HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-07 - Minutes -Council Member Sonia Gutierrez
Ward I Position I
Council Member Sarah Marsh
Ward 1 Position 2
Council Member Mark Kinion
Ward 2 Position
Council Member Matthew Petty
Ward 2 Position 2
Mayor Lioneld Jordan
City Attorney Kit Williams
City Clerk Kara Paxton
City of Fayetteville Arkansas
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 1 of 43
Council Member Sloan Scroggin
Ward 3 Position 1
Council Member Sarah Bunch
Ward 3 Position 2
Council Member Teresa Turk
Ward 4 Position 1
Council Member Kyle Smith
Ward 4 Position 2
A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on July 7, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219
of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
Mayor Jordan called the meeting to order.
In order to create social distancing due to the Coronavirus, COVID-19 pandemic, Council
Members Sonia Gutierrez, Sarah Marsh, Mark Kinion, Matthew Petty, Sloan Scroggin,
Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, and Kyle Smith joined the meeting via online using a video
conferencing service called Zoom.
Council Members Marsh and Bunch were absent during Roll Call.
Mayor Lioneld Jordan, City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton,
Chief of Staff Susan Norton, Deputy Chief of Police Jamie Fields, Fire Chief Brad Hardin,
Chief Financial Officer Paul Becker, and two staff members from the IT Department were
present in City Council Chambers while demonstrating recommended social distancing.
Pledge of Allegiance
Mavor's Announcements. Proclamations and Recognitions:
Mayor Jordan: In light of the current health concerns, Fayetteville City Hall is closed to the
public. This meeting is being held virtually. I am present in Council Chambers with a handful of
essential support staff. City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton, Chief of
Staff Susan Norton, Deputy Chief of Police Jamie Fields, Fire Chief Brad Hardin, Chief Financial
Officer Paul Becker, and two representatives from the IT Department. City Council Members, City
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 2 of 43
Staff, and the public are participating online or by phone. Other than those of us you see before
you, the voices you hear during the course of this meeting are being recorded for public record and
piped into the Council Chambers. Participation remains of the upmost importance to the City of
Fayetteville. We have provided many ways to participate in the meeting, which includes contacting
Council Members, City Clerk office or city staff prior to the meeting. The meeting can be viewed
through Fayetteville's government channel online, YouTube, joining the Zoom conference by
smartphone, tablet or computer. Instructions are shown onscreen. Staff can view when you join
the meeting and when you raise your virtual hand. We ask that you refrain from doing this until
the public comment portion of the item on which you wish to comment. I will provide a longer
than usual period of time for you to raise your virtual hand. When recognized, please state your
name and address for the record. Public comment shall be allowed for all members of the audience
who have signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda item they wish to address being opened
for public comment. Each speaker is allowed five minutes to be broken into segments of three and
two minutes, which staff will monitor. Amendments may receive public comments only if
approved by the City Council by unanimous consent or majority vote. If public comment is allowed
for an amendment, speakers will only be allowed to speak for three minutes. The City Council
may allow both a speaker additional time and an unsigned -up person to speak by unanimous
consent or majority vote.
City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports, and Discussion Items:
Monthly Financial Report
Paul Becker, Chief Financial Officer gave a summary of the Monthly Financial Report.
2019 Annual Audit Report
Paul Becker, Chief Financial Officer gave a summary of the 2019 Annual Audit Report. He stated
the report is on the City of Fayetteville website.
Agenda Additions: None
Consent:
Approval of the June 16, 2020 City Council meeting minutes and the June 24, 2020 Special City
Council meeting minutes.
Approved
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act Grant: A resolution to authorize the
acceptance of a Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act grant from the Federal
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 3 of 43
Aviation Administration in the amount of $69,000.00 to offset loss of airport revenue related to
the COVID-19 pandemic, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Resoltttiott 174-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
CCG Systems, Inc. d/b/a Faster Asset Solutions: A resolution to authorize the purchase of a
fleet operations management software upgrade from CCG Systems, Inc. d/b/a Faster Asset
Solutions in the amount of $129,444.00, pursuant to a federal General Services Administration
contract, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $12,944.40, and to approve annual
maintenance costs in the amount of $22,967.00 for the first year with a 3% annual price increase.
Resolution 175-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
Bid #20-49 Bulk Material Handling: A resolution to award Bid #20-49 and authorize the
purchase of an elevator conveyor from Bulk Material Handling of Becker, Minnesota in the
amount of $46,500.00 plus applicable taxes and freight charges for use at the Noland Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
Resolution 176-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
Bid #20-48 Lewis Automotive Group: A resolution to award Bid #20-48 and approve the
purchase of a Ford Transit Van from Lewis Automotive Group of Fayetteville Arkansas in the
total amount of $34,526.00 for use by the Information Technology Department.
Resolution 177-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
JBZ, Inc. d/b/a Ellingson Contracting Change Order No. 2: A resolution to approve Change
Order No. 2 to the contract with JBZ, Inc. d/b/a Ellingson Contracting in the amount of
$163,000.00 for roof framing, shingles, siding and trim associated with the Woolsey Farmstead
Restoration Project.
Resolution 178-20 as recorded in the offi-ce of the City Clerk
Community Development Block Grant Program Income and Donations: A resolution to
approve a budget adjustment in the total amount of $10,604.00 representing Community
Development Block Grant program income and donations from citizens and local businesses.
Resolution 179-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
RFQ #20-01 Garver, LLC - 2019 Transportation Bond Project: A resolution to approve a
professional engineering services agreement with Garver, LLC in the amount of $224,350.00,
pursuant to RFQ #20-01, Selection 3, for the design of the South School Avenue and College
Avenue Corridor Improvements, and to approve a budget adjustment - 2019 Transportation Bond
Project.
Resolution 180-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
113 West Mountain Fayetteville AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 4 of 43
RFQ 20-01 Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. - 2019 Transportation Bond and Trails Bond
Project: A resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with Crafton, Tull
& Associates, Inc., pursuant to RFQ 20-01, in the total amount of $211,785.00 for the design of
the Mission Boulevard Trail and Street Improvements Project, to authorize the Mayor to acquire
the easements and right-of-way for the project, and to approve a budget adjustment - 2019
Transportation Bond and Trails Bond project.
Resolution 181-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
Bid #20-56 Art Thureson, Inc.: A resolution to award Bid #20-56 and authorize the purchase of
a prefabricated bridge for the Clabber Creek Trail from Art Thureson, Inc. in the amount of
$40,100.00 plus applicable taxes and freight charges.
Resolution 182-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
Personal Protective Equipment: A resolution to approve the purchase of personal protective
equipment and other goods and services related to the city's response to the COVID-19 pandemic
through various cooperative purchasing contracts as needed.
Resolution 183-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
Bid #20-37 Mayer Electric Supply Company, Inc.: A resolution to award Bid #20-37 and
authorize the purchase of six filter units from Mayer Electric Supply Company, Inc. in the amount
of $70,453.66 plus applicable taxes and freight charges.
Resolution 184-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
Cisneros Family Construction Corp: A resolution to award Bid #20-46 and approve a contract
with Cisneros Family Construction Corp. in the amount of $892,403.60 for the construction of
waterline to facilitate improvements to Highway 170, to approve a project contingency in the
amount of $89,240.36, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Resolution 185-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
C112M Hill Engineers, Inc.: A resolution to approve an out -of -scope agreement with CH2M Hill
Engineers, Inc. to perform or subcontract repairs to the thermal dryer at the Biosolids Management
Site in excess of $10,000.00.
Resolution 186-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
Council Member Gutierrez moved to accept the Consent Agenda as read. Council Member
Kinion seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Council Members Turk,
Smith, Gutierrez, Kinion, Petty, and Scroggin voting yes. Council Members Marsh and
Bunch were absent during the vote.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 5 of 43
Unfinished Business:
RZN 20-6996 (Hughmount Rd. North of Mt. Comfort/Hughmount Rezone) Appeal: This
item was tabled to the July 7th City Council meeting per City Attorney Kit Williams Memos
dated June 5, 2020 and June 15, 2020. An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning
petition RZN 20-6996 for approximately 152.00 acres located at Hughmount Road North of Mount
Comfort Road to R-A, Residential Agricultural; RSF-1, Residential Single Family, 1 unit per acre;
RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8 units per acre; NC, Neighborhood Conservation; and NS-G,
Neighborhood Services -General. At the 0511912020 City Council meeting this item was left on the
first reading. At the June 4, 2020 City Council meeting this item was tabled for two weeks. Please
see City Attorney Kit Williams memos dated 0610512020 and 0611512020. At the June 16, 2020
City Council meeting the City Council did not vote on this item per City Attorney Kit Williams
memos.
Council Member Smith moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council
Member Kinion seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Council Members
Turk, Smith, Gutierrez, Kinion, Petty, and Scroggin voting yes. Council Members Marsh
and Bunch were absent during the vote.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
City Attorney Kit Williams: There has been two proposed Bills of Assurance offered by the
applicants. We have supplied them to the City Council by email, as well as supplied a proposed
amended ordinance that would recognize the Bills of Assurance. I ask that the City Council make
a motion to amend the ordinance to what was sent out to you this afternoon.
Council Member Smith: I'm not going to support the Bills of Assurance because they aren't
necessary. The difference between six to an acre and eight to an acre is fairly minor. We hear from
our Planning staff that it's nearly impossible to build to the maximum density anyway. I suspect
that six is probably what they will get under an RSF-8. We have other zoning types if that were
the goal that we could use that would meet that. I am okay with the RSF-8 as it is. I don't think
that's an encumbrance we need to attach to the land in perpetuity.
Council Member Kinion: I support this because it is a measure of good faith on the developers
point. With this addition, it is a guarantee because who knows what could happen in the future. It
is wise to include this. It's not going to change the development a lot from the current situation. I
appreciate that the developers took an extra step and created the Bills of Assurance.
Council Member Turk: I appreciate the developers voluntarily providing the Bills of Assurance.
This is consistent with public comment we heard a couple of weeks ago from the neighbors. The
neighbors do not want higher density. There have been some water issues that fortunately have
been resolved. A lower density would fit much better with the geology and topography of the area
and respect the existing neighbors wishes. I will be supporting this.
Council Member Smith: With this Bill of Assurance, will it restrict the ability to come in later
with an accessory dwelling unit on a house that was already built to the six per acre standard?
113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 6 of 43
Garner Stoll, Development Services Director: I don't believe that, does that. It's a one sentence
restriction saying the density won't be higher than six units per acre. The accessory dwelling units
are riding on an accessory concept that doesn't add it to the unit count in the zoning district.
Council Member Gutierrez made a motion to accept two Bills of Assurance and to amend
the ordinance to recognize them. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call
the motion passed 5-3. Council Members Turk, Gutierrez, Kinion, Scroggin, and Bunch
voting yes. Council Members Smith, Marsh, and Petty voting no.
Robert Rhoads, Hall Estill Law Firm Representing the Applicant stated he had previously
presented at a City Council meeting the rationale behind the rezoning. He stated neither his clients
nor he received any other comments from anyone. He stated he thought by offering the Bill of
Assurance on the three tracts of land that are RSF-8 it would show good faith.
Council Member Gutierrez: The emails I received was mostly traffic concerns. There's a bridge
in the area and the roads maybe were sufficient enough for the density. What are the plans for the
roads in that area?
Garner Stoll: The capacity of the road is adequate to handle the anticipated traffic with the full
development of Hughmount. There are some issues with the bridge. It is getting a little bit old.
Matt Casey could you speak on this.
Matt Casey, Engineering Design Manager stated he is not familiar enough with the property or
the request to answer with too much detail. He stated a lot of the roads in the Hughmount area are
rural and would need to be improved, but that would all be taken into account with the development
as it goes through Planning Commission.
Russ Collins spoke about his concerns of the number of houses and traffic. He stated his biggest
concern is if the infrastructure can handle all of the traffic, sidewalks, lights, and bridge. He wants
to know who he can hold accountable to the infrastructure being in place so that they are not
building right away and creating issues in the neighborhood of traffic and safety. He stated the last
thing his neighborhood needs is for development to begin without these measures being taken
place prior to that. He wants to keep it RSF-4 to limit the number of houses and traffic.
Ben Pierce spoke about road and traffic concerns.
Joe George spoke about traffic, bridge, and safety concerns. He spoke about wanting the area to
feel connected to the bike trail system.
Council Member Smith: Being that we annexed these into the city about three weeks ago, this is
still fairly new to us. I get lots of complaints about the roads that are just outside our city limits. I
feel like the county is actively neglecting infrastructure in this area. While they are building roads
for other cities, they are occasionally throwing a shovel full of asphalt in a pothole up on North
Salem. I have every confidence, even though I'm not eager to build a bunch of new roads that our
Transportation Division and their proactive maintenance plan is going to be a massive increase in
the level of service for these new residents. We are already in process on connecting Rupple up to
113 West Mountain Fayetteville AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www Fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 7 of 43
the other part of Rupple where Weir Road currently is. Soon this neighborhood will have an option
to go to the north and still tie back into main roads. I understand there are very real concerns and
I'm confident they are in better hands now than they were a month ago.
Council Member Smith moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Council Member Kinion seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council
Members Turk, Smith, Marsh, Kinion, Petty, and Scroggin voting yes. Council Member
Gutierrez was absent during the vote.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Council Member Gutierrez: To the people who spoke today, I am on the Sidewalks and Trails
Committee. I will work to make sure we can connect you all up. I will express that tomorrow night
at the Active Transportation meeting, and you are welcome to join the meeting. I will voice a
concern for you at the meeting tomorrow.
Mayor Jordan: Garner, you all believe that the infrastructure is adequate to handle this, at this
time? Correct?
Garner Stoll: The two-lane roadway will accommodate the traffic, but the next step is preliminary
platting. Preliminary platting will produce the information the Planning Commission needs to
access the public improvement. Since it is now in the city, it will be under the city's process and
not the county. Sidewalks, turn lanes, and improvements will be looked at. The Planning
Commission will be looking at infrastructure improvements that would be needed to accommodate
the proposed development.
Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed
unanimously.
Ordinance 6326 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk
RZN 20-7100 (514 E. Johnson St./Gold-Walsh): An ordinance to rezone that property described
in rezoning petition RZN 20-7100 for approximately 0.16 acres located at 514 East Johnson Street
from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8
units per acre. At the 0611612020 City Council meeting this item was left on the First Reading.
Council Member Gutierrez moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council
Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Garner Stoll, Development Services Director: Ms. Knight, the applicant's representative wanted
me to point out that they have been at this for a long, long time. They went to the Board of
Adjustment and were turned down on a variance, trying to save a tree. She wanted me to convey
that they would appreciate a vote if possible.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 8 of 43
Kristin Knight, Applicant's Representative stated she didn't have anything new to present and
was available for questions.
Council Member Kinion: When you are looking at that area, I know we have had a lot of runoff
that goes behind the houses and has caused problems. Is this an area we are concerned about
managing the stormwater between Johnson Street and Rebecca?
Garner Stoll: Yes, this is an area that has problems. This is an area where we have active storm
drainage improvements under construction right now.
Council Member Kinion: I just wanted to be sure that it was in the discussion, we are working
on it and it's going to happen before we start anymore activity in this runoff area. It has been a
problem ever since I've been on City Council. We are working on it. I am pleased to hear that it's
going to happen. I know the neighbors will be relieved to hear that too.
Council Member Marsh moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Council Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed
unanimously.
Ordinance 6327 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk
Appeal: RZN 20-7080 (360 N. Arkansas Ave./Sigma Phi Epsilon): An ordinance to rezone that
property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-7080 for approximately 0.20 acres located at 360
North Arkansas Avenue from RMF-40, Residential Multi -Family, 40 units per acre to DG,
Downtown General. At the 0611612020 City Council meeting this item was left on the First
Reading.
Council Member Turk moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council
Member Gutierrez seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
City Attorney Kit Williams: There has been a Bill of Assurance offered. If Council wants to
accept it, we would just add to both the title and Section 1, subject to the Bill of Assurance.
Mayor Jordan: The applicant is offering a Bill of Assurance and you would put it in after the title
of the ordinance? Correct?
City Attorney Kit Williams: Yes, title and Section 1, subject to the Bill of Assurance. Garner
Stoll has a copy of the Bill of Assurance and it has been provided to the City Council.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 9 of 43
Garner Stoll, Development Services Director: I have a copy of it.
Blake Jorgensen, Applicant: Mayor, can you confirm that Council has the document?
City Attorney Kit Williams asked if any City Council Member had not seen the Bill of Assurance
and it was assumed that everyone had a copy.
Blake Jorgensen gave a brief history of the project. He gave a brief description of the Bill of
Assurance. He spoke about wanting to have a conversation if the Bill of Assurance wasn't
satisfactory and what else they can offer. He stated they went from a structure that had the right to
be housed as a fraternity through the Board of Adjustments and then through previous actions
through Planning Commission variance request that they would be allowed to build by right. He
stated this is not a change of use because it will still be a fraternity. He stated the old house that
was there got razed and it was time to modify and they hope that their team put together a good
faith effort to try to create a structure that fits within that fabric of the neighborhood.
Mayor Jordan requested to know what Council wanted to do about the Bill of Assurance and
there was no response.
City Attorney Kit Williams: If you don't amend the ordinance, then the Bill of Assurance will
not be considered.
Council Member Smith stated he is not entirely sold on the zoning yet. He stated the neighbors
and emails they have received have made a compelling case against fraternities generally. He
stated he understands the history of the land and that it was a fraternity. He stated when it comes
to the Bill of Assurance, he thinks it makes the zoning proposal a lot better. He spoke about the
contents of the Bill of Assurance.
City Attorney Kit Williams: To clarify, they have presented a drawing. That doesn't mean if you
accept a Bill of Assurance that's the drawing that will control because we have design standards,
they must satisfy regardless of any drawing they give us. The various things about three stories
and setbacks are enforceable. The drawing itself would have to be modified in order to meet the
standards that would be applicable to this area.
Council Member Smith: I would like to not include unenforceable language. It would be a lot
more straight forward if what's in there is actually enforceable and the elevation, I would hate to
see only modified slightly to meet compliance. It could stand a more dramatic overhaul than that.
Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer: The City Clerk office has started publishing the agenda on
the morning of the Council meeting. The reason why we are doing this, is because so many people
are teleworking and working here. The Council Members are working in their jobs and at home.
We are publishing the agenda again to make sure that we include all of the items that get submitted
to us. That Bill of Assurance was included in the packet and can be seen on the agenda page.
Mayor Jordan: Very good. Kara, thank you for clarifying that. We have to assume that everybody
has the Bill of Assurance.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 10 of 43
Council Member Kinion: As we move forward to consider this, it's important to realize the Bill
of Assurance goes with the property in the future. We've got to look at the possibilities that it
might not go through the way the fraternity wants. In looking at this piece of property, I think the
Bill of Assurance offers something, but it's not enough. It does not answer the concerns of the
neighborhood. It's commendable and I would support it because it is better than what we have, but
it does not resolve the issues I have with the rezoning overall. I want to hear more compelling
arguments. The issue is rezoning, and anything can be built there with the rezoning and the Bill of
Assurance.
Council Member Petty: The Bill of Assurance does make the proposal better.
Council Member Kinion: I will support the Bill of Assurance, but I'm not certain that it is
compelling enough to justify the rezoning. I'm waiting for further arguments to be presented.
Mayor Jordan: Thank you, Council Member Kinion. You have made that point clear.
Council Member Turk: It's getting closer, but it's not meeting the concerns of the neighbors or
the historical nature of that area. It is further to where I think we should be. I will be supporting it
on those merits.
Council Member Petty made a motion to accept the 13ill of Assurance with it being added to
the title and Section 1. Council Member Marsh seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion passed unanimously.
Maureen Hogan requested for Council to vote no on the rezoning. She spoke about the Bill of
Assurance being intentionally vague about where the setback starts. She spoke about the rezoning
being incompatible. She spoke in opposition of the ordinance.
Jeff Block spoke in opposition. He went on to talk about the size of the proposed building and
parking issues.
Paula Marinoni spoke in opposition. She spoke about placement of the dumpster, size of the
property, and she went on to provide examples of other buildings of the same size as the proposed
fraternity building.
Matt Gerner spoke in opposition. He spoke about parking and how difficult it is for students to
obtain parking passes. Matt went on to explain what the different colors mean for parking tags at
the University of Arkansas and explained he did not feel like the number of proposed residents
would have viable parking options.
Diane Block: I am the co-owner of 370 South Avenue next to the fraternity. I would like to point
over and over again we have said we are firmly opposed to the spot zoning to this fraternity. We
are opposed to the Downtown General. I would like to point out that their letter of assurance is
only tied to your vote to allow Downtown General. It means absolutely nothing to us. We opposed
Downtown General. It is not placating us in any way. I have sent a list of the 12 points that the
City Attorney's Office provided concerning the things you need to consider for a rezoning request.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 11 of 43
The most important is compatibility with adjacent zones and to avoid spot zoning. The next most
important thing is public opposition that is logical and reasonable. The Planning Commission has
found that both of these things are absolutely applicable to this situation. That influenced their
vote of denial on May 261". Other things are traffic, particularly congestion which would be tied
to the lack of parking, safety and fire protection. They do not have water lines for sprinklers for
their 14,000 sq. ft. building to protect from fire. They don't have adequate sewer line for the 15
residents. The streets are not adequate because as Professor Garner stated there is no parking,
virtually no parking anyway, and they will clog the streets like they did before. The noise and the
litter will also increase exponentially. The decrease in the adjoining land that would happen,
particularly connected to the last tree canopy, and many of the Counselors said there is no need for
more land to be rezoned as Downtown General. Commissioner Beldon said as to the need for
commercial businesses that you can walk to, we already have that on 61" Street. You don't need
to impose that on our neighborhood. There is no need for it at all. Also, Commissioner Garlock
had cited the problem of parking with the Wilson Park neighborhood. They all agreed that if you
open this up to Downtown General the bottom floor of this building or any other building can be
for any kind of use. It would set up the whole demise of zoning for the entire block. As to safety
and health, I have recounted the use of our lands as latrines and the escalating arguments among
the fraternity brothers. Our requests for them to stay on their own property, they have become
volatile and the city police, UA police, and Greek life will not help us. It is completely
unconscionable that the neighbors themselves should be expected to be the police. It is dangerous
to our mental and physical health. We could get into a very dangerous situation going outside at
2:OOAM. The main thing is that they are going to say that it poses a hardship for them because
when they had their variance approved for concerning their driveway and their parking area in
2015, they assumed that the approval of.
Steven Rogers, 40 West Prospect in the Wilson Park neighborhood spoke about 1984 and living
in a fraternity house. He went on to speak about the different locations the fraternity has been
located at over the years. He spoke in favor of the approval of this appeal.
Evelyn Stillwell spoke about the historic avenue of this area. She spoke about the size of this area
and the number of potential students that would live in this fraternity. She stated her main
opposition was the size of the proposed building.
Rachel Gerner, 3 Fletcher spoke about the size of the proposed building being too large compared
to the size of the lot it would sit on.
Phillip McKnight spoke about the compromises that have been made and explained they have
been listening to the neighbor's concerns. He went on to talk about being in contact with Greek
Life and they did not have any of the issues mentioned on record. He also explained that the
fraternity would not use a dumpster, but would use the rolling bins, and the trash would be picked
up by the City of Fayetteville.
Bill Mandrell spoke about disagreeing with Phillip McKnight, the previous speaker. He went on
to talk about the number of complaints that have been given to the University of Arkansas Police,
City of Fayetteville Police, and Greek Life. He talked about the size of the lot versus the number
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 12 of 43
of proposed residents that will live there. He went on to explain why he felt that this rezoning does
not fit in the current neighborhood.
Council Member Petty: Garner, I know that you have told us more than once by now what the
law is with respect to lot size and fraternities. I want to get you to repeat that one more time. Then
I was hoping that you would explain how parking is a reviewed and permitted through the
development review process relevant to residential uses like this.
Garner Stoll: The RMF-40 district has a special provision for sororities and fraternities. It is a
density provision. It requires 1-acre minimum lot size and 250 sq. ft. per resident. With regard to
parking, the parking requirements would not change. It is not based on whether it is RMF-40 or
Downtown General. They would be required to provide one space per room. That decision
whether or not to accept off -site parking instead on -site parking could be requested to the Planning
Commission as a variance. It is not something that staff could approve.
Council Member Petty: OK. Thank you for explaining that.
Council Member Marsh: Garner, what is the use unit that this fraternity would be classified as?
Garner Stoll: The use is just the housing, but there are special density requirements.
Council Member Marsh: I am seeing those as 500 sq. ft. per resident, but you just said 250. I
was looking at the code.
Garner Stoll spoke about Jonathan Curth being present and ask to have Jonathan come on the
line.
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: Council Member Marsh is correct. The RMF-
40 zoning district does require 500 sq. ft. per resident for a fraternity or sorority.
Council Member Marsh: Thank you and the size of the proposed structure is approximately
14,000 sq. ft., is that correct?
Garner Stoll: I don't think they have applied for a site improvement plan. Based on public
testimony, Mr. Jorgenson probably could answer what the proposed square footage is. Under the
Bill of Assurance, you have proved it is restricted de facto because of the three stories, the 7-foot
side, 15-foot front, and 15-foot rear.
Council Member Marsh: I guess what I am trying to gage is if they are under the new scenario,
providing approximately 500 sq. ft. per resident. I guess it is too early in the process to really
know that. One interesting detail I did note is a very important difference between RMF-40 and
Downtown General, is the noise classification. In RMF-40 for noise purposes, is considered a
commercial zone. For Downtown General that is considered a residential zone, is that correct?
Garner Stoll: I believe they are both residential.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www Fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 13 of 43
Jonathan Curth: That is correct.
Garner Stoll: They are both under the residential requirements. It doesn't change. Downtown
General is residential.
Council Member Marsh: Thank you.
Council Member Scroggin: Fraternities and sororities are classified as residential? The use unit?
Garner Stoll: Yes. There is a special density requirement in the RMF-40 district. It's actually a
flag in the district.
Council Member Scroggin: I feel like fraternities and sororities need to be classified slightly
different. I think their use 5 or 10 years ago was residential. But fraternities and sororities that
houses are built now are not being used like they were 15 or 20 years ago. They are almost halls
for events more than they are residential.
Council Member Smith: Mayor, do we have anybody from forestry? There was a description
of how the trees would be handled and how they would be impacted. I was looking for an expert
read on that.
Melissa Evans, Urban Forrester: I have seen a preliminary site plan, but of course it looks like
they are trying to maximize the site. I would just have to see it in further detail. It looks like the
root zones of many of those trees along the borders of the property would be significantly affected.
Council Member Smith: Did the placement of the previous footings have any impact on that?
Melissa Evans: If you look at the canopy of a tree and you just extend a drip line down from
those outer branches down to the ground from the edge of the branches, that is pretty much where
the root zone is. The roots are generally in the top two feet of soil. They spread out like the
canopy. They can take cutting some of them, but if you cut off half of that root zone that tree is
going to probably suffer, if not die. It may take a while for it to die but there are things that can
be done to tread lightly around them. Pier footings instead of spread footings and different things
like that. I am not sure about the existing building and how that would affect the trees.
Council Member Smith: Garner, there were some questions about from where setbacks are
measured. Is that ambiguous in the Bill of Assurance or is there an established standard for that?
Garner Stoll: It would be from the right of way line.
Council Member Smith: Does staff have an estimate of how the neighboring building measures
from that point to make a comparison on this?
Garner Stoll: I believe that the adjacent structures one is 18 and the other one is 20.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 14 of 43
Council Member Smith: That is roughly what I was estimating from the GIS. The one -acre
requirement on RMF-40 is way out of character with the other special minimum land lot sizes. Do
we know what any of the rationale behind that was when the code was adopted?
Garner Stoll: I do not know what the thinking was in 1970. 1 do know that given these uses it
seems to occupy by young people that are in college. They are sometimes referred to locally as
unwanted land uses.
Council Member Smith: It just strikes me for what is primarily a housing type that they are
treated very differently than other multi -family housing. I am curious, if we weren't talking about
a fraternity house with the one -acre requirement, what kind of building built to the current RMF-
40 zone would look like?
Garner Stoll: The height limitation is five stories. There is a setback provision and it starts at 2
or if there is a setback, I believe 10 ft. Then it can go up. But eventually it can reach five stories.
I believe the side yard is 8 ft. under RMF-40.
Council Member Smith: It will still come back up to the sidewalk?
Garner Stoll: Yes, it could but not at the five stories. There is a two-story part of it could go to
the zero set -back under the RMF-40. I know this has been a point of confusion because the RMF-
40 used to have 25 ft setback and the neighbors were under the impression that is what it is but
that is not what it is now. It is zero to 25.
Council Member Smith: We are all very concerned about the consequences of a yes vote but a
no vote also has consequences as far as what gets developed from a determined developer. We
have talked a couple of times on this one at the Board of Adjustments and how every other
group/institute recently has been to the Board of Adjustments and received variances. What would
we anticipate would happen as far as determination of a hardship? What could they get in a
variance to that avenue?
Garner Stoll: Estimate is supposed to be a high bar for variances. You are supposed to show that
the land can't economically be used without the variance, which really sets a high bar. I think the
Board of Adjustment also can take under consideration common sense and normal development
requirements. I would say that they certainly have done that in granting variances to sororities and
fraternities.
City Attorney Kit Williams: The standards that the Board of Adjustment must be unique and
unique of that property. Here we have a regular piece of property. You have standard setbacks
you would have to prove to the Board of Adjustment that you can't develop your property without
removing those setbacks. That doesn't mean you can't develop it at the highest value to yourself.
It means you can develop it. I would not believe that the Board of Adjustment would grant any
kind of variance on an established lot like this.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 15 of 43
Council Member Smith: Kit, they are not asking for setbacks, they are looking at one -acre
minimum requirements. I believe the Board of Adjustment granted several of those in recent
developments, hasn't it?
City Attorney Kit Williams: I am not aware of that. Maybe Garner is or Jonathan.
Jonathan Curth: Certainly, there have been several variances granted. Not all of them have been
for density. Most sororities and fraternities, given their sizes and their ballooning sizes, most
universities have much larger capacities and buffets of options for attendees. I can think of two or
three that have had acreage or lot area per residence granted. Some have had minimum buildable
minimum street frontages variances granted. Mr. Stoll has pulled up some on the screen as of late
and you can see a pretty close correlation with the University's recent increase in number of
residents and the subsequent increases in the sizes of the sororities and fraternities. We would
probably be seeing more of them except many of the sororities and fraternities do elect to sell their
land to the University, putting them beyond the City's authority. That is where you see many of
the much larger ones especially around Maple or Sorority Row if you will.
Council Member Smith: It looks like some of the recent Kappa Sigma and Chi Phi both have
the land area and land area for residents that we are talking about. There is just not a lot of security
in our code the way it is written right now. I wouldn't want to live next to a fraternity either. My
first job out of college was as a residence hall director and I dealt with Greek students there. Being
with the young adults is not where I would choose now to put my house right next to. As we talk
about the history of this street it strikes me that this street historically housed lots of Greek
organizations. It makes sense that this is kind of appropriate place for that. Otherwise there would
be moving off further off into another neighborhood that is a little less adjusted to it. It feels like
our code is just wrong on how to allow that to happen.
Council Member Petty: Garner or Jonathan, I noticed on the document that you just displayed
for us that one of the requests was labeled partially granted. Could you describe to us the flexibility
the Board of Adjustments has when partially granting or considering partially granting a request?
Garner Stoll: Board of Adjustments can look at the situation and as the City Attorney mentioned
they are supposed to make a finding that the property can't be used economically. They could say
that the applicant has proven that to their satisfaction. Board of Adjustment can also write
variances and attach conditions to allow the economical use of the property but protect the
surrounding area.
Council Member Petty: Thank you. Kit, we have heard before the list of things we are legally
allowed to consider whenever we have a rezoning request in front of us. To what extent are we
able to consider the business or purpose of the applicant themselves?
City Attorney Kit Williams: Well the list that I have provided in the past I have taken from court
cases and from the statute itself. It is not really supposed to be an exhaustive list. Every time one
of those was adopted by the court is probably because the City Council had adopted it themselves.
It is not meant to be a list that includes everything that you could ever think of. I will say in most
zoning situations you should probably consider just the potential uses of the development on the
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 16 of 43
land rather than any particular one. In this particular case though it is pretty hard to get away from
the fact that they are requesting this zoning so they can build a fraternity here which would not
allow fraternity under RMF-40 and I can't imagine the Board of Adjustments would consider
granting a variance when this is one -fifth the size that the ordinance that was passed by the City
Council requires. The only way they could build a fraternity here, on this size lot, would be to
rezone it to Downtown General. So, in this particular case with the history of the lot and the clear
concept that it is a fraternity that is attempting to do this is something that you can consider.
Whereas, usually just look at the use unit and nothing else. No rule exists without possible
exceptions and I think this is one exception that might fit your case because it is so clear exactly
what is being proposed for this lot. But you can consider the use that is most likely going to occur
if you do the rezoning.
Council Member Petty: You said that you didn't think without a rezoning that they could build
a fraternity building. I wanted to ask you about that again I feel like I need to reconcile that again
with the document that Garner showed us earlier that showed the Board of Adjustment had a
history of granting these variances. Do you think under RMF-40 the Board of Adjustment would
not be able to grant or partially grant a similar request?
City Attorney Kit Williams: I think probably that is correct. One of their restrictions are where
they can't grant something that would be clearly outside of the zoning criteria. This one would be
a lot that is one -fifth the size that the City Council says must be in an RMF-40 zone in order to
have a fraternity. If it was 0.89 acres, I think they might be able to grant that variance. If there has
been changes in size it is probably been a size of a lot that is very substantially bigger than one -
fifth of an acre. Might not be nine tenths of an acre or eight tenths I don't know. To grant a
variance that is five times smaller than what the ordinance requires I think would violate the spirit
of that ordinance too much and they could not do that.
Council Member Petty: I can't say that it is becoming clearer, but it is helping. When you
interpret that ordinance and you raise the notion of the relative difference from the ordinance
requirement of one -acre and the lot size of .2 acres. Do you know where one -acre came from in
the original ordinance? I am asking the question because I am curious if there is an assumption
that fraternity and sorority houses would be of a certain size.
City Attorney Kit Williams: I think the question must remain was this was done 50 years ago.
It has been the law including a setback of RMF-40 about 10 years ago and it is still the law about
the acre. I think that was done because the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville probably
had some experience that sometimes fraternities and sororities are difficult neighbors. Therefore,
they probably felt like there needed to be a buffer to some extent around a fraternity and sorority
so they would not be too disruptive to their neighbors. Therefore, they thought a larger lot would
be something that would be needed, and they are probably also aware of the parking that
fraternities and sororities almost always need. Therefore, again a larger lot would be required to
have adequate parking for the fraternity and sorority so they would not impede upon the other
neighborhood they might be in. I think that is where it came from and of course at that point in
time the land was not as expensive in Fayetteville as it is now. The University had not grown as
much so all the land around it and all the lots have filled up. It is difficult to find a one -acre lot.
It is not impossible to find a one -acre lot even relatively close to the University, but I think that is
113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 17 of 43
the reason for it. There were several factors that went into it but I think one of the major factors
was they were trying to protect the neighbors of the fraternity and sorority as kind of having a big
enough lot that there might be some buffer around the fraternity and sorority so it wouldn't
adversely affect their neighbors.
Garner Stoll: Council Member Petty, there are a lot of details here. The Board of Adjustment
did grant a variance from the one -acre lot size. They did not adjust the provision that requires 500
sq. ft. per student.
City Attorney Kit Williams: What was the size of that lot Garner?
Garner Stoll: On this lot they did grant a variance to the one -acre lot size to allow the previous
fraternity to not be non -conforming.
City Attorney Kit Williams: I can say that I am surprised, but they are a fairly independent group
although they have to follow the law. I guess they did what they did.
Council Member Kinion: I am not sure I got a clear understanding of that. You said that, the
question was, "What was the size of the lot".
City Attorney Kit Williams: It was the same lot Mark. I guess they allowed that fraternity, the
Sig Eps, to be there in that building. I don't know if they were just using a building that was
already there or what. I do not know the facts of that case.
Council Member Kinion: Ok. I got it.
Council Member Petty spoke about his appreciation of Jonathan Curth, Garner Stoll, and City
Attorney Kit Williams for the additional information. He also spoke about being ok with the idea
of tabling this item again for two weeks. He went on to talk about the Bill of Assurance and the
rezoning. He also talked about the building use difference of fraternities and sororities now and
explained that is what is making this decision hard. He explained he has not been as involved with
the Board of Adjustment as he has been with the Planning Commission process.
Council Member Marsh: I did a developer map on this lot based on the existing lot size of about
150 ft. by 60 ft. and subtracted setbacks. What that leaves us with is about 5,520 sq. ft. of
developable land area on the lot. If we were to go up three stories, that is a little over 16,000 sq.
ft. of new residence halls. If we were to divide that by 500 sq. ft. per resident that would
accommodate approximately 33 residents assuming that none of that space was used as an event
center space. Looking at the fraternity's website I see that there are over 87 people in their
membership photos. That gives me concern that there may be more people than the 500 sq. ft.
threshold would allow living in the house. That leads me to believe the neighbors are correct in
saying the proposal is too large for the site. Whether or not the answer to that is to go back to
RMF-40 that is where I am leaning at this point. Normally I would, due to its proximity to services,
like to see this developed in a dense format. I agree with the resident's desire to see this as a
special historic overlay district. I wish we had done that. While I haven't committed to voting
one way or another, I do wish that moving forward we would develop a specific use unit for
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 18 of 43
fraternities and sororities acknowledging their unique condition so that we don't find ourselves in
this situation again.
Council Member Kinion spoke about decisions made by the Board of Adjustments regarding
fraternities and sororities. He went on to talk about his experience with sororities that recently
expanded close to his house. He talked about the points to consider of parking, compatibility, and
historic preservation of current homes. He spoke about his concern when it comes to spot zoning
and he also referenced the topics brought up by Council Member Petty.
There was a brief discussion between Mayor Jordan, City Attorney Kit Williams and the Council
Members regarding if a motion needed to be put forward.
Council Member Turk moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Council Member Kinion seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed 5 to 3. Council
Members Turk, Gutierrez, Kinion, Scroggin, and Bunch voting yes. Council Members
Smith, Marsh, and Petty voting no.
This Ordinance was left on the Second Reading.
RZN 20-7086 (1278 W. Hendrix St./Oak Equity Partners): An ordinance to rezone that
property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-7086 for approximately 0.51 acres located at 1278
West Hendrix Street from RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8 units per acre to RI-U, Residential
Intermediate -Urban. At the June 16, 2020 City Council meeting this item was left on the First
Reading.
Council Member Marsh moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council
Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Garner Stoll, Development Services Director: I don't have anything to add but I would be happy
to answer questions.
Council Member Turk: Garner, could you please go over what the staff recommendation was
for this rezoning.
Garner Stoll: Staff recommended denial.
Council Member Turk: That was due to?
Garner Stoll: It was due to the fact that we had recommended RSF-8 and the City Council had
approved that less than a year ago. We felt that given all of the issues surrounding this
neighborhood, which is under tremendous amount of development potential as well as pressure,
that going to RI-U at this time was dramatically changing the development potential. Certainly,
this neighborhood has examples of 50 ft. width lots all the way up to half an acre. The RI-U really
113 West Mountain Fayetteville AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 WWW fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 19 of 43
has very few limitations depending on your viewpoint. It really does not have a lot of the
limitations that would restrict the development to reflect the character of the long-established
neighborhood.
Council Member Turk: If I read the code correctly there is no density limitations. Is that correct?
Garner Stoll: That is correct.
Council Member Turk: Thank you.
Council Member Turk: I am a bit concerned that the previous issue went on a long time. Maybe
the neighbors got tired and we haven't had a lot of public discussion except on the issue of
Arkansas Ave. I would like to hold it here if we can and give the neighbors an opportunity in two
weeks to express their opinion if they have one.
Council Member Kinion: I would support that.
Council Member Smith: Do we know if anyone who registered for the meeting tonight signed
up to speak on this?
Mayor Jordan: No, nobody did.
Council Member Kinion: We are living in a very strange time and we have changed the whole
dynamics of our meetings. This neighborhood has spoken out many times recently about what is
happening in their neighborhood. I think we are well aware that there are concerns and I want to
give them an opportunity because they are a neighborhood that is under pressure as mentioned
before. I think it is very hard for people to get united and figure out what to do. I would like to
hold it.
Council Member Smith: I am fine holding it. I spent an hour and a half on the phone with some
of the neighbors from this neighborhood. I was surprised that they were in favor of it, the ones
that I spoke to, after the conversation we had last time.
This Ordinance was left on the Second Reading.
RZN 20-7089 (1139,1213,1237,1251, & 1283 W. Hendrix St./Marks): An ordinance to rezone
that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-7089 for approximately 2.00 acres located at
1139, 1213, 1237, 1251 and 1283 West Hendrix Street from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4
units per acre to RI-U, Residential Intermediate -Urban. At the June 16, 2020 City Council meeting
this item was left on the First Reading.
Council Member Petty moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council
Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-1. Council Members
Turk, Smith, Gutierrez, Marsh, Petty, Scroggin and Bunch voting yes. Council Member
Kinion voting no.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 20 of 43
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Garner Stoll: I don't have anything to add but I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Marks: I would like to say that my request is quite different than the previous one in that I
have submitted a Bill of Assurance for single-family. I felt like the single-family Bill of Assurance
was the message that it would keep the occupancy limited according to City Ordinance. I also felt
like I had the neighborhoods support. I think there was a letter supporting this and if you have had
any phone conversation you will find support. The reason for that support is this Bill of Assurance
sticks with the property. Future owners would be tied to this single-family residence and we felt
like what we were doing was locking this section of the neighborhood into single-family which is
equal choice there.
Mayor Jordan: Garner, give me a reason why the planning staff did not support this rezoning.
Garner Stoll: Mayor, we did not. Council is fully aware of the development requirements. The
RI-U is the least restrictive. Since the lot width is 18ft. and lot area. We felt that a gentler approach
to this area, whether rezoning to RI-U. When we first made this recommendation, we did not have
the Bill of Assurance. Those of us on the staff side are questioning why you would do RI-U and
then do a Bill of Assurance limiting it to single-family. We have a plethora of districts for single-
family. All the way from RSF-4 all the way up to RSF-18. RSF-18 would allow a 30 ft. lot width,
which is a little closer to the historic pattern in this neighborhood. The neighborhood conservation
would be 40. RSF-8 which the previous zoning decision by Council was requires 50 ft. It picks
up the pattern language of this neighborhood which was developed in the 50's as small scale lots
to large lots but none of that go all the way to 18 ft. width. It seems like it is a little out of character
to us. The other issue we were aware of was the potential of this area and the development
pressure. We will be a part where we are going to spend millions of dollars, hopefully, for a
wonderful trail system that connects east to west, which is now under planning and design and
funded. Lots of small houses, large vacant lots. We think this is a candidate to do pattern zoning
or pre -approved building design. We think this is a candidate for a look of the future of the area
because it's under development pressure. IT has a lot of potential but maybe a surgeon's knife
instead of a bulldozer in terms of relationship to the existing houses would be called for. I am not
opposed to RI-U, but I question whether it fits this particular context.
City Attorney Kit Williams: Mayor, I think I need ask the City Council again to amend this
particular ordinance to make it subject to the Bill of Assurance that has been offered by the
applicant.
Council Member Kinion: The Bill of Assurance changes the nature of this completely. If you
will recall the discussion, we have had in previous rezoning with this neighborhood, this very
property came up more than once where the neighborhood said that Mr. Marks was willing to do
this as single-family. They did support it. When I have talked to neighbors recently with the Bill
of Assurance it changes everything. Now that we have the Bill of Assurance attached, I think we
have to completely consider it. RI-U itself is odd that it is there but on the other hand I see how it
could work for the developer and for the neighborhood. Maybe this is a nice compromise to move
forward. The Bill of Assurance is key.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 21 of 43
Council Member Turk: I would like to clarify something that the applicant said. In RI-U, is it
limited to 4 persons per resident? Four unrelated persons rather than three? Is that correct?
Garner Stoll: Yes, that is correct. It allows four unrelated individuals and the single-family
districts would allow 3 unrelated individuals.
Council Member Turk: Thank you.
Council Member Petty spoke about not supporting the Bill of Assurance due to comments he has
made in the past. He spoke about needing to have a formal review and go over the zonings that
are currently in place. He went on to talk about that accepting this Bill of Assurance would allow
for economic segregation.
Council Member Marsh: I would like to remove my second. I concur with Matthew Petty's
statements.
Council Member Smith spoke about not supporting the Bill of Assurance. He went on to explain
that his reasoning was the neighbor's comments of wanting an affordable single-family area. He
also explained that he felt RI-U was a radical change for this neighborhood even with the Bill of
Assurance.
Council Member Marsh spoke about her concerns when it comes to restricting these homes to
single-family homes. She explained that she felt these homes would be rented out by the room
and would not support the Bill of Assurance.
Mr. Marks: Just to clarify on the RI-U which has no limit to occupancy the Bill of Assurance
was in for the single-family residence which would apply the limit to occupancy. I hope I have
interpreted that correctly. I do want to build smaller homes that are affordable housing not multi-
family attached units that would change the neighborhood dramatically. That is my intention and
what I am trying to do. I am under the impression and support of the neighborhood in that
direction. I felt that would increase the density of the neighborhood very appropriately.
Council Member Turk: Mr. Marks is trying to actually respond to the concerns of the neighbors.
This is a modest, stable neighborhood. The neighbors, many of them have been there a very long
time, they have invested their money, their livelihood, created their culture of that neighborhood.
I feel that this Council has negated the neighbors. These are the very people that have built
Fayetteville into the great place that it is. To not listen to them and to consider their wishes in
trying to work with them I find very disappointing. Sure, Fayetteville is definitely under some
housing pressure, but we have no idea how that pressure is going to be next year with the pandemic
going on. We have no idea how that is going to affect things. Right now, that neighborhood is in
an affordable neighborhood. It is very affordable, and it has absolutely nothing to do with racial
zoning or inequities. What I don't understand is we've had other neighborhoods that have come
up here where that could have been an issue but that has not been spoken about. Tonight, and
three weeks ago whenever we had this discussion for some reason this neighborhood now has been
selected as the poster child of inequities and zoning and historical zoning. That is completely
113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 22 of 43
inappropriate. This is a sweet little neighborhood and I applaud the developer for trying to listen
to the concerns of the neighbors and address those through his Bill of Assurance.
Council Member Smith spoke about agreeing with Council Member Turk when it comes to the
feeling of the neighborhood. He went on to talk about the Bill of Assurance and the fact that he
would like Mr. Marks to look at a different zoning code.
Mr. Marks spoke about zoning requirements and the fact he has been open to RSF-18. He went
on to explain that the density would be the same as the zoning of RI-U with a Bill of Assurance.
Council Member Marsh: I do feel that the RSF-18 would be much more appropriate for this
area. The 30 ft lot could accommodate some smaller houses. I would really like to see the
applicant move in that direction.
City Attorney Kit Williams: The Council has the legislative power, especially with request by
the applicant, to modify and amend this ordinance. Instead of RI-U it would be RSF-18.
Mayor Jordan: Garner you are all right with the RSF-18 because in the packet it talks about you
all being ok with RSF-8 or RSF-18.
Garner Stoll: Yes Mayor. We did put that on the table.
Council Member Kinion: I think if the applicant is for that, then it is the way to go. The way I
was looking at it that it was a matter of semantics. It seemed like it was the same if you listened
to the applicant. I think we do need to consider that single-family 18 residential as an option. It
does meet the goals of the neighborhood. This is a diverse neighborhood with diverse housing if
you get away from the 4-block area then suddenly you are moving out to all sorts of diversity.
That is just not the case in this neighborhood. I don't see how it can be economically segregating
to a big degree if we are doing affordable housing. I always point to the southside of town where
we were spot zoning one lot after the next under the illusion there would be affordable housing
because the density. There is not an example of that I can think of. They are very expensive
homes. The density is nice and the homes are nice, but it did not meet the goal we were promised
when we were doing the rezoning.
City Attorney Kit Williams: Parliamentary wise, Mark, if you wanted to go and change the
potential rezoning to RSF-18 you would first need to withdraw your motion to amend the current
ordinance. Then at that point it would be possible to amend the zoning to RSF-18.
Council Member Kinion: Let's do that then.
Council Member Turk spoke in favor to remove the motion that Council Member Kinion had
put forward that she had seconded.
Mayor Jordan: Mr. Marks, are you ok with that before we get too far down here with your Bill
of Assurance being removed and going to RSF-18?
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 23 of 43
Mr. Marks: Ok. I am requesting what you are asking for. Thank you.
Council Member Petty: What is the occupancy limit per unit in RI-U and in RSF-18? The
difference Council Member is in unrelated individuals. In RSF-18 it would be 3 and RI-U it would
be 4.
City Attorney Kit Williams: Basically, RI-U is like an apartment zoning for the definition of
family.
Council Member Petty: Thank you. I think we need to stop thinking of apartments like that or
thinking of RI-U as apartment zoning. We can continue that conversation at another time. This is
the worst for economic segregation than the Bill of Assurance was with RI-U because of the
occupancy limit. I understand that every time we bring this up people naturally think it is
ridiculous to suggest these kind of neighborhoods are segregated. Or it is natural to observe that
this neighborhood has been targeted because it has had multiple recent conversations about it. We
have had the same conversation about every rezoning. That it would allow multi -family
development that has been proposed in central Fayetteville. In the past 5 or 6 years, especially
when the Council or when the staff is reluctant to allow multi -family construction to take place.
We have had that conversation in Walker Park, VA Hill, and we are going to have it within a
month in the Washington Willow Historic District. We have had it in Wilson Park. I expect we
will have it much more in other areas in the future. Our plan says we need to change these
neighborhoods that are central in Fayetteville not in radical ways but in gentle ways. We've lost
the spirit of debate when we look at residential units and small structures and say they are
incompatible with other residential units and small structures. This isn't an industrial proposal, it
is not for a refinery, or even for a mechanic shop. The proposal for RI-U without a Bill of
Assurance is for modest dwellings for people of modest means potentially. It doesn't say that the
developer can't build for luxury markets, but is a zone that allows a more modest development to
take place. I regret that it is a fact that this type of zoning that's on the table now does produce
economic segregation. I am not saying it is intentional. It seems like any time we talk about
racism or economic disparities there is a presumption that we are trying to call people out. We are
not. I am not. The history is just there. The outcomes are there for us all to see. I worry we are
so pre -occupied with the politics and so eager for compromise proposals that we have lost the plot
of what our community needs to address issues like homelessness, climate change, economic and
racial segregation across our city.
Council Member Marsh: I would like a little more time to consider this. We have been changing
the target on this one for a while. I feel like my head is spinning on it and I encourage us to take
some time before we move forward on this.
Council Member Kinion: Moving it to the different zoning was the whole idea. Now we are
here let's do what we said we were going to do.
Council Member Kinion made a motion to amend to RSF-18. Council Member Smith
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 5-3. Council Members Turk, Smith,
Marsh, Kinion and Bunch voting yes. Council Members Gutierrez, Petty and Scroggin
voting no.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 24 of 43
Blake Jorgenson: I just want to say that we are working with the other members in this
neighborhood to try to create something cohesive. I want to commend the other Council Members
that had the good faith. Andrew Marks has a desire to develop a pattern which is commendable.
I agree with him and he and I have talked about this at length. My point is that he could build,
under the RSF-18 building type, under RI-U. I feel that the future is uncertain as we have seen
with this year. I think that RI-U is not a derogatory zoning. He can build by right anything under
RSF-18 under the RI-U. I disagree with the other Council Members that RI-U is not a zoning that
should be looked upon in a downward manner.
Bill Fugget spoke about having difficulties joining the meeting. He went on to say that he echoes
Mr. Jorgenson's comments. He also talked about the RI-U zoning and the fact it allows for
additional density.
Mayor Jordan: Bill, it has been amended to RSF-18 and that is the discussion we are having.
Bill Fugget: I support the RSF-18 as well.
Council Member Kinion: I think we should hold it here since we have made a change. There is
going to have to be a discussion and an understanding in the community to be sure that they
understand what this change means.
This Ordinance was left on the Second Readier;.
New Business:
Fleck Bearing Company: An ordinance to waive formal competitive bidding and accept a quote
of $21,776.00 from Fleck Bearing Company for the purchase of replacement bearings for the
thermal dryer at the Biosolids Management Site.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Tim Nyander gave a brief description of the ordinance.
City Attorney Kit Williams: I was going to ask if it includes freight and taxes, but it does not.
We will need to amend the ordinance to include plus freight and taxes.
Council Member Kinion made a motion to amend the ordinance to include freight and taxes.
Council Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
Tim Nyander stated the sludge dryer will be operational on Saturday.
Council Member Turk moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council
Member Kinion seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www Fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 25 of 43
Council Member Turk moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Council Member Kinion seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed
unanimously.
Ordinance 6328 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk
Amend Ordinance No. 6315: An ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 6315 to include additional
exemptions to credit card and debit card transaction fees and to establish an effective date.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Paul Becker, Chief Financial Officer gave a brief description of the ordinance.
Council Member Smith moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council
Member Gutierrez seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Council Member Smith moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Council Member Gutierrez seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed
unanimously.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed
unanimously.
Ordinance 6329 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk
Beacon Block Appeal: A resolution to grant the appeal of Council Member Mark Kinion and
deny site improvement plan SIP 19-6931, variance VAR 19-6961, and variance VAR 20-7096 for
Beacon Block Apartments.
City Attorney Kit Williams: I was preparing for tonight's meeting and when I read this ordinance
again, I noticed that the incorrect text for the validity variances had been used. It had been used
similar to the ones for approval of an actual preliminary plat or small-scale site. Which is also one
of the issues tonight. The other issue is the variances and the variance has a much different review
right and in fact there is much more discretion on the Planning Commission and now the City
Council whether or not the approval of a variance was proper. Therefore, we sent out a proper
ordinance that reflected the correct test to be used for variances, but City Council needs to amend
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 26 of 43
the resolution that we sent out. I will provide the proper text that the City Council would use to
determine whether or not the appeal should be granted.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the amended resolution.
City Attorney Kit Williams: These are the duties that the developer needed to establish to the
Planning Commission and the Planning Commission felt that occurred. City Council you are
sitting exactly like you are on the Planning Commission with these variances being presented to
you for your consideration. The parts of the resolution were correct and it goes back to the standard
thing that you look at when a Large Scale Development or something like that has been appealed
so that it must follow all the rules in the Unified Development Code and the only one that has
much subjective consideration is whether or not it creates or compounds a dangerous traffic
situation.
Council Member Kinion: I was contacted by Tate Wolf and the neighbors and they have
concerns of safety and also the parking that requires you to back right out on the street. In this
area there is typography to be considered. It's a 10-foot drop in a short space. You have a hill to
deal with in addition to turning basically Pollard Street into a parking lot. Even as you go down
Cleburn with that safety being considered that was the foundation of this.
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: I have an inquiry for Kit regarding his
interpretation of the variance section of the codes. The parking in question that is the subject of
the appeal is for on -street in right-of-way parking. It was a variance of the Master Street Plan
Standards. Is it your understanding that it would put it squarely under the purview of parking
loading section of code or the subsequent section regarding general design standards?
City Attorney Kit Williams: It is under parking variances because you are talking about parking
numbers of parking. That is one of the issues here about how much on -street parking would be
allowed and will that satisfy intermediate and occasional demands. If you have another one that
you want to cite certainly that might come into play for the City Council. The general requirements
of undue hardship and that the situation is unique to the subject property and it will be done in the
public interests and substantial justice will be done, those are the general requirements that will
handle any type of variance when it comes to development.
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager stated he understood. He went on to give a brief
description of the appeal. He stated staff recommends approving the resolution sustaining the
Planning Division and Planning Commission approvals of this request.
City Attorney Kit Williams: I did not have time to find out what the zoning was for this. If it is
Community Services then that would not be part of the parking variances section I read. That
relates on the Downtown Core, Main Street Center, and Downtown General Districts. The undue
hardship still is valid for every development variance. City Council can consider, and you are
sitting as if you are the Planning Commission and making that determination about whether the
developer has sustained his burden of proof to you that the variance should be granted.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayefteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 27 of 43
Council Member Kinion: I want to be sure that the arguments were for the safety, it was a
dangerous situation by the way the parking was designed. Is that still being considered?
City Attorney Kit Williams: That is still valid. That would be in Section 1 of the first whereas
clause because the traffic safety goes to whether or not the large site improvement plan should be
approved or should be denied if it does increase or compound a dangerous traffic situation.
Rob Sharp stated he sees this project as the manifestation of the City's vision for College Avenue.
He spoke about multi story mixed use building that includes space for a cafe, small offices, and
residential apartments. He went on to give a description of the building. He stated the building
creates real destination at the corner of College Avenue and Cleburn Street.
Erin Adkin Oury, Director for Commercial Development and applicant for the project stated the
existing parking conditions surrounding the site are almost exclusively 90-degree parking. She
noted that all these locations require that the cars back into either Cleburn or Pollard. She went on
to present a power point presentation and talk about parking. She stated in the 2040 Master Street
Plan both Pollard and Cleburn are categorized as a residential link street. She stressed the on -
street parking, sidewalks and greenspace contribute to increased safety or non -vehicular traffic
such as pedestrians. She stated we feel our overall proposal improves the safety of the
neighborhood for drivers, pedestrians, and for everybody.
Mayor Jordan: We are back to the amendment, correct?
City Attorney Kit Williams stated yes, it's a legal amendment because that is the proper text that
should be used. He stated there is different text for variances as opposed to the small site or large
site improvement. He asked Jonathan to explain what the two variances are, what they do so that
City Council knows what variances they are considering. They need to know exactly what was
granted and why by the Planning Commission.
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: There were two sets of variances, the first of
which came through in January, that was the larger batch that is in response to staff's initial review.
As a part of that there were building design variances. This property is in addition to having a
frontage on three lots, it's also subject to three layered tears of design standards as a part of the
College Avenue Corridor. It's subject to the Downtown Design Overlay District because it is a
Mixed -Use Development. It is subject to our Non -Residential Design Standards and because it
has residential element it is subject to the Urban Residential Design Standards. Despite all that
there was only one variance of design standards which is significant that staff was able to identify.
Mr. Sharp spoke to that during his presentation and that was the requirement that every facade of
a building have certain treatment to it in residential standards. Staff did not support the request to
not have that special treatment for an additional filigree facing the residential neighborhood. We
thought it was important to have the development not turn its back to the neighborhood. The
Commission did agree with staff on that item and the applicant has incorporated that into their
design. There was a variance request from the minimum amount of window percentages required.
This is a three -frontage lot and most of our window requirements are based on adjacent to a street.
They would be required to have a retail store front on all three sides of the property. Staff
considered the triple frontage lot to be more than sufficient hardship to merit some consideration.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 28 of 43
Glazing is provided on all three sides of the building just not up to the standard required by code.
There was a proposal to not include a screening wall for any parking proposed within a build to
zone. Any form -based zoning district has a build to zone associated with it and an associated
parking lot design standard that requires a screen wall for any parking within that area, we see that
with a lot of urban developments. It's a typical condition when you are trying to fit enough on a
lot, you end up putting parking closer to the street. The screen wall is there to buffer pedestrians
and street users from the traffic. Staff did not support that request and the Planning Commission
agreed. The applicant did incorporate the screen wall into the proposal. The last part of the request
in for the 90-degree parking proposed along Cleburn and Pollard. That was supported by staff and
approved by the Planning Commission. The second group of variances that went through in May
of this year, there were two, one was in regard to greenspace. The City of Fayetteville's
landscaping codes do require a minimum amount of greenspace between a property line and a
parking lot. The City's Urban Forester supported that, and the Planning Commission agreed. The
second variance that was proposed was regarding a ratio of compact parking spaces to normal
parking spaces and prior to the meeting the applicant was able to work that out internally and with
their site design. The variance was withdrawn at the meeting.
City Attorney Kit Williams: The major variance that City Council will be looking at now would
have to do with the actual parking pulling in off the street. Which is not normally allowed?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: That is correct. That appeared to be the main
topic of Mr. Wolf s appeal request to Council Member Kinion.
Mayor Jordan: It was the 90-degree parking on Cleburn, correct?
City Attorney Kit Williams: Correct, I would like to get that amended because that was just a
mistake that I did not spot until I was preparing for tonight and we should use the correct measure
and test for variance. It is not the same, although traffic safety could be talked about in the 90
degree pull in, but the test really is undue hardship and whether it is something that the developer
has been able to prove.
Council Member Kinion made a motion to accept the proposed amendment. Council
Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
Council Member Marsh: I would ask that we make a conscious effort to not use gendered
language when speaking about our applicants. I repeatedly heard our City Attorney refer to all
developers as he. I think it is time that we stop that and use more gender neutral and inclusive
language.
Council Member Smith: We don't look at Planning Commission memos as often as the ones
that are formatted for us. Is 90-degree parking a variance in its own right in all cases or are there
places in our code that just allow for it?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: There is nowhere in our Master Street Plan that
allows 90-degree parking by right. There are instances in our downtown or urban street section
that do allow for angled parking.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 29 of 43
Council Member Smith: It's not just a matter of quantity or placement that is actually existence
of 90-degree parking that generates this?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: Correct.
Council Member Smith: I read through the emails we received and a couple things I noticed
there were some concerns about the safety with sidewalks. Will this project create sidewalks that
are currently not there?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: Yes, it will along the east side Pollard and
south side of Cleburn to tie it into the improvements along College.
Council Member Smith: There were some questions about the streets being dangerous because
of not being striped. Will the two streets end up striped to the end of this or is that not part of it at
all?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: That would be typical of a residential street to
be striped. Usually they are only striped in instances of property specific to on -street parking.
Council Member Smith: The applicant mentioned a 24-foot-wide street. That would make for
12-foot lanes which are way wider than anything we've gotten in any of our cross sections or street
this size. What's the rationale behind that?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: When staff originally started looking at this
proposal a lot of our street sections that do allow angle parking such as downtown could be
accommodated with the more typical lane widths. When it comes to 90-degree parking it requires
a lot more maneuvering and there is the potential for a lot more vehicle overhang. Staff had
concerns and told the applicant that one of the conditions of us being able to support a variance for
90-degree parking would be some additional accommodation. We had concerns because wider
streets lead to faster speeds. We were put at ease by the applicant's proposal.
Council Member Marsh: This site has a unique hardship based on its three different front faces.
I appreciate the solution that the developers are proposing to have on -street parking. This is
something we have seen as a goal and more and more of our streets to provide traffic calming. As
well as to be useful to not just this development but other people that wish to park in the area. I
like that this plan minimizes impervious surface area. This is the type of development we have
been wanting to see along our North College corridor. I concur that Planning Commission made
the right decision and I'm going to vote no on the appeal.
Council Member Smith: Several emails talked about the number of compact parking spots, but
I don't think we heard about that tonight. Did they get that solved without a variance?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: That is correct. Initially they were not able to
find sufficient space on the property. Most of the parking spaces on site were going to be compact.
There is a ratio allowance in the parking lot design standards of 35%, they were around 40% or
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 30 of 43
50%. Between the second variance request and the meeting itself they were able to eek out a few
more feet to make them standard parking spaces.
Council Member Smith: I will ask the neighbors that are going to speak to help me understand
because I don't understand the appeal on this one. Just from going out and visiting I walked around
for about 25 minutes and saw a lot of what was presented to us as far as existing 90-degree parking.
The lack of any nearby residences directly facing into this. There were only two cars on either
street and they were only on Cleburn, not on Pollard. I would like to better understand the normal
conditions of the neighborhood that brought this about.
Scott Hill spoke in favor of the project. He stated a couple years ago when the City was rezoning
this stretch of College, they had extensive public comment about the rezoning's that took place to
encourage form -based development. He stated people spoke out against what they saw downtown,
and they didn't want to see it repeated in their neighborhood. He encouraged the Council to
support the variances requested and approve the project.
Tate Wolf stated there has been some misunderstanding. He stated he is not against the
development; he is against the 90-degree parking and the danger at Cleburn and Pollard. He stated
through normal traffic at 90-degree parking changes it into a parking lot. He stated he hopes
Council sees the logic behind the danger created at this intersection and this small stretch of streets
and that Council will ask them to go up rather than out.
Michael Koolish lives in Kingston Washington and owns property at 855 Pollard. He stated he is
not opposed to the development and looks forward to it. He thinks it will be an amenity to the
neighborhood if it's done well. He stated his concern is the 90-degree treatment. It is his hope that
a nice development like this can proceed forward while still addressing the issues of the 90-degree
parking.
Council Member Gutierrez: I am thrilled about this development. It sounds like the two people
who are concerned about the parking don't have a problem with the development. It's very
exciting to see this type of progressive development in this area. This is what we need for this
corridor. We are finding a new way to figure out how to interface with the neighborhood and
because the 90-degree parking hasn't been done before. I wonder if we are getting a little bit too
excited that it might not work if we haven't tried it. Is there a way to try to pilot some 90-degree
parking or not? This is a new thing and I like that they are using their space for the building,
residents and offices. Is there anything from Planning that they could offer as a pilot?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: I'm not certain of the opportunities to do it on
this site. Some examples I can think of where 90-degree parking already exists in the city is Lewis
Plaza. There is quite a bit of 90-degree parking on Mitchell and Stone. Both of those streets see
a fair amount of traffic. Certainly, comparable if not more than Pollard or Cleburn. Seeing how
it's done in a not necessarily great way you can see a lot of the businesses on College, the Legacy
businesses that have 90-degree parking. Grant it they're on their property but people are having
to back out into College. The most feasible way would be to see what is already existing. Lewis
Plaza or possibly Willow Height might also have 90-degree parking, but the traffic up there is
considerably lower in volume giving it's on the slope of Sequoyah.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 31 of 43
Council Member Gutierrez: If we saw a problem with accidents and safety is there a way, we
can undo it?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: That's a good question. A lot of what the City
does is we are reactive in instances like this. We do have a lot of traffic calming tools. The
Engineering Division has an entire buffet of traffic calming options that could be incorporated. A
lot of those we try to be more discretionary with than the City was in past years with due
consideration for a Fire Department in particular having a lot of difficulty getting over speed tables.
There are a lot of other options, both temporary, whether it's a planter in the street or something
more permanent such as a bumped -out curve. As far as approving a parking space and then
removing an allowance for it, I'm not familiar with any legal mechanism the City would have to
do that.
City Attorney Kit Williams: It's a permanent decision. If you approve this development, they
get to build it and use it.
Mayor Jordan: I agree with Kit. I have never seen that done before either.
Council Member Gutierrez: I was just wondering about that. It was just a question, thanks.
Council Member Marsh: The developer pointed out several instances where 90-degree parking
already exists along the street and has been functioning for as long as it has been there. It would
be possible to reformat it to a more of an angled space but then we would lose some of the parking
spaces. It would reduce compacity if we wanted to retro fit it later.
Council Member Smith: Do we know what the compacity reduction would be if they went to
either angled or parallel from the current plan?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: I have not looked at that scenario, the applicant
was looking at options depending on the outcome of this meeting.
Erin Adkin Oury: We can park parallel by right on the residential link is our understanding. It
would reduce our on -street parking compacity sufficiently and it would probably cause us to have
to reconsider making this a multi -use building. Without adequate on -street parking for commercial
spaces we can't maintain business in them.
Mayor Jordan: How many spaces would you have with 90-degree parking verses how many you
would lose?
City Attorney Kit Williams: With the angled parking?
Mayor Jordan: Yes, with the angled parking.
Erin Adkin Oury: With angled parking two to three spaces would be lost.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 32 of 43
Council Member Kinion: It is my understanding that this style of parking was put in four more
parking spaces to meet the ratio of compact spaces and regular spaces, is that correct?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: The compact space issue was one of the
dimensional standards. They were able to find the spare feet on the property to make compact
spaces on the property standard space in size.
Council Member Petty: I have reviewed everything very carefully with a SIP and two sets of
variances. I found that it was illuminating and based on the proximity of right-angle parking that
already exists in some of the observations I've made around the City. I don't see a reason to
reverse the Planning Commission's decision that compels me principally. I reflected on the nature
of parking and traffic movements around the square. I understand that it is angled parking and you
may be inclined to highlight that as a difference within your own mind but on the square, which
sees relativity high volumes of traffic as compared to typical residential streets. We expect people
to back out into traffic universally whenever they park on the square. Don't consider it to be a
safety issue precisely because people move more slowly because they perceive that it could be
more risky. I would expect the same kind of behavior be exhibited if this project were allowed to
precede as it has been presented. I'm not convinced that we would be creating nor worsening a
dangerous traffic situation based on what I have observed in other areas of town that would see
more traffic. I understand the legal reasoning but in practical terms I am a little perplexed. To me
it seems odd that a variance based on greenspace provisions is being used for an appeal of the
parking regulations that were passed months ago in January and for the whole SIP itself. I
understood that we could technically separate them but with the most recent actions being in May
being specifically about greenspaces and now this conservation is about a variance that was passed
in January for me it begs questions about the consistency of our process.
City Attorney Kit Williams: My understanding was there was not a final approval of this small-
scale planning area until May or whenever the final approval was. I am going to present at the
next meeting to make sure the appeal rules are clear, that all of the parts of an approval of a Large
Scale Development or a large area plan are all appealable at one time when the final decision has
been made by the Planning Commission to approve the development. So that anything like a
variance that went into that will all be appealed at the time and we won't be having multiple appeals
coming for every time a variance was approved or not approved. That's why even though this
parking variance was approved a long time ago I felt like the approval of the large plan would be
the date when all the appeals should be heard. That's why it related all the way back to the early
parts of this development and I think that is the best way to handle this so we don't have multiple
appeals and delays that can really hurt a project if you have to keep going to the City Council and
not come back to the Planning Commission. I think it should all be heard at the same time which
is what we are doing right now.
There was a brief discussion about approving the resolution.
Council Member Scroggin: Can you explain the vote to make sure we know exactly what we
are voting for?
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 33 of 43
City Attorney Kit Williams: If you vote against and it does not get five affirmative votes in favor
of the resolution to grant the appeal, then the appeal is denied. The decision by the Planning
Commission will continue.
Council Member Turk: I walked over there last week and looked around in the area and I do
feel it is very hazardous there. I also pulled in off College onto Cleburn and again it is a very
dangerous intersection. I do feel the neighbors have a legitimate concern. I also think the traffic
is going to increase substantially once this is developed and if you are only losing two to three
parking spaces, that is changing from 90-degree to an angled parking spot, that is a small
concession if there are serious safety concerns. I would ask the developer to take a look at this
again because they're going to be living right next to the neighbors and if you do have safety issues
that come up there will be some discussion around that.
Council Member Kinion: Kit since we had it changed, is there any way I can delay it for two
weeks? We have kind of changed what we are talking about and I think there's a lot of
misunderstanding neighbors.
City Attorney Kit Williams: The only thing you can do at this point is to move to table the
motion and second to pass the resolution.
Council Member Smith: Kit did we change anything besides relaxing the criteria by which the
appeal could be granted?
City Attorney Kit Williams: No, we changed the criteria for variances to use the correct criteria.
Council Member Smith: Which are broader?
City Attorney Kit Williams: It is a burden on the developer to establish undue hardship. It gives
City Council more discretion but it's still within the Council's discretion one way or the other.
Council Member Smith: Ok, thank you.
Council Member Kinion made a motion to table the resolution to the July 21, 2020 City
Council meeting. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion
failed 3-5. Council Members Turk, Kinion and Bunch voting yes. Council Members Smith,
Gutierrez, Marsh, Petty and Scroggin voting no.
Council Member Gutierrez made a motion to approve the resolution. Council Member Petty
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution failed 3-5. Council Members Turk, Kinion
and Bunch voting yes. Council Members Smith, Gutierrez, Marsh, Petty and Scroggin voting
no.
City Attorney Kit Williams stated the resolution failed so the appeal fails and the decision by the
Planning Commission stands.
This resolution failed.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www Fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 34 of 43
Appeal: LSD 20-7031(NW of E. Joyce Blvd. & N. Old Missouri Rd./Trails at Paradise Valley
Apts.): A resolution to grant the appeal of Crafton Tull Engineers, Inc. and to approve Large Scale
Development 20-7031 Trails at Paradise Valley Apartments.
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager gave a brief description of the appeal. He stated
we recommend the appeal be granted and the item be approved tonight. He stated we have not
received any public comment to date on the item.
Tom Hennelly, Crafton Tull: This is the design our client asked us to come up with. We modified
it to conform with the Unified Development Code. We felt with the sole exception of the southeast
corner that Jonathan proposed, our client brought the rezoning through prior to us having a layout.
They brought it through with their legal counsel. Once we got around to doing the lay out, we
realized that the zoning boundary wasn't as far south as what we needed it to be. We filed for a
correction to the zoning. It's important to note that the larger tree preservation also serves as the
detention for the project. The drive serves two purposes, it's an elevated berm and it also provides
additional parking. We understood there were some concerns with the safety back there, so we
met with Officer Dawson with Fayetteville Police Department to come up with some ideas to help
make that a more active space. Based on his recommendations, we came up with working with
the Urban Forestry to prune up the trees that are in the tree preservation area. There is visibility
from the east side all the way through there. One thing we failed to be able to convenience
Planning Commission of is that while this project may not have buildings that front the drive, this
project has buildings that front this drive. While the elevation is slightly different the second story
apartments in these four buildings have a clear line of sight to this driveway and parking area
which will be illuminated. In addition, the boardwalk will also be illuminated. One of the main
reasons for the drive-in addition to the parking was fire access. The length of the drive isle exceeds
the maximum for either solid waste or for the Fire Department backing up. There wasn't enough
room to put a hammer head or cul-de-sac here without getting into the tree preservation area.
Council Member Petty: Is there already an agreement with the adjacent property owner to
provide access or are those access easements nearly anticipatory?
Tom Hennelly: Yes, we approached the adjacent property owner, they were reluctant to provide
access. There are grade challenges in getting drive isles down there but as an anticipatory measure
Planning Commission asked us to dedicate those in the event that ownership changed with the
property to the west and they were wanting to connect to this.
Council Member Smith: Is there a reason why the one on the left, which I think is the south,
doesn't line up? It goes into one of the neighboring buildings instead of into their natural parking
lot.
Tom Hennelly: That was at a specific request of one of the Planning Commissioners. The intent
is for that access easement to create a connection between the drive isle and the street that is to the
west even though there is an apartment building in the way. That is where they requested, that is
where we agreed to grant it.
Council Member Smith: It seems like just like a few feet to the south is a driveway.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 35 of 43
Tom Hennelly: Correct.
Council Member Marsh asked the applicant to explain why they went with this free form
arrangement buildings instead of doing the traditional grid like a city block.
Tom Hennelly: Primarily it's got to do with typography and tree preservation and finding areas
where we could keep the grading out of it in order to insure we could count that as preserve canopy.
If you drive through there you really don't notice the typography until you get on the GIS and
check out the contours. There is a significant amount of fall across the site.
Council Member Bunch: How many parking spaces are on the back row that was in question
about the visibility?
Tom Hennelly: Without counting them right now I think I remember the project engineer telling
me there were roughly between 30 and 40 parking spaces.
Council Member Bunch: Since the buildings are all spread out all over the side, is it anticipated
that it will be overflow parking for people or do you anticipate people will be using that all the
time?
Tom Hennelly: We think people will be using it all the time and the negotiations with Planning
Commission and with the Fayetteville Police Department adding the sidewalks and boardwalk we
thought it made it a better project. We didn't have that in there in the beginning and by adding
those we think that makes the parking a lot more user friendly than what it was previously.
Council Member Bunch: This butts up to Sterns Street, sometimes there is a little low spot in
that street and sometimes there is some flooding, is that correct? Do you anticipate that this is
going to cause any additional problems or will maybe correct some of their drainage problems
over there?
Tom Hennelly: I do know that the predominance of run off flows to the tree preservation area
and is piped to the northwest corner. It should eliminate or at least it won't make it any worse.
Not discharging water onto Old Missouri or exasperating the problem.
City Attorney Kit Williams: As I say in any kind of Large Scale Development the Supreme
Court has said that when a subdivision ordinance specifies as a minimum standard to which a
preliminary plat or large-scale development must conform. It is arbitrary as a matter of law to
deny an approval plat that meets those standards. The standards must be in the Unified
Development Code that requires certain things and I will ask Jonathan whether the Large Scale
Development that has been proposed here actually meets the minimum standards as you know it
for the Unified Development Code?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: It does by staffs review of it but grant it is a
conditional approval that it was recommended before the Planning Commission. Conditions are
very typical of most developments. I believe there was one item that was explicitly stated by a
commissioner as reasons for their vote of denial. The portion of build one on the southeast corner
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 36 of 43
of the site that was sitting in the set back as an indication that it does not comply with the full
requirements of the Unified Development Code of the Community Service Zoning District.
City Attorney Kit Williams: I see that the resolution says that this approval is subject to
conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Department. Does that include the rezoning
of that one problem?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: Yes, sir.
City Attorney Kit Williams: If the rezoning is denied then this project would not be approved?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: Correct or it would have to be modified to meet
the underline zoning.
City Attorney Kit Williams: But everything else it complies with the minimum standards of the
Unified Development Code?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: Yes, I believe so.
City Attorney Kit Williams: It is a build by right, but they still have to comply with the Unified
Development Code requirements.
Mayor Jordan: Jonathan you are saying that it is in the confines of the Unified Development
Code?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: Correct, no variances are being requested as a
part of it. The only discretionary condition was that associated with the zoning setback.
Council Member Smith: Did the Planning Commission's decision cite their reason sufficiently
for your legal needs?
City Attorney Kit Williams: My understanding is that the single legitimate concern that was
presented by the Planning Commission was that building one encroached in setback of a partial
community services zoning designation. That was a problem and in fact if the rezoning is not
done, they are going to have to redesign this because this will not be an approved Large Scale
Development if the zoning is incorrect for that one part of one building. That still has to go through
the process not only the Planning Commission but also back to the City Council and if the zoning
is denied then the large-scale development would not be satisfactory. They would have to redesign
that to move the building or do something else to make it in full compliance.
Council Member Smith: Did the Planning Commission approve with conditions or did the
Planning Commission deny the Large Scale Development?
City Attorney Kit Williams: They denied the Large Scale Development by a vote of 3-6 because
of the encroachment of building one into the set back of a partial. That parcel has to be rezoned
to remove that setback problem or else it cannot be approved.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 37 of 43
Council Member Smith: Their reasoning is sufficient grounds for denial?
City Attorney Kit Williams: It would not be in this case because this resolution says that they
must get that zoning changed or this approval is not valid. That would not be sufficient for the
City Council to vote against that because that is already a condition of approval that they must
obtained before the Large Scale Development is finally approved.
Council Member Smith: What if we tabled this indefinitely and left the Planning Commission's
decision to stand?
City Attorney Kit Williams: If you deny it and it has met the minimum standards of the Unified
Development Code then you are acting arbitrary and capriciously.
Council Member Smith: That is why I was asking if the Planning Commissions justification was
sufficient to decide if it did not meet code.
City Attorney Kit Williams: It might have been at the time but at this point in time the resolution
already takes into account the Planning Departments condition that they must get the rezoning
approved.
Council Member Smith: Because the Planning staff is now applied new conditions?
City Attorney Kit Williams: Yes, it's the Planning Departments conditions.
Council Member Smith: Thank you. That is the step in the process I was missing.
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: The zoning was a condition of the item when
it was before the Planning Commission. That is not a new condition it was on the table at the time.
Council Member Marsh: I'm going to vote against this because I believe it's creating an unsafe
pedestrian traffic situation. In particular the lack of connectivity to the street with the pedestrian
sidewalk and I have a lot of concerns about the parking along the back. Even if you can see under
those trees, I would not feel safe parking back there and walking through a boardwalk. The site
design leaves a lot to be desired and it creates a hostile pedestrian environment.
City Attorney Kit Williams: The condition that you can turn down a preliminary plat or Large
Scale Development as a proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic
condition. For purpose of this section a dangerous condition shall be construed to mean a traffic
condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is substantial due to factors such
as but not limited to high traffic volume, typography or the nature of the traffic pattern. There
must be something in the record to show that in fact this dangerous traffic condition has been
created or compounded. Someone's feelings that they don't like the design or something like that
is really insufficient to meet the burden.
Council Member Marsh: There are several areas adjacent to parking lots where there are not
sidewalks which would force pedestrians into the flow of traffic. Ultimately the lack of
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 38 of 43
connectivity for the pedestrians facilities will cause people to cut through places in the parking lot
where pedestrians would not normally be expected to be seen. This is poor planning and it's going
to be putting people in parking lots without appropriate pedestrian accommodations where they
could encounter vehicles.
Council Member Gutierrez: It is my understanding that the sidewalks were added and lighting
along the back. Is that correct?
City Attorney Kit Williams: That is correct.
Council Member Gutierrez: For me it's not really any different than Walker Park except for it
has a lot more eyes on it because there is second story dwellings and I feel like it is like a park
with housing on one side that's looking over the parking and the sidewalk. Hopefully with lighting
or benches and sidewalks it would help.
Council Member Gutierrez moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Petty
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed 5-3. Council Members Turk,
Gutierrez, Kinion, Scroggin and Bunch voting yes. Council Members Smith, Marsh and
Petty voting no.
Resolution 187-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk
RZN 20-7115 (786 S. Sherman Ave./Corter): An ordinance to rezone that property described in
rezoning petition RZN 20-7115 for approximately 1.13 acres located at 786 South Sherman
Avenue from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to RMF-24, Residential Multi
Family, 24 units per acre.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Garner Stoll, Development Services Director gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated
there was no opposition at the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission and Staff
recommend approval.
Ricky Hill, Applicant stated our client met with staff a couple times prior to the Planning
Commission meeting and set out everything to make this application work. He stated this is a
good fit and he is happy to answer any questions.
Council Member Marsh moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council
Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Council Member Gutierrez moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Council Member Marsh seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 39 of 43
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Council Member Marsh: This is located on the box around the city. I think it is a good place
for larger intensity of development and I have received letters from neighbors in support.
Council Member Gutierrez: I got a message that someone tried to speak in favor, but they were
not able to receive a link to participate.
Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed
unanimously.
Ordinance 6330 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk
RZN 20-7112 (1101 W. Cato Springs Rd./McDonald): An ordinance to rezone that property
described in rezoning petition RZN 20-7112 for approximately 0.29 acres located at 1101 West
Cato Springs road from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial to RI-U, Residential
Intermediate -Urban.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Garner Stoll, Development Services Director gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated
no issues were identified other than the Planning Commission recommended that the RI-U District
be used rather than the RMF-24. He stated adjacent property owner concurred with that. Planning
Commission and Staff recommend approval of the RI-U District.
Damon McDonald, Applicant stated based on one of the neighbor's recommendations we
changed this from the RMF-24 and hope we can get it approved.
Council Member Marsh: This is a property that is next door to my home. I reached out to the
developer and suggested they change application to the RI-U. I feel that's consistent with how I
intend to develop my property in the future. It is very compatible with the development patterns
we see in the neighborhood. We have high density apartment buildings, duplexes and other single-
family homes across the street. I'm excited to see this plot redeveloped. I hope they pay special
attention to storm water management because it is entirely within the flood plain. I'm glad they
are working with the neighbors and look forward to seeing what they have planned for the property.
Council Member Marsh moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council
Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Council Member Marsh moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Council Member Gutierrez seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed
unanimously.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 40 of 43
City AttorneY Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed
unanimously.
Ordinance 6331 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk
C-PZD 20-7093 (NW of Deane Solomon Rd. & Lori Dr./Underwood Dev.): An ordinance to
approve a Commercial Planned Zoning District entitled C-PZD 20-7093 for approximately 128.54
acres located Northwest of Deane Solomon Road and Lori Drive to allow a mixed -use
development that includes city parkland and 602 multi -family units with associated parking.
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager gave a brief description of the ordinance. He
stated Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the C-PZD.
Ted Jack, Park Planning Superintendent stated this site is a strong site for a community park and
has great access. He stated it's right in the middle of a very weak area for parks. He went on to
give a brief description of the area.
Council Member Smith stated he thinks Ted thought we were looking at his screen and we
weren't. He stated he would like to move to extend his time by five minutes.
City Attorney Kit Williams stated first by unanimous consent if no one objects. He stated he did
not hear an objection.
Ted Jack, Park Planning Superintendent continued with his presentation. He stated one of the
recommendations from PRAB is for all the great things the Underwood's have done beyond just
the donation of the huge amount of this land, 37.5 acres is going to be donated. He stated we are
recommending naming the park after the Underwood's.
Craig Underwood, Applicant: Thank you to the Council and staff for staying so late and for the
work they put in. Laura and I purchased this property in 2017 with the intention of holding it for
three to five years on the short end but fully expecting it to be eight to ten years before we thought
it would be ready for development. Even before we purchased it, we had our first meeting with
Mayor Jordan getting advice on what he saw for the future of this area, any suggestions or
recommendations he had. During the next couple of years, we then reached out to everybody who
is on City Council. We were able to have meetings with the majority of you getting ideas and
suggestions of what your input was of what you thought would be good for the area and the
property. We reached out to developer friends, to City staff and many of the neighbors in the area
that were so vocal about some of the previous developments that had been proposed in the area.
One of the things that was important to us was to look at doing a park element on this property.
The reason the park element is so important to us is because our love of Gulley Park. We raised
our three kids not too far off from Gulley Park and we had birthday parties there, family outings
and music in the park. Great family memories and we want to be able to share that with other
people. Laura and I believe that parks are an important part of having a great community.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 41 of 43
Joe Fifer, Crafton Tull: Regarding condition of approval number one regarding tree preservation
percentages. Originally, we wanted to do a straight rezone on the property. We had some meetings
early on with the City and it was recommended that we bring it through as a PZD. Each specific
planning area mimics a zoning district. Planning Area 1 is RO, Planning Area 2 would be NSG,
Planning Area 3 P1 and Planning Area 4 RMF. The only changes we have made to the districts in
the PZD booklet have been at the recommendation of staff. We would like the opportunity to
meet the tree percentages that would be required by these districts if we were to do the straight
rezone. Currently the site only requires a tree preservation number of 20%. As of right now each
planning area will meet the 20% as currently required or higher. Regarding the variable density
in condition to approval number two this is specific to planning area one which mimics RO and
RO would have the density at 24 units per acre. We are proposing to limit the density to four units
per acre. This is based on a meeting we had with one of the leaders from the adjacent
neighborhoods. They were more comfortable limiting the density for the ten-year period and
letting it revert back to the 24 units per area that RO would allow. Conditions of approval number
three regarding improvements on Dean Solomon, due to the large value of land being donated with
a PZD we feel like our client should not have to bear the cost of road improvements along planning
area four only. It is 650 feet out of the 2,200 linear feet of road frontage along Dean Solomon. By
code we would be required to donate about 12 acres based on the 602 units. Planning area four
we decided to bank around 15 acres for future development as far as parkland numbers. The
remaining 37.5 acres would equate to $1.8 million donation in land, if you use the current parkland
formula. A full build out for a neighborhood link of 650 feet would only be around $150,000 to
$200,000 for that section of road. If the plan is approved, all development within the other
planning areas along Dean Solomon or any area with frontage would be accessed during the
developer review. We are specifically asking for a waiver for Planning Area 4 only. He touched
on the conditions from Planning Commission stating they revised the PZD to require the minimum
buildable frontage of 50% for all the planning areas and also noted parkland and right-of-way were
both considered frontage. This is just to allow the developer, based on the nature of the project,
the option to choose which best fits the proposed project at the time. It gives them the option to
do either or. Additionally, we've changed all the setback requirements in all the planning areas to
reflect the zero to twenty-five build to zone. We add the distinction if a lot had frontage on both
parkland and public right-of-way that build to zone would apply to either. This would allow the
developer in the future the option to choose based on what they are proposing.
Jim Erwin: We have always talked about the drainage with this property. The Dean Solomon
Road needs improvement but I can see with this development it could even go to a third lane and
the road is very patchy. The corridor that would be the Wilson Springs to the parkland would
allow for the animals to move freely back and forth between these two lands. My real concern is
one of the conditions that the Planning Commission made which was from Mr. Hoffman, added
the 50% forward facing houses to the park for the whole perimeter of the park. I think this is unfair
to the developer seeing how more than 50% of the park is already developed with back facing
houses to it and he said this wouldn't be secure. I ask you to think about your own house, how
much time do you spend in your front yard verses your back yard? I feel this is an undue burden
to the developer to require this and would ask that it be reduced or reworded to 50% of the new
development area or to have that removed and let the developer do what he was planning. I feel
like the Planning Commission bullied him into this and is having them to spend much more money
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 42 of 43
than what he would have had to spend. I feel this is not a fair thing for the developer to meet this
50% of the entire parkland area.
Council Member Smith: We have been talking with Mr. Underwood for almost a year now and
I appreciate the time Mr. Underwood has put into working with the neighbors to really tailoring to
what they are looking for. This is going to be a good thing for Northwest Fayetteville.
Council Member Gutierrez: It is late and there is still a lot to consider here. It is a great proposal
overall but there are some details that I would like to look at a little bit closer.
Council Member Scroggin stated he would like some more time to digest the 50% requirement
and to look at it a little closer.
Council Member Turk: Jonathan, could you and Ted provide your PowerPoint slides so we can
take a look at that a little bit more in the next couple weeks?
Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: Certainly.
This ordinance was left on the first reading.
Announcements:
Susan Norton, Chief of Staff spoke briefly about City of Fayetteville news. Information can be
viewed on the City of Fayetteville website. She stated some of the trails recently opened on the
Centennial Park at Millsap Mountain. The learners permit trail is open. People are invited to come
and experience that first level trial. There is a speak up page on the Archibald Yell project seeking
public feedback for the safety improvements. Farmers Market kick back was a week ago last
Saturday. They are doing very well with social distancing and all kinds of different safeguards so
people can go buy vegetables. The Gulley Park concert series was cancelled for the Summer.
Swimming Pool is not going to open. There is a combination of a two-year long software
development project for our Development Services team that will bring down some online
permitting. The old system will go down tomorrow for the online permitting and will resume early
next week with the conversion to the new Intergov software platform that will be available to the
different users to be able to interact with an online portal.
Chief Hardin stated the Police Department has handed out over 90,000 masks to 1,100 businesses.
He stated there are 30,000 in inventory and people can come by Station 1 get them anytime.
Mayor Jordan: Thank you to the Fayetteville Fire Department and Fayetteville Police
Department for their initiative on this and making this a very successful program. I encourage
everyone to mask up. When you go out, I want you to mask up, stay 6 feet apart, and wash your
hands frequently. Businesses be sure to have your staff and customers mask up. The numbers
were somewhat down today, but we are still in a hot spot in this state so take the virus very
seriously. Mask up, save lives and together let's stop COVID-19.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020
Page 43 of 43
City Council Agenda Session Presentations:
Agenda Session Presentation - Audit Committee Presentation of the 2019 Financial Audit.
Sales Tax Report and Energy Report Presentation.
City Council Tour: None
11:42 p.m.
Lioneld Jordan;-'.V,Yayor
RK POP
�`��•. GAT Y
•�
FAYETTEVILLE :
Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer
,9y-TkANSPS • •
did G''ON1C�},%
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov