Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 8, 1992 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Chuck Nickles Kenneth Pummill J. E. Springborn, Joe Tarvin, Jett Cato, and Jerry Allred Jack Cleghorn Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 26, 1992 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-19 DR. LUKE KNOX & DR. CYNTHIA KNOX - NE CORNER OF JOYCE & OLD MISSOURI RD The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R92-19 or property located at the northeast corner of Joyce and Old Missouri Road, presented by Dr. Luke Knox and Dr. Cynthia Knox. The request is to rezone 3.67 acres from A-1, Agriculture, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Bunn stated Ms. Little had recommended approval of the rezoning with concerns that the zoning application did not address the entire tract owned by Dr. Knox. He further stated that Joyce Street was planned to be four -lanes, originally in 1993 and 1994, but would probably now be at least one year later. Dr. Luke Knox appeared before the Commission and requested consideration of rezoning the property. He explained there was a golf course and club house immediately across the street from the subject property, a church within a few hundred yards (on Joyce Street). He also pointed out there were multiple office buildings, a large retirement community and multiple apartment complexes, duplexes and a new housing subdivision the vicinity. He further explained the reason for the rezoning was to place a small convenience store on the subject property. He stated it was currently necessary to travel several miles to a grocery store. He noted this would offer significant service to the surrounding community and act as a convenience center. Dr. Knox also foresaw the widening of Joyce Street and a stop light at the intersection of Old Missouri Road and Joyce Street as well as the intersection of Joyce and Highway 265. He also noted he had many letters of support from surrounding landowners in agreement with his current plans. He further stated his plans were for an aesthetically pleasing structure. He noted it would behoove his interest to maintain the quality of building and landscaping since he also owned adjoining property. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Dr. Knox stated he was still in the planning stage on the structure and did not yet know how large of a building would be erected. Ms. Britton stated she did not understand why 3.67 acres was needed for just a convenience store. TO • • • Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Page 2 Dr. Knox stated they had kept in mind that Joyce Street would be expanded to four lanes with the existing right-of-way. He also pointed out they would need parking for the convenience store. Ms. Arlene L. Hudson, an adjoining property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated the entire block was residential. She expressed concern that a liquor store or laundromat might go in on the corner. She stated a church or professional offices would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. Dr. Knox stated he did want to keep the corner aesthetically pleasing. He further stated he wanted to keep the area as a nice community. In response to a question from Ms. Hudson, Dr. Knox stated he had moved down the street approximately one mile. Ms. Polly Baker stated there was a church within 200 feet of the subject property which would not allow, by city code and state statute, the operation of a liquor store. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Bunn stated the adjoining property owners had been notified. Ms. Britton stated she believed the site was an appropriate place for neighborhood commercial. She noted the Vision Project had brought out there needed to be more neighborhood commercial opportunities. She did, however, express concern regarding the sightline of the subject property. She explained that in approaching the property from the east there was a crest a hill (with a sign stating "Dangerous Intersection") and from the north there was also a crest of a hill plus a curve. She expressed her opinion that, at this time, this was not a good rezoning. She suggested after Joyce Street was widened it would be more appropriate. Mr. Tarvin stated he was surprised that more property owners were not present. He stated Old Missouri Road was a division point between the R-1 zoning and the R-0, R-2, etc. zoning. He agreed both Joyce and Old Missouri would be major streets. He further stated his initial reaction was that the rezoning would be an encroachment into the residential area. Mr. Allred pointed out in the last year there had been a number of apartments and single family homes developed in that area and those people needed neighborhood shopping. He stated the Visions Project had determined the desire for more neighborhood shopping areas. He noted this rezoning fitted with the request by the residents of the community. He agreed with Mr. Tarvin that should the property be rezoned, this should be the last commercial property to the east on Joyce. He.stated if they were not going to use the guidelines of the Vision Statement, they should scrape it. He further stated there were some problems such as sight distance that he believed would be taken care of when Joyce was widened. Mr. Allred pointed out the safety aspect of the rezoning was their responsibility but the feasibility was not within their purview. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to grant the rezoning. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Ms. Britton stated she believed one of the other corners would be better for safety reasons. • Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Springburn agreed with Me. Britton and stated he also supported the view of Mr. Tarvin. The motion passed 6-2-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Allred, Suchecki, Pummill, Cato and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Springborn voting "no". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING 92-20 WESTERN HILLS VENTURE - S OF WEST 6TH, W OF SHILOH DR The next item was a public hearing on rezoning 92-20 for property located south of West 6th Street, west of Shiloh Drive, presented by Tom Hopper on behalf of Western Hills Venture, to rezone 1.44 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bunn explained the property was currently used as a mobile home park. He stated the property to both the north and east were zoned commercial, with the subject property located within a larger tract of R-2. He further stated the petitioners also owned a tract to the north and adjoining the subject property which they planned to develop concurrently. He noted the northern parcel had frontage on Highway 62. Mr. Bunn stated staff had recommended to approve the rezoning to C-2. Tom Hopper explained Western Hills Venture was in the process of selling the subject property to an individual who wished to develop the property commercially. • Ms. Britton asked what would happen to the remainder of the mobile home park. • Mr. Hopper stated it would remain as a mobile home park. He explained that, when the large scale development was submitted, there would be some fencing and separation between the two developments. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Hopper stated they were planning on constructing a motel on the property. Ms. Britton asked if all of the property owners in the trailer park had been advised of the rezoning request. Ms. Langley stated the property owners were notified. She explained many of the residents rented either space to park their mobile home or rented mobile homes. Mr. Hopper stated the majority people affected were aware of the rezoning request. Ms. Britton asked if the frontage property also fronted on Shiloh. Mr. Hopper explained the property fronted on Highway 62 and the access road into Rolling Hills Park but did not front on Shiloh. He noted the access road would not be a part of the subject development however an agreement for access would be worked out. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Hopper explained that the access had not been determined at this time but would be worked out at the time of submittal of the large scale. Mr. Allred stated he was thinking in terms of future maintenance - whether it would be the responsibility of the city or the developer. 1z • • • Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Nickle asked if there would be any people displaced. Mr. Hopper stated there were some trailers involved in the rezoning area. He further stated the owners of the mobile home park were in the process of working out the relocation. Me. Britton stated she would prefer they had access to the road Mr. Hopper stated there was an agreement that access would be available. Ms. Britton stated she was not talking about the road into the mobile home park but access to Shiloh. Mr. Hopper stated he would look into that. Thomas Mathias, a resident of the mobile home park, appeared before the Commission and asked if there was a need for the motel. He pointed out there was a Park Inn motel adjoining the property. He noted they had previously had trees to block out the noise from the highway but after the Park Inn was built those trees were gone and they now had the noise. He further stated the owners of the park had offered to relocate the trailers but he wanted to be sure there was a need for another motel. He pointed out there was a Holiday Express just up the road, another new motel was being built, and the Park Inn all within the same area. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Mathias stated he owned a mobile home and rented space in the mobile home park. He further stated his mobile home was located in the area being considered for rezoning. Mr. 0. A. Cook, an adjoining property owner, asked which portion of the mobile home park was under consideration. Mr. Nickle stated it appeared to be the northeast corner of the mobile home park. Mr. Cook stated that, if they were going access road would have to be a public objections to the rezoning but believed area. to construct a motel, it appeared the road. He further stated he had no there was a flooding problem in that Mr. Nickle noted there was nothing that would require the roadway to have public access. He further stated he did not believe the city would want to take it for maintenance. Mr. Ed Faust, a resident of the mobile home park, stated he was neither for nor against the rezoning. He expressed concern that he was in the middle of the transaction and had been told his mobile home would be relocated at no cost to him. He explained he wanted to be sure such relocation costs would be paid. Mr. Dennis Cameron, a resident of the mobile home park, appeared before the Commission and explained that approximately 15 mobile homes and 40 people would be affected. He further explained the park owners had acquiesced on a conditional basis to sell the property. He stated the conditions were that all the costs of moving the mobile homes would be paid by either the buyer or seller and that no cost would be incurred to the home owners. He stated the residents were just asking for reassurances that the promises being made to the mobile home owners that the expenses incurred would be paid would be upheld. He stated he would be for the rezoning only if those promises were kept. He further expressed his personal opinion that a motel was not an efficient enterprise for the property. He stated he would rather see some other type of business enterprise on the subject property. He pointed out all the other motels in the area. 9 / Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Allred asked if the city had any jurisdiction to enforce such an agreement described by the previous speaker. Mr. Bunn stated he did not believe the city could enforce such an agreement. He stated he did not know if it could become a condition of the rezoning. He explained a large scale development would come before the Planning Commission and it was possible that such an agreement could be a condition of the large scale development. He told Mr. Cameron he had the right to come before the Planning Commission again when the large scale development was considered. Mr. Cameron noted it was stated on the record that the promises had been made to the mobile home owners and assurances had been given to them. Mr. Hopper explained that relocation of the residents and their homes was part of the sales contract between the buyer and seller. He noted the buyer would be paying the relocation costs. Ms. Britton stated she would feel better in more than one direction. She pointed in and out of the subject property since about the request if there was access out it would be difficult to maneuver it was so close to the intersection. Mr. Nickle expressed concern regarding the residents that would be relocated. He pointed out the property had been rezoned for a mobile home park and now the owner wanted to do something for his economic benefit which would result in displacing the residents. He stated he believed the owner had some responsibility since he had developed the mobile home park. He pointed out that should the buyer and seller not honor their contract, the residents would be "left out in the cold". Mr. Cato stated it appeared the buyer and seller had worked out arrangements that were satisfactory to the residents of the subject mobile homes. He expressed his opinion that the buyer and seller were being thoughtful in their approach rather than just trying to evict the residents, they were willing to pay the relocation expenses. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the rezoning. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Mr. Allred concurred with Mr. Cato. He pointed out the subject property was rental property and with a 30 day notice the residents could be asked to move their mobile home. He also noted the subject property had been for sale for quite some time and had been in transition for 3 or 4 years. Ms. Britton noted she was not only concerned about the residents being relocated but also about the residents that would be left in the mobile home park. She pointed out she did not believe it would be a very desirable neighborhood with a motel located there. She expressed her belief the residents had to be considered. The motion passed 5-3-0 with Commissioners Allred, Suchecki, Pummill, Cato and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton, Springborn and Nickle voting "no". LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - WILLIAMS CENTER, INC. JIM MEINECRE - E SIDE OF CROSSOVER, S OF OLD WIRE The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development for the Williams Center presented by Jim Meinecke for property located on the east side op( • • • Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Page 6 of Crossover Road, south of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office, and contains 1 acre. Mr. Bunn stated the large scale development consisted of a proposed dance and gymnastic center. He explained the Plat Review discussion centered around the accessibility of sewer to the site. He noted sewer did not appear to directly access the site but was some distance to the east. He further noted access would require crossing other property. Mr. Bunn also explained that, according to ordinance, an acre and a half was required for septic tanks, the applicant either needed to access an existing sewer line or obtain extra land to make the installation of the septic tank possible. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments; construction of sidewalks along Highway 265; and resolution of the sewer problem. He explained the Board of Directors did pass an ordinance which amended the 1.5 acre requirement to allow waivers under certain circumstances which included approval of the State Health Department. He noted the ordinance would not go into effect for another 30 to 45 days. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Meinecke explained the property was currently being serviced by a septic system. He further stated he had met with the property owner to the east of the subject property and a city employee regarding accessing the sewer line. He explained it appeared he would be accessing the sewer line. Mr. Meinecke explained that approximately 5 years ago he had decided to expand his business. He stated he originally had thought he would add on to the existing building and rezone the property. He noted he found that had not been feasible. He further stated that approximately 2 and 1/2 years ago he had rezoned the adjoining one acre to the south to construct another building. He also informed the Commission he had adequate room behind the existing building to construct the new building but he believed it would be more aesthetically pleasing to the area to construct on the lot to the south. Mr. James Remby, adjoining property owner, stated he was not speaking for or against the project but did want to make some comments and observations. He explained Mr. Meinecke was tripling the size of his usable space and appealed to Mr. Meinecke's judgment regarding the appearance of the building and landscaping. He also noted the old building would be sub -leased, which would cause an immediate increase in volume of approximately 25% or greater of the traffic in the area. He encouraged the City to not allow commercial development beyond Mr. Meinecke's project. Mr. Charles Pence, adjoining property owner, asked for the constraints in R -O zoning. Me. Langley explained R -O allowed residences and professional offices. Mr. Pence explained there was a serious traffic problem in the area. He suggested a traffic light at Old Wire Road and Highway 265. He recalled two serious accidents at that intersection. Mr. Bunn explained the Highway Department controlled issuance of permits for traffic lights. He further explained the city requested, on a periodic basis that the state look at various intersections and determine whether traffic lights were warranted. He stated they generally did not issue permits until certain criteria was met, including traffic count, number of vehicles turning, etc. He 9c Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Page 7 further stated the city had requested the state look at the intersection in question but as yet had not met the criteria for signaling. Mr. Pence asked Mr. Meinecke if he was still planning on planting pine trees to the north of the building. Mr. Meinecke stated he had already planted over 100 trees and planned to continue such plantings. He further stated he was planning a curved drive on the north side of the building so he would keep an area clear for the driveway. Mr. Bunn stated the uses allowed in R -O zoning by right included city-wide uses, government facilities, single family and two-family dwellings, offices (which included advertising agencies, artist studio, barber shops, beauty shops - with 6 or fewer chairs, computing service, data processing service, drafting service, dental clinic, financial institutions, funeral homes, medical clinic, office building, special welfare agencies, studios for teaching the fine arts, sale of supplies and equipment such as architect and artists supplies, business machines, dental supplies, medical and optical supplies, office furnishings, scientific instruments, services such as auto parking garage, blueprinting, employment agency, photocopying, printing, postal service, etc. Mr. Meinecke also reminded the Commission that he had signed a Bill of Assurance that limited the use of the property. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - BAYLEY TOWNHOUSES KIRBY ESTES - NW CORNER OF MELMAR 6 LEVERETT The next item was a request for approval of a Large Scale Development for Bayley Townhouses presented by Kirby Estes for property located on the northwest corner of Melmar and Leverett. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the development consisted of 51 units located on approximately 5 acres. He stated all utilities appeared to be readily available to the site. He further stated the Subdivision Committee did not have any significant comments and recommended the large scale development for approval. Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of grading and drainage plans; dedication of all utility easements by separate instrument; construction of sidewalks; and payment of parks fees. Mr. Estes explained Mr. Bayley, owner of the property, was planning on constructing an aesthetically pleasing project. He also noted they would preserve as much of the vegetation as possible. Ms. Britton noted they had received a letter concerning drainage problems on another large scale development in the same area. She stated the area would be further impacted with three large scale developments in the same vicinity. Mr. Nickle asked Mr. Estes if he was aware of a letter received from Z. L. and Nary Thomas concerning drainage problems in the area. He stated one of the q6 Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Page 8 recommendations from staff was that the City Engineer had to approve grading and drainage plans. Me. Britton noted the Thomases stated there was already a drainage problem and they objected to additional development in the area. She requested that the City Engineer closely scrutinize the drainage plan. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Estes explained there was a drainage swale located at the northeast corner of the property to which run-off naturally drained. He stated they would be sure the drainage continued in that direction. He further noted they would use fill to create a building pad. Mr. Nickle stated the Commission was aware that additional development would cause additional drainage. He further stated they relied on the City Engineer to be sure the grading and drainage plans were developed to his approval. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments, in particular the grading and drainage plans. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CRAFTON PLACE JIM LINDSEY - E OF GARLAND, N OF MELMAR DR. The next item was a large scale development for Crafton Place, presented by Tom Hopper on behalf of Jim Lindsey, for property located east of Garland, north of Melmar Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Bunn stated the development was on 3.57 acres and had originally contained 96 units, making a density of 27 units per acre. He noted the limit on density for an R-2 zone was 24 units per acre. He explained that, since the report had been written, one of the units had been deleted to bring the density to within the 24 units per acre. Mr. Bunn further stated there were no significant comments at plat review meeting or subdivision committee meeting. He stated this was the development directly addressed by the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading plan and drainage plan; execution of all required easements by separate instrument; payment of parks fees; and construction of sidewalks. Tom Hopper presented the revised plat to the Commission. He explained it had been their original intent to make this development an extension of Bradford Place which would have allowed the 96 units. He further explained that, once they were aware of the problem, they deleted Unit H from the original plan leaving 84 units. He stated he was in agreement with the requirements set out by the city engineer. He also agreed they needed to closely scrutinize the drainage from the subject site. Mr. Hopper further explained that 10 years ago when Bradford Place was originally constructed the plan was to construct Ernie Jacks Blvd; however, the development was never completed and the street was not constructed. He stated they now proposed to construct Ernie Jacks Blvd. to city standards from Garland east 660 feet. He pointed out this would allow two accesses into the complex. 97 • • • Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Page 9 Mr. Hopper also stated they would take care of the "swamp" areas referred to by the Thomases and hopefully, all of the other drainage problems. He stated they would attempt to take the run-off to the west. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Hopper explained they were working with the property owners of Bradford Place to allow the pond to be developed as a "wet" pond to increase the detention. Mr. Cato asked the status of the paving of Ernie Jacks Boulevard. Mr. Bunn explained the street would be constructed by the developer. Mr. Marlin Mayes, an adjacent property owner, and concurred with the Thomases regarding the drainage problem. Mr. Nickle explained the City Engineer would be looking at the drainage plan for the development. He pointed out Mr. Hopper had expressed hope the situation would be improved over what it was presently. NOTION Mr. Allred move to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. FINAL PLAT - NORTHWEST ACRES ESTATES JAMES MOORE - N OF WEDINGTON OFF CARLESBAD TRACE The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Northwest Acres Estates presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of James Moore for property located north of Wedington Road, off Carlesbad Trace. The property contains 4.72 acres with 16 proposed lots and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments by any of the representatives of the public utility companies other than an additional easement being request. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; execution of a contract between the developer and the city for the unfinished improvements, including street lighting and the installation of a permanent cul-de-sac at a later date; construction of sidewalks; and payment of park fees. Me. Britton asked if the cul-de-sac was not installed by the developer, could the City construct it and then charge it to the builder. Mr. Bunn stated they had not worked out the wording but there would be some guarantee that it would be constructed at some time in the future. Mr. Jorgensen stated he was in agreement with all of the staff comments. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • 98 • • Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Page 10 FINAL PLAT - CROSSOVER HEIGHTS BILL & DICK KEATING - E OF CROSSOVER, S OF MISSION The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Crossover Heights presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bill and Dick Keating for property located east of Crossover and south of Mission. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 12.07 acres with 44 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments from any of the utility representatives at the plat review meeting; however, the street superintendent had pointed out some drainage that may not have been taken into consideration by the engineer in the development of the drainage plan. He further stated the subdivision committee had recommended approval of the plat. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; execution of a contract with the city on the unfinished improvements, including the streetlights and the construction of a cul-de-sac at some time in the future if development to the north does not occur; construction of sidewalks; payment of parks fees; and review of the possible drainage problem as pointed out by the street superintendent and resolution of that problem. Mr. Jorgensen stated he was in agreement with the staff comments and had contacted the street superintendent regarding the drainage problem. He noted they were in the process of solving that problem. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments and staff comments. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 CARMELLA MONTHS - 2850 OLD WIRE ROAD The next item was a request for a lot split of property located at 2850 Old Wire Road by Curtis Wray on behalf of Carmella Montez. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and A-1, Agricultural. Mr. Bunn stated the total amount of property was 8.57 acres and the parcel proposed to be split off (Tract B) was 1.26 acres. He further stated Tract B conformed in all respects to the zoning ordinance and would be a legal sized lot for R-1 zoning; however, the existing house on Tract B was on septic tank and any split of property would have to conform to the ordinance requirement of at least 1.5 acres. He noted all other utilities appeared to be available to both sites. Mr. Bunn recommended the split be approved subject to either altering the lot size of Tract B to conform with the 1.5 acre minimum size or obtaining a variance from the size requirement as provided by ordinance. He noted the Board had passed an ordinance regarding the 1.5 acre minimum size but that ordinance did not go into effect for 30 to 45 days after adoption. Mr. Wray explained Tract A was for sale and they did have a contract on the tract at the present time. He further noted they would have to request a waiver on the minimum lot size. Mr. Allred asked if it was feasible to connect to the city sewer. • • • Planning Commission June -8, 1992 Page 11 Mr. Bunn explained Tract B was not adjacent to a sewer line. Mr. Allred pointed out that any developments on the property would have to tie into a sewer. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Wray stated he believed there would be a large scale development before the Planning Commission on Tract A in the near future. Ms. Britton suggested that with the sale of Tract A Mr. Wray should make sure there would be access for sewer to Tract B. Mr. Wray stated he believed sewer would eventually be available to Tract B. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn stated there was an ordinance that a property had to hook up to a sewer line if it was within 200 feet if access was available. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to grant the lot split subject to staff comments and recommendations. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. GARAGE SALE ORDINANCE Mr. Nickle stated the Commissioners had a copy of the proposed garage sale ordinance. Mr. Bunn stated Ms. Little had indicated the comments given at a previous meeting on the garage sale ordinance had been incorporated into the proposed ordinance including: (1) no charge for permit; (2) a permit may be acquired by calling the Planning Division; (3) signs may be posted, provided they are removed following the sale; and (4) provision for "rain dates" had been built into the ordinance. Me. Britton stated it was difficult to discuss the ordinance without Ms. Little being present. Mr. Nickle agreed. He asked if the Commission desired to give further comments or if they wanted to take action. Mr. Allred suggested giving further comments and then vote on it at the next meeting. Mr. Springborn stated he was fearful they would then end up with two sessions of comments. He further stated he believed the item should be tabled until Ms. Little was present. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to table the garage sale ordinance. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ‚Go • Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Page 12 VISIONS REPORT Mr. Nickle stated all of the Commissioners had a copy of the report. He further stated he had not had time to review the entire document. He explained that, with'Ms. Little not being present, he would prefer to table this item. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to table the Visions Report. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. /01