Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-14 Minutes• • • • ?MUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETPEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held on Monday, March 14, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Butch Robertson, Fred Hanna, Julie Nash, J.E. Springborn, Gerald Seiff and Gerald Klingaman Frank Farrish, B.J. Dow Larry Wood, Don Bunn, Richard Osborne, David Hanson, Becky Schmidt, members of the press, and others. WAIVER OF THE DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE - GATOR GOLF TOMMY CROUCH - 2692 N. COLLEGE AVENUE The first item on the agenda was consideration of a waiver of the driveway safety zone submitted by Tommy Crouch and represented by Richard Osborne for Gator Golf at 2692 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request includes installation of a driveway an the south boundary. Chairman Jacks asked Richard Osborne to present the request for the waiver of the driveway safety zone. He then clarified that this piece of property was presently under construction. Mr. Osborne stated that the left side of the property was on Hwy. 71. He pointed out that there is a 30' road easement and a 12' set off that should be 12 and a half feet. The city requires a 12 and a half foot parking line in the south boundary of the driveway. Osborne then submitted a letter from Apple Broadcasting Inc. (K106) stated that Apple Broadcasting does not object to Gator Golf constructing a drive way abutting the joint property line. Osborne stated that the reason for moving the driveway to the south boundary was to allow for a maximum number of parking spaces. He further stated that it would not create a traffic hazard because the driveway of K106 is far enough away. Chairman Jacks stated that he thought the reason for that 12 and a half foot was in case you get two driveways right next to each other you would have a problem. Also, it would allow you to get a curb radius on the thing with a total of 25'. Chairman Jacks then asked Mr. Bunn if he had any comments on the request. Mr. Bunn stated that the only question he had was that the plat shows the drainage on that south property line. Are you going to interfere with that drainage? Mr. 18 • • • Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 2 Osborne responded that they would make a commitment not to interfere with the drainage line. As long as the south side property owner makes some sort of pledge not to build up against the south property line on the other side. Chairman Jacks asked what the letter said. Simply that they don't have any objections? Chairman Jacks further asked: " What if they moved their driveway 25' that direction in the future?" Mr. Osborne stated that they already had a driveway. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Osborne if he moved the curb to the property line how would he solve the drainage problem that the City Engineer brings out? Chairman Jacks further asked Mr. Osborne if he brings the curb over to the south property line where will that water go? Mr. Osborne responded that the drain would have to go along that property line. Chairman Jack stated that he didn't think you could put it right on the property line. Mr. Osborne then responded that they would either have to put in a drop inlet or under the road. Chairman Jacks thought that if he did that it might be a lot of expense. Mr. Osborne stated that he would like the option to be able to do that. Chairman Jacks asked if there were any comments or questions from the Planning Commission. Mr. Klingaman asked would the drainage be into a storm drain or would it be out onto Hwy. 71. Mr. Osborne responded that there would be a curb inlet that would be going in on the back side of the existing curb inlet on College Avenue. Commissioner Klingaman asked that Mr. Osborne explain curb inlet to him. Mr. David Hanson responded that it was just a box where the water running off College would run into a curb inlet function box. In the back side of that junction box would be where they would connect their drainage. Mr. Klingaman also said that K106 has a problem there in the winter time of ice, a glacier coming out of that hillside and extending on to Hwy. 71. Will this solve any water problems or will there be more? Mr. Hanson responded that he didn't know if it would solve it, but by all means they sure didn't want to make that worse and they would have to take a look at it and find what they could do to try to put the street and curb back up against the property line and still have adequate room to get by. Mr. Hanson stated that the only thing he could think of was to run the storm drain under the road which may be too expensive. Mr. Osborne suggested that the Planning Commission could make an approval on the condition that Don Bunn see the plan before the first plans go and the plans requiring whatever is necessary to alleviate drainage as far as the Gator-Golf property. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he was confused on the terminology and asked would this be surface drainage on Hwy. 71 or would it be sub -surface? Mr. Hanson responded that it would be surface until it reached Hwy. 71 where it would go into some existing storm drain. Chairman Jacks asked if there were further questions or comments. • • • Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 3 MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to approve the waiver of the driveway safety zone with the provision that the developer clear the drainage plan with the City Engineer before he starts the project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Robertson. Chairman Jacks asked if there was any further comment. No comment. The motion to approve the waiver of the driveway safety zone passed 8-0-0. DISCUSSION OF PLACEMENT OF MOBILE HOMES WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICTS The second item on the agenda was a discussion of placement of mobile homes within the zoning districts. Chairman Jacks stated that Mobile Homes Parks were permissable in R-2, and R-3 zones and conditional use on appeal to the Planning commission. Otherwise, the only possibilities are as temporary uses in A-1 under certain conditions. Chairman Jacks further stated that Commissioner Springborn had done some looking into this and has talked with him several times. Commissioner Springborn stated that he looked into the Zoning Ordinance with regard to mobile homes and found that he also needed to get a copy of the Mobile Home Park Ordinance. He stated that he went through both of those and looked at absolutely every provision that he could locate and found that there were a number of discrepancies between the two. So he set out to straighten those out. In so doing, Commissioner Springborn stated that he may have come up with a solution to what Mr. Woods raised several weeks ago. Along with that, he made a general observation regarding mobile homes personal. Based on just traveling around in general the last few weeks, he had taken the trouble to look more critically at mobile homes and mobile home parks as they're situated in Fayetteville and Springdale. Commissioner Springborn stated that he didn't come up with a real great impression of them. This is not to say that in his opinion, mobile homes parks can't be developed with some good park atmosphere and constitute good aesthetic value in the city. Commissioner Springborn further stated that as he understood what he has read, the city of Fayetteville does not have the controls that require such development. Therefore, Commissioner Springborn felt that we need to maintain fair control of the mobile homes, and mobile home parks in the city. With this in mind, he presented several changes he felt would be useful (A typed copy of these suggested changes is attached to back of minutes.) After some discussion of Commissioner Springborn's proposed changes, Chairman Jacks responded to Commissioner Springborn by clarifying with Commissioner Springborn that he was proposing to add R-2 and R-3 to the possibility of a temporary, one year, permit but have everyone come to the planning commission so that we get a look at this through conditional use. Springborn stated that there would also require re -applying on an annual basis, but there is the same /9 • • • Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 4 requirement for the operation of a must come back on an annual basis. under the temporary would be under no division. mobile home park. The operator of the park Therefore, anyone who undertook to do it greater kind of burden than under the parks Commissioner Klingaman stated that he had a question abo He asked how the renewal was handled. Commissioner Hanna are any legitimate complaints before the planning office, date they would have to come back to the planning co Klingaman asked if it was considered a burden to get getting a car tag renewed? Commissioner Hanna responded had been handled. He said it was a 10 minute process. ut the annual renewal. responded that if there then on the anniversary mmission. Commissioner it renewed like, say, that was not the way it Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Wood if this discussion was speaking to what he was questioning initially. Mr. Wood stated that "Yes, it did speak to the temporary nature." Wood stated that the problem is with it being a temporary basis. Because if a person had a mobile home on a 3 acre lot and was there on a temporary basis and the owner decided to sell it, the mobile home owner would have to move. Mr. Wood further stated that zoning in the R-2 and R-3 districts would have to be changed in order to accommodate a mobile home park on a permanent basis. Chairman Jacks responded by stating that the home zoning ordinance structure of the City has been directed at discouraging single mobile homes. Commissioner Nash commended Commissioner Springborn for his diligence in researching this for us. As Commissioner Nash understood it, one of the problems fast week, was the property in question could have a mobile home park on it because of a loop -hole in the ordinance. She further asked, "It couldn't have just one mobile home, right?" Commissioner Jacks stated that a mobile home park had to have two or more mobile homes on it. Commissioner Nash then asked how to get the document submitted by Commissioner Springborn to Mr. Cord and have it put in some kind of formal form. Chairman Jacks responded by asking, "Do you want to do that, or do you want to make this part of the sweeping revision we're going to have with everything?" Commissioner Nash responded that for two years she has been saying let's wait and everything in the sweeping revision and it's under the rug right now. Chairman Jacks stated that Commissioner Nash was suggesting that they go ahead with it. Commissioner Nash stated that she thought all of it was very worthwhile and thought that they would find out shortly if it was possible. Chairman Jacks stated that all they would have to do is to pass a motion. He stated that the suggestions would have to go to a public hearing. We would have to send a recommendation to the City Board and then the City Attorney would get it. Commissioner Nash then stated that first, the City Attorney had to write it up for the public hearing. Chairman Jacks responded that they could get Jim to write it up for the public hearing in a little more formal fashion. MOTION • • r • Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 5 Commissioner Nash moved that we send the document to Mr. McCord to be written into ordinance form and return to us at our next meeting in order to look it over before a public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Seiff. Commissioner Klingaman asked to address the question of annual renewal. He asked if it was a concern? Commissioner Jacks responded that he assumed that as far as Commissioner Nash was concerned, it should stay the same as it is. Commissioner Nash further stated that she thought it was a way of controlling, in case for some reason this backfires on us and everybody starts to put a trailer in the back yard. Someone from the audience asked if the mobile home discussion related to the Mother -In -Law item on the agenda. Chairman Jacks said that he didn't think so. The motion to send the document to Mr. McCord in order to be put in ordinance form passed 8-0-0. Chairman Jacks asked that Becky Schmidt send the proposed changes, prepared by Commissioner Springborn, to Mr. McCord. PROPOSAL FOR MOTHER -IN LAW HOUSES AS A CONDITIONAL USE The third item for business was the proposal for Mother -In -Law Houses as a conditional use. Chairman Jacks stated that there was nothing to prohibit building another structure as long as you meet the designing requirements. Chairman Jacks further stated that he asked Mr. Wood to look into this and try to bring him up to date on what he was remembering from several years ago. He asked Mr. Wood if he had a chance to look this over this morning. Mr. Wood responded that he had looked it over and that it was correct. The other part of the issue that Chairman Jacks asked him about was that they had always had a policy that if you add a second structure on to the lot it had to be physically attached to the principle structure under accessory use. Chairman Jacks responded that a Mother -In -Law house wouldn't necessarily be an accessory use, as it's defined. Mr. Wood further stated that the only other place it would be allowed is the ordinance that has a second principle structure on a piece of property so long as you have two parcels of property that meet the zone codes under one ownership. He further stated that you would have to meet the frontage and all sides in square footage as if it were a lot by itself. But you couldn't put any more structures as would be allowed. Chairman Jacks asked if there would be any questions. Commissioner Hanna asked if there was a restriction -in there that stated that the structure had to be used for a one family unit? Chairman Jacks responded that it was for any principle use for that zone. In other words, if it's R-1, and single family, if it's R-2 it could be another apartment building on the same lot. Any use permitted where �D • • • Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 6 the zone where this occurs could happen. Commissioner Nash asked why we had lot splits then. Chairman Jacks stated that he thought we were talking about a piece of property owned by one person who has two houses on it. Commissioner Hanna stated that this didn't meet the requirements that we would like to see for a Mother -In -Law House to be used for a relative, who's elderly. Chairman Jacks asked why it didn't meet the requirement. Commissioner Hanna responded that under these requirements you would have to have an abnormally large lot. Commissioner Hanna stated that the Elderly Housing Committee wants it where it can be put on a normal lot. They also want it to be for one families use - related as your single family structure is under R-1. Chairman Jacks asked Ms. Schmidt if she new where this request came from. Commissioner Hanna stated that Beverly put it on the agenda. She had someone come into the planning office last week and asked if they could build a Mother - In -Law house on their lot. Chairman Jacks asked if the idea was to build something less than the requirements which are now in the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Hanna added for a parent or elderly relative to live in the same lot so they could look after them. Commissioner Hanna further stated that he understood that person was supposed to be here today, according to Beverly Erwin. Chairman Jacks asked that the representative come up and let us have your name and address for the record, and tell us what's going on now. Mr. Karl Thiel of 200 E. Willoughby, Fayetteville, Arkansas responded that from what he understood in the discussion there though, his particular situation where he had an abnormally large lot. He stated that he had a piece of property that after he sell his house he would still have approximately 4 and a half acres. He approached Beverly asking her what would be required by the City if He wanted to go ahead and build a second separate structure for his mother-in-law on the 4 and a half acre lot. He stated that he thought he would be looking at a lot split, in order to sell his house, but he still didn't want to get into splitting the lot any further. He stated that he would like to have an additional small house there that his mother-in-law could live in. He said that he understood the questions that were being brought up here now, because his situation was different than several others in town. Chairman Jacks stated that what they were saying was that Mr. Teal could do it. Mr. Teal responded that Beverly wasn't sure. Commissioner Hanna asked where the property was located. Mr. Teal -responded that the property was located North of the airport. Chairman Jacks stated that actually Mr. Thiel's question was resolved as far as Mr. Teal was concerned. Mr. Thiel responded that from what he understood, he wouldn't have any problems. Chairman Jacks responded that it leaves this other question which has really been addressed by the Elderly Committee as part of this recommendation. Chairman Jacks thanked Mr. Teal and asked if there were any other questions. Commissioner Hanna stated that he didn't want anybody to think that this answered that. The problem that the Elderly Housing Committee foresaw was that they still would like to have some type of conditional use where a Mother -In -Law house could be built on a lot where those set backs were not. • • • • Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 7 Chairman Jacks responded that in connection with all of these issues that they were talking about, particularly to the things Commissioner Hanna was talking about. He would like some indication from the City Attorney as to the legality of our writing in this family business, the family relationships. He stated that he didn't know that legally they could say it has to be a mother-in-law or an aunt or an uncle. Can you say it has to be of the same family. He wasn't sure they could do that. Commissioner Hanna responded asking if that wasn't what was written into the ordinance for single family housing in Fayetteville. Chairman Jacks asked if Commissioner Hanna meant all one family as long as your related. He didn't know if there was anything that said that. Chairman Jacks stated that he thought it would be a problem if later on the mother-in-law was maybe gone, and they wanted to rent the property. Commissioner Hanna asked Mr. Wood if single family was defined in there. Mr. Wood stated that it was. Commissioner Hanna asked to have the page number pointed out to them. Mr. Wood responded that it was on page 886.5. He then read it. Chairman Jacks suggested that it was an attempt at that kind of thing. He then said he guessed that family relationship could be written in. Commissioner Hanna stated that was the reason they wanted to include it in the Elderly Housing recommendation so that persons could make provisions for an elderly family member. Chairman Jacks stated that it was part of a package that is now come to us as a recommendation from the Elderly Housing Committee. Commissioner Hanna stated that he didn't want anybody to think that the problem about the Mother -In -Law house had been solved by the revelation that you could build two houses on one lot as long as it was big enough. Chairman Jacks responded that it still didn't answer the problem Commissioner Hanna was talking about. Chairman Jacks stated that they had that recommendation from the Elderly Housing Committee and that would be back before them at some point. Chairman Jacks stated that really at that point they were trying to see if they could get that thing written into that "sweeping change", and he is pursuing that. He further stated that he wasn't going to let it die somewhere along the line. He also stated that he still had that they would be able to get the zoning ordinance re -written by the consultant. The last time he spoke with the City Manager, he said that, yes, he really had to do that. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else would like to comment on this. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he had a question about the local covenants where they have a footage requirement codes for a house would effect it. How did that enter in, and would it be possible later to subdivide that lot even if it were large enough. Chairman Jacks stated that he thought that as the ordinance stood now, each structure has to have the legal amount of property, but sure it could be subdivided later unless that would subtract enought from property number 1 to make it illegal. Commissioner Klingaman clarified that was talking about square footage. Chairman Jacks stated that was part of the housing code. He didn't know what the minimum was. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Wood if he knew what the minimum requirements were on housing. Mr. Wood responded that it wasn't a matter • • • Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 8 of zoning ordinance. He thought that this was referring to a place where you have a covenant that requires a certain size. It is only if the covenent is not in any way tied together that you could seek to aprove what ever they wanted to approve. In opposition to the covenant, it would be up to the property owners who enforce the covenant. It could be, even though the City approved it, taken to court as a covenant dispute. Commissioner Seiff asked suppose you had a building on a legal lot and suppose your front and back and side requirement met, and the lot was big enough for a lot split. If it met the front and back and outsides, did it also have to meet the side betweem the two? Mr. Wood stated that you would have to have the required footage between the two houses. Commissioner Springborn stated that they should take the subjection out of the ordinance and look at it objectively because the ordinances are not subjective. If someone clearly endorsed and wants to see a Mother -In -Law put in in a particular case but that case will not extend into the future. If these people moved out of the city once you put the second dwelling on the lot, then the City has the problem of this exceptional development on the lot. From an ordinance standpoint, we need to get the city attorney's input on this. Chairman Jacks agreed they should be objective about it and try to imagine what might happen in the future. However, we need to forge ahead. He asked if any- one in the audience wanted to speak. A member of the audience asked what kind of structure they were talking about. Chairman Jacks stated that they were talking about any kind of structure. He suggested that they go on to the next issue. DECISION OF DAY AND TIME OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING The next issue was the day and meeting time for the Subdivision Committee. It's between the Subdivision Committee and the city staff. The Subdivision Committee wanted to move its meeting time from Thursday afternoon to Wednesday morning. I talked to Commissioner Dow and Commissioner Nash today indicated they had it worked out. The Subdivision Committee needs the minutes of the Plat Review Committee Meeting the Friday before. Any revisions to the plats are due on Monday afternoon. The question is will those Plat Review minutes be ready by Wednesday morning. Tuesday afternoon would be the earliest they could be ready. The Subdivision Members could pick them up on Tuesday afternoon as a routine matter if they want them early. This has been resolved and the Subdivision Committee Meeting is set for 10:30 Wednesday morning on alternating Wednesdays. Chairman Jacks will meet with them at the next meeting on the 23rd because B.J. will be out. Commissioner Nash stated that there will be four items at the Subdivision Meeting. Since Subdivision is a relatively new committee, do you want us to act on it or to bring everything to Planning again. Chairman Jacks said act on what you can and most of these come as recommendations to the Planning Commission. ai • • • • Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 9 Everything but large scale developments and they must be approved by the Planning Commission. Nash stated that they passed an ordinance about that at the Board Meeting and she didn't know where it stands. Chairman Jacks clarified that that had to do with the advertising time and notification. That is being taken care of, but the actual approval can take place. The Board's new ordinance simply established the notification time. The big issue wasn't were it was approved but how much notification people had in the area. I checked on it once before. Chairman Jacks asked Don Bunn if he could let the members of the Subdivision Committee including himself where that situation stands. Mr. Bunn answered, "Yes." DISCUSSION OF DISTRIBUTING THE MINUTES Chairman Jacks said that Beverly wants to know if the members of the Planning Commission want the minutes of the previous meeting mailed as has been happening or can they come with your next agenda as they used to. He stated that Sue Madison wanted them mailed and wanted them early. Now that she isn't on the Planning Commission, how does the rest of Planning Commission feel about it. They agreed that it's fine to send them with the agenda of the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Jacks asked Commissioner Springborn to join that committee on elderly matters. We have Fred as Chairman and Jerry on it. We'll have Jack Springborn replacing. Commissioner Hanna stated that their work up to this point has been given to Sandra to give to Mr. Raby. Chairman Jacks stated that where it stands now under the basic contract that planning firm is committed to basically a lot of mapping and an analysis of certain things. They are not a committee to read through and write the zoning changes we want. Chairman Jacks met with him and gave a list to him of things that we had already talked about needing to do on as far as zoning ordinances. Commissioner Hanna stated that those were the problems that we foresaw in the future that we need to discuss and determine what we can do and can't do. Chairman Jacks stated the planning consultant already took that and gave us a proposal which he sent back to the city manager. He talked to the city manager again and told him he thought he should go on with that and not wait hiring of a pro to run the Planning offices because it would take him a long time to get around to it. Chariman Jacks went on to say that Jim Pennington agreed. Mr. Wood put it in ordinance form and it is now been word processed. Need to get word to the city board and the mayor in particular who commented saying that she understood the subdivision regulations had been revised and city board hadn't even seen them. The board will see it before it's adopted. Chairman Jacks said he wants the mayor to understand that. Subdivision regulations, with the exceptance of some of those street things that we are going through, is pretty well set. The board left to the staff to go over it and see what recommendations they had. Staff went over it. Mr. Wood got the results of that which is all incorporated . Need to get worked in to this package from our consulting firm • • • • Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 10 the reworking of the zoning ordinance in coordination with the other things he's dealing with. Chairman Jacks went on to say that they hope the board will approve an amendment to the contract. MINUTES Minutes of the meeting of February 22, 1988 were approved as mailed. FURTHER BUSINESS Bunn asked if he wanted to discuss any of the functional use classification meeting that are going on? Chairman Jacks replied that the state people had been saying that there were a number of streets in all the cities around here which are called one thing and used as another. They were interested in having those names reflect the uses and in having the cities tie together their classifications (widths, etc.). The streets themselves physically need to tie together. They formed a committee with the state people, Don Bunn as the city engineer, myself as Planning Commission Chairman, Springdale's city engineer, the city's street superintendant,etc. We have been attempting to come to some terms about classification, street widths and right -a -way requirements, etc. Don Bunn replied that Fayetteville is in good shape as far as being able to conform with the state regulations. Don Bunn stated that it wouldn't take much of a change in our Subdivision Regulations to conform. The committee is meeting approximately every ten days. Commissioner Seiff Chairman Jacks said have two kinds of up to six children. She stated in her care in a R-1 area. stated that a letter had been received from Mrs. Bates. he tried to call her to relay the correct information. We child care things: 1) a home occupation - includes child care 2) child care nursery school - allows up to ten children. letter that she understands there is no possibility of child That is simply not true. Don Bunn said she asked about having a conditional use to teach children in her home in an R-1 district and our ordinances specifically limit the number of children under those conditions to six under a conditional use. Chairman Jacks answered, No, R-1 includes as a conditional use or permissable on appeal, Use Unit 4. Use Unit 4 includes child care center and nursery schools which is upto ten children. It hasn't changed. Don Bunn stated that under Conditional Use that is right. He had been thinking of Home Occupation. Chairman Jacks clarified that they have to come before the Planning Commission to get more than six. Between six and ten they have to come for a conditional use. Jacks said, Can you straighten that out with her Don. Don Bunn, said Beverly and I were confused about it. Chairman Jacks stated that he planned to talk to her and explain to her what the ordinance says. He doesn't think it has changed from what it always has been. She was saying that there was no possibility of having a child care upto ten in an R-1 area. Don Bunn answered that it was possible with a Conditional Use ,but as a home occupation, it is limited to six. Chairman • • • Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 11 Jacks answered, "Yes." Don Bunn stated that Beverly is leaving Tuesday. I've talked to the City manager and let him know that we may have some problems in that area until we get new employees familiar with ordinances. We hope there won't be any problems as far as meetings are concerned. We will have problems making this changeover and there will be some inconveniences both to the public and to the Planning Commission. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 6:30 p.m. • Chap. 13B, pg. 470.36, definitions "Mobile home park" - 2nd line - delete, "intended or", insert "and". • • Appendix A, Zoning, pg. 858, B. Location of Mobile Homes Insert as (1) Requirement of exception approval. (a) City Planning Commission (b) Enforcement Officer Change (1) to (2) and (2) to (3) and in (3) (a) following "zoned A-1" insert "R-2 and R-3." pg. 859, (paragraph) "Upon application..." Delete "application" and insert "approval by City Planning Commission", and delete "if no nuisance to neighbors is apparent" pg. 886, definitions Insert after "Dwelling Unit", "Enforcement Officer" from Chap. 13B-1, pg. 470.36 pg. 886.9 definitions Delete "Mobile or Trailer Court" def. entirely and insert "Mobile Home Park" def. from Chap. 13B-1, pg. 470.36 with above change. Insert after "Travel Trailer" def. "Trailer Court - any plot of ground on which there are located or intended to be located two or more trailer homes to be occupied for dwelling or sleeping purposes. pg. 839 Included Uses(C) change "1.5" to "2.0" • e..&.(,3 1 P9' 70,36/de .4;:2.'a c "// oft / r -t t ✓l '. 4 1.n rcrf as (1) (14_) :;)y (b) Gummy ` — .A !, 4' .IC I a- - /f I r O i J ; •�f cr 'v 4 NA. ✓'A • J l r J' 7)1.aCPI a7,>rdda/ - Sa.) o •rd ,Ca)_:v 6 )_c_.i K. ( ) / ) �a/law ✓J . Li* `i- / Jr. 23a-rf-,%C'-e2 amts _ c -j •r . ../�I A.N V1; ✓t p, - ---p9• )79� -F� „Upon: ar-fr>•c.:01,106,n .. • _• 1. rep.(. ccc, • ar ‘87 aA-Ici I✓: 6 4.-'r_. c 12rala./_.oy &;7/'r' win wt; Jsro.c_>. ✓!c/ i J c,.XCC e._._0 __ a dc -r -s _alif Arent cj^7' 'a .7/-.6i1. f ' n L C1JG r7` t Te(`.__1-17.de//.meq_b /_y__.__G`. rce-' 0.17.O.dre ac ,,,vyX70•..34 p9. F.cd.9. ._� ; I4?C 4 r' Gfe ..,r/i,1a6;/edr77- 4. /et-- dr -Y.1". / tyy //�� -. -. /(il d 'le_ beyN/; e Nnt�-•K �-a' � � -- Y° nn _e •$/70. _ Z�etcr7 JcLrtr_1' 7-1-"c71 re/ ira;ler".ca r,' _.-Ct.ca 'ler_.c?aur2` �K y/°?` or fro✓rs.d du_ _w icl�. f-;(.2Pe 421-.2 /GI ca.�`9d ;,a74.+dsc 7/0 6 e O c 2 eee d ware 77-z;/ter r1�� - -o 6a c)cc✓i>;red - d• ^7N ,.0 e...--41,1 ay cf: y-ls3p.rJ ;�v N,.;�a'_S, J J � • c(2