Fayetteville City Council recap: June 4, 2024

Approved:

• Rezoning 0.90 acres at 512 N. Mission Blvd.
• Rezoning 1.86 acres at 1830 E. 13th St.
• Rezoning 0.37 acres on North Pinehills Drive.
• Accepting $122,243 for the Police Department from the Gulf Coast High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area.
• A $45,000 engineering services agreement for plans at the Mally Wagnon sewer lift station.
• An $8.3 million contract for the Gulley and Goshen pressure plane improvements project.

Denied:

• Earmarking $1 million in remaining ARPA funds for implementing early recommendations of the Housing Crisis Task Force.

Held:

• Rezoning a full block southwest of Treadwell Street and Hill Avenue.
• Rezoning 23.14 acres in the Springwoods PZD.
• Rezoning 39.41 acres in the Park West PZD.

» Download the agenda (PDF)

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.

Location:

May 21 Discussion:
The applicant said they plan to move their office into the home and use the garages as storage spaces. They said they aren’t planning any major changes to the property and that they don’t think the neighbors in the area would even notice much of a difference on the site if the rezoning is approved.

Turk said regardless of the property owner’s stated plans, she won’t support the request because she doesn’t think the allowed uses in the Neighborhood Services – General district are compatible with the area.

Wiederkehr said the owner has a history of preserving and protecting historic structures, so he feels confident there are no major changes currently planned on the land.

Hertzberg suggested leaving the item on the first reading to allow more time to consider the request.
The council agreed. The discussion will continue on June 4.

June 4 Discussion:
Turk said she’s not concerned about the current owner, but a new owner could eventually increase the density.

Decision:
The council voted 7-1 to approve the ordinance. Turk voted against.

If approved, the property would be rezoned from a residential multi-family zone allowing up to 40 units an acre to one called main street center. Both districts allow for five-story apartment complexes, but main Street center allows buildings up to seven stories in places on the property that are farther than 15 feet from the right-of-way. The current zoning allows for up to 116 dwelling units on the land, whereas main street center has no density limits.

The proposed district also allows a wide variety of other uses, but the applicants have offered a formal Bill of Assurance that would prohibit liquor stores, small-scale production and transportation services from operating on the property.

» See more about this request in our April 23 story

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.
Location:

May 21 Discussion:
During public comment, seven people spoke against the request, many who live in housing on the subject property and who were concerned about where they would live or if they could afford to live anywhere else in town if their homes are sold and replaced with a new apartment complex.

Two other people who spoke said the city needs to change its outdated zoning districts to incentivize more affordable housing construction.

Berna said it’s a tough decision, considering the potential displacement of the current residents, but the owner of the existing complex sent the council an email explaining that they are ready to sell, which means redevelopment of that property is imminent, with or without the rezoning.

Stafford said he knows the block will likely be redeveloped, but he hopes the item is left on the first reading tonight to give him more time to consider the compatibility of the request.

Turk said she’d like some clarification about how many more units could be built on the property with the requested zoning versus the existing district.

Moore said she prefers the existing district.

Wiederkehr said he’s not enthralled with student housing in general, but it’s what the city needs and this property is in an appropriate location for adding as much of it as possible. He said if people are going to be displaced by a redevelopment on the property, he’d rather the density be increased to get as much housing as the city can.

Mayor Jordan said the city needs to add 1,000 units per year to keep up with the city’s growth, and while it’s certainly a tough decision, the council should get used to making tough decisions because there are many large housing developments coming down the pike.

The council left the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on June 4.

June 4 Discussion:
The applicant requested this item be tabled until the next meeting on June 18. They said they’re taking feedback from the last meeting and making some updates to the plans. The council agreed and tabled the ordinance 8-0. There was no public comment.

This proposal from Councilmember Sarah Moore would appropriate the remaining $1 million in unallocated funds from the original $17 million in federal funds the city received from the American Rescue Plan Act toward implementing early recommendations of the task force. It also asks that the task force make those early recommendations within three months of first convening.

May 21 Discussion:
Moore offered an amendment to the original resolution with a few language changes, including replacing the word “appropriate” with “earmark” (see it here). That motion passed 8-0.

Stafford said he’d like to amend Section 2 to strike the words “and immediate” to remove what he thinks is an undue sense of urgency. Moore said she’s fine removing the entire timeline language. The council agreed and approved a second amendment 8-0. Section 2 now reads: “That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby requests that the Housing Crisis Task Force return recommendations for
appropriate use of these funds to begin addressing the housing crisis.”

Hertzberg said she’s concerned about the vagueness of the proposal in that it doesn’t name anything specific the money would be used for, when those funds could be used for infrastructure projects, such as work related to the Walker Park Master Plan, as previously planned. Berna agreed.

Two people spoke in favor of the resolution.

Jones said he’s in favor of the resolution because the council recently declared a housing crisis.

Stafford moved to table the resolution for two weeks. That motion passed 5-3 with Berna, Turk and Hertzberg voting against.

The discussion will continue on June 4.

June 4 Discussion:
There was some confusion over whether last week’s amendments were actually applied to the language, so Moore suggested tabling the ordinance to allow time for that to be sorted out. City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton said the changes were indeed recorded and applied.

Two people spoke in favor of the ordinance and one spoke against during public comment.

Wiederkehr said he’d prefer the funds go toward the Walker Park plans instead of moving them to another project. Berna agreed.

Jones said he’s aware of the plans for Walker Park and that they are important, but he said the housing crisis takes priority in his opinion. Stafford agreed, and said it was city staff who earmarked the funds for the park, not the council, so it’s not as if the council is going back on a decision it made.

Some council members said they still want to table the item. The vote to table failed with only Moore, Stafford and Jones voting in favor.

Decision:
The resolution failed with only Moore, Stafford and Jones voting in favor.

Staff said the current zoning does not allow any housing uses at all, and not only would the requested district allow for residential use, it would also bring the existing home into compliance.

Both city planners and the Planning Commission recommend the approval of the request.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted 8-0 to approve it.

This particular item is for that non-controversial portion of land.

Location:

Discussion:
One person spoke in favor of the request.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted 8-0 to approve it.

During the break, the city’s Environmental Action Committee discussed the proposals and recommended against rezoning the properties from their current un-zoned status to Urban Thoroughfare and Community Services. Highlighting the areas’ significant ecological value, the committee instead suggested rezoning the properties to Residential Agriculture to preserve their role in supporting ecosystems and mitigating flooding. The committee argued that the proposed higher density zoning could exacerbate environmental challenges.

Location:

Discussion:
Turk presented the findings from the Environmental Action Committee, which recommended a zoning district that does not allow housing. She said the reasoning was to ensure the protection of the Wilson Springs Nature Preserve.

Staff said the property was once owned by the city and was sold to a developer that agreed to preserve portions of the property in an effort to protect Wilson Springs. In determining the proposal to rezone the land now that the PZD is expired, staff said they chose Urban Thoroughfare and Community Services because the plans for the PZD were similar to what those two districts would allow.

Stafford said his concern about the recommendation of the committee is the potential of devaluing the land to the point that it can’t be developed in a way the property owner prefers, and that it doesn’t guarantee the area will be protected. He asked if the city would be at risk of legal action by changing the district to Residential Agricultural. City Attorney Kit Williams said it’s hard to say considering the history of the property and the special circumstances of the expired PZD.

Don Nelms, who owns some of the property in question, said he does not want the land rezoned as Residential Agricultural because he won’t be able to move forward with his plans to develop the land. He said through the years, he’s taken several steps to protect the surrounding area.

Several people spoke in favor of the proposal, including some of the property owners and their attorney.

Bunch said the committee’s recommended district doesn’t come close enough to the previous PZD’s allowances, so she’ll stick with the staff’s original recommendation.

Wiederkehr acknowledged the work of the Environmental Action Committee, but said that their tools are advisory rather than binding. He said he’ll support the original recommendation because of the property’s context, the existing development and infrastructure nearby, and the significant investments made by the current owner.

Berna said he was hesitant at first, but he’s ready to support the request, and noted the stringent city codes any development would have to follow.

Moore said she needs more time to consider the request, and asked if the council would leave the ordinance on the second reading. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on June 18.

During the break, the city’s Environmental Action Committee discussed the proposals and recommended against rezoning the properties from their current un-zoned status to to Urban Thoroughfare and Community Services . Highlighting the areas’ significant ecological value, the committee instead suggested rezoning the properties to Residential Agriculture to preserve their role in supporting ecosystems and mitigating flooding. The committee argued that the proposed higher density zoning could exacerbate environmental challenges.

Location:

Discussion:
The council also agreed to leave this item on hold until the next meeting on June 18.