LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Sept. 1, 2020

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.

Sept. 1 Discussion:
Staff said several options were presented to the Transportation Committee, including building an alternate connection to Poplar Street, paying for improvements at the crossing by Ridout to limit the railroad’s liability and see if that appeases the railroad, or closing another crossing in town at Frisco Avenue since the railroad really wants to close a crossing if a new one is added.

The Transportation Committee voted 3-0 to close the Frisco closing, but the Active Transportation Advisory Committee didn’t like that idea and voted 7-0 to recommend keeping that closing open to all traffic. The ATAC preferred that the council improve the Frisco crossing instead of just closing it.

Since then, city planners have come up with some preliminary drawings for three options to extend the existing road in front of Ridout to the south at Poplar Street.

Here are those drawings:

Some council members said they’d first like to get some input from the area businesses about the options before making a decision.

Council Member Marsh suggested closing the crossing at Jocelyn Lane or Quality Lane. Staff said Jocelyn has a home on it and sees trail traffic and Quality Lane has an apartment complex on it, but if the council wants to pursue closing those crossings, they will see what the railroad company thinks about it. Marsh also suggested closing both the Ridout crossing and the Jocelyn or Quality crossing to possibly allow the University Avenue crossing to stay open (a decision to close that crossing came at the previous meeting).

During public comment, Ross Ridout said the crossing in front of his business is absolutely necessary for his delivery trucks. He said those trucks can’t use the existing roadway that leads to the Township Street crossing because the road isn’t wide enough for two-way traffic, especially when railroad cars are unloaded there. He said the reason he chose the location for his business was because of the crossing access. He said he’s a good customer of the railroad and he thinks if the city pushes back hard enough, the railroad might agree to drop the issue and allow the crossing to stay open even with the addition of a new crossing for the planned development to the north. He said two of the options for an alternate route would require 18-wheeler trucks to have to turn around which isn’t safe. His preference, if something must happen, is for the city to pay for improvements to the existing crossing and see if the railroad would agree to that.

The council agreed to table the item until Sept. 15 to allow more time to discuss the issue with the railroad.

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:
City staff said a groundbreaking ceremony will occur sometime next week, and that details will soon be announced. There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 8-0 to approve the resolution.

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:
The applicant’s representative said the neighbors are against the rezoning because they’ve said they like living in a rural-feeling area. However, she said the city’s longterm plans call for greater density in the area, so the request should be approved.

There was no public comment.

Council Member Scroggin said the item should be held on the first reading to give area residents a chance to weigh in. He said since the Planning Commission denied the request, they might not know that it has been appealed. Staff neighbors are not usually re-notified that an appeal has been requested, but they will do so in this case.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Sept. 15.

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:
Smith said once staff have some suggestions, he’d like the Ordinance Review Committee to discuss the issue.

There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 8-0 to pass the resolution.

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:
Resident Will Dockery spoke in favor of the ordinance. He said while it’s a minor change, it could help encourage construction of more the “missing middle” types of dwellings.

Council Member Turk said the item should be held for two weeks to allow for more public comment. Kinion agreed, as did the rest of the council. The discussion will continue on Sept. 15.

Background:
The Fayetteville District Court utilizes Virtual Justice Court software since 2007 for their case and citation management needs. The software integrates with two online citation payment vendors, one of which the city utilized for many years, but recently terminated the agreement mostly due to the high cost the vendor was charging customers in transaction fees. The other vendor option is eCourt Pay, which has a sliding scale of fees that decrease as transaction amounts increase, but average between 4.4% to 10% of the total citation amount.

Discussion:
Dena Stockalper, the city’s court administrator, said getting online payments back, especially during the pandemic, is important.

There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The property contains one single-family dwelling. The applicant intends to develop single-family homes following an associated lot split.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Council Member Kinion said he’d like to hold the ordinance until the next meeting because the neighbors might not know about the request. The council agreed, and the discussion will continue on Sept. 15.

Background:
The property is currently undeveloped, but has been used for nonresidential purposes and vehicle storage in decades past. The applicant said that the rezoning is necessary to provide a mixture of residential housing and nonresidential uses to serve the wider area and compliment nearby University of Arkansas properties and amenities.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Scroggin asked whether the new zoning would better protect the adjacent riparian area. Staff said the short answer is yes.

Marsh said the area desperately needs more housing and services, which could be provided by a multi-use development at this location.

The council voted 8-0 to move to the second reading, but Turk said it should be held for two weeks to give staff some time to give a report on what developments are possible in the area since it’s close to a stream. Marsh said the buildable area won’t be affected by the rezoning, but would rather enable more flexibility for what can be built there. Bunch said she’s not sure it needs to be held any longer since there’s been considerable discussion on social media. Gutierrez said most of the comments online have been about the style of the proposed buildings, not its proximity to the stream.

Gutierrez moved to send the item to the third reading and Marsh seconded. That motion passed 6-2 with Turk and Kinion voting against.

Kinion said he voted against moving forward because there could’ve been more discussion with the community about the streamside issues, but he is in favor of the ordinance.

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

Background:
The property was developed with a restaurant that is currently in operation under a temporary certificate of occupancy. Issuance of a full certificate of occupancy is contingent on approval of the proposed utility easement vacation as a portion the structure’s canopy encroaches therein.

Both city planners and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request with the following conditions:

1. Any relocation of or damage to existing utilities or existing facilities shall be at the owner/developer’s expense; and
2. Maintain 15-foot radial clearance from closest overhead electric line.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The property is surrounded by The Villages of Sloanbrooke Subdivision, Phase V, the final plat of which was approved by Planning Commission on May 11, 2020. The applicant proposes to vacate an existing 15-foot utility easement that runs through several platted lots. The utility easement is currently preventing development for single-family homes on two of those lots.

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 final reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.

Background:
The property includes 1.19 acres along the former alignment of Rupple Road (traffic flow from was recently relocated to a realigned Rupple Road that now intersects Mount Comfort at a signalized intersection to the east). The city proposes to vacate about 900 feet of public right-of-way since the land is no longer needed for the road.

Both city planners and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request with the following conditions:

1. Any damage or relocation of existing facilities will be at the applicant’s expense.
2. Dedication of gas easement shall be completed along the western edge of Rupple Road to accommodate gas line relocation as shown in the attached gas easement exhibit;
3. Access easement dedication shall be completed as shown in the attached access easement exhibit; and
4. General utility easement dedication shall replace the location of the proposed right-of-way vacation to serve existing public water and sewer infrastructure.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The owners of George’s Majestic Lounge would like the land to expand outdoor programming offerings by building a deck stage in and around the trees for bands to perform on.

A similar proposal was brought forward in 2018 by then-Council Member Justin Tennant at the request of the venue’s owners because he assumed the city didn’t need it and that only George’s would be interested. As it turned out, the owners of Underwood’s Fine Jewelry also wanted the land. City staff recommend waiting before selling the land to make sure the city didn’t need the land.

The idea is back and is sponsored by Council Member Matthew Petty. Once again the Underwoods would like the land and would like an opportunity to make an offer.

The George’s owners said they would preserve all but two of the existing trees. The Underwoods said they would preserve every tree, but did not say what their plans would be for the land.

Location:

Discussion:
Petty said the property is unique because of its small size, its location and because it’s land-locked and adjacent to the George’s property. He said George’s is an institution in Fayetteville and a stabilizing force for the culture of Dickson Street. He said during the previous discussion about selling the land, he was hesitant, but the pandemic has changed the atmosphere of the live event industry which has helped change his thinking.

Brian Crowne, who has owned George’s for the past 17 of its 93 total years, said the pandemic caused a 150-day closure of the venue and since reopening, the low volume of customers led him to seek opportunities for outdoor performances. A new stage under the trees outside the venue could host performances that would help in a tough time. He said all of the mature trees would stay, but the two smaller trees in the middle of the land would need to be removed to make room for a 28×28-foot deck stage (read a prepared statement Crowne presented to the council).

Marsh asked what obligation the city has to take a higher offer as has been hinted at by another interested party. City Attorney Kit Williams said usually when things are bid out, the highest bid should be accepted, but there are other things of value to the city that the council is allowed to take into consideration when making a decision about the sale of public property. He said the Underwood family offered about $25,000 in 2018 and he’s heard they might be willing to make a similar offer today. Marsh asked if the land could be leased to George’s instead of selling it. Williams said if both parties agreed, then yes, that’s an option.

Craig Underwood said he’s a fan of George’s, but that the land sale process being attempted today is unfair. He said the same land he offered over $25,000 for is now being offered for $17,000 to another party. He said his business is also an institution on Dickson Street and should be allowed to purchase the property for a higher price.

Resident Will Dockery said the land should remain public property to serve as an entrance to the upcoming Cultural Arts Corridor. He said although Crowne said he’d preserve most of the trees, they could be stressed by lighting and could be endangered if the area becomes a venue. He said if the city decides to sell it, the property should be put out for bid to ensure the public gets the highest possible price.

Crowne said he can’t imagine any additional damage to the trees given that the parking lot lights adjacent to the area are already in existence and were installed many years ago. He said the land would only include a stage and that patrons would be in the adjacent parking lot.

Petty said the value that George’s could bring to the community with their plan is worth consideration and that he thinks their proposal is the highest and best.

Gutierrez said Petty could be right, but the idea should be put out for proposals so be sure.

Turk said the council should first decide if it wants to lease or sell the land first. If a sale is the choice, the property should be put up for sale through a bidding process to ensure the highest value.

Bunch said not all deals are about the highest dollar value. She said there are intangibles that must be taken into account, and she’d like some more time to think about it.

Smith said he’s stuck between his preference for process and his preference for an outcome. He said he knows George’s will bring great value, but he likes following the rules of the typical bid process. He said without having the arts corridor project in place yet, there are uncertainties surrounding the need for this piece of land. Plus, he said, without more than one offer on the table, it’s inappropriate to move forward with selling public land.

Marsh said she’s all in favor of a lease of the property to ensure that the land is handled the way the city wants. It could always be sold to George’s in the future, she said, or even the Underwoods if they would share their plans for the property.

Kinion said the city should put out a request for proposals for the land to gain a better idea of the potential for economic development.

Petty said the council probably already has the best proposal in front of it since the Underwoods have said they would use the land for employee parking. He said it would be unfair to have a bidding process given that two parties have already disclosed their offers. However, he said that the item should be tabled for two weeks to allow more time for the council to consider its options.

The council voted 8-0 to table the item until Sept. 15.

Background:
The property has one single-family dwelling. Staff said it has 250 feet of frontage along West Wedington Drive, and is currently surrounded by low-density residential and agricultural land. The property is adjacent to the western-most boundary of the Wedington Corridor Planning Area, but no part of the parcel in question actually falls within the stated boundary. In 2019, the Planning Commission forwarded a proposed planned zoning district for mini-storage on the property to the City Council. This was subsequently withdrawn before final council action was taken.

City staff are in favor of the request, but the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to deny recommendation. Commissioners said they were concerned about appropriate commercial activity along Wedington Drive, about compatibility with adjacent land uses, the lack of density cap associated with RI-U zoning, and a lack of reliability in the design without a proposed PZD. No public comment was issued on the request.

Location:

Discussion:
Gutierrez said she appreciates seeing a better request than was first presented in the mini storage proposal.

Turk said the size and shape of the property presents some challenges. She said a PZD could provide more clarity about the proposed use of the land.

Bunch said she can’t expect a PZD for the property since it’s such a high-cost process.

Scroggin agreed and said he normally likes PZDs, but they are indeed expensive. He said his biggest concern is adding density outside the “mayor’s box” boundary.

Kinion said he’d like to hold the item on the first reading.

The council agreed. The discussion will continue on Sept. 15.