HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-25 MinutesCITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
TOWN AND GOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2013, MEETING
The meeting of the City of Fayetteville Town and Gown Advisory Committee was called to
order by Chair Tommy Deweese at 3:00 p.m. on March 25, 2013, at the Genesis Technology
Incubator of the Arkansas Research and Technology Park in the AT&T Conference Room at 700
Research Center Boulevard in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The minutes were presented, the spelling of Gulley and Jurgens were corrected in the minutes,
and upon motion and second the minutes were passed unanimously.
Members present were Don Marr, Jeremy Pate, Yolanda Fields, David Dayringer, David
Jurgens, Casey Jones, Terry Gulley, Danny Pugh, Melissa Harwood -Rom, Gary Smith, Bev
Lewis, Mike Johnson, Tori Pohlner, Barry Herzog, Diane Warren, Tommy Deweese, Mark
Kinion, and Ryan Miller. Absent were Richard Hudson, Steve Clark, and Will Hansen. It was
noted that Richard Hudson is in Little Rock for the Legislative Session.
Chair Tommy Deweese recognized Yolanda Fields, Committee member and City of Fayetteville
Community Services Director, to discuss the outreach of the City of Fayetteville and the
University of Arkansas and what they do together to provide outreach information to the
community. Fields discussed the fact that code violations are not specific to students, but they
relate to all residents, and she provided sample folders of information for Committee review that
include information from the City's Community Services Division and information about the
Community Services Division and the University's outreach partnerships. Fields noted that such
a partnership has been in existence since 2003 and that the education is a continual process since
there are always new people to reach and new information to provide, as well as finding new
methods to educate.
Also present to educate the committee about ongoing outreach efforts was Silvia Scott, Director
of Off -Campus Connections at The University of Arkansas. Scott spoke of the importance of
communication to what they do. Scott also discussed the variety of students they work with, on -
campus and off -campus students, students moving off campus, and education of all residents.
Scott noted that much of what Community Services and Off -Campus Connections work on
together is related to students who are moving off campus as well as the education of all
residents. Scott noted that there are several changes and challenges and it will continue to be
ever changing and ever growing.
Chair Deweese moved to the first item on the agenda, master street planning. With this topic on
the agenda being within the priority items under review of sub -group A, sub -group A member
Don Marr presented the report of sub -group A. Marr stated that sub -group A met and
particularly reviewed and discussed the boundary streets, major projects on the City's master
plan, Razorback to Eastern, Stadium, Virginia, West Clinton between Stadium and Stadium, and
lining Stadium up with Bulldog Avenue. Marr also noted their sub -group's focus on the
extension of Leroy Pond to Stadium, Razorback to Eastern Street alignment (creation of a new
grid in that area), Dickson Street and the permanency of the day -time street closure, redesign of
Maple Street (need of repair soon, but to bring forward only after current construction and use of
dump trucks there are completed), daytime residential parking permits as a need and staffing
requirements, emergency access during event planning, and standard requirements of street
layout within the University boundary. Other items sub -group A reviewed included Garland east
to Cleveland and Cleveland to the railroad and railroad to Center and on the western side and
eastern side considerations. The sub -group requested GIS to create a map of this boundary for
their further review. They looked at extending Meadow to a signalized intersection; Graham to
Thomas would be new; and vacating Court Street, Brenda, and West Walton. Stadium -Virginia -
Stadium is already on the City's master street plan, and the sub -group discussed Razorback
improvements all the way to Garland, but the first section being to Leroy Pond.
Mike Johnson informed the group of a highway department public input session on April 0
from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. to discuss phase one of Razorback Road and Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Boulevard to Razorback and all the way over to Maple. Razorback is in a joint plan with the
State. Marr noted that the sub -group A discussed whether a University street boundary really
create that boundary and the sub -group discussed signage, speed limits, parking residents only,
lighting (sidewalk and trail lighting within the boundaries), and how such decisions get made in
the master street plan items. Johnson and Marr together mentioned Maple, Leverett, Garland and
Cleveland and the possibility of one-way street proposals for those streets.
Chair Deweese asked how the closure of Dickson Street on the University of Arkansas campus
by the Engineering building was going. Johnson addressed the question, noting that the
operational control as established is to last for a couple of years and is working well, and after
that time it would transition to another plan. There are still a few traffic issues to address and
those are being addressed to strengthen the effort. Tori Pohlner mentioned a UA poll of students,
and the students significantly approved of the Dickson Street closure and how it was working
and how the students appreciate it. Deweese also mentioned the darkness of the area and
inquired what could be done there for more visual clarity for night. Johnson noted the area as
being well lit, with lighting directed to the sidewalks. Upon inquiry by Ryan Miller, Man- stated
that their sub -group would like feedback on the core campus boundary issues. David Jurgens
noted that the athletic event boundary is different from the core campus boundary. Marr also
stated that other feedback from the Committee that sub -group A would appreciate are on issues
within that core campus boundary of sidewalks, speed limits, and parking where we are getting
the most public feedback. Additionally, Marr mentioned residential parking impact and the City
partnering with someone at the University of Arkansas for EMS response and utility response.
Jurgens noted the difficulty at times of vehicle accessibility. Danny Pugh stated that his sub-
group's issues (sub -group B) were quite similar and inquired about where their committee ends
and the other committee begins, noting the overlap and inquiring how to avoid duplication of
efforts. Marr remarked that some things don't exist with just one sub -group or separate out
clearly to just one sub -group and how it would be nice to assign areas of focus to a sub -group for
that clarity. Johnson remarked that the City's normal cross-sections could be used to separate
issues.
Ryan Miller inquired how it would visually be designed. Marr noted the boundaries have not
been decided, but the sub -group is looking at what is a logical boundary. Johnson noted the
University boundary plan. Marr stated that whenever boundaries are discussed or action is taken
it often creates a situation a street over, and discussions of sub -group A went further than the
University plan and into neighborhoods.
Marr and Terry Gully provided a review of the boundaries sub -group A reviewed (Wedington
north; Martin Luther King, Jr., --south; Gray and Cross; and then cutting down south; Markham
south to Palmer eastside just across the railroad tracks. West Cleveland to Gray, to Cross and
then Halsell to Markham and south). Pugh asked whether it picked up enough of the Wilson
park area, noting that it is important to look at transition areas. Mark Kinion questioned the
purpose is and if North street should be included, noting increased student traffic and
neighborhood connectivity problems. Pugh stated he would like the Committee to deal with the
transition areas. Marr responded that the sub -group's focus on the following to be reviewed and
established in the boundaries speed limit policies, parking policies, lighting, and sidewalks.
Kinion noted his main focus to consider is West to Vandeventer to North, or West to
Vandeventer to Prospect. There was a request by David Jurgens for the next meeting to have an
overhead projector for sub -group A to present the proposal so that the committee can best see the
boundary plan proposal.
Ryan Miller asked if there could be different boundaries for different issues being addressed.
Marr noted that their sub -group looked at not just boundary establishment, but what are the main
issues for a particular area, with parking being a big part of the boundary discussion. Kinion
noted the importance of routing for safety and efficiency purposes. Johnson stated the
importance of better access to the west end of the Entertainment District and the difficulty to deal
with that area and channeling traffic. Marr said there was a need for improved east/west traffic
flow.
Chair Deweese recognized sub -group B to present its report. Diane Warren presented the report
for sub -group B, who was elected at their meeting as that sub -group's chair. Warren stated the
campus vicinity safety and emergency services focus of the group Emergency services and how
the City and University are already working on several issues already and, therefore, the group
addressed their desire to get existing reports and have certain individuals speak to their sub-
group, particularly Jay Huneycutt from the University and Matt Mihalevich and Greg Mitchell
from the City of Fayetteville. Warren reported sub -group B's next meeting as set for April 4`h at
3:30.
Chair Deweese recognized sub -group C to present its report. Sub -group C Chair is Casey Jones,
who presented their report. Jones stated that sub -group C looked at getting information out to
students when they move off campus, conflicts, and how much effort and communication is
already being made by the City and the University on that front, but that will be a constant
struggle to keep that education going. The committee discussed a variety of ways to disseminate
the information to a larger population. A problem is how to get information to part-time
landlords since there is typically no central office they can visit. Some neighbors have expressed
frustration by not hearing how an issue that has been reported was resolved. Information from
the Prosecutor's Office or Code Enforcement is accessible, but cases within the J -Board system
at the University are not as open to the public for knowing resolution of a complaint or alleged
violation, although the J -Board does a good job at what they do. If a student gets caught on
campus for something like public intoxication, for example, the J -Board handles those and they
do them quickly. There are two systems—the regular criminal justice system and the University
system through J -Board, and it was recommended that the J -Board also address cases in which
the Prosecutor's Office handles regarding students, which would not be very many a year.
Melissa Harwood -Rom inquired how the University would get informed about ordinances cases
under review by the Prosecutor's Office. Jones stated that the City's Prosecutor's Office would
inform them. Pugh noted that the University does not handle all public intoxication cases, but
primarily focuses on felony -type cases, which already involves approximately 1,500 cases per
year and two designated staff members. Pugh stated that there are opportunities and options first
that can be addressed. Harwood -Rom inquired about the landlord aspect of the stated problem,
with Jones noting that the Prosecutor's Office would handle the landlord aspects. Pugh
addressed the public health model, with Jones noting the length of time it takes to get through the
City judicial system. Marr inquired why there isn't a rental registry, since much of the problems
being noted related to the person signing the lease and it always comes down to the out-of-town
landlord, with it being a behavior issue, and not the current ordinance focus of the number of
people in a single-family residence. Jurgens noted other issues such as tenant -tenant problems
also, such as one who pays a utility bill and one who will not. Pate reminded the Committee that
half of the population lives in rental houses in Fayetteville and referred the Committee to the
City report in their Committee folder. The Committee discussed some members reviewing
University Cities that have a landlord registry and whether that is a good idea for Fayetteville, as
well as the ability of the City of Fayetteville with existing staff could administer such a program.
Deweese stated that clearly other cities have addressed this that the Committee could review
what they did, and Johnson stated a good beginning would be a voluntary registry. Marr also
referred the Committee to the report by the City in the Committee's folder for a review of other
4
university towns. Kinion brought the Committee back to Jones's point about the amount of time
it takes a case to go through the criminal judicial system. Pugh stated that the University process
would need a violation. Kinion and Jones stated a complaint would be available early on.
Yolanda Fields provided information about typical code violation examples.
Chair Deweese recognized sub -group D for a presentation of their report to the Committee,
which was presented by sub -group D Chair Jeremy Pate. Pate stated that sub -group D met on
March 1 to primarily address the question "what is an overlay district" and then addressed
overall issues of concern and/or complaint made to City Code Enforcement, including student
parking on residential streets (length of stay and location), parking enforcement program, sticker
program, parking on residential streets, over -occupancy and over -occupancy of single-family
neighborhoods, and event impacts (resident and emergency access and parking controls and
addressing speeding in a certain boundary). Sub -group D also addressed. The sub -group is not
sure if the overlay district is right tool yet, and while several things are already working well they
are still looking at the tool box, as well as future review of the potential for design standards.
Sub -group D will also be inviting people from the University to talk about their housing plan.
Marr noted how it would be better to have a stronger ability to get information out, inquiring
where the people would look for information, asking whether our method for getting the
information out is effective. Kinion commented that this Committee's work to integrate that
information and bring it forward is already a great step, and the Committee's work is getting the
material centralized and more integrated. Warren stated that likely the solution is getting the
information to where they are, and this Committee can assist in identifying that process.
Jurgens noted that it might be that we spend most of our time with those landlords whose action
or inaction leads to the problem, the 10%, and doing a good job getting information out to the
90%. Kinion noted that there is a lack of incentives for those landlords when rental properties
around the University are so easy to rent at high prices, with bidding wars for acquiring rental
property around the University also occurring so it is easy for absentee landlords to rent property.
The committee established the agenda for the next meeting as a presentation from each of the
sub -groups about their review and analysis of their set of priority items of the Committee.
With no additional new business by the Committee, Chair Deweese moved to adjourn, which
received a second by David Jurgens and unanimous approval. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by,
Lindsley Smith, Committee Staff
