HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-527
CityClerk
From:Thomas Brown <tbrownii@icloud.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 12, 2024 10:20 AM
To:Wiederkehr, Mike; Moore, Sarah; Berna, Scott; Bunch, Sarah; Turk, Teresa; Hertzberg,
Holly; Stafford, Bob; Jones, D'Andre
Cc:CityClerk; Curth, Jonathan; Bostick, Britin
Subject:October 8th letter from Robert K. Rhoads regarding Mathias Properties and 71B
Rezoning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
City Council Representatives
I was not shocked to see this particular property owner attempt to pressure the City with their claims of being injured by
the City’s efforts to implement City Plan 2040’s Growth Concept Map and the 71B Corridor Plan. This reaction is due to
my understanding that they are currently attempting to secure more money from the City in the negotiations to acquire
street right-of-way on their property in the Fiesta Square area.
The Lawyer for the property owner made several hyperbolic statements including:
“The rezoning eliminates a number of commercial uses.”
Based on my data it eliminates only Use Unit 33 (Adult live entertainment club or bar) and 38 (Mini-storage
units).
Use Units 17 (Transportation trades and services), 18 (Gasoline service stations and drive-in/drive-through
restaurants), 20 (Commercial recreation, large sites) and 44 (Cluster Housing Development) are permitted with
approved conditions.
Additionally, the proposed rezoning will permit Use Units 10 (Three and four family dwellings), 24 (Home
occupation) and 26 (Multi-family dwellings). Including allowing Use Units 8 (Single-family dwellings) and 9 (Two-
family dwellings) with approved conditions.
“These commercial uses are vital and necessary in Mathias' businesses”.
Realistically, based on the current lack of user traffic at the existing Adult live entertainment clubs in the Corridor
the Property Owner should not expect to prove that they would loose 20% of their current property value by not
being allowed to redevelop their existing Grocery Store or other retail stores or vacant retail properties as a Use
Unit 33 establishment.
Based on the lack of existing mini storage units located in Corridor Shopping Centers the Property Owner should
not expect to prove that they would loose 20% of their current property value by not being permitted to
redevelop their existing Grocery Store or other retail stores or vacant retail properties as a Use Unit 38
establishment. In fact, integrating a mini Storage Unit in their Shopping Center property without negatively
impacting adjacent uses would be an almost prohibitive design challenge.
1
Historically there is nothing about our Conditional Use Regulations that are overly excessive or restrictive that
would deter a reputable developer. Therefore, the property owner should not expect to prove that they would
loose 20% of their current property value by redeveloping their existing Grocery Store or other retail stores or
vacant retail properties as a Use Unit 17 or 18 or 20 or 44 establishment with approved conditions.
While the property owner should expect to gain more in property value by adding the new available Use Units 10
(Three and four family dwellings), 24 (Home occupation) and 26 (Multi-family dwellings). They should also expect
to gain in property value by adding Use Unit 8 (Single-family dwellings) and 9 (Two-family dwellings) with
approved conditions.
“The zoning changes in question will result in a significant decline in the fair market value of several
businesses and properties within the affected areas, including, but not limited to, properties owned by Mr.
Mathias.”
First, the property owner should speak only for themselves and the significant decline in property value
is debatable base on the statements above.
“These actions violate the Arkansas Private Property Protection Act, Ark. Code. Ann. $ 18-15-1701 et. seq,
which provide protection against govemment actions that result in the diminution of private property value
without just compensation.”
This statement, from a practical perspective, is debatable based on the comments above.
We should appreciate the City Attorney’s effort to point out the potential legal risks from the City’s proposed rezoning,
but we should also expect his office to successfully defend the City against questionable litigation like the one
threatened by the property owner discussed above. The City has to be able to implement its lawfully developed and
adopted Plans, Goals and Objectives.
Thomas Brown
2