Fayetteville City Council recap: Jan. 4, 2022

Background:
The property is on the south side of Wedington Drive about one mile west of Rupple Road. It is a residential lot with one single- family home. The property has about 100 feet of frontage along Wedington and is surrounded by low-density, residential and agricultural land, with the exception of the property to the east where subdivision construction is underway. The property to the east was rezoned to NS-G and RI-U last year with a Bill of Assurance that limits density to 8 units per acre, dictates a street stub out to the east and west, and removes residential uses from the portion zoned NS-G.

Both the Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval.

Location:

Dec. 21 Discussion:
Robert Rhoads, an attorney representing the applicant, said he’s been asked by a council member why the area at the south end of the property by the stream was included in the RI-U request. Rhoads said that was done because he thinks there’s sufficient protection for the stream already in place through the city’s own ordinances.

“I would ask that you depend on the strength of the engineers, city staff and the codes you have in place,” said Rhoads.

If the council isn’t satisfied with that, he said, the applicant would be willing to remove the southern portion from the request.

Turk said she is the council member who’s concerned about the stream, and she’d like to leave the request on the first reading to allow the applicant time to revise their request.

The discussion will continue on Jan. 4.

Jan. 4 Discussion
In response to requests from council members at the last meeting to better protect Owl Creek, which flows through the southern part of the proposed rezoning, the applicant has changed its requested rezoning for that area to R-A, Residential-Agricultural. A map of the new request is shown below.

The council voted 7-0 to amend the ordnance to the new request.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.

Background:
The area includes seven parcels and is located on the south side of Dot Tipton Road near its intersection with Double Springs Road. The parcels are currently undeveloped. A portion of the rezoning request is adjacent to Farmington city limits.

Several rezoning requests have been made for these group of properties.

In 2008, staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial, but the City Council eventually approved a PZD request to construct 182 single-family homes divided into three residential planning areas with 3.5 acres of public trails and green space. The overall proposed density for the project was 4.55 units per acre. The project was never developed.

Seven years later, after the previous PZD expired, the City Council reverted the property to its R-A designation in 2015.

Another request in 2020 sought to rezone the property to RSF-4. Both city staff and the Planning Commission again recommended denial over concerns about density and the project’s location on the outskirts of town. The 2020 request failed at the Planning Commission, and was not appealed to City Council.

Staff said rezoning and development under the proposed density could result in a subdivision that may be appropriate at a later date, but it is not currently supported by adequate levels of infrastructure or services.

Location:

Dec. 21 Discussion:
The applicant said the current plan is for about 50-55 homes on the property.

Scroggin said he was the real estate agent who represented the sale of the property so he’ll be recusing from any vote on this item.

Turk said she’s concerned about how narrow the road is. The applicant said he acknowledges that the road is not currently wide enough, and the plan is to address that.

During public comment, one person spoke in favor of the request.

Hertzberg moved to go to the second reading. That motion passed, but Turk said she’d like to hold the item on the second reading to allow more time to consider the request. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on Jan. 4.

Jan. 4 Discussion:
The applicant said if this request is approved, they could likely work with the city to help with the costs of improving Dot Tipton Road.

Decision:
The council voted 2-4, so the ordinance failed. Turk and Hertzberg voted in favor. Scroggin recused.

Background:
This item is an attachment with vertical blades that can also mow grass and sweep the turf clean. Staff said while there are several products on the market that can perform those tasks, this is the only one that can do all those duties with a 5.9-cubic-yard hopper, so competitive bidding doesn’t make sense.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.

Background:
The property is in south Fayetteville, east of Razorback Road, and roughly 800 feet south of the intersection with Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The site is mostly undeveloped with the exception of a large storage building near its frontage. The Santa Fe Pacific Corporation has a railroad that runs through the southwest corner of the property. Significant vegetation is present throughout most of the site with the exception of the area developed with the storage facility and where overhead power lines are present near the southeast corner of the property.

The applicant proposed an R-PZD with two planning areas:

Planning Area #1 – 10.04 acres – Intended for multi-family residential development with 16 multi-family buildings, a clubhouse/leasing office, and a four-story parking structure. A total of 142 units are proposed for a total density of 10.4 units per acre. The proposed maximum building height is five stories, but stepback requirements would limit the height to two stories for portions of the building within 10 feet of the public right-of-way, and to three stories within 10-20 feet of the public right-of-way.

Planning Area #2 – 3.61 acres – Intended for tree preservation, detention, and outdoor recreation. Structures are limited to 25 feet in height.

Both city planners and the Planning Commission recommend approval.

Location:

Discussion:
Staff said if developed, Stadium Drive would be extended and connected, which could alleviate traffic congestion in the area. Turk asked who would pay for that. Staff said the developer would be solely responsible for that extension.

Turk asked how many trees would be removed from the area if the development is approved. Turk also asked how many cars are expected at the development considering five unrelated people would be allowed per unit. Staff said a tree study is not required with a PZD application so that information is not available. As for parking, the city’s code requires one parking space per bedroom. The applicant said the design for the project includes more parking than is required by city code.

There was no public comment.

Turk said she would like to hold the item on the first reading to allow more time for the public to consider the project. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on Jan. 18.

Background:
The request is for 1.12 acres of a 4.88-acre parcel in northeast Fayetteville, one lot north of Old Missouri Road’s intersection with Old Wire Road. The property is largely undeveloped, with its defining feature being the Keenan Towerhouse, an 80-foot house visible above the site’s tree canopy. A less-apparent characteristic of the property is a 36-inch water main that bisects the property from north to south. The applicant’s intent is to use the extents of the existing NS-G zoning to the north as a guide and the large, buried water transmission line as a boundary between densities and land uses. The applicant has not shared a specific plan other than to develop this area similarly to property zoned NS-G to the north, which is currently undeveloped.

Both city planners and the Planning Commission recommend approval.

Location:

Discussion:
Mitch Weigel, a representative for the applicant, said the land is just south of the property the council rezoned in 2018 and the request is to rezone it to the same district as the adjoining property. He said the plan is to add some small-scale community services to the area.

There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.

Background:
Accessory dwelling units were first approved in 2008 to address housing needs and encourage appropriate infill. For the next 10 years, only one or two applications were submitted per year for ADUs, which staff said was due to tight restrictions that required separate utility metering, a deed restriction mandating the owner live on the property, and minimum parking standards regardless of ADU size.

That original 2008 ordinance was replace in 2018, and removed the deed restrictions, loosened the parking standards, allowed shared utility metering, and added the allowance for up to two ADUs with a single-family detached home. Those changes increased applications for ADUs to about nine per year, but staff said that number is still too low to meaningfully impact housing options.

The proposed revisions on the table now represent what staff calls a “continuation of the gradual easing in” of ADU standards that began in 2008. Changes include:

• Revise the definition of an “accessory use or structure” to exempt accessory dwelling units from the size limit in relation to a property’s principal dwelling.
• Revise the definition of “dwelling, accessory” to permit accessory dwelling unit construction in association with 2-family dwellings.
• Allow three accessory dwellings, two detached and one attached, per lot.
• Remove the height limitation on second-story attached accessory dwellings where the roofline may exceed that of the principal dwelling.
• Permit accessory dwelling units as a conditional use within cluster housing developments where they are currently prohibited.

Both city planners and the Planning Commission recommend approval.

Discussion:
During public comment, two people spoke in favor of the changes, including Paxton Roberts, who said he uses an ADU to save money and for housing to care for his aging mother. Roberts suggested allowing more square footage in the future to at least allow an ADU to be comparable to an apartment.

Kinion said he’d like to leave the item on the first reading to allow more time to consider the proposal. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on Jan. 18.

Background:
Council Member Teresa Turk is proposing two changes to the council’s rules.

The first change would end the segmentation of the speaking period for public comment. The current rule, which was adopted on June 16, 2020, calls for a three-minute timer that begins when a person starts to speak, and once the timer reaches zero, it begins to count negative for two additional minutes. The proposal is to have one unified five-minute speaking period.

The second change is to allow every public speaker to use electronic visual aids during their five-minute speaking period as long as they provide their media to the city’s IT staff before the meeting. The current rules require the council to vote on whether visual aids can be used.

Discussion:
Hertzberg asked how soon before a meeting Turk would like people to provide their media to city staff. City Attorney Kit Williams said the proposal leaves it up to the IT Department to handle the media and to decide on timing to give them a chance to adapt and change their procedures if there are issues getting visual aids ready in time for the meeting.

City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton said people can currently upload their media when signing up for an item to speak about before the meeting. She said she’s a little uncomfortable with having another department sift through information and possibly decide whether it’s allowed before it gets to the council. City Attorney Kit Williams said the IT Department would not be deciding whether something is allowed to be presented, but rather to ensure the media does not contain a virus that could harm the city’s computer system.

There was no public comment.

Decision:
Kinion suggested tabling the item until the next meeting to give more time for consideration. That motion passed 7-0. The discussion will continue on Jan. 18.

Background:
According to state law, the council must re-adopt its Rules of Order and Procedure at the beginning of each year. That’s what this item is for. The only differences from last year would be the changes that Council Member Turk proposed in the previous item, if those changes are approved.

Discussion:
Since the previous item was tabled, this resolution would not include any changes from the previous year.

There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 7-0 to approve the resolution.