Rezoning to allow car lot fails to pass

Neighbors oppose proposed use for property; appeal is possible

PEA RIDGE — Neighbors of a property on North Curtis Avenue objected to a proposed used car lot during a public hearing at the beginning of the November Planning Commission meeting.

“We don’t want to look at a car lot,” said Tina Glover, who said she lives on Smith Street, behind the lot. “We could deal with a store, but not a car lot. That’s something none of us want to see.”

Roy Cotton was requesting a rezone for the 1.1 acre lot at 560 N. Curtis Ave. and told city officials he wanted to put in a used car lot and a coffee shop.

Perry noted the current zone allows for higher density and intensity businesses to be built there.

“It will be late model used cars; there won’t be any junk,” Cotton said.

After discussion both during the public hearing and the meeting, planners voted — three for and three against. One member was absent. City attorney Shane Perry said the request “failed to pass.”

Planner Michael Wilhelm told Cotton he could appeal to the City Council. Perry told Cotton to speak to the city building official to learn the process for the appeal.

A second rezone request resulted in the city attorney recusing himself as he has a conflict of interest. The request was for portions of the property to be rezoned to residential-1 and residential-3 and commercial 3 on property at 191 Ryan Road. Bentonville city attorney Jay Williams sat in for the discussion in place of Perry.

Barry Williams with Crafton Tull presented the project. “We are trying to rezone some acreage to R3 and C3.”

Neighboring property owner Sheila Wilkerson asked about what is allowed in Residential-3.

City building officials Tony Townsend said “high rise and higher density residences” are allowed.

Wilkerson expressed concern about the width of the road and drainage.

A variance request presented last month was again addressed with attorney Will Kestrum representing the property owner.

“Reading the Pea Ridge code on variances, this is unique,” Kestrum said. “This lot is too small for C1, too small for any zoning code of Pea Ridge. The main issue is not whether Mr. Judd has a hardship or not.”

Kestrum pointed out when the variance wasn’t approved last month, one comment was the variance was for 50% and was too much.

“Unless I’ve missed something, your code doesn’t place numerical limit… I think you just gave a 50% setback for someone else. I think this is a rare situation where a variance is required,” he said, adding Rogers doesn’t not have a minimum lot size for commercial development downtown.

“Your attorney has done a good job for you,” Perry said to Judd. “I was talking to Tony Townsend and looked up the taxes you’ve paid since you bought this and noticed your taxes really jumped from $ 300 in 2015 to over $3,000 in 2017.”

“I think this is a unique unusual hardship, based on physical characteristics of lot … our obligation as a body is to the spirit of the ordinance, look at purpose of minimum lot sizes, to limit density, I don’t consider Curtis over there to have traffic or congestion problems,” Perry said.

The request by Judd was unanimously approved by planners.