LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: July 21, 2020

Background:
The City Board of Health met last week and a motion was made and passed to recommend that Mayor Jordan appoint Dr. Marti Sharkey as Fayetteville Health Officer. Staff said Mayor Jordan spoke with Dr. Sharkey the next day and she agreed to accept his appointment as City Health Officer.

Experience:
Dr. Sharkey’s CV is included in the agenda packet, and is also available here.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

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 3-5 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.

July 21 Discussion:
The applicant has asked for this item to be tabled indefinitely. The council agreed, and voted unanimously to table the ordinance indefinitely.

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.

July 21 Discussion:
Gutierrez said she still sides with the neighbors who do not want an increase in density in their neighborhood.

Turk agreed, and said the neighborhood is “very stable and modest” and that the requested rezoning would be “a dramatic change” if approved.

Kinion also agreed, and said since the property was just rezoned less than a year ago, he thinks the applicant is “sneaking” the request in “during the COVID era” to try and get an up-zoning.

Decision:
The ordinance failed 3-5 with Gutierrez, Kinion, Turk, Bunch and Smith voting against. Marsh, Petty and Scroggin voted in favor.

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.

July 21 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision
The ordinance passed 5-3 with Gutierrez, Kinion and Turk voting against.

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.

July 21 Discussion:
Applicant Craig Underwood and representatives from Crafton Tull gave an overview presentation of the project.

Keith Tencleve with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board said west Fayetteville is in need of a park of this type. He said the parks board voted unanimously to recommend approval of this project because the existing parks in west Fayetteville are not of the same caliber as Gulley Park, Wilson Park and Walker Park, and this project would help solve that problem.

Turk asked the applicant about the Planning Commission’s recommended Condition of Approval that requires 50% of the park’s full perimeter to have lots that feature buildings fronting the park.

The applicant’s representative said they’d prefer to allow each developer to choose whether buildings will front the street or the park depending on their individual projects.

Turk moved to amend that particular Condition of Approval to give future developers more flexibility by allowing frontage on either the street or the park. The amendment passed 7-1 with Marsh voting against.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.

Plans:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to pass the resolution.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to pass the resolution.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to pass the resolution.

Discussion:
Gutierrez said she’s very excited about the library expansion project.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to pass the resolution.

The proposal is to convey the city’s Indian Trail property to university in exchange for the Markham Hill property and to construct the Fayetteville Traverse Trail which will connect Markham Hill to Centennial Park to the west through a tunnel under I-49 and also to Kessler Mountain to the south. The traverse will be open to bikers, runners, hikers, dog walkers, bird watchers, and students accessing natural areas for research and education.

Location:

Discussion:
Council Member Smith said he likes the plan, but asked about the UA’s plans for the Indian Trail property. Mike Johnson, associate vice chancellor for facilities at the university, said the plan is to build a 12-court tennis complex with a small storage building on the north portion of the property and to build mountain bike trails in the wooded area to the south.

Here’s an image he shared:

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to pass the resolution.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

The council voted unanimously to send the item to the second reading.

Smith said he’ll support the request, but it makes him nervous since it’s the first rezoning proposal between the new section of Rupple Road and Centennial Park. He said most of the land in that area is zoned for residential use only and there’s already limited commercial use nearby. He said it will be a challenge for the council in the future if repeated residential requests in this area are brought forward with no potential for commercial development.

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

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

Location:

Discussion:
Gutierrez asked the applicant if they’d heard anything from the neighbors. A representative for the applicant said only one neighbor had any input and he was in favor of the change.

Gutierrez said she wants to hold the item on the first reading. Turk agreed.

The council agreed. The discussion will continue on Aug. 4.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

The Planning Commission recommends approval of the request. Staff said the applicant’s request is compatible with the single-use character of the area as well as the Future Land Use Map and City Plan 2040.

Location:

Discussion:
Mayor Jordan suggested holding the item on the first reading since the applicant was having technical difficulties in joining the meeting. The council agreed, but the applicant later joined the meeting, and the council moved back to this item for discussion. After a brief overview from the applicant, Council Member Turk said she still wanted to hold the item. The council agreed again, so the discussion will continue on Aug. 4.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

The proposal would also send property right of way vacation requests straight to the council – bypassing the Planning Commission recommendation process – as suggested by city staff. Staff said city planners already ensure that all vacation requests have the necessary agreements from all the utility companies and/or adjoining or affected neighboring properties before they’re sent to the Planning Commission and then ultimately to the council. Because these items are almost always uncontroversial, staff said the change would save the applicant up to a month by not requiring the Planning Commission process which almost always leads to a unanimous favorable recommendation without any discussion before being sent to the council for approval

Finally, it would make a correction needed to replace the word “Alderman” with “Council Member” in this particular piece of code since that official name change has already occurred.

Discussion:
Council Member Petty said he’s worried that an easier appeal process might further dissuade applicants from seeking conditional uses, which is already a rarity because the process takes up so much time.

City Attorney Kit Williams said with more time and input, he could draft some separate ordinances for consideration at the next meeting.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Aug. 4.

Discussion:
The council agreed to leave this item on the first reading as well. The discussion will continue Aug. 4.