Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 7/25/23
The Fort Smith Board of Directors study session meeting 7-25-23 , in the absence of Director Rego, began with discussion of potential plans for Brick Yard Park. At last week’s Board of Directors meeting a resolution was passed asking Acme Brick to donate the land at the former site of their quarry and brick manufacturing facility to allow for a park and retention pond to be built. The plan suggested by Friends of Recreational Trails for the park to be designed by Progressive Trail Designs includes a park on the west side of Old Greenwood Road (where the quarry was) that will be primarily focused on mountain biking trails and bike related amenities. The east side of Old Greenwood (where the kiln was) would be developed into a flood water detention pond to help alleviate May Branch flooding that frequently results in flooding of residences and business on the North side of town. In addition to the anti-flooding benefits, the pond would also serve as a water feature for the park. The two sides would be connected by a pedestrian bridge spanning over Old Greenwood. Potential funding sources for the project include City funds (including funds from the sales tax for Parks capital improvements and from the sales tax for Streets and Drainage) as well as a public-private partnership with the Friends of Brick Yard non-profit to be established to focus on the park and multiple grants that may be available for the project. Mobility Coordinator Mings said the planned park would be the “top recreational asset for Park Hill and Hillcrest”.
In response to questioning from Director Morton, Mings clarified that the pond shown on the mountain bike park side of the park would only have water during wet weather, it would not be designed to stay full of water year round.
Administrator Geffken said that the flood retention pond on the former kiln side of the park would reduce flooding in the areas of Kinkead and Grand Avenues by 40-45%. Director Morton added that the least improved areas affected by May Branch flooding would likely have the flooding reduced by 16%. Director Morton mentioned that the cost estimated for the flooding elimination canal or culvert or large pipe to the river that the Corps of Engineers says would be needed to fix the May Branch flooding issue entirely would cost $150 million. Geffken added that with the matching funds available, the expected cost to implement the massive fix would only be a cost of $65 million that the City would ultimately be responsible for. Director Morton expressed his view that spending $6-10 million for the park with the flood retention pond to produce the 16-45% improvements would be “worth spending that amount of money on” versus the cost to fix the whole thing.
Director Martin asked about the possibility of environmental concerns with the site’s former industrial uses. Mings said that it is expected that the site is clean and there would be no lasting risks posed from the clay quarrying and brick making activities, but as part of the due diligence process, an environmental study will be conducted. WAPDD has already committed to covering the cost of the environmental study in full via a grant so it would not cost the City to be assured whether or not it is clean.
Director Martin expressed his view that without the donation of the land by ACME, if the land were to need to be purchased instead, the plan cannot go forward. Director Settle mentioned and Mings agreed that the land parcel that was the site of the former quarry would be easier to get donated than the former kiln site because the site with the big hole in the ground is challenging to sell for private development purposes.
Director Martin called the proposed park “really cool” and praised the park’s walkability to nearby neighborhoods with a lot of residents.
Director Settle suggested that Old Greenwood Road could be moved and the portion of Old Greenwood itself running between the sides of the park could become a bridge (and it would eventually end up coming out by Creekmore) instead of building the proposed pedestrian bridge over the existing road in its current location. Director Martin said that he likes the idea of the walking bridge. Director Good called the idea of moving Old Greenwood “really expensive”. Director Settle countered that it would be a “once in a lifetime opportunity”. Director Christina Catsavis said that she is “really excited about this” and doesn’t want the project to get “delayed by moving a major artery in the middle of town”. She asked what the cost would be to build the pedestrian bridge. Mings said that the plan that Friends of Recreational Trails modeled off of the one at New York’s High Line that features sound proofing would cost about $1 million. Director Christina Catsavis said that the soundproofed observation area pedestrian bridge is her “favorite spot” on the High Line. Director Christina Catsavis called Old Greenwood Road as it is now “one of the best roads in the city” and expressed her view that there are “other places the money would be better spent” than moving that road. Geffken said that Administration would work with the Streets and Engineering departments to come up with an estimate of costs for Director Settle’s suggested changes to Old Greenwood Road.
Director Christina Catsavis spoke about her desire to have the rusted water tower near the proposed park painted. She questioned how much it would cost. Geffken said that it would cost $375,000 but that it is under the Utilities department and therefore isn’t eligible to use funds from things like the taxes for Parks Capital Improvements or Streets and Drainage and that there is not currently enough room in the Utilities budget to allow for painting the tower.
The Board discussed the possibility of requiring properties that apply for a planned zoning district (PZD) zoning change to submit a development plan. This discussion was originally scheduled to be held at the 6-27-23 meeting, but was tabled to allow for more time for discussion of other issues on that agenda.
Director Settle expressed that he understands that the PZD is to make it easier for developers and said that he doesn’t “have a problem with what we’re doing” currently. But he expressed his concern about “speculators” that present rezoning requests that are often controversial without a layout so that the public doesn’t know what it would look like.
Referring to the proposed change that would require a development plan, Director Christina Catsavis said that she called several local developers and “not one of them thought this was a good idea.”
Both Directors Martin and Morton questioned if there could possibly be something to “beef up” the required project booklet but still be less expensive and extensive than a development plan. Director Settle expressed that he didn’t “care if it’s on a napkin”, that a simple layout included would be enough for his purposes. Planning Director Rice clarified that while the project booklet that is required for PZDs does not require pictures (some developers choose to include them, but not all do, and no one is required to include them), it provides the information in narrative form including information on things like setbacks, landscaping, parking, materials to be used, etc. (and all of those things must not just meet, but exceed the UDO requirements). Rice said that the narrative form works well with the code because “code doesn’t really deal in concepts” and “code is prescriptive.”
Director Morton said that he doesn’t “want to hamstring developers” with costs. But Director Morton expressed concerns about applicants who seek rezoning only to sell the property rather than with actual intentions to develop it themselves and who let the rezoned land sit empty instead of developing in a reasonable time frame. Rice also mentioned that decisions on zoning for properties should be thought of in terms of “in perpetuity”, whether the land use is an “appropriate use for the land, not who is developing it.”
Director Good said “I get wanting to have a picture.” but asked if there are already mechanisms in place to get what the Board is wanting. He said that he doesn’t “want to make it any more difficult” to do business and develop property in Fort Smith.
Rice reminded that the Board can always add a requirement without having to remand the request back to the Planning Commission and can add requests and requirements on a case by case basis. She added that if a development plan were required as a blanket requirement for all PZDs, it would actually be better to just do away with the PZD zoning option because the conventional zonings require development plans and will still allow for multiple zonings on one property. Director Christina Catsavis mentioned the months of planning and thousands of dollars that would result for developers if a full development plan is submitted and approved because even small changes require re-approval. Rice clarified that while very minor amendments can be approved by staff, anything but those minor changes must be approved again through the Planning Commission. Director Christina Catsavis asked about the popularity of the PZD zoning. Rice said that PZDs are popular and that 120 of them have been approved by the Board since 2013. Rice said that a development plan can be “very very costly”, and “can be $20-30,000 for larger developments.”
Nothing was added to any future agendas regarding this topic.
The Board discussed the height restrictions for buildings. This discussion was also originally scheduled for the 6-27-23 meeting and tabled to allow more time for discussion of other issues on that evening’s agenda. Currently, in conventional zoning districts, the maximum building height allowed is 35-45 feet. In the Central Business Improvement District where the code is form based, maximum heights range from 35-100 feet. There is also currently a provision that allows for an additional vertical foot above what would otherwise be the maximum allowable height to be added for each extra horizontal foot of set back beyond the required set back. For example, if a property is zoned so that buildings are required to be set back 10 feet and are allowed to be 35 feet tall, if the developer would build the building set 20 feet back he could also build the building 45 feet tall.
Director Settle requested that the Planning Department come back to the Board with a recommendation regarding maximum heights (and that that recommendation could be no change at all). Director Christina Catsavis said “I would love to see us raise our maximum height.”. Rice said that in comparing our maximum heights with other similar cities Fort Smith has a lower maximum height, but that the our rules allow larger properties to go higher with the larger land area. She mentioned that we don’t really have a lot of really tall buildings and that they would be out of character in some neighborhoods. Director Morton said “You have to be careful in applying restrictions in a restricting manner.” and praised the way the rules with set backs allowing for more height allowed the Arcbest building to be tall while still looking good in its neighborhood. Director Settle suggested Planning consider any plan over a certain height needing extra consideration and approval regarding use of the one-for-one rule.
During the Citizens Forum section of the meeting, Jo Elsken spoke. She said she was “really excited and happy” about the Board supporting the Brick Yard Park project. She also encouraged the Board to apply for and send a notice of intent regarding a grant opportunity for solar energy for lower-income residents that she sent the Board information about via email. Geffken said that he is sending the information on to Deputy Director of Business Administration and Utilities Joshua Roberts who is leading the efforts regarding electric efficiency programs and solar energy. Geffken hopes to take action on applying for the grant.
Bente Eriksen, who works at the Literacy Council, mentioned that some participants in her program were affected by the recent long power outages. Many of them are low income and they had no air conditioning in this high heat. She suggested opening the tornado shelters during long power outages. Geffken responded that the tornado shelters are owned and controlled by the School District and suggested that she go to the School Board meeting and request it there. Director Christina Catsavis asked if the Board could send the School Board a letter of recommendation expressing their support for the idea. Geffken said that they could and the Board members and the Mayor all seemed to show agreement for sending the letter.
Deano Traywick expressed concern about the trees being removed for new developments. He mentioned seeing properties “moonscaped” by heavy tree removal and no replanting. He suggested that the Board consider a plan requiring developers to have green space and leave trees or replant trees that are cut down.
