File photo
On the agenda…
- Rezoning 0.80 acres on Whillock Street.
- Approving a cluster housing development on Crossover Road.
- Changing city alcohol laws to match state law.
- Rezoning 0.37 acres on South Gregg Avenue.
- Rezoning 0.29 acres on Rebecca Street.
- Approving an R-PZD for 20.77 acres near Sain Street.
- Rezoning 39.88 acres on Dot Tipton Road.
A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council began at 5:30 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 5, 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, Teresa Turk, Kyle Smith
Absent: None
» View current attendance records
City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports and Discussion Items
1. Monthly Financial Report – Paul Becker
General Fund revenues are also right about on budget, Becker said.
“It’s certainly in as good of a shape as we could expect considering the current circumstances.”
Recycling and trash collection is down about 2% because commercial collection is down, however the losses are about what were expected, said Becker.
The city has so far spent a Disaster Fund (from federal CARES ACT funding)
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 Oct. 20, 2020 City Council Meeting minutes
– Pass 8-0
2. Ross Executive Aviation, Inc. (Details): A resolution to approve a five-year lease agreement with Ross Executive Aviation, Inc. for office space in the Airport Terminal Building at 4500 S. School Ave. Suite D for rent in the amount of $275.00 per month.
– Pass 8-0
3. 2021 T-hangar Lease Agreements (Details): A resolution to approve T-hangar lease agreements in 2021 at the current rental rate or as adjusted upward by the Airport Board for all T-hangars rented at the Fayetteville Airport.
– Pass 8-0
4. Bid #20-76 Crossland Heavy Contractors, Inc. (Details): A resolution to award Bid #20-76 and authorize a contract with Crossland Heavy Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $212,751.03 for construction related to the installation of large slide gates for the aeration basin at the Noland Water Resource Recovery Facility, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $42,550.21.
– Pass 8-0
5. Midland Industrial Services, LLC (Details): A resolution to approve Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Midland Industrial Services, LLC for additional services on the Noland Water Resource Recovery Facility electrical upgrade project in the amount of $349,814.99.
– Pass 8-0
6. B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. (Details): A resolution to approve the purchase of audio-visual equipment from B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. in the amount of $66,153.65 plus applicable taxes and shipping charges, pursuant to an Omnia Partners cooperative purchasing contract, for use in the Town Center and City Hall, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $5,000.00.
– Pass 8-0
7. Key Code Media (Details): A resolution to approve the purchase of audio-visual equipment from Key Code Media in the amount of $41,249.21 plus applicable taxes and shipping costs, pursuant to an Omnia Partners cooperative purchasing contract, to facilitate socially distanced public meetings at the Town Center and City Hall, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $5,000.00.
– Pass 8-0
8. Elite Building Solutions (Details): A resolution to accept a quote from Elite Building Solutions in the amount of $76,433.60 for the installation of Needlepoint bipolar ionization air purification units in city buildings, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $23,500.
– Pass 8-0
9. Bid# 20-70 T.F. Thompson Roofing – 2019 City Facilities Improvements Bond Project (Details): A resolution to award Bid #20-70 and authorize a contract with Terra Firma restorations, LLC d/b/a T.F. Thompson Co. Roofing & Waterproofing in the amount of $41,000.00 for replacement of the Facilities Management shop building roof, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $6,150.00 – 2019 City Facilities Improvements Bond Project.
– Pass 8-0
10. Hawkins-Weir Engineers, Inc. Amendment No. 2 – 2019 Drainage Bond Project (Details): A resolution to approve Amendment No. 2 to the professional engineering services agreement with Hawkins-Weir Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $273,600.00 for engineering design services associated with the project to alleviate flooding near the North College Avenue and East Sunbridge Drive intersection – 2019 Drainage Bond Project.
– Pass 8-0
Unfinished Business
1. RZN-2020-005 (660 W. Whillock St./Mistretta) (Details)
An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20- 005 located at 660 W. Whillock Street for approximately 0.80 acres from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to RMF-12, Residential Multi Family, 12 units per acre.
– Pass 8-0
Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Oct. 20 meeting.
The property includes a building that has been used variously as a rectory and a school, but is now a two-family dwelling. The land and most others along Whillock are significantly sloped, with Hilltop-Hillside Overlay District (HHOD) standards applying to the southeast corner of the subject property. In 2017, the property to the west where a church formerly functioned, was rezoned to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, 12 Units per Acre. The applicant has said he would like to develop the property with six duplexes.
The Planning Commission is in favor of the request, but city planners recommend denial of the rezoning.
From a staff memo:
Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map but not the goals outlined in City Plan 2040. Although properties designated as City Neighborhood Area are intended to be developed with the widest range of residential and nonresidential uses, staff asserts that the current proposal for the subject property is in direct contravention with encouragement of appropriate infill.
Location:
Oct 20 Discussion:
There was no public comment.
Several council members said they’d like to tour the area and revisit the request in two weeks. The discussion will continue on Nov. 5.
Nov. 5 Discussion:
The applicant said he plans to build one additional unit on the property.
There was no public comment.
Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.
2. CUP 2020-003 Cluster Housing Appeal (Details)
A resolution to grant the appeal of Council Members Sarah Bunch, Mark Kinion and Teresa Turk and deny a Conditional Use Permit CUP 2020-003 for a cluster housing development and limited business with associated parking at 1629 N. Crossover Road.
– Fail 5-3
Background:
This item was tabled at the Oct. 20 meeting.
A permit was approved by the Planning Commission in September to allow a cluster housing development of 10 single-family dwellings, renovation and repurposing of the historic Peter Smyth House for nonresidential use, and construction of a new nonresidential building. That approval is now being appealed on behalf of nearby residents who oppose the property owner’s plan.
The residents have said they are concerned about traffic safety, increased density in the area, potential impact of a nearby pond, possible trespassers from the new development, along with the potential for noise and light pollution stemming from the property if it’s developed as planned.
City planners maintain their original opinion, which is that the permit should be granted.
Location:
Oct. 20 Discussion:
A representative of the applicant said they met with the nearby Boardwalk POA in 2018 with a proposal for a mixed-use development that would also include a new location for a local pizza restaurant, but the neighbors did not like the idea of a development in the area. He said they’ve since tried to come up with a plan that everyone supports, and have received approval from the Planning Commission, but city documents indicate that the opposition has obtained 101 signatures of people who are against the permit.
During public comment, seven people spoke against the permit. Their concerns are about traffic safety, possible lowering of property value, increased density, water runoff that could impact a nearby pond, as well as potential for noise and light pollution. Some said they don’t think emergency vehicles could navigate the type of development that the permit would allow.
Fire Chief Brad Hardin was asked if he had any problems with the permit, and he said there were no issues.
City staff said they still recommend approval of the permit. They said sizes of both the residential dwellings and the proposed nonresidential uses are of a bulk and scale that compliments the immediately surrounding area.
Scroggin said he’d like some more information about the potential impact of added traffic, and suggested the item be tabled tonight. Turk agreed.
Marsh said traffic is difficult in the area, but that’s because everyone is driving everywhere instead of walking to nearby places. Adding some commercial properties near residential areas is a way to address that problem, she said.
Bunch said she sponsored the appeal at the request of neighbors who are against the development. She said there are some things that are appropriate about the development, including the proposed smaller size of the homes and some dense uses nearby which would complement the proposal. However, she said the traffic issues are a concern. “I do not think this is a safe area to add more density to,” said Bunch. She suggested a site visit to get some more perspective. Turk agreed.
Bunch moved to table the resolution until the next meeting on Nov. 5. The council agreed and voted 8-0 to table the item.
Nov. 5 Discussion:
Staff shared a graphic showing accident data in the area:
Scroggin asked if city staff believe the development would improve the stormwater situation in the area or if it would have relatively no effect. Staff said stormwater requirements would indeed come into play if this development moves forward, whereas a development without the permit would not be subject to those rules.
Twelve residents spoke and asked the council to deny the permit, citing concerns about traffic safety, stormwater runoff, light pollution, lowered property values, increased density and having commercial uses near their homes.
Scroggin said it sounds like the stormwater issue would either be better or about the same. He said traffic turning in and out near the development would be much safer than the areas near Mission Boulevard. He said he’ll likely support the permit.
“I think the Planning Commission got this one right,” said Scroggin.
Bunch said one thing the neighbors aren’t considering is that quite a bit of the traffic in that area doesn’t come from the local neighborhoods, but instead is a result of people who live in the Baldwin/Elkins area who are coming into Fayetteville each day.
“We really don’t have a lot of say-so over that traffic,” said Bunch.
Petty said he’s prepared to support the permit. He said the accident data shows that the traffic issues are mostly near Mission Boulevard and not the area in question. Petty said he thinks property values in the area will continue to rise, and that this development won’t have a negative effect on the existing neighborhood.
Bunch, who is a local real estate agent, said if the property were to be developed as a mobile home park, it might lower the surrounding property values. But a cluster housing development will likely include homes that are priced such that they would not hurt the values of the nearby homes. She said she’s having a hard time seeing how the permit should be denied, even though she acknowledges that she was one of the original sponsors of the appeal.
Kinion said he’s not sure the area is an appropriate place for a cluster housing development. He said he’ll support the appeal.
Smith said increasing the diversity of housing types and possibly people types that will live in this development could only enrich the community. He’s in support of the original permit approval.
Turk said it’s a difficult decision because on one hand, she thinks saving the historic home is a good thing along with having added stormwater management requirements in place. On the down side, the neighbors are against the plan and they’ve invested heavily in their homes. She said she’s concerned about the existing lake and what impact the development would have on it. She said she hasn’t made up her mind yet.
Bunch said her decision might come down to realizing that the proposal could be better for the area than what is currently allowed by right.
Marsh said one way to reduce traffic issues is to invest in ideas that reduce the amount of cars. Some of those things include building homes within the city limits near existing homes instead of putting them on the edges of the city and adding commercial uses near homes so people can walk to more places. She’s in support of the permit.
Gutierrez said if she lived in the area she would like the idea of having smaller homes nearby where people like her aging parents could live so she could walk to visit them. She thinks the cluster housing development is innovative, and said she’ll support it.
Decision:
The council voted 5-3 to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s original decision, therefore the permit stands. Kinion, Bunch and Turk voted in favor of the appeal.
New Business
1. TLG Peterbilt (Details)
A resolution to authorize the purchase of three Peterbilt trash trucks from TLG Peterbilt of Fort Smith, Arkansas for the total amount of $998,764.00, pursuant to a Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract, and to approve a budget adjustment.
– Pass 8-0
Background:
This contract is for the purchase of three new trash trucks to replace three trucks that have exceeded their life expectancy or will exceed it by the end of 2020.
Discussion:
There was no public comment or discussion.
Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.
2. AT&T – Vesta 9-1-1 Portable Command Posts (Details)
An ordinance to waive the requirements of formal competitive bidding and authorize the purchase of a Vesta 9-1-1 Portable Command Post and additional required equipment from AT&T in the amount of 35,000.00 plus applicable taxes for the Central Dispatch Center, and to authorize future purchases as long as AT&T is the contracted provider for 9-1-1 services through the Washington County Department of Emergency Management.
– Pass 8-0
Background:
This equipment is to allow dispatchers to work remotely to answer 911 calls. The city currently has no resources available for remote answering, however, the dispatch center is sometimes evacuated for various reasons. Staff said four evacuations have occurred in 2020 – once for a power outage and another for a suspicious package that was left at the department. The device is a mobile solution for emergency call centers that need to temporarily answer 911 calls when their normal facility can’t be used.
Discussion:
There was no public comment or discussion.
Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.
3. Amend § 111.04 Application for Permits (Details)
An ordinance to amend § 111.04 Application for Permits in Chapter 111 Alcoholic Beverages of the Fayetteville Code and § 164.18 supplementary use regulations in Chapter 164 Supplemental Zoning Regulations and Specialized Development Regulations of the Unified Development Code to conform separation requirements for businesses permitted to sell alcohol to Arkansas law.
– Pass 8-0
Background:
Staff said the current city code is more strict than Arkansas law when it comes to some alcohol permit requirements, and these changes would make city laws consistent with state laws.
The issue came up when a restaurant applied for a permit to sell alcohol. Since the restaurant is located within 300 feet of a church, the city’s own laws won’t allow staff to issue the necessary alcohol permit. That rule is not included in any state laws, so staff have requested that the City Council change the local law to mirror state law, effectively removing the 300-foot requirement from Fayetteville code.
Another change in this ordinance is to change a similar local law that requires 600 feet of distance between a church and a liquor store. State law requires 1,000 feet, so this change would make city code consistent with state law.
Discussion:
Staff said they reached out to 30 churches to notify them of the change, and didn’t receive any comments about the proposal.
There was no public comment.
Turk said she’d like to wait before voting to make sure school officials have been properly notified since the law also applies to schools.
Marsh said she thinks there’s been proper notification and moved to send the ordinance to the second reading. Petty seconded. That motion passed 6-3 with Mayor Jordan voting in favor (Kinion, Turk and Gutierrez voted against). Petty moved to send the item to the third reading. That motion passed 6-3 with the same vote as before.
Decision:
The council voted 8-0 to approve the ordinance.
4. RZN 2020-012 (226 & 300 S. Gregg Ave./Holst-Powell) (Details)
An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-012 located at 226 & 300 S. Gregg Ave. for approximately 0.37 acres from I-1, Heavy Commercial & Light Industrial to RI-U, Residential Intermediate-Urban.
– Pass 8-0
Background:
The area contains two adjacent properties – one with a single-family constructed in 1936, and the other with a 4-plex constructed in 1916. The properties are both zoned industrially and have been since at least the 1970s. The applicant plans to make an addition to the single-family dwelling. No development plans have been submitted for the 4-plex.
Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.
Location:
Discussion:
There was no public comment.
Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.
5. RZN 2020-013 (420 E. Rebecca St./Bush) (Details)
An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-013 located at 4200 E. Rebecca Street for approximately 0.29 acres from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8 units per acre.
– Pass 8-0
Background:
The property contains one single-family dwelling constructed in 1905. No specific development plan was submitted with the proposal.
Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.
Location:
Discussion:
There was no public comment.
Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.
6. R-PZD-2020-001 (east of E. Sain St./Trails on the Creek) (Details)
An ordinance to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District entitled R-PZD 2020-001 for approximately 20.77 acres located east of East Sain Street to allow the development of 321 multi-family units with associated parking, parkland, and tree preservation areas.
– Pass 7-0
Background:
This project was first presented last year, but was met with strong opposition from neighbors. The developer, Lindsey Management has revamped the proposal to include a natural area to be gifted to the city for a new neighborhood park. The new plan was presented to the Planning Commission in October where it received support from neighbors who were previously opposed.
City staff recommend approval. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the development portion of the request, but not the sections that included the tree and park preservation. However, the Parks and Recreation Advisory board met on Monday and voted in favor of the park preservation.
Location:
Discussion:
Staff said the proposed park is more conservation based rather than the typical urban-style park seen in most neighborhoods.
Hugh Jarratt, a representative of the applicant, said they’ve met with the neighbors after revising the plan, and now everyone approves of the project.
Turk said the project looks “pretty good,” but she has concerns about the development’s proximity to the nearby creek. Jarratt said they will comply with the city’s streamside requirements and will make sure the development won’t negatively affect the creek.
A representative from the nearby neighborhood said the neighbors are in support of the revised project. She said they appreciate Lindsey Management’s cooperation in the process and are excited about the new plan.
Two other neighbors who spoke agreed and encouraged the council to approve the project.
Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it. Marsh was absent during this vote.
7. MCCI, LLC (Details)
A resolution to accept a quote from MCCI, LLC in the amount of $29,400.00, pursuant to a National Cooperative Purchasing Alliance contract, to digitize city records and authorize the purchase of additional services as needed through April 30, 2022, and any future renewal periods.
– Pass 7-0
Background:
This contract will purchase software needed to digitize city records that are currently available on Microfilm for documents created between 1973 and 2004.
Discussion:
There was no public comment.
Decision:
The council voted 7-0 to approve the resolution.
8. Appeal RZN-2020-009 (6061 W. Dot Tipton Rd./JRJBCS, Inc.) (Details)
An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20- 009 located at 6061 W. Dot Tipton Road for approximately 39.88 acres from R-A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre.
– Referred to Planning Commission 6-1
Background:
The applicant said there is a good chance they will withdraw this appeal and go back to the Planning Commission with substantial changes, but they wanted to preserve their appeal rights by adding this item to the agenda.
City staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request.
In 2008 a request for an R-PZD was submitted for the same area. The request sought to construct 182 single-family homes divided into three residential planning areas and include 3.5 acres of public pedestrian trails and green space. The overall proposed density for the project was 4.55 units per acre. The Planning Commission denied the request with commissioners citing concerns about density and the project’s location on the outskirts of town.
The new request is to rezone the property from R-A, Residential Agriculture to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre. The applicant intends to develop the property into a residential subdivision.
The western portion of the property abuts the Farmington city limits, which means that city must also approve the request if it’s approved by Fayetteville.
Staff said traffic concerns are likely be exacerbated by the development since there is no sidewalk or trail connectivity and the main routes to and from the property are along streets that are largely unimproved. Staff also believe that the request does not align with several of the city’s primary long-range planning goals, including discouraging spraw.
Location:
Discussion:
Robert Rhoads, who represents the applicant, said the plan is to go back to the Planning Commission with substantial changes, including doubling the size of the request and changing the zoning request. He requested the council send the item back to the Planning Commission.
Smith said he doesn’t see the point in referring this back to the commission with an even larger footprint considering the rationale for denying it in the first place was its location. He said it might be a waste of time.
Rhoads said he hopes it’s not a waste of time since the new plan will also include a different zoning request.
Decision:
The council voted 6-1 to refer the item back to the Planning Commission. Smith voted against.
Adjourned
This meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
