Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-07-24 Minutes0 E 107 MINUTES OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City Planning Commission of Fayetteville, Arkansas, met in a special meeting on Tuesday, July 24, 1962, at 3:30 p.m. in the City Council Room in the City Administra- tion Building. Present: Mr. J. F. Palmer, Miss Suzanne Lighton, Mr. Clark McClinton, Mr. Bryan Walker, Mr. Hugh Stubblefield, Mr. Henry Shreve and Mr. George Caudle. Absent: Mr. Bill Dalton and Mr. Paul Young. The Chairman reported that the purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing to consider the rezoning from R-4 Multi -family Residential and Dormitory District to C-3 Central Commercial District that entire R-4 area between West Avenue and Block Avenue and between Center Street and Dickson Street, more or less, and to consider the rezoning from R-lA Single Family Residential District to C-2 Thoroughfare Commerc- ial District property belonging to Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., and T. I. Abshier. The Chairman reported that the R-4 area between West Avenue and Block Avenue and be- tween Center Street and Dickson Street, more or less, would be considered first. Chairman Palmer told those present that Dr. LeMon Clark had petitioned the Planning Commission for the rezoning of lots 3, 4 and 5 of the Subdivision of Block 11 of the Original Plat of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and that after study, the Plan- ning Commission proposed that the entire R-4 zone be considered for the rezoning from R-4 Multi-familq Residential and Dormitory District to C-3 Central Commercial District. It was the opinion of the Planning that this rezoning would not conflict with the surrounding land uses because there were already several commercial buildings located within this area; and although the area were zoned commercial, a zone in which resi dential buildings were not permitted, the zoning ordinance has been amended to permit residential use in the commercial areas. Chairman Palmer asked if the property owners had any questions about the proposal or zones. There being no questions on these points, the Chairman declared the meeting open for discussion and declared that the property owners interested in this rezoning proposal would be heard at this time. Mr. Tom Feathers, acting as spokesman for the people owning property or living in this R-4 zone, commented on the statement made earlier during the meeting and in the public notice. The contest of the statement being that the rezoning would not cnnflict with surrounding land uses. Mr. Feathers pointed out that a service station would be detrimental to the residences in the area and would annoy the residents because of the operating hours, lights, signs, etc. Mr. Feathers also contradicted the statement there were already several buildings in the area. Mr. Feathers said there were a few commercial buildings, but these buildings were concentrated on North School Street. Should the entire R-4 area be rezoned, commercial buildings would be scattered through- out the area. Mr. Hugh W. Hinkle, 311 West Spring Street, stated that he strongly opposed the re- zoning of the entire area as proposed. Mr. Feathers presented a petition with the signatures of approximately 54 persons opposing this rezoning proposal. He said that a few signatures could not be obtained because the people were out of town or on vacation. Approximately only four persons favored the rezoning. IM Minutes of July 24, 1962 Is Mr. Feathers said that the value of one lot would be increased and the value of an- other lot would be decreased if the area were rezoned; however the property owners felt that the over all property in the area would be degraded. People were especially opposed to degrading school property. A commercial area would also create more traffic. The existing commercial buildings presented no traffic hazards, and the businesses were operated within reasonable hours. No business interferes with the residential use in the area. The property owners favored the present zoning. Mr. Feathers commented on the future need for multi -family structures in the area. Mr. Hugh Stubblefield inquired if the property owners objected to additional con- struction and expansion of the doctor's clinic on Spring Street. Mr. Tom Feathers stated that it would depend upon Dr. Letson Clark's intentions. If sufficient parking were provided and the rules and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance could be met, then there would be no objections. Mr. Feathers stressed the point that the 85% who object- ed to the rezoning objected more strenously to the over all rezoning proposal. Mr. Frank Lewis who owns property at 15 North Locust opposed the rezoning. Mr. William Keller, 219 West Meadow, was out of town and did not have the opportunity to sign the petition; however he•stated he opposed the rezoning proposal. Dr. Letson Clark was preaentet the public hearing. In response to Mr. Feathers' comments, Dr. Clark said that he could double the size of the building and still have sufficient parking space. His property contained about 11,000 square feet and upon that property a building occupying only about 4,000 square feet was constructed. When • Dr. Clark purchased the lot 12 years ago, all the buildings upon the lot were old dilapidated eye -sores. Dr. Clark mentioned that his building had doubled the value of the lot. He said that he wanted to build another office building upon his property. The proposed building would be approximately 26 by 36 feet and it would be located behind the existing clinic on a lot approximately 80 by 160 feet. Dr. Clark stated that when he purchased the property and constructed the clinic, the property was located in a commercial zone. Dr. Clark felt that professional offices should be permitted in multi -family residential districts. Mr. Feathers and those property owners present indicated that they did not object to Dr. Letson Clark's proposed building; however they did not approve the over all rezon- ing. There were no further questions or discussion of the R-4 rezoning proposal. The Chair- man declared there would be a short recess before hearing those people interested in the petition of the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., and T. I. Abshier. After a short recess, the meeting was called to order by Chairman Palmer and the secretary read the petition presented by Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., and T. I. Abshier. The Chairman asked if the property owners had any questions about the petit- ion or the zones involved in the rezoning proposal. There being no questions on these points, the Chairman declared the meeting open for discussion and declared that the property owners interested in this rezoning would now be heard. Mr. Lewis Jones, attorney representing the petitioners protesting the rezoning of a strip of land 150 feet wide and 1030 feet long as requested by Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., and T. I. Abshier, pointed out that the area north on Highway 71 North had been growing commercial wise. In order to aid and further the growth of the city, 109 Minutes of July 24, 1962 • an area on both sides of Highway 71 North had been zoned for commercial use. Behind this commercial zone are residential zones and within these residential zones are houses of considerable value. On the east side of U. S. Highway 71 North above the shopping center and the strip of land in question and west of Hillcrest Avenue are several new and valuable homes. Many of these residences did not exist at the time the shopping center was being planned and organized; however when the original plans of the shopping center were submitted, the property owners were assured that no more property would be needed and that the 150 foot strip between the shopping center and Hillcrest Avenue would serve as a buffer. A children's play area, elegant landscap- ing with water falls and a park area were shown in the plans. The construction of the foregoing items was stressed by the owners of the shopping center. The property owners feel that this proposed rezoning is contrary to the original plate none of the parks, play areas, etc, have been constructed or attempts made to construct these items. Now the shopping center is requesting the rezoning of that buffer strip of land and next year they may discover another flaw in their plans and request the rezoning of more land. The particular area requested to be rezoned is to be used as a parking lot for employee parking. The shopping center would have the right to build upon the rezoning property regardless of the restrictive covenants which would be abandoned. Also, the property owners do not understand wily the covenants are necess- ary if the only intentions of the.shopping center are to construct a parking lot. The petition of the shopping center claims that the rezoning of this area would be of the beat interest to the City of Fayetteville. The property owners question this statement when the property north is zoned for commercial use and could be used for commercial purposes instead of rezoning the strip of land. The property owners did not desire some of the buildings which would be permitted in the C-2 district to be • erected in their neighborhood. Mr. John Maquire, part owner of the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., epoke in behalf of the shopping center. Mr. Maquire claimed that the covenants were intended to be legal, and were to benefit the property owners and not the shopping center. Accordee ing to Mr. Esquire, the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center had designed a 200 by 200 foot area in their over all plans to construct a two-story senior department store. However, after discussing this location with some prospects, they found that companies leasing this type of store space prefer all their merchandise displayed and sold on a one- story�level building with around 50,000 square foot floor area. Mr. Maquire explained that because of this error in planning they had asked for the rezoning of the property to the east so that the new department building could be off set about 35 feet to the east of the planned rear line of the buildings. He said that the shopping center had two choices: (1) If the rezoning were approved they wanted to construct a parking area for employees east of the store buildings and along the west side of Hillcrest Avenue; (2) If the rezoning were not approved then the only thing the shopping center could do would be to construct the employee parking area south and west of the exist- ing buildings in the area zoned C-2 Commercial at the present time. Mr. Lewis Jones stated that once the area were rezoned as a commercial zone, if not now, then in the future, commercial buildings could be constructed and the party doing the construction would be within the law. Mr. Jones felt that since the shopping center had an alternative there was no reason to rezone the strip of land. Additional land could be purchased north of the shopping center and this land would already be in the proper zone. • Mr. Paul Flowers, 1520 Hillcrest Avenue, inquired as to whether or not parking would be permitted adjacent to Hillcrest Avenue. Mr. Maquire stated that if the area were 110 Minutes of July 24, 1962 • rezoned, the shopping center did plan to use the land for employee parking. The bank would be sloped and landscaped. Iq6 Mrs. John Schmid, 1214 Hillcrest Avenue, wanted to know if the department stores were permitted in a C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial District. She continued by saying that according to the Zoning Ordinance a department store could not permitted in the C-2 zone, and that such a store would only be permitted in a C-3 Central Commercial District. Apparently the petitioners were requesting the property to be rezoned to an incorrect zone. The City Building Inspector, Harold Be Lieberenz, answered the pro- perty ownerts question. Mr. Lieberenz explained that when the zoning ordinance was in the process of being compiled, it was impossible for the City Planning Commission to list every store which could be constructed within each zoning district; therefore the Planning Commission, at the beginning of each commercial zone and before the Uses Permitted were defined, stated their intentions as to the general uses permitted with- in that district. Mr. Lieberenz pointed out that the building inspector had to use his own discretion as to what commercial uses.permitted in the commercial zones. Mr. Fay Jones, 1330 North Hillcrest, said that the property owners had no objections to the original plans of the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc. The elaborate ideas of landscaping and the beautiful well designed buildings proposed were presented in the original plans to the property owners. Mr. Jones commented on the fact that as a property owner he was very let down as none of the promises had been carried out. He stated that the neighborhood was not an old one and that the people at the time the shopping center was being constructed felt that their property was protected by the Zoning Ordinance and the strip of land which served as a buffer between the residential and commercial uses. When the present C-2 area was being zoned for commercial use, the shopping center had stressed to the property owners that this buffer strip would not be used then or in the future. Mr. Hugh Stubblefield asked Mr. Jones, as well as the other people present, if he thought the strip of land should be left as it is with no houses or commercial build- ings after so much time and money had been invested. Mr. James H. Quinn, 1336 Hillcrest Avenue, had several comments to make. The private road up the hill connecting the shopping center parking area and Hillcrest Avenue was to have been a temporary road, but it is now otherwise. The strip of land which was to have been a park now is petitioned to be rezoned and used for a parking lot. He stated that he knew the shopping center was to be constructed when he commenced to build his home on Hillcrest Avenue and at the time he did object to the erection of the shopping center because it was understood that the 150 foot strip of land lying immediately east of Hillcrest Avenue would remain a residential zone. Mr. Hex Smith, 1216 West Lakeridge, felt thatthe Planning Commissionwould try to help all the persona involved and try to satisfy all concerned. Mr. Smith said he had been on the board of directors of a savings and loan association. Before the association would loan money for construction, the neighboring area was thoroughly investigated. Chances of obtaining a loan for residential construction when there were proposed com- mercial use nearby werenot favorable. Mr. James H. Quinn stated that he would rather look at a parking lot 150 feet away as long as he bad to see such a sight. Mr. Haskell Jones, 1426 Hillcrest Avenue, stated that he was in favor of the rezoning He felt that the people representing the shopping center had been doing a fine job and he approved of the view. • 111 Minutes of July 24, 1962 Mr. Walter Brown, 1138 North Vandeventer, said he had appeared at the public hearing in behalf of his mother-in-law who now lived in Rosewell, New Mexico, but she was planning to move to Fayetteville as soon as her new residence on Hillcrest Avenue were completed. He said he preferred residences to a shopping center and was sure his mother-in-law would be of the same opinion. Mr. James A. Pennington, 1440 Hillcrest Avenue, remarked that his house and lot were for sale and had not sold as earlier indicated in the hearing. Mr. Pennington said that if the area were rezoned for commercial purposes, the rezoning might affect the sale of his house. Mr. Rex Brown reported that he lived on a street one block over from Hillcrest Avenue on Lakeridge. The nature of commercial and industrial expansion is such that it envelopes the residential area. He felt that should the area be rezoned his home might eventually be involved. Mr. Robert L. Schurfranz, 566 Rebecca, had been considering buying Mr. James A. Penni.ngton's property, but the loan had been turned down because of the possible rezoning for commercial use of the property across the street. Mr. Schurfranz stated that the Planning Commission might keep this thought in mind when future property was petitioned or being considered for rezoning. There was no further discussion which could be given other than the points already mentioned. The Chairman thanked the public for their attendance and interest. The Chairman reported that the purpose of the public hearing having been accomplished, the public hearing was adjourned. The Planning Commission adjourned without taking any action.oSa-thp two rezoning proposals. Action will be taken at a special meeting latepI DATE: i 'I • if �c-- 150' w 2 / W � 7 5 N o CO a 2 3 � s � _ V vj J �v AkO7 Q A65H�ER oRwE UArea proposed to be rezoned from R -JA Single Family Resi- dential District to C-2 Thoroughfare �I Commercial District