A benevolent breakfast Farmington rejects rezoning requests
FARMINGTON — After a lot of discussion from City Council members and the public, two proposed ordinances to rezone land to a higher density failed to move forward last week.
The council’s March 8 agenda included two rezoning ordinances.
One ordinance would have rezoned 2.6 acres on the west side of Arkansas 170, or South Hunter Street, from R-1 to MF2, the highest multi-family designation. Farmington Planning Commission unanimously recommended rezoning the property at its Feb. 22 meeting.
The second rezoning ordinance came because of an appeal from the planning commission. The commission turned down a request to rezone 10.5 acres on the east side of Arkansas 170 and north of the Arkansas 170/Wolfdale intersection from R-1 to R-2/MF-1 (duplexes only). The owner appealed the decision and asked to rezone all the land from R-1 to R-2.
Cox Development submitted both requests to rezone the properties, located on different sides of Arkansas 170.
MOTION TO READ FAILS
The first ordinance to rezone land to MF-2 came to a halt before the council could vote on it.
City Clerk Kelly Penn advised the council that approval of an initial motion would place the ordinance before the council.
“All you are doing is putting it up for a vote. You’re not approving or disapproving the ordinance,” Mayor Ernie Penn said.
A second motion, “shall the ordinance pass,” Penn said, would then give council members the option to vote.
However, a motion to suspend the rules and read the ordinance by title only failed 3-4 with one abstention. City Council members Linda Bell, Brenda Cunningham and Sherry Mathews voted in favor of the motion. Council members Diane Bryant, Shelley Parsley, Hunter Carnahan and Bobby Morgan voted against the motion. Council member Keith Lipford abstained.
Prior to the vote, Lipford said he had planned to abstain because his home is across the street on Arkansas 170 from the one request and his property adjoins the land for the second request. He said, though, he was reconsidering that thought after so many people called him with concerns.
Lipford said he wondered if he would not be serving the voters if he abstained on the proposed ordinances.
City Attorney Steve Tennant interjected and said the city did not have a policy for these type of circumstances but noted Lipford had a “material interest in the outcome.”
Tennant told Lipford it would not serve the City Council if he voted on the ordinances.
“My legal position is that he abstain from both ordinances,” Tennant said.
Lipford responded he was OK with that.
NEIGHBORS OPPOSE REQUEST
During the public comment period, many residents in the area addressed the council through Zoom, saying they were against rezoning the land to multi-family.
Kaci Smith, who lives on Briarmeadow Street, said the development would be directly behind her house.
“We feel like we have a great, a very great neighborhood, and I do not think any more apartments or duplexes in that area would be a good idea,” Smith said.
Chris Bryson, who lives across the street from the land, also pointed to the single-family subdivisions nearby.
“Those are vibrant neighborhoods,” Bryson said, adding he thought a multi-family development would decrease the property value of homes in the area.
Bob Crisp, who also lives on Briarmeadow, pointed out the tract of land is “not really a great piece of land to develop.
It’s just an odd dynamic there.”
Several council members said they believe the city should slow down on rezoning land for multiple-family developments.
“As a city we’ve approved several multi-family developments, and I think it’s time for us to put halt to it,” Bell said. “I think we need to focus on residential families for the rest of what’s left to develop in Farmington.”
Lipford, Morgan and Bryant also said they thought the city should be concentrating more on single-family homes, not multi-family developments.
Penn pointed out the layout of the land on Arkansas 170 would not work for single-family homes, and that’s why the owner wanted to rezone the land. Penn also noted duplexes border the land to the west and south and land is zoned MF-2 to the east.
“The likelihood of building single family on that property would be slim to none,” Ernie Penn said.
After the vote, Kelly Penn chastised those council members who voted against the motion to suspend the rules and read the ordinance by title only.
“I appreciate the council, but I think you do the public a great disservice when you vote no on the very first time you put it on record to vote,” said Kelly Penn. “I understand you think this vote is saying no, it’s your choice, but I’m just saying from a legality standpoint, all you voted for right now is to not put it up for a vote, for it not to be considered. But the vote’s final, so we’ll move on to the next item.”
R-2 ZONE REQUEST
As the council considered the second rezoning ordinance, Penn reminded members the only difference between a R-1 zone and a R-2 zone is the size of the lot. R-1 has a 10,000 square foot minimum per lot, compared to a 7,500 square foot minimum per lot for R-2. The setbacks and frontage for each lot are the same for both single-family residential zones.
For R-1, the proposed development would have about 25 lots and under a R-2 zone the subdivision would have about 32 lots, Penn said.
“I want to make sure you understand that,” Penn said.”There’s been a lot of discussion about single family development here and that’s what is being requested.”
Blake Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates engineering firm said the single family houses would have a brick facade and be 1,550 square feet to 1,800 square feet in size. Homes would be in the $250,000-$290,000 price range, Jorgensen said.
Once again, many residents spoke against rezoning the property from R-1 to R-2. Some of the concerns included drainage questions, smaller lots in the midst of homes sitting on much larger lots, increased traffic on Arkansas 170, and how it would affect property values.
“We want growth in Farmington, but we’re in an area that is family oriented and share a lot of green space,” said Sheila Andrews. “We just want larger homes with bigger lots.”
Bryson, an adjacent property owner, asked the council to consider the neighboring properties.
“Frankly, going from R-1 to R-2, it’s simply to appease the developer,” Bryson said, adding, “It seems like a compromise that is not warranted in this matter.”
The council voted 4-3, with Lipford abstaining, to suspend the rules to read the rezoning ordinance by title only.
The rezoning ordinance then failed on a motion to pass the ordinance, 2-5, with one abstention. Bell and Mathews voted to pass the ordinance to rezone the property. Parsley, Bryant, Cunningham, Morgan and Carnahan voted against the ordinance. Lipford abstained.
After the vote, Penn told Jorgensen, “Basically, you can’t go with the R-2 zone, but you can go ahead with R-1.”