File photo
On the agenda…
- Changes to the residential parking program.
- Three requested rezonings.
- Allowing public alcohol consumption during certain special events.
- Expanding the footprint of the Saturday Fayetteville Farmers’ Market.
- Three property vacations.
- Final approval of the 2019 millage levy.
» Download the full agenda
A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council began at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2019 inside room 219 of City Hall, located at 113 W. Mountain St. in Fayetteville.
Listed below are the items up for approval and links to PDF documents with detailed information on each item of business.
Roll Call
Present: Sonia Gutierrez, Sarah Marsh, Mark Kinion, Matthew Petty, Mayor Lioneld Jordan, Sloan Scroggin, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk Kyle Smith
Absent: None
» View current attendance records
City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports and Discussion Items
1. Nominating Committee Report – Presented by Sarah Bunch
– Pass 8-0
Consent
Consent items are approved in a single, all-inclusive vote unless an item is pulled by a council member at the beginning of the meeting.
1. Arkansas Fashion Week (Details): A resolution to approve a short-term lease agreement with Arkansas Fashion Week for the airport hangar at 4578 S. School Ave. for rent in the amount of $1,000.00
– Pass 8-0
2. Inland Waste Solutions, LLC d/b/a Orion Waste Solutions (Details): A resolution to approve an agreement with Inland Waste Solutions, LLC d/b/a Orion Waste Solutions for the hauling and disposal of solid waste and recyclable material in the City of Fayetteville.
– Pass 8-0
3. Waste Management of Arkansas, Inc. (Details): A resolution to authorize a two-year agreement with Waste Management of Arkansas, Inc. to haul and dispose of solid waste and recyclable material in Fayetteville with automatic renewals for two additional two-year terms.
– Pass 8-0
4. Hogeye Mfg. Co. Inc. d/b/a Hogbox (Details): A resolution to authorize a two-year agreement with Hogeye Mfg. Co. Inc. d/b/a Hogbox to haul and dispose of solid waste and recyclable material in Fayetteville with automatic renewals for two additional two-year terms.
– Pass 8-0
5. Garver, LLC – Shiloh Drive and Steele Boulevard (Details): A resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with Garver, LLC in the amount of $241,850.00 for the design of the Fulbright Expressway access ramp relocation project, and to approve a budget adjustment.
– Pass 8-0
6. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc f/k/a CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. Amendment No. 1 (Details): A resolution to approve Amendment No. 1 to the professional services agreement between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc f/k/a CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $3,860.00 for additional travel and labor expenses, and to approve a budget adjustment.
– Pass 8-0
7. Poplar Street Railroad Crossing Signals Improvement Project (Details): A resolution to express the willingness of the City of Fayetteville to partner with the Arkansas Department of Transportation for the Poplar Street Railroad crossing signals improvement project with a 10% local match in the estimated amount of $30,000.00.
– Pass 8-0
8. Hawkins-Weir Engineers, Inc. (Details): A resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with Hawkins-Weir Engineers, Inc., in the amount of $54,220.00 for conceptual drainage design services, and to approve a budget adjustment.
– Pass 8-0
9. Garver, LLC – Missouri Creek Drainage Basin (Details): A resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with Garver, LLC in the amount of $346,700.00 for design services associated with a project to alleviate flooding within the Missouri Creek Drainage Basin, and to approve a budget adjustment.
– Pass 8-0
10. Bid #19-37 Progressive Trail Design, LLC (Details): A resolution to award Bid #19-37 and authorize a contract with Progressive Trail Design, LLC in the amount of $51,600.00 for the construction of approximately 6,600 feet of natural surface trail, armored stream crossings, and an overlook at Kessler Mountain Regional Park, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $10,300.00.
– Pass 8-0
11. DEMX Architecture (Details): A resolution to approve a professional architectural services agreement with DEMX Architecture, pursuant to RFQ #19-01, in an amount not to exceed $52,000.00 for design and construction administration services associated with the renovation and replacement of existing restrooms in multiple city parks, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $10,000.00.
– Pass 8-0
12. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Details): A resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., pursuant to rfq #19-01, in an amount not to exceed $254,108.00.00 for biosolids master planning services associated with the City of Fayetteville’s wastewater treatment options.
– Pass 8-0
13. TheatreSquared Project Conveyance of Access Easements (Details): A resolution to approve the conveyance of access easements to adjacent property owners and a general utility easement to franchise utilities across real property owned by the City of Fayetteville at the southeast corner of North West Avenue and West Spring Street associated with the TheatreSquared project.
– Pass 8-0
14. LSP 19-6795: (2763 N. Crossover Road/City Multi-use Trails) (Details): A resolution pursuant to § 164.20 of the unified development code to approve a lot split for property located at 2763 N. Crossover Road, and to authorize the construction of a public multi-use trail on the non-conforming parcel.
– Pass 8-0
Unfinished Business
1. Amend §72.18, Residential Parking Permit Program for the Entertainment District Parking Zone (Details)
An ordinance to amend §72.18, Residential Parking Permit Program for the Entertainment District Parking Zone of the Fayetteville City Code to convert portions of restricted residential-only parking along Locust Avenue and Lafayette Street and portions of paid-only on-street parking along Vandeventer Avenue, Lafayette Street, and Church Avenue to mixed-use parking areas.
– Pass 6-2
Background:
This item was tabled on Aug. 20.
The ordinance refers to the residential parking spaces in the Entertainment District that are currently only available for residents with a parking pass.
Staff said while several residential streets see high utilization for residential parking, others do not. Two that see particularly low utilization from residents are Locust Avenue between Spring Street and Center Street, and Lafayette Street between Campbell Avenue and Forest Avenue. Those streets have a few businesses on them and it’s an issue for employees who cannot park near their workplace.
The proposal is to convert those two street segment parking spaces to mixed-use (paid parking and residential permit). Also proposed is to convert the following paid parking street segments to mixed-use: Vandeventer Avenue between Lafayette Street and Maple Street; Lafayette Street between West Avenue and Campbell Avenue; and Church Avenue between Dickson Street and Meadow Street.
Staff said converting the two street segments with residential parking spaces to mixed-use would result in over 70 more spaces for people to park when visiting the Entertainment District without any anticipated effect on residents. With the additional three paid parking streets included in the proposal, the change would add over 50 spaces where residential permits are valid.
July 16 Discussion:
Council members Petty and Kinion said they’ve received phone calls and emails from people who are curious or skeptical about the proposed changes. They said they’re both in favor of holding this item on the first reading to allow for more public comment.
One resident who lives on Lafayette Street said she’s concerned about potentially losing residential parking spaces in front of her house, and asked the council to consider stopping the mixed-use changes at Mock Avenue instead of continuing them all the way to Forest Avenue.
The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Aug. 6.
Aug. 6 Discussion:
Staff said if approved, the city would monitor the spaces to evaluate use and would collect data to bring back to the council in six months.
Local residents Sterling Hamilton and Jeremy Hudson spoke in favor of the ordinance. Hudson is co-owner of Specialized Real Estate Group whose office is in downtown Fayetteville.
Council member Scroggin said he’s in favor of the proposal and said it’s a good idea to better utilize the city’s current parking spaces.
Council member Marsh said she’d like the city to consider some 15-minute parking spaces in some areas – like in front of apartment buildings – to allow people to load or unload near their residences.
Council member Kinion said he’d like to hold the item on the second reading to allow more time for the public to consider the proposal.
The council agreed to hold the item. The discussion will continue on Aug. 20.
Aug. 20 Discussion:
Council member Smith asked how long it would take to reverse this decision if it was determined to have unintended consequences. Staff said the plan is to report back to the council in six months with the results of the changes.
Four residents spoke against the proposal, all who live in the areas that would be affected by the changes. A couple spoke on behalf of five other households on Lafayette Street, and asked that spaces R93, 94 and 95 (between Campbell and Rollston avenues) remain unchanged.
Kinion said a recent study showed that there is no current need for more paid parking in this area. He said if there was an immediate need for additional parking, he’d be more inclined to consider this proposal. He said the council promised to protect the vitality of the existing neighborhoods when paid parking was first implemented in 2010, so at this point, he said he doesn’t think he’s on board with the changes. “Why are we fixing something that’s not broken?” Kinion asked.
Petty said his take from the survey is that there’s not an immediate need to construct new parking spaces, but rather a need to better manage what’s currently in place. He asked whether staff’s research noticed any added consumer demand for parking in this particular area in the evenings or if it was more aligned with daytime usage. Staff said there was no sign of increased demand in the evenings. Petty said he’s noticed the same thing, which leads him to believe that there’s an opportunity for a better use of the spaces than what’s currently in place. He asked if staff could break down parking usage by the hour.
“I’m wondering if it’s a better use of our resources to figure out a way to share these spaces that wasn’t so binary,” said Petty.
Scroggin agreed with Petty.
Turk said she used to live in a place where she sometimes had to park far away from her home, and she’s sensitive to residents who are worried about the same thing, especially those who’ve lived in the area for a long time. Gutierrez agreed with Turk.
Smith said he appreciates staff’s intention to be more efficient with parking by maximizing usage, and said it seems like if this proposal didn’t work, it would be easy enough to modify it in the future. He said he’s also fine with considering a more nuanced plan, as has been suggested tonight.
Bunch said she, too, would like more data on hour-by-hour usage before making a decision. She said she also understands the concerns of people who are worried about losing their residential parking.
Smith moved to table the item until the second meeting in September, but suggested staff look into the possibility of splitting the area into two parts – the side of the neighborhood where residents are opposed and the side where there is no opposition. He said maybe changes in the non-contentious area could be passed while the other side could be further discussed.
Kinion suggested sending the proposal to the Ordinance Review Committee between now and the next discussion. He also suggested a neighborhood meeting take place to discuss the issue.
The discussion will continue on Sept. 17.
Sept. 17 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan said the Ordinance Review Committee met and discussed this item. The committee voted to leave the proposed ordinance unchanged.
Staff presented some data after studying usage of the Lafayette Street residential parking spaces, and said the area is about 40% full at its peak, while Locust Street is about 20% full.
During public comment, three residents spoke against the proposed changes on Lafayette Street and said their neighborhood would be negatively impacted by having Dickson Street patrons parking in front of their houses and using their residential spaces.
Two people spoke in favor of the changes, and said the city should open up the unused parking spaces to help improve the experience for those visiting the downtown area.
Kinion said it’s unfair to the residents to have to compete with a growing number of visitors for parking spaces near their homes.
Smith said after reviewing the data of both the residential areas and the mixed-use areas, he doesn’t have a lot of fear that this change would cause the trouble that’s been predicted. He also said these changes could be reversed if there is indeed a problem. He said he’s willing to give it a try. “If it doesn’t work, I’ll admit it and be happy to change it,” said Smith.
Marsh said the parking areas being discussed are all public spaces, and if the data shows that they could be better utilized, there’s no reason to continue reserving so much space for the private use of certain residents. She said she’s also willing to give it a try.
Scroggin agreed, and said the data speaks for itself.
Turk said a more appropriate way to handle this would be to split these two areas apart and vote on them separately since there is no opposition to the proposed changes on Locust Avenue. She said she is disappointed that a neighborhood forum didn’t occur before tonight. She said she won’t support the proposal.
Gutierrez said this is a difficult decision because she knows it’s frustrating for the residents, but she also said it’s not fair for some people to have residential parking reserved for them while others do not. She said the data was what helped edge her closer to supporting this, which she has decided to do.
Bunch said she’s been back and forth on the issue, but she’s been swayed by the data. She said she will support the proposal, knowing that if it creates a huge problem for the neighbors, the changes could be rolled back.
Petty said he, too, was swayed by the data, and would be willing to roll back the changes if necessary. He said he was the sponsor of the residential parking proposal 10 years ago, but after a decade of use, studies and data, he agrees with staff’s findings that it should now be converted to mixed-used.
Mayor Jordan said if the changes don’t work out, he will personally call a special meeting to discuss reversing the decision.
Decision:
The council voted 6-2 to approve the ordinance. Kinion and Turk voted against.
2. RZN 19-6716 (E. of 3638 N. Front St./Trails at Mud Creek) (Details)
An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6716 for approximately 10.43 acres located east of 3638 N. Front Street from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial & Light Industrial to CS, Community Services.
– Tabled 6-2
Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Sept. 3 meeting.
Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of this rezoning request.
With an extension of Sain Street on the horizon, the property owners would like to rezone this land from an industrial/heavy commercial district to a zoning that would allow for infill development with both residential and retail structures.
Location:
Aug. 20 Discussion:
Hugh Jarratt, an attorney with Lindsey Management and a representative for the applicant, said his team has met with city planners and floodplain specialists in planning for development of this land. He said the plan is to add pedestrian connectivity on both sides of Sain Street. He said all of the city’s longterm plans for this area call for intense infill, and he believes this is one of the most perfect scenarios for development he’s worked on in his 13 years of experience.
Council Member Smith said he’s heard from residents who are concerned about adding homes in this area because of the burden it could place on the school district by adding more students to the area. Jarratt said Lindsey’s plan is to build one- or two-bedroom units here, and the company only has a 0.1 student-per-unit ratio in those size units. He said once their tenants have families, almost all of them tend to move into a larger apartment.
The first person to speak was against the rezoning, and said the neighbors to the southeast are worried about a multi-story apartment complex that will be visible from their homes. She also said some of her neighbors would like the area to stay undeveloped since it’s close to the Mud Creek Trail, which is currently a natural-looking area.
One other person spoke against the proposal, citing fears about possible added traffic, loss of undeveloped natural space, and added students in the school district.
Council Member Kinion said if this area shifts to high-density, he’s concerned about how people will get in and out of the property since the creek and trail are to the north. He said the area is ripe for development, but he’s not sure Community Services is the proper tool for the job. He said he hasn’t yet made up his mind. “This is certainly a unique piece of property,” Kinion said. “We have a lot to think about.”
Council Member Bunch said she’s heard from a lot of residents who are worried about losing trees in the area, and about the property’s proximity to the creek. She asked staff if any of this land is within the streamside protection zone. Staff said no, none of this land is within 50 feet of the creek.
Turk said it’s a complex issue that needs more time before a decision is made.
The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Sept. 3.
Sept. 3 Discussion:
Staff said the applicant has submitted a Bill of Assurance that limits the height of the buildings on the property to no more than three stories. The document also promises to limit the height of the buildings in an adjacent property to the east that’s currently zoned RMF-24 and under contract to be purchased outright by the applicant. The Bill of Assurance also promises to keep the trees in the steepest parts of the property.
The council amended the ordinance 6-2 to include the Bill of Assurance. Council members Smith and Bunch voted against. Smith said he’s concerned that the three-story minimum height might limit the potential for mixed-use development in that area. He said he won’t vote for this in its current proposal, and hopes the council will agree to leave it on the second reading for further consideration before voting.
Council Member Scroggin said he’s a lot closer to being on board with the request now that there’s a three-story height limit.
Kinion said he’s still concerned about traffic in the area, especially Front Street which he said is already a complicated and confusing street to navigate at peak times.
Council member Petty said he’s comfortable with what’s been presented, and, speaking to traffic concerns, he reminded the council that Sain Street will be extended to meet up with Vantage Drive in the next year or so. It’s a plan that’s been on the books for many years, has already been engineered, and is 80% funded by federal money.
The council agreed to leave the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on Sept. 17.
Sept. 17 Discussion:
Hugh Jarratt, who represents the applicant, said he wanted to remind the council that this proposal fits with every city plan on the books. He said the plan for this property, when combined with the property to the east (that the applicant also plans to develop), provides more of an opportunity for tree preservation and a natural buffer than if the two properties were developed independently.
Ten residents spoke against the proposal. Many disagreed with Jarratt and said the rezoning doesn’t fit with the city’s master plan goals, specifically the guiding principal of keeping natural beauty. Others said they think traffic would be negatively impacted if the property was developed.
Scroggin asked city staff if the requested rezoning would require more tree canopy preservation than the current zoning. Staff said the current zone requires 15% preservation and the proposed zone requires 20%. He said he’d need to be convinced that the current zonings (Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial) is better for the area than what is proposed before he could vote against the requested zoning (Community Services).
Kinion said he doesn’t think the property will ever be developed in its current zoning. He said he doesn’t like the idea of high density along Mud Creek. He said traffic is already an issue near Millsap Road, and he doesn’t think the Sain Street extension will alleviate the issues. He said he also has some concerns about stormwater runoff if the area were developed. “This is the wrong zoning for this property,” said Kinion. “That’s the bottom line.”
Turk said the council should be questioning whether anything should ever be developed in this area because it’s in a flood plain. She said she also has traffic concerns about the area.
Bunch said she agrees with Kinion that the area is unlikely to be developed currently. She said she thinks this area is preferable for apartments, especially because of its proximity to the trail system. However, she is worried about stormwater runoff if several parking lots are built near Mud Creek. Overall, she doesn’t think Community Services is the appropriate zoning. She said the area needs something more subtle.
Marsh said the last thing she wants to see is another Lindsey apartment complex in Fayetteville. But, she said the city needs more affordable, high density apartments and this is a good part of town for that. It’s the floodplain that causes her to pause, though. She said she’d prefer a Planned Zoning District in this area so that the developer would be forced to work with the city and the neighbors through both the zoning and large-scale development plan.
Smith said was in support of the plan as it was first presented because he wants high density in this area, but the introduction of the Bill of Assurance which restricts the height of the buildings puts limits on the density. He said he can’t support the current proposal.
Scroggin said he also likes the idea of a Planned Zoning District, and said he might move to table the item to allow time for staff and the developer to consider a PZD. He said he knows the neighbors want this to be voted down outright tonight, but getting the area zoned correctly before Sain Street is extended is important considering the current industrial zone is not a good fit for the area.
Petty asked Jarratt if he’d rather have an outright down vote tonight or if he’d be OK with tabling the issue. Jarratt said he’d prefer tabling the issue. Petty said he agrees that the area needs to be rezoned to something better for the area, but he’s most concerned about the C-2 zoning, which would allow the current undesirable development patterns that already plague College Avenue. He said Mud Creek is designated as an endangered waterway with respect to pollution, all of which has come as a result of C-2 developments.
Jordan said PZDs worked well when he was a council member. He encouraged the council to consider a PZD as a tool in this situation.
Scroggin moved to table the item until Nov. 19. Marsh seconded. The group voted 6-2 to table the item. Kinion and Turk voted against.
3. Entertainment District Boundaries (Details)
An ordinance to establish boundaries for an Entertainment District in the City of Fayetteville and to promulgate rules for the limited outdoor consumption of alcohol in certain public places.
– Tabled 8-0
Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Sept. 3 meeting.
This is a proposal to establish rules and boundaries where residents could drink alcohol at special events and festivals without having to stay inside a fenced-in beer garden (see our story from August).
It is a reaction to recently adopted Arkansas legislation that allows municipalities to create designated entertainment districts inside commercial areas that are exempt from state laws which prohibit public alcohol consumption.
Mountain Home was the first Arkansas city to take advantage of the new state law. In Mountain Home, people can drink in public in the entertainment district every day from 4:30 p.m. to midnight.
Fayetteville’s proposal is far more restrictive, and only allows outdoor consumption of alcohol during special events authorized by the mayor.
Alcohol would be allowed at longstanding special events, including the Saturday Farmers’ Market, First Thursday and Lights of the Ozarks.
Proposed rules:
- Open containers would only be allowed on streets that are closed to traffic.
- Open containers must be inside a compostable or reusable cup.
- Only one drink is allowed at a time.
- Containers are limited to 16 ounces or less.
- Drinks from one bar can’t be taken into another bar.
- Drinks are not allowed in other private establishments without the consent of the owner.
- Drinks can only be consumed if they’re purchased from a vendor inside the entertainment district.
Proposed map:
Aug. 20 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said the police department and mayor have suggested an amendment to the ordinance that requires any alcohol permittee to place a wristband on anyone who takes an open container out into public.
Smith said he’s not against the idea of armbands, but he’s skeptical of how effective they’ll be in their implementation across several establishments with regards to style, color, etc.
Jordan suggested the amendment be more generic in language, so that any identifier could be used by a police officer to determine the age of a person, such as a stamp.
Scroggin moved to change the word “wristband” to “designated physical identifier.”
The amendment was passed unanimously.
Petty said he’s concerned that nobody from the city or council has spoken with the businesses that will be impacted from this decision. He said a conversation with business owners could be helpful in this discussion.
Mayor Jordan said he’s fine with holding this item for two weeks to allow some time to talk to business owners.
During public comment, one person – a representative from the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce – spoke in favor of the ordinance. Nobody else from the public spoke.
The council agreed to hold the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Sept. 3.
Sept. 3 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams presented an amended ordinance that he said simply clarifies definitions already present in the current draft, including “customers,” “owners” and “permittees.” The council voted 8-0 to approve the changes.
City staff said some business owners were concerned about liability in regards to who would be responsible in the event of an accident involving alcohol – the business that served the individual or the event organizer. Staff said they’ve asked the state ABC board for clarification on this, and will report back as soon as they have an answer.
Bo Counts, owner of Pinpoint Fayetteville, spoke and asked the council to strongly consider business owners’ concerns about liability uncertainty.
Mayor Jordan said he’d like the council to hold the item for at least two weeks. He said he’s heard questions and concerns from at least 40 business owners and he’d like some time to further consider their comments.
Sept. 17 Discussion:
Staff said they need another month to further fine tune the proposal.
Petty said he doesn’t like the current proposal’s requirement that the street be closed. He said he understands there are safety concerns about inebriated people walking near cars, but people are already allowed to drink in bars and then walk out onto streets that aren’t closed. He said none of the other cities in Arkansas have limited their districts by requiring street closures.
Petty moved to table the item until Oct. 15, and said he’d like to eventually see the street cafe portion of the ordinance voted on independently since it’s a separate issue. The council voted unanimously to table the item.
4. Buffington Weir, LLC (Details)
An ordinance to waive the requirements of formal competitive bidding and approve a cost share agreement with Buffington Weir, LLC, for the installation of a water main along a portion of Rupple Road, with the estimated amount of $206,070.00 to be paid by the City of Fayetteville, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $30,900.00, and to approve a budget adjustment.
– Pass 8-0
Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Sept. 3 meeting.
City staff said the city would benefit from this proposed cost share as it will provide an extension of a 12-inch grid and the construction will be less expensive and less disruptive if done during the construction of the upcoming Magnolia Park subdivision and Rupple Road. The city will paying for 100% of the construction of the 12-inch water main and the developer will be responsible for 100% of the construction within the Magnolia Park subdivision.
Location:
Sept. 3 Discussion:
Staff said the actual bid on this project was more than anticipated, so it was requested that this item be left on the first reading to allow time to adjust the numbers before the next meeting.
The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Sept. 17.
Sept. 17 Discussion:
The council amended the ordinance to include the new numbers.
Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.
New Business
1. Amend §114.02 Farmer’s Market (b) Expanded Saturday use of the Square (Details)
An ordinance to amend §114.02 Farmer’s Market (b) Expanded Saturday use of the Square to close Center Street to vehicular traffic.
– Tabled 5-3
Background:
This proposal would close Center Street during the Saturday Fayetteville Farmers’ Market. It would not apply to the Tuesday or Thursday markets.
For more information, see our story from Sept. 16.
Chuck Rutherford, director of the Fayetteville Farmers’ Market, said the market board is in favor of the proposal, but there are some members of the market who do not want to see Center Street closed. He said the members will vote on the issue in November, and asked that the item be tabled until after the vote.
Petty said he’s wanted to see Center Street closed during the Saturday market for a long time. He said there’s an obvious safety issue that’s only getting worse with time.
Marsh said she doesn’t want to table the item. She said she wants to see it passed tonight. “Safety first,” she said.
Scroggin agreed, and said he’d vote against tabling the item.
Kinion said there are people who want more information about this and more time to consider the proposal. He said he wants to table it. Mayor Jordan said he’s heard the same thing, and has told several market vendors that he would ask the council to hold this item tonight.
Smith asked what the mayor has heard specifically. Jordan said he heard from 16 market vendors who aren’t in support of the idea, and their concerns were about competition from other vendors who might be put in a better situation if Center Street was closed and more room was opened there. Rutherford said Center Street is historically the most desirable location for a booth, partially because it has a lot of foot traffic and also because there are shade trees on that part of the square. He said a point system is used to allow vendors to choose their booth location each year.
The council voted 4-3 to table the item until Nov. 19 (Marsh, Scroggin and Smith voted against). Bunch left before the vote, so Jordan cast the fifth vote needed to table.
2. Highway 112 and Highway 71B Improvements Projects (Details)
A resolution to express the willingness of the City of Fayetteville to partner with the Arkansas Department of Transportation for the Highway 112 – Truckers Drive to Van Asche Drive improvements project and the Highway 71B improvements project.
– Pass 7-0
Background:
Highway 71B doubles as a state highway which means the city must partner with the state for improvement projects. This would allow the city to take jurisdictional control over Highway 71B to keep from having to partner each time improvements are planned.
Marsh said she’s very excited about this. She said the state’s involvement has been a barrier that the city has had to hurdle every time it wants to make improvements. Gutierrez agreed. Marsh said she’s particularly excited about seeing Archibald Yell Boulevard become more safe, and get some improvements to South School Avenue.
Scroggin and Smith said they can’t wait to see College Avenue transformed into something more in line with the city’s and community’s vision for the stretch of road.
Petty said he thinks this is a bigger deal than the Walton Arts Center was for Dickson Street. He said everyone in Fayetteville experiences College Avenue, and the city finally has a chance to make the road something to be proud of.
Jordan agreed that this is a historic moment, and thanked the state department for being easy to work with on this proposal.
Decision:
The council voted 7-0 to approve the resolution.
3. RZN 19-6748 (203 E. 13th St./Davis) (Details)
An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6748 for approximately 0.21 acres located at 203 East 13th Street from NC, Neighborhood Conservation to RI-U, Residential Intermediate-Urban.
– Pass 7-0
Background:
Both city staff and the Planning Commission are in favor of this request.
The property contains a single-family residential dwelling. The applicant’s goal is to increase density and capacity allowing development of smaller single-family homes with rear entry drives.
Location:
Discussion:
There was no public comment.
Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.
4. RZN 19-6787 (3313 W. Mount Comfort Road/Cooper) (Details)
An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6787 for approximately 0.60 acres located at 3313 W. Mount Comfort Road from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to NS-G, Neighborhood Services-General.
– Pass 7-0
Background:
Both city staff and the Planning Commission are in favor of this request.
Development on the site is limited to one single-family home built in 1995 which accesses Mount Comfort Road by a residential driveway. The applicant would like to use the property as a professional office.
Location:
Discussion:
There was no public comment.
Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.
5. VAC 19-6768 (SE of Armstrong Ave. & Happy Hollow Rd./Fay. Fleet) (Details)
An ordinance to approve vac 19-6768 for property located southeast of South Armstrong Avenue and Happy Hollow Road to vacate a portion of a general utility easement.
– Pass 7-0
Background:
Both city staff and the Planning Commission are in favor of this request with the following condition of approval:
- Any relocation of or damage to existing utilities or existing facilities shall be at the owner/developer’s expense.
The property is currently undeveloped. The applicant proposes to vacate a portion of an existing utility easement that encumbers all of the property between South Armstrong Avenue and the City’s Compost Facility. The area to be vacated totals approximately 1.10 acres and is necessary prior to the construction of the City’s truck wash building.
Location:
Discussion:
There was no public comment.
Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.
6. VAC 19-6775 (2621 E. Mission Blvd./East Mission Commercial) (Details)
An ordinance to approve VAC 19-6775 for property located at 2621 E. Mission Blvd to vacate a portion of a general utility easement.
– Pass 7-0
Background:
Both city staff and the Planning Commission are in favor of this request with the following condition of approval:
- Any relocation of or damage to existing utilities or existing facilities shall be at the owner/developer’s expense.
The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement to allow future commercial development in the area.
Location:
Discussion:
There was no public comment.
Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.
7. VAC 19-6782 (SE of W. McMillian Dr. & N. Pam Angus Dr./Springs Hospitality) (Details)
An ordinance to approve VAC 19-6782 for property located southeast of West McMillan Drive and North Pam Angus Drive to vacate portions of an electrical easement and a general utility easement.
– Pass 7-0
Background:
Both city staff and the Planning Commission are in favor of this request with the following condition of approval:
- Any relocation of or damage to existing utilities or existing facilities shall be at the owner/developer’s expense.
- Additional easement shall be dedicated along Pam Angus Drive towards the public right- of-way, converting the drainage easement to a general utility easement.
As a part of a development currently under review, the applicant proposes to vacate potions of two existing easements. The first is a general utility easement that bisects the subject property from northwest to southeast and was platted on the property line between Lots 4 and 6 of McMillan Estates. The second is the northeastern half of an electrical easement that parallels Pam Angus Drive and conflicts with the developer’s ability to locate a proposed hotel within the build-to zone.
Location:
Discussion:
There was no public comment.
Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.
8. Amend Ordinance 6168 (Details)
An ordinance to amend Ordinance 6168 to authorize the payment of applicable freight charges associated with the replacement of a rotating assembly and repair of a motor drive in an influent pump used at the Noland Wastewater Treatment Facility.
– Pass 7-0
Background:
This is for the replacement of an influent pump and repair of a motor drive used at the Noland wastewater treatment facility.
Discussion:
There was no public comment.
Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.
9. 2019 Millage Levy (Details)
An ordinance levying a tax on the real and personal property within the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, for the year 2019 fixing the rate thereof at 2.3 mills for general fund operations, 0.4 mills for the Firemen’s Pension and Relief Fund, 0.4 mills for the Policemen’s Pension and Relief Fund, 2.5 mills for Fayetteville Public Library Operations, and 1.2 mills for the Fayetteville Public Library Expansion; and certifying the same to the County Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas.
– Pass 7-0
Background:
Each year the city must approve an ordinance to renew the levy of taxes on real and personal property within the city. These millages were all approved by voters.
Discussion:
There was no public comment.
Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.
Adjourned
This meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
]]>
![](https://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/slimchickens.jpg")
