LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: March 19, 2019

File photo

On the agenda…

  • Rezoning 0.4 acres on Montgomery Street.
  • Rezoning 2 acres on Whippoorwill Lane.
  • Rezoning 1 acre on Prairie Street.
  • Rezoning 2.3 acres on 15th Street.
  • Rezoning 0.28 acres on Davis Street.
  • A regional sewer lift station near Rupple Road.
  • Changes to the park land dedication rules.

» Download the full agenda

A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council began at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 19, 2019 inside room 219 of City Hall, located at 113 W. Mountain St. in Fayetteville.

Listed below are the items up for approval and links to PDF documents with detailed information on each item of business.


Roll Call

Present: Sarah Marsh, Mark Kinion, Mayor Lioneld Jordan, Sloan Scroggin, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, Kyle Smith
Absent: Sonia Gutierrez, Matthew Petty

» View current attendance records


City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports and Discussion Items

1. Nominating Committee Report
Pass 6-0

Note:
The Mayor recommends the following candidates for appointment:

FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Hershey Garner – One term ending 04/01/24

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Katie Mihalevich – One unexpired term ending 06/30/21

The Public Facilities Board recommends the following candidates for appointment:

PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD
Erich Albrecht – One unexpired term ending 12/31/20

The Advertising and Promotion Commissioners recommend the following candidate for appointment:

ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION COMMISSION
Katherine Kinney – One Tourism Industry term ending 03/31/23

The Nominating Committee recommends the following candidates for appointment:

AIRPORT BOARD
Ian Tholking – One Aeronautical unexpired term ending 12/31/20

ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD
Vacant – One Licensed Veterinarian/Veterinary Professional term ending 06/30/22

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
Stephen Clowney – One term ending 03/31/22
Vacant – One term ending 03/31/22

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Jules K. Beck – One term ending 03/31/25

CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Vacant – One term ending 03/31/24

PLANNING COMMISSION
Leslie Belden – One term ending 03/31/22
Robert Sharp – One term ending 03/31/22
Kristifier Paxton – One term ending 03/31/22
Quintin Canada – One unexpired term ending 03/31/20


2. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Report


Agenda Additions

1. Opposition to Senate Bill 550 (Details): A resolution to express the City Council’s support of clean water and opposition to Senate Bill 550.
Pass 6-0

More info
Both the Central Arkansas Water District (statement here) and the Beaver Water District (statement here) have issued statements against the bill, which City Attorney Kit Williams said would remove the authority from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality over confined animal feeding facilities and how and where to safely land apply their liquid waste.

The groups said the bill would also eliminate the current public notification requirements for animal farms, and that hog farms, for example, would operate in a “much more permissive environment,” and the prospect of liquid waste entering the water reservoirs would become a greater threat.

Williams said Council member Turk requested that this resolution be drafted.

Turk said the lack of monitoring and oversight in the bill is cause for major concern when it comes to water quality.

Mayor Jordan said the bill is one of the worst pieces of legislation he’s seen in a while. “There are two things I know,” said Jordan. “If you want to protect the environment, then you need to take care of your water and you need to take care of your air, and this bill is a fly in the face of both of those things.”

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.


Consent

Consent items are approved in a single, all-inclusive vote unless an item is pulled by a council member at the beginning of the meeting.

1. Approval of the March 5, 2019 City Council Meeting Minutes
Pass 6-0

2. Graybar Electric Company, Inc. (Details): A resolution to approve the purchase of six (6) Critical Spare Circuit Breakers for the West Side Wastewater Treatment Facility from Graybar Electric Company, Inc. in the amount of $57,725.00 plus applicable taxes, pursuant to a U.S. Communities National Cooperative Purchasing Program Contract, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Pass 6-0

3. Bid #19-20 Franklin & Son, Inc. (Details): A resolution to award Bid #19-20 and authorize a contract with Franklin and Son, Inc. in the amount of $195,000.00 for a roof replacement at the Noland Treatment Facility Administration Building, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $19,500.00, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Pass 6-0

4. Bid #19-22 N.E.C., Inc. (Details): A resolution to award Bid #19-22 and authorize a contract with N.E.C., Inc. in the amount of $427,623.50 for construction of the Cedarwood and Glenwood Drainage Improvements Project, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $42,700.00.
Pass 6-0

5. Ozarks Electric Cooperative Corporation (Details): A resolution to authorize the sale of about 3,123 square feet of land in fee simple and convey an access easement of about 2,163 square feet near the Gulley Road water tank to Ozarks Electric Cooperative corporation for the total sum of $5,387.50.
Pass 6-0

6. University of Arkansas Memorandum of Agreement (Details): A resolution to approve a memorandum of agreement with the University of Arkansas for the installation and maintenance of special street name signs on certain roadways on or near the University of Arkansas campus.
Pass 6-0

7. CDWG, Inc. (Details): A resolution to authorize the purchase of forty (40) GETAC tablet computers with extended warranties and accessory components from CDWG, Inc. for the amount of $145,360.00 plus applicable taxes, pursuant to a National IPA Technology Solutions Cooperative Purchasing Agreement, for use by the Police Department.
Pass 6-0


Unfinished Business

1. RZN 18-6488 (825 W. Montgomery St./Ballard) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 18-6488 for approximately 0.42 acres located at 825 W. Montgomery Street from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to NS-G, Neighborhood Services General.
Tabled 6-0 until April 2

More Info:
This item was left on the second reading on March 5.

The applicant originally requested the property be rezoned to RMF-6, so that the property could be developed with duplexes. City staff were against the request, and said it was out of character with the nearby established neighborhood. After its first discussion, the Planning Commission asked the applicant to revise the request to instead seek NS-G, Neighborhood Services General. The applicant agreed, and the Planning Commission unanimously approved the request.

City staff are still recommending denial, and said NS-G would also be inconsistent with the form of the older neighborhood.

Location:

Feb. 19 Discussion:
Staff said the applicant indicated they want to build two duplexes on the property. The current zoning would allow one duplex with a variance, but if the land were RSF-8, two duplexes would be allowed with a variance. The applicant did not ask for RSF-8, but staff said they mentioned it tonight because it’s another way to get what the applicant wants that could possibly appease the neighbors who are against NS-G.

Smith said he’s read comments from several neighbors who said they want to keep the neighborhood full of only single-story homes. He reminded the neighbors that the current zoning already allows homes to be built up to three stories.

Petty said he said a smart developer would include a Bill of Assurance promising that only two duplexes would be built on the land, but that’s not what’s in front of the council tonight. Regardless, he said he’s inclined to approve the request because he doesn’t think it poses a potential problem for the area.

During public comment, a woman who lives near the property asked the council to vote against the request. She said NS-G would allow businesses to be built right at the entrance of her 31-home neighborhood. She listed several types of businesses that are allowed under NS-G that she and her neighbors don’t think are appropriate next to their homes.

Council member Gutierrez said she’d like to hold the ordinance on the first reading. The council agreed.

March 5 Discussion:
Petty said after thinking about it, he would prefer the originally requested RMF-6 zone, and said he’s not sure NS-G is appropriate at this time. Kinion agreed.

Staff said the applicant was told about Petty’s suggestion of a Bill of Assurance, but hasn’t yet filed one. Scroggin said if there’s a chance a Bill of Assurance is coming, he’d like to wait another two weeks before making a decision.

Gutierrez said she’d also like to wait to make sure the right decision is made.

Five residents spoke against the request. Most said the area doesn’t need an increase in density.

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

March 19 Discussion:
The developer has provided a Bill of Assurance that restricts the height to two stories, limits the use to single-family homes or duplexes, and establishes a 15-foot setback. The developer also said they’re willing to go back to the originally requested district of RMF-6, which would limit development to two single-family homes or duplexes.

A resident who spoke said he’d be fine with two single-family homes, but has concerns about the traffic and additional vehicles parked on the property if duplexes were built.

Another resident said she would prefer a single-family-only district – like RSF-8 – to ensure that only single-family homes are built, unless a conditional use permit for duplexes is approved separately by the council at a later date.

The council voted unanimously to amend the ordinance to include the Bill of Assurance and originally requested district.

Council member Gutierrez is not here tonight, but asked the council to please not vote on this item yet. That would require a vote to table the item since it’s already on the third and final reading.

The council voted unanimously to table the ordinance until the next meeting on April 2.


2. ADM 18-6256 (Amend UDC 161 and 166) (Details)

An ordinance to amend § 161.20 District R-O, Residential Office, § 161.21 District C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, § 161.23 District C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, § 161.25 District C-3, Central Commercial, and § 166.24 Nonresidential Design Standards of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code to provide a form based development option for districts R-O, C-1, C-2, and C-3.
Tabled 6-0 until April 2

More Info:
This item was left on the second reading on March 5.

The Planning Commission and its Long Range Planning Sub-Committee, as well as city staff, are all in favor of the ordinance, which would modify four conventional zoning districts to allow form-based development.

Feb. 19 Discussion:
Turk said she’d like more time to consider the changes, and asked the council to hold the item on the first reading. The council agreed.

March 5 Dicussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said he likes this idea, but said it regulates the aesthetics of some non-residential uses that the city doesn’t have authority over, including churches, public schools and buildings owned by federal, state or county agencies. He offered an amendment that addresses this issue. For example, regulating how a church looks could be seen as violating that organization’s first amendment rights.

Petty said he appreciates Williams’ intent, but said he’s skeptical that the amendment should be made. He said not all design regulations are simply about aesthetics. Windows are required in many cases, he said, for safety reasons. The same goes for many entrances, he said. He said there’s nothing in the current regulations that wouldn’t allow a church to distinguish itself as a religious institution, and he’s worried a blanket exemption for those types of institutions could open the door to undesirable or unsafe designs that are used in a disingenuous manner to save money.

Williams disagreed, and said aesthetics are the primary reason for regulating design, even if those aesthetics help people see in or out of a building. He said federal, county and state agencies are not subject to city ordinances, so it would be improper to approve language that regulates those agencies.

Petty said while it may be true that federal, state and county agencies should be exempted, he’s not convinced that religious institutions should be exempted. He said to violate their first amendment rights the city would have to be impacting their ability to worship. He said if a church wants to build something unsightly and claim it’s for a religious value, there must be some protection against it.

Williams said even if a church claimed an unsightly design was faith-based, the council isn’t in a position to judge whether it’s true. He said he believes staying completely out of church business is the best way to go.

Marsh said with a blanket exemption, it would be too easy for a religious institution to build something unsightly and then move out, leaving a building that doesn’t comply with the city’s standards.

Marsh suggested tabling the item and sending it to the Ordinance Review Committee. Mayor Jordan said the same could be accomplished by leaving the item on the second reading. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on March 19.

March 19 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said rather than trying to pass this tonight, he’d like the council to table the proposal to allow him some time to work on a few changes that have been requested. Mayor Jordan said he’d also like to spend some more time on it.

The council voted unanimously to table the item until the next meeting on April 2.


3. RZN 19-6524 (2827 E. Whippoorwill Ln./Roth Family Partnership) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6524 for approximately 2.14 acres located at 2827 W. Whippoorwill Lane from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8 units per acre.
Left on the second reading

More info:
This item was left on the first reading on March 5.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.

Map:

March 5 Discussion:
Over a dozen residents spoke against the request. Some cited safety worries about increased traffic and added stormwater runoff. Some said more residences at the corner of Crossover and Whippoorwill would change the character of the rest of their neighborhood. Another said if approved, it would open the door for similar requests along Crossover Road. Others said they thought the homes that are built on this land would just become cheap rentals for college students.

Marsh said the requested zoning for 8 units per acre is appropriate for the area. She said it’s on a major arterial roadway and is a good transition from the current 4 units per acre and the 24 units per acre immediately adjacent to the north.

Scroggin said it might be wise to consider the potential stormwater issues before the discussion continues. Kinion agreed.

Bunch said added affordable housing – especially in this area – doesn’t have to be the kind of run down rental properties some of the neighbors have expressed concerns about. She said the houses could be homes for senior citizens who are downsizing or families who’d like to enter the community but otherwise couldn’t afford it.

Smith said one of the council’s duties is to help manage the growth of the city, and finding compatible places to facilitate more homes is part of that solution. He said when proposals for incremental increases in density across towns are ignored, the result is often monumental increases in other areas. Those areas, he said, tend to be lower income neighborhoods with residents who don’t have the means or political capital to fight against it. He said he hasn’t made up his mind about this particular request, but said solutions must be found for addressing growth and overall, he believes these incremental increases in density are a good start.

Turk said she’s concerned about drainage and traffic safety along Crossover Road. She said she doesn’t want to add any more density to the area, and she won’t support the request. Gutierrez agreed.

Petty said he’s not ready to make a decision about this project, and has some concerns about stormwater. He said he doesn’t want to trivialize safety, but said it’s not an issue that should be considered during this request because 8 units per acre along a major arterial roadway is not a problem. He said some residents complained the developer is only trying to make money, but said all neighborhoods are built by developers in a for-profit manner. He said he has deep concerns about climate change, and if the council has a single-family-exclusive mentality, then it is agreeing to ignore climate change.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on March 19.

March 19 Discussion:
Since the last meeting, a lawsuit was filed against the potential developers by resident Brandon Cate on behalf of his wife, Laura, and their neighbor Christopher McGinnis. The lawsuit states that the protective covenants of the Glendale Addition don’t allow more than one home to be built on a particular lot. The city is not a party to the lawsuit, but Cate is expected to ask the council to table the proposal until the case is decided.

A representative for the partnership said tonight the plan is actually to build houses in the $300,000-$325,000 range. It was previously stated that they planned to build homes at around $250,000 each.

City staff were asked about the pond currently located on the undeveloped lot, and whether it has any advantages when it comes to stormwater drainage. Staff said it only captures about 1 percent of the total area’s runoff, but it does catch about half of the water from the immediate area since it happens to leak during dry weather. The developer has said that the pond would likely be filled, but that they would address runoff when designing any homes, and, of course, comply with any applicable stormwater requirements.

Brandon and Laura Cate spoke to restate their opposition. Brandon asked the council to consider tabling the rezoning request until their lawsuit is decided, and spoke to environmental concerns he has about additional development on the Roth’s property. He said rainwater already causes water issues in the neighborhood, and the problems would only be worsened by more houses.

Several other residents spoke to restate their opposition.

Council member Gutierrez is not here tonight, but she asked that the item not be advanced to the third and final reading tonight. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on April 2.


4. RZN 18-6523 (504 W. Prairie St./Peters) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 18-6523 for approximately 0.99 acres located at 504 W. Prairie Street from I-1, Heavy Commerical & Light Industrial to RI-U, Residential Intermediate-Urban and DG, Downtown General.
Pass 6-0

More info:
This item was left on the first reading on March 5.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.

Map:

March 5 Discussion:
Petty recused himself from the discussion. He said he owns property very close to this land and the decision will directly impact him.

Smith said he will have a hard time supporting any rezoning adjacent to the proposed Cultural Arts Corridor if the requested zoning doesn’t allow for art production or art-related uses. Marsh agreed.

The item was left on the first reading. The discussion will continue on March 19.

March 19 Discussion:
The applicant said they would be willing to rezone all the property to DG-Downtown General, as requested by council members Marsh and Smith who said DG would allow uses that could complement the upcoming Cultural Arts Corridor.

The council voted unanimously to amend the ordinance to include the new zoning district.

There was no public comment.

Decision
The council advanced the item to the third reading, then voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.


5. RZN 19-6525 (509 E. 15th St./LDR Enterprises, LLC) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6525 for approximately 2.37 acres located at 509 E. 15th Street from RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family, 24 units per acre to I-1, Heavy Commercial & Light Industial.
Fail 3-3 (Item will return April 2)

More info:
This item was left on the first reading on March 5.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.

Map:

March 5 Discussion:
Marsh said the requested zoning is compatible with the area, but said she’d be more comfortable if a Bill of Assurance were provided that promised there would be no underground storage tanks constructed on the property since the majority of it is on a floodplain.

Staff said any large-scale development would be subject to water quality standards.

Marsh asked to leave the item on the first reading. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on March 19.

March 19 Discussion:
There was no public comment, but Turk asked staff if the requested zoning would allow a gas station with underground storage of fuel. Staff said yes, that use would be allowed.

Decision
The council advanced the item to the third reading, but voted 3-3, meaning the item failed since it needed 5 affirmative votes to pass. Kinion, Smith and Turk voted against.

After the vote, Kinion moved to reconsider. He did so in fairness to the applicant, since there were two members absent, one who represents this particular ward (City Attorney Kit Williams suggested this action). Smith seconded the motion, and said while he won’t likely change his vote, he did want to give the other members a chance to weigh in. The discussion will continue on April 2.


New Business

1. RZN 19-6542 (808 W. Davis St./Fugitt) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6542 for approximately 0.28 acres located at 808 W. Davis Street from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8 units per acre.
Pass 6-0

More info:
Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.

Map:

Discussion:
Council members Kinion, Smith and Turk said they believe the requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area.

Decision:
The council advance the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.


2. Bid #19-21 Kajacs Contractors, Inc. (Details)

A resolution to approve Bid #19-21 and authorize a contract with Kajacs Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $1,458,000.00 for the construction of the Hotz Drive to Maple Street, Pleasant Woods Drive, and Sang Avenue waterline improvements projects, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $145,800.00.
Pass 6-0

More info:
The project includes installation of about 1,980 linear feet of 12-inch water main west of Razorback Road from Hotz Drive to Maple Street. It replaces the older main and provides additional looping to the west side of Razorback Stadium. The work also includes about 530 linear feet of 8-inch main to create a loop in the Pleasant Woods Apartment complex as well as replacement of all existing service lines to the apartments. Staff said the loop will eliminate a dead end line serving the apartments and create a better grid for fire protection. The project also includes installation of about 600 linear feet of 8-inch water main along Sang Avenue from Old Farmington Road to Mitchell Drive. Staff said this section of older main is subject to frequent leaks and breaks that disrupt the water service as well as the roadway in front of Ramay Junior High School.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.


3. Rupple Road Regional Sewer Lift Station (Details)

A resolution to express the City Council’s intention to share in the cost of constructing a regional sewer lift station near Rupple Road.
Pass 6-0

More info:
As development proposals have begun in this basin, city staff have identified that serving the area with one regional lift station, instead of multiple smaller lift stations, will be in the city’s best interest for longterm maintenance and operational savings. Also, a regional lift station for this area would pump wastewater directly to the West Side Water Resource Recovery Facility on Broyles Avenue, avoiding “double-pumping” of the waste by sending it into other existing gravity systems that drain towards existing pumping facilities.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.


4. Rebuild-It Services Group, LLC (Details)

An ordinance to waive competitive bidding and accept a quote in the amount of $57,850.00, plus applicable taxes, from Rebuild-It Services Group, LLC for the repair of one clarifier drive at the Noland Wastewater Treatment Facility and one GSRU drive for the West Side Treatment Facility.
Pass 6-0

More info:
City staff said the drives are in need of repair.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.


5. Amend §166.04 Required Infrastructure Improvements – Development In City Limits (Details)

An ordinance to amend §166.04 Required Infrastructure Improvements – Development In City Limits of the Unified Development Code to change the park land dedication ratio for multi-family dwelling units and the fee-in-lieu formulas for single-family and multi-family dwelling units related to park land dedications.
Left on the first reading

More info:
The formula for the number of occupants in single-family dwelling units would change from 2.32 to 2.31 based on data from the U.S. Census. The formula for multi-family units would change from 1.39 to 2.02 occupants.

The formula for the average cost per acre of raw land would change from $40,000 per acre to $47,130 per acre.

Both city planners and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are in favor of the changes.

Discussion:
The council wanted to wait before making this decision, since it would effectively raise the rates for developers moving forward. The item was left on the first reading. The discussion will continue on April 2.


Adjourned

This meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m.