HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4874 Doc ID : 009992790005 Tvoe : REL
Recorded : 05/23/2006 at 11 : 28 : 37 AM
Fee Amt : $20 . 00 Pace 1 of 5
Washincton Countv . AR
Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk
File200640020805
ORDINANCE NO* 4874
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.28
ACRES, LOCATED AT 1242 NORTH GARLAND AVENUE,
FROM C- 1 , NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO C-2,
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
From C-1 , Neighborhood Commercial to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial, as shown on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is
hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
Section 3 : That this zoning change is made subject to the attached Bill of Assurance.
%FtYJTR�SG�
PASSED and APPROVED this 16w day of May, 2006. ;��:• \� Y pF .• pF;
; FAYETfEVILLE '
APPROVED: ATTEST: %9sy9RKANSPa `
°414 I s11 coy`
By: LBy:
DAN CO DY, May SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO-WIT: BEGINNING
AT A POINT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF GARLAND AVENUE THAT IS SOUTH 585.00'
AND S89048' 54"E 25 .22' FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE
TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE S89048' 54"E 120.00' , THENCE SOUTH 100.001
,
THENCE N89048154"W 121 .02' TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OF GARLAND AVENUE,
THENCE N00°35 ' 14"E 100.00' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.28
ACRES, MORE OR LESS . SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF
RECORD, IF ANY.
Bill of Assurance -
Page 7
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning
reclassification, the owner(sl developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter
" Petitioners") hereby voluntarily offer this Bill of
Assurance and nter into thiV binding agreement and contract with the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The Petitioners expressly grant to the City of Fayetteville the right to
enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/
Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioners or Petitioners'
heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial
irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens
and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, The Petitioners acknowledge that the
Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will
reasonably rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of
Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioners' rezoning request.
Petitioners hereby voluntarily offer assurances that Petitioners and
Petitioners' property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioners' rezoning is
approved by the Fayetteville City Council.
1 . The use of Petitioners' property described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto shall be limited to those uses permitted by right and by conditional
use in the C-2 zoning district, with the exception of the following:
Permitted uses to be excluded:
Unit 33: Adult live entertainment club or bar
Conditional uses to be excluded:
Unit 32: Sexually oriented business
2. Petitioners specifically agree that all such restrictions and terms shall
run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically
released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of
Assurance shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit
Clerk's Office after Petitioners' rezoning is effective and shall be noted on
any Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of
Petitioners' property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF anda eement ith all the terms and
conditions stated above, we, as the owners,
developers or buyers (Petitioners) Vjluntarily off r al such assurances and sign
our names below.
Bill of Assurance
Page 2
IN(
Date Pri ted Name
tiea Awo� 0
A ess
i ature / �
N �1 /G( It �oLl SQ7Aj
Date Printed Name
NIA
Address
Signature
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS }
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON }
And�no� �w on this the day of 2006, appeared before
me, 'J91^tl l d lj - A/fi N� and after
being placed upon his/ her oath swore or affirmed that he agreed with the terms
of the above Bill of Assurance and signed his name above.
NOTARY PUBLIC
a-
M Commission Expires: ``�� W NnR�1�i
Y P o O d ()l vSP��Psiori �Z3q�J!,�
<° t10TAR
Y
EXHIBIT "A"
A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO-WIT: BEGINNING
AT A POINT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF GARLAND AVENUE THAT IS SOUTH 585 .007
AND S89048' 54"E 25.22 ' FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE
TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE S89048154"E 120.009, THENCE SOUTH 100.00' ,
THENCE N89048154"W 121 .02' TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OF GARLAND AVENUE,
THENCE NOO035' 14"E 100.00' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.28
ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF
RECORD, IF ANY.
Washington County, AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
05/23/2008 11 :28:37 AM
� :and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2008-00020 05
Bette stamps - Circuit CI
by
D� l�
ALDERMAN AGENDA REQUEST FORM
FOR: COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 16, 2006
FROM: KYLE COOK
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TITLE AND SUBJECT:
Spirits Shop Liquor Store - DonaId Johnston
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
REZONING PETITION RZN 06-2081 FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.28
ACRES, LOCATED AT 2242 NORTH GARLAND AVENUE, FROM C-1,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO C-2, THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL.
APPROVED FOR AGENDA:
Alderman Date
os . o$_ t�Qc,
J em P t Date
ector f urrent Planning
T t
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2006
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: _ Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations {�
Prom: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning0
Date: May 5, 2006
Subject: Rezoning for 1242 North Garland Avenue (Spirits Store Liquor Shop)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of the rezoning from C-1 , Neighborhood
Commercial to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, in accordance with the decision of the
Circuit Court.
BACKGROUND
The subject property, contains approximately 0.28 acres. The property is located at 1242
North Garland Avenue and contains the Spirits Shop Liquor Store. The City's zoning
map designates the property as C-1 , Neighborhood Commercial. In 1979 the current
property owner, Donald Johnston, applied to have the property rezoned from C-I to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial (see attached minutes). The City Board of Directors at that
time denied the rezoning request and the decision was appealed to the State of Arkansas
Circuit Court. The 13a' Chancery Circuit Court found in favor of the property owner to
rezone the property to C-2, overturning the City's decision to deny the rezoning.
However, research into City records indicate that an ordinance was not approved to
rezone the property accordingly, and the City' s official zoning map still shows the
property as C-1 _ The written decision from the Circuit Court is attached. The applicant
is applying for a building permit to construct improvements on the property, which will
expand the existing business, as well as add improvements to circulation, parking and
landscaping. Based on the current zoning in place, the Planning Division may not issue a
building permit to expand a liquor store in the C-1 zoning district. The request is to
change the zoning onthe site from C-1 to C-2 in accordance with the decision of the
Circuit Court in an expeditious manner, to complete the action as directed in 1975.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
r
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT
PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING
PETITION RZN 06-2081 FOR
APPROXIMATELY 0.28 ACRES, LOCATED AT
1242 NORTH GARLAND AVENUE, FROM C-1 ,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO C-2,
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
From C-1 , Neighborhood Commercial to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial, as shown on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is
hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section i above.
PASSED and APPROVED this day of J 2006.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
DAN GOODY, Mayor SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO-WIT: BEGINNING
AT A POINT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF GARLAND AVENUE THAT IS SOUTH 585.00'
AND S89048'54"E 25.22' FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE
TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE S89048254"E 120.001, THENCE SOUTH 100.00',
THENCE N89048'54"W 121 .02' TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OF GARLAND AVENUE,
THENCE N00035147E 100.00' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.28
ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF
RECORD, IF ANY.
i
t / v 'V. '.SL`s e�y �T�ei�.£zF.yd �i 'n ��b:.�.xxy i � e yz.�.� \ �4 S Maf=•�w'.�s t,�i _ S�` 1.�� S� � R _*�5 +7 �U .y,.
npvY`�*��, a+,,�i �+ r� ��•.ty� T. '�v. .2•`5e'e�e � @ #u o: '/i .idn_M �f-`� 4e u� < � �° .- Ha>45✓�` '` . : s �'"eM f }I u� T
>ti r- . " ` � � r�-y' •o 't t'w b�.. r''.. . . a � ; . - :c:=`.ts - -n a' = sx i .j .xcj. "' '' ,t -lt c
• .2�"�s >`,>:�fTy �'Qt fx's'+� t3'q�,�fw�� �r;sy����'� 2 �v}��"-s�_Sz >}{'ax- zi'n� 4� c 't?„+. v*�xa _ 'c �'C . "a..n
1" _�'S�"�__di;.,.'�.unv�s'?.c�rvl_s.c��:x��4,s._W .tTx...3�a� ._:cam. --�€�'...��.:� .,t�.Y�-,'='.•�,� ' _. .,. _..v Ns:.;.._�� v� �"ti
r
II
n
12.35
1 i
Y ALLJ
jr
1
LLJ
1
A •
,1 •
Vf
Fl 1
'n
x" /� • _ 1111 — � 'II ' 1 1 • 1 •
tl i 1 1 it l
® xF
KI< '� •-vl' e� - "� S2 i"Y f P til r + '- 4
�� � k � .,`� '�"--�'�'.x,`�'pl CWS�1Pi xLti�".J-;1�,� s'�' 'SIt-Irt' 7 y2•n�•�•
• S it .,,.Y'NJ eGYtz � :. `3y,S�`lt'. '�w 7{"L" ETL - SJ% F'i tt i �'
r' 1 � ^'� � v i s �r.Mrol>aUx£ r e csFe a�' P>✓
g 1 1 • / �„ r s ,a:''}- - ykzN.: v ry s '..`,'i"� tiviy ,
•
IN
Ito V)
• ' /
C3f� r 71 'xj rNY.
Y E"3 t..f f ggh `sl s +d
Vgo X
ou
x
ri• i It tr ,eh f ti `S ,✓•4 .S
L 4. J
. .i Y�Y
lz
cj
LL
f • 1 .
y 11
41.
�� { 3` �,;,%� by,� -i•#yX,}u �. T i / £ l3. - xa .SZ z ..1
j- y r 3 Edi k mow.
it'i `` 9 >,ir.G�& fr'=vi1 Imo . ♦ �,�, y '� rl.,'L � k P z1 xx'�Y� ;;. I cr.' _
l.'vn
' f c' F - ,1�' If
ill
Y GIO�q�'V�S 7v�e �a�Jxta- z. �s K'av 1h z,. ti �d�,. +�z4 f g ua ..�i ,'�' 1�`�A -( t 5��E5`p�5"•i fl �:�.+ b z
.r �s.�"����5� �ix'�w(+�x�,k� s ��x� rC .'f. �r?sv6.Sy+-'w•4x - ' - Y�' k a ZW RI E 4 �� �x+ y° �fi�t�c lea
3� ' .tart rl .e .1 e a / TA- yiY 1 e .p s `` i z �` 7`'� • Q y , it � '
I fa x+4.
c $s, `� It•ry5 v r/ � `� 71 . vo ,l -,f ; C Yt
.i,_'. '"] :p„ ? xw ,+,t'hE�n: a > s�$, a i Vz . ']f,.�-� '3 '•Ft'P' ._t 7 F., p`T�3 yr 5 t .r u S*a?'�" ' °•p 'i £ a` f
�
STATE OF ARKANSAS
THIRTEENTH .CHANCERY CIRCUIT
THOMAS F. BUTT. CNAMCCLLo R. AND •RoeATC JUDGE
FAYETTEVILIE. ARKANSAS 72701
September 17 , 1975
Charles N . Williams , Esq .
Attorney at Law
112 S . East
Fayetteville , Ark , 72701
James N . McCord , Esq .
Attorney at Law
14 E . Center
Fayetteville , Ark . 72701
Re : Donald W . Johnston v .
City of Fayetteville
E- 75-492
Gentlemen :
I have reviewed the trial record in this case and by this .. .
informal, letter opinion inform you of my decision .
r
Plaintiff owns a 100 ' x 12 ' lot on the east side of Garland
Avenue ( State highway 112 ) in Fayetteville . The 100 ' dimension
fronts on Garland and has a single-family dwelling house thereon .
Since February , 1974 , the lot has been zoned C - 1 ( neighborhood
commercial ) , Plaintiff seeks rezoning from , C - 1 to C - 2
( thoroughfare commercial ). and hi4 application to re- zone recites
his intent . to lease the 'property for operation of a retail liquor
store .
The planning report ' ( plf . Ex . # 3 ) submitted by Larry Wood ,
contract consultant to defendant on city planning , recommended to
the City Planning Commission. the requested re-zoning to' C - 2 .
The. Planning Commission , at a hearing on April 8 , 1975 , by vote
of "aye " and . l - "abstain° , recommendedthe re-zoning .
On April 15 , 1975 , defendant ' s Board of Directors , after a
hearing , vot.ed, 7 -_ 0 against the re-zoning . Following that action ,
this suit was filed . on May 30 ; 1975 , to obtain reversal of the
Board ',s action on the grounds that the defendant ' s action was
arbitrary and capricious and deprived plaintiff his lawful use of
property without due process of law .
The evidential record reflects that plaintiff ' s lot is abutted
on the North by residential property ( also owned by plaintiff )
zoned R - 0 ( residential-office ) . This lot fronts on Garland
approximately 120 feet . North of this lot is Holly Street , and
Charles Williams:, . Esq : ._
James N . McCord, Esq . -2- September 17 , 1975
JUDGE THOMAS F. BUTT FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
North of Holly Street for at least a quarter mile or more , the
zoning is R - 2 (medium density residential ) .
East , South and West ( across Garland Avenue ) of plaintiff ' s
lot , adjoining properties are zoned C 1 . The most prominent
physical and zoning feature within the whole C - 1 area is the
Oak Plaza Shopping Center , located Southeast of plaintiff ' s lot
and .within the obtuse angle formed by Garland Avenue and East
Mt . Comfort Road .
In terms. of business use , the areas sequentially adjacent
to. plaintiff ' s lots are : To the South, a " convenience " grocery
store , a service station and part of the parking lot of Oak Plaza .
To the East , a- former residence now used by , an insurance agency .
To the Southeast , the .Oak Plaza . Center , containing a grocery
supermarket , a drug store , a Ben Franklin Store , a laundry , a
Bridal ( dress) . Shop . Further South and a bit East , across . East
Mt . Comfort Road , a : service station. and two restaurants ., West ,
across Garland Avenue are a flower shop , service .station and a
laundry . Southwest across Garland Avenue is a nearly completed
branch bank drive -in facility .
Larry Wood ,testif.ied for plaintiff , and in support of his
. . recommendation to Planning Commission , that plaintiff ' s lot is
. within an established business district that has -been such since
. 1966 , and that.. the present C - 1 area has become. auch since
-ear,.lier .years as an expanding commercial and business activity is
area . In his opinion , to re-zone plaintiff ' s lot would not
constitute " spot " zoning because projected and permissible uses
thereof would be compatible with adjacent areas of use ; that
the lot to North of .plaintiff , zoned R - O ; and Holly Street,
together , form an. adequate and recognized buffer zone between
plaintiff and the wholly residential area North of Holly , Street .
He concedes that to re-zone , plaintiff could lead to re-zoning ,
of . entire shopping center to C - 21 but that such would create
no adverse effects on surrounding areas . Permitted uses as
generally and specifically listed in . Ordinance 1747 , both in
C - L and. 0 - 2 , do not exclude .retail , liquor stores ; but the
small lot size would preclude some uses authorized for both C - 1
and C - 2 .
James . Vizzier. , consulting planner. for "defendant City testified
he thought C .- 2 for. plaintiff ' s lot would be incompatible with
C - 1 , and that such would be "spot " zoning.
Otherwitnesses , including experienced realtors and the
original developer of Oak Plaza , testified both for and against
plaintiff . Their testimonies , generally , support Wood ' s. opinions
i
Charles N. Williams, Esq.
James M. McCord, Esq. -3-
JUDGE THOMAS F. BUTT
September 17, 1975
FAYETTEVI4l_E. ARKANSA=
and conclusions, where called by plaintiff; and differ with
Wood,.where called._by defendant, in saying that the zoning
should remain a - 1. None of these testimonies. contains the
detail of.explanation and rationale of zoning principles as
applied to this case, that Wood's testimony does. All agree
that plaintiff's lot is suitable for C - 2 zoning. and uses
.(excepting uses requiring largerlandarea than the lot.affords)
but. that itis equally suitable for C - 1 uses..
The original developer of Oak Plaza Center .procured the
initial C. - 1 zoning of the..area. He testified for defendant;
and said. he was against having a liquor store in the area, and
was- informally committed to help retain the C - 1 zoning. The
evidence.does not show that any material change in value of
this.. particular lot, nor of surrounding property in general
would result from re -zoning.
Both Garland Avenue (State 112), running North —South,
and North Street - Mt. Comfort roads, running East - West are
designatedon the City's major street plan as major.arterial...
traffic conduits. Reference to zoning ordinance 1747 defines
a district C - 1 zone as "The neighborhood commercial district..
designed primarily to provide convenience goods and personal
services for persons living in surrounding residential areas".
District C -.2 is defined as "The thoroughfare commercial
district., designed especially to encourage the.functional
grouping of these (sic) (those?) commercial enterprises catering
primarily to highway travelers".
These definitions are not much help in: drawing lines of
demarcation between uses permitted or encouraged in C - 2, but
restricted or prohibited in C - 1. Objectively, how can one
distinguish between a grocery supermarket and a retail liquor
store, calling the one. a provider of."convenience goods".and:
the other not so?
Minutes of the Board are. revealing. A resident, living
at. 1633 N. Garland Avenue (thus, presumptively four blocks:
North of. plaintiff's lot, 1245 N. Garland) opposed the re -zoning
because he felt a liquor store would be undesirable in a primarily
residential area. A spokesman for the University of Arkansas
opposed, citing "a local agreement made several years.ago whereby
no liquor outlets would be located West of the railroad:tracks".
He also referred to recent legislation prohibiting liquor stores
within 600 feet of churches., or schools., and stated that the
University did not wish to become surrounded by liquor., stores.
just outside the boundary.
Larles N. Williams,. Esq.
James M. McCord, Esq. -4- September 17, 1975
FAYETTEVILLE4 ARKANSAS
JUDGE THOMAS F. BUTT
• The superintendent of the Washington -Madison Baptist
• Association opposed because the Association office is within
600 feet of plaintiff's lot and the proposed liquor store.
Persons favoring the re -zoning cited the distance people
in the area must drive to buy liquor and that a more convenient
location would be practical; that it were better to have an
outlet nearby than to imbibe while returning home from a distant
purchase point. Correspondence from Arkansas Beverage Control
Commission was presented, stating in substance that the Commission
was not familiar with any agreement concerning location of liquor
stores west of the railroad tracks and that such an agreement
should have no bearing on approval `of the location on Garland
Street.
One Director stated he felt no valid reason had been presented
for rejection of the re -zoning other than that it would allow a
liquor store to be located there. Another Director stated that'
the Board had no authority to approve or disapprove the location
of a liquor permit but that it did have authority to approve the
zoning.
In matters of court review of municipal zoning decisions,
the court may not substitute its opinion for the expressed
judgment of the municipal legislature. It is only when such
judgment is shown to be arbitrary and capricious that courts
have the power and duty to overturn such decisions. City of
Little Rock v. Garner, 235 Ark. 362; City of Little Rock v.
McKenzie, 238 Ark. 911; Baldrid e v. City of N. LittleRock;
un� e 9, 1975, 258 Ark.. 246
But, as suggested in the rule, the initial zoning authority
.(here, defendant's Board of Directors) does not have unbridled
discretion. Its decisions must be grounded on manifest.equal
appraisal of all relevant -factors. Otherwise, the practical
result, in a given instance, would be so to limit the basic right
of lawful use of private property that the owner would be deprived
of his "property" - the right to use his property - without due
process of law.
"Arbitrary", in the context of zoning law is defined as
"arising from unrestrained exercise of the will, caprice or
personal preference; based onrandom or convenient selection
or choice, rather than on reason and nature"; "decisive but
unreasoned action". "Capricious", is defined as "not guided
by steady judgment or purpose". Baldridge v. N. Little Rock,
supra; McMinn Co. v. Little Rock, 257 Ark: 442.
Further, it has been held that an attempt to restrict an
established business district is arbitrary; City of Little Rock
v. McKenzie, supra; and that the trend of community commercial
nazses H. wisixam5, nsq.
James M. McCord, Esq.
-5- September 17, 1975
FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
JUDGE THOMAS F. BUTT
growth is an important factor.bearing-upon re -zoning: City of
Helena v. Barrow, 241 Ark. 654.
In my judgment, the clear preponderance of the evidence es-
tablishes that the primary, if not the only, reason for defendant's
denial of re -zoning to plaintiff was the fear that a liquor store
'would be operated on the re -zoned lot.
The Board Minutes make this quite apparent. Every other element
properly bearing on the question was substantially ignored by the
Board: An established commercial district; an expanding
commerical district; compatible use; adequate buffer between
re -zoned lot and near -adjacent residential areas; a proposed
use not prohibited in the area as sought to be re -zoned; no
prejudice to property values. One Is drawn inescapably, by the
Board minutes as well as the testimony of defendant's witnesses,
that the ultimate decision was taken because the Board was
persuaded that a liquor store was undesirable: The one Director's
comment that the Board could not determine a liquor license, but
it could approve (or disapprove) the re -zoning epitomizes the
real reason for the disapproval.
In my Judgment, the Board acted "on random. or convenient
selection or choice, rather than on reason and nature", and thus
its decision was arbitrary and capricious. It follows that the
Board's action unconstitutionally deprives plaintiff of due process,
and such action must be set aside.
Let decree enter accordingly.
the defendant.
TFB/ds
cc. Case file
Costs hereof are taxed against
Yours very truly,
omas F. Butt
m
272.1
b�ctor.Purdy, seco Director Hug .motione.d.to:suspend the
rules an
�:.
ace the ordinance, second reading. roll. ca -1 vote of the
Board the 'mo 'on.passed unanimous and the City Atto read the ordinance
for the second Director Nolan , seconded by.Directo Lancaster:, mot
ib�oned to furthe suspend the rules an lace the ordinance third and
fin reading. The.. thbt4on passed unanimous . in' roll, call vote o the Board
andthe ity.Attorney re the. .ordinance fort thirdand. final ti
272.2
There. eing no discuss or comments regar41 the, request, Mayo
Orton asked the ordinance sltsqid pass. In roll cTh14 vote of the Board
seven '!Ayes'' and no."Nays!'. were re,qded whereupon the.. or_declared the.
ordinance passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 2097 APPEARS ON .PAGE.282.:OF ORDINANCE.$.RESOLUI'ION BOOK IV
ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - Donald.W. Johnston, petitioner. .
272.3
The proposed. ordinance would.rezone.a:.35 acre tract of land,located
on the :east .side of Garland Avenue south :of Holly Street from :C=l.Neigh-
borhood Commercial to. C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial or C,3 Central'Business•
District..
272.4
The City Attorney read the.drdinance for.the:£irst time after which
Director Purdy'motioned .ta.suspend the rules and.place the ordinance on
second reading. The motion, seconded..by Director. Noland, passed .unani-
.
mously-in roll call vote of the Board and the City Attorney: read the.ordi-
nance for .the second. time.. Director Noland., seconded. by. Directoor Lancaster,
motioned to further. suspend, the rules and: place the: ordinance, on: third and
final reading. In roll, call vote.. of the..Board the motion passed.unani-.
.mously whereupon the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and
final•. -time...
272.5
: . Speaking in behalf.. of Mr,-. Johnstonj. attorney.. .,Richard Osborne. opened'
his supporting remarks by .stating .that .. the. didnot. believe, that. .the Board.
of:Directors...was.the... proper forum for a. liquor store "battle"... He stated
,that the petitioner planned to restore. and remodel an older vacant: house:
into.a, liquor store .and, that thebpsngwpenbeLhaeze$ $jneal3oteswas
trafficvgenerated by the liquorstore might eventually be routed. through a
nearby shopping center. but that immediate plans did„not envision that
possibility. ...
272.6 .Mr. Jamie Jones, 1633 North Garland, was.present-.in..the audience to.
speak in opposition. to the .rezoning request::. His reasons for.;opposing_the
rezoning were..based on the fact that a liquor store would be,.undesireable
in an area. that.is primarily residential.. He also. noted,.the„location.of,
churches and -schools.. in. the area.. and. current congested traffic 'ota d tions.
272.7 Mr. Ray Trammell, legal. counsel for the.University, f..:Arkansas, was.
also present:.and-stated.,-that . he had_been instructed by,_the.President of
the. university to attend the meeting and voice opposition:to the. request,
in the behalf of the university. -Mr. Trammell cited a local agreement
made several years ago whereby no..liquor. outlets would be,.located. wes:t,.
of the railroad tracks. He also cited recent legislation prohibiting liquor
stores frorn.locating..within 600 feet of churches. or schools and stated
that the university did not, wish to. become surrounded by liquo,stores
just outside the boundary. •
. H
272
Also speakin-0111 .0 }insition to the rezoning request were Mr.- Pete
Petty, superintendent of the Washington Madison Baptist Association, who
stated -that the offices of the Association- are located within 600 feet
of the liquor location. The high'.concentra#ion of children in
• the area-was^cited by Mi. Grover Kirksey.who felt- the :location of a liquor
store. in the neighborhood.wouldbe imdesireable.. - -
Mr. Ernest Jacks, Secretary of the Planning Commission,'ezplained
that planning consultant Larry Wood had advised that the C-2 classification
was the most logical zoning for the -parcel. - .. .
Those speaking in favor of the rezoning cited the distance people in
the area must. drive.to purchase liquor, and felt that a more convenient
location would.be practical. Ms. Nancy Wagonner stated that it would be
much., better torhave a liquor store conveniently located than to have one
• so faraway that'persons.buying liquor would tend to open the liquor while
.making the return trip to their home.
• Mr. Osborne then presented.the Board with petitions bearing an estimated
• 2,000 signattires favoring the rezoning_ request and.. correspondence: from the
Arkansas Beverage Control Commission stating that they were not familiar
with the "gentlemen's agreement" concerning location of liquor stores west
of the railroad tracks and.that the agreement should not have any bearing
upon -the approval of the location on Garland Street. Mayor Orton acknow-
ledged receipt of the documents.
0irector Hughes stated that he had observed the area recently and
• 'that liquor store traffic during school hours was -minimal and that school
children, usually cross the street before reaching .the area of -the proposed
liquor store. He=felt that no valid reason had been presented for rejection
of the rezoning request other than it would allow the location :of a liquor
store. Director Todd stated that -the neighborhood in the area was -.in-the
process of changing but that there were a number of private residences ,
in the area 4Eoj§'at sE ag'edOa agedeas £≤bt of the .installation
_.
of a liquor store:
Director Purdy addressed the audience and stated than -he' Board had
no authority to approve or disapprove the location of a liquor permit:.but
that it did -have:the authority to approve the zoning. Mr.- Tom.Keith,.
waspresent the audience-and..was of:the opinion that th'e'particular
problem at hand was indicative of t�existitg problem in the community;
i.e.., the citizens•do not -have a voice' 'in the location of liquor stores.
Following furtherycomment-and discussion, Mayor Orton asked if the ordinance
should pass-. In -roll call vote of the Board.no "Ayes" and seven "Nays"
were recorded whereupon the Mayor declared the ordinance failed.
The proposed ordinan a would.amend Orlin ce 1747 by allows 'offices,
s dins; professional'offic and:=elated servfbqs to be -.located" i-1:
Hea Commercial and Light In trial zoning distr ts: -
City Attorney read the>'roposgd ordinance f ---the first Ttinie ter
which Dir or Noland:motioned to spend the rules an lace the ordihbq9
on second re 'ng. The motion was .s onded by Director.Rqghes and was
passed. in a up�bous vote of the Boar ... .The ordinance w read for the
second time afterlth4th Director Purdy mo -oned to further sibend the rules
and place the ordinan on third and final r 'dng. The motion as seconded
by Director Hughes and nimously passed in rS.L call vote of th Board. The.
ordinance was read for -.the bird and final time bNthe City Attorne
REZONE
Close Up View
REZONE: 1242 GARLAND AVE
•
711
R:I
.
i
-..G2
••
:
..............................
_.,.
�tia
.s ..y y
C-2
.
.
Overview
a OfAay DEmq —
R.OODWAY — 500 YEAR
100 YEAR
—` lD.R7OFSN0Y
- - - Basn m aofie
O Fayetteville
0 awdecny
aip05-1526
wcmr.QOB.Foolpt,t100{
+�
101suemp ow4ey Damn_____ a
Q Wdt Co Pwc a(Fayenevho)
0
45 .90
180
270
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
(1) Permitted uses.
Units er acre I 4 to 24
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 5
Government facilities
Unit 8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 25
Professional offices
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use
permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 11
Manufactured home park
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 26
Multi -family dwellings
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Bulk and area regulations.
(Per dwelling unit for residential structures)
(1) Lot width minimum.
Manufactured home park
100 ft.
Lot within a manufactured home
park
50 ft.
Single-family
60 ft.
Two-family
60 ft.
Three or more
90 ft.
(2) Lot area minimum.
Manufactured home park
3 acres
Lot within a manufactured home
ark
4,200 sq.
ft.
Townhouses:
Development
Individual lot
10,000 sq. ft.
2,500 sq. ft.
Single-family
6,000 sq.
ft.
Two-family
6,500 sq.
ft.
Three or more
8,000 sq.
ft.
Fraternity or Sorority
1 acre
(3) Land area per dwelling unit.
Manufactured home
3,000 s :
ft.
Townhouses & apartments:
No bedroom
One bedroom
Two or more bedrooms
1,000 sq.
1,000 sq.
1,200 sq.
ft.
ft.
ft.
Fraternity or Sorority
500 sq. ft.
per resident
(D) Density.
(E) Setback regulations.
Front
30 ft.
Front, if parking is allowed between the right-
of -way and the building
50 ft.
Side
10 ft.
Side, when contiguous to a residential district
15 ft.
Rear, without easement or alley
25 ft.
Rear, from center line of public alley
10 ft.
(F) Height regulations. There shall be no maximum
height limits in R -O Districts, provided, however,
that any building which exceeds the height of 20
feet shall be set back with any boundary line of
any RSF or RMF District an additional distance of
one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20
feet.
(G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied by
all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total
area of such lot.
(Code No. 1965, App. A., Art. 5(x); Ord. No. 2414, 2-7-78;
Ord. No. 2603, 2-19-80; Ord. No. 2621, 4-1-80; Ord. No.
1747, 6-29-70; Code 1991, §160.041; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex.
A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-31-99; Ord. 4726, 7-19-05)
161.16 District C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial District
is designed primarily to provide convenience
goods and personal services for persons living in
the surrounding residential areas.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations and drive-in
restaurants
Unit 25
Professional offices
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 34
Liquor stores
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
CD161:11
(C) Density. None.
ry
•i
(D) Bulk and area regulations. None.
(E) Setback regulations.
Front
50 ft.
Side
None
Side, when contiguous to a residential
district
10 ft.
Rear
20 ft.
(F) Height regulations. There shall be no maximum
height limits in C-1 District, provided, however,
that any building which exceeds the height of 10
feet shall be setback from any boundary line of
any residential district a distance of one foot for
each foot of height in excess of 10 feet.
(G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied by
all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total
area of such lot.
(Code 1965, App. A., Art. 5(V); Ord. No. 2603, 2-19-80; Ord.
No. 1747, 6-29-70; Code 1991, §160.035; Ord. No. 4100,
§2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-31-99)
161.17 District C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Thoroughfare Commercial District
is designed especially to encourage the
functional grouping of these commercial
enterprises catering primarily to highway
travelers.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 14
Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping oods
Unit 16
Shopping oods
Unit 17
Trades and services
Unit 16
Gasoline service stations & drive-in restaurants
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 20
Commercial recreation, large sites
Unit 25
Professional offices
Unit 33
Adult live entertainment club or bar
Unit 34
Liquor store
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 21
Warehousing and wholesale
Unit 28
Center for collecting recyclable materials
Unit 32
Sexually oriented business
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density. None.
(D) Bulk and area regulations. None.
(E) Setback regulations.
Front
50 ft.
Side
None
Side, when contiguous to a residential district
15 ft.
Rear
20 ft.
(F) Height regulations. In District C-2 any building
which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set
back from any boundary line of any residential
district a distance of one foot for each foot of
height in excess of 20 feet. No building shall
exceed six stories or 75 feet in height.
(G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied by
all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total
area of such lot.
(Code 1965, App. A., Art. 5(VI); Ord. No. 1633,11-1-71; Ord.
No. 2351, 6-2-77; Ord. No. 2603, 2-19-80; Ord. No. 1747, 6-
29-70; Code 1991, §160.036; Ord. No. 4034, §3,4,4-15-97:
Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-31-99;
Ord. 4727, 7-19-05)
161.18 District C-3, Central Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Central Commercial District is
designed to accommodate the commercial and
related uses commonly found in the central
business district, or regional shopping centers
which provide a wide range of retail and personal
service uses.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5
Government facilities
Unit 12
Offices, studios, and related services
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 14
Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping oods
Unit 16
Shopping oods
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations & drive-in
restaurants
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 25
Professional offices
Unit 26
Multi -family dwellings
Unit 34
Liquor stores
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit
CD161:12
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Housley, Judy; Pate, Jeremy
Date: 5.17.06 11:03AM
Subject: Spirits Shop Liquor Store
Sondra asked that I address finding the original for the Alderman Agenda Request Form for the above
item heard May 16, 2006. We only received a copy of the agenda request form. Do either of you have the
original. If so, please get it the clerk's office to attach with the ordinance for processing.
Thanks.
Clarice
Clarice Pearman - Re: Spirits Shop Liquor Store PageT9
From: Jeremy Pate
To: Housley, Judy; Pearman, Clarice
Date: 5.17.06 1:30PM
Subject: Re: Spirits Shop Liquor Store
Clarice and Judy,
I spoke with Amber about the original form last week; Kyle Cook has the original signed form, I only have
copies.
Thanks,
Jeremy
>>> Clarice Pearman 05/17/06 11:03 AM >>>
Sondra asked that I address finding the original for the Alderman Agenda Request Form for the above
item heard May 16, 2006. We only received a copy of the agenda request form. Do either of you have the
original. If so, please get it the clerk's office to attach with the ordinance for processing..
Thanks.
Clarice
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Cook, Kyle
Date: 5.19.06 5:00PM
Subject: Ord. 4874
Alderman Cook,
Attached is a copy the ordinance passed May 16, 2006 regarding the rezoning of the Spirit Shop.
Thanks.
Clarice
CC: Audit; GIS; Pate, Jeremy
NORTH W EST ARKANSAS EDITION'',
Benton County Daily Record
P. O. BOX 1607
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702
PHONE: 479-571-6415
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Maria Attaway, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas
Democrat Gazette newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County
Arkansas, (Lowell) and that from my own personal knowledge and
reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of:
Ordinance 4874 ORDINANCE NO.4674
Was inserted in the Regular Editions: e eve le
Regular AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.28
May 25, 2006 ACRES. LOOC- AT B OGARLAND
AVENUE. OR NEIGHBORHOOD HFAREOMM RCI MER-
CIAL TO C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL
Publication Charge: $107.31 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ARKANSAS
OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property Is hereby changed as
follows:
Subs ribed and worn to before me
From C-1, Neighborhood Commercial to C-2;.Thoroughfare Conrnerclel, as snows on Ezhibit'A'
• attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Thi cday of , 06. Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayedellle. Arkansas is hereby amended to
reflect the zoning change provided in Section I above.
Section 3: That this zoning change is made subject to the attached Bill of Assurance.
PASSED and APPROVED this 16th day of May, 2006.
Notary Public j APPROVED; ATTEST: -
i. .
DAN COODY. Mayo SONDRA SMITH, City Clar*
Sharlene D. Williams ^' '>= "�-' ` - -_
1'!11 EXHIEiT'A'" .1
N !: n:rl•. . .IJy Pi a..
Notary Public A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9.TOWN.
My Commisst9txjp�p15SHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST. WASHINGTON COUNiti', ARKANSAS, MORE PA1ICULARLY
as DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO -WIT: BEGINNINGIN AT A POINT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF GAR -
My Commission Expires LAND AVENUE THAT IS SOUTH S8500' AND S89°48'SPE 25.22' FROM THE NORTHWEST COR-
NER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE S89°9854 E 120.00, THENCE
NCE NSg°48'Ww 12102 TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OP GARlAND AVENUE,
October 18, 2014 �CEH 1NOO°35'1400.00. EE 1100.00TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINNG 0.28 ACRES. MORE
OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD. IF ANY.
**N0TE** Please do not pay from Affid_...
Invoice will be sent.