Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 3/7/23

The Fort Smith Board of Directors meeting held 3-7-23 began with a unanimous vote in favor of a resolution that sets the process in motion to change the name of Fire Station 1 to Phil Christensen Fire Station 1 in honor of Fire Chief Phil Christensen who passed away recently. A 4 week period for public commentary will begin, and then a second resolution can be made to officially rename the station.

Director Rego called the renaming a “small but very important token of respect and gratitude.” Director Settle suggested that a plaque with names of the other firefighters who served under Christensen be included in the new signage since Christensen was always “about his team”. Director Morton called Christensen an “outstanding individual”.

The hottest item and longest discussion of the night were Board votes on Master Land Use Plan changes and rezoning changes for an undeveloped area at 2902-2928 Old Greenwood Road to facilitate Viguet Landing, a mixed use development including a 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. The rezoning request was denied by the Planning Commission and came to the Board of Directors on 3-7-23 for an appeal of that decision. The development was the subject of discussion at the last study session meeting.

Fort Smith resident Mike Smith spoke in opposition to the development. He expressed concerns about visibility for drivers at Boston and Old Greenwood, concern for kids riding bikes in the street, and traffic using the street as a short cut to Hendricks and Cliff to avoid lights. He said “If you have enough money you can get your project through”.

Director Rego sought clarification for the difference between the Master Land Use Plan change and the zoning change and why the two are being voted on separately in this development when they are more commonly heard together and why the MLUP was approved by the Planning Commission and the zoning issue was denied by the Planning Commission. Planning Director Rice clarified that the Master Land Use Plan is more broad than the rezoning. She said that Planning recommended the Master Land Use Plan change because they saw the site as appropriate for potential mixed use development but they denied the rezoning to a Planned Zoning District because they did not necessarily agree with the specifics submitted in the PZD booklet.

Director George Catsavis said that he originally favored the development but has changed his mind in response to feedback he’s received from citizens on the issue. He mentioned a desire to “try to balance quality of life with development”.

The vote to change the Master Land Use Plan passed with Directors Good, Morton, Christina Catsavis, and Rego in favor of the change and Directors George Catsavis, Settle, and Martin in opposition to the change. Because the change did not receive the required 5 votes, the ordinance will be read again at the next meeting and there will be opportunity to call for another vote if the Board desires.

Jackson Goodwin spoke as a representative for the developers of the property (his parents). He called the project the developers’ “passion project” and said that the 3 different zoning designations on the property currently don’t allow for effective use of the land. He said that everything being proposed for the development is currently allowed on the property, just not all in the same building. He spoke of the concessions made to address the concerns voiced by neighbors in the area including using 14% of the total property as a tree buffer, only allowing access to Old Greenwood and only through 2 access points, and limiting the tall building to only 6 stories instead of 9. He mentioned the development being a $10 million project in the heart of the city. He called the area on a main arterial street “meant to have this type of development on it”. He said the development “wants to be a good neighbor”.

Director Morton asked about how much of the existing tree coverage will remain in place and voiced support for a tree barrier to provide privacy on the downhill streets. . Goodwin answered that it is the intent to leave all the trees along the 25 foot buffer area along the perimeter. Director Morton asked about drainage. Goodwin answered that it will adhere to all city standards for drainage. Director Morton asked if as the property is zoned now someone could build an 8 story building on it. Goodwin and Rice both answered yes. Rice clarified that in the part of the lot with one type of existing zoning it could only be an 8 story single family dwelling, but in the part currently zoned commercial light it could be be an 8 story multifamily building. Director Morton voiced his concern that if the Board did not approve the development that the current owner might sell the land instead to someone who would build an 8 story building that would be a “less desirable situation in terms of people concerned about height”.

Director Settle voiced his frustration at the lack of a development plan and drainage plan and pointed out that it is very common for PZD requests to include a plan, even ones far smaller than a proposed $10 million development. Settle suggested the issue be sent back to the Planning Commission to request a development plan.

Fort Smith resident Drew Smith spoke in support of the development. She supported it as a “work, live, play, situation” and praised its walkability. She said it “would be an asset for Fort Smith.”

Jo Carson, a resident of the neighborhood near the proposed development, spoke in opposition to the development. She mentioned the high turnout and involvement from neighbors regarding the issue including many who have been to 7 meetings so far about it. She said that the Board “doesn’t have enough information to overturn the Planning Commission” on the PZD zoning. She said that the planned architecture is not compatible with the neighborhood.

Roddy Yates, a resident of the neighborhood near the development, spoke in opposition. He said the “application has flaws”. He called for keeping the neighborhood a “neighborhood people want to come live in”. He expressed a preference to see the land behind 34th developed with single family houses.

Neighborhood resident Sarah Hozier spoke in opposition to the development. She expressed concerns for the safety of high school students that run on Old Greenwood road from traffic. She expressed concerns about privacy and the potential of being recorded from the tall building and fear of her sons “being preyed upon”. She also questioned whether the developer truly intends to build the development and isn’t just getting the zoning change as an “enticing marketing pitch” to sell off the property.

Neighborhood resident Susan Treat spoke in opposition to the development mentioning safety concerns for runners especially near the entrances and exits of the development.

Neighborhood resident Steve Treat spoke in opposition to the development voicing concerns about drug users and sex offenders that live with other people. He encouraged background checks for residents. He encouraged the Board to leave the zoning as it is saying “We’ve got a great community and I’d like to keep it that way.”

Shawn Reeves who will someday be an heir to three homes in the neighborhood spoke in opposition to the development. She mentioned concerns about a decrease in property values. She said all rental property, even that that is supposed to be luxury property, becomes a “trashy place”. She called the development an “absolute slap in the face” to people who have helped “to build and maintain the integrity of the area”.

Neighborhood resident Chris Rhodes spoke against the development calling the large tall structure “daunting” in a residential neighborhood. He also questioned if the people living in the tall building would be “only outstanding citizens or peeping Toms and pedophiles” peering into nearby yards.

Director Rego called the rezoning an action to “clean up a mishmash of zoning” on the site. He mentioned that the plan features concessions to address neighbors’ concerns. He said “a “No” vote does not guarantee the stoppage of vertical development on this property.”

Director Settle reminded of the recent controversial rezoning issue at Brooken Hill and Jenny Lind that never was actually developed. He called the “broad” PZD “speculation”. He said he “wouldn’t want to live in this neighborhood” with that behind it. He said that there are “other areas in the city this fits with”. He reminded of the Planning Commission’s “massive denial” of the request with only 1 in support of the development and 8 opposing it and encouraged the Board to vote with them and deny the rezoning or else send the issue back to Planning for a development plan.

Director Morton acknowledged that the issue is a “difficult issue for the Board”. He asked Goodwin if he would put his personal and professional reputation on the line about this development. Goodwin said that he and the developer are “100% behind this” and added that the developer himself runs on Old Greenwood every morning. Director Morton said “We want something we can be proud of.”

Director Good said that ““What Ifs” don’t always come to pass in the negative sense” and that previous things that they didn’t think would fit in were approved and “still yet, Fort Smith is moving forward”. He disagreed with Reeves’s statement that all rental property becomes trashy. He expressed agreement with Smith’s comment about having a place in the middle of town to “live, work, and play” with good walkability.

Director George Catsavis acknowledged the concerns expressed by the neighbors. He mentioned having been told by someone who supports the development that that neighborhood is only a small percentage of his ward as a whole, but he feels that “even the small percentage have a right to have their voice heard.”

Director Settle asked “Why disrupt the neighborhood?” and suggested that the old Acme Brick Plant that is for sale a quarter mile down the road might be a good place for that sort of development. He said that the rezoning request is “about this one property, not what’s good for the city.”

Director Martin acknowledged the unusually large amount of feedback from the public on the issue. He voiced his opposition even though it would be a “very pretty building'“ and “we need it” but “not in this location”

Director Rego said “I would live in this neighborhood”. He said that he can see a 2 story apartment complex from his front porch and if it had 4 more stories that would not bother him. He said he is “happy there are folks willing to invest in projects like this in this area of Fort Smith.”

Jo Carson spoke again expressing her concerns about a drop in property values for properties near the development. She voiced her concerns about that it is within 2000 ft of a school and that Level 3 and 4 sex offenders would be allowed to live there legally and that the price of the apartments would not be an effective guard against sex offenders because they can live with people in very nice neighborhoods.

Local realtor Chris Hozier spoke in opposition to the development and talked about a 20% drop in nearby property values that could happen.

The rezoning vote passed with Directors Morton, Christina Catsavis, Rego, and Good all voting in favor of the rezoning and Directors George Catsavis, Settle, and Morton voting against the rezoning. Because it did not receive the required 5 votes, normally it would be required to have a full reading of the ordinance at the meeting and another at the next meeting. However, the Board instead voted on suspending the readings and allowing the rezoning vote to stand and be adopted at the meeting. Five directors voting to suspend the readings would be required to suspend them. Directors George Catsavis, Christina Catsavis, Morton, Good, and Rego voted to suspend the readings and Directors Settle and Martin voted to require the readings. Therefore, the vote in favor of the rezoning to allow for the development passed and the ordinance was adopted at the meeting.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of a zoning change for 5300 Zero Street (the former site of Grand Slam and some undeveloped land) to allow for a business park and warehousing facility to be constructed. The back 1/3 will be used for traditional warehouses, the middle 1/3 for things like landscaping and contracting shops, and the front 1/3 for more commercial uses like a restaurant.

Director Rego mentioned that the property has been vacant for years and said it is “exciting to see things getting reactivated”.

Director Christina Catsavis asked if the developer is committed to privacy fencing and Goodwin assured that they are 100% committed to privacy fencing on the 3 sides of the street that are not the front street facing side.

The Board voted against a zoning change for an undeveloped lot at 7820 Collier Street that would allow for the construction of two new warehouses.

Director Morton asked if the property was in the historic district. Rice answered that it is not, it is currently zoned mixed use industrial office and is in the entertainment district. In response to Director Morton’s question about what is nearby, Rice and FCRA’s Daniel Mann mentioned that the warehouse’s neighbors would be warehouses, a garage, Trotter Electric, and The Axe and Oak Distillery. Director Christina Catsavis asked if the property was in the area involved in ongoing litigation. Rice and Mann answered that that area is adjacent to this property but this property is not part of the litigation. Director Christina Catsavis expressed concern about having warehouses in the entertainment district.

All of the directors except Directors Rego and Good voted against the zoning change, so it was defeated.

The Board passed a zoning change for 12001 Ward Avenue and 7201 Terry Street that will allow for the existing vacant buildings on the property to be used as Chapel at The Barracks wedding chapel, an event hall, single family and duplex residences, and a hotel or Air BnB style short term rentals. Director Rego praised The Barracks development calling it a “supercharger project” for the “play, live, eat, stay” situation in that area. All of the Directors except Director George Catsavis voted in favor of the zoning change.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of changes to the Unified Development Ordinance that would allow for indoor tire sales in only C-4, C-5, I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts and allow for outdoor tire sales in only I-1, I-2, and I-3, zoning districts (no longer allowing them in C-5 districts). Any existing tire sales businesses that would not fit with the new rule will still be allowed to continue operating in their current location.

Director Settle asked if something prompted the request for the change. Rice said recently an issue involving outdoor tire storage was defeated at the planning level and it sparked discussion of the excess of waste tires on major thoroughfares. This change will not address “unsightly, unsanitary” tire situations that currently exist, but will help in the future. Director Settle asked what it would take to start working on an outdoor tire storage prohibition that did not allow for existing businesses to be grandfathered in, but rather gave them 90 days or 6 months for the visible tires to have to go. Rice said that there is a recycling backlog right now and recyclers cannot handle the volume of waste tires. Changes at the state level involving privatizing tire recycling that may be enacted soon may help provide an avenue to start a more punitive approach to outdoor tire storage. Director Settle proposed that this summer the Board work on a plan to curtail outdoor visible permanent tire storage.

The Board voted to enter a cost sharing agreement with Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Authority and Rival Commercial Real Estate for street overlays, new railroad crossings, and minor storm drain work on Ward Avenue between Terry Street and Fort Chaffee Boulevard. The total cost to the city is estimated at $257,047.17.

The FCRA approached the Board about sharing in the cost of the project (the City paying 257,000, FCRA paying 260,000, and Rival paying $75,000). The City’s share of the project is about the same as the same as the overlay project the City had already included in the 2022 Capital Improvement Plan.

This issue was discussed and tabled at the 1-17-23 meeting.

Director Settle said the FCRA has the money to do the project and “should pony up” to do it. Director Morton expressed that the relationship with the FCRA is “less of a collaborative effort” than he would like it to be But he still supported the cost sharing and the project to fix a Fort Smith street. Director Rego agreed with Director Morton and added that the project was tabled previously because of “unrelated thoughts, concerns, and challenges with the FCRA” and that those are “not the issue” with the street project.

The vote to enter the cost sharing agreement passed with Directors Morton, Martin, Rego, and Good all voting in favor and Directors George Catsavis, Christina Catsavis, and Settle voting against the agreement.

The Board voted to charge a $100 tap fee for water hookups being installed at the Shire Glen residential development. Shire Glen requested expedited service having the water taps installed but due to staffing shortages the Utility Department could not accommodate that request and instead an agreement was reached that the Shire Glen developer could use their own contractors to install the taps, service lines, and meter boxes and the City would inspect them. Since the developer would be paying for the materials and labor usually paid for by the city, a $100 per tap fee has been agreed upon instead of the full normal fee for when the City provides all of the materials and labor.

Director Morton asked if the $100 fee covers the actual costs to the City to provide the Service. Deputy Utilities Director Johnson answered that it doesn’t quite cover it but that the regular tapping fees don’t cover the usual costs either.

Director Morton called having the developer’s contractors do the work and the City inspect it at the end a “smart thing to do”. Director Martin agreed. Director Christina Catsavis suggested that the practice be something that is an option to more developers in the future saying that it speeds things up and the city “should be making things as easy as possible.” Several of the Directors expressed agreement with making plans for more of that system to be used in the future.

Director Rego said it seemed to him that the City would be extracting the charge “because we can” and asked “Why not just inspect these because we have an obligation to the public?”.

The $100 tap fee passed with all but Director Rego voting in favor of it.

The Board voted unanimously to appropriate 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. This issue was discussed at the last study session meeting.

The Board voted to allocate $4 million to the Parks Department for the demolition of the old pool bathhouse at Creekmore Park and the design and construction of a new bathhouse to replace it and allocate the remaining $10,645,239 to the Utility Department Capital Improvement Fund for use on critical water and wastewater projects.

Director Settle suggested duplicating the design for the Parrot Island Waterpark for the Creekmore bathhouse. Director Morton agreed. Director Christina Catsavis asked about the timeline for the construction on the bathhouse. Administrator Geffken responded that it might be ready potentially next year.

Director George Catsavis mentioned that there is another meeting with the EPA about the consent decree scheduled for March 24 and that allocating the money to consent decree projects will help show that the City is serious about working on the consent decree. Geffken agreed and said that the efforts already being made have also already been noticed.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of paying Matrix Design Group $210,000 to assist in crafting construction regulations regarding sounds in response to the sound study conducted in response to the Foreign Military Sales pilot training program anticipated to be coming soon to Ebbing Air National Guard Base. A moratorium on residential construction near the airport was put in place until the appropriate regulations about construction for sounds in the area could be written. This expense was recommended as a step toward being able to lift that moratorium.

Director George Catsavis asked if there had been a confirmed commitment on the Foreign Military Sales mission yet. Geffken said that the final word on that would be coming in the next two weeks if not sooner. Director Morton mentioned the contract with Matrix has a 7 day termination clause that could be enacted immediately if the mission decision unexpectedly did not go in Fort Smith’s favor.

The Board voted unanimously to renew the software licensing for the Utilities Department’s E-Builder software for a cost of $251,100.63 per year for 3 years.

Director Morton requested that information generated by this management software be provided to the Board to show how much work has been done on the consent decree.

The Board voted unanimously to spend a total of $1,090,126 for the contracts for the engineering phase of multiple street overlay and repair projects.

Inspired by seeing a smaller local engineering firm as one of the companies awarded a contract, Director Morton urged the City to consider more small Fort Smith based firms especially for smaller projects.

During the Officials Forum section of the meeting, Mayor McGill mentioned that the blighted property at 3600 Kinkead will soon be renovated.

Director Morton mentioned that the manhole project the Directors visited this week is set to be finished 8 months ahead of schedule.

Director George Catsavis mentioned having received more emails about extraordinarily high water bills. He said that the water department adjusted the bills with the one-time adjustment procedure, but the situation “can’t keep happening.” Director Christina Catsavis said that she has received multiple calls this week about that,too, including an elderly person whose bill is normally $50-60 that received a bill for $600 this month. She said that that was the third person she’s heard from that the Utilities department said that they just be watering in January or February. She called this “unacceptable”. Mayor McGill said that he’s received calls on that,too. Geffken said “We’re fixing it.” Director Martin requested to see the number of one-time adjustments made by the Utilities Department in the last 3 months to see how often that is being done and for how much.

Director Martin mentioned that he has been getting complaints abut homelessness again. He said the City has “gotta do something”. Geffken said that every city has homeless and “We are actually doing pretty darn well for a city our size.”