LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: May 4, 2021

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the April 20 meeting.

The property was previously part of the Villas at Stonebridge Planned Zoning District, which expired in 2015. The property was eventually rezoned to RSF-4, with a Bill of Assurance limiting the density to 2.5 units per acre. In February 2018, a preliminary plat for Meadows at Stonebridge Subdivision was approved on the property, but was never built. The property is currently rural and undeveloped in nature, and encompasses 51.33 acres.

The applicant requests to rezone the property to a Residential Planned Zoning District with 4 planning areas, described as follows:

Planning Area 1 (5.3 acres) – This area is residential in nature, with allowable uses including single-family dwellings and accessory dwelling units, and a proposed density of 3.77 units per acre. There is no lot width minimum, allowing for tandem lots in areas near Dead Horse Mountain Road where the property’s shape restricts a standard lot-and-block pattern; for lots without street frontage, there is a minimum 15-foot setback from all sides, mirroring the City’s tandem lot ordinance. For all other lots, the applicant has included a build-to-zone rather than a front setback, 5-foot side setbacks, and a 15- foot rear setback.

Planning Area 2 (14.93 acres) – Alley, rear-loaded single-family dwellings make up the primary usage of this planning area, and the applicant proposes lot widths and setbacks similar to the City’s NC, Neighborhood Conservation zoning district. The applicant proposes a density of 3.48 units per acre.

Planning Area 3 (25.06 acres) This area is also characterized by single-family dwellings and accessory dwelling units, with very similar parameters to the City’s RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, 4 Units per Acre zoning district, though also proposes a build- to-zone rather than a front setback. The proposed density for this Planning Area is 3.03 units per acre.

Planning Area 4 (5.05 acres) – This area is designed to allow a wider variety of uses beyond single-family residential, including 2-, 3- and 4-family dwellings, and limited non- residential uses, including sidewalk cafes, small-scale establishments, and home occupations. This Planning Area also allows for zero lot line side setbacks, and also includes a build-to-zone in the front of each lot. The proposed density for this Planning Area is 5.94 units per acre.

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

Location:

April 20 Discussion:
The council received a letter written on behalf of neighbors who are opposed to the request. The letter includes a request that the item be held on the first reading. Scroggin said he would also like to hold it tonight.

The discussion will continue on May 4.

May 4 Discussion:
Several residents spoke against the project. In general, they said they’re worried about an increase in traffic and drainage that could occur if the property is developed as requested.

One person who spoke in favor said the city needs housing and this is an opportunity to add more homes without having to do it at the very edges of the city limits.

A lawyer representing a nearby neighborhood asked that the item be left on the second reading to allow time for the neighbors to meet with the developer to see if some of their concerns can be addressed. Here’s a letter detailing the neighbors’ concerns.

The council agreed to leave the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on May 18.

Background:
This resolution would reaffirming the city’s commitment to protecting transgender people. The proposal is brought forward by City Attorney Kit Williams and sponsored by Mayor Lioneld Jordan in response to several bills recently passed by the Arkansas Legislature.

One measure prohibits physicians from providing gender-affirming treatment for trans people under age 18. It’s the first law of its kind in the United States. Gov. Asa Hutchinson vetoed the bill, but the state’s General Assembly voted to override the veto.

Another new bill bans transgender student athletes from joining female sports teams. Gov. Hutchinson signed that bill in support. Arkansas was only the second state to pass such a measure. Mississippi adopted a similar bill in February.

A third new law allows doctors to deny nonemergency treatment to anyone if they have a moral or religious objection.

Discussion:
Council Member Turk said diversity and inclusion is foremost in Fayetteville in order to maintain the culture of the city.

Kinion said the city has a heritage of welcoming everyone, and that should be enhanced and preserved.

Jones said Fayetteville has been voted to be one of the best places to live in the country and a large part of that is the city’s inclusive and equitable nature.

Bunch said it’s unfortunate the council has to do this, but it’s important to reiterate the city’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.

Hertzberg said she supports the resolution, but can’t denounce the recently passed legislation. She read the following statement:

“I’m not willing to rebuke the recently passed state laws. I believe we can simultaneously support inclusion and common sense. I’m going to stay in my lane of healthcare and address the Arkansas Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act and the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act. With respect to the Save Act, I support the prohibition of gender transition procedures for minors. Deeply imbedded in our jurisprudence is the notion of protecting children. Minor are unable to purchase alcohol or tobacco, gamble and they aren’t considered to have the full legal capacity of an adult, so they aren’t able to vote, own property, sue or be sued or in many cases consent to medical treatment. Why don’t we allow children to participate in these activities as a society? Because we’re protecting children who aren’t considered capable of handing the same information as mature adults and who cannot yet provide necessary informed consent. If we discriminate based on age for any of these factors, why would that same logic not apply to the experimental, often times irreversible treatment of gender dysphoria? I am not at all questioning the rights to such treatment for individuals over the age of 18. I’m simply stating that there’s a difference between a 13-year-old requesting gender transition procedures and a 19-year-old making the decision for themself. Regarding the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act, I support the healthcare professional’s right to refuse treatment based on religious or moral objection. I believe we can simultaneously support civil rights and religious freedom, and as long as treatment is available from alternative providers, then the conscientious objections of a single practitioner should not be accorded less merit than that of a patient. With that said, I will be voting for this resolution because I believe every word. I too believe that Fayetteville should be a welcoming, accepting, and safe community for every group and individual.”

Council Member Sloan Scroggin, who is a math instructor at the university, said he has taught Democrats, Republicans, people of different races, sexual orientations and trans individuals. He said anyone who would refuse to teach a person for any of those reasons should quit teaching, and he believes the same thing about people in the medical field.

Gutierrez said this is an important resolution to send the message that even though the state may say otherwise, things in Fayetteville are still the same.

Mayor Jordan said the state legislature have passed laws that prohibit a city from passing ordinances that protect the health and safety of its own people, and that discriminate against a class of people.

“They have attacked our ability to locally control our city,” said Jordan. “I think that’s wrong.”

He said they are the wrong laws in the wrong place, and they send the wrong message.

“But the resolution you have before you tonight is the right message in the right place at the right time,” said Jordan.

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

Background:
The Peace at Home Family Shelter is a service that provides accommodations for victims of family violence and domestic abuse.

The City Council in 2005 approved the initial sale of 1.5 acres of land for the construction of a new shelter east of Highway 265 on Ivy Lane for $30,000. The city also leased additional land as a buffer zone for increased privacy and security and for a temporary septic system area. Peace at Home moved into that facility in 2008.

Since then, the program has grown to address the needs of domestic violence survivors and their children, growing from 12 staff members with an annual budget of $800,000 to a 35-member team with a $2.5 million budget. Services have expanded to include a rapid rehousing team to help families obtain and pay for safe new housing, bilingual therapeutic services, and a children’s program. The shelter now works with over 1,000 families seeking support from domestic violence annually.

The shelter has outgrown its building and office space and currently operates a waiting list for emergency safe shelter, with approximately 30% of the requests for emergency shelter going unmet, according to city staff. The shelter would like to purchase 4 acres of city land for an expansion which will include more capacity for beds and baths, additional parking, and the Candy Clark Pet Sanctuary to be constructed in memory of one of its biggest supporters, to provide a safe space for families staying at the shelter to house their pets (here’s more about the pet sanctuary).

The sale price would be the same as the city previously authorized in 2005 which is $20,000 per acre.

Discussion:
Council members and those in the public said the shelter does good work, and spoke in favor of the resolution.

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

Background:
SRD Builders is developing two lot splits along West Lawson Street. One single-family home will be removed for the addition of two townhomes. The current 1.5-inch water pipe is not large enough to accommodate the project, according to city staff.

This development requires approximately 200 linear feet of 4-inch PVC water pipe to reach the project site. Through this agreement, the city would split the work 46/54, with the developer paying 100% of the cost for the private service connections.

Staff said a cost share would accomplish four things:

1. It replaces a 50-year-old brittle segment of galvanized water pipe.
2. It allows a portion of the customers on both sides of Lawson Avenue to connect to a larger pipe, which will provide more volume to their meter.
3. It provides a water connection that could be extended if development occurs to the east on Lawson.
4. It removes a section of lead pipe from the city’s water distribution system, which is a requirement of the new Lead and Copper Rule.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The property is about 500 feet southwest of the intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road and includes one single-family dwelling. The land has frontage onto Rupple Road, but driveway access is provided by an access easement with a property to the north onto Wedington Drive. The surrounding area is a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses. The applicant would like to use the west parcel to develop a multi-family residential development and the east parcel for a future commercial development.

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

Location:

Discussion:
Scroggin said while the requested zoning allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses, he’s worried the developers might only build single-family homes, as has happened recently in areas that were rezoned CS. He said he doesn’t know how he’ll vote.

One resident spoke in favor of the request.

Hertzberg said she lives nearby and she’s in favor of CS.

Gutierrez said she hopes that the project won’t be exclusively single-family homes as well.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted 8-0 to approve it.

Background:
The property is part of Phase V of the Park Meadows subdivision. It is currently entitled for single-family development within the aforementioned Park Meadows subdivision. Modified plans have not been submitted or proposed.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Scroggin said he hopes this development has a high density.

Gutierrez said she wants to the hold the item on the second reading to give her constituents more time to consider the request. The discussion will continue on May 18.

Background:
County records indicate the property has three duplexes on site, but the duplex addressed at 227 N. Summit Ave. was recently demolished. No development plans have been submitted by the applicant, though their letter of intent indicates a desire to develop up to eight single-family homes on the site.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Scroggin said the request is not a large increase from what has existed since the 1970s. The three duplexes on the land housed six families and the applicant said their plan is to build for eight families.

Turk said she’d like to leave the ordinance on the first reading and possibly take a tour of the area before the discussion continues. Gutierrez agreed.

The discussion will continue on May 18.