Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-08-01 Minutes• • 112 MINUTES OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City Planning Commission of Fayetteville, Arkansas, met in a special meeting on Wednesday, August 1, 1962, at 3:30 p.m. in the City Council Room in the City Adminis- tration Building. Present: Mr. J. F. Palmer, Miss Suzanne Lighton, Mr. George Caudle, Mr. Hugh Stubbl" field, Mr. Henry Shreve, Mr. Bryan Walker and Mr. Paul Young. Absent: Mr. Bill Dalton and Mr. Clark McClinton. The meeting was called to order by Chairman J. F. Palmer. The Chairman reported that the purpose of the meeting was to give further consideration and/or make a recommend- ation on the rezoning petition of the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., and T. I. Abshier, and the proposed rezoning of that entire R-4 area between West Avenue and Block Avenue and between Center Street and Dickson Street, more or less, of which Dr. Letson Clark's petition requesting the rezoning of lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block ll of the Original Plat of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is a part thereof. The Chairman reported that the petition of the Evelyn and T. I. Abshier would be considered by the Planning stated that a letter had been received from Mr. E. J. ioners, requesting that the Planning Commission allow Planning Commission as he was tied up in court at the The Chairman granted Mr. Ball the request, and he also protesting property owners, Mr. Lewis Jones. Hills Shopping Center, Inc., Commission. Chairman Palmer Ball, attorney for said petit - him to appear before the time the public hearing was held* invited the attorney of the Mr. E. J. Ball presented a plat representing the area of the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., in'geneial.-.Mr:_Abshier, co -petitioner, wants to sell his property and the shopping center wants to purchase this property provided that this 150 foot strip of land can be rezoned for commercial use. Mr. Ball pointed out that the terrain presented quite a problem. The southeast corner of the property falls off rather abruptly. The shopping center proposed to excavate from 3 to 5 feet of the bank. The proposed senior department store would encroach upon the 150 feet not more than 50 feet; 75 to 80 feet would be left and would be used for employee parking; and 8 to 10 feet from Hillcrest Avenue would be left incase there were any future plans to widen Hillcrest Avenue. Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., and T. I. Abshibr requested the rezoning because they felt it would be good for the community and would be of the best interest to a number of people: the people on Hillcrest Avenue, Pir. T. I. Abshier, Mr. John Askew and Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., businesses leasing the buildings and the residents of Fayetteville. Mr. Ball remarked that the shopping center even benefitted his family. The private drive area to the south and east of the shopping center helped his family avoid the traffic upon the highways when they traded at the shopping center. Mr. Hugh Stubblefield was concerned about the landscaping. He commented on the fact that proper landscaping would change the appearance of the bank on the east of the shopping center and thought perhaps landscaping should be included in the restrictive covenants. Mr. Ball replied that although the present covenants • of additional protection and assurance that no commercial building upon the east 75 feet of the said area which would extend above the Hillcrest Avenue as it now exists, a restrictive covenants could be landscaping and would be binding. were merely a means would be cnnstructed street level of written to include J 113 Minutes of August 1, 1962 41 Mr. George Caudle related the Planning CommissionIs standing at the time the shopping center first requested the rezoning of their property. Mr. Caudle stated that it was understood by all those concerned that this strip of land in question would remain as a buffer. Mr. Ball continued with his explanation of the proposal of the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc. The parking lot would be a split level lot and the approach of the park- ing area would not be off Hillcrest. Avenue except for the already existing drive and a proposed drive at the north edge of their property. When confronted with the quest- ion as to whether or not the cars and buildings would extend above the level of Hillcrest Avenue, Mr. Ball said to be quite honest he did -not perceive how, especially on the north end of the property, the cars and buildings could not be seen. Mr. Lewis Jones, attorney for the property owners, said that the people would be hurt. A loan had already been turned down because the area had been petitioned to be rezoned. Mr. Jones pointed out that a commercial zone could not be extended into a residential district without doing damage. One person might profit from the change in zoning, whereas the next door neighbor might be damaged. Mr. T. I. Abshier and Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., agreed to make a park area out of the 150 foot strip between Hillcrest Avenue and the C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial Zone. Because a shopping center is good, it is no sign it is a good thing to extend. Mr. Jones did not feel that this rezoning was necessary as he had previously pointed out in the public hearing. Even though the area were rezoned to a commercial zone and nothing done to the pro- perty, there still would be damage done to the residences across the street. Miss Suzanne Lighton requested Mr. Jones to clear up a statement he had made at the public hearing. Miss Lighton asked Mr. Jones if he felt that it was not legally possible to write a binding covenant. Mr. Jones stated that he did not think that the restrictive covenants presented at the hearing would be binding; however.although he had never seen such a covenant, he did not think the act impossible. He said that the covenants, in his opinion, would need to be very detailed inorder to satisfy the conditions and problems involved. Mr. E. J. Ball did not have any further information to offer. He stated that the rights of all should be considered and not just the rights of one property owner. He told the Planning Commission that he had met with some of the property owners and had accepted some of their ideas and suggestions. He remarked that some of the property owners were willing to go along with the shopping center. Chairman J. F. Palmer asked both attorneys if they would accept a postponement of any decision of the petition should the Planning Commission request that action be deferr, Mr. Lewis Jones and Mr. E. J. Ball both were in agreement with the possible postpone- ment. The attorneys -:were dismissed. After a short discussion, Mr. Paul Young moved that the Planning Commission postpone taking action on the rezoning petition of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., and T. I. Abshier until both attorneys have the time and opportunity to meet with their clients and furnish the Planning Commission with additional information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henry Shreve and passed unanimously. The Chairman reported that the Planning Commission would now consider the proposed rezoning of the entire R-4 zone located between West Avenue and Block Avenue and between Dickson Street and Center Street, more or less. The area is proposed to be rezoned from R-4 Multi -family Residential and Dormitory District to C-3 Central • is 40 114 Minutes of August 1, 1962 Commercial District, Mr. George Caudle left the meeting at this time. After discussion Miss Suzanne Lighton moved that the Planning Commission reject the petition for the proposed rezoning of the R-4 area more particularly described as: Subdivision of all of Blocks 10, 11, 19 and 20; part 6 of Block 3;Fart of lots 5 and 6 and all of lots 7, 139 18, 19 and 20 of Block 5; lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and Block 12; and lots 1 and 2 of Block 18, all lots and Original Plat of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas; mission recommend to the City Council that lots 3, 4 Original Plat of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Residential and Dormitory District to_C-1_Neighborho motion was seconded by Mr. Paul Young and passed una There being no further business, the meeting we 1• a �JVJLWAVAVe i of lot 4 and all of lots 5 and 82 9 and 10 of Block 4; lots 12, 8 of Block 9; lots 7 and 8 of blocks being located in the however that the Planning Com - and 5 of Block 11 of the