LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Sept. 15, 2020

Background:
The council on May 5, 2020 passed an ordinance vacating portions of rights of way and general utility easement at 815 S. School Ave. at the former Farmer’s Co-op property. At the time, a portion of right of way was withdrawn from the request before the council approved it because it was thought at the time to be right of way that had been dedicated to the state, but city staff have now confirmed that it was actually dedicated to the city and can now be vacated.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no discussion. The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading, and passed it unanimously.

Background:
This item was pulled from the consent agenda at the request of Fayetteville Mayor Lioneld Jordan.

Park Planning Superintendent Ted Jack gave a brief presentation on the Fayetteville Traverse trail. The NWA Trailblazers has offered to maintain the trail for a year and a half, and the mayor pulled it from consent to add an amendment to the item to amend the contract with the organization to reflect their offer to maintain the new trail that will eventually connect mountain biking trails on Centennial Park, Markham Hill, and Kessler Mountain.

The Ozark Off Road Cyclists have volunteered to maintain the portion of trails on Kessler Mountain.

Phase 1 construction will begin west of I-49. Phase 2 of the project is currently in the conceptual phase.

Discussion:
The council moved to accept the amendment, and the resolution passed unanimously.

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION – Kelsy Litchenburg

The Nominating Committee recommends the following candidates for appointment:

AIRPORT BOARD – Monty Roberts
CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS – Stephanie Hubbard
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COMMITTEE – Ryan Mills
PEG ADVISORY BOARD – Brandy Walsh, Trey Marley
TOWN AND GOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Alexandria Howland

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.

Sept. 15 Discussion:
City engineer Chris Brown said the city and the railroad are at a bit of an impasse at the moment in their discussions on some of the previously proposed crossings.

He said that closing a crossing at Jocelyn across from Stone Mill Bread is a possibility currently being discussed, but more work and discussion is needed.

Brown said staff needs at least a couple more weeks before making a recommendation.

The council voted unanimously to table the discussion until the Oct. 6 meeting.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Sept. 1 meeting.

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:

Sept. 1 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.

Sept. 15 Discussion:

Three members of the public spoke against the rezoning, citing concerns over changing the rural feel of the area, traffic, and others.

Council Member Petty said he thinks it might not be the right time for the project, and is concerned about sprawl created by the development, and the commutes created for the residents that would live in the development.

Council Member Marsh agreed, and added that adding to the traffic congestion on Wedington is already a problem. Marsh also called it “too much too soon.”

Council Member Gutierrez noted the low score of the project on the infill matrix, and said she would not support it.

Council Member Turk also said she would not support the appeal.

The council voted unanimously to deny the appeal.

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Sept. 1 meeting.

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.

Sept. 1 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.

Sept. 15 Discussion:
There was no discussion. The council passed the ordinance unanimously (*Bunch was absent for the vote)

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Sept. 1 meeting.

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:

Sept. 1 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.

Sept. 15 Discussion:
There was no public comment. The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading, and approved it unanimously.

Background:
This item was tabled at the Sept. 1 meeting.

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:

Sept. 1 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.

Sept. 15 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams drafted a possible lease agreement, as proposed by Council Member Marsh. Williams said a lease would give the city an opportunity to test the idea of outdoor music right next to the planned Cultural Arts Corridor plaza without being locked into it.

“The stage location requested by George’s presents a great entertainment opportunity, but also a substantial issue because sound from the proposed stage could dominate the plaza,” he wrote in a memo to the council.

Council Member Petty said the George’s owners suggested the city lease the land to them for $50 per month, which is half of the $100 price the city charges Cheers at the OPO for the city land the restaurant uses as a patio in the middle of the downtown square. Williams proposed to start the George’s lease at $50 per month and then increase it by $10 per month each year until it reaches $100 per month, considering there are no problems through the years and the council continues to renew the lease each year.

Petty outlined the lease, which includes a “divorce clause” to allow the council an opportunity to renew (or not renew) each year.

Council Member Turk expressed concern over the longterm use of the lot, and whether the city is being fair with the process.

Council Member Marsh said she sees value in the council retaining the property longterm. She said “it makes a lot of sense for George’s to use the property,” and added that their use supports the goals of the Cultural Arts Corridor. Marsh called the lease a “win-win for everyone.”

Council Member Smith also said he is not interested in selling the property, and said he is willing to consider the lease.

Council Member Kinion also said he supports the amendment, and says it allows a landmark institution an opportunity to support the arts corridor. He added he hopes the council acts quickly to help the entertainment economy in Fayetteville.

Council Member Bunch said she would not support the idea of putting an RFP out on the project, and a tour of the site this week convinced her to support the amendment to allow George’s to rent the property.

City Attorney Kit Williams pointed out that the lease includes the possibility for amplified music, and expressed some concern over the noise the outdoor music would create.

Petty said that the venue is already utilizing the parking lot for amplified music, and added the city’s noise ordinance still applies to the parcel. He said the ability not to renew the release allows for a check on potential issues with the amplified sound. “We have an out if this isn’t the right move,” he said.

The council voted unanimously to adopt the amendment on leasing the land.

Brian Crowne, the George’s owner who has proposed to lease the land, said the original idea was to program the space a few times a year for an occasional outdoor concert when the weather was nice. Crowne said for a number of reasons, it is best for his venue to have concerts indoors, but the pandemic has brought about new challenges. Crowne said it is his intention to be a good neighbor.

Council Member Turk asked Crowne if he would agree to put a time limit on the music in the lease agreement, and Crowne said he would be happy to agree to an 11 p.m. end time.

During public comment, neighbor Craig Underwood, who previously expressed interest in purchasing the property, said if the intention is to lease the property, he has no issue with George’s leasing it, and he wishes them success. He requested that if the council should decide to sell the property in the future, he just asks that the council not give favoritism, and will sell the property with an open, transparent process.

Council Member Petty proposed two amendments changing the name on the lease to Brian Crowne Holdings, LLC, and adding the 11 p.m. end time on the music. The amendments were passed unanimously.

The council voted unanimously to lease the property to George’s.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Sept. 1 meeting.

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:

Sept. 1 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.

Sept. 15 Discussion:

Robert Rhoads, on behalf of the applicant, offered a bill of assurance guaranteeing connectivity across the parcel, and the bill of assurance was adopted.

There was no public comment.

Council Member Petty said the rezoning is different than the other one they denied earlier because of the difference in building types. That difference, he said, will allow him to support it.

The council voted 8-0 to rezone the property.

Background:
The property is just north of the Tyson Foods Mexican Original Plant. The city purchased the land for the development of a new fire station as part of the 2019 voter-approved bond package. The land needs to be rezoned before the city can build the station.

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

Location:

Discussion:

There was no public comment. The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading, and passed it unanimously.

Background:
This long-discussed project will connect the city’s trail system to the University of Arkansas campus. The proposed improvements to Maple Street include 2,475 linear feet of new roadway surface, upgraded traffic signals, storm drainage, 8-foot-wide sidewalks on the north and south sides and a separated a two-way cycle track along the south side extending from the Razorback Greenway to Garland Avenue.

The design plans are currently being finalized by Olsson Associates. City staff said to prepare for the construction phase of the project, it is necessary to have a construction manager at risk on board to evaluate the final design, recommend localized construction methods and materials and develop the construction cost.

This contract is for those services.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment. The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
City staff said this request is to utilize federal grant funds to complete construction of the Improve Terminal Building (Energy Efficiency Improvements) project at Fayetteville – Drake Field Airport. The project will include improvements to the facility’s HVAC system, heating system, and window replacement.

Discussion:
There was no public comment. The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
The property is at the northeast corner of West Mount Comfort Road and North Rupple Road. The request is to rezone the property from R-A, Residential-Agricultural, to CS, Community Services. The applicant intends to construct a gas station with associated convenience store on the site.

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

City staff said they have received public comments from people who are opposed to the rezoning and from those who are in favor of it. Most of the opposition cited concerns about increased traffic, noise and light pollution from the proposed use, proximity of the site to existing uses such as a church and school, and disruption to the rural character of the area. Those in support of the request are from the surrounding neighbors who would like to see additional commercial services in the area.

Location:

Discussion:
Three residents spoke against the rezoning.

Council Member Teresa Turk requested the council leave the ordinance on the first reading to allow for more time for public comment.

Council Member Smith moved to advance the ordinance to the second reading, and the motion failed 4-4 (with Turk, Gutierrez, Kinion, and Marsh voting no.)

Background:
Staff said a comprehensive graphic, identity and signage package for the Cultural Arts Corridor will ensure an aesthetic continuity amongst the different and distinct project areas which include the West Avenue Civic Space, West Avenue streetscapes, The Fay Jones Woodland, The Razorback Greenway, and a new parking deck at the corner of West and Dickson streets.

From the memo:

With input from stakeholders, Archetype, a talented and reputable Fayetteville-based creative agency, will support branding, identity, and graphic services. Public engagement will be included as part of the process, especially around naming opportunities to continue to build support and education about these projects. This work includes:

• Developing a branding strategy and plan,
• Preparing a project graphics identity package and style guide,
• Assisting with public engagement around the naming of features or elements,
• Preparing and presenting naming and graphics options to selection committees,
• Signage design, and
• Assisting with signage bidding and construction administration.

Discussion:

There was no public comment. The council passed the resolution unanimously.

Background:
Each year the city must approve an ordinance to renew the levy of ad valorem taxes on real and personal property within the city limits. This request will provide for such levy on property assessed during 2020.

Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams offered an amendment that corrected an error with the title of the ordinance. The amendment passed unanimously.

City finance director Paul Becker gave a presentation, saying the city is recommending no change to the city’s millage rates.

There was no public comment. The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading, and passed it unanimously.

Background:
Council Member Kyle Smith asked City Attorney Kit Williams to investigate whether the council could pass an ordinance to prohibit landlords from charging residential late fees or penalties for late payment of rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Williams said he believes the city would have a better chance of winning any potential lawsuit from landlords if it only applies the ordinance to residential renters and not commercial renters, even though he does realize how difficult the pandemic has been on local businesses. He said the courts would likely be more receptive to the city trying to help citizens from becoming homeless rather than inserting itself into a business-to-business contractual relationship.

  Read Williams’ full memo here

Discussion:

City Attorney Kit Williams started the discussion by saying he believes the ordinance is “too iffy” at this time. He said he believes the federal government attempts to prevent evictions might supersede the ordinance.

Williams requested the ordinance be tabled indefinitely, and the council voted to do so.