LIVE UDPATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: March 6, 2018

The applicant has said the rezoning is needed to allow small offices to be developed on the property after unsuccessfully marketing the property for 11 years as residential.

The applicant first asked for Neighborhood Services-Limited, but the Planning Commission requested a more broad zoning so the applicant agreed to change the request to Neighborhood Services-General. City staff, however, preferred the original request, as did the City Council who on Feb. 20 voted to amend the application back to its original Neighborhood Services-Limited request.

NS-Limited is preferred by city staff because it limits the sizes of buildings to 2,000 square feet for retail use, whereas NS-General allows up to 8,000 square feet. The height restriction of three stories is the same for both zones.

Residents who are against the rezoning have cited the usual concerns about safety, increased traffic, and general incompatibility.

Council member Tennant on Feb. 20 said traffic will be an issue no matter what is developed on the land. He said if the area is built in a residential manner as its current zoning allows, there could be up to 120 vehicles entering or exiting the property each day at peak times.

For some context, the applicant in 2013 requested the property be rezoned to Residential Office, but the City Council eventually denied the request. At the time, council member Matthew Petty suggested the applicant instead request one of the smaller-scale, form-based Neighborhood Services zonings. He said since residents were concerned that a large commercial center might end up on the property instead of a small office, the Neighborhood Services zoning could be a good middle ground. At the time, council members Tennant and Marsh commended Petty’s idea, but said it was the wrong area for any type of commercial use.

Here’s a map of the subject property:

Council Comments:
Tonight (March 6) council member Tennant said many neighbors fear a three-story building because they believe that’s too tall. Planning staff said it’s unlikely anyone would need to construct three stories for a 2,000-square-foot retail building (3,000 for office) on such a large piece of land.

Tennant said he feels for the property owner because nobody is ever going to develop the land as residential with its current access. He said he would love to be able to hold the item for a while until developers can discuss possibilities that could incorporate the land adjacent to the subject property. However, with that land not currently available, he said it’s unclear whether that could ever be an option. However, Tennant said that’s not necessarily fair to the property owner who’s been stuck with unsellable land for almost a dozen years, so he’s torn on what to do.

Council member Petty said he’s prepared to support the rezoning tonight. Petty said even if this was a strictly commercial project, he believes there’s already a good enough buffer between the land and the neighbors. As for height, he said all the surrounding property zones already allow three stories, so this wouldn’t change how tall a building can be constructed in the area. Petty said traffic is “horrendous” at rush hour and it’s only going to get worse with the growth of the city, but said this property won’t make enough of a difference for him to vote against the request.

Council member La Tour said the market is demanding variety in residential types, and this zoning allows just that. He’ll be voting in favor of the request.

Council member Marsh said Crossover Road is a major regional roadway and is a good place for a mixed-use building. As for traffic, Marsh said this development would only be accessed from Crossover, and therefore won’t have an affect on traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods. She said streets that have more entrances tend to have slower traffic, and maybe this development could help slow things down a bit. She’s in favor of the request.

Council member Gray said a recent tour of the area showed her just how congested the traffic is in the area. She said she sympathizes with the neighbors who are concerned about safety. However, she said she also sympathizes with property owners who have a right to sell their property, especially this particular person who’s been working to rezone the land to make it sellable for over 11 years. She said she’d like to table the request and explore some options that could address both sides of her concerns.

Council member Bunch said she’s familiar with the area and said traffic is definitely an issue, but agreed with Petty who said it will always be an issue. She said whether it’s rezoned or not, the size and access of the property pose significant limitations. Bunch said as much as she feels for the neighbors, she also feels for the property owner. She said the thinks the request is an appropriate zoning for the area. She’s ready to vote tonight, but would agree to table it if that’s what the council wants.

Council member Kinion said the proposed zoning is a compromise, and in a compromise, nobody is completely satisfied. What’s ideal for the property owner has proven to be impossible, and what the neighbors want isn’t necessarily fair. He said Neighborhood Services-Limited is a good compromise which is why he’s in favor of the request.

Council member Gray moved to table the request for two weeks. Tennant seconded the motion. The motion passed (Kinion, Tennant, Bunch, Gray voted yes and Mayor Jordan broke the tie in favor).

1. Any relocation of or damage to existing utilities or existing facilities shall be at the owner/developer’s expense; and
2. An easement shall be re-dedicated over the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main to the satisfaction of the City of Fayetteville’s Water and Sewer Department.

There was no public comment on the issue tonight. The item was passed unanimously.

Both city staff the Planning Commission are in favor of the request.

Here’s a map:

A resident who spoke tonight said the nearby schools are at or near capacity, and more residential units in this area would only compound the issue. He said he’s been told that only about 150 kindergarten students will be admitted to Holcomb Elementary next year and the rest will need to attend Owl Creek School (Owl Creek is 3 miles south of Holcomb and about 2.5 miles south of the subject property).

The item was passed unanimously.

The item was indeed removed from the agenda. It will be heard at the next Planning Commission meeting on March 12 at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall room 219. The earliest it could return to the City Council is April 3.

There was no public comment on the issue tonight. The item was passed unanimously.

The proposed language requires property owners to keep a minimum clear space of 8 feet above the sidewalk and 2 feet back from the edge of the sidewalk. It also gives city staff the ability to charge property owners for the costs incurred to clear vegetation or obstructions from the sidewalk if they are unwilling or unable to do so themselves.

Staff said the intent is to first educate people and to only use the financial recourse as a last resort. Documents indicate staff have been working on pamphlets that will be given to people if they see an obstruction issue.

Here’s an example of a pamphlet used in Austin, Texas:

Council member Petty asked about homes that have parallel parking in front of the sidewalks. He wanted to know if it was OK to put a trash bin in the gutter to ensure the trash truck could empty his bin. Staff said as long as bins don’t impede the flow of traffic on the sidewalks, it’s fine.

There was no public comment on the issue tonight. The item was passed unanimously.

The idea is sponsored by the Northwest Arkansas Tobacco and Drug-Free Coalition and was approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.

The ban would include cigarettes, lighted pipes, cigars, vapor devices, e-cigs, and all forms of smokeless tobacco. Cessation products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (nicotine gum, lozenges, patches, inhalers, nasal sprays) would not be included in the ban. If approved, signs would be posted in parks and on trails to notify the public of the new law. Violators would be subject to a $50 fine.

A 2004 law already prohibits smoking inside Fayetteville’s restaurants, stores and other places of employment. Only bars and retail tobacco stores are exempt from the current ordinance.

Parks staff said the following Arkansas municipalities currently prohibit smoking in parks: Arkadelphia, Ash Flat, Atkins, Batesville, Bentonville, Berryville, Blytheville, Conway, Dover, Elm Springs, Fort Smith, Gosnell, Harrison, Helena-West Helena, Little Rock, Magnolia, Mena, Perryville, Phillips County, Pottsville, Prairie Grove, Russellville, Sebastian County, White Hall, Yellville.

Staff said the following out-of-state cities also ban smoking in public parks: Athens, Georgia; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Gainsville, Florida; Asheville, North Carolina; Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Boulder, Colorado; Ft. Collins, Colorado; Lawrence, Kansas.

In all, parks staff said in their research they found 1,531 U.S. cities with smoke-free parks.

There was no public comment on the issue tonight. The item was passed unanimously.

From the consultants:

• In general, Fayetteville has a lot of parking. On an average weekday, parking is almost never more than about 50% utilized. Evening utilization can be busier, and on weekends, the evening core is functionally full.
• Residents think the system is confusing.

Master plan strategies include:

1. Treat parking as a customer service – Have a first-ticket-free policy
2. Streamline signage – Make it easier to understand where to park
3. Make multimodal improvements – Crossings, lights, sidewalks, etc.
4. Increase publicly accessible parking supply – Pursue lease agreements, add on-street parking in high-demand areas, establish a threshold that triggers a shared garage
5. Implement more current parking technologies – Meters, pay stations, etc.
6. Improve event parking – charge higher fees for WAC lot, create pay-by-foot system, use front spaces for valet
7. Prepare for future development – create fee in lieu program for developers, update regulation of shared parking, incorporation transportation demand program
8. Demand-responsive pricing – Higher fees in high-demand areas, lower fees in lots further from Dickson Street, etc.
9. Streamline permit system – consistent pricing
10. Create residential parking benefit districts – allow visitor parking during the weekday and reinvest the money into the neighborhoods

Tonight’s proposal is to implement Phase 1 of the new Parking Master Plan that includes a total of three phases.

Below is the Phase 1 schedule (see the full schedule here):

Council member Tennant said the biggest complaint he receives is from people who’ve parked in private parking lots where the fees are different, very confusing, and where cars are frequently booted (the city doesn’t tow or use boots).

Staff said one recommendation is to pursue shared parking agreements with those lot owners. Another option is signage improvements to help educate drivers when they enter into a non-city-owned lot.

City staff recommend waiting a bit longer to make sure the city doesn’t need the land before selling it. Council member Tennant said he brought the item forward at the request of the owner of George’s Majestic Lounge because he assumed the city didn’t need it and that only George’s would be interested. As it turns out, the owners of Underwood’s Fine Jewelry also would like the land. Tennant said he would be fine waiting to sell the land knowing that there’s a chance the land is needed.

The council voted unanimously to table the item indefinitely.

This new definition of “roadway” clarifies that it’s the area between the furthest curbs or edges of a road and also includes any medians between lanes of travel.

Council member Sarah Marsh said she’s heard from constituents who believe this ordinance is targeting panhandlers. She said until she can see some data that suggests people standing in medians is unsafe, she won’t support the measure.

Police chief Greg Tabor said panhandlers are free to stand on the sidewalks, and that no citations have been issued for that activity.

Don Marr, the mayor’s chief of staff, said while panhandlers could certainly be affected by the ordinance, there is no intention to criminalize panhandling. He said there are safe places to panhandle – including sidewalks or the side of any road – but a median is not one of them.

Council member Tennant said he personally witnessed a person in the median at Joyce Boulevard and College Avenue who was selling bottled water and dropped his ice chest into the roadway and was almost hit by a vehicle when he walked into the road to retrieve it. He said two other cars swerved around the ice chest and nearly collided. He said he would be supporting the ordinance.

Council member Kinion said he knows the ordinance is not about targeting panhandling, but he’s concerned because a lot of people believe it is. He asked City Attorney Kit Williams if there was a way to include some language in the ordinance that specifies the measure is not about panhandling.

Williams said it wouldn’t make sense in this ordinance because the measure only defines what a “roadway” is. He said the intent of the change should be easily understood.

“There are plenty of places in this city where people can safely panhandle,” said Williams. “We don’t want people taking safety chances by getting into medians and endangering themselves or others. We don’t have to wait for someone to be killed before we pass this.”

Council member Smith also said he believes the intent is sincere, but he, too, is worried about perception.

Chief Tabor said his department utilizes discretion every day, and that he hopes his officers would take the same initiative to warn a person about this law before issuing a citation. He said the department’s system is very efficient in noting which citizens have been issued warnings and that information could be used by an officer who’s deciding whether to issue a citation or to simply ask the person to move out of the median and over to the side of the road.

Residents who spoke tonight said ordinances targeting panhandling in other cities have been shown to be ineffective and sometimes lead to multiple unpaid citations and later to arrests, which is something that’s unfair to someone who’s simply asking for help.

Williams said being a panhandler doesn’t give someone the right to break the law. This ordinance, he said, only clarifies the current law’s intention.

The council agreed to leave the ordinance on the first reading.