided the land up to make a profit. She said that she merely sold the parcels to her daughter and nephew. MOTION Crook moved denial of the request for waiver. She said she felt that in this case it was working a hardship, but that clarification was needed in distinction made by the Planning Commission. lot • • • Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 14 Jacks seconded the motion followed by discussion. Hailey stated he would vote against this motion. He said he thought that this person had gotten caught because they chose to play by the rules while there are "lots and lots" of lot splits which get by the City. Motion to deny carried 5-4. Tarvin, Green, Hanna and Hailey voted "nay". REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF REQUIRED SAFETY ZONE OF 25 FT. BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS FOR WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER — NORTH STREET. The ninth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the required safety zone of 25 feet between driveways for Washington Regional Medical Center on North Street. Hailey stated that this situation has been recommended by Street Super- intendent, Clayton Powell. Jacks asked Mr. McClelland, McClelland Engineers, to explain the situation. McClelland explained that there is room provided for two cars to be used as stacking space due to the congestion in the area. Jacks expressed his concern that this was becoming a dangerous area. Jones explained that Powell had said that although this plan does not meet the code, he thought it would be an improvement over what. exists at the present time. Crook asked if this will be a one-way drive. MOTION Jacks moved approval of this waiver, seconded by Stockdell and motion passed 8-0-1 with Tarvin abstaining. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF REQUIRED 12.5 SAFETY ZONE BETWEEN PROPERTY LINE AND DRIVEWAY CDT FOR KENNETH E. COOK — LOCATED 2463 BRISTOL The tenth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the required 12.5 safety zone between the side property line and the driveway cut for Kenneth E. Cook, located at 2463 Bristol. MOTION Jacks moved approval seconded by Madison. Motion passed 9-0. 10'7 Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 15 PROPOSED AMENDMENT ON MOBILE HOME AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING The eleventh item on the agenda was the proposed amendment on mobile homes and manufactured housing. Crook explained that this will amend the Mobile Home Ordinance by adding the definition of a mobile home which would mean a resident unit capable of being transported on it's own wheels or on a trailer and designed to be used on a temporary or permanent foundation. She cited Sec. 2, Chapter 13B of the Fayetteville Ordinances will be amended by adding that mobile homes will be restricted to mobile home parks: exceptions, mobile homes shall be permitted in mobile home parks but shall not be allowed in any other location in the City except for under Provisions of Art. 7, Sec. 12B, Appendix A, which is the Zoning Ordinance to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances. As there was no one present to discuss the proposal, Hailey closed the public hearing and opened the discussion to the Commissioners. Jacks wished to know if this would preclude a well-built, up-to-standard- building-code pto-standard- building-code totally pre -fab unit which would be brought in and stacked in some configuration in some apartment project. Crook stated that it would have to be designed to be placed on a permanent foundation and Jones added that it had to meet the building code. Crook next explained to Jacks that as long as the manufacturer certifies that a unit is designed to be place on a permanent foundation it will be exempt from the Manufactured Homes description. Jacks verified that the definition for pre -fabricated housing will remain in the Ordinance. Jones added that units are required to meet the building code, to be secured to a permanent masonry or concrete foundation and have permanent water and sewer connections. William clarified this to mean that a mobile home may be placed on either a termporary or a permanent foundation while a habitat may be placed only on a permanent foundation. MOTION Jacks moved recommendation to the Board of Directors for approval. Motion was seconded by Melanie Stockdell. Planning Commission May 14, 1984 Page 16 Crook stated that it is because of the inclusion in the definition of the phrase that a mobile home is designed to be placed on a temporary or permanent foundation that separates it from being a prefabricated unit designed to be placed on a permanent foundation only. Green requested to know if a manufacturer certifies that a unit is designed to be placed on a permanent foundation, and if said unit did not meet City building codes, could this unit be allowed in areas not allowing mobile homes. Crook responded that it would not be allowed. Motion passed 9-0. Jones announced that the next meeting would be May 29, a Tuesday, as Monday evening will be Memorial day and City offices will not be open. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15. J