LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: May 19, 2020

Background: The council recently passed an amendment to the noise ordinance that included language barring people from using amplifiers to make loud noise while riding on bicycles on the trail system and city sidewalks. Council Member Sonia Gutierrez said she’d like to include anyone using the trails, not just people on bikes.

Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said this idea gives him some pause since there are free speech considerations that need to be taken into account when regulating activities on public sidewalks. He said he needs time to research the possibilities before drafting a proposal.

Council Member Marsh said it’s a great concept, but suggested giving the issue some time to make sure it’s properly addressed.

Smith said he’d prefer not to reconsider the amendment, but instead to consider a new amendment.

Gutierrez said she’s happy to table this item. Williams said the proper way to do that would be pass this item, which would bring the original amendment back to the council, and then table it.

Decision:
The council voted 7-1 (Smith voted against) to pass the reconsideration, and 7-1 (Smith voted against) to table the original amendment for two weeks.

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the May 5 meeting.

This property is a residential lot between Addington Avenue and Stephens Avenue north of Mount Comfort Road in the Hendrix Subdivision. It includes a single-family home built in the 1950s. The applicant intends to split the property and develop both street frontages.

The Planning Commission has recommended approval, but city staff recommend denial of the request. Staff. however, would support rezoning the property to RSF-8.

Location:

April 21 Discussion:
Turk asked if the applicant is wanting RI-U because it allows four unrelated people to live in the homes, whereas the city’s recommendation would only allow three. Blake Jorgensen, who represents the applicant, said the goal is to build a four-bedroom home regardless of how many unrelated people eventually live in it.

Kinion said people sometimes request RI-U specifically so they can build homes that cater to college students. He said he can’t support RI-U in this neighborhood.

Smith said he likes RI-U and if the applicant were planning to build several smaller homes, he might be in favor of the request. But for a large, 4-bedroom house at a high price point, he won’t support RI-U in this neighborhood.

After some debate between council members and the applicant’s representative, Mayor Jordan said this item should probably be held on the first reading to allow more time for consideration.

The council agreed. The discussion will continue on May 5.

May 5 Discussion:
City Development Services Director Garner Stoll introduced a new tool established to help evaluate infill projects in Fayetteville along with the item, and there was some discussion about that.

The tool scores property on a variety of issues, including access to services, employment opportunities, infrastructure and amenities.

One resident spoke against the rezoning, saying it is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

City Council Members Mark Kinion, Teresa Turk, Sarah Bunch, and Sonia Gutierrez all said they wanted to hold the item to allow for more public comment. Some expressed concerns that the public may be intimidated by the Zoom meetings, and wanted to err on the side of allowing additional time for comments.

Council member Matthew Petty said the city is not keeping up with the demand for affordable housing in Fayetteville, and he feels that staff’s recommendation of denial of the request did not properly consider the city’s adopted long-term planning documents.

Ultimately, the council decided to hold the request on the second reading.

May 19 Discussion:
During public comment, one resident spoke against the request because she said it would permit multi-family housing in an area that is mostly single-family, which is incompatible.

Council Member Turk said the surrounding area is a modest, established neighborhood, and rezoning the property to RI-U is too large of an up-zoning and she won’t support it.

Council Member Kinion said there is a nearby property that was incorrectly zoned RI-12 by a city clerical error and then built upon years ago, and that the property has been used to justify whether similar requested rezonings are appropriate. He said that he can’t support the request to include possible multi-family units.

Marsh said multi-family units are still residential units, and the city needs to be considering all types of residents regardless of their economic circumstances or preference to live in a single-family home or a duplex. She said the neighborhood is within walking distance to many amenities, and this is the exact type of area the city should be encouraging an increase in density.

Council Member Petty said the council can’t continue to push aside its concerns about the city’s growing population by ignoring opportunities to approve development requests that favor increased density and more affordable housing types, especially in incremental amounts in neighborhoods like this. He said he’ll support the ordinance.

Decision:
During the final vote, the council voted 5-3 to approve the request. Kinion, Turk and Gutierrez voted against.

Background:
This item was tabled at the May 5 meeting.

The mayor and city attorney have proposed the baseball fields at Kessler Mountain Regional Park be named the Chambers Baseball Complex since Chambers Bank in 2010 donated over 200 acres to the city to build the park. The bank also sold another 328 acres to the city at a “fair and reasonable” price, according to city staff and donated an additional 47 acres in 2014. The proposal was unanimously approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board last month.

May 5 Discussion:
Council Member Matthew Petty requested that the council hold this item to allow for more discussion on how the city raises funds for parks, naming rights, etc.

May 19 Discussion:
Petty said he’s very appreciative of the gift the city received from Chambers Bank, but he still has concerns about how the city got to this point. He said he thinks the city’s fundraising strategy in this case originated in the city attorney’s office, which makes him uncomfortable. He said if the idea came from the parks department or from a fundraising campaign, he’d be fine with it. He said without having a more comprehensive fundraising strategy in place, he’s worried about giving naming rights to one entity for 30 years. He said he’s inclined to still vote in favor, but he wishes there was a better strategy by which the city uses to give naming rights.

City Attorney Kit Williams said he worked with the mayor to help draft this proposal, and that he thinks the bank should be recognized for their multi-million dollar donation to help build the park.

Parks and Recreation Director Connie Edmonston said the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted unanimously to approve these naming rights.

Kinion said the park has provided a significant boost to the south part of town, thanks mostly to the bank because of their donation. He said a funding strategy is an appropriate suggestion for the future, but for now the bank should receive some recognition for its part in making the park possible.

Scroggin said when isolated, this request makes sense and he’ll vote in favor of it. But moving forward, the city should have some metrics in place for future naming rights as Petty suggested.

Smith said he’s wondered if the Chambers name is referring to the bank or the person who owns the bank. He said he’s spoken to several residents who’ve said they would prefer their parks amenities be named after people instead of businesses. He said it would be great if the city’s parks could serve as cultural markers that point to the community’s history. He said that’s one thing he hopes is considered if a funding strategy is implemented.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the May 5 meeting.

The property is part of an undeveloped parcel between Wedington Drive and Persimmon Street, immediately north of the Boys & Girls Club. It is part of a larger site that was previously zoned as a planned zoning district (PZD), and then rezoned to NS, Neighborhood Services, in 2015 after the PZD failed to come to fruition. NS was subsequently designated as NS-L, Neighborhood Services-Limited. A lot split request has also been submitted for the parcel and is currently under review. The applicant wishes to build a church on the property.

City staff are in favor of the request, but the Planning Commission unanimously denied the proposal, so the applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council.

The current zoning district (NS-L) requires a build-to zone between 10 and 25 feet from the front property line, and the requested zoning district (P-1) does not have that same requirement. Planning Commission members expressed a strong interest to maintain the build-to zone along North Rupple Road for compatibility with the subdivision immediately across the street. Although the commission generally felt that the proposed use of a church was appropriate, they pointed out churches are allowed as a conditional use in the current zoning district, and because of that, they said they’d prefer to keep the current zoning district intact. The commissioners encouraged the applicant to apply for a conditional use permit instead, but the applicant chose to appeal to the City Council.

Location:

May 5 Discussion:
Dennis Blind of Olsson represented the applicant, and said the build-to zone is contrary to the needs of his client, who operates about 35 other churches around the country. He cited concerns about the size of the building his client would construct in relation to the neighborhood, among others.

Local resident Will Dockery, who lives nearby, said the build-to zone is important to the walkability of the neighborhood, and said he wants the council to deny the request.

Council Member Kyle Smith said he was concerned about the scale of the building to the street with the current zoning, and said he is also worried about the building fitting in with the surrounding neighborhood.

Smith offered an amendment to rezone the property to CS-Community Services.

City Attorney Kit Williams expressed concern over changing the zoning from something the applicant has requested to something else, and because the church is requesting a zoning in P-1 that is “designed for (churches) in our code,” Williams said.

The amendment passed 5-3, with Kinion, Gutierrez, and Turk voting no.

The council ultimately decided to leave the request on the second reading.

May 19 Discussion:
The applicant has put another idea on the table if the council would agree to rezone the property to P-1. The CS district that some council members wanted has a build-to line of 10-25 feet. The new proposal would move the structure within 35 feet of the existing right of way and create an entrance to address the sidewalk issue some members had. Parking would be entirely on the east side with no parking located between the building and Rupple Road. The applicant is willing to do this with the P-1 zoning and a Bill of Assurance. The applicant would still have to go through the Planning Commission to get a variance needed to construct the project in this manner.

Smith said the new proposal looks much better than the original plan, and thanked the applicant for listening to the council’s concerns.

Scroggin moved to amend the ordinance to include language needed to accept this new proposal. Turk seconded.

The amendment passed unanimously.

Decision:
During the final vote, the council approved the ordinance 8-0.

Background:
City staff said recent changes to Arkansas statutes now require municipalities to assess a transaction fee equal to the amount charged by the credit card or debit card company.

The city currently accepts credit card payments for utility bills, recycling and trash invoices, airport hangar rental and supply purchases, animal shelter fees, building permits, business licenses, miscellaneous billing of city services, parking, and miscellaneous police fees. Staff said the city has configured all current credit card systems to not include any credit card fees, but with the changes to state law, it’s time to update the system.

Due to the different types of credit card and debit cards, staff said there are hundreds of different credit card transaction fee rates and percentages, based upon the type of card used by the customer (consumer, business, reward card, etc.). Therefore, staff said an average transaction cost fee is the most practical solution since the system requires a fixed fee be charged. Staff is recommending a 2.95% fee since that is the average collected by the credit card companies.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading, then voted unanimously to approve it.

Background:
The property is on the north side of Huntsville Road and about 500 feet west of Crossover Road. It includes one single-family house built in 1950, and is level with an open stormwater channel crossing the southwestern corner of the property and carrying water from a pair of off- site ponds towards Huntsville Road. The applicant has not shared specific development plans.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading, then voted 7-1 to approve it. Turk voted against. She did not say why.

Background:
The property is northwest of Fayetteville in unincorporated Washington County. It includes numerous parcels on both the east and west sides of Hughmount Road, between Weir and Mount Comfort roads. Although significant areas of the property remain largely undeveloped, approximately 54 acres was platted as the Hughmount Village subdivision.

In 2012, the City Council approved the extension of Fayetteville’s sewerage system to the Hughmount Village subdivision. Subsequently, in 2013 the council approved amending the previous agreement to ensure the property’s development was in line with the most current requirements including tree preservation, drainage, building permitting, and other associated fees and dedications. A clause within the resolution required developers or owners to seek annexation when legally possible. Annexation was not legal in 2013 due to the lack of contiguous boundaries between Hughmount Village and incorporated Fayetteville. Staff said evaluation indicates that development requirements have been met.

City planning staff are in favor of the request excluding Hughmount North, but the Planning Commission voted 7-1 to deny the application, so the applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council.

Location:

May 19 Discussion:
Both city staff and the applicant said they would like the item to be left on the first reading tonight to allow more time for consideration.

A resident in the Hughmount subdivision said he’s in favor of his neighborhood being annexed into the city, but he’s against the proposed RSF-8 rezoning for a portion of the property since the area, he said, doesn’t have proper infrastructure to handle an increase in density. A second speaker agreed.

Petty said he’s interested to know what type of infrastructure would be required and what the maintenance costs would be if this property is annexed. He said the city must have a full and complete picture of the costs involved with annexing any land. Staff said they are compiling and calculating those costs and will share them with the council in two weeks.

The mayor said he’d also like to see this item held before a final vote is taken.

The council agreed. The discussion will continue on June 2.

Background:
This item is related to the previous annexation request, and is the preferred zoning district of the property if the council approves the annexation.

Like the item above, city planning staff are in favor of the request, but the Planning Commission is not, so the applicant has appealed the commission’s decision to the City Council.

Location:

May 19 Discussion:
This item is tied to the previous annexation, so the council agreed to leave it on the first reading as well. The discussion will continue on June 2.

Background:
The property currently has one single-family dwelling which was built in 1980. Though recently primarily agricultural, the surrounding land is developing and establishing itself as a residential single-family neighborhood through several subdivisions, including the Creekview Subdivision to the west and the Legacy Pointe Subdivision to the south.

City staff said because the request is from one residential single-family zoning district to another residential single-family zoning district, it does not introduce any new or incompatible uses other than what is currently permitted by-right. Given the surroundings, staff said they believe the proposed rezoning is generally compatible with adjacent land uses, though they recognize it will increase density, and that appropriate infrastructure improvements will need to be made at the time of development.

City staff are in favor of the request, but the Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject the rezoning. Staff said the Planning Commission felt this idea would lead to “dense sprawl” and would put people beyond where established services are located, but staff are still in favor because residential developments always precede commercial developments.

Location:

Discussion:
Petty asked city staff how effective they think this project would be at generating a new commercial center. Staff said this one project wouldn’t immediately trigger commercial development, but said there are many houses being built in this area and together they could lead to more commercial demand.

Smith said he’d like to leave the item on the first reading. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on June 2.