Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-05 - Minutes -Council Member Sonia Gutierrez Ward I Position I Council Member Sarah Marsh Ward I Position 2 Council Member Mark Kinion Ward 2 Position I 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 November 5, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 1 of 30 Council Member Sloan Scroggin Ward 3 Position I Council Member Sarah Bunch Ward 3 Position 2 Council Member Teresa Turk Ward 4 Position I Council Member Kyle Smith Ward 4 Position 2 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on November 5, 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. Mayor Lioneld Jordan, City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton, Chief of Staff Susan Norton, Police Chief Mike Reynolds, 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 Mayor'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, IT Director Keith Macedo, Police Chief Mike Reynolds, Fire Chief Brad Hardin, Chief Financial Officer Paul Becker, and two representatives from the IT Department. City Council Members, City Staff, and the public are participating online or by phone. Other than 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 2 of 30 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, and joining the Zoom conference by smartphone, tablet or computer. 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, so as to ensure time to be recognized. Fayetteville residents will be allowed to speak first. 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 has one turn to speak. 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. He stated sales tax has been up so far this year at 3.9%, which is doing extremely well. He stated he is very happy by the results for the sales tax. He stated franchise fees are holding their own compared to budget. He stated licenses and permits are down a bit and building permits are doing well. He stated alcohol licenses and permits are down. He stated we have losses and charges for services and many of those are Park related services. He stated there are losses in the court fee category. He stated the revenues are right around on budget for the General Fund and we're watching expenditures very carefully. He stated the General Fund is in good a shape considering the restrictions on the economy. He stated the Street Fund is up approximately 3%. He stated the Parking Fund has collected roughly 60% of the budget and it's substantially down in the Parking Fund. He stated HMR taxes are 70% of the budget through the third quarter. He stated September collections were 86% of budget, which he finds better than expected for the period, due to the restrictions. He stated we have pulled back the Parks budget for parks development next year. He stated the sales tax fund is holding steady. He stated the Water and Sewer fund revenue is up 2% and the Recycling and Trash Collection revenues are down about 2%. He stated current losses in the Airport are $450,000. He stated the Coronavirus Relief Fund was established by the federal government on March 27, 2020 with $150 billion across the United States. He stated some of the money went directly to the large municipalities and others went to the state. He stated the city will be a sub -grantee. He stated the city has had expenditures of about $1 million from the disaster fund. He stated most of that is driven by IT. He spoke about including the Town Center video capability and the IT capability to use the facility to expand the number of citizens who can come in and hold meetings there. He spoke about the personal protection equipment that was purchased 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 3 of 30 that was over $100,000. He spoke about ionization equipment for city buildings to increase the air quality for employees and citizens. He stated these things are eligible for the CARES Act reimbursement. He spoke about the City of Fayetteville being eligible for up to $2.9 million worth of reimbursements and how he proposed the handling of the funds if the city is granted the money. Agenda Additions: None Consent: Approval of the October 20, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes. Approved Ross Executive Aviation, Inc.: A resolution to approve a five-year lease agreement with Ross Executive Aviation, Inc. for office space in the Airport Terminal building at 4500 South School Avenue Suite D for rent in the amount of $275.00 per month. Resolution 270-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk 2021 T-Hangar Lease Agreements: A resolution to approve T-Hangar lease agreements in 2021 at the current rental rate or as adjusted upward by the Airport Board for all T-Hangars rented at the Fayetteville Airport. Resolution 271-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Bid #20-76 Crossland Heavy Contractors, Inc.: A resolution to award Bid #20-76 and authorize a contract with Crossland Heavy Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $212,751.03 for construction related to the installation of large slide gates for the aeration basin at the Noland Water Resource Recovery Facility, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $42,550.21. Resolution 272-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Midland Industrial Services, LLC: A resolution to approve Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Midland Industrial Services, LLC for additional services on the Noland Water Resource Recovery Facility Electrical Upgrade Project in the amount of $349,814.99. Resolution 273-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk B&H Foto & Electronics Corp.: A resolution to approve the purchase of audio-visual equipment from B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. in the amount of $66,153.65 plus applicable taxes and shipping charges, pursuant to an OMNIA Partners cooperative purchasing contract, for use in the Town Center and City Hall, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $5,000.00. Resolution 274-20 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 November 5, 2020 Page 4 of 30 Key Code Media: A resolution to approve the purchase of audio-visual equipment from Key Code Media in the amount of $41,249.21 plus applicable taxes and shipping costs, pursuant to an OMNIA Partners cooperative purchasing contract, to facilitate socially distanced public meetings at the Town Center and City Hall, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $5,000.00. Resolution 275-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Elite Building Solutions: A resolution to accept a quote from Elite Building Solutions in the amount of $76,433.60 for the installation of needlepoint bipolar ionization air purification units in city buildings, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $23,500. Resolution 276-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Bid# 20-70 T.F. Thompson Roofing - 2019 City Facilities Improvements Bond Project: A resolution to award Bid #20-70 and authorize a contract with Terra Firma Restorations, LLC d/b/a T.F. Thompson Co. Roofing & Waterproofing in the amount of $41,000.00 for replacement of the Facilities Management shop building roof, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $6,150.00 - 2019 City Facilities Improvements Bond Project. Resolution 277-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Hawkins -Weir Engineers, Inc. Amendment No. 2 - 2019 Drainage Bond Project: A resolution to approve Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Hawkins - Weir Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $273,600.00 for engineering design services associated with the project to alleviate flooding near the North College Avenue and East Sunbridge Drive Intersection - 2019 Drainage Bond Project. Resolution 278-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Council Member Marsh moved to accept the Consent Agenda as read. Council Member Gutierrez seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Unfinished Business: RZN-2020-005 (660 W. Whillock St./Mistretta): An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-005 located at 660 West Whillock Street for approximately 0.80 acres from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to RMF-12, Residential Multi Family, 12 units per acre. At the October 20, 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 Gutierrez seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Garner Stoll, Development Services Director: I do not have anything additional to add. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 5 of 30 Joseph Mistretta, Applicant: Currently, it has one duplex on it. I've decided to build two more. The density would be no higher than what's permitted right now. 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. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Turk: I want to confirm that if we do grant the rezoning, the buildings the owner described would have to go through engineering and review process and that if they are duplexes, they still will have to go through that because of the zoning change. Is that accurate? Garner Stoll: No, it isn't. If they build single family or duplex, they would be exempt from this small improvement planning process. As you know, the ordinance change we're working on would close that loophole, but that hasn't been processed yet. Council Member Turk: Thank you for clarifying that. There's a small sliver of that Hillside Hilltop district on that property. Would that be treated differently in any way? Garner Stoll: Yes. There is, I believe, a 5% increase in the tree protection. If they build a duplex or single family, presently, they are exempt from that. Council Member Turk: Thank you. Council Member Marsh: Are there any existing trees in that slice of Hillside Hilltop preservation area? Garner Stoll: Yes. Council Member Bunch: How wide is the street that we were on last night? Garner Stoll: It is 18 feet, and it is a quarter of a mile dead end. Council Member Bunch: How many existing properties are on this street? Do you know? Garner Stoll: I don't have a precise count. If I were estimating, I would say from 6 to 10. Council Member Bunch: I guess my concern is, right now there are very few houses out there, but if we put a couple more duplexes in maybe somebody else wants to put a couple more duplexes in and as it gradually builds up, how do we get a fire truck down there? Joseph Mistretta: I would estimate, there's probably more than six or eight houses. There are probably 12 houses on that street. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 6 of 30 Council Member Marsh: What does the Fire Chief say about the ability to service properties on that street? Garner Stoll: Fire Department did look at this and they felt they could access this parcel. Brad Hardin, Fire Chief. The Fire Marshals reviewed it. As far as the access goes, if they continue to build like the scenario she just talked about, they do have to provide a place for us to turn around. Council Member Bunch: Okay. Thank you, Chief. Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 6372 as Recorder/ in the office of the Citr Clerk CUP 2020-003 Cluster Housing Appeal: A resolution to grant the appeal of Council Members Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, and Mark Kinion and deny the Conditional Use Permit CUP 2020-003 for a cluster housing development and limited business with associated parking at 1629 North Crossover Road. At the October 20, 2020 City Council meeting this item was tabled for two weeks. Mayor Jordan: Garner, do you have anything new or does the Council Members that appealed this have anything they want to say? Garner Stoll: I have a slide that shows the traffic accidents that have occurred on Crossover from Missions south. At the last meeting, Council Members inquired about storm drainage, which is certainly a concern of the neighbors. The four Council Members that toured the site yesterday are very familiar with this, but the side slopes generally from east down west. The issue there is, this is a request for Conditional Use Permit, which is a zoning entitlement with conditions. It is under the city's storm drainage requirements, both in terms of retention and not increasing above the existing flows and quality protections. The engineering for that is deferred until the large scale development, which is normal Fayetteville process. It can be very time consuming and expensive to engineer storm drainage facilities. I have accident data from 2011 to 2015. Accidents are a direct reflection of the density of turn movements, so it's not surprising that the intersection on Mission and Crossover has the vast majority of those. If you look at the subject property, Inwood Lane has four in that time period, which is about one per year. There weren't any incapacitating injuries on this stretch of Crossover. I think the Council Members that were visiting the site yesterday realized how frustrating it is to exit and enter this site, but it is a function of a four lane State Highway. Eventually, I'm sure Fayetteville will want to redo this street similar to what we did north of Mission, which makes it more convenient and does reduce intersection related accidents. Richie Lamb, Applicant's Representative: The last time we spoke about the history of the project and how we've ended up at this point in front of the City Council. The last time we talked about the specific basis that would be required to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision by the Council. We have heard from the city staff, who are the professionals in these respective fields. They are educated and they've got the experience that's required to make these 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 7 of 30 types of decisions, none of which have raised concern about our proposal. We know the appeal should be denied and the Planning Commission's approval of this project should be upheld. The future of the project is something I've been hesitant to do in this forum because it could so easily be taken by some as an ultimatum. I want to say this is not an ultimatum and we do not intend it in that way, but it's important we all understand there are existing development rights by right on this property according to the existing zoning and the Unified Development Code. I think that many people who have expressed some concerns and who may have been opposed to the project, just have not considered that in detail. The current right includes the removal of any existing structures on the property and they include development of up to eight single family homes, in addition to eight accessory dwelling units, which could be considered by many, as duplexes. That's 16 units and we've only proposed 10 residential units, in addition to the limited business space. I can see how it might be easy to compare our project to what's existing on site, which is a predominantly vacant parcel, but what we're challenged with is comparing our proposal to what can be built by right, without this Conditional Use Permit. Our proposal is much better than that and it's better for everyone involved, including the neighbors. This property does lie directly on a future multi use trail, which would be right in front of the property. That will provide pedestrian access and be an excellent access for bicycles and has shown to connect this neighborhood to the Mission and Crossover intersection. We will still have to go through all of the customary permitting processes such as large scale development, where the issues of ingress, egress, stormwater management, and emergency access are all going to be reviewed again. During that process, we will have the opportunity through design to correct any issues that might arise. I am asking you to deny the appeal of the Conditional Use Permit and uphold the decision that was made by the Planning Commission to approve the project. Council Member Scroggin: Does Garner feel that this CUP would be better for stormwater retention, about the same or worse? Garner Stoll: It brings it under the stormwater retention and water quality requirements of the city, by right development. If they built single family duplex, it would not do that. Carlton Holt, 2498 East Meandering Way: My wife and I have expressed our concerns to each of you in our letters and what I talked about at the last meeting. The Council already voted against a very similar project on Whippoorwill, which is directly across 265 from Boardwalk. The property is elevated and there will be run-off to our pond. This cannot be better than the way it is now. The property is currently on the market. The development he's planning to do, is a long way from the original Smith house that you all have been so concerned about keeping. The Fire Department representative suggest a locked gate with key access available only to them. In an emergency, what part of this sounds like a good idea? There are traffic safety issues and making a left turn always is challenging. There are four schools using this intersection at Mission. Matthew Robinson, 2654 East Meandering Way: Traffic is an important issue. We looked at the number of accidents. With what the developer is proposing here, there's new commercial space in residential areas. That's going to increase the traffic and we can expect more accidents. This development affects our P. O. A. They showed fire access coming on to a private drive, which we have to maintain at our expense. Adding any additional traffic on that means we've got to maintain that even more, which will cost us more. Based on the plans submitted so far, there's going to be 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 8 of 30 lots of impervious surface, which creates more runoff and will go into our pond. The developer has talked about the homes square footage cost and it will probably be higher than the homes that we currently have in Fayetteville, so that's not helping affordability. People have said you should have bought the property, but that wasn't an option at the time. This development doesn't fit in. Wylee Hood, 1643 North Arthur's Court: I concur with so many of the concerns that have come up. We moved here years ago, and we bought into our neighborhood with the expectation that we would have houses around us that were like ours. These structures and this commercial property will run down the value of our home. There are plenty of places to build in the City of Fayetteville. Affordable housing is a concern, but we're not living in a heavy metropolitan city. There is a lot of land around here to build on and this doesn't have to happen here. Allison Boykin, 2751 East Meandering Way: In the last meeting we talked about how heavily trafficked this area was, and I did a little bit of research. There are between 72,000 and 75,000 cars per day that drive this corridor. It is a very busy area. Adding additional business to the region is only going to increase that. It's not going to increase it substantially because it's already so heavily trafficked, but it is going to add to the traffic in the area as well as the difficulty in turning out of and into the Boardwalk subdivision. I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the City of Fayetteville Police Department Records Division and they sent back the number of accidents to me from the intersection to half a mile south on Crossover. That extends a little bit beyond the Boardwalk subdivision and it shows 129 accidents. Additional businesses are only going to increase the danger of that region. I want to speak to Councilwoman Marsh's statement that we're trying to increase the density of the area in order to support public transportation. That's something that I applaud. Studies show that somewhere around 3,000 people per square mile are necessary to support public transportation. Here in Fayetteville, we are currently at 1,491 which is less than half of the required density to support public transportation. By adding cluster housing and adding commercial areas is not helping us move towards that goal. In this area, there are already nine commercially available unleased or unpurchased spaces. Rick Tanneberger, 2734 East Meandering Way stated he hoped Council got a visual of what we were talking about with traffic issues coming into an exiting the neighborhood. He spoke about three different occasions in four and a half years of traffic accidents. He stated adding another 50 cars entering that intersection seems to be inviting something bad to happen. He spoke about trying to pull out onto Highway 265. James Bell, 2723 East Londonderry Drive stated one of his major concerns is the transfer of the CUP if the property does sell because the CUP adds value to the property, and it makes it more marketable. He stated one of our major expenditures of the P.O.A is the pond. He stated he's not so worried about the drainage after construction but is concerned during construction. He spoke about the use of the private drive. Emery Scism, 2621 East Meandering Way stated he is opposed to the Conditional Use Permit. He stated he agrees with Miss Boykin's data and all the concerns about traffic. He stated adding additional cluster housing will continue to make it busier with entering and exiting the streets along Crossover. He stated drainage will continually be a concern. He stated adding commercial space on Crossover is not needed. He spoke about his neighborhood being united against this. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 9 of 30 Brooks Robinson, 2654 Meandering: In our last meeting, Miss Marsh pointed out that you liked having drivability and that you prefer the infill and housing affordability. The developers already stated that it's going to cost more per square foot. Miss Bunch, the last time you said we need to listen to our community. Our community does not want commercial buildings in our neighborhood. It doesn't belong. This developer will still make a profit, even if it's just residential and not commercial. There's no reason to add any more commercial real estate if we just need more housing. I ask that you please respect our wishes and don't change our neighborhood. As far as walkability, you'd be taking your life in hand to try to walk on that sidewalk. It's just too much traffic. Kevin Corrigan spoke about his concerns of the current and future vacant business spaces on Mission and Crossover. He stated vacant buildings attract crime. He spoke about light pollution. He stated there is only one access in and out of the project and it's extremely close to two other streets, which are Boardwalk and Meandering Way. He spoke about water runoff. He spoke about purchasing his home as a residential lot, not a commercial lot. He urged the Council to listen to the community. Duncan Johnson, 2732 East Londonderry Drive spoke about traffic and accident concerns. He stated he understands the infield concept, but part of the infill concept is to not disturb an existing neighborhood. He stated this will disturb his neighborhood and harm nature. He spoke about noise and light pollution. He stated the whole neighborhood is against the project. He stated he welcomes residential houses that match the houses in his neighborhood. He stated it is a great idea, but not a good fit. He spoke about the empty commercial buildings in his area. Mike Paslay, 2692 East Meandering Way stated in changing the zoning to allow for commercial property, completely ignores what the people in his neighborhood thought they were getting when they made life investments in their homes. He spoke about traffic concerns and children safety. He spoke about right turn traffic through his neighborhood. He stated making a zoning change so there can be a good return on the investment to the developer at the cost of the residents who bought their properties first and live there already is unfair. He stated this does not fit his neighborhood. Amanda Corrigan, 2601 East Meandering Way stated the majority of her neighbors in Boardwalk are connected with each other. She stated we support each other, and we've done so during some of the most difficult days we've ever seen in the middle of a pandemic. She stated the proposal to consider commercial structures would disrupt that connection among the community of her neighbors. She spoke about safety concerns for children, speeding problems, and loss of property values. She urged Council to look at the history of the different traffic stays conducted over the past few years. She stated during the Planning Commission meeting held recently to discuss the topic, it was evident that the members were far more concerned about how to support only the commercial build and preserving the historical structure of the vacant lot instead of preserving the well-being and interest of the Boardwalk families. She stated she believes in preserving history but doesn't believe in brushing aside the serious concerns of community residents. Council Member Bunch: Please refresh my memory on the Whippoorwill property across the street. What is the size of it and what is being proposed to be put in there? 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayettevilie-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 10 of 30 Garner Stoll: That was a request to rezone from RSF-4 to RSF-8. I don't remember the acreage but the number of homes I believe would have increased by one or two. Council chose to leave it RSF-4 and it's now being constructed. I think the issue was one or two homes. Council Member Bunch: So, with RSF-4 and RSF-8 zoning, would either one of those zonings been part of our stormwater management plan or anything like that? Garner Stoll: No. If they were proposing a subdivision, yeah. Council Member Bunch: If they're just building a couple of houses, it wouldn't change. They could fill in a pond. Garner Stoll: The other proposal that you referenced, use the lot split process, which did not bring in the storm drainage retention requirements. Council Member Bunch: Okay. Does this Conditional Use have our stormwater management applied to this property? Garner Stoll: Yes, that's correct. Council Member Bunch: I don't know how many homes are in the Summersby subdivision or what the zoning is on it, but they are fairly large homes. Some of them have fairly steep lots. Is that correct? Garner Stoll: I don't remember looking at the Summersby subdivision. Council Member Bunch: There was a mention of Summersby when it was built causing damage with runoff drainage and silt filling in the pond. I was thinking that Summersby is a little bit steeper than this piece of property, but I could be mistaken on that. Council Member Marsh: I know on Whippoorwill, a big part of the rationale for denying that rezoning request was an attempt to save that pond. Did that save the pond? Garner Stoll: No, it did not. Council Member Bunch: We were talking about what the property is zoned as now, and what could be put on the property when someone buys the property and they talk about things that can be done by right. So, by right they could put eight single family homes on there? Garner Stoll: It's actually 1.8 acres and RSF-4 theoretically allows four units per acre, but in reality, I'm confident it would be less than that. Council Member Bunch: Let's say it's six houses. So, each one of those houses, could they have an attached ADU and a detached ADU? Is there room for that? 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page l l of 30 Garner Stoll: Yes, the zoning would allow it. Whether there's room or how they would all fit or how they would all meet our requirements, is very complicated. I can't answer that. Council Member Bunch: Yes, it's very complicated. Let's say somebody wanted to build six houses and they wanted to put a garage apartment in each one of those six houses. They could probably do that pretty easily, if it's all under the one footprint. Garner Stoll: Yes. Council Member Bunch: Whether they could do a detached ADU would be debatable, but there might be a possibility that they might be able? Garner Stoll: Yes. Council Member Bunch: That's what's already there? Garner Stoll: Yes, RSF-4. Council Member Scroggin: If we didn't deny the CUP, would they be able to add those detached ADU's? Garner Stoll: Yes, they can make a proposal to do that. The cluster housing prohibits it. You can't do it under the cluster housing ordinance. It is actively prohibited. Council Member Scroggin: Agreeing with Planning Commission would actually limit the number of possible houses. Maybe not statistically, but like in a max? Garner Stoll: Yeah, you certainly could make that argument. I want to make sure the neighbors understand that if they're using a vehicle other than the lot split process, if they're going through our subdivision process and have that number of units, the storm drainage requirements would also kick in. Council Member Scroggin: The two concerns I had with this were traffic and storm runoff. It sounds like they're going to be comparable or better under the CUP. I didn't do the tour yesterday, but I'm working on a project around there. I've been driving in and out of that property for the last two weeks. I have specifically been trying to come in when traffic is pretty bad. What I saw agrees with what Garner showed us. Turning in and out there is way safer than turning in and out closer to Mission and Crossover. It is way more dangerous to turn out of McDonald's and Sonic, left or right. I've come in and out of Sonic and McDonald's a lot and the last two weeks. I chose to come in and out of this property and it matches up with the data that having people turn here is not as bad as turning 200 yards closer to Mission and Crossover. I'll probably be in support of the Planning Commission's decision on this. We need more houses. These are appropriately sized. The neighbors want houses that are very similar to theirs in size and style, but we can't dictate either of those. We cannot dictate design. The state took away that right. Somebody can put non -contextual stuff in this, whether we agree with the CUP or not. The Planning Commission got this one right. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 12 of 30 Council Member Bunch: There's an issue about the traffic. I'm trying to look at this from both sides and be as transparent in my thought process as possible. One of the things people in the neighborhood aren't really considering, is that a lot of that traffic is not just from those neighborhoods. A lot of the traffic that's on Crossover comes from those neighborhoods. A lot of that traffic comes from Elkins. There's a lot of development out there for more affordable housing. If you want to live close to Fayetteville or Springdale and you need to get into that side of town, that's the the way you're going to go. We can't stop the traffic coming in from the other side of the county and you have limited access to get to Fayetteville and Springdale from that community. One of the things that was brought up was light pollution. The city has policies about when you put lights on a building, they have to be aimed at a certain angle so that they don't shine. In a commercial building, they can't shine into to a house or something like that. When we're talking about lighting, we've already got a piece of property that someone could build single family homes. Where does that light issue and how the lighting is placed on a building come into play? Is that applicable in single family homes or is that only commercial development? Garner Stoll: That subject came up during the Planning Commission hearing. One of the three conditions the Planning Commission recommended to you is that the dwellings be subject to exterior lighting standards, which was intended to flag that issue and address it. Council Member Bunch: What would that mean for the people around this property? If we accept the Conditional Use Permit and don't deny it, what do you think that might mean for them as far as lighting? Is it going to be a light behind them or is it going to be a light shining down? Garner Stoll: It is intended to minimize that light trespass. Council Member Turk: What happens of the transferring of a CUP upon the sale of the property? How would that work if we supported the Planning Commission's decision? Garner Stoll: The future owner would be subject to everything that was part of the approval. If they wanted to exercise the ability to build this development, they would be required to build it according to the conceptual plan and all the conditions of the approval. Council Member Turk: What we've gotten from the developer is a concept plan with 10 units, but could they significantly deviate from the concept plan? Could they build 6 or 12 units? How restrictive is the CUP? Garner Stoll: Very restrictive. That concept plan is the condition of the approval. For the number of units, the size of the commercial spaces, and the rehabilitation of the historic structure are all required. Council Member Turk: So, they could not build anything larger than the square footage that's under the proposed CUP? Garner Stoll: Without an amendment, no. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 13 of 30 Council Member Turk: The amendment process would have to go back through the Planning Commission and then that could be appealed as well. Is that correct? Garner Stoll: Yes, that is correct. Council Member Petty: Garner, could go back to the basics and explain why in context of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan or other fundamental reasons, what motivated staff to recommend we uphold the Planning Commission's decision? Garner Stoll: It met the requirements of the cluster housing ordinance. It met the goals of the 2040 Plan to add a variety of housing types and attainable housing. It preserved the historic structure. We felt that it met our long range planning policies, as well as the specific ordinances that were applicable. Council Member Petty: Could you explain why our long range planning policies that you reference are recommended to be applied in this particular location of the city? Garner Stoll: It's going towards the direction of a variety of housing types in all neighborhoods. It's going in the direction towards walkability and having walkable destinations. I understand that this is a very difficult highway to walk on, but it does add the potential for commercial spaces to be within walkable distance. Not only of this proposed neighborhood, but also the surrounding neighborhood. Council Member Petty: I've been listening carefully to the public and to the Council Members for this Ward. I think you've both raised some good points that have helped me clarify my thinking. I'm prepared to support the Planning Commission's decision, primarily because of the location of this property with respect to the corridor and the major intersection at Mission and Crossover. It's important to do so because we need to transition this corridor to a more walkable and transit oriented format. I'm familiar with the metrics that were cited earlier about the feasibility of transit systems. We can also drill down a little bit closer instead of looking at the full square mile area and look at things on a corridor specific level and that can be just as valuable. It doesn't seem like it's necessarily the case that we have to serve the entire city with gold standard transit, but we do need to service a significant portion of the city with very good transit if we are going to have a chance to do our part in the climate fight. It seems like this is an important corridor for that. We don't have very many corridors like this one in the city. I looked up the traffic counts and the accident data being clustered closer to the intersection is a compelling point to me. I looked at the base traffic counts and as of 2019, there were about 27,000 vehicles per day. There's still a lot of capacity in that road, both geometrically for improvements to things like a transit system and also in terms of its raw capacity for higher vehicular traffic volumes. One point that keeps getting repeated is that new development like this will lower property values. I tried to address it at our meeting two weeks ago. It's a point that gets made frequently and often alongside claims that the proposed developments are too expensive. Either the property is destined to be too affordable and will lower property values of adjacent properties or it's going to be more expensive than what people want to see and is therefore likely to raise property values. I don't see how both of those things can be true. Property values for the most part in Fayetteville keep rising, even though we 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 14 of 30 keep approving these developments. I would expect that property values in these subdivisions will continue to rise as our profile in the country and in the region continues to rise. Council Member Bunch: If you live in a neighborhood and if someone buys a piece of property and they put something different next to your house, but it doesn't go with your neighborhood, you might think it would damage the value of your property. I've been a real estate agent for a long time and before that I was a commercial lender. I've looked at a lot of appraisals. I know this neighborhood because I live not too far from here and this whole area of town is a wonderful place to live. I've dealt with looking at sales, values, and knowing what lenders look for and what appraisers look at. If this was going to be developed for a mobile home park, it might hurt the values of your property. Appraisers look at the size of the house. If you live in Boardwalk, and you have a 2,500 or 2,800 square foot house and these houses are 1,600, there's 1,000 feet difference. They would have to dramatically markdown the value to match the square footage and they don't usually do that. They look within a mile or half mile radius and they can pick up houses that will be about the same size and age. I don't think it will damage the value of your properties in Boardwalk. We don't have a whole lot to say about the style that will be built, unfortunately. It would be nice if we had something that looked a little more similar to the houses that are nearby. It's not in your subdivision. They can't buy this property and put the houses that you have. I was one of the people that brought this appeal through, but when I look at everything, I'm having a hard time reconciling that we should not go with this Conditional Use. Council Member Kinion: Property value is speculative and subjective and that's not a lot of what I'm thinking about here. I'm not sure this is the right place for this type of development, according to the neighbors that lives there. If you want to know about stormwater runoff and traffic, you can look at charts and graphs, but the people that experience those things, are the neighbors that live there now. I'm going to support the appeal because the neighbors have valid points. Council Member Smith: Two of the main points that have been brought up here, I want to come in at a different angle. That pond is incredible looking. We've talked a lot about the drainage on it and the technical aspects of what would require increased drainage scrutiny and what wouldn't, but all of that pretends like there's not currently water flowing off of this land and towards that pond, as it is. When we were out there, there was a hefty layer of algae or scum of some sort on that pond. Do we have any more information about the current water quality and how additional runoff retention would affect that? Garner Stoll: I wouldn't want to speculate on what's causing the water quality problems. I'm sure the neighbors understand that much better than I do. It's very common that it's fertilizer and nitrogen. Things that are put on lawns contribute to it. They don't necessarily cause all those problems. Council Member Smith: If our concern is about traffic on Crossover, there's an obvious solution and that would be for the neighbors who are concerned about traffic to look at that private drive and work with the property owner and the developer to improve that. It would allow some cross connected traffic so that we could circulate through without having to add another one way in, one way out on Crossover. Increased connectivity would be beneficial for everybody. Options are good, especially when the traffic is backed up or an intersection gets blocked by an accident. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 15 of 30 Several of us have said that we're inclined to support the Planning Commission. I generally agree with that, but they added the requirement of this fence and locked gate on the back that wasn't in the original staff recommendation. I would prefer the staff recommendation over the Planning Commission, but I'm not sure procedurally how to how to get back to that. Is there a process? Garner Stoll: The Planning Commission recommended approval with the 12 staff conditions and then they added three. It's the exterior lighting, preservation of the Peter Smith house, and screening shall be provided on the west property line, in addition to the north and south. Staff had recommended north and south. Council Member Smith: Those first two they added are excellent additions. I thank them for that attention to detail, but the fence on the west side is probably going to end up being a detriment to both properties. It was such a beautiful view out there going both directions. I hate to see them put up a fence that blocks their pool from observation and turns it into one of those dark alleys. That's up to the neighborhood to decide what their priorities are on their private road. They have an opportunity to make a major improvement to what's been offered. One of the things that I have learned in my couple of years on City Council is, if you try to be everything to everybody, you're going to fail. Tonight, we heard a comment that it was not the City Council's role to ensure a return on investment of a private developer. Then the next speaker asked us not to do something that would hurt their own private property values, which is their investment. We can't do both. We can't live up to both standards. Somebody later challenged us to take action that we would personally feel good about this if we lived next to this property. I have supported things like this immediately adjacent to my own neighborhood. I feel very good about this. Property values have been talked about, but we should also consider the value of a community here. Increasing the diversity of the housing types and the people types that may live here, is going to bring a richness and greater value to this community, assuming everybody is open to that and willing to get along. I will be supporting the Planning Commission or original staff proposal if that option becomes available. Council Member Turk: This is a really difficult situation for me. On the one side, I see saving the historic house as a real plus and a great investment in the future. With the CUP, there's the requirement about the engineering of storm water drainage and the exterior lighting. That is a good positive part. On the downside, there is all the concerns from the neighbors. I always try to listen to the neighbors because they've made a tremendous amount of investment in their homes. We've talked about the traffic. That lake is already in bad shape. I would not want to put my toe in it, nor would I want my pet to drink from it. We've had a lot of hypoxic events. We've had a lot of blue green algae toxin events in Fayetteville and I'm guessing that lake has not been tested. I don't believe this contributes to affordable housing at all. Those are going to be expensive places to live. The price per square foot is going to be quite high. Maybe we are creating additional housing stock, but this is not affordable housing. Council Member Scroggin: On the private road, I agree that the buyer and public safety should be the only ones that have access to that. Even though there is a public easement, it is a private road. Unless there's some plan for the city to take on the maintenance costs of that, I would understand why they don't want that. Speaking of Meandering Way and some of the other streets, we're doing some pilot programs on traffic calming and that street is so long up there. I'm sure a 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 16 of 30 lot of the speeding is actually neighbors. We need to look at some of the traffic calming options in that area, separate from this CUP, because it's a very long dead end street. Council Member Bunch: I know this is going to increase the traffic. I wish Crossover Road through there was a better street than it is. It would make my decision a lot easier. What I'm getting down to weighing this out as, is what is there now and what by right that could be built. Somebody will develop this eventually and they could put something in there that's probably a higher density than what is proposed with the CUP and not have some of the conditions that are attached to this CUP. I wish we had some control over things like a safer ingress, egress of this property and Meandering Way and the other streets over there. Council Member Marsh: What I'm hearing tonight from a lot of people is the concern that other people driving their cars, are going to make it more difficult for them to drive their cars. If we are serious about solving traffic issues, then we all need to take the responsibility on ourselves to drive less. We can do that by investing in public transit, having trails, sidewalks and in having more services and jobs within walking distance of our homes. The other thing we can do to reduce traffic, is to build more housing in the city so that people aren't forced to buy housing outside of the city and then commute in, creating additional congestion on our major corridor, such as Crossover Road. There was concern that these neighbors might divert and drive down their other neighborhood streets. These are public streets that all of our tax dollars go to support. We need to look at the larger responsibility of providing housing in our community. I hear this argument that infill is not a good fit for this neighborhood and when we take certain neighborhoods off the table for infill, whether that's we don't let any more infill happen in neighborhoods like Park Place or Wilson park or Markham Hill, then that increases development pressure on other neighborhoods, like South Fayetteville and West Wedington. What we need to be doing is building a diversity of housing types in all neighborhoods. There are a lot of low wage jobs within walking distance of this neighborhood, but there is no low cost housing. When we segregate our housing types and we create entire swaths of our city that only have higher income housing, we're segregating our school districts as well and denying the diversity of incomes to those families to be able to live in these school districts. These have major implications beyond just this neighborhood. The argument that there's too much traffic along Crossover Road with 72,000 to 75,000 cars a day is what makes it a perfect fit for commercial development. This is an adaptive reuse of a historic structure. That's a very different type of commercial space then a strip mall down at the corner. That's going to have a different appeal and it hopefully will be more inviting to a business that is more attractive to neighborhood residents. We need more housing in the city and it's not going to happen if we all say, not in my backyard. Every time we create an opportunity for housing, it relieves pressure in competition, and it helps with overall affordability. There is a certain embodied housing costs in every home we build, regardless of whether it's 1,000 square feet or 3,000 square feet. It's still going to have a foundation, site work, kitchen, and bathroom. These are all the things that are the most expensive. Smaller housing is generally going to have a higher cost per square foot. As a realtor who runs comps every day, I'm looking to determine the fair market value of a home. I'm not going to be comparing a 4,000 square foot home with a 1,500 square foot home. That would be irresponsible of me. When we run comps, we look at things that are within 20% of the square foot size that are functionally the same in terms of number of bedrooms, bathrooms, same geographic area, and constructed within the same time period. I don't think this is going to do any damage to property values adjacent, but it gives an opportunity for more people to find housing. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 17 of 30 We need to be building as much housing as we can and putting it on our major corridors. This is a good place for housing and is a great development proposal. I believe the Planning Commission made the right decision and I will vote to uphold it. Council Member Gutierrez: Someone brought up that they want us to put ourselves in their position and would I want something like this near my house. If I was living in this size house at Boardwalk, which it sounds like three bedrooms, two baths, and if I had a family, I would have that bigger size house. I like the idea of having smaller homes nearby. As my parents are aging, it would be nice for them to be able to live near me as their income is adjusted. I could walk to a smaller place where they can live independently and visit them every day. I love that we could have a variety of housing available for a young adult as well. When we're talking about this fence that's going to be on the backside, there again, we're trying to put up barriers. I don't think that's a good idea. We need people to know that in Fayetteville we embrace and want all people to come here, no matter the different levels of income. The way we build our homes reflects that in our neighborhoods. I don't see how people feel like it's in our neighborhood because it's going to be by the major highway and if you put all those walls, there's no way it's going to be in your neighborhood. If it's such an important parcel of land to the culture, history and the part of your POA, maybe investing in the property yourselves and turned it into a beautiful park would have been a great move, but now someone else has that property. We have to consider what they want to do with that property. This proposal is very innovative. I appreciate the work that Mr. Lamb and the owner has done to bring this proposal. I'll definitely be supporting it. I want the neighbors to know that I did hear you. I hope you understand why I'm making this decision. I appreciate the preservation of the historic building for commercial use and it's very innovative. Garner, while it's under construction, what kind of measures are taken so that runoff doesn't go into the west side? How do we make sure that doesn't happen? Garner Stoll: There are requirements during construction for retaining the runoff on site. Fayetteville has very good requirements. I encourage the neighbors to monitor it and call us if anything looks like it's not being retained. Council Member Gutierrez: The sidewalks definitely need to be improved, and I agree with the neighbors on that. We need to figure out how to make those wider as soon as possible so people can enjoy the amenities around there. Council Member Bunch requested to know if there's a gate on the private drive that runs up into that area. Garner Stoll: I believe those homes are on a cul-de-sac? Council Member Bunch: Yes, but does that private drive run into the back of that cul-de-sac? Garner Stoll: I'm not sure. Whoever owns it, has control over how its accessed, unless there's an agreement negotiated. It's not part of the plan. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayefteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 18 of 30 Council Member Bunch: I'm asking about the development with that little area next to it. You've got this long private drive that goes from where the bulk of Boardwalk is, and I thought it's connected to this cul-de-sac. Garner Stoll: It does connect, but it's not open for traffic. Council Member Bunch: Yes, but it has a gate? Garner Stoll: It has a gate that prevents traffic, but pedestrians can walk through it. Council Member Bunch: It's not for fire? Brad Hardin, Fire Chief: I cannot answer that. I haven't looked at the gate you're talking about. Council Member Bunch: All right. Thank you. City Attorney Kit Williams gave a brief description on the options of voting on the resolution. Council Member Marsh: We're supposed to vote no, to uphold the Planning Commission's decision? City Attorney Kit Williams stated that will be upholding it 100%. He stated he heard a couple Council Members say they don't like the last condition the Planning Commission put on, which is the fence. He continued to briefly discuss the options. He stated if Council voted down the resolution, the Conditional Use as granted by the Planning Commission stands and the project can be built exactly as it left the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. He read the resolution again to make sure Council Members understood their voting decision. He stated if you want to have a Conditional Use remain, you vote against the resolution. Mayor Jordan: If you vote against it, then we're upholding what the Planning Commission put out there. Correct? City Attorney Kit Williams: That is correct. Council Member Scroggin moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Marsh seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution failed 3-5. Council Members Kinion, Bunch, and Turk voting yes. Council Members Marsh, Petty, Scroggin, Smith, and Gutierrez voting no. City Attorney Kit Williams: The resolution failed. Therefore, the Conditional Use is still in effect. The resolution failed 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 19 of 30 New Business: TLG Peterbilt: A resolution to authorize the purchase of three Peterbilt trash trucks from TLG Peterbilt of Fort Smith, Arkansas for the total amount of $998,764.00, pursuant to a Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract, and to approve a budget adjustment. Sara Glenn, Fleet Operations Superintendent gave a brief description of the resolution. Council Member Marsh moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Gutierrez seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed unanimously. Resolution 279-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk AT&T - Vesta 9-1-1 Portable Command Posts: An ordinance to waive the requirements of formal competitive bidding and authorize the purchase of a Vesta 9-1-1 Portable Command Post and additional required equipment from AT&T in the amount of 35,000.00 plus applicable taxes for the Central Dispatch Center, and to authorize future purchases as long as AT&T is the contracted provider for 9-1-1 services through the Washington County Department of Emergency Management. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mike Reynolds, Chief of Police gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated if the ordinance is approved it will allow dispatchers to answer 911 calls remotely. He stated this is valuable if tele-communicators are forced to evacuate facilities due to a power outage, a pandemic, or a bomb threat, which we have experienced all of those over the past 10 months. He stated the COVID pandemic has not reached its peak yet and anticipates the need to provide social distancing and facility separation for the tele-communicators in the near future. He stated this system is a critical component that will allow us to continue to protect the health and safety of our dispatchers who provide that lifeline. He stated we anticipate the purchase of the 911 portable command post to be reimbursed through the CARES Act funding. 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. 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. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 uwvw.fayetteviIle-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 20 of 30 Ordinance 6373 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Amend §111.04 Application for Permits: An ordinance to amend §111.04 Application for Permits in Chapter III Alcoholic Beverages of the Fayetteville Code and § 164.18 Supplementary Use Regulations in Chapter 164 Supplemental Zoning Regulations and Specialized Development Regulations of the Unified Development Code to conform separation requirements for businesses permitted to sell alcohol to Arkansas law. Mary McGetrick, Long Range Planner gave a brief description of the ordinance. She stated staff is proposing to bring the city's existing municipal code into alignment with state law and removing zoning restrictions associated with the current code. She stated at Agenda Session, we were asked to reach out and do public engagement in regard to local institutions that may be affected by the change in this code. She stated we reached out to over 30 institutions via email and phone and received no public comment associated with these changes. Blake Pennington, Assistant City Attorney: In March of 1996, Fayetteville voters approved the on premises consumption of alcohol. Pursuant to that election, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance 4042, which implemented regulations for on premises consumption and also updated the existing alcohol regulations we had in place. At that time, Arkansas law prohibited liquor stores from being located within 600 feet of a church or school. There were no restrictions I've been able to find either old or current on other types of alcohol permits, such as restaurants, private clubs, and cafes. In our Ordinance, Section 111.04 (E) we complied with the state law prohibiting liquor stores within 600 feet of a church or school, but the Board of Directors went further and added Subsection (F), which says that no other type of alcohol permit can be issued if the business is located within 300 feet of a church or school, unless they only sell wine. This additional restriction is nowhere in state law and I can't find that it has ever been a part of state law. In 2015, the state legislature amended the liquor store distance requirement and now any liquor store must be located at least 1,000 feet from a church or school. That is the basis for amending Subsections 111.04 (E) and 164.18 (13)(1). Those are sections one and two of the ordinance in front of you. This amendment is intended to bring our city code in line with Arkansas law with respect to the issuance of alcohol beverage permits. The Arkansas ABC Division does a thorough review of all alcohol permit applications and in reviewing the rules and regulations of the ABC Board, Section 1.21 provides that the ABC Director and the board may consider among other relevant factors, the potential impact of the proposed outlet on churches and schools in the area as well as opposition or support comments from adjacent property owners or nearby area residents to any application for an alcohol permit. Council Member Turk: Mary, you mentioned that you all had reached out to 30 institutions. Were those primarily churches or was it also to the to the Superintendent of schools? Can you better characterize those 30 institutions? Mary McGetrick: It was primarily churches. We had one synagogue. I can provide a list if that would be helpful. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 21 of 30 Council Member Turk: That would be great. I'd appreciate it. I'm wondering why the school wasn't notified. I want to make sure they're aware of this change and if they have any concerns. Mary McGetrick: I'd be happy to reach out. Council Member Turk: Thank you for the work that you've done and continue to do. Mary McGetrick: I'll definitely provide you a list of the organizations that we reached out to. Council Member Smith: When we update our city code to match the state code and then they go change it again, and we always find ourselves following up with that. Does this put us in the state where we're incorporating it by reference, so we don't have to keep doing that? Blake Pennington, Assistant City Attorney: Yes. That language in Sections 1 and 2 that talks about, and any future amendments thereto will allow us to comply with whatever changes are made in the future. Council Member Smith: Staff will be able to respond to that in the permitting process and it won't have to come back here again. That's a good idea. Blake Pennington, Assistant City Attorney: Correct. I would note that in almost every case a business is going to go apply to ABC first and then they'll come to the city. ABC is on top of those distance requirements and we'll know how far they are from a church or school. That decision should already be made. Council Member Turk: I would like to hold it. I want to make sure the schools are notified that we're making this change. If we could hold it on first reading, I would appreciate that. Council Member Bunch: I'm kind of ready to go with it. We're going to hold it, notify the schools and then what are we going to do? Council Member Turk: If we held it for two weeks so that the schools were notified, it gives the other institutions that have already been notified an opportunity to provide any support or concerns, and then we would hear it in two weeks. I want to make sure, because it is alcohol and that there is adequate notification and that people are aware of it. I don't have any concerns with this. I want to make sure the word is out. Council Member Bunch: Blake, what is our policy with something like this with notification? We are talking about an antiquated idea of something we have had on the books for a long time and we're changing it. What is our policy with notifying businesses and nearby property owners? Is it anything similar to what we do with Planning Commission? Blake Pennington, Assistant City Attorney: I don't think there are any notification requirements in the code for an ordinance like this. Kit may be able to tell you historically what the Council has done on similar items. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 22 of 30 City Attorney Kit Williams: We have had to make changes to the alcohol code before. That could be done by the City Council. Some of these were done to allow it by the citizen vote, but in the past, we have basically made the change, especially when it was to comply with state law. That's one of the primary reasons to try to do this and then always follow state law from here on out. Mayor Jordan: All we're doing is bringing this in line with state law. Council Member Marsh: I don't see any reason to delay on this. I would like to see us move it forward and get it taken care of tonight. Council Member Marsh moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council Member Petty seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-3. Council Members Marsh, Petty, Scroggin, Bunch, and Smith voting yes. Mayor Jordan voting yes. Council Members Kinion, Turk, and Gutierrez voting no. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Gutierrez: I agree with Council Member Turk. Two weeks isn't going to hurt to hold it at this reading. That's why I voted to not forward it. Can we stop it at this one? Mayor Jordan: Yes, if you want. What are the wishes of the Council? Council Member Petty 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 6-3. Council Members Marsh, Petty, Scroggin, Bunch, and Smith voting yes. Mayor Jordan voting yes. Council Members Kinion, Turk, and Gutierrez voting no. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 6374 as Recorded hi the of jice of the City Clerk RZN 2020-012 (226 & 300 S. Gregg Ave./Holst-Powell): An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-012 located at 226 & 300 South Gregg Avenue for approximately 0.37 acres from I-1, Heavy Commercial & 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 it's consistent with our plans. He stated it's a remnant that's left. He stated the residential uses align with our future land use plan. He stated we received no comments from the public. He stated the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval. He spoke about Downtown General. He 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 23 of 30 stated that long range planning has been diligently working on a trail side economic development plan and they are on the agenda toward December 1, 2020 to propose that plan and to ask for authorization to initiate code changes that make it difficult for trail side economic development. Maya Damet-Powell, Applicant: My mom, Patricia Powell owns one of the properties. I live on the property and it's been a residential home and the property next to us is our neighbor and he has a home that has four apartments in it. We were looking to add an addition for a bedroom, because my daughter and I live here. We asked for a building permit and that was when we were informed that it was an industrial site and we could not add an addition. We are looking to rezone so that we could just add an addition on. This is a 100-year-old house. We're not looking to change much, and it makes sense for the area. Council Member Smith: Garner, by not putting Downtown General right here on a narrow street, can you explain what the downside might be in light of the big swath of Downtown General we got here with no frontage at all? Garner Stoll: The requirements of the Use Unit 45, Small Scale Production, it also includes Use Unit 42, which is Clean Technologies Microbrewery, Micro Wine, Micro Distillery, Boutique Specially Manufacturing up to 5,000 square feet. It also includes Use Group 42, which is Energy Fabrication. These use groups are associated with many of our heavier or mixed use district. I'm not saying they do bad things, but this is a very narrow street and it's residential. My question was whether Council wanted to add these uses as allowed uses. City Attorney Kit Williams: The applicant is asking for our RI-U and not Downtown General. Garner Stoll: That's correct. City Attorney Kit Williams: Why are we discussing Downtown General? Susan Norton, Chief of Staff Garner, can you explain why you had mentioned Downtown General when the applicant has asked for RI-U? Garner Stoll: Yes. I was responding to the agenda item question, trying to preempt it that it might come up. A week ago, I was asked the question, what district would allow a Use Unit 45. Downtown General is right next door. So, that's why I discussed it. 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. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 24 of 30 Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 6375 as Recorded in the office of the Cite, Clerk RZN 2020-013 (420 E. Rebecca St./Bush): An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-013 located at 4200 East Rebecca Street for approximately 0.29 acres from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8 units per acre. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Garner Stoll, Development Services Director gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated it's an unusually large lot for this neighborhood. He stated surrounding zoning is RSF-4 and is designated as a residential neighborhood area. He stated there weren't any issues identified. He stated the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval. Rachel Bush, Applicant: I agree with the findings of the report. I would encourage City Council to consider supporting a proactive rezoning of the Gunner addition, as well. The majority of the housing in the neighborhood is more in line with RSF-8. It would bring the existing lots into conformity and permit additional housing so more people could live in our beautiful and walkable neighborhood. Council Member Marsh 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 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. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 6376 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk R-PZD-2020-001 (East of E. Sain St./Trails on the Creek): An ordinance to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District entitled R-PZD 2020-001 for approximately 20.77 acres located east of East Sain Street to allow the development of 321 multi -family units with associated parking, parkland, and tree preservation areas. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 25 of 30 City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Garner Stoll, Development Services Director gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated this particular proposal represents a lot of work by the applicant interacting with the neighborhood. He stated the residential units would all front the future Sain Street, which is about to go under construction. He stated the land that was in question that is zoned RMf-24 that has floodplain associated with it and steep slopes and is tree covered, would be dedicated as a park and as a tree preservation area. He stated the Planning Commission wanted a four-way intersection to create a little bit of traffic calming at this location. He stated they shifted many aspects of this plan and it's a stronger plan now than it was when we started. He stated issues that have been discussed extensively is development in the floodplain and whether or not the accepted dedication of the parkland, which includes floodplain would help with our FEMA community rating system. He stated it does help. He stated another issue discussed was the park not having eyes on it, and whether it created security problems. He stated it was reviewed by the Police Department and their finding is that homeless people tend not to locate where there aren't services. He stated at this point, there isn't that much of a problem at this location. He stated the recommendation of the Planning Commission was to approve the apartment complex Planning Area 1, but not accept the park dedication or the tree preservation. He stated staff does recommend that you approve all three. He stated there are two additional conditions, and these are more in the area of clarification, so there's not any misunderstandings in the future. He stated Use Unit 1 is simply city wide uses by right and it had not been in their proposed uses for Planning Area 3. He stated we are recommending that it be included, which is typical. He stated the implied in Planning Area 3 would be the dedication of a tree preservation easement, but we thought it's good to put it in writing, so everybody understands. Ted Jack, Park Planning Superintendent: There are several different reasons why we think this would be a valuable park addition to the city. It has gone to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board twice and they reaffirmed their position that they thought this should be a park. Some of the reasons we think this works well has to do with the type of park this is. This is mainly a conservation park. It does have a little bit of a neighborhood park function. I could see a picnic area close to the trailhead. Another point to remember from our strategic planning is that citizens wanted us to create and maintain natural spaces in the city and this site could do a great job of doing that. The trails are really strong in helping with an active living lifestyle. Another point to consider is that we already have a lot of parks like this is in the city. These kinds of spaces are really important. All parks have risk and you can't mitigate it completely. There are management things we can do if the city owns the land. There's an existing parkland there and this knits into that existing parkland, further strengthening it as a conservation corridor. This provides a nice spot where people can have interaction in nature in the city. One of the strong points is when looking at the Transportation Plan, there was this connection and we can add a new trail that both energizes the park, but also provides a lot of connection to all these houses to the south to get to Mud Creek. We think the addition of this to the park system is a strong addition. Hugh Jarrett, Applicant's Representative: We were here with this with a similar proposal about a year ago. Mayor. Jordan, you told us to work together and come up with something that we can all live with. I think this is an example of something that really fits that bill. We got with our neighbors, city staff, and Parks Department to come up with a development that everyone supports. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 26 of 30 The Planning Commission supports the apartments side of this. Our neighbors and park staff approve of the development side. It fits within the 71 Corridor Plan. It fits within the future land use plan and it fits within the 2040 Plan. We made a commitment to the neighbors to try to preserve that area. We made a commitment to the Parks Board to try to donate that to the city and we want to see that happen. Council Member Turk: I want to commend everyone for all the hard work they put into this to bring us something back that looks pretty good. My one concern is FEMA and the issue with being so close to Mud Creek and also sort of in the floodplain. Hugh Jarrett: We've worked with Alan Pugh who is the Floodplain Administrator. We're not inside the flood way. There are guidelines to build within the floodplain. We're going to try to work with city engineering. Sain Street is getting ready to blow right through there. It will be elevated and it's going to change that whole area. We are trying to work with city engineering to handle stormwater and all work together for this site. It can be done in a safe manner. Council Member Turk: One of the many reasons I'm most concerned about Mud Creek is that it does flood. It also runs into the Illinois and Illinois is still on the 303 D list of streams in Arkansas. I hope if this is approved, that there is a real heightened consideration for any damage or any change to the hydrology of that. Everything flows downstream. Over at Siloam Springs, they're going to put in a big white water park. That's also on the river. I want to make sure that whatever development we approve does not contribute in any way to making that situation worse. Garner Stoll: One advantage this site has that some don't, is that Mud Creeks floodway is generous and wide. Much of the land Ted Jack mentioned that we already own is floodway land, most of that 20 acres. When you develop floodplain, it's always a problem, but I'm pointing out this has opportunity to do it better than most developments that are squished with the floodway and much of the trails within that floodway. Council Member Smith: It's a pretty big parkland dedication, which I love. Are they banking any additional park donation credits for later development with this? City Attorney Kit Williams: To bank parkland, it has to be approved by the Planning Commission. I don't think there's been any banking of parkland. They are fulfilling all the parkland needs for their development, but nothing beyond that to my knowledge. Garner, is that right? Garner Stoll: Yes, that's correct. They're meeting their preservation requirements, also, but that's in the other planning area. They are not double dipping. They have enough for both. Council Member Smith: This won't be something that Council sees again in 3 to 10 years? This is just for this one? Garner Stoll: That's my understanding. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayefteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 27 of 30 Brenda Wallner, 3582 North Buckingham Drive stated this process started over a year ago and this is a very generous donation to the park and the city. She stated this is a great plan and supports the development. Mike Wallner, 3582 North Buckingham Drive stated different groups were able to come together and come up with a solution to build a really good plan. He encouraged Council to vote in favor of the ordinance. Damon Lipinski, 3566 North Buckingham Drive stated they have worked hard with the neighbors, developers and the Parks Commission to be consistent with what is appropriate for the city. He spoke about sightlines, lighting and cameras. He spoke in favor of the ordinance. Sarah Moore, Ward 2 spoke about the homeless population and housing challenges. She stated whenever we're having conversations about public spaces, she wants to hear more about inclusivity. 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 7-0. Council Members Kinion, Petty, Scroggin, Bunch, Turk, Smith, and Gutierrez voting yes. Council Member Marsh was absent during the vote. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Scroggin: I want to thank the applicant for going through the PZD process. It takes a lot of extra work, but as we start squeezing tighter in and try to buffer, the PZD is probably going to be the method they need. I appreciate them going through that process, even though there's a long commitment and cost. Council Member Scroggin 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 7-0. Council Members Kinion, Petty, Scroggin, Bunch, Turk, Smith, and Gutierrez voting yes. Council Member Marsh was absent during the vote. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Jordan: Thank you to the applicant for the work on this and getting it all worked out. Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Members Kinion, Petty, Scroggin, Bunch, Turk, Smith, and Gutierrez voting yes. Council Member Marsh was absent during the vote. Ordinance 6377 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk MCCI, LLC: A resolution to accept a quote from MCCI, LLC in the amount of $29,400.00, pursuant to a National Cooperative Purchasing Alliance contract, to digitize city records and 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayeffeville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 28 of 30 authorize the purchase of additional services as needed through April 30, 2022, and any future renewal periods. Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer: Next week, I'll be with the City of Fayetteville and appointed to this position for almost a year. I thank you for putting me on the City Clerk team. This project is another streamline we've done. We have been able to go through all of our software in the City Clerk office and fully utilize it, to not only help our office, but to help our external customers and our internal customers. We work as a team at the City of Fayetteville and leadership comes from the top down from Mayor Jordan. We work every day with one another, whether we're on Zoom calls or we're here in the office. In getting this project completed, this would allow our Document Management Manager to not only further social distance and have more telework ability but help our Development Services Department to be able to fully access information when a FOIA request is received. This allows us to get information to the public faster. It allows us to get information to our departments faster and it creates more time in the City Clerk office to help the next person. Mayor Jordan: Thank you, Kara. That is very good work. Council Member Turk moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Gutierrez seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed 7-0. Council Members Kinion, Petty, Scroggin, Bunch, Turk, Smith, and Gutierrez voting yes. Council Member Marsh was absent during the vote. Resolution 280-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Appeal RZN-2020-009 (6061 W. Dot Tipton Rd./JRJBCS, Inc.): An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-009 located at 6061 West Dot Tipton Road for approximately 39.88 acres from R-A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Garner Stoll, Development Services Director: The applicant is represented by Robert Rhoads. Mr. Rhodes has indicated the applicant wishes to add territory and substantially change this request. They are requesting that the City Council refer the request back to the Planning Commission. Robert Rhoads, Applicant's Representative: It would be a waste of time to present what we had proposed originally to the Planning Commission, because we've doubled the land size. What we plan to do is put together another request for rezoning that will be considerably different than what we had before. I worked with the city planners, as well as Kit and this is the best way to get this achieved. Please send us back to Planning Commission, where we will do a full presentation of what our rezoning request will look like. Mayor Jordan: You want to send the whole thing back to the Planning Commission? 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 29 of 30 City Attorney Kit Williams: According to our Unified Development Code, the City Council can by motion, return the proposed rezoning to the Planning Commission for further study and recommendation. Council Member Smith: Could you outline the rationale behind the Planning Commission's decision? Garner Stoll: The staff and Planning Commission viewed this as the far edge of the city. The surrounding infrastructure is very narrow streets. The surrounding development is very low density with large lot. The proposed development was RSF-4 and it was not a proposal for a variety of housing types. It kind of didn't fit into our view of our Planning policies for this area. Council Member Smith: I have a hard time seeing what benefit we will get from sending this back to have it almost doubled in size, when that's the rationale. I don't see how that's going to address the concerns. I'm afraid we are wasting Planning Commission's time, especially in light of some recent conversations at Transportation Committee about Persimmon improvements. I'm not at all confident that we are prepared to make the public investments in the infrastructure that surround this to support it. Just to the north of here, we recently had a conversation where we denied some rezonings on the grounds that even though it's a designated growth node, it's not time yet and that's a space for the future. That same logic will apply here until we are solidly committed to upgrading the infrastructure around Persimmon and 54t' where Dot Tipton comes out. I don't see how it is useful to send this back for an even larger land area consideration at this time. Robert Rhoads: I would hope that what we present to Planning Commission will not just be larger, but it will be requesting different zoning designations than what we had before. I hope that wouldn't be a waste of time and it might be something that instead of denying it, maybe they'll send to Council with a recommendation. That's our goal. Council Member Turk made a motion to refer the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Council Member Gutierrez seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1. Council Members Kinion, Petty, Scroggin, Bunch, Turk and Gutierrez voting yes. Council Member Smith voting no. Council Member Marsh was absent during the vote. Announcements: Susan Norton, Chief of Staff stated her appreciation for staff at Recycling and Trash. She stated they were nationally honored for 2020 Outstanding Community Government Program for Food Waste Composting and Recycling Program. City Attorney Kit Williams: We have been informed that the Markham Hospitality Owner, LLC Access Easement, which was tabled indefinitely on June 4, 2020 are seeking to have that brought back at the next meeting. Planning is going to do re -notification. They'll be asking to have that removed from the table at the next Council meeting. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2020 Page 30 of 30 City Council Agenda Session Presentations: Sales Tax Report - Paul Becker Energy Report - Peter Nierengarten Public Safety Campus Site Design Presentation `�oiIII IItFfI� ���� \AR K G1T Y * �.'9�n�'.� �` •. G Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treagurer ETTEVILLE : �= ANSPS ..• 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov