LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: March 16, 2021

The Mayor recommends the following candidate for appointment:

Fayetteville Public Library Board of Trustees
Rob Qualls – One term ending 4/01/26

The Nominating Committee recommends the following candidates for appointment:

Active Transportation Advisory Committee
Arnold Smith – One unexpired bicycle advocate term ending 12/31/21

Board of Adjustments
Erin Adkins-Oury – One term ending 3/31/24
Lindsay Steiger-Muck – One term ending 3/31/24

Community Development and Assistance Programs Advisory Board
Gladys Tiffany – One member involved in housing services term ending TBD
Vincent Waide – One member involved in homelessness services term ending TBD
Emily English – One member involved with community food systems term ending TBD
Ashlee Hicks– One member representing local small business term ending TBD
Natasha Coleman – One member residents at large term ending TBD
Susan Gardner – One member residents at large term ending TBD

Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Jebediah Williams– One alternate member term ending 3/31/26
Ashley Mauldin – One alternate member term ending 3/31/26

Environmental Action Committee
Margaret Mead Britain – One unexpired community citizen at large term ending 6/30/23
Bannon Gallaher – One unexpired science discipline term ending 6/30/23

Planning Commission
Porter Winston – One term ending 3/31/24
Sarah Sparkman – One term ending 3/31/24
Michael John Wiederkehr – One term ending 3/31/24

Background:
This item was tabled at the Dec. 1, Jan. 5 and Feb. 16 meetings.

A short-term rental is the leasing out of a furnished residential dwelling on a short-term basis, generally less than a month. It is estimated that there are approximately 500-600 STR units in Fayetteville. However, Fayetteville’s codes do not have specific rules for STRs and they are classified as hotels/motels in the zoning code. This prevents them from legally operating in a single-family district and there are numerous STRs currently in violation. In July of 2019 the council adopted a resolution directing staff to study and develop an ordinance for STRs for their consideration.

This proposal has support from city staff and the Planning Commission.

Here are the overview slides presented tonight:

Dec. 1 Discussion:

Several people spoke during public comment, some who were in favor and others who were against. Some of those against said the rules were too overbearing and would make it difficult for people to operate short-term rentals. Others said they’d like to see the proposal be changed in some places, particularly the limit of eight people per residence.

A few council members also said they’d like to see some fine-tuning. Staff agreed, and said they would work more on the proposed language.

Turk and Scroggin suggested tabling the issue until the first meeting in January. The council agreed, and voted 7-0 to table until Jan. 5. Petty’s vote wasn’t audible.

Jan. 5 Discussion:
During the vote to move the second reading, Gutierrez and Kinion voted against. All other members voted in favor.

Staff asked to forward the ordinance to the council’s Ordinance Review Committee. Several members said they like that idea. The council voted 8-0 to table the ordinance until Feb. 16 to give the committee time to meet and discuss the proposal.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said the Ordinance Review Committee approved some changes but noted that there are still some complicated things to consider about this proposal, but they sent it back to the council so the public could continue to weigh in. It might need to go back to the committee before a final decision is made.

Here are the proposed changes:

Staff quickly read over some other proposed changes, but the slides weren’t loading. The proposed changes, however, are highlighted in yellow in the latest staff report (click here to read that report).

Council members said they’d like to table the item and send it back to the committee to further fine tune it.

During public comment, Sue Madison said she’d like to see the committee consider parking issues around short-term rentals and events that are held at short-term rentals that might need health department approval.

Others who spoke said they don’t understand the need for these regulations, they think the city should wait a while before enacting new rules, they’re concerned about the Conditional Use Permit process taking too long, or they think there are too many rules proposed.

The council vote 7-0 to table the item for a month and refer it to the Ordinance Review Committee (Jones’ vote wasn’t audible).

March 16 Discussion:
Staff recommended this item be tabled to allow the Ordinance Review Committee time to review some possible amendments. The discussion will continue on April 6.

Background:
This item was held at the Dec. 1, Dec. 15, Jan. 5, Feb. 16 and March 2 meetings.

This contract will authorize a land purchase needed for the replacement parking deck to allow the project to move forward and expedite the completion prior to beginning the Arts Corridor Civic Plaza Project.

Dec. 1 Discussion:
City staff shared the following updated conceptual images of the new deck (see PDF here):

City Attorney Kit Williams said the contract is not ready to be approved. He said more time is needed to make adjustments to both sides of the deal.

There was no public comment.

The council agreed to hold the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Dec. 15.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
City staff said more time is needed to work with all parties to come to an agreement. City Attorney Kit Williams said he believes the council could wait to approve the contract and still meet the city’s bond obligation.

The council agreed to leave the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue Jan. 5

Jan. 5 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan said he’d like to table the ordinance until mid-February to give him more time to work through the contract with the developers and to seek some advice from professionals who are experts in public-private partnerships.

Kinion said having a specialist’s opinion would make him more comfortable. Scroggin and Bunch agreed.

Cary Arsaga said he closed his business in the Depot Lot when the pandemic hit and was prepared to re-open in July but decided against it because he heard the council might be making a decision about this in October and it wouldn’t have made any sense to only open for a few months before closing for construction. He said it’s frustrating for the decision to continue to drag on because he is depending on this deal to go through to make it as a business owner.

The council voted 8-0 to table the item until Feb. 16.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
Shortly before the meeting, an updated ordinance and contracts (with exhibit) were distributed to the public.

The council amended the ordinance with the new language that includes the names of all the entities. The contracts still need a signature from the bank, so this can’t be approved tonight, but Mayor Jordan said he’s planning a special City Council meeting next week and he will likely add this item to that agenda.

Staff said the new contract includes specific entity names, a shortened term for the city’s option to purchase the mobility hub, and adding language that the developers make a good faith effort to add a sixth and seventh floor to the parking deck within 15 years, instead of the previous 20 years.

There was no public comment.

Kinion said he likes the idea of having more than just a parking deck, but he’s having a hard time justifying the risk of moving forward with such a project when all the city really needs is replacement parking.

Mayor Jordan said he understands the risk and he has a backup plan to simply build a deck on School Avenue if this project falls through. He said he has a vision for a much bigger structure that can also support commercial activity with added social elements, and that’s why he’s directed his staff to pursue this plan.

The council voted 8-0 to table the item until March 2.

March 2 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan said he’s still waiting on the bank’s board to make a decision, and expects to have this contract ready in two weeks. The council voted 8-0 to table the item until March 16.

March 16 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said the ordinance needs to be amended to change the contract to a real estate purchase of the 0.2-acre property instead of the current lease-to-own agreement. Staff said the developer discovered that they cannot get funding to build on the property unless they own it outright.

We received an explanation of the differences between the two agreements (read it here).

The basics of the changes are that:

1. The prior contract only included general language for the building to compliment and activate the plaza.
2. The prior contract did not include specific language that would give the city recourse if the developer did not construct the building as specified.

Again, here is a memo explaining the changes.

We also received the following updated contract documents: doc 1, doc 2, doc 3

The council voted 8-0 to amend the ordinance to include the new agreement language.

During public comment, several people spoke in favor of the project, including Jeff Amerine of Startup Junkie, Peter Lane of the Walton Arts Center, Steve Clark of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, and Jerry Davis owner of several entertainment district businesses. There was no other public comment.

Council Member Petty said he’s now in favor of the project, partially because the contract now allows the city to buy back the land for the civic plaza building if the developer doesn’t build on it within 10 years of the deck opening. He said the proposed site provides much more potential for the city than if the deck were built in another location. “Why would we build a parking deck that is only used for one thing when we could share in the costs to potentially get more out of it?” said Petty.

Bunch said she also supports the proposal. She said she believes the city has learned from past mistakes when it comes to public-private partnerships. She said the vision is right and that she agrees with Petty in that this location provides a lot more opportunity for the city.

Turk said the 2019 public bond vote for the Cultural Arts Corridor wasn’t a landslide like the other items in the package, and she thinks it was because of the parking deck project. She said she thinks the city lost its leverage on a parking deck location by signaling where it wanted to build too early in the process. She said she doesn’t think the city is getting a good deal, and she won’t be supporting the proposal.

Gutierrez said she was skeptical about this location at first because of all the details that would have to be worked out. She said she’s now satisfied with how the contract has evolved in the city’s favor, and she will support the project.

Scroggin said he’s in support as well, and said he’s most excited about the food hall portion of the proposal. He said he thinks the city will be better off in 10 years because of this project.

Kinion said he thinks the vision for the project is excellent, but he agrees with Turk. He said he thinks voters wanted nothing more than a parking deck and this project is too complex to be consistent with that original desire. He said he is still feeling the effects of the city’s failed TIF district at the site of the former Mountain Inn. He said he hates to vote against it, but that is his plan for now.

Mayor Jordan said this project is very important to him personally. He said he wasn’t exposed much to the arts as a child, but a visit to town to watch a play made a big impact on his life. He said supporting the arts has since been a major component of his public work. He said he knows there’s a risk at this location, but putting a deck somewhere else with no potential for added opportunity does not align with his vision for what could happen on the Depot Lot and what that would mean for the entire arts corridor. He said he thinks the city has a good, strong contract in place and he’s excited to move forward. “I think it’s the right thing to do and I think it’s the right time,” said Jordan.

Decision:
The council voted 6-1 to approve the ordinance. Turk voted against. Kinion abstained. The emergency clause was approved 8-0.

Background:
This item was held at the Nov. 17, Dec. 1, Dec. 15, Jan. 5, Feb. 16 and March 2 meetings.

The work is related to a replacement parking deck near the intersection of Dickson Street and West Avenue.

From a staff memo:

This amendment includes the Balance of the Architectural Services for the Architectural Elements of the Deck and West Avenue Police Substation including Design Development, Construction Drawings, Bidding and Negotiation, and Construction Administration. It also includes the structural Design of the Colonnade, Survey and platting.

Nov. 17 Discussion:
Staff requested this item be tabled until the next meeting to allow more time to get an acceptable contract. The discussion will continue on Dec. 1.

Dec. 1 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan requested this item be tabled again until the next meeting to allow more time to work on the contract. The discussion will continue on Dec. 15.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since it can only be approved after the previous item is approved. The discussion will continue on Jan. 5.

Jan 5 Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since there’s still no contract in place. The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since there’s still no contract in place. The discussion will continue on March 2.

March 2 Discussion
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since there’s still no contract in place. The discussion will continue on March 16.

March 16 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 6-2 to approve the resolution. Turk and Kinion voted against.

Background:
This item was tabled at the Feb. 2 and 16 meetings, and left on the second reading at the March 2 meeting.

This property is the same as the previous annexation request. It would be divided into three planning areas:

Planning Area 1 – 6.20 acres: This area is primarily commercial in nature, though it does allow for multi-family dwellings, and is intended to serve surrounding residential areas with convenience goods and adaptable mixed use. The area is divided into two locations, the first being located along the property’s North Crossover Road frontage, and the second is located towards the center of the site.

Planning Area 2 – 39.63 acres: Making up the primary acreage of the proposal, this area is categorized by a mix of housing types, ranging from single-family to three- and four-family dwellings. The map shows a variety of lot widths, alley-loaded development, and a gridded street pattern throughout the site.

Planning Area 3 – 36.06 acres: Scattered throughout the site, with primary consideration for the area surrounding and north of Hilton Creek, this planning area’s primary purpose is to provide open space, detention, drainage, and natural areas (though does allow for low-density single-family dwellings with two-acre lot area minimums). The site plan also indicates an intention to provide a linear park extending north and south through the eastern part of the site, as well as a dedicated area for parkland.

Location:

Jan. 7 Discussion:
A few people spoke against this request with the same concerns as the annexation above.

The council left the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Jan. 19 Discussion:
Staff said the ordinance needs to be amended to correct some language referencing the three planning areas. The council voted 8-0 to approve that amendment.

The council left the item on the second reading since it’s tied to the previous ordinance.

Feb. 2 Discussion:
As requested by Williams, the council also voted 8-0 to table this item until the next meeting because it is connected to the previous item.

The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
Since this item is tied to the previous item, it was also tabled 8-0 until the March 2 meeting.

March 2 Discussion:
Public comments were similar to the discussion above, in that neighbors are worried about flooding and water pollution at Lake Fayetteville, and safety in the area around the other bridge. The council decided to leave the item of the second reading. The discussion will continue on March 16.

March 16 Discussion:
During public comment, four people spoke against the proposal and one spoke in favor.

Scroggin said he supports the plan. He’s glad the developer chose the route of a PZD instead of asking for a blanket rezoning. He said he hopes more developers go that same route.

Turk said the area has water issues and a high-density development could intensify the potential for flooding. She said she’s also concerned about the impact the project could have on wildlife and prairie mounds in the area.

Kinion said he is also worried about runoff and the potential negative effects a development in this area could have on Lake Fayetteville. He said until he has proof that this project won’t impact Lake Fayetteville, he can’t support it.

Bunch said she thinks a PZD is the best possibility for the land to have some control over it. She said she’s also concerned about runoff and the lake, but there are mechanisms to address those issues once an actual development proposal is submitted.

Gutierrez said she’s in favor. She said she trusts that there are more steps the project must go through, and that some of the issues that have been brought up can be addressed in that process. She said she hopes there are continual oversights from planning staff as the project moves forward.

Decision:
The council voted 6-2 to approve the ordinance. Turk and Kinion voted against.

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the March 2 meeting.

The property is located northwest of the intersection between I-49 and Wedington Drive. It was annexed by the city in 1967 and shortly after a duplex was built on the land. The request is to rezone the parcel to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, 12 Units per Acre. The applicant has proposed a development which would retain the duplex and construct an additional duplex on the back of the property for a total of four units.

Both the Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval.

Location:

Feb. 16 Discussion:
During public comment, one person spoke against the request.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on March 2.

March 2 Discussion:
Turk suggested the council tour the area. The council left the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on March 16.

March 16 Discussion:
Some council members suggested holding the item until the Fire Department can assess whether the street is too narrow to handle adding an additional duplex.

Petty said he hopes the vote is called tonight. He said the Fire Department will have a chance to assess the situation once a development is formally proposed.

Kinion moved to table. Turk seconded. That motion failed 4-4 with Petty, Bunch, Gutierrez and Jones voting against. The mayor declined to vote.

Decision:
During the vote, the council denied the rezoning 3-5 with Petty, Bunch and Scroggin voting in favor.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the March 2 meeting.

The property contains 5 acres of undeveloped land with approximately 1,100 feet of frontage along West Wedington Drive. No development plans have been submitted by the applicant.

Both the Planning Commission and city staff recommend denial of the request.

Location:

March 2 Discussion:
The applicant said they would like to change the request to a mix of RI-U and NS-L.

Turk said the applicant should go back through the Planning Commission process with any major changes. She moved to send it back to the commission. Bunch seconded. The motion failed with only Scroggin, Turk and Bunch voting in favor.

Mayor Jordan suggested leaving the item on the first reading to allow a new ordinance to be drafted. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on March 16.

March 16 Discussion:
The applicant asked that the item be left on the second reading to allow time for a new ordinance to be drafted. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on April 6.

Background:
The University of Arkansas Black Alumni Society has proposed a street name change to recognize the historical contributions made by former Arkansas men’s basketball coach Nolan Richardson.

The request is to rename Leroy Pond Drive to Nolan Richardson Drive and to move Leroy Pond Drive one street to the north to Meadow Street.

The proposal is sponsored by Council Member D’Andre Jones.

Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said he has an amendment to the ordinance. Meadow Street is a university property so a different road is proposed.

The new road that would be named after Pond is Government Avenue, which runs south from Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to the Fayetteville National Cemetery, where thousands of veterans of the Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried. It would be named Lt. Col. Leroy Pond Avenue.

The new language also includes the history of the local war hero.

Hertzberg asked if Stadium Drive could be renamed Nolan Richardson Drive instead of Leroy Pond Drive. Williams said similar to Meadow Street, the council can’t change that street name because it’s a university property.

Williams said he thinks the new proposal is the most honorable way to recognize Pond.

The council passed the amendment 8-0.

During public comment, several people spoke in favor of the resolution.

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

Background:
The proposed policy is similar to the previous one, in that it is a points based system, with the following components:

The minimum threshold for consideration of traffic calming is 35 points, as compared to the previous policy threshold of 60 points. In addition, locations with 85th percentile speeds greater than 35 mph will be eligible regardless of the score, and locations with speeds not exceeding 5 mph over the posted speed or below 25 mph would not be eligible.

The other major component of the policy is neighborhood consensus. Traffic calming requests must be accompanied by evidence of support of at least 70% of residents of the street on which the traffic calming is requested before a traffic study will be initiated. If the study indicates that traffic calming is warranted, staff will develop proposed solutions and present those to the neighborhood. If at least 60% of the neighborhood agrees to the proposed solution, the location will be placed in line for implementation.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The property was originally platted as a part of the Sunny Acres Addition in the Sang Valley neighborhood. The applicant intends to split the lot for additional single-family dwellings and has submitted a Bill of Assurance which will guarantee no more than three single-family homes are built, instead of the four that would normally allowed on this property under the RSF-7 district. The rezoning is meant to accommodate a configuration of lots fronting North Sang Avenue with a shared drive along the east property line off West Ora Drive.

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

Location:

Discussion:
The applicant requested the item be held on this reading. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on April 6.

Background:
The property was originally platted as a part of the R & W Addition and developed with a single-family residence which was built in 1905. The applicant has stated in their request letter that rezoning will help the city accomplish its goal of increasing density through infill by allowing the development of additional housing on the property in the future.

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.

Background:
The request is to rezone three undeveloped properties. Previously the subject area was one coherent property including the two large parcels to the north and three intervening parcels. Little vegetation is present on the site and the topography is fairly level on each of the properties. The applicant suggests they would like to use the subject area for office space.

The Planning Commission voted 3-5 to deny the request, and city staff also recommend denial of the rezoning.

Staff said the proposed rezoning is incompatible with adjacent land uses because the properties located along that portion of Wedington Drive are either developed with low-density residential and agricultural uses or not developed at all. Much of the existing development, staff said, is not compatible with the scale or activity of many uses permitted in the CS zoning, including developments with few size limitations and auto-oriented businesses.

Location:

Discussion:
Scroggin said he’s not in favor of this project because it’s too far outside of the mayor’s box and it has no support from either the city planning staff or the Planning Commission.

Petty said he doesn’t think the council will support the current requested district, but he thinks there’s an opportunity for the applicant to present an alternate request that’s more suited to their specific plans. He said he would encourage such an action.

The applicant’s representative said it was suggested they go with R-O Residential Office, but they would be capped at 3,000 square feet and their architectural plan is for a 3,800-square-foot building. The applicant’s wish, he said, is to have a vote on the original CS request.

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

Background:
This vacation approval is subject to the following conditions:

1. Any relocation of or damage to existing utilities or existing facilities shall be at the owner/developer’s expense;
2. A general utility easement shall be dedicated in place of the right of way.
3. A portion of the right of way to be vacated shall be dedicated as a public access easement the length of the property as depicted in the survey attached as Exhibit C.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on April 6.

Background:
The City Attorney has drafted a detailed memo about this resolution. Read it here.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.