LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Aug. 18, 2020

File photo

On the agenda…

  • Approving two new railroad crossings and removing two existing crossings.
  • Creating a registry of landlords leasing more than two residential properties.
  • Reducing the square footage requirement for goats.
  • Declaring racism a public health emergency.
  • Accepting a grant for school resource officers.
  • Rezoning 3.05 acres on Wedington Drive.
  • Changes to the city’s Urban Residential Design Standards.

» Download the full agenda

A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council began at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2020. It is lived streamed on the city’s YouTube channel, and held virtually on the Zoom app due to social distancing measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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


Roll Call

Present: Sonia Gutierrez, Sarah Marsh, Mark Kinion, Matthew Petty, Mayor Lioneld Jordan, Sloan Scroggin, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, Kyle Smith
Absent: None

» View current attendance records


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 Aug. 4, 2020 City Council meeting minutes.
Pass 8-0

2. RFQ #20-05 On-call Appraisal Services (Details): A resolution to award RFQ #20-05 and authorize the purchase of on-call appraisal services from Reed & Associates, Inc. and Rife and Company Appraisers, Inc. as needed through Dec. 31, 2020.
Pass 8-0

3. Bid #20-59 Brasco International, Inc. (Details): A resolution to award Bid #20-59 and authorize a contract with Brasco International, Inc. in the amount of $92,050.00, plus any applicable taxes and freight charges, for the purchase of 12 shelter structures.
Pass 8-0

4. McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Details): A resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $194,525.00 to provide design services for a project to relieve stormwater issues near East Fairlane Street, South Elmhurst Avenue and East McClinton street, and to approve a budget adjustment – 2019 Drainage Bond Project.
Pass 8-0

5. Namida Lab, Inc. (Details): A resolution to approve and certify the participation of Namida Lab, Inc. in the Arkansas Tax Back program and to agree to authorize the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration to refund city sales tax back to Namida Lab, Inc. for qualified purchases.
Pass 8-0

6. RFQ 20-01 # 10 Black & Veatch Corporation (Details): A resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with black and veatch corporation, pursuant to rfq 20-01 selection #10, in an amount not to exceed $93,355.00 for a water and sewer rate study, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $18,600.00
Pass 8-0


Unfinished Business

1. Arkansas and Missouri Railroad Shiloh Drive and Gregg Avenue – 2019 Transportation Bond Project (Details)

An ordinance to waive competitive bidding and authorize a new railroad crossing cost and maintenance agreement and an easement agreement with the Arkansas and Missouri Railroad for a new railroad crossing at Shiloh Drive and Gregg Avenue, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $32,892.43, and to approve a budget adjustment for the estimated total project cost of $750,000.00 – 2019 Transportation Bond Project.
Pass 7-1

Background:
This item was tabled at the June 4 and Aug. 4 council meetings.

The project is proposed to allow Shiloh Drive to extend west into a 130-acre area of undeveloped property south of Van Asche Drive. The owner of the property told city staff they’d like to open up the area for future development. The city’s Master Street Plan includes this extension, and city staff said they believe it will be a worthwhile investment.

The partnership with the railroad includes that the city agrees to close the crossing at University Avenue, which means vehicles won’t be able to drive across the tracks along the street. In other words, the street will dead end in either direction and vehicles will need to take an alternate route. City staff said the street sees little use as it is, so they’re willing to give up the crossing. A turnaround will be constructed on University to allow emergency vehicles a way to turn around if they need to access the end of the street.

Funding will come from the 2019 Transportation Bond Program.

Location:

June 4 Discussion:
City staff suggested tabling the issue after some council members questioned the possibility of keeping the University Avenue crossing and others asked about the economic benefit of the proposed new crossing. The council voted unanimously to table the item.

Aug. 4 Discussion:
Staff said AMR is not interested in changing the plan, and would like to continue on with closing the University Avenue crossing. As an alternative, staff said they have researched the feasibility of creating a pedestrian/bicycle connection from the end of University Avenue to Hill Avenue, thereby creating a safe connection from residential areas to services to the south.

As for the economic benefits of the new crossing, staff said a 2,000-unit apartment complex is proposed for the 40-acre parcel at the corner of Van Asche and Gregg Avenue, and that the new crossing would provide direct access to that development. According to staff projections, the city will begin to recapture of the cost of the new railroad crossing during construction of the apartment development, and that the project has the potential to provide sales tax revenue to recapture the remaining portion of the city’s expenditure in as soon as nine months once it has opened and units are occupied. That time frame could be expedited if other components of a master plan for the surrounding area – such as restaurants or other employment opportunities – begin development or are announced during the first year.

City Engineer Chris Brown offered an amendment to the ordinance that would be subject to council approval of a pedestrian/bicycle crossing at University Avenue, and approval of a large-scale development for the first phase of at least 400 apartments on the development.

Council Member Petty asked about the cost of the project, which is over the $500,000 budgeted and approved by voters in the bond election. Council Member Kyle Smith also expressed concern over the cost of the project.

Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland gave a an overview of the project that the new crossing could pave the way for, and estimated that the project would bring in conservatively $1.1 million per year in revenue, he said. The project would be built in phases of around 400 units. Howland estimated the project would pay for itself in about two years.

Council Member Sarah Marsh suggested the council hold the ordinance to work on language of the amendment that would guarantee the bicycle/pedestrian crossing at University would remain open.

The council voted unanimously to table the ordinance. The discussion will continue on Aug. 18.

Aug. 18 Discussion:
City Engineer Chris Brown presented this conceptual drawing of a pedestrian/bicycle at University Avenue, but noted that it is not an actual design and was only presented as an exhibit to show AMR what the general idea is:

Keith Richardson, the developer of the project, has submitted this preliminary plan for the property:

Marsh moved to amend the ordinance to include the pedestrian/bicycle crossing at University Avenue and to reduce the minimum required apartment units that the council agrees to approve from 400 to 300. The remaining council members didn’t want to risk delaying the project by requiring AMR to first approve the crossing, so the amendment failed without a second. A new amendment was presented by Gutierrez to keep the remainder of Marsh’s amendment, which passed 7-1 (Kinion voted against).

Petty said he’s not sold on the idea and will vote against it in its current form. He said he would’ve liked to have seen a cost-share agreement with the developer considering the city has a lot of negotiating power in regards to the railroad crossing.

Kinion said the developer has already given right-of-way access for the extension to Van Asche Drive, which the city built several years ago.

Petty disagreed, and said the city spent millions of dollars to build Van Asche Drive so that the development could occur in the first place, which is a tradeoff that’s already occurred and is “water under the bridge” at this point.

Marsh agreed with Petty, and said she’d like to hold the item on the second reading.

Kinion moved to send the item to the third and final reading. Petty, Scroggin and Marsh voted against, but Mayor Jordan chose to cast the sixth vote needed.

Decision:
The council voted 7-1 to approve the ordinance. Petty voted against.


2. Arkansas and Missouri Railroad Futrall Drive and Gregg Avenue – 2019 Transportation Bond Project (Details)

An ordinance to waive competitive bidding and authorize a new railroad crossing cost and maintenance agreement and an easement agreement with the Arkansas and Missouri Railroad for a new railroad crossing at Futrall Drive and Gregg Avenue, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $28,344.86, and to approve a budget adjustment for the estimated total project cost of $750,000.00 – 2019 Transportation Bond Project.
Tabled until Sept. 1

Background:
This item was tabled at the June 4 and Aug. 4 council meetings.

The project is similar to the previous item, in that it will extend access into the undeveloped property west of Gregg Avenue.

The partnership with the railroad also includes the closing of another crossing in town. The proposal calls for closing the crossing south of Township Street. Staff said it’s another low-use crossing that provides a second option for accessing Ridout Lumber and Arkansas Self Storage, but both businesses could still be accessed from the improved railroad crossing to the north at Township Street.

Funding will come from the 2019 Transportation Bond Program.

Location:

June 4 Discussion:
City staff suggested tabling this item as well after some council members questioned the economic benefit of this new crossing. The council voted unanimously to table the item.

Aug. 4 Discussion:
Staff said the developer of the property has shared conceptual plans for the remainder of the land that includes over $150 million in construction for Phase 1 of a development that includes a mixture of residential, restaurant/retail, and an anchor business that could all potentially employ almost 1,000 people. Staff said if those plans are developed to completion as proposed, the cost of the railroad crossing would be recovered by tax receipts from the construction alone, resulting in a net profit to the city’s tax base beginning in the first year after construction.

City Engineer Chris Brown offered an amendment requiring approval of a large-scale development for the first phase of development of 100,000 square feet of “commercial employment space” before the project could begin.

Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland gave a presentation on the project about what the new crossing would allow for. Howland said Washington Regional is planning a 100,000-square-foot medical facility that would also come with some apartments, and likely restaurants and retail development. The two phases would cost more than $150 million. Howland said he estimated the project would pay for itself in the first year after the development is complete.

The council agreed to table the item for two weeks. The discussion will continue on Aug. 18.

Aug. 18 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan said after meeting with AMR, there are still some issues with the removal of the crossing in front of Ridout Lumber. He said more time is needed to work out an agreement.

City staff said businesses in the area don’t want to see the crossing closed. Alternatives could include creating a connection south to Poplar Street, improving the current crossing or looking at other crossings in town that could be closed.

The council voted to table the item. The discussion will continue on Sept. 1.


3. Amend Chapter 120: Real Estate Sale and Leasing Regulations (Details)

An ordinance to amend Chapter 120: Real Estate Sale and Leasing Regulations by enacting §120.02 Landlord’s Representative Registry to require all landlords leasing more than two residential properties to provide accurate contact information.
Pass 8-0

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Aug. 4 meeting.

Staff said Council Member Teresa Turk has received complaints from people who have had difficulty locating contact information for landlords. The idea is that neighbors might want to speak to a tenant’s landlord about a concern, but it is sometimes difficult to know exactly who to speak to when a property is owned by an LLC, corporation or trust. The proposal is that the city create a registry for owners who rent or lease more than two residential properties. Short-term rentals (like Airbnb) would not be included. The registry would include a landlord’s full name, mailing address, email address and telephone number (or the number of a local representative).

Aug. 4 Discussion:
The council amended the ordinance to add Crawford County, and that amendment passed. The council agreed to leave the ordinance on the first reading.

Aug. 18 Discussion:
Gutierrez said she’d like to require all landlords to comply, not just those with more than two properties. Marsh agreed. Staff said the decision was made to only include those with more than two properties because the proposed procedure is to use business licenses as a mechanism for compliance and landlords with less than two properties aren’t required to have a business license. Staff said a new ordinance is coming that addresses short-term rentals which includes many single-property landlords.

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


4. Amend §171.02 Minimum Street Standards, 2020 Edition (Details)

An ordinance to amend §171.02 General Provisions and adopt the minimum street standards, 2020 edition, and to amend various provisions in Chapter 151 Definitions, Chapter 166 Development, Chapter 171 Streets and Sidewalks, and Chapter 172 Parking and Loading of the Unified Development Code to be consistent with the changes in the city’s Master Street Plan.
Pass 8-0

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Aug. 4 meeting.

Staff said most of the proposed changes are to align street classification nomenclature with the recent update to the city’s Master Street Plan. However, there are several other proposed changes. The full list is included beginning on page 2 of the packet for this item.

Both city staff and the Transportation Committee recommend approval of the changes.

Aug. 4 Discussion:
There was no discussion. The council left the ordinance on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Aug. 18.

Aug. 18 Discussion:
There was no discussion.

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


5. Amend §164.04 Urban Agriculture (Details)

An ordinance to amend §164.04 Urban Agriculture (fowl, bees & goats) to reduce the minimum square footage requirement for goats.
Fail 4-4

Background:
This item failed 4-4 at the Aug. 4 meeting, but is back up for discussion after Council Member Gutierrez moved to reconsider the decision and change the minimum lot size to 8,000 square feet for two goats.

This proposal came about after a local couple that owns two goats in the Washington-Willow Historic District discovered that the size of the lot where they rent a home is smaller than they first thought, meaning they technically aren’t allowed to have the goats.

City code only allows people in residential areas to own female dwarf or pygmy goats. The animals must not weigh more than 85 pounds and cannot be taller than 22.5 inches at the ridge between the shoulder blades. Male goats are not allowed.

The current law requires the owner to own at least two goats, and includes lot size minimums depending on the number of goats owned. To own two goats, a lot must be at least 10,000 square feet. The proposed change would reduce that number to 4,000 square feet. To own three goats, a lot must be at least 15,000 square feet. The proposal would change that number to 6,000 square feet.

Goat owners cannot have more than three goats unless the additional goats are nursing offspring under the age of 12 weeks.

Aug. 4 Discussion:
Council Member Petty said the ordinance would bring the city more in line with what he is seeing in other cities.

Garner Stoll gave an overview of some of the ordinances in cities similar to Fayetteville.

Council Member Smith made a couple goat jokes (all kidding aside, this doesn’t sound too baaad).

One resident spoke against the ordinance. Charles Sharpless, who lives near a family with goats, said he is supportive of the current goat ordinance, but not the proposed changes that would come from this proposal. Sharpless said the smell is off-putting, and the neighboring goats can be heard crying in every room in his house, he said.

Council Member Kinion said the goats are cute, but that Sharpless makes some very valid points.

Council Member Bunch said she believes the changes may be too large of a step.

The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading. The ordinance failed by a vote of 4-4, with Kinion, Bunch, Turk and Gutierrez voting against. Mayor Jordan declined to cast a deciding vote.

Aug. 18 Discussion
Gutierrez moved to formally reconsider the item. Marsh seconded. The motion passed 7-1 with Kinion voting against. The discussion may continue.

Gutierrez made a motion to amend the original ordinance to require an 8,000-square-foot lot for owning two goats and a 12,000-square-foot lot to own three goats. The previous proposal called for 4,000 square feet and 6,000 square feet, respectively. The current law calls for 10,000 square feet and 15,000 square feet, respectively.

Kinion said the amendment is an honorable compromise and he’ll consider it when he votes this time.

Turk said she’s driven by the neighborhood in question and she can hear and smell the goats that someone has complained about. She said she’s concerned that the city doesn’t have a good justification for reducing the lot size requirements and this proposal might be encouraging bad behavior.

“They appear to not have been good stewards of their goats or their neighbors,” said Turk.

Some residents spoke in favor of the proposal and said they are frequently visited by kids in the neighborhood. Others said they’re against the idea. One neighbor said she is tired of hearing and smelling the goats, and that she has audio and video proof that the goat owners might be violating other portions of the ordinance. She said she has photos that show one of the goats is a male, and that she doesn’t believe either of the animals or dwarf or pygmy goats. Other neighbors later spoke and said they’ve never heard or smelled the goats.

Kinion said he’s not opposed to goats or even the specific animals in question, but he can’t base a decision to change the current law on one single incident of a household that realized they were in violation after they took ownership of their goats.

Turk agreed, and said she’s heard that the owners still haven’t complied with the existing law that requires a 50-foot setback from a neighboring property. With that in mind, she won’t support the change.

Bunch said she’s sympathetic with the owners whose lot size is just shy of being in compliance, but she’s also sympathetic to the neighbors who don’t find joy in living next to the goats.

Decision:
The ordinance failed by a vote of 4-4 with Kinion, Scroggin, Bunch and Turk voting against. Mayor Jordan declined to case a tie-breaking vote.


New Business

1. Resolution to Adopt a Resolution Proposed by the Mayor’s African American Advisory Council (Details)

A resolution to adopt a resolution proposed by the Mayor’s African American Advisory Council.
Pass 8-0

Background:
This item was brought forward by Mayor Lioneld Jordan as recommended by the Mayor’s African American Advisory Council.

The resolution notes that “racism in all its forms causes persistent discrimination and disparate outcomes in many areas of life, including housing, education, health, employment, public safety, and criminal justice; exacerbated further by the COVID-19 pandemic crisis,” and “a multitude of studies connect racism to inequitable health outcomes for African Americans, including cancer, coronary heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, high infant and maternal mortality rates demonstrating that racism is the root cause of social determinants of health.”

The resolution also includes a series of 16 action steps:

Discussion:
D’Andre Jones, who chairs the African American Advisory Council, said he hopes Fayetteville will join over 80 other cities across the country that have passed similar resolutions, including Los Angeles, Denver, Kansas City, Memphis, Boston and Minneapolis.

About a dozen people spoke in favor of the item. Some thanked the council for considering the measure, and others said they wish something like this had been proposed long ago. Several Black residents gave their personal accounts of how racism has personally affected their lives and the lives of their family members and friends, even in a city that prides itself as being progressive.

Local resident Peter Tonnessen, who is running for City Council in Ward 3, was the only person to speak against the resolution. Tonnessen called the idea “nonsense” and said he’s never seen any personal evidence that racism affects health. He said the resolution might just be an attempt to set up a situation where the government will be asked to provide funding for health issues that are the result of people’s own dietary and behavioral choices.

Several council members apologized to anyone who heard Tonnessen speak, and said his comments are proof that more work needs to be done to educate people on the existence of racism and its effects on our society.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.


2. 2020 Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program Grant (Details)

A resolution to authorize acceptance of the 2020 Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program grant in the amount of $250,000.00 to fund two (2) police officers for a period of four (4) years with the $312,710.00 required match covered in full by Fayetteville Public Schools which has agreed to pay $342,900.00 to the city during the grant term for the assignment of senior corporals to serve as school resource officers, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Tabled indefinitely

Background:
This grant to the city would fund two police officers (School Resource Officers or SROs) to work at Fayetteville Public Schools for four years.

Staff said the district has requested the two new SROs for their middle schools. The grant would provide $250,000 of the $562,710 needed to hire the officers, and that the school district would pay the full remainder of the money needed, including an additional $30,190 to hire higher-ranking officers than the grant money provides for.

The issue was first discussed on Aug. 4 with a proposal to split the remaining funds needed between the city and school district. The item was also amended to require that the SROs be licensed in social work if allowed by state law. That proposal failed 3-5.

The new item requires no funding from the city and has no minimum employment standards. Because of those changes, City Attorney Kit Williams said the proposal is considered to be a new item and that Council Member Turk – who voted in favor of the the failed resolution on Aug. 4 – is allowed to bring it to the council for consideration under New Business.

The Arkansas Justice Reform Coalition, on behalf of resident Sarah Moore, has filed a lawsuit seeking an emergency injunction to stop council members from considering the issue again without the unanimous approval of the full council.

The coalition believes the new motion is “an end-around of the democratic process” and that there are systemic problems within the school district related to SROs and their interactions with students who are non-white, low-income, or who have special needs.

The lawsuit argues that SROs are a poor fix for school safety.

“Instead of protecting students, SROs change a school from a social and educational environment into a surveillance zone. This change is a root cause of the school-to-prison-pipeline. When schools introduce SROs, students are more likely to be arrested, suspended, or expelled. This system perpetuates poverty, low-education rates, and often affects students and families in our poorest and most marginalized communities.”

Shortly before tonight’s meeting, Judge John Threet denied the request for an injunction.

Discussion:
Several school resource officers spoke in favor of the proposal, and described their day-to-day tasks and talked about relationships they’ve built with troubled students and children who’ve come to them with problems they said they couldn’t take to anyone else.

Fayetteville School District Superintendent Dr. John L Colbert also spoke in favor of adding new SROs, as did school board president Nika Waitsman who said blocking funding for SROs is not the appropriate way to address some of the systemic issues that many people are concerned about.

“Our SROs are treasured and respected members of our team and provide services that others cannot,” said Waitsman. “And we do not have enough of them.”

Council Member Scroggin said he appreciates many of the stories about how SROs provide value to students, but he believes most of those instances could’ve been handled by someone without a gun. Scroggin also said he thought tonight’s discussion was out of order and that it shouldn’t have been brought back to the council.

NWA NAACP President Monique Jones was one of many people who spoke against the proposal. Jones told stories about her children’s interactions with SROs. She said her son was charged with a felony after an SRO responded to an incident when he tried to defend himself against a bully, and that it has so far affected him for the rest of his life. In another situation when her daughter broke a rule at a school without SROs, she was able to correct the situation herself as a parent without fear of her daughter being charged with a crime.

Other people of color told stories of traumatic experiences with SROs, and echoed Scroggin’s remarks that most of the day-to-day work of a SRO could or should be done by a counselor and not a police officer.

Jay Dostal, principal of Fayetteville High School, said he lost a close colleague to a school shooting and said he can’t imagine not having a police presence in schools in the current times.

Public comment ended at 1:57 a.m. There were 22 speakers in favor of the proposal and 28 who spoke against.

Gutierrez said she was most affected by those who spoke about their personal experiences with SROs, and said she thinks the city needs to pause its SRO program so she’ll vote against the proposal.

Petty said hearing everyone’s stories is a wake-up call for him. He said it reminds him of the civil rights ordinance discussion the council heard several years ago when many people came forward to describe the discrimination they’ve experienced. He said he appreciates the positive experiences he heard regarding SROs, but he also heard the negative experiences and he agrees with Gutierrez that the program needs a pause.

Turk said she thinks tonight’s discussion was worthwhile. She said she feels torn because she heard a lot of heartbreaking stories about systemic racism, but on the other hand, the teachers and school officials – some who are people of color – are all in favor of it. She said she’d like to withdraw the measure since she introduced it, and asked if that could happen. City Attorney Kit Williams said she cannot withdraw it, but she could move to table it indefinitely which is basically the same thing. Turk did so, and the vote to table indefinitely passed 7-1 with Kinion voting against.

Decision:
With the item having been tabled indefinitely, it will automatically fail on Dec. 31 along with any other items that are tabled indefinitely this year. However, since the grant deadline is this Thursday, the proposal essentially fails.


3. 2020-2021 DTF DCF Grant Award (Details)

A resolution to authorize acceptance of a state Drug Crime Enforcement and Prosecution Grant for state funding of the Fourth Judicial District Drug Task Force in the amount of $91,319.00, and to authorize Mayor Jordan to sign all necessary documents to receive the grant funds.
Tabled until Sept. 1

Background:
This grant would provide $91,319 with a required local match of $18,264 which staff said is already budgeted within the city Drug Enforcement Fund. The state has provided funding for multi-jurisdictional drug task force actives since 1991. Participating law enforcement agencies include Fayetteville, Springdale, Prairie Grove, Farmington, Lincoln, Greenland, West Fork, Goshen, Elkins, Tontitown, Elm Springs and Washington County.

Discussion:
At 2:30 a.m. Council Member Petty moved to table all of the remaining items until the next meeting and said he’s skeptical that the council has the stamina to continue hearing public comment for several more hours. That motion passed 5-3 with Scroggin, Turk and Smith voting against.


4. RFQ #18-11 Nabholz Construction Change Order #3 (Details)

A resolution to approve Change Order No. 3 to the contract with Nabholz Construction Corporation in the amount of $10,494,726.00 for construction of Phase 1 of the Cultural Arts Corridor project, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Tabled until Sept. 1

Background:
Phase 1 of the project includes the Fay Jones Woodland Area, Razorback Greenway Improvements, and West Avenue Streetscapes. Change Order #1 was issued in January 2019 to include a tree arborist analysis for the Fay Jones Woodland Area. Change Order #2 was approved in June 2020 for services related to the replacement parking deck. This change order includes bids received on July 9, 2020 for Earthwork/Storm Drainage/Utility, Stone and Masonry, Landscape and Irrigation, Structural and Miscellaneous Steel, Custom Site Wood, and Electrical services.

Discussion:
At 2:30 a.m. Council Member Petty moved to table all of the remaining items until the next meeting and said he’s skeptical that the council has the stamina to continue hearing public comment for several more hours. That motion passed 5-3 with Scroggin, Turk and Smith voting against.


5. Appeal: RZN 20-7133: (6040 & 6074 W. Wedington Dr./Houston) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-7133 for approximately 3.05 acres located at 6040 and 6074 W. Wedington Drive from R-A, Residential Agricultural and RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, 12 units per acre.
Tabled until Sept. 1

Background:
The property is on the north side of the intersection between Brook Drive and Wedington Drive. It is currently zoned mostly R-A with a small strip of RSF-4 on the far east side. The property is currently developed with a single-family home and a few accessory structures. The applicant has indicated that they wish to develop the property at a higher density for more affordable housing.

City planning staff recommend approval of the request, but the Planning Commission denied the proposal by a vote of 7-2, and the applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council.

Explanation of the Planning Commission’s decision from city documents:

Commissioners expressed concern about compatibility with adjacent land uses, increased traffic and accidents along Wedington Drive, speculation about implementing housing affordability in this location, and allowed development under current codes. Commissioners also suggested that due to its location, the proposed zoning would lead to “dense sprawl,” which would contribute to higher levels of automobile traffic in the area. There was general consensus amongst Commissioners that this rezoning was “too much, too early”. The dissenting commissioners agreed with staff’s recommendation, citing nearby commercial services within walking distance and the asserted alignment with City Plan 2040 goals. Public comment during the meeting was generally in opposition citing concerns about incompatible land uses, building height and massing, traffic and accidents, and interactions with the property owner.

Location:

Discussion:
At 2:30 a.m. Council Member Petty moved to table all of the remaining items until the next meeting and said he’s skeptical that the council has the stamina to continue hearing public comment for several more hours. That motion passed 5-3 with Scroggin, Turk and Smith voting against.


6. Resolution to Request that City Staff Study (Details)

A resolution to request that city staff study and present an ordinance eliminating discretionary proceedings for religious uses to the extent possible, provide for regulations based on the size and intensity of the proposed use, and employ non-sectarian language.
Tabled until Sept. 1

Background:
This item was introduced by Council Member Kyle Smith to review the issue of zoning churches. He said the issue “has caused us more than a few headaches in the last year.”

The resolution states that the city’s development codes consider a development’s impact on traffic and its potential effects on the neighboring properties depending on the size of a commercial structure, but makes no such distinction for religious uses.

If approved, city staff would work with the Planning Commission or Ordinance Review Committee and consult with local religious leaders to determine objective criteria for classifying intensity of religious land use, and to develop processes and exemptions that allow the Planning Commission to execute their oversight duties consistent with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Discussion:
At 2:30 a.m. Council Member Petty moved to table all of the remaining items until the next meeting and said he’s skeptical that the council has the stamina to continue hearing public comment for several more hours. That motion passed 5-3 with Scroggin, Turk and Smith voting against.


7. Amend UDC 166.23: Urban Residential Design Standards (Details)

An ordinance to amend §166.23 Urban Residential Design Standards of the Unified Development Code to increase flexibility for small building design.
Tabled until Sept. 1

Background:
City development codes requires architectural design standards for residential buildings that contain two or more attached units. Staff said while these standards work well to break up the mass of large multi-family buildings, they are not necessary for small buildings that can naturally blend in with the neighborhood. Staff said the Planning Commission has said that the code can make it difficult for smaller multi-family buildings, including some “missing middle housing”, to reflect the character of many neighborhoods where those units are being built. This, staff said, is because many single-family dwellings in existing neighborhoods do not have shifts in wall plane, a variety of materials, or the additional architectural details required in 166.23. Staff said the inclusion of those requirements on small attached residential buildings can make them stand out from the surrounding neighborhood in a negative manner.

The proposed changes would increase flexibility for small building design by waiving or reducing the amount of some of the required architectural elements on principal facades that are less than 48 feet wide along the street frontage.

Discussion:
At 2:30 a.m. Council Member Petty moved to table all of the remaining items until the next meeting and said he’s skeptical that the council has the stamina to continue hearing public comment for several more hours. That motion passed 5-3 with Scroggin, Turk and Smith voting against.


Adjourned

This meeting was adjourned at 2:30 a.m.