Fayetteville City Council recap: March 1, 2022

Discussion:
City staff said the federal rules associated with the distribution of the money has been frustrating. Those rules state that some recipients must meet certain qualifications and submit reports back to the city on where the money is being spent. Others can be reimbursed for lost funding during the pandemic without specifying where the money goes.

Mayor Jordan said the plan is to leave it entirely up to the council to decide how to spend the money.

Jones said two of his specific issues are the city’s guideline that states an eligible non-profit must have been in existence for at least three years, and that they must have significant existing funds. Some of the groups that need help, Jones said, were formed during the pandemic so they can’t meet the three-year requirement, and others’ funds are nearly depleted because of the help they’ve provided to the community.

Staff said they’re open to any proposed changes to the city’s application process, including extending the deadline.

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

Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to pass the resolution.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Feb. 15 meeting.

The property is immediately east of I-49 and approximately 1/2 mile north of the interchange with West Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The site is currently undeveloped and has almost 100% tree canopy coverage. The property has a steep grade, and a significant portion is located within the Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District, as well as the I-540 Overlay District. A previous rezoning request to UT, Urban Thoroughfare was denied in 2021.

The applicant has not submitted any additional development plans.

Both city planners and the Planning Commission recommend approval.

Location:

Feb. 15 Discussion:
Two people spoke against the request citing concerns about removing trees from the property, and not wanting multi-story buildings constructed on the property.

Turk said she’d like to hold off on voting to allow the council time to tour the area.

Kinion said there’s a lot of heritage on the property and with such a steep slope, the council should be careful when considering what could be allowed there.

Scroggin said he currently doesn’t support the request. He said this property is what you see when you come into Fayetteville and it shouldn’t have five-story buildings built upon it. Bunch agreed.

The discussion will continue on March 1.

March 1 Discussion:
Staff outlined some issues that were discussed at a tour of the property yesterday, including tree preservation, which would be reduced by 5% with this request, and building height, which would allow five stories with this request.

Suzanne Clark, who represents the applicant, said she’s surprised that there is opposition to this request since both city planners and the Planning Commission have both recommended approval saying that they believe the CS district is in line with the city’s planning goals. She said she understands that there are people who don’t want to see this property developed, but the owners have property rights that allow them to develop it as long as their plans are in accordance with the city’s longterm goals.

There was no public comment.

Council Member Harvey said she toured the property this week to see the extent of the slope and to examine the access to the land. She said she thinks the mountain is sacred, and while she understands the owner has the right to ask for a new zoning that could potentially allow them to sell it for more money, she’s not in favor of an “upzone” that would reduce the current environmental regulations on the property.

Scroggin agreed, and said he has issues with the potential for runoff when the property is developed under CS. He said the owner does have the right to petition for change, but that doesn’t mean they have an inherent right for that request to be approved.

Bunch said she’s not convinced that CS is the best zoning, but she also isn’t sure the current district is appropriate since it allows four houses per acre.

Turk said the area has a lot of mature trees, along with clay and a natural stream. She said she won’t support CS with its allowed reduction of the tree canopy. She might consider another district in the future, but not CS today, she said.

Kinion said he agrees with Bunch that there’s a better fit for the property than the current district – ideally one that allows less than four houses per acre. He said a Planned Zoning District could be an option.

Wiederkehr said the community’s voice that view corridors and tree preservation matter is important, so he is struggling with it. He said the Planning Commission’s approval of this request came after a request for UT was denied and he thinks the commission recommended approval for CS mostly because the applicant was willing to shift their plans after initially being denied.

City Attorney Kit Williams said it’s clear the council does not oppose development on this property – since they’ve made several comments suggesting they would agree to development under another district – so he doesn’t think it would be out of line to deny this request if that’s what they want to do.

Kinion moved to table the ordinance until the next meeting to give the applicant time to consider the council’s comments and possibly return with some proposed changes if they’d like.

That motion passed 6-2. Harvey and Turk voted against. The discussion will continue on March 15.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Feb. 15 meeting.

The property is just to the southwest of Owl Creek School along Rupple Road. It is currently undeveloped. In 2015, the property was rezoned to CS, Community Services and R-A, Residential-Agricultural through a city-initiated rezoning effort in conjunction with the redevelopment of Rupple Road. City staff said the intent of that effort was to concentrate density in specified areas along the corridor and help conserve other environmentally-sensitive areas throughout the 642-acre study area.

The applicant has not submitted any plans for development review, but has submitted a proposal to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with an intent to develop a senior-living development and possible associated parkland dedication.

Both city planners and the Planning Commission recommend approval.

Location:

Feb. 15 Discussion:
The applicant requested the item be left on the first reading. The discussion will continue on March 1.

March 1 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Turk said she’s concerned about the density allowed and the potential for a 5-story building being built near the floodplain.

Scroggin said he doubts the developer will build a 5-story house on a proposed senior-living neighborhood.

Harvey said she thinks it’s a good location for added density, and she trusts the city’s development regulations that are designed to protect wetland areas.

Decision:
The council voted 7-1 to approve the ordinance. Turk voted against.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Feb. 15 meeting.

The council last year approved several changes to the Unified Development Code to address stormwater issues associated with the Residential Single Family and Duplex exemption from stormwater requirements since that had become a predominant infill development pattern over the last several years.

City staff said some corrections are needed to address some incorrect references and clarify the intent of those changes.

The Planning Commission voted 8-0 to recommend approval of these changes.

Feb. 15 Discussion:
Turk said she’s concerned about loosening restrictions on accessory dwelling units. Staff said the changes won’t affect ADUs, but rather FEMA’s definition of ‘accessory structures’ like small sheds.

Turk said she’d like to hold the item and work on some other wording.

The discussion will continue on March 1.

March 1 Discussion:
Turk said her concerns were alleviated after talking with city staff and she’s ready to support the ordinance.

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

Background:
The property is located in downtown Fayetteville, at the northeast corner of West Avenue and Dickson Street. It is the former site of Hog Haus Brewing Co. and is set to be the home of Nashville-based restaurant and live music bar Tin Roof.

The applicant proposes to vacate and relocate a portion of an existing water/sewer easement totaling approximately 0.03 acres. A 2 1/4-inch private water connection is located outside of the easement and bisects the property. Staff said rededication of the water/sewer easement and reconfiguration of the line will maintain contiguity with existing easements and mains to the north and south.

Planning staff recommend approval of the request.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Harvey said she’s excited about the project and she thinks it will be a nice addition to the area, especially since it’s right across the street from the planned parking deck.

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

Background:
The property is located north of the Mount Sequoyah Center on Skyline Drive. It is currently developed with one single-family dwelling.

The applicant proposes to vacate a portion of an existing water and sewer easement totaling approximately 0.02 acres. There are no public sewer or water mains located inside of the easement.

Staff said the applicant plans to add an addition to the existing house in the area where the easement is located.

Planning staff recommend approval of the request.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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