HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01107 - Chapter 172 Parking Requirements (Amendment) (4)
CityClerk
From:Nick Castin <ncastin@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 4, 2025 12:46 PM
To:Agenda Item Comment
Subject:Thoughts on Agenda Item C.9
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
Councilmembers,
Happy New Year! I hope the year ahead is one of your best ever.
I’m writing in response to agenda item C.9. § 172.05 PARKING REQUIREMENTS (A)(2) (AMENDMENT),
which will be voted on at the January 7, 2025 City Council meeting.
I very much understand the frustration that long-time Fayetteville residents adjacent to new, dense
development in our urban core have. It is human nature to want your neighborhood to stay exactly as it was
when you first moved in, and it can be disheartening to see some of the things you love most about your little
slice of heaven slip away.
But as we transition from a small city to a larger city, it should not be surprising that some of the older
neighborhoods near downtown will need to adapt and change. If you look at any major city in the US, it’s
extremely rare for single-family neighborhoods close to downtowns to be entirely unchanged as the city grows.
In the cases that they do remain the same, they’re often prohibitively expensive. That’s not to say that such
neighborhoods will change entirely, and diversity of housing types is a good thing. However, it should be
expected that the closer one’s home is to an urban corridor (such as College, Nelson Hackett, Dickson, MLK,
etc.) or a downtown, the less likely that the status quo can be maintained as the city grows.
As we navigate this time of transition, I think it’s reasonable to look at our UDC and find ways to optimize it.
The changes proposed with this resolution are an attempt to do so, and I support all such discussions. I hope
that this leads to some fruitful paths forward that can satisfy the needs of current and future Fayetteville
residents. That said, I do not support the ordinance as currently proposed. I will do my best to explain my
reasoning below.
Broader Concerns
1.
2.
3. Lack of Collaborative Input
4.
o
o
o While the City Council has the right to unilaterally
o change the UDC without collaborating with planning staff and/or the Planning Commission,
doing so goes against Fayetteville’s collaborative spirit, and ignores the input of our wonderful,
professionally-trained planning staff.
o
5.
1
6.
7. Conflict with 71B Corridor Goals
8.
o
o
o These changes may limit allowed density along the
o 71B corridor, which was just rezoned to encourage denser development. Fewer housing units
along this corridor will increase pressure to build denser developments within existing single-
family neighborhoods—exactly what the proposed ordinance aims to prevent.
o This would directly conflict with the 71B Corridor Plan’s emphasis on compact, transit-oriented
growth.
o
o
o
o At the agenda session, it was mentioned that Arkansas
o ranks high in per-capita car ownership. This statistic reflects existing conditions, not our
aspirations for a more sustainable and transit-oriented future. High car ownership is a symptom
of urban development patterns prioritizing automobiles over other modes
o of transportation. By encouraging dense, mixed-use developments along transit corridors, we
can create the critical mass needed to make alternative transportation more viable and
attractive. Failing to allow parking reductions risks perpetuating car dependency
o and stalling Fayetteville’s progress toward a multimodal, sustainable future.
o
3.
4.
5. Increased Workload and Resulting Delays/Cost
6.
o
o
o Changing residential parking reductions from by-right to conditional
o will significantly increase the workload on planning staff, commissioners, and councilmembers,
as many developers will request the proposed variance. This would delay projects, drive up
development costs, and ultimately burden future residents through higher
o housing prices.
o
Specific Concerns with the New Language
1.
2.
3. 172.05 (A)(2)(a) Reductions for Residential Use
4.
o
o
o “If the commission determines
o that sufficient on-street parking spaces will remain reasonably available for the surrounding
neighborhood”
o
Such language may lead to decisions based on gut feeling instead
2
of empirical evidence. This could result in inequitable outcomes or misaligned
incentives. Empirical evidence, as emphasized in Fayetteville’s planning
principles, should guide these decisions to ensure fairness and alignment with
long-term goals.
o
o
o “after construction of the apartment building”
o
The UDC applies to many types
of projects; not just apartment buildings. This could unintentionally exclude
relevant developments.
2.
3.
4. 172.05 (A)(2)(a)(i) Transit Stops
5.
o
o
o “If the proposed apartment building”
o
Again, the UDC applies to many
types of projects, not just apartment buildings.
o
o
o “...is within three hundred (300) yards walking distance on city
o right-of-way to a transit stop”
o
This is a reduction from a 1/4
mile radius. A quarter-mile walking radius aligns with established best practices
for transit-oriented development and encourages greater transit use while
maintaining walkability. Moreover, this shift could discourage density in areas
where transit stops
are still developing, slowing the city’s progress toward better regional transit
connectivity as outlined in the Mobility Plan.
o
o
o “...which is continually served by public busses every thirty minutes
o or less from 6:30 a.m. through 6:30 p.m. every Monday through Friday”
o
Transit-supportive density is
often required before
3
investment in new transit routes, stops, or more frequent service occur in an
area. Discouraging density before the transit network is fully built out will likely
delay transit improvements. Neither ORT nor Razorback Transit meet this criteria
at the moment,
so this language would effectively prevent any transit stop-related parking
reductions.
6.
7.
8. 172.05 (A)(2)(a)(ii) Motorcycle and Powered Scooter Spaces, and
9. Bicycle Racks
10.
o
o
o “If the developer places a limitation on its
o Large Scale Development or other development permit that a certain number of its tenants will
be continually prohibited from bringing a four wheeled road vehicle into Fayetteville, then the
Planning Commission may reduce the minimum required residential parking
o spaces by one for every such tenant by constructing a motorcycle/powered scooter space for
every such tenant up to a maximum of a 10% reduction”
o
This does not seem enforceable and is a very narrow
definition that excludes other reasonable justifications for motorcycle/scooter
parking. Alternative approaches, such as incentivizing shared mobility options,
might better align with Fayetteville’s goals.
o
o
o “...and up to another 5% reduction for such tenants
o by providing two bicycle rack parking spaces for each vehicle parking spot reduction”
o
It is ambiguous whether this refers to two bicycle
racks or any rack configuration that accommodates two bicycles. I believe it’s the
latter, but clearer language would help.
Thank you for your time, energy, and service to this wonderful community!
I encourage the Council to revisit the proposed ordinance with input from planning staff to ensure alignment
with Fayetteville’s long-term goals for sustainability, mobility, and inclusive growth. I look forward to seeing
thoughtful revisions that reflect our collective vision for the future.
Cheers,
Nick Castin
4