Council delays water tower decision
Just off Highway 265, between Mission and Huntsville Road, there’s a neighborhood called Hyland Park with streets that meander along and up a hillside. On Tuesday night, a healthy dose of neighbors from the Hyland Park area filled the pews at the administration building for a Special City Council Meeting, because a water tower with the capability of holding 500,000 gallons of water is proposed for Lot 22 of that neighborhood.
Actually, it might be helpful to back up a few (35) years.
In 1974, when the particulars of the Hyland Park Phase II development were being decided, Lot 22 was designated as a water storage site.
Then, fast-forward to 2005, when the Arkansas Heath Department said the Mount Sequoyah area, “does not have adequate storage for the water demand,” neither for domestic-use purposes nor for fire-fighting water.
So, the Sewer Committee in August of 2008 unanimously determined that an elevated water tank on Hyland Park’s mountain was necessary and advisable, even amid protestations from the Hyland Park Home Owners Association.
To be most effective, the new tank must be located 1,815 feet above sea level and separate from the current tank serving the area, for balance, David Jurgens, the city’s utilities director, told the City Council on Tuesday night.
With a slideshow, Jurgens explained that Lot 22 would be the least costly building site for a new storage tank and would require the least amount of piping. The problem, he said was that Lot 22 is “effectively in the front yard” of someone’s home.
Then, the meeting was opened to public comments.
Brent Smith approached the podium as a representative for the Hyland Park Home Owners Association.
Smith said the water tower would give Fayetteville the distinct “impression of an industrial city,” and when Hyland Park was developed, the developer, Jim Lindsey, never intended Lot 22 as a city water source, but only to maintain water pressure for that development.
“It goes against all the rules of urban development, civic mindedness and American values,” to put the water tank in an “established, stable neighborhood,” Smith said.
Then, Jim Waselues stepped up to the microphone.
He introduced himself and his family as the ones most affected by the proposed water tower because the tank would be in his front yard, he said.
Because the Hyland Park Home Owners Association had declined to pursue a “land swap” deal to trade Lot 22 for an alternate water tower site, Waselues said he had taken it upon himself to find a solution to the problem.
Though he said he couldn’t discuss the specifics of his plan because agreements were still pending, Waselues asked the council to hold off on a vote until he could wrap it up and present it to the council at the next meeting.
Next up was Bill Clark, saying the Hyland Park Home Owners Association would seek litigation if the city moved forward with the plan on Lot 22.
In the end, the council decided to table the issue until the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting (June 16). But, before adjourning, Mayor Lioneld Jordan interjected, affirming that a final decision would be made at that meeting.
Comments
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
chris c
June 10, 2009
Nobody deserves a water tower in their front yard, but the guy who cites ‘urban development’ concerns doesn’t have much to say when he’s the one living in a faux gated community on the edge of town.
Informed voter
June 14, 2009
They knew the lot was for a water tower when they bought and built there. Thousands of citizens are in need of the fire protection.
chris c
June 14, 2009
Then a water tower should they get!
a. brown
June 14, 2009
So what sucks for one family should matter over the safety of many? I’m sure I’d think differently if it were my yard, but what are the odds?
David Franks
June 14, 2009
For some thirty-five years, people have bought and sold homes in a subdivision containing a lot dedicated for placement of a water storage facility. The dedication was made during the development approval process, so an issue was made of it at the time. The developer seemingly didn’t go out of his way to disclose the dedication. Apparently nobody bothered to inquire about it as part of their due diligence during a purchase. The Hyland Park homeowners’ association clearly never bothered to look into the matter. My sympathy is minimal.
As for the faux concern that a tower would look industrial, most people understand that a water supply is as much residential as it is industrial. However, in the spirit of solving a nonexistent problem, I’ll suggest that the City have a competition to make the water tank at that location an art project. A mural, banners, whirligigs (wind generators!), or light installation could be used to great effect: beautifying the facility, raising nearby property values and allaying any suspicions that the residents of Hyland Park are a bunch of indiligent anti-civic whiners.
Matt Petty
June 14, 2009
That’s not a bad idea at first glance, but I suspect anything resembling a light installation would make it even worse for the affected property.
Maybe we could insist all but the access drive be reforested.
David Franks
June 14, 2009
An installation of LEDs would be visible from a distance without creating much ambient light. Depending on the type of tank and how lights are mounted, the effect of lights on nearby properties could be greatly mitigated.
Matthew Petty
June 14, 2009
I’m still not convinced it could be amazing instead of tacky. I’d need to see a proposal with renderings from a lighting designer/artist to be convinced.
That said, it’s something we could consider adding later. I’m the Alderman assigned to increase our installations of public art, and if I saw a rendering that looked like an improvement, I’d make sure it became an item for discussion.
A mural might be a good idea if it were done right, but I’d rather spend city resources for downtown murals than neighborhood murals.
Finally, and I don’t speak for the neighborhood, but I have a feeling that offering an art installation at this juncture would just add insult to injury.
Trackbacks