Fayetteville City Council recap: July 7, 2020

Note*: Marsh and Bunch arrived after approval of the Consent agenda.

Notes: Paul Becker gave a monthly financial update for May that reflects sales tax collections from April.

Tax collections were down 11% over last year.

Becker said total year-to-date collections through May, however, are essentially flat with the budget.

Becker said he doesn’t expect those numbers to hold for the year, however.

Street fund collections were flat to the budget, he said.

Parking collections are down 35% on the year-to-date compared to budget. Usage in April was only 17% of budget, he said.

Water and Sewer billings are up about 2%, but accounts receivable are down a bit, probably due to economic stress felt by residents as a result of the pandemic.

Notes: Becker also gave the city’s annual audit report, and indicated the city has a positive balance at the end of the year.

The report addresses the city’s financial statements, and financial operations.

Background:
This resolution was tabled at the June 4 meeting. It was initially tabled until July 7, but it was the council’s intention to only table it until June 16 so the item is now back on the agenda.

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.

June 2 Discussion:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading.

Turk made a motion to change the portion of the property designated to be rezoned RSF-8 to RSF-4. After the applicant said they would provide a bill of assurance not to develop that property on more than 6 units per acre. Turk then withdrew her motion.

The council voted 5-3 to table the rezoning until the first meeting in July to allow the applicant to prepare that bill of assurance, with Scroggin, Smith, and Marsh voting no.

June 16 Discussion:
Although this item was officially tabled until July 7, City Attorney Kit Williams said it was the council’s intention to only table it until June 16 so the item is now back on the agenda.

The applicant said they’d like to leave the item tabled until July 7. That’s when the discussion will continue.

July 7 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said the applicant has offered the city two Bills of Assurance, and requested the council amend the ordinance to recognize those documents. The council voted 5-3 to accept them, with Marsh, Petty, and Smith voting no.

Local resident Russ Collins expressed concern about the existing infrastructure’s ability to handle the increased traffic that would come from the development.

Residents Ben Pierce and Joe George, who also live in the neighborhood, also expressed concern about an increase in traffic in the neighborhood.

Decision
The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading. It was approved unanimously.

Background:
This property is currently developed with one single-family home. The applicant said the rezoning is need to bring the property more into compliance and to allow further development that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. City staff are in favor of the request, and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.

Location:

June 16 Discussion:
Kinion and Gutierrez said they’d like to hold the item on the first reading to allow more time for public consideration. The discussion will continue on July 7.

July 7 Discussion:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading, and approved it unanimously.

Background:
This property had a multi-family residential structure that was constructed in 1911 directly across the street from the University of Arkansas. The structure was demolished in early 2020. The property has been home to the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity house since at least 2008 when it transferred to its current owner the Arkansas Alumni Corporation of Sigma Phi Epsilon. The applicant said they want to rezone the property to Downtown General as part their redevelopment of the fraternity house.

City staff are in favor of the request, but the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the proposal after the applicant shared their development plans for the property. According to city documents, the commissioners felt the proposed development did not respect the existing setbacks along Arkansas Avenue, or the historic nature of the street. In that denial, commissioners included a recommendation that the City Council consider an overlay district for the area between West Maple Street, the current boundary of the Downtown Design Overlay District, Arkansas Avenue, and the Arkansas & Missouri Railroad in the case that the applicant were to appeal.

Location:

June 16 Discussion:
Petty said he likes form-based zonings, but said Arkansas Avenue is a special street that should be treated in a sensitive manner. He said preservation of the way the buildings meet the street in that area should be uniform.

Several residents who spoke agreed and said the proposed design is not compatible and is a break from the historic nature of the street.

Representatives of the applicant said they agree that the street is special, and they believe the proposed design is in line with the area.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on July 7.

July 7 Discussion:
Blake Jorgensen, representing the applicant, offered a Bill of Assurance that would add some setback restrictions and limit the building to three stories to try and match the character of the neighborhood.

Council Member Smith said he is not sold on the zoning yet, but he feels the Bill of Assurance makes the proposal a lot better.

Council Member Kinion said the Bill of Assurance doesn’t do enough to address the concerns of the neighborhood.

The council voted unanimously to amend the ordinance to accept the Bill of Assurance.

Several residents spoke against the rezoning, citing concerns about compatibility with the neighborhood, noise and parking.

Two people spoke in favor of the rezoning.

Council Member Petty said he would prefer to take a couple more weeks to think about this one.

Council Member Marsh said she typically would prefer a dense development for this area, but she agrees with some of the neighbors who say the project may be too large for the site.

Kinion said he has concerns about parking, and preserving the character of the neighborhood.

The council voted on a motion to advance the ordinance to the third and final reading, but the motion failed 5-3 with Smith, Marsh, and Petty voting no. The measure needed six votes to advance, and Mayor Jordan declined to vote. The discussion will continue on July 21.

Background:
This property has a small one-story, residential single-family home that was built in 1951. It was recently rezoned in late 2019 to RSF-8, and the applicant is back with a new request to rezone to RI-U. The street has a complicated zoning history, and the multi-family dwellings at North Garland Avenue and North Addington Avenue were built following a clerical error which mistakenly zoned that land in the early 2000s. The council has since been sensitive to requests on Hendrix Street. A recent request to rezone a property to the west, on the south side of Hendrix Street to RI-U was approved on May 19 of this year. Additionally, five properties directly across the street on the south side of West Hendrix Street are also under a rezone request from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, 4 units per Acre, to RI-U from a separate property owner.

The Planning Commission voted 5-3 to recommend approval of the request, but city staff are against the proposal unless the applicant changes their request to RSF-18. Staff said since RI-U does not have a density cap, they’d prefer RSF-18 since it would provide a “soft increase” of density in the area.

Location:

June 16 Discussion:
The applicant said the goal is to build three small, affordable single-family homes. He said the property is within walking distance to the university and the commercial areas near the intersection of Garland Avenue and North Street.

Petty said this area needs more diversity in home types and he’ll support the request.

Turk said the neighborhood is stable and modest and the residents don’t want dramatic changes. Kinion agreed, and said they’ve fought hard to protect the heritage of their neighborhood. He said the clerical error started a domino effect and is being used as an anchor to try and justify compatibility of requests for similar zonings. Kinion said that’s unfair to the people who have established homes in this neighborhood.

Gutierrez said she agrees with Turk and Kinion and she won’t support the request.

Smith said the council should hold this item on the first reading since the next item is similar and the two should be considered in context with one another.

The council agreed, and the discussion will continue on July 7.

July 7 Discussion:

Teresa Turk said she would like to hold the ordinance on the second reading to allow for more people to speak on the rezoning. Kinion and Smith agreed. The council will take up the issue on July 21.

Background:
This property is comprised of five lots that include small one-story homes.

Just like the previous request, the Planning Commission voted 5-3 to recommend approval, but city staff are against the proposal unless the applicant changes their request to RSF-18. Staff said since RI-U does not have a density cap, they’d prefer RSF-18 since it would provide a “soft increase” of density in the area.

Location:

June 16 Discussion:
The applicant said he’s submitted a Bill of Assurance that the property will only contain single-family homes.

Petty said he’s never considered the clerical error that mistakenly rezoned a nearby property at a greater density when deciding whether to support rezonings. He said this neighborhood is within walking distance to several destinations and on its own is a good candidate for a moderate increase in density.

Smith said he understands the neighbors want to preserve the character of their neighborhood, but he’s concerned that with the Bill of Assurance being offered, the area might end up with something that is immodest and lacking in variety. He said he thinks limiting the property to single-family homes will lead to large houses that are leased by the bedroom to college students. He said he won’t support the Bill of Assurance, but hasn’t decided on the overall rezoning request.

The council agreed to leave this item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on July 7.

July 7 Discussion:

The applicant offered a Bill of Assurance guaranteeing single-family homes on the property. Council Member Kyle Smith asked if the applicant would be amenable to a different zoning geared more toward single-family development.

The applicant said he would be OK with an RSF-18 zoning for the property, and asked the council to go ahead and rezone the property on the fly.

Several council members expressed support for that change.

Petty said he is concerned about this type of zoning creating economic segregation issues in the neighborhood.

The amendment to change the request to RSF-18 passed 5-3 with Gutierrez, Petty, and Scroggin voting no.

After public comment, the council decided to leave the ordinance on the second reading. The discussion will continue on July 21.

Background:
The thermal dryer was damaged on May 17. The city has received quotes from three vendors, with Fleck Bearing Company being the lowest.

July 7 Discussion:

The council voted to amend the ordinance to include freight and taxes.

Decision:
The ordinance was advanced to the third and final reading, and the council passed it unanimously.

Background:
City staff said the transaction fees of several invoice types are already incorporated into the fee structure, and should be exempted.

July 7 Discussion:

There was no discussion.

Decision:
The ordinance was advanced to the third and final reading, and the council passed it unanimously.

Background:
A site improvement plan was approved for an apartment building in an undeveloped lot at the southwest corner of Cleburn Street and College Avenue. Variance requests for building design, street section design, and parking lot screening standards were also approved. City staff said since then, some neighbors are attempting to stop the development because they believe the project will create or compound a dangerous traffic condition.

“By having 90 degree compact parking spaces on both sides of Cleburn is adding a gauntlet style driving condition and would basically turn a residential street into a parking lot to the benefit of the developer,” wrote resident Tate Wolf in a letter to city planners.

Council Member Kinion has sponsored this appeal on behalf of the neighbors.

Location:

July 7 Discussion:
One resident, Scott Hill, spoke in favor of the development. Hill said the development is exactly the type that the city has said it wanted in the past, and said he is concerned if the appeal is granted, it could discourage similar future development in Fayetteville.

Tate Wolf, the local resident who convinced Kinion to bring the appeal to the council, said he does not oppose the development, but he takes issue with the 90-degree parking associated with it.

Another resident, Michael Kulish, echoed Wolf’s concerns.

Council Member Matthew Petty said he does not see the need to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, and cited parking on the square that sees a considerable amount of traffic, and seems to operate fine with those who park backing into traffic to exit their parking space.

After a discussion, Kinion requested to table the resolution for two weeks. That vote failed 3-5 with with Kinion, Turk, and Bunch voting to table.

Decision:
The final vote failed 3-5, with Kinion, Turk, and Bunch voting for the appeal. The appeal failed, which means the decision of the Planning Commission will stand.

Background:
A 240-unit apartment complex is proposed on 10.25 acres of undeveloped land on the northeast corner of Old Missouri Road and Joyce Boulevard. City planners are in favor of the project, but the Planning Commission voted 6-3 to deny the request. The applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council.

The complex would include nine multi-family buildings, a pool, clubhouse, and associated parking. While most of the site is zoned RMF-24, there is a small portion at the southern boundary of the site that is zoned CS, Community Services. The applicant has indicated that they intend to rezone that strip to RMF-24 for site consistency.

Planning commissioners said the planned long drive aisle between a tree preservation area and the rear of neighboring apartment buildings left the area without any passive surveillance or “eyes on the street,” making it a potentially attractive place for crime. The applicant responded by meeting with the police to discuss potential options for activating the space, and met with Urban Forestry to discuss options for adding an elevated and illuminated pedestrian walkway through the middle of the dry detention and tree preservation area. City staff proposed adding a condition of approval for an access easement and additional pedestrian features in the north and central portion of the site, including lighting, boardwalk, and sidewalk along the northwest tier of compact parking spaces. The motion was denied, and commissioners cited that the property was not zoned correctly, in reference to the southern strip of the property, with Building 1 currently encroaching on the required setback in the CS zoning district. The applicant has resubmitted plans in conjunction with this appeal, and they are attached to the applicant’s request letter (see packet). City staff remain in favor of the project with 18 conditions of approval (see page 6 of the packet).

Location:

July 7 Discussion:

The council approved the resolution 5-3, with Smith, Marsh, and Petty voting no.

Background:
The property is a residential lot with one duplex that was constructed in 1962. The applicant has not indicated a specific development plan.

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

Location:

July 7 Discussion:

There was no discussion.

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

Background:
The property includes a single-family house built in 1955. The applicant said the plan is to develop the property for residential use. The initial proposal was for RMF-24, Residential Multi-family, 24 Units per Acre, but the applicant changed the request after Planning Commission members said they’d prefer RI-U.

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

Location:

July 7 Discussion:

There was no discussion.

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

Background:
The property was used for many years as the Razorback Golf Course which has closed for business. The proposal is for a commercial planned zoning district which would allow for a 602-unit apartment complex, some commercial development, and a large “conservation-themed” park roughly twice the size of Gulley Park, and nearly three times the size of Wilson Park.

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

Location:

July 7 Discussion:

The council decided to leave the proposal on the first reading. The discussion will continue on July 21.