HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-03-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Fayetteville City Planning Commission met in a special session in the City
Council Chambers in the City Administration Building at 4:00 p.m, on March 10,
1964.
Members present: J. F. Palmer, Bill Dalton, Ernest Jacks, Bryan Walker, Wade
Fincher and Suzanne Lighton. Also present were the City Building Inspector and
twelve (12) interested parties.
Members absent: Clark McClinton, Henry Shreve and Allan Gilbert, Jr.
Chairman J. F. Palmer called the,meeting to order. Mr. Palmer reported that the
purpose of this special meeting was to hold a public hearing to hear and give
consideration to two rezoning petitions.
The rezoning petition of property owners of late 1 through 10 and the west 15 feet
of lot 11 of Park Village Addition was considered first. Chairman Palmer asked
those in favor of the petition for rezoning to be heard.
W. B. Putman, attorney, said he was present to represent the petitioners. Mr. Putman
pointed out the problems which had arisen since the first time a petition for
rezoning had been submitted up to the present time. (See Planning Commission
minutes of December 5, 1961; December 28, 1961; May 1, 1962; May 22, 1962 and
June 5, 19620) He said that now a petition for a change in zoning had been sub-
• witted to the Planning Commission with some of the items requested at earlier times.
The attorney said the petition had all signatures of all property owners in Block
18 except lots 7, 8 and 9 upon which lots the Park View Apartments are located,
The owner of these apartments lives out of town, but if necessary this owner's
signature could be obtained. Also James W. Holder, property owner of lots 1 and 2
of Block 17, signed the petition.
The petitionerst attorney pointed out that a number of property uses in the vicinity
was either of a professional nature or a commercial nature. A tourist court
occupies lots 1 and 2 of Block 19 and lot. -12 and a portion of lot 11 in Park
Village Addition. Almost all of the tourist court is in a G2 Commercial Zone.
On lots 7 and 8 Dr. Joe B. Hall and Dr. Arthur F. Moore have offices. Doctor Hall
purchased lot 9 which presently cannot be used for his purposes. Alice's Beauty
Shop is located on lot 2. Mr. Putman said that all previously mentioned uses are
non -conforming under the existing zone; however at the time each.use was begun it was
permitted because it was in a GResidential Zone.
Bill Putman stated that this petitioned change in zoning would not devaluate the
property in the vicinity. For instance the sale value of lot I for residential
purposes would be $12,000 to $14,000. The property would not be wirth what it would
take to rebuild the house on the property. If the property were rezoned to R�P
as petitioned, there would be an increase in value of 25% to 33 1/3%. Mr. Putman
said he had asked two real estate men to attend this meeting to confirm his state-
ment. Emory Goes and Hugh Kincaid both agreed with Vie statement made by Mr, Putman
in regard to real estate values.
• As far as off-street parking was concerned Mr. Putman said that the rezoning would
help because before any professional use could be established, off-street parking
would have to be furnished. Also before any existing professional -use office were
remodeled off-atreet parking would have to be provided.
•
E
r1
L-A
65
The petitionerst attorney said he had presented his case; the Chairman asked those
who opposed the petition which had been submitted to be heard.
Thomas C. Pearson, Jr., attorney, 5 Trenton Boulevard, said he represented the property
owners who opposed the rezoning petition because he was:one of said property owners.
For the records a petition with the signatures of those persons who opposed the r"
zoning was submitted by Mr. Pearson.
There was some discussion had between the attorneys in regard to the signatures on
the rezoning petition. Mr. Pearson called to the Planning Commission's attention that
Glenn S. Stokenberry, Perry L. Rushing and H. R. DuVall own real estate on Prospect
Street. Terry Poynter, who owns lot 5 of the real estate petitioned for rezoning,
according to Mr. Pearsonts statement, signed the rezoning petition merely as an
accommodation and does not care one way or the other. There was also some question
as to the legality of the signature for R. Allan Brickey who is out of town. Mr. W.
Putman stated that Mrs. Bruce Lunsford, Mr. Brickeyts sister, was given authority
by Mr. Brickey over the telephone to sign his name.
Mr. Pearson pointed out that because there are a few scattered professional and/or
commercial uses which have existed does not mean the area should be opened up and
more land engulfed to permit these uses. The people who live on the south side of
Trenton Boulevard oppose the zoning change. They feel it would be unethical to have
a residential area on one side and a professional area on the other. This change
of zoning on one side of Trenton Boulevard and not the other could not be done without
injury.
r .,
Chairman
Palmer asked
if there was anyone else to be heard;
if so, they would not be
given an
opportunity.
Philip Bashor, 3 West Trenton Boulevard, said he thought all persons on the south side
of Trenton Boulevard were grateful to Mr. Pearson for presenting their case; whereas
he did last time. Mr. Bashor mentioned the parking problem. He said not only would
he be affected, but also would traffic. Mr. Bashor pointed out that Trenton Boulevard
is the main access to the park in aummer time and also is a cut-off route to North
Street. Mr. Bashor said additional traffic would increase the danger for the numerous
children in the area.
There was no further discussion to be had on the rezoning petition; however Chairman
Palmer asked Mr. Pearson in view of the fact the motel exists would he object to all
of the motel being put in the proper zone. Mr. Pearson said in his opinion it would
be all right. There were, however, a few persons who did not agree with such a pro-
posal. The Chairman thanked those present for attending the hearing, and declared
that the purpose of the public hearing on the petition of those property owners of
real estate described as lots 1 through 10 and the west 15 feet of lot ll of Park
Village Addition having been accomplished, the hearing was adjourned.
The second petition, the petition of James 0. Witt, Jr., and Mildred Witt, in which
a request for rezoning of lots 1, 2, 3, 10,-11 and 12 of Block 2 of College Addition
to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, from I-lA Light Industrial District to P�3
Multi -Family Residential District was made, was brought before the Planning Commission
for consideration. Chairman Palmer declared the hearing on this petition open for
discussion and that those persons present who were in favor of the petition would be
heard.
Kof
There was no one present to be heard who was in favor of the petition. Those
• who were opposed to the petition were asked to speak; there was no opposition
to the petition. There being no one present to represent the petition or no one
who objected to the petition, Chairman Palmer reported that the purpose of the
public hearing on the petition of James 0. Witt, Jr., and Mildred Witt having
been accomplished, the hearing was adjourned.
•
•
After both public hearings had been held and discussion had, Bill Dalton moved that
the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that that real estate owned
by James 0. Witt, Jr., and Mildred Witt and petitioned for rezoning from I-lA Light
Industrial District to R-3 Multi -Family Residential District and described as lots
19 2, 3, 109 11 and 12, Block 2 of College Addition to the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas, as designated on the corrected plat of .the South 680 feet of said Addition
recorded in the office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -officio Recorder of Washington
County, Arkansas, be rezoned as petitioned. The motion was seconded by Ernest
Jacks and passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission on Tuesday,
March 10, 1964, on the petition of James 0. Witt, Jr., and Mildred Witt for the
rezoning from I -U Light Industrial District to Rr3 Multi -Family Residential
District; and
recommendationWHEREAS,, after the public hearing,
•n was taken by the Planning Commission
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That the rezoning petition of James 0. Witt, Jr., and Mildred
Witt in which a request was made for the rezoning from I -1A Light -Industrial District
to Rr3 Multi -Family Residential District of lots 1, 2, 3, 10, 11 and 12 of Block
2 of College Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, be granted by the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED/
On the petition of property owners in Park Village Addition Bill Dalton moved that
action be deferred until more time had been given to check the parking situation on
Lollar Lane and Trenton Boulevard. Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
The building problem of J. W. Shepherd was not presented and the Chairman referred it
to the Subdivision Committee for study and recommendation.
'6FN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
•
0
Respectfully submitted,
7, /9Co'/