The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-0695 (4) CityClerk From:CityClerk Sent:Monday, August 15, 2022 5:27 PM To:Bolinger, Bonnie; Pennington, Blake; Brown, Chris; Bunch, Sarah; CityClerk; Curth, Jonathan; Harvey, Sonia; Hertzberg, Holly; Batker, Jodi; Jones, D'Andre; Kelley, Courtney; Kinion, Mark; Johnson, Kimberly; Rogers, Kristin; Williams, Kit; Jordan, Lioneld; Mathis, Jeana; Paxton, Kara; Mulford, Patti; Rea, Christine; Scroggin, Sloan; Norton, Susan; Thurber, Lisa; Turk, Teresa; Wiederkehr, Mike Cc:kyle.smith@kyle4fay.org Subject:FW: Vote FOR: C7 Rezone @ Palmer & Hartman Hello, This comment will be archived on the City of Fayetteville's website under the Agenda Public Comments for the City Council meeting date that your comment corresponds with. This comment will not be displayed in the agenda item packet. Please see the link below for your convenience. http://documents.fayetteville-ar.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=9096659&dbid=0&repo=COF As a courtesy future reference, if you have a comment about a City Council agenda item, you may email your comment directly to the City Council and Mayor at: agendaitemcomment@fayetteville- ar.gov Thank you. Office of the City Clerk Treasurer 113 W. Mountain Street, Suite 308 Fayetteville, AR 72701 479.575.8323 cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Kyle Smith <kyle.smith@kyle4fay.org> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2022 7:46 AM To: Mayor <Mayor@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Gutierrez, Sonia <sonia@voteforsoniag.com>; Jones, D'Andre <dandre.jones@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Kinion, Mark <mark.kinion@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Wiederkehr, Mike <mike.wiederkehr@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Scroggin, Sloan <sloan.scroggin@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Bunch, Sarah <sarah.bunch@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Hertzberg, Holly <holly.hertzberg@fayetteville-ar.gov> Cc: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Vote FOR: C7 Rezone @ Palmer & Hartman CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Bottom Line:  Please support the appeal of RZN-22-029 from RSF-4 to RI-U.  Please vote against the addition of a Bill of Assurance limiting the number of units in excess of the zoning requirements. The property in question is addressed on Palmer Pl, but as a corner lot it has nearly as much frontage on Hartman as well. Planning Staff recommended approval of the rezoning in accordance with the adopted city plan, while the Planning Commission (with two absences) cast a split vote, with some questioning compatibility with the surrounding area. RI-U only allows housing, which is perfectly compatible with an area full of housing. I strongly encourage you to attend the tour planned on Monday and view the wider area for yourself. Here's what you will find on site: This property is steps from the University. It is less than a block away from some very classy (and large) RMF-24 zoned duplex townhouses. It is immediately adjacent to an RMF-24 apartment complex on the rear property line. The nearby homes to the north were built from the 60s-80s in typical style, and are nearing 2nd and 3rd remodels or redevelopment as their upkeep allows. Many struggle with poorly managed storm run-off that is resolved in redevelopment under modern standards. As a corner lot, it could easily support new construction facing both Palmer and Hartman with minimal impact on either one. Next door to this property (to the south) are a pair of cottages that are already non- conforming to the existing RSF-4 zoning. Why you should approve this rezoning: One thing is certain: this property will be redeveloped. The existing structure clearly has issues during the rain, as you can see from the garage sandbags and gravel rutting. So the question is what will be rebuilt here. RI-U will allow the next incremental step up for this property. It will continue the smooth transition the adjacent cottages provide between the neighborhood construction from the 60s, 70s, and 80s to the newer and denser construction to the south by allowing a non-apartment solution in the middle. Some have begun to villainize RI-U as too dense due to its lack of a statutory density limit - but keep in mind it is still subject to all the practical limits of tree preservation, street access, lot setbacks, and market demand for the area. (On a larger policy level, it would be worth taking some time to investigate why so many applications for RI-U are coming through: It is more flexible and allows property owners to adapt their plans to the local context, whereas most of our RSF zones are highly limiting.) Here is an in-town example of a corner lot redeveloped under RI-U zoning: 2 Leaving this property as RSF-4 will have consequences too. I'm sure someone will object to RI-U on the grounds that the resulting homes will not be "affordable". And it's true: new construction these days is expensive. But a single-family redevelopment alternative can be seen right around the corner at 20 Garvin. For RSF-4 redevelopment to make financial sense, the home must be even larger and more luxurious to cover land and construction costs. I love this building but I don't think it serves the goals of preserving neighborhood character, providing attainable housing, or conserving our tree and water resources. This is what we get when we prohibit the next logical development. 3  Multiple smaller units developed under RI-U will allow for more flexibility to retain existing tree canopy than a single large structure under RSF-4.  Multiple smaller units developed under RI-U will allow for better management of storm run-off than a single large structure under RSF-4.  Multiple smaller units developed under RI-U will fit the neighborhood context better than a single large structure under RSF-4.  Multiple smaller units developed under RI-U will still be expensive, but will be more attainable than a single large structure under RSF-4.  Multiple smaller units developed under RI-U will be homes for more residents than a single large structure under RSF-4. Please DO NOT Accept the Bill of Assurance: The Bill of Assurance is not necessary. It is a diversion from our standard zoning code and creates added complexity for enforcement. Bills of Assurance are forever. This will limit the future value of the land 50-100 years from now and I don't believe you are in an adequate place to judge the needs of Fayetteville that far out. If the zoning codes are routinely inadequate, change them. BoAs are useful for addressing site-specific concerns like the preservation of significant trees, streams, views, etc, but should not be employed to restrict functions like lot size and housing density that are already addressed in the zoning code. Specifically, the offered BoA limits the right of a homeowner to use the city's Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance and that line should be stricken from the BoA if it is ultimately accepted. The developer would not offer the BoA if it weren't compatible with their current building plans, so it's hard to see what you gain from it in the near term. The offered BoA only addresses the number of units and does not address any of the existing tree canopy which would be much more beneficial to guarantee in perpetuity. The offered bill of assurance is not necessary. Our zoning code provides all the necessary protections the BoA claims to provide without tying the hands of future generations who will face different challenges. With or without the added restrictions, the proposed RI- U zoning on this property is still preferable to the current RSF-4 zone. Summary: You can't legislate to retain the past, only to shape the future. So please let go of the nostalgia for the quiet 60s neighborhood and address the future needs of a growing campus population and an aging housing supply. Please vote to reject the offered Bill of Assurance. And please vote to support the appeal in either case. - Kyle Smith kyle.smith@kyle4fay.org 479.274.8881 Facebook | Twitter | Website 4