LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Oct. 16, 2018

Background: This item was left on the first reading at the Oct. 2 meeting.

The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Lawson Street and Gregg Avenue. The property totals approximately 0.39 acres, is zoned RSF-4, and is currently developed with two single-family homes. The request is to rezone the parcel to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, 12 Units per Acre. The applicant stated the rezoning will help to renovate and redevelop the property. Both the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval.

Location: Here’s a map of the rezoning request area…

Oct. 2 Discussion:
Five residents, one who is the president of a nearby neighborhood association, spoke against the rezoning on Oct. 2. They said the infrastructure can’t handle new housing, that traffic would be negatively impacted, and that a non-neighborhood resident shouldn’t be allowed to rezone their property when the neighbors are against the idea.

One woman said she doesn’t want “more trashy rentals” in her neighborhood.

Council member Marsh said over 60 percent of households in Fayetteville are renters. She said the city needs more rental units, not less. As a major arterial roadway, she said Gregg Avenue is a good location for apartments.

Tennant said he would like to leave the item on the first reading to allow him some more time to look into the request.

Kinion said he’s considering siding with the neighbors because Lawson is a precarious street. He said he would also like more time to look into the request.

Oct. 16 Discussion:
Jim Birgin gave an overview presentation, which included slides showing the poor condition of the homes on the property. Birgin said he’s been offered $185,000 for the land, but said the buyer would only continue to rent the aging homes. By approving his request, Birgin said he could redevelop the property, which would add tax revenue and help the city achieve its goals of promoting infill.

Five nearby residents spoke against the request. Most said they don’t have a problem with renters, but they’re against allowing a multi-unit complex in the neighborhood. One person said there’s already enough multi-unit rentals in the nearby complexes. Another said keeping small rental homes would help promote affordable housing.

Council member Sarah Bunch asked how many units could be built on the property if the rezoning is approved. Staff said the property currently includes two homes, and could currently fit four additional accessory dwelling units (two per single-family home) if the owner wanted to add on. If the rezoning is approved and a new development occurs, four total units is the most that could be built on the property, whether that be a single fourplex or two duplexes.

Council member Kinion said the neighborhood is historic, and he understands why residents might be nervous about multi-family developments. However, he said after looking into the request, the new rezoning wouldn’t allow the kind of large complexes with over-occupancy that some neighborhoods have been encroached upon by.

Council member Marsh clarified to the council that if the rezoning is approved and the two homes are removed to make room for a new multi-family development, the maximum potential units would actually be lower than if the property remained in its current zoning. That, she said, is because the two existing single-family homes could each have two accessory dwelling units built on their respective lots, which adds up to six total units.

Council member Gray said she’s driven around the city recently and is “amazed” at the amount of apartments being built. For that reason, she said she’s siding with the neighbors.

During the vote, the request was approved 6-1, with Gray voting against.

Background: This item was left on the first reading on Oct. 2.

There is currently a Washington County Health Unit and a County Health Officer with similar duties and responsibilities as the City Board of Health and City Health Officer. Staff said this is a duplication of effort and could possibly lead to conflicting consequences in the event of an epidemic outbreak. The county department has full-time staff who monitor and act on public health issues, and because of this, the city’s board of health has not had a single agenda item for over a year. The state general assembly has made municipal boards of health optional instead of mandatory, so the city is looking to abolish its board.

Oct. 2 Discussion: Council member Kinion said he’s heard from a resident who wanted to bring an agenda item to the Oct. 10 board meeting. Council member Smith said it might be a good idea to take the proposal up with the board at that next meeting.

Oct. 16 Discussion: Fire Chief David Dayringer said the issue brought to the Oct. 10 meeting wasn’t an item the board could address. He also said there was no opposition to abolishing the board at the group’s most recent meeting.

Council member Kinion said he’s concerned about abolishing the board because it’s a group that takes up issues such as quality of life for residents who might have certain businesses operating nearby, such as quarries, race tracks, etc. He said he understands that there haven’t been any agenda items in the past year, but if a business that presents a possible nuisance ever comes up for consideration, the board would be needed to address that request.

City Attorney Kit Williams said he believes it would be OK to abolish the board. If a potential nuisance arises that needs a recommendation of action by a health board, he said state law would allow the city to re-institute the board.

During the vote, the item was passed unanimously.

Background: Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects are currently working on early sketches of the upcoming Cultural Arts Corridor. The firm is expected to begin refining those concepts into a final design sometime next month. Once that happens, city staff said it will be critical to have construction management services available to evaluate the final design, suggest localized construction methods and materials and provide costs to various design elements.

This contract is only for Phase 1 pre-construction services, including cost estimates that will be used to establish a construction budget. This item would be funded using money from a grant given to the city by the Walton Family Foundation.

Background: The Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the request with the following conditions of approval:

1. Build Street I with the first phase of development.
2. On Lot 25, plat public access from Street C to Alley D.
3. Between lots 40 and 41, connect sidewalk from the POA area to Alley D.
4. Ensure adequate room for street trees in the front law or tree lawn and minimize conflicts
   with storm drainage and utilities.
5. Examine topography of the west side of Street I to ensure sidewalk is on the same level
   as porches and not the street.
6. Design homes on corner lots to have architectural features addressing both street fronts.

Location: Here’s a map of the R-PZD request area…

Discussion: A representative of the applicant said #5 isn’t likely possible. City staff said they will re-examine the property and plan to address that concern.

A neighborhood representative said the neighbors don’t necessarily object to the plan, but they want the city to look into the expected traffic increase if the new subdivision is built. He said the neighbors request that the development not be approved until the upcoming Zion Road improvements are completed.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading to allow staff to look into the sidewalk construction.

Background: The Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the request.

Location: Here’s a map of the rezoning request area…

Discussion: Council member Tennant said he would like to leave this item on the first reading since it’s from the same applicant as the R-PZD item above. The council agreed.

Background: The Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the request.

Location: Here’s a map of the rezoning request area…

Discussion: The first person to speak during public comment was against the request. She said if approved, this rezoning could set a precedent for other property owners who want to rezone their land to allow for redevelopment. If that continues to occur, she said, the character of the neighborhood would be lost.

About 10 people spoke against the rezoning, citing concerns about traffic safety, stormwater runoff, and a fear of not knowing what would be developed if the property is rezoned.

Council member Marsh said state law does not allow the council to consider a specific development when pondering whether a rezoning should be approved. She said a lot of homes in that neighborhood weren’t built well and are nearing the end of their life. Redevelopment, she said, allows for added density and a variety of new housing types, and people need more options for homes in that part of town. Marsh said by adding on-street parking and new sidewalks, traffic concerns could be alleviated. She said she’ll be voting in favor.

Council member Kinion said there’s already a master plan in place for the Walker Park area, so it troubles him to see individual spot zoning-style requests for rezonings across the neighborhood.

Council member Gray said she agrees with the residents who are concerned about losing the integrity of their neighborhood.

Council member Smith said he hears a lot of fear about the RI-U zoning, but said there’s a lot of opportunity for this particular district to add development while also fitting in with the current neighborhood. However, he said he agrees with Kinion in that smaller single rezonings are indeed troubling.

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