Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 2/28/23

The Fort Smith Board of Directors study session meeting 2-28-23 began with a discussion about the rezoning for an undeveloped area at 2902-2928 Old Greenwood Road to facilitate Viguet Landing, a mixed use development including an up to 6 story building incorporating light commercial businesses, a restaurant with outdoor dining, “nicer condo/apartment units”, a parking garage, a walking trail, an indoor workout facility, a greenspace, and 14 gated duplexes. This rezoning request was denied (1 in vote favor and 8 opposed) by the Planning Commission. The denial was appealed and will go before the Board of Directors at the 3-7-23 meeting where the Board will have the opportunity to either override the Planning Commission decision and approve the rezoning request or continue to deny the request. If the request is still denied at the 3-7-23 meeting, the developer will have to wait a year to resubmit their request, or they would need to submit a request that was substantially different than the denied one, or they would need to choose to develop in a way that is already allowed for under the current zoning of the property.

Planning Director Rice clarified that the taller than usual 60 ft structure would be allowed because of the policy that allows for each horizontal foot of extra setback in excess of what’s required that the structure may be built higher vertically than what is ordinarily allowed for. She said that that provision is typically used for commercial buildings like the ACHE research center and Arcbest rather than for residential buildings, but the policy can still be applied to residential buildings and mixed use buildings, too. Director Settle pointed out the rarity of 6 story apartment complexes in Fort Smith with Gorman Towers and the Mid-town Apartments being the only examples that came to mind.

Director George Catsavis asked if a stoplight would be needed to accommodate the added traffic from the development. Engineering Director Snodgrass said that the amount of traffic would not warrant adding a light. There would only be a stop sign. Director Christina Catsavis said that she’d heard concerns from citizens about the boost in traffic and asked Snodgrass if there was a way to disburse some of the traffic. One option Snodgrass mentioned was the possibility of using the 2 access easements on the property.

Developer of the property Jackson Goodwin spoke about the planned development. He talked about the concessions that were being made in the plan already in response to the concerns voiced by neighbors. These include scaling the building size down from 9-12 stories to only a maximum of 6 stories, eliminating access on 35th street to only Old Greenwood Road instead, not allowing for tattoo or tobacco businesses, and extending the tree buffer originally planned for 20 ft to 25 ft (resulting in 14% of the property being natural trees). Goodwin said “concessions have been made at every corner”. He said that Old Greenwood is already classified as a major arterial street. He mentioned that with being where there are already utilities in place the development would have a high tax rate for the City without requiring additional new infrastructure. Goodwin pointed out that the project would be a $10 million investment in the heart of the city. He said that it “will be the nicest thing on the block”.

Director Settle expressed disappointment at the lack of a building plan being presented. He voiced a desire to see a rendering to help envision what the layout of the planned buildings and parking lots and such would be and what that would look like saying “I’m not gonna give you a yes without seeing something in writing”.

Director Christina Catsavis brought up having heard concerns about the “type of people living there” and asked about background checks for the residents. Goodwin said that background checks are possible, but that the high value of the property might help prevent some of the worries some of the people have expressed.

Director Morton said “We need residential property in Fort Smith.” He mentioned that from his experience working at Arcbest on Old Greenwood that he knows that the traffic will not be a problem. He expressed some concern about drainage down the hill but said that he has been assured that that will be dealt with properly. He also expressed a little concern about parking issues. But he said that his main problem with the planned development is the height of the 6 story building being out of character with the rest of the neighborhood.

Director Good reminded of the influx of people anticipated to be moving to town in the near future. He said that we will need rental apartments and homes. He said that he did not have a real problem with the height and while the tall building might not be seen as being a fit with the neighborhood now that the same could be said about other changes over the years. He said that with the $10 million investment and the concessions already made by the developer to address concerns voiced by the neighbors that the development “needs to be reflected on” and “We’ve got a lot to think about”.

Director Rego voiced his agreement with Director Good regarding the need for more housing. He asked how many units of housing would be included in the development. Goodwin answered that it would likely include 30 units in the tall building and up to 14 gated duplexes.

Director George Catsavis voiced his agreement with Director Morton regarding the height of the tall building. He asked Goodwin if that part of the plan is flexible. Goodwin said that the 6 stories are needed to “get the most bang for the buck” and that the building will be very nice and “something you look at and say “Wow! Fort Smith has something like that!”.

Director Martin asked about the plans for the rooftop of the tall building and if that would include a pool. Goodwin answered that it could include things like a pergola and a rooftop garden but would not include a pool.

While study session meetings do not typically allow for comments from citizens, an exception was made at this meeting and neighborhood resident Jo Carson was allowed to speak on behalf of the neighbors opposed to the rezoning for the development.

Carson talked about that the Planned Zoning District in general is a classification originally designed to give greater flexibility needed to make the most of special features like a water feature, plateau, incline, or protected forest. She said that the property does not fit that kind of special feature so it would not be appropriate for a PZD. She expressed disappointment at the lack of a rendering of the plan to help visualize but said that even if they had seen a drawing they would still be concerned about the height, safety, and traffic. She said that what sets Old Greenwood apart from other arterial streets like Rogers is that “we live there”, that there aren’t residences on Rogers. She mentioned a realtor that had told them that property values drop by 20% with multi-family residential developments going into a neighborhood. She said that child abuse doesn’t show up on the type of background checks used for rental properties and that they are not an adequate way to check for undesirable neighbors among the “kind of people that move to that area” in multi-family housing. She expressed worry about student runners and running groups that use that road being hit by a car. She talked about the unsuitability of the land itself for that sort of development including serious drainage issues especially near where the duplexes would be. She said that the tall Arcbest building is not a good comparison because it is built on a hill out of perspective visually and surrounded by forest so nobody sees it. She said “we don’t want to micromanage” what is done with the property but “want to preserve the way of life we’ve developed over a period of years and decades on that street.”

Director Good expressed his long-time respect for Jo Carson. But he voiced some counterpoints to some of her talking points. He mentioned that there are groups of runners all over town on major corridors including Kelley Highway and on Waldron Road between the University and the Mall. He also said that major corridors like Kelley Highway, Massard, Grand, and Phoenix also have residences along them.

Then the Board discussed how to utilize the funds left over from the 3/4% sales tax that was enacted to pay for the 2012 and 2014 water bonds. The tax produced enough revenue to pay the bonds off early in July-September of 2022, but by State law the tax had to continue being collected until December 31, 2022. The sales tax was renewed recently with 16.67% to go to the Police Department and 83.33% to go to consent decree required sewer repairs. That renewal did not go into effect until January 1, 2023. So there is an excess of $14,645,239 from the collection of the old tax from October through December.

The Board discussed that sales tax overage at the 2-6-22 study session and asked the Administration to bring them recommendations on how to allocate the funds. Administrator Geffken, Deputy Administrator Dingman, Finance Director Richards, Parks Director Reinert, and Utilities Director McAvoy recommend spending 100% of the funds on water and wastewater projects. Geffken expressed the opinion that in addition to that the water projects and sewer projects including consent decree sewer projects are highly needed, spending all of the money collected on water/sewer projects is in keeping with the original voter approved use of the funds.

Director Settle called the tax excess a “once in a generation opportunity to fix a problem in our city” and called for spending $4 million of those funds on the Creekmore Bathhouse and then the remaining bulk of the funds on water projects.

Director Rego agreed with Director Settle on wanting to use some money on the bathhouse. He spoke about the need for “balance” that has to be considered between projects that are visible and those that are invisible. He expressed support for the bathhouse as being in keeping with the “psychic boost” in the community from fixing something that is visibly needed instead of just subterranean projects. Director Good called the funds an “opportunity” and agreed with Settle and Rego.

Director Morton agreed with Settle. He said he is anxious to do something about the bathhouse. He suggested that they “cast a wide net” for bids to get the best possible deal on the bathhouse construction and that he felt they “ought to be able to do a lot for $2-2 1/2 million.” While he recognized that other water work needs done, he suggested that after the around $4 million be budgeted for the bathhouse that the other $10 million go to consent decree sewer work. He said that with the recent vote in favor of a sales tax renewal specifically for consent decree sewer they “should honor the spirit of what the citizens voted for” with the $10 million to consent decree work.

Director Martin said that at the previous discussion on the issue he had advocated for allocating all of the funds to the consent decree work. However, in the meantime, he has looked further into what the 2012 tax the voters approved was originally specified to go toward and that it allowed for water projects and other projects. Deputy Administrator Dingman added that it allowed for a fire station project and construction of Parrot Island Waterpark in addition to water projects. Martin expressed his view that using some funds for the bathhouse “is in reality in the spirit as it was passed by the voters”.

Mayor McGill voiced his support for using some of the funds for the bathhouse.

Director Settle motioned for up to $4 million to be used for the bathhouse in 2023 and the rest to be used for consent decree projects. The required consensus was achieved so the issue will return to the Board for a vote at a future regular meeting.