LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Aug. 7, 2018

Notes: This item was tabled on July 3.

Both the Planning Commission and city staff are in favor of the amendment.

From city documents:

“Staff, property owners, and the development community have identified several impediments to building ADUs under the current ordinance. The primary impediment is the requirement for the property owner to file a deed restriction specifying that the owner will reside on the property either in the principal or accessory dwelling. This was included as a neighborhood protection measure to ensure that both the primary house and the ADU could not be rentals. Staff proposes to remove this impediment to encourage more ADUs to be built to fulfill the goals of City Plan 2030. To staff’s knowledge there have been few if any neighborhood complaints related to ADUs and the current code is overly restrictive.”

The following restrictions (that are not standard for single-family dwellings) would be removed:

• Exterior design requirements.
• One additional parking space (unless the ADU is over 800 square feet).
• Deed restriction specifying that the owner will reside on the property either in the principal or accessory dwelling.
• Additional site and landscape plan review.

Other changes (as recommended by the Planning Commission) include:

• Strengthening requirements to protect privacy of adjacent backyards.
• Allowing one detached and one attached or interior ADU provided total additional space doesn’t exceed 1,200 square feet.

June 5 Discussion:
Council members Kinion and Marsh said they’re concerned about increasing occupancy to existing neighborhoods. Marsh said more people means more cars and more noise.

Council member Smith said there are means to address excess cars and noise, and this ordinance aims to create more options for affordable housing.

The council discussed how many occupants should be allowed in an ADU. There was also a discussion about which direction windows should face in an effort to preserve the privacy of neighboring dwellings, and height restrictions of an ADU.

June 19 Discussion:
The council discussed alternatives for size limits of ADUs. Smith said he’d like to limit it to a percentage of the overall habitable home size. Marsh said she’d like to keep it at 950 square feet.

Marsh suggested sending the proposal to the Ordinance Review Committee. Kinion agreed.

Tennant, who chairs the committee, said he’d call a meeting to discuss the issue.

July 3 Discussion:
This item is scheduled to be discussed by the Ordinance Review Committee later this month. For that reason, it was tabled. The ordinance will next be discussed at the City Council level on Aug. 7.

Aug. 7 Discussion:
Per the Ordinance Review Committee’s recommendation, the item was amended 6-0 to change the allowed height from 25 feet to two stories.

Three residents spoke in favor, including local architect Rob Sharp, who said the changes would help new developers get started building, and will encourage smaller developments that some residents prefer over the newer large-scale developments that have been cropping up around town.

Two residents spoke against, including Ward 4 City Council candidate Teresa Turk, who said approving the ordinance would be akin to throwing out the safeguards that neighborhoods have in place in regards to ADUs. Turk said she’s particularly concerned about removing the requirement to have a landlord living on-site.

Council member Kinion agreed with Turk and said the biggest concern he’s heard is about absentee landlords. He said the new ordinance is “too much all at once.” He moved to amend the ordinance to require a landlord to live on the property. There was no second to his motion.

Council member Petty said the changes are a major step in relation to the current ordinance, but not in the grand scheme of actions the city could take.

Council member Gray agreed, and said the city should remove as many restrictions as possible when it comes to ADU development. She said if problems develop, the council can always make changes in the future.

The item was approved 5-1, with Kinion voting against.

Notes: This item was left on the first reading on July 17.

The applicant wants to rezone a portion of the land from R-A to NC to allow for the construction of homes. In return, property elsewhere within the area will be rezoned from NC to R-A. City staff said the overall acreage swapped between districts is equivalent to one another and would allow the creation of approximately six more residential lots.

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

Here’s a map:

July 17 Discussion:
Council member Marsh said she’d like to hold the item on the first reading to allow some time for her to visit the property.

Aug. 7 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

The item was approved unanimously.

Notes: This building was ordered to be razed on May 15. The deadline lapsed, so the city had the structure razed and removed on June 18 at a cost of $11,678. The city is seeking a lien on the property to recover that cost.

There was no public comment.

The item was approved unanimously.

Notes: City staff said the team’s current rifles were purchased in September 2010 and have reached their safe and practical “end of life” period. This is a scheduled replacement.

There was no public comment.

The item was approved unanimously.

Notes: Staff recommends approval of the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval, but also forwarded a separate idea (see item #5 below).

According to staff documents, residents are concerned with the future character of their neighborhood, which was developed between the 1920s and 1960s and consists primarily of small, single-story homes. The neighborhood is zoned RMF-24, Residential Multi-family 24 units per acre, which allows large duplexes and multi-family buildings. Residents are worried that the existing zoning allows significant change to the historic character and affordable nature of the neighborhood, so they’re requesting this change.

Here’s a map:

» Read more about Parksdale on the city’s website

Aug. 7 Discussion
Eight residents spoke in favor of the request – none against.

Council members Bunch, La Tour, Smith and Kinion spoke in favor of the request.

Petty said he does think the city should move this neighborhood away from RMF-24, but he also said he thinks the neighborhood has overreacted to the recent nearby multi-family development that sparked this discussion. He said there are other creative ways to preserve the character of a neighborhood without limiting it to a single-family area.

Don Marr, the mayor’s chief of staff, said he received an email from Council member Marsh, who said she would like the item to be left on the first reading tonight. Gray said she won’t be here in two weeks and would like to move the item forward. The council voted unanimously to move the item to the second and third readings.

The item was approved 5-1, with Petty voting against.

Notes: This item goes along with the previous rezoning of the Parksdale Neighborhood. It would create a design overlay district to ensure that development of new buildings are compatible in height and building placement with the existing development pattern of the neighborhood.

The design overlay district requires the following within the portions of the neighborhood proposed to be rezoned to NC and RI-12:

• Limit the maximum height of buildings to two stories.
• The front building line for new primary structures and additions shall match the existing
  front building lines of the closest adjoining primary structures.
• New parking areas may not be constructed in the front yard between the building and the street.

Aug. 7 Discussion:
Five residents spoke in favor of the request – none against.

The council voted unanimously to move the item to the second and third readings.

Mayor Jordan said he was proud to see the residents come together for this request to have their neighborhood preserved. Jordan said he’s lived in the same small south Fayetteville house for over 40 years, and understands what it’s like to want to keep a neighborhood intact.

The item was approved 5-1, with Petty voting against.

Notes: The Planning Commission recommended approval, but staff recommended a more comprehensive neighborhood-wide zoning (see item #2 above). Both options are presented tonight, but only one can be approved.

Here’s a map:

Aug. 7 Discussion:
Since this item would essentially negate item #2 from above, the council voted unanimously to table the request indefinitely.

Notes: The northern 1.80 acres of the parcel is within the 100-year floodplain of North Fork Farmington Creek and would remain in R-A zoning.

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

Here’s a map:

Aug. 7 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

The council voted unanimously to move the item to the second and third readings.

The item was approved 5-0 (La Tour stepped out of the council chambers briefly and was absent during the vote).

Notes: City staff recommends approval of the package as outlined in the request packet.

Aug. 7 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

The item was approved unanimously.

Notes: Implementation tasks include:

1. Increase walkability in downtown and other high pedestrian areas
2. Improve pedestrian safety and comfort at intersections and crossing locations
3. Enhance access to transit services
4. Maximize available transportation funding
5. Develop a capital project plan that considers all modes and users
6. Implement a data-based approach to development of Transportation Division sidewalk and trail construction and pavement overlay programs
7. Ensure city policies and ordinances further the Mobility Plan goals and objectives

For detailed action items, subtasks and schedules for completion, see the proposal packet.

Aug. 7 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

The item was approved unanimously.

Notes: The contract grants VeoRide the exclusive right to operate a bike-share program in the rights-of-way within the city limits for three years.

The city partnered with the University of Arkansas and the Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission to bring the program to town. The city and university have each agreed to pay $20,000 annually with the A&P Commission adding $10,000 to help subsidize the cost for residents and visitors who purchase subscriptions for bicycle usage.

We covered the details in our Aug. 6 story “Fayetteville considers dockless bike-share program.”

Aug. 7 Discussion:
Council member La Tour said he likes the idea, but isn’t so sure about giving VeoRide exclusivity for three years. He said he’s not worried about the possibly of having too many bikes around town.

Petty said he’s tried about a dozen bike share programs around the country, and that Fayetteville’s contract is the best-priced option he’s seen for riders.

City Attorney Kit Williams said the contract linked in the details above is not the most current draft. A newer version was updated and passed out to council members tonight. Some of the changes included negotiations with VeoRide that should favor bike users. For example, subscribers will now receive unlimited one-hour rides instead of unlimited 30-minute rides. We’ll try to get a copy and include it here.

The item was approved unanimously.