|
|
The Lake News Online
  • Barn plan worries some

  • A proposed amendment to the Lakeside at Cross Creek planned unit development (PUD) in the Camdenton area was met with opposition from approximately 30 residents, mainly from the adjacent Cross Creek subdivision. There were multiple points of contention as developer Mark Cribb made his request to the Camden County Planning Com...
    • email print
      Comment
  • A proposed amendment to the Lakeside at Cross Creek planned unit development (PUD) in the Camdenton area was met with opposition from approximately 30 residents, mainly from the adjacent Cross Creek subdivision. There were multiple points of contention as developer Mark Cribb made his request to the Camden County Planning Commission Wednesday evening to re-plat seven residential lots into 33 accessory use lots on 10.8 acres in order to build "toy barns" that would be available for sale to the general public.
    While the amendment would not push the overall density of the PUD over the ceiling of four units per acre, it could cause a density problem in other areas of the PUD as it would technically increase the number of overall units from what was originally approved, according to acting P&Z administrator Kris Franken, the county presiding commissioner.
    According to Cribb, the barns would be 40-foot by 40-foot steel buildings with rock floors and gravel driveways where people could store their cars, boats, motorcycles, etc. He compared the plan to the barns in Boyd's subdivision on Lake Rd. 5-61 which are popular within that subdivision.
    Cribb also proposes to create a separate owners association within Lakeside for the accessory lots to regulate maintenance on the barns and other ongoing issues. Electrical and water service would be provided for each barn, but not bathrooms which had apparently been a part of an earlier version of the plan.
    While the property for the proposed barns is on Point Happy Rd., residents were anything but happy with Cribb's plan.
    Though Cribb called the barns high end, residents took exception to the term as they did not meet architectural requirements of their homeowners association covenants and would look like metal storage sheds. Cross Creek has restrictions limiting the design of homes to craftsman-style as well as other architectural requirements. The deviation from their style and the placement of storage sheds near the entrance to some of these homes also caused concern over property values.
    The residents also protested the sale of the barns to people living outside Lakeside and Cross Creek subdivisions as opening the area to potential problems due to absentee and remote owners, such as illegal activities, vandalism, theft, no bathrooms for the barn owners and accidental alarm system setoffs.
    Whether an accessory or primary residential use, they also felt that the lots should be limited to the original seven over concerns that 33 lots would significantly increase traffic — especially that of large vehicles like RVs in the case of the barns — on the windy private road that is maintained at the expense of the homeowners association.
    There was question on the planning commission's side over the Unified Land Use Code's requirements on accessory lots due to a possible vagueness in the wording of ULC 808 3.j. that states an accessory lot must be associated with a specific residential lot where a primary land use is allowed although no restriction is placed on ownership of the accessory lot.
    Page 2 of 2 - Cribb said he and his attorney interpreted that to mean the lots could be sold outside of the subdivision as long as it could be tied to a residential lot somewhere.
    Franken and the planning commission seemed to agree that it was an example of a spot in Article 800 that needed to be cleaned up.
    Planning commissioner Mickey McDuffey said she believed that the intent of the statement was to allow homeowners within a subdivision to have a common area that included individual garages clustered together.
    Cross Creek homeowners association board member Jeff Zelms, however, questioned how Cribb's proposal fit with the ULC's definition of accessory use which states that the use must be located on the same lot or property as the principal use.
    The case is also complicated due to different developers taking on the property over time and other plans discussed in the past. Cribb is the latest developer after taking it over from his brother Tim.
    The case was tabled to May 21 meeting.

        calendar