Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-03-09 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 9, 1992 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Jerry Allred, Kenneth Pummill, Charles Nickle, Jack Cleghorn, and Jett Cato (arrived late) MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Tarvin and J. E. Springborn Alett Little, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 1992 were approved as distributed. WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1 & #2 HARRY GRAY - N OF RIDGELY DR., W OF CROSSOVER RD. The first item on the agenda was a request for two lot splits presented by Harry Gray on behalf of George Neihouse of Superior Federal Bank. The property is located on the north side of Ridgely, west of Crossover and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn stated the original tract contained 3.53 acres and had a house on it. He explained the proposal was to split off two lots from the original tract, both of which would be adjacent to Ridgely Drive. He further explained the existing house would stay on the remaining tract and would have access to Highway 265. Mr. Bunn stated Tract B and Tract A would have 0.53 and 0.56 acres, respectively, while the remaining tract would contain 2.4 acres. He further stated water was already available to all tracts and sewer would be extended to serve all three lots. He stated other utilities were available to the property. He recommended the split be approved subject to the extension of the sewer to serve all three lots created by the split; construction of a sidewalk on Highway 265 as called for by the Master Sidewalk Plan; the granting, by separate instrument, of any rights-of-way required by the utility companies to serve the lots; and payment of parks fees. Mr. Harry Gray, Northwest Engineers, appeared before the Commission and pointed out the property could be subdivided into six or seven lots but they were only requesting two lot splits. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Gray stated the parcel labeled split #1 could access either Ridgely or Crossover. He expressed his opinion that it would be better to not have a driveway on Crossover Road. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve lot splits #1 and #2 subject to staff comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3S Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING REQUEST R92-5 LAMAR PETTUS - N OF MILLSAP, R OF COLLEGE The next item on the agenda was a request presented by Lamar Pettus on behalf of Citizens Bank of Northwest Arkansas to rezone three tract of land located on the north side of Millsap, east of College from C-1, Central Business Commercial, to C-2, Thoroughfare commercial. This rezoning request was sent back to the Planning Commission by the Board of Directors. Mr. Nickle informed the petitioner that the rezoning would require five affirmative votes. Ms. Little explained that, since there were if they petitioner desired to postpone this do so. currently six Commissioners present, item until the next meeting, he could Mr. Pettus stated he preferred to present the item at the current meeting. Ms. Little explained the only reason this item was sent back to the Planning Commission was due to misunderstandings regarding Tract A (the northernmost tract). She further explained it had been the understanding of the Commission when they had recommended approval of the rezoning of the three tracts that Tract A was for access only. Mr. Pettus explained representatives of Citizen Bank had corrected his understanding regarding of which tract of property was to be sold. He further explained the property that would actually be sold at some future date was the easternmost portion (approximately 126 feet) of Tract C. He stated he had been told there was not sufficient room to put a driveway north of the bank onto Frontage Road so the access would be on Millsap rather than Frontage. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Pettus stated the current law office building was located on the west end of Tract C. Ms. Little explained there were some questions as to the zoning of Tracts A and B, however Tract C was zoned C-1. Mr. Cleghorn expressed concern regarding the deed restrictions. Ms. Little stated there were deed restrictions ranging from restricting mobile home parks, roller skating rinks, sale of any alcoholic beverages, car lots. She explained those restrictions ran with the land. (Commissioner Cato arrived at the meeting.) John Baker, attorney, appeared before the Commission on behalf of Christian Life Cathedral and Mrs. Audie Millsap. He stated he had not been retained to proceed with any legal action but was present because he was a member of the church. He explained the most significant difference in the current request concerned access to Millsap. He stated the area was already quite congested. He also explained the subject property bordered property owned by the Christian Life Cathedral with a life estate to Mrs. Millsap. He informed the Commission Mrs. Millsap had her residence on the adjoining property. He also pointed out other residences in the area. He expressed his opinion that C-2 zoning was not compatible with the surrounding property. Mr. Baker requested the Commission deny the request for rezoning. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little noted a restaurant could be constructed in C-2. 34, • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Allred asked if the church had a conditional use or if the property had been rezoned. Ms. Little stated she believed the property was R-1 but had not checked to see if there was a conditional use. MOTION Mr. Allred stated that, in keeping with their plan to cluster commercial properties together, he would move to recommend the granting of the rezoning. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Ms. Britton stated believed the tract presently zoned R-0 was appropriate to be zoned C-2 but she could see no reason to rezone the tract now C-1 to C-2. She further stated she believed each tract should be zoned separately. The motion passed 5-2-0 with Commissioners Allred, Suchecki, Nickel, Pummill, and Cato voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Cleghorn voting "no". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING REQUEST 92-11 DARYL RANTIS - NE CORNER OF ROCK AND SCHOOL The next item before the Commission was a request for a rezoning for property located on the northeast corner of Rock Street and School Avenue presented by Daryl Rantis on behalf of the owner, Denzel Lee Vaugh, to rezone the property from R -O, Residential -Office, to C-3, Central Business Commercial. Ms. Little explained the subject tract was in an older neighborhood and was fully developed as mixed residential uses (single and multi -family). She stated immediately to the west was the City Hospital Annex. She pointed out there were several parcels in the vicinity zoned C-2 and C-3. Ms. Little explained the rezoning had been requested on the subject property because the lot measured 50 feet by 163 feet. She further explained that, if the setbacks for R -O zoning were observed, the building pad would be only five feet wide. She stated the applicant's options were to go to the Board of Adjustment and request a variance or to come before the Planning Commission with a request for rezoning. She explained staff had advised him to seek rezoning since, if the property were rezoned, the building pad would be 30 feet by 117 feet. Ms. Little stated the general plan showed the area for commercial development - services. She recommended approval of the rezoning. She explained that while there was not an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the rezoning neither was it in direct conflict with accepted criteria for zoning analysis. She stated staff had received a number of calls from area residents expressing concern. Ms. Britton expressed concern that as C-3 property the applicant would be within five feet of the street. She asked why the property could not be rezoned to R-1. Ms. Little explained staff had worked quite sometime with Mr. Rantis in trying to make the lot useable. She stated that as R-1 zoning, the building pad would only be 17 feet wide which still was not large enough. Mr. Nickle noted the applicant was planning to build two small attached residences. Ms. Little explained the applicant preferred not to build a duplex but would. She explained staff had reviewed this tract with every type of zoning and the only way to make it a buildable lot was C-3 zoning. 3-) • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 4 In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little listed in C-3 zoning. Mr. Cato asked it would be advisable for the petitioner to Assurance. all uses possible submit a Bill of Ms. Little stated it could only be voluntarily offered by the petitioner. She further stated staff had not asked for a Bill of Assurance nor had the applicant offered one. Mr. Allred expressed concern that commercial development might take place in a residential area. Mr. Daryl Rantis explained he planned two small houses targeted for median income and below to sell. He stated he was willing to offer a Bill of Assurance that the property would be used for residential properties, not commercial. Mr. Harold Nelson, owner of the townhouse complex to the east of the subject property, appeared before the Commission and explained there were already parking problems in the area. He further stated that rezoning the property commercial would jeopardize his property. He claimed there was no way to guarantee once the property had been rezoned that there wouldn't be a liquor store or car wash next to his property. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Nelson agreed that some of his concerns would be addressed should Mr. Rantis offer the Bill of Assurance. He further pointed out a newspaper article had said the entire area was to be upgraded and modernized. He asked why they would be approving housing for low income residents when the area was to be upgraded. Mr. Rantis explained one of the homes would sell for approximately $50,000 and the other home would sell for approximately $40,000. Mr. Nelson stated there were very few commercial establishments in the area and he did not want to see more. Mr. Jeremy Ferrara, 315 W. Rock, appeared before the Commission and stated he had been renting his property for seven years and was the newest resident in his neighborhood. He further stated the neighborhood was very stable and very quiet. He agreed with Mr. Nelson that parking was a major problem in the area. He explained he did not think it was possible to build houses on the subject lot due to the grade of the property. Mr. Michael Thurman, a resident of the neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Eva Omohundro, 202 S. School, spoke in favor of the rezoning if the applicant would offer assurance that the property would be used for dwellings rather than commercial purposes. She pointed out it would be an asset to the neighborhood to have new dwellings. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Rantis stated he had two parking spaces per house, plus a driveway. Ms. Barbara Ferrara, 315 W. Rock, pointed out the steep grade of the subject property. Ms. Barbara Moorman stated she was not a resident of the area but was fearful of the possible domino effect should the Planning Commission rezone the property commercial. She also mentioned the article in the newspaper that mentioned a 38 • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 5 general plan for the area between Lafayette and 6th Street in which the area would be redone architecturally. She noted that in 1990 at least 8 dwelling units in the block opposite the subject property were demolished. She expressed concern that once changes started happening there was a point of no return. She also reminded the Commission of a memo to them by John Merrell in which he raised the question of a need for historical preservation zoning in a unified development ordinance. She stated the idea of historical preservation included the land, territory and nature of the neighborhood. She further stated that preservation was being threatened by the rezoning. She urged the Commission to deny the rezoning. Ms. Little stated the plan Ms. Moorman mentioned was a design exercise on the part of School of Architecture at the University. She explained the specific inclusion of housing was necessary to support any revitalization effort made to Dickson Street to support the commercial activities. Ms. Little also pointed out the Planning Office was the entity which oversaw historic preservation. She informed the Commission she had recently applied for and received a grant for historic preservation. She further informed the Commission the area they were surveying was the area around Wilson Park. She stated they had not targeted the subject area. She explained there were some very stringent guidelines that were required in order for an area to meet historic district guidelines. She further explained she believed it would be very difficult to qualify the subject area in terms of significant structures. She also updated the Commission on the proposed city historic ordinance which originally had been for the Washington -Willow and Mt. Nord Districts. She explained there had been significant public opposition and the ordinance was in the process of being changed to make historic designation voluntary. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little explained that the former structure on the subject tract had burned. She further explained that this tract had been vacant since the 1950's. Mr. Thurman stated the vacant lot provided visual relief from the density. He also pointed out there were no sidewalks on the lot and addition of a sidewalk would make the lot even less wide. Mr. Ferrara pointed out construction on the lot would increase rain water run-off which was already a problem in the area. Mr. Rantis presented a mock-up of the proposed structures and answered questions from the audience. Ms. Little stated the planning office had received a letter from the resident at 116 S. School in opposition to the rezoning. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little explained that, if the applicant wished, he could attached the plans with the Bill of Assurance to ensure the final structures would look like the mock-up. Mr. Rantis explained that, should the rezoning be granted which established a 30 - foot building pad, he would then need to go before the Board of Adjustment and shift that building pad so he would have a five-foot setback from the street. He explained this would also save many of the mature trees on the lot. He further explained that, if he did not receive the variance, he would have to redesign the buildings. Mr. Nickle asked why Mr. Rantis could not go to the Board of Adjustment under the current zoning. 3� • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 6 Ms. Little stated that was possible however it was staff's belief that a change in zoning was more proper to address the change in setbacks. She explained that under R -O zoning there would be only a 5 -foot wide building pad. She further explained that should the rezoning request be approved, Mr. Rantis would not have to ask for a setback variance in order to develop the property. She stated Mr. Rantis wanted to set back further from the street, thus a shift in the building pad. Ms. Britton expressed her belief that it was totally inappropriate to have a structure five feet from the street in a residential area. Mr. Cleghorn asked if this item could be tabled and allow Mr. Rantis to go before the Board of Adjustment with a recommendation from the Commission that they would like to see this problem worked out without a change in the zoning. Ms. Little suggested they could put that in form of a resolution that they supported a similar type development however they wanted to hear the wishes of the Board of Adjustment prior to making a decision. Mr. Allred asked if the variances were granted the property could retain the R -O zoning. Ms. Little stated if the Board of Adjustment granted all of the variances, the property could remain R -O. MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved that the Commission table this item until Mr. Rantis had an opportunity to go to the Board of Adjustment requesting the necessary variances; and that staff notify the Board of Adjustment the Commission supported the development proposed by Mr. Rantis but did not want to vote on a rezoning until the wishes of the Board of Adjustment were known regarding the variance. He stated the reason for this was to keep from upgrading the zoning. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-12 DICK KEATING - E SIDE OF CROSSOVER, S OF MISSION The next item was a request for 2, Medium Density Residential property owner Keith Cearly as on the east side of Crossover, rezoning from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial to R - presented by George Faucette on behalf of the submitted by Dick Keating, for property located south of Mission Blvd. Ms. Little explained the subject tract was approximately 4.39 acres in size and was surrounded by residential, commercial, and public lands. She further explained that the rezoning was requested to facilitate development of a 44 lot subdivision on the subject tract and the land immediately to the south. She recommended approval of the rezoning. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to recommend approval of the rezoning. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT - KEATING SUBDIVISION DAVE JORGENSEN - E OF CROSSOVER, S OF MISSION The next item before plat for the Keating and Dick Keating for of Mission Blvd. The R92-12) and contains the Commission was a request for approval of a preliminary Subdivision presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bill property located on the east side of Crossover Road, south property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential (proposed 12.24 acres with 44 lots. Mr. Bunn stated it was his understanding that duplexes were planned for part of the lots and single-family homes for the remainder in this subdivision. He pointed out the subdivision would tie Cherokee Drive in Sequoyah Woods to Highway 265. He explained there had been some changes in the easement locations requested by the utility companies and granted by the owner. Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments; subsequent approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; approval of a grading plan; construction of sidewalks per city ordinance; and payment of parks fees per city ordinance. Mr. Allred gave the subdivision committee report. Mr. Jorgensen appeared before the Commission and explained the plan was to construct duplexes on the corner lots. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Jorgensen stated eventually the drainage would go to the east side of Highway 265. There was discussion from members of the audience regarding saving of the trees between Sequoyah Wood and this development. Mr. Jorgensen stated there was a 20 - foot utility easement adjacent to the property line for the electric, cable and gas. He stated they would attempt to save most of the trees. In response to a question regarding the drainage, Mr. Jorgensen explained their plan would improve the drainage in the area. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT - FOKRUN ADDITION REPLAT DAVE JORGENSEN - S OF HWY 45, OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS The next item before the Commission was a request for approval of the final plat of Foxrun Addition Replat submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located south of Highway 45, outside the city limits and containing 181.2 acres with 28 lots. Mr. Bunn explained this was a replat of a subdivision originally platted a number of years earlier. He stated 90% of the improvements had been installed. He explained the problem with the location was the lack of ability to install septic tanks on the property because of the percolation tests. He further explained the replat cut the number of lots in half and the developer was planning a common on- site sewage disposal system. Mr. Bunn pointed out the Fire Chief recommended installation of fire hydrants but it was not required. 1(1 • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 8 He recommended the plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; subject to the approval of Washington County; subject to the State Health Department approval of the on-site sewage treatment system; and the rehabilitation of existing water taps, if necessary. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle regarding the installation of fire hydrants, Mr. Lynn Ferrell stated they had not discussed the fire hydrants but agreed it would add to the development. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE C992-9 - TANDEM LOT RICHARD ALEXANDER - N OF PROSPECT, W OF RUSH DR. The next item was a request for a conditional use for a tandem lot presented by Richard Alexander on behalf of Steve Alexander for property located north of Prospect, west of Rush Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained this item went with the next agenda item, two lot splits. He further explained that the lot splits would create the need for a tandem lot. He stated the original property contained approximately 2 acres. He stated the splits would create Lot B, containing 0.25 acres and Lot A, containing 0.52 acres with the remaining tract containing 1.2 acres. He further explained the 1.2 acre lot would have to have approval as a tandem lot with access being provided off the east side of Lot B. He stated the proposed lots met the city's zoning requirements for lots in an R-1 District and the tandem lot meet the ordinance's guidelines. He recommended approval of the lot splits and the tandem lot. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained that an easement did not reduce the width of the frontage. Mr. Alexander stated the was present to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Bell appeared before the Commission and asked if the property would remain R-1 and if the access to the lots would be from Prospect. Mr. Alexander stated the property would remain R-1 and access would be from Prospect. Numerous audience members raised questions regarding drainage, the noise during construction, soil erosion, the use of fill, the destruction of wildlife in the area, and construction of compatible homes with those in the neighborhood. Mr. Alexander stated the drainage should be the same as it is now. He also stated the proposed home would contain approximately 1200 square feet. Me. Britton explained the proposal concerned her because a short time ago the Commission approved lot splits on adjacent property. She also expressed her belief that lot B was inappropriate in size for the neighborhood. 41- • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 9 MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve lot splits 1 and 2 and the tandem lot subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion passed with Commissioners Allred, Suchecki, Nickle, Pummill, Cleghorn and Cato voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 1 CATHY ADAMS - W. OF WRIGHT PLACE, S OF E 29TH CIRCLE The next item was a request by Cathy Adams on behalf of Lee Williams for a lot split on property located on the west side of Wright Place, south of East 29th Circle. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the proposal was to split off a 0.46 acre lot (planned lot 77) from an existing 1.42 acre tract. He pointed out the attached plat showed the 1.42 acre tract consisted of planned lots 77, 78, and 79. He explained those lots had been platted in 1970 when Country Club Addition had been developed but were never subdivided. He further noted all utilities and improvements were in place to serve the proposed lot. Mr. Bunn further noted the Commission had some attachments to their agenda which included a letter from Dee Wright and several adjacent property owners objecting to the split. He explained the objections were based on the fear that the eventual purchaser of proposed lot 77 would not adhere to the "strict covenants" imposed by the owners within the adjacent Skyline Estates Subdivision and that Mr. Williams was taking financial advantage of the amenities constructed for Wright Place without having to participate in their costs. Mr. Bunn expressed his position that the city could not require Mr. Williams to pay for any improvements in Skyline Addition. He also stated he did not believe the city could take into account any potential neighborhood degradation. He pointed out that it was obvious from the general location of the site that the house to be constructed would be compatible with the neighborhood. He recommended approval of the lot split. He further stated he had just received a Bill of Assurance which he believed contained the same restrictions for building on the subject lot as contained in Country Club Estates covenants. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained the easement shown on the attachments would not affect proposed Lot 77. Mr. Eugene Ball appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Mr. Dallas Wright, developer of Skyline Estates, appeared before the Commission and expressed his concerns regarding non -adherence to the covenants of Skyline Estates. In response to a question from Mr. Sickle, Mr. Bunn explained that, in order to construct a home on lot 78, there would have to be another lot split. Ms. Marie Mitchell, a resident of the area, expressed concern regarding resale potential of her property. It was determined the main difference in the covenants between Skyline Addition and Country Club Estates was the size of the homes. In Country Club Estates the minimum size of a home was 1,500 square feet, excluding the garage and in Skyline Addition the minimum size home was 2,000 square feet. `15 • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 10 Mr. Ball stated the owner had no objection to constructing a 2,000 square foot home. He questioned whether the covenants of Skyline Addition were enforceable. Mr. Bunn explained the city could accept that the home would be at least 2,000 square feet and keep that information on file but the city could not enforce the covenants. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the lot split with an assurance that no dwelling constructed on the subject lot would be under 2,000 square feet and subject to other staff recommendations. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Mr. Allred suggested using the covenants from Country Club Estates with the exception of the minimum size of home being changed to 2,000 square feet. Ms. Britton concurred. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission recessed for 15 minutes. DISCUSSION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR AUCTIONS, FLEA MARKETS AND GARAGE SALES. Ms. Little explained that, at the request of the Fayetteville Board of Directors, staff had prepared a draft ordinance amending the zoning ordinance for auctions, flea markets and garage sales. She further explained the items being addressed were occasional use activities and not those activities having a permanent place of business. Ms. Little explained that at the present time the code did not have any provision addressing occasional use facilities. She further explained the Planning Division was charged with making sure that accumulation of trash and debris did not occur. She pointed out there had been several instances where trash and debris had been reported but staff had been unable to correct the situation because the property owner stated they were having a garage sale or flea market. She also pointed out there were a number of garage sales which occurred with regularity in residential districts, which was essentially a commercial operation in a residential zone. She briefly reviewed the ordinance as follows: auctions were permitted in any district, including an outside auction, but limited to one time per year for two days. She stated signs would be allowed on the premises to advertise the auction. She further stated flea markets would be allowed in any district but not located within 150 feet of any dwelling unit or residential use. She also pointed out that a flea market would have to be located entirely within a covered structure -- there could be no outdoor accumulation of merchandise for sale. She explained a flea market would be limited to four times per year per address, not exceeding more than four consecutive days. She expressed her belief that, should a flea market require a longer time period, it should be established as a permanent business and have a Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Little explained garage sales could be held in residential districts of R-1, R-1.5 and R-2 only (excluding R-3). She further explained garage sales could not be held more than two times per year per address and could not exceed more than three consecutive days. • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 11 She also noted there were fees associated with the permits -- garage sale fees would be $5.00, auction and flea market fees - $30.00. Ms. Little stated the Planning Office had received some calls from concerned citizens that the regulation would infringe upon personal rights. She explained that, in drafting the proposed ordinance, the city did not want to prohibit these activities but to allow some reasonable guidelines. She stated they had patterned the garage sale portion of the ordinance after the one drafted by the City of Springdale. She further stated the city did not want to charge a fee for garage sales however there were administrative costs involved in the regulation of the proposed ordinance. She further stated one of the concerns she had heard was that garage sales were a form of entertainment for a number of citizens and also a form of recycling. She explained the other concern that had been expressed to her was from a person whose parents had recently died, leaving a great deal of material which could not be disposed of in one weekend. Ms. Little also pointed out the activities would be conditional uses but, unlike other conditional uses, these occasional activities would not require approval of the Planning Commission but could be approved by the Planning Administrator. She explained that the majority of permits were expected to be garage sale applications which would require fast turn around time in order to be effective. Ms. Britton asked what would happen if someone had applied for a garage sale permit and then the weather did not allow such a sale and it had to be postponed. She also mentioned it was possible to have a sale for one day and the other two days be "rained out". Ms. Little stated it would be quite reasonable to extend the permit if the person called in. She explained the ordinance was in draft form and believed some type of provision to cover "rained out" days needed to be included. Ms. Britton stated most garage sales included off-site signs but there was no provision for off-site signs. Ms. Little explained one of the main problems the sign inspector had was failure of people having the garage sales to collect their signs after the sale. She suggested they might be able to impose a separate penalty or fine if the signs were not collected. Mr. Nickle pointed out off-site signs were illegal now. Mr. Cato stated he liked the idea of a fine for non -collected signs. He asked the reason in separating the two garage sales by six calendar months. Ms. Little explained that would keep people from having a sale in November, another in December, another in January and a fourth in February. She further explained the primary concern was apartment dwellers would have numerous sales in a congested area. Mr. Allred stated he had a number of college rental units and was concerned that, if the ordinance was adopted, college students would leave items they normally would sell and the property owners would have to haul these items to the landfill. He explained college students would not take the time to get a permit. Ms. Little stated one of her callers had objected to the $5.00 permit fee and having to come to city hall to obtain a permit. She asked the Commissioners' opinion. tic • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 12 Mr. Allred stated he would like to have a verbal permit for garage sales. He pointed out they might get more compliance if the applicant could just call the city. Ms. Little pointed out the $5.00 would not cover the city's cost in issuing permits. Mr. Jim Stewart, an area auctioneer, expressed his concern regarding limiting auctions to one time per year. He explained he was in the process of arranging an auction in the range of $200,000 to $300,000 to be held at the Park Inn or the National Guard Armory. He asked if he would be limited to having only one auction at that location for a year. Ms. Little explained the auction portion of the ordinance had been intended to address auctions that occurred out of doors, not in buildings. Mr. Stewart stated he was opposed to any type of fee or permit for garage sales even though he did not like people to use their homes for a business. He explained in California they required a $20.00 deposit to ensure the garage sale signs would be picked up. He further stated 90% of the garage sales occurred during the summer and he believed there should not be the six month limitation. Mr. Ken Caudle, owner of the Swap Shop, stated he was totally opposed to any type of fee for homeowners having a garage sale in their home. He explained if someone repeatedly had a sale from their home and it was a business, that should come under the current zoning rules and regulations of operating a business in a residential area. He further explained that to some a garage sale was a way to earn money honestly due to the depressed economy. He further stated he was opposed to the lot sales similar to those held on Highway 62. Mr. Caudle stated garage sales was one of the ways to dispose of merchandise that otherwise would be left for garbage. He further stated he was opposed to any restrictions on auctions. He claimed he did not know of any out-of-door auctions held in Fayetteville on a repeat basis. He stated he would like to address the Commission should they have another meeting on this matter. Ms. Little asked if there were any number of garage sales which Mr. Caudle felt would be reasonable. Mr. Caudle stated he believed it should be looked at whether it was a commercial venture. Ms. Little agreed. She asked how many garage sales could someone have without it being a business. Mr. Caudle stated he did not believe they could set a number. He explained the key was whether people were bringing in merchandise that they purchased elsewhere. Ms. Little explained that would be impossible for the city to enforce. Mr. Nickle stated he believed it would discourage people from having garage sales should they have to go to the city administration building to get the permit. He stated he liked the idea of being able to call in and get a number. Mr. Caudle stated he had served on the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment in Garland, Texas and they had passed a garage sale ordinance that had been a total fiasco. He explained the citizens would not honor the ordinance and the fines collected did not cover the enforcement of the ordinance. He 4C. o • • Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Page 13 recommended a fine of $3.00 for one uncollected sign, $7.00 or $10.00 for the second sign, etc. Mr. Stewart agreed that a lot of people held garage sales because they had no money and a $5.00 fee would be hard for these people. Mr. Allred stated he believed they needed to regulate the flea markets because those were commercial ventures. Ms. Little explained flea markets was the reason they originally looked at outdoor sales activities. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding people in residential areas that abused the privilege of garage sales. She stated she believed there needed to be a set number of garage sales that were allowed -- perhaps four a year and the applicant could call in and get a number. She explained permits would not have to be printed, there would be no collection of fees. She also suggested that if an off-site sign was still out 24 hours after the sale the city could assess a $25.00 fine. Mr. Allred stated he rarely received calls from citizens regarding action by the Planning Commission but he had received calls from citizens concerned that the city doing further regulation. Mr. Pummill concurred with Ms. Britton regarding professional garage sales but stated he detested regulations. He further stated he believed the flea market situation had to be controlled but he believed some other code could be used. He stated they could not create regulations that were all encompassing, taking in everybody to take care of a few problems. Ms. Little suggested staff should look to see what could be done to regulate flea markets and outdoor sales activity, continue to include garage sales but allow a maximum of four per year with a call-in permit and no fee. Mr. Nickle stated that, if someone had been having excessive sales, staff could review the record and so notify the person. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. It/