Loading...
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'/