Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 6/28/22
The Fort Smith Board of Directors study session meeting held 6-28-22 was led by Vice-Mayor Rego in the absence of Mayor McGill. The meeting began with a presentation from the designer of the plans for the Chaffee dog park, Kirk Keller. The new 24 acre dog park is being planned as a replacement for the 30 acre dog park near the airport that was closed down for the runway expansion. The Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Authority paid for the design plans for the new park. The design firm held two public meetings with low attendance but received 451 responses to their survey about the park, a high number of responses Administrator Geffken called “unheard of”. The designs are based around the amenities that were prioritized in that input from the community. The top priority for respondents to the survey was perimeter fencing, #2 was divided areas for big and small dogs, #3 was a dog washing station, #4 was a wading pool, and # 5 was a dog playground area. The site would also be home to one of the two Basquiat fitness courts for humans.
The design plans for the park were impacted by flood considerations in the area. The phase 3 area cannot be fenced per FEMA guidelines because it is in the flood way area of the creek. There are other areas that are within the 100 year flood plane zone but can still be fenced. The permanent structures that would be affected by flooding like the restrooms are planned for the parts of the property that are outside of the potential flood risk areas. Director Settle inquired about the flood risk. Administrator Geffken said that in the 2019 flood that area was not flooded. Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Authority’s Daniel Mann said that 2 weeks ago the creek flood way area flooded, but that it was due to culverts being clogged with debris. He said a drainage study was conducted and concluded the site would be suitable and any flooding problems would likely only impact the wooded nature trails.
The plans were presented as being proposed to be done in 3 phases with Phase 1 being 4.8 acres and including mostly fencing at a cost of $1.2 million, Phase 2 including 9.4 acres and the wading pool, dog washing station, and restrooms at a cost of $1.9 million, and Phase three being 9.9 acres in the wooded area including mostly walking trails at a cost of $79,000. The cost of the project would total $3.2 million.
Director Catsavis inquired about who would own the land. His question was answered that 7 acres currently owned by Sebastian County (originally intended as part of the land for their soccer fields complex next to the planned dog park) would be given to the city at no cost and the remaining acreage is currently owned by the FCRA and would be given by them to the city also at no cost.
Director Dawson said she was “impressed with the design” and praised that the amenities in the plan are “so much better” than the former dog park near the airport. She asked who would be responsible for upkeep on the park. Administrator Geffken answered that the city Parks Department would be responsible for maintaining it and that it would require more maintenance than the previous dog park.
Dawson asked about how it would be paid for. Geffken responded that the city was looking into grants and donations and partnerships including partnerships with local companies related to pet products and mentioned that the sales tax for Parks capital improvement projects could also be used. Daniel Mann expressed FCRA’s willingness to consider partnering with the city to make sure that the project is successful.
Director Martin asked, assuming it was fully funded, how long it would take to complete the project entirely. Keller answered 2-5 years. Martin said that the cost of $3.2 million is “a little concerning to me” and that he is “confident the airport dog park was nowhere near” that cost and pointed out that the new dog park at that price would be the city’s “most expensive park”.
Director Martin asked how much of the park would be for off-leash use. Keller answered that 8 acres would be for off-leash. Geffken added that originally they had hoped for it to be entirely off-leash but the flood zone issues prohibiting fencing spoiled that plan.
Director Good said that he didn’t want to be “dimming the lights on this at all” but expressed concern about the new dog park in comparison to the previous decisions to remove the wading pools from the parks on the North side of town. He expressed concern about the city building pools for dogs but not for the people on the Northside. Geffken said that there were surveys conducted and children voted in favor of replacing the wading pools with splash pads. Good responded that he attended a lot of the meetings on that topic and knows exactly what people wanted and were asking for.
Director Settle asked about the possibility of starting with a more bare bones cheaper park more like the park near the airport had been. He expressed that people want a park today and that just fences and a parking lot would give them a dog park they could use right away and that amenities could be added later. Daniel Mann added that people have already been coming with their dogs to the site even without any development being done yet and that the FCRA would be willing to work with their connections with contractors and partner with the city so that fencing could start as soon as this year. Director Morton said he is “fully in favor of the dog park” but added that he feels 8 fenced acres is not enough and that the people don’t expect it to take 2-5 years. He also favored “basic and expanding it over time”, suggesting starting with just fences, benches, and working on a restroom. Director Catsavis also spoke in favor of expediting the plan saying “most people want a fenced in area to let dogs run”. Director Rego also called for “more rapidity” and mentioning that the citizens sacrificed the previous park to allow for the airport expansion called it “unwise to have the airplanes get here before the dog park”. Geffken agreed that while the amenities are based on the top items from the survey, they could come later. Geffken said the next step forward would be for the city to hire an engineer for the project.
The Board then discussed changing the zoning rules pertaining to mini-storages on commercial thoroughfares. Director Morton who brought the issue up expressed that he feels that large mini-storage facilities occupy a large amount of street frontage space while creating very few jobs and generating no sales tax revenue and take up space that is needed for more retail and commercial businesses. He mentioned the need for improved retail shopping options to attract new residents and said that as the city grows it is “going to need every square foot of retail, commercial industrial space”. He said he doesn’t have a problem with mini-storages behind businesses and with access to the thoroughfare with good signage on the high traffic street front. He clarified that he is concerned only with limiting their street frontage, not with design appearance issues. He suggested that the Planning Commission make it so that the Board of Directors has to approve all mini-storages.
Director Martin mentioned the mini-storage facility on the corner of Custer and Chad Colley that occupies a prime space. He expressed being open to the Board having to approve any mini storages in the C-5 areas that are for heavy to moderate traffic. Director Settle agreed that C-5 areas are major thoroughfares and expressed not supporting mini-storage on high traffic properties and supported Morton’s suggestion. He asked if it would be possible to give mini-storage a separate land use classification so that it could always be approved by the Board. Planning Director Maggie Rice responded that creation of zoning district for one single use would result in legal issues. She agreed with Director Settle’s suggestion that it might be easier to just take mini-storage out of the list of approved uses for C-5 areas and that while some higher traffic corridors have a lot of I-1 Industrial space, most of the highest traffic space the Board is going to be most concerned about including Rogers, Massard, Phoenix, Grand, and Kelley are all mostly C-5.
Director Rego expressed his feeling that the market will need more mini-storage in the future as the city experiences growth. He encouraged the Board to be “cautious about going far out of our way to create a war on mini-storage”.
Director Settle called for Administration and Planning to work on a plan to address the situation again at a future meeting. Rice and Geffken agreed.
The Board discussed a proposed change that would allow zoning changes to be reverted after being approved if a building permit is not issued in a specified time. This item was placed on the agenda at Director Morton’s request at the 3-15-22 meeting in response to a couple of fairly recent zoning change issues that were hotly contentious, yet after the zoning change requested was obtained the development did not happen and the property ended up just being for sale after all. Planning Director Rice in her presention on the issue pointed out (and City Attorney Canfield also mentioned in a letter in the agenda packet) that the Unified Development ordinance already contains infrequently used language related to time limits for starting developments in both the Planned Zoning Districts section “the Planning Commission may impose a time limit for the development as described in the project booklet” and in the conventional zoning section about “ abandonment of a final development plan- failure to commence construction or obtain a building permit within the 18 months approval period”. Director Morton said that when he added the item to the agenda he was not yet aware of those provisions and that they “would take care of what I’m really concerned about”.
Director Settle suggested that Planned Zoning Districts could have the same time limit as conventional ones mentioning that it would prevent property owners from speculating and buying land and having it rezoned and then the surrounding properties changing over the years and then things being allowed to be built there based on that old zoning that would no longer be appropriate for the neighborhood. Morton motioned to ask Planning to consider making a more formal requirement for building permits to be issued within 2 years of the rezoning or it would need to come back to the Planning Commission again.
At the end of the meeting after the agenda items had been discussed, Director Catsavis requested the requirements to serve on the Airport Commission be added to a study session agenda. He said that people with interest in serving on the Airport Commission have been turned away based on not being Fort Smith residents, yet a couple of people currently serving on the Commission are not Fort Smith residents. He expressed his opinion that with it being a regional airport members who live in nearby communities would be appropriate, but that there is a need to solidify the rules.
Administrator Geffken requested that the location of schools in the city of Fort Smith be added to a study session agenda.
