Fayetteville City Council recap: April 5, 2022

Background:
The property is in north Fayetteville and is west of the intersection of Plainview Avenue and Longview Street. It is sparsely developed, and is not identified as part of the 71B Master Plan Area.

The applicant has submitted an intent to develop the site with a mix of uses, including a hotel, restaurant and bar, multi-family residential, and office space.

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

Location:

May 15 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Turk asked about the maximum building height is for UT. Staff said it’s seven stories.

Bunch said she would like to leave the item on the first reading to allow more time for consideration. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on April 5.

April 5 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Turk asked if the applicant had reached out to the one neighbor who sent an email in opposition to the rezoning. The applicant’s representative – Robert Rhoads – said it was actually the neighbor’s daughter who wrote the email and he did reach out to her, but never received a response.

Turk said she’s uncomfortable with the request because UT allows buildings to be up to seven stories tall. “That’s too tall, too large and too bulky,” she said.

Both Ward 3 representatives – council members Bunch and Scroggin – said they have not been contacted by any other constituents who are opposed to the rezoning.

City staff said there are only two neighbors living in the area whose property is not owned by either the applicant or the Lewis Brothers who are selling the land to the applicant.

Bunch said looking at the other types of zoning in the area – specifically the R-O zone to the west which allows five-story buildings – she said she thinks UT is actually a good fit for the area as it transitions from an office district east to the commercial areas along North College Avenue.

Decision:
The council voted 6-2 to approve the request. Harvey and Turk voted against.

Background:
The property is about 1/2 mile to the east of the I-49 interchange. It currently includes one single-family house.

The applicant has indicated an intent to develop duplexes on the property.

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

Location:

May 15 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

The applicant said they would be willing to retain the same setback requirements as RSF-4 if possible. Staff said there is actually no opportunity to do that under any of the city’s zoning districts.

City Attorney Kit Williams suggested holding off on a decision until the applicant can meet with city staff about their options.

Hertzberg asked the applicant if they are ready to move forward. The applicant said yes.

Turk said she’d rather leave the item on the first reading. The council agreed.

The discussion will continue on April 5.

April 5 Discussion:
The applicant asked to amend their request to RI-U and offered a Bill of Assurance that limits the property to two duplex structures.

Turk said she’d like to tour the property before making a decision.

The council agreed to hold the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on April 19.

Background:
The property is in north Fayetteville approximately 700 feet north of Crossover Road’s intersection with Joyce Boulevard. It is currently undeveloped.

The applicant has not submitted any additional development plans or intent.

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

Location:

May 15 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Scroggin said he likes the transition from CS to the more residential-focused district to the northeast.

Turk asked about tree preservation. Staff said the requirement is 20% on all three districts.

Kinion said he thinks it’s compatible, and motioned to move to the second reading. After moving to the second reading, Harvey said she’d like to hold it until April 5. The council agreed.

April 5 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The property is located northwest of the intersection of Woolsey Avenue and North Street. It contains a building that was originally constructed as a single-family home, though it was heavily renovated in 1996 for use as the Washington Regional Medical Center’s Cancer Support Home.

The applicant has shared an intent to restore the existing building on the property. Rezoning to a mixed-use zoning district would allow the building to be used for either commercial or residential purposes by-right.

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

Location:

May 15 Discussion:
Turk asked why a rezoning is needed to renovate the house since it’s already being used for non-residential purposes.

Staff said a non-conforming use is grandfathered in for a property as long as the use doesn’t cease for more than six months at a time. Sometimes, a renovation project can last longer than six months and that can present a problem for a property owner who’d like to resume that use.

The applicant said the use has already been suspended for more than six months, so they need a rezoning to resume at all.

Kinion said he’d like to hold the item until the next meeting. The discussion will continue on April 5.

April 5 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Wiederkehr and Kinion said they’ve heard from residents who are concerned about the project, but only about the design of the renovation – specifically about where the parking would be located. Kinion said he also heard from folks who are in full support of the request.

Hertzberg said she’d like more time to think about it before voting.

The council left the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on April 19.

Background:
The property is located just north of the Fulbright Expressway at the southwest corner of Razorback Road and Cato Springs Road. It is currently undeveloped and lies within the Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District. Most land to the west lies within a conservation easement.

No development plans have been shared for the parcel zoned CS, though the applicant has shared that the parcel zoned R-A would be used as tree preservation area.

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

Location:

May 15 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan said a tour of the area is planned for next Monday, so the item will be held on the first reading tonight.

There was no public comment.

The discussion will continue on April 5.

April 5 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Turk said she has concerns about the slope of the property and water seepage she’s seen on the site. Harvey agreed.

Decision:
The council voted 0-8, so the request failed.

Background:
A fire damaged a home on Green Acres Road in April 2021, and while the owner stated their intent was to clean up the property, staff said minor work that began in the following months has since ceased. Inspections revealed piles of junk and unsafe debris remain on the property, and that there have been no repairs to the home which remains without electricity, without water service, and is open to the elements. Staff said the owner has pursued assistance from the city’s Community Resources department, but the cost of repairs exceeds the housing rehab and repair program scope. The owner stated in November an intent to sell the property, which is listed for sale.

» See photos of the property

Location:

Discussion:
The property owner said she is having financial difficulty, and doesn’t have a place to go until the home sells. She said she is currently camping in the home with her two large dogs.

Yolanda Fields, the city’s community resources director, said they could work with the applicant to try and find her some rental assistance while she waits for the home to sell.

“We want to help,” Fields said. “We will reach out again tomorrow to set up a time to visit with her.”

Scroggin said it’s possible the lot could be worth more than the cost of repairing. He said he’d like to table the item to allow more time for staff to help the property owner.

Bunch said she’s willing to take more time before deciding, but suggested a time period of 30 days since this has been an ongoing issue for a very long time. She said after 30 days the council could get an update on how the situation has evolved.

Jones said that’s a fair suggestion.

Two people who spoke during public comment said they’d also like the item to be tabled.

Jonathan Curth, development services director, said the item is at the council level because no progress has been made after many months of attempts. He said the goal is always to reach an agreement with the property owner in these situations, and if the council wants to wait 30 days, that should be plenty of time to reassess the situation and see if any progress has occurred after tonight’s discussion.

Bunch’s motion to table until May 3 passed 8-0.

Background:
The city was awarded $17.9 million in federal relief money to help the community recover from the pandemic. There are several ways nonprofit groups can receive help, depending on how much of a financial loss they experienced.

The city’s existing online portal to apply for money requires an ask of at least $25,000 to be a sub-recipient, and includes strict terms on how the money can be used. Some nonprofits have said they need help, but they did not incur $25,000 in losses.

This item would provide money to give to nonprofits that each suffered less than $5,000 in expenses during the pandemic.

Discussion:
Chief Financial Officer Paul Becker said the $100,000 amount was chosen because it’s unknown how many organizations will come forward to request this smaller amount of money.

Council member Jones said there are groups that need more than $5,000. Becker said there are separate programs for requests of more than $5,000.

Jones asked what the other members thought about the $100,000 amount. Harvey said the council could always increase the total amount available if there is a high demand for the smaller amounts.

Four people spoke during public comment. Some said they would prefer the total amount be raised tonight instead of waiting to see if there is enough demand.

Jones suggested raising the total amount to $1 million and if there’s not enough demand, then the money can be allocated to something else.

Kinion said $1 million is likely much more money than is needed for this particular program, since that amount would provide funding for 200 nonprofit groups that all request the full $5,000. He said there’s much more than $100,000 available for nonprofits, but not through this particular program. The goal here, he said, is to let the smaller organizations get some immediate help, and then work with the groups that need more than $5,000 in one of the other two programs.

Becker agreed, and said there is a separate application for groups that need more than $5,000. This program is simply for the smallest groups that didn’t have a large financial loss.

Wiederkehr said he thinks there is some fear that the city won’t ever get around to providing funding for those groups who need more than $5,000, so maybe some people would be more comfortable if the council could somehow appropriate a larger amount for those groups now to show that there is a sincere intent to help.

Becker said if it would make people feel better, the council could appropriate $100,000 for groups that need up to $5,000 for this particular program, and amend the resolution to also include an appropriation of $900,000 for the larger groups that need more than $5,000 through the other programs.

That amendment passed 8-0.

Decision:
The resolution also passed 8-0.

Background:
The property is located southwest of the intersection of 7th Street and Wood Avenue. It includes two single-family homes, and lies within the Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan area, which is zoned NC. Staff said the applicant has not shared a specific development intent, though they have stated that RI-U would allow the property to be used for residential purposes.

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

Location:

Discussion:
FYI, this item was moved from No. 7 to No. 2.

There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The property is developed with one single-family home. Staff said the applicant has indicated an intent to construct additional single-family homes on the property.

The applicant’s original request was for NC, Neighborhood Conservation, and while city planners recommend approval, the Planning Commission recommended a different zone of RSF-8, Residential Single-Family, 8 units per acre. According to a staff memo, commissioners found that a rezoning to RSF-8 was more consistent with prevailing lot widths and setbacks in the area. Commissioners also found that alternatives to subdividing the lot in the applicant’s intended way existed through other means such as seeking a tandem lot request or by seeking a Board of Adjustment variance. The owner’s representative expressed reluctance to revise their client’s request from NC to RSF-8 given the uncertainty in being able to complete the envisioned project without additional discretionary approval.

Location:

Discussion:
FYI, this item was moved from No. 8 to No. 3.

The applicant said he would prefer his original request of NC-Neighborhood Conservation instead of RSF-8, which is what the Planning Commission changed it to.

Hertzberg made a motion to amend the ordinance to the applicant’s original request of NC-Neighborhood Conservation. Turk said she’d like to go visit the property before amending the ordinance. Hertzberg withdrew her amendment.

The council left the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on April 19.

Background:
This equipment is needed for the Parks Maintenance department. Staff said there isn’t a comparable machine with the same features, which is why a big waiver is being requested.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The council in November approved the purchase of three dump trucks and one roll-off truck for $780,000, but since that time, surcharges have been applied to the vehicles, leaving a nearly $12,000 gap needed to complete the purchases. This item would adjust the initial approved amount.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
Staff said because Jack Tyler Engineering is the sole provider of the brand of anoxic mixers needed to match existing equipment at the water recovery facility, a bid waiver is being requested.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
Staff said there are no other locations to take municipal sludge, so a bid waiver is being requested.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The property is south and west of Highway 112 and just west of Interstate 49. The request involves four parcels which are zoned a mix of R-A, RSF-8, and I-1. The site includes three single-family buildings, two residential outbuildings, two commercial structures, and an associated warehouse outbuilding. About 25 acres of the land was once used as a vineyard and associated winery. The westernmost parcel is entirely undeveloped. An unnamed tributary of Clabber Creek bisects the westernmost parcel and is classified as a protected stream. A planned trail connection runs along the north and east boundary of the site, part of which serves as a connection to the Clabber Creek Trail which runs parallel to Van Asche Drive to the east. Staff said the applicant has not shared any specific development plans, though they have stated that the rezoning will allow for a mix of commercial and residential uses and with varying densities.

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

Location:

Discussion:
Kinion recused himself from the discussion and vote because of business connections.

Turk said she wants to hold the item for two weeks.

Bunch said she feels confident with what’s being presented and even if the property was developed to its highest allowed density, she’d be alright with it. She said she could wait, but she’d also be comfortable voting tonight.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading.

Background:
The is south of West Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and approximately about a quarter of a mile east of Interstate 49. It includes one single-family home. Staff said the applicant has not submitted an associated development proposal.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The property is about 700 feet south of the intersection of 54th Avenue and Wedington Drive. It includes one single-family home. The property to the southeast was rezoned to RMF-6 in 2004 with a Bill of Assurance that limits development to single- and two-family dwellings totaling no more than 20 individual units. The property immediately to the southwest was rezoned to RMF-6 last year. Staff said no development intent was shared with the request.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Turk said she’s concerned about the floodplain so she won’t support it. Kinion said he also has concerns about approving a residential district in a floodplain. Bunch said the property owners will be required to have flood insurance.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the final reading, and voted 4-4 so the ordinance failed. Harvey, Jones, Kinion and Turk voted against. Mayor Jordan declined to vote.

Background:
The property is located on the south slope of Millsap Mountain and is the site of two recent development applications – a rezoning and a conditional use permit for a cluster housing development. The site slopes rapidly downward from its northern boundary to the two small ponds located roughly halfway to Old Farmington Road to the south. Between these ponds and Old Farmington Road, the site becomes more level. About 6-7 acres on the north side of the property are designated as Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District. Other site characteristics include a protected, unnamed tributary of the Farmington Branch which runs parallel to the western property line.
Staff said the applicant indicated the rezoning would create flexibility in the front setback requirement associated with the development of the approved cluster housing development.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Harvey asked to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on April 19.

Background:
The property is undeveloped. The applicant proposes to vacate and relocate a portion of an existing water/sewer easement. Staff said no specific development plans have been submitted for review, but the property is under consideration for a rezoning to CS, Community Services.

Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions:

1. New 20-foot easement to be dedicated reflecting the actual line location as built.
2. Any damage or relocation of existing facilities will be at the applicant’s expense.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
Staff said this change is needed to match a state law that allows some people under the age of 21 to handle and serve alcohol.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
Council members Harvey, Jones and Kinion have signed on to help Prairie Street Live appeal the Planning Commission’s decision not to grant a temporary extension that allowed for an extra hour of music (from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.) on Thursdays, and not to grant an allowance for amplified music from two days per week to three days per week.

The owners said they lost $20,000 in contracts since the decision was made and they were going to use 40% of that money for noise reduction to try and mitigate sound ordinance violations.

City planners also recommend against the extra hour of music.

Staff said most of the opposition to the request came from neighbors who have issued complaints about noise disruptions, vulgar language, and parking difficulties when the venue is operating. Those in favor, staff said, said the venue supports the local performing arts community and reflects the spirit and intent of the nearby cultural arts corridor.

Discussion:
Harvey said she supports the business and thinks it’s a good fit for the adjacent cultural arts corridor.

Kinion said it’s a unique venue that expands upon the cultural arts corridor, but he is concerned about the noise violations. He said he wants to see the business succeed, but there have been promises broken about noise abatement that concern him.

Turk said she is also concerned about the noise and the other issues the neighbors have complained about. She said she likes live music, but the business is not located in the entertainment district.

Bunch said at this point she’s not sure the business owner’s promises about noise abatement will ever be addressed.

Wiederkehr said the city has a great track record of supporting the arts and also supporting quality of life for neighbors. He said the conflict won’t solve itself and the challenge here is that the owner is making another promise to solve the noise issues, but only if the council allows extra time for live music that will generate enough revenue to pay for a solution.

Kinion suggested tabling the item for two weeks. Scroggin seconded the motion and said that should be fine because the question is not whether to take anything away from the business, but rather whether the council should give more.

The motion passed 8-0. The discussion will continue on April 19.