LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: March 20, 2018

Town & Gown Advisory Committee
Zachary Renfro – One unexpired University of Arkansas Student living off campus term ending 09/30/19

The Nominating Committee recommends the following:

Animal Services Advisory Board
Sharon Randall – One Citizen at Large term ending 06/30/21

Board of Adjustments
Casey Hoffman – One term ending 03/31/21
Richard Coffman –One term ending 03/31/21
William Finer – One term ending 03/31/21

Civil Service Commission
D’Andre Jones – One unexpired Citizen at Large term ending 03/31/24

Construction Board of Adjustments & Appeals
Bill Hairston – One term ending 03/31/23

Planning Commission
Thomas Brown – One term ending 03/31/21
Porter Winston – One term ending 03/31/21
Matthew Hoffman – One term ending 03/31/21
Robert Sharp – One unexpired term ending 03/31/19

Telecommunications Board
Benjamin Adkins – One term ending 06/30/22

Urban Forestry Advisory Board
Will Dockery – One unexpired Community Citizen at Large term ending 12/31/19

Housing Authority Board
Debra Humphrey – One unexpired Resident term ending 12/28/18

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.

For some context, the applicant in 2013 requested the property be rezoned to Residential Office, but the City Council eventually denied the request.

Here’s a map of the subject property:

March 6 Notes:
On 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 was prepared to support the rezoning. 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.

The council voted to table the item to see if any new buyers might come forward in the following two weeks.

March 20 Notes: The property owner said no new buyers have come forward and nothing has changed since the March 6 meeting.

The council voted 7-0 to approve the request.

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.

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.

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

Council member Tennant said he personally witnessed a man 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 support the ordinance.

Council member Kinion said he knows the ordinance is not about targeting panhandling, but he’s concerned because a many 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 ordinance is easily understood when reading the language.

“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 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 on March 6 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.

March 20 Notes: City Attorney Kit Williams said Council Member Gray asked him to draft an amendment that states the maximum fine for violating the ordinance should be $25 (ordinances that have no specified maximum penalty carry the standard maximum penalty of $500).

Council member John La Tour said he’s worried with such a small fine, people might just accept the $25 fine and continue to stand on medians. He said if the goal is to keep people out of the roadway, the fine should be significant.

Williams said he thinks $25 is high enough, but if people continue to violate the ordinance the council can always re-evaluate the fine amount in the future.

Rob Qualls, a representative of For Fayetteville, said he appreciates the lowering of the maximum fine, but said if someone is broke, $25 might as well be $500. He suggested amending the ordinance to include a no-fee policy for first-time offenders.

Williams said it would be best left to the city administration to use discretion, rather than codify a no-fee policy for initial offenders.

Police Chief Greg Tabor said officers typically use discretion and give a 30-day grace period when dealing with violations of new ordinances.

“I think we can trust our police to do the right thing…and not just hand out citations left and right,” said Williams. “I think reducing the fine to $25 sends a message that we are not trying to be punitive, but instead trying to address public safety.”

The amendment was approved 7-0.

During the final round of public comment, Qualls said For Fayetteville would like to see the proposal delayed until more outreach can be done to those who are violating the law. He suggested asking state officials if it’s alright to include signage on the major roadways that double as state highways.

Williams said it would be 31 days before the ordinance goes into effect, and that police will give an additional 30-day grace period. Williams said city staff could ask the state if it’s OK to use signs and if they agree, there would be enough time to install signs before any tickets could be written.

Council member Petty said he thinks the intent of the ordinance is clear and he’s prepared to vote tonight.

The council voted 7-0 to pass the ordinance. Council member Tennant is absent tonight, but said on March 6 he was in favor of the proposal.

1. Any relocation of or damage to existing utilities or existing facilities shall be at the owner/developer’s expense; and
2. The new sanitary sewer line shall be installed and on-line prior to final plat approval.

There was no public comment. The council voted 7-0 to approve the request.

Here’s a map of the subject property:

There was no public comment. The council voted 7-0 to approve the request.

Here’s a map of the subject property:

There was no public comment. The council voted 7-0 to approve the request.

1. Any relocation of or damage to existing utilities or existing facilities shall be at the owner/developer’s expense.

Staff said no public comment has been received.

Here’s a map of the subject property:

There was no public comment. The council voted 7-0 to approve the request.

He said his proposal maintains the currently required information, but adds significantly more required information.

The current law requires applicants to include the following in a rezoning petition:

1. Legal description of the property involved;
2. Zoning classification request for the property; and,
3. Statement explaining why the proposed changes will not conflict with the surrounding land uses.

The proposed updated language requires the following:

1. The full name and address of the property owner and any designated agent or representative.
2. The legal description of the property requested to be rezoned and the proposed new zoning district(s).
3. A signed Certificate of Mailing to notify all adjacent property owners of this requested rezoning.
4. A statement explaining the compatibility of this proposed rezoning with neighboring property and explaining why the proposed rezoning will not unreasonably adversely affect or conflict with surrounding land uses.

City Attorney Kit Williams said he was told by planning staff that the proposal should be amended to state that the certificate of mailing must be completed before the Planning Commission hears the request. He presented an amendment that removed the requirement of a mailing from the petition. The council voted 7-0 to approve the amendment.

The updated proposal reads:

(A) Application. A landowner or authorized agent/representative may apply for a rezoning of the landowner’s property by completing, signing and submitting the Planning Department’s Rezoning Application with all required documentary attachments, paying the rezoning application fee and providing at least the following information (as well as all information required by the Rezoning Application):

1. The full name and address of the property owner and any designated agent or representative.
2. The legal description of the property requested to be rezoned and the proposed new zoning district(s).
3. A statement explaining the compatibility of this proposed rezoning with neighboring property and explaining why the proposed rezoning will not unreasonably adversely affect or conflict with surrounding land uses.

Prior to the Planning Commission’s consideration of the rezoning request, the applicant must present a signed Certificate of Mailing to notify all adjacent property owners of this requested rezoning.

There was no public comment. The council voted 7-0 to approve the ordinance.