LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Feb. 4, 2020

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Jan. 21 meeting.

This request would reduce the front setbacks from 20-foot to 15-foot for four lots along Cross Avenue. Staff said with no significant trees present or proposed for removal, and given the existing RSF-4 zoning district and its associated 15-foot front setback throughout the larger area, they believe the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses.

Both the Planning Commission and staff are in favor with the following conditions of approval:

1. All conditions of approval from the previously-approved Pratt Place Inn C-PZD 05-1670 apply;
2. Approval of this C-PZD modification does not grant development approval for the property. The proposed preliminary plat will be required to be reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code as a part of the standard review process; and
3. The attached zoning requirements will be in addition to all previous regulations on the subject property.

Location:

Jan. 21 Discussion:
Four residents spoke against the ordinance.

Council member Teresa Turk requested that the council hold the resolution for two weeks.

Marsh voted to advance the issue to the second reading. The vote failed, with Turk and Gutierrez voting against. Bunch was absent for the vote, which required six votes to advance. The mayor declined to cast a vote.

The discussion will continue on Feb. 4.

Feb. 4 Discussion:
Eight people spoke against the ordinance. Some held a sign that reads “Save Markham Hill.” Most said they don’t like the overall plan for the upcoming neighborhood. Others said the homes on these four lots would be too close to the street if the setback requirement is reduced from 20 feet to 15 feet.

Here are the four lots that would be affected if this request is approved:

After public comment, Council Member Marsh said this request isn’t about whether Markham Hill should be developed. That plan has already been approved, she said. She said no significant trees are proposed for removal on the four subject lots, and that this request would allow the developer to build driveways behind those four homes instead of in front of them.

Petty said if staff has studied the area and determined that building homes on the four lots in question with a reduced setback won’t jeopardize any legacy trees, then he doesn’t see any reason why this request should be declined.

Scroggin said the developer is making the request as part of an effort to save older established trees, as well as to keep the driveways in the rear. He said he thinks protesting a five-foot change to a setback is being difficult just for the sake of being difficult, and that he will be in support of the request.

Turk said she’s glad the developer has listened to neighbors and agreed to save the legacy trees that the neighbors are concerned about, but she thinks the plans should’ve been altered further to allow construction without the reduced setback. She said if the developer agreed to a 20-foot setback initially, they shouldn’t be allowed to make changes later on in the process.

Marsh moved to send the item to the third and final reading. That motion passed 6-1 with only Turk voting against.

Smith said he’s fine moving forward to the final reading tonight because it’s clear the neighbors are well aware of the issue. He said he’s received constant and consistent feedback from the opposition which shows him that there won’t likely be anything new presented by those who are opposed, most of whom he believes are simply against the overall development of the area. He said he will support the ordinance because the requested change is consistent with the overall plan that was first approved. He said minor tweaks are a reality of complicated projects, and that this one is no different.

Decision:
During the final vote, the ordinance passed 5-2, with Turk and Gutierrez voting against.

Background:
Double Springs Development is working to develop the 126-acre Goose Creek Village, Phase 1 subdivision on the west side of Double Springs Road in Farmington. They are required to install an 8-inch sanitary sewer main for the development, but the City of Fayetteville’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan recommends a 15-inch sanitary sewer main in that location.

The developer received three bids for construction with Gene Nicholas, LLC being the lowest bidder. Staff recommends approval of a cost share agreement to pay the difference in upsizing the sewer line from 8-inch to 15-inch diameter.

Location:

Discussion:
Mayor Jordan asked if this proposal was discussed by the Water & Sewer Committee. Council members said indeed it was, and that the vote was 4-0 to approve.

Marsh said she’s concerned that this might be considered “sprawl enabling,” and suggested tabling the item to allow the council more time to think about it. Petty said he’s already made up his mind to vote against for the same reason.

Other members said while they’re not against waiting to vote, it’s inevitable that the area will be further developed, and when it does it should have a properly-sized sewer line to handle that growth.

There was no motion to table.

Decision:
During the vote, the resolution passed 5-3, with Marsh, Petty and Smith voting against. With Kinion gone, Mayor Jordan chose to cast a vote in favor of the request.

Background:
Staff said Jotto has agreed to sell its products directly to the city instead of using a third-party retailer, which would reduce the overall cost considerably. However, the vendor itself would not send in a bid as it would be competing against its own dealers, meaning that the council must suspend the rules which normally require competitive bidding.

Discussion:
There was no discussion.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.

Background:
Staff said the reconstruction of Rupple Road where it meets Mount Comfort Road has changed the drainage infrastructure in the area. Specifically, the project has redirected stormwater from Mount Comfort Road into a new storm sewer system which discharges into Hamestring Creek. The old concrete pipe has been abandoned and capped. Therefore, staff said the drainage easement is no longer needed by the city for maintenance. The property owner has requested that the city vacate the 20-foot drainage easement that runs through the middle of their property.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no discussion.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.

Background:
Staff said this vacation request presents unusual complications that aren’t normally encountered. This entire half-block of the neighborhood is encompassed with a water/sewer easement intended to facilitate a large public infrastructure project decades ago that was never installed. So the property owner has requested the city vacate it to allow for expansion of a house on the property. When looking into it, the city discovered a private sewer line that crosses the parcel and cannot be cut off from access for public health reasons. The Planning Commission recommended in favor of the request as long as a 5-foot wide water and sewer easement is retained along the property’s western boundary. However, city staff said at least 10 feet is needed on that particular side to ensure there’s still a standard total of 20 feet of easement space to access and maintain the sewer line.

Location:

Feb. 4 Discussion:
The property owner said the easement has been in place since the 1940s and has never been needed. He said homes have been built over the easement, and that building permits have been issued by the city to allow construction over the top of the easement. He said there have been a lot of mistakes made over the past 80 years regarding this easement, but taking 10 feet from him doesn’t negate any of that.

He said it’s not fair for the city to take that much buildable property from him for future potential service of a private sewer line that doesn’t even serve his house.

City staff said while it’s a private sewer line now, it will likely become a public sewer line in the future. If there’s not enough room to service that line, the city would be trespassing if it uses equipment outside of the easement and would be liable for any damage to that property.

The property owner said 10 feet on his side wouldn’t help add up to 20 feet of access space because the neighbors have already built into the easement themselves, and there are large, established trees within the easement. It’s simply not practical for the city to take this land, he said, because a backhoe won’t fit into the area with or without the 10 foot easement.

City Attorney Kit Williams said there’s another option, although not a simple one. He said the city could vacate the entire easement which would require all of the property owners who use the private line to install sewer pumps to reverse the direction of their sewage if they want to use a separate public sewer line in the future when the private line becomes unusable.

Scroggin suggested leaving the ordinance on the first reading.

Staff said if the item is held for two weeks, they will investigate the area to see if the other homes would indeed need to install pumps to reroute their sewage to a public line.

The council agreed. The discussion will continue on Feb. 18.

Background:
This property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 Units per Acre. The property is currently undergoing preliminary plat development review for the proposed Gulley Grove Subdivision. The proposal is to rezone the property to develop 51 attached and detached dwelling units. As a part of the proposal, a portion of the site is set aside for parkland dedication to the adjacent Gulley Park. The applicant has also offered to pay to connect Collette Avenue to Magnolia Drive.

Planning staff said they have received inquiries about the project and expression of concern about the number of units proposed near a public park and potential impacts on traffic. At last month’s Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission meetings, members of the public spoke against this proposal, citing concerns over tree preservation, density, traffic, impacts to drainage, and general incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. However, city staff believe the proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding land use pattern, which consists of single-family residential to the north, south, and east with a public park, Gulley Park, to the west. The overall density for the project is below 7.5 dwellings per acre. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request.

Location:

Discussion:
The applicant said the houses directly next to Gulley Park will face the park. Privacy fences won’t be allowed (instead they’ll be black iron fences) in order for the area to feel more open. The homes will be 1,300 to 2,500 square feet in size in order to make sure there are affordable options.

Scroggin said he appreciates the applicant bringing this request through a PZD – despite its added cost and risk – to ensure everyone knows what will be built. He said he’ll support the plan.

Bunch said it’s a well thought out plan, and she also is pleased to see a PZD. She likes the pathway through the development that will allow easier access to the park for the surrounding neighbors. She said she’s in favor of the proposal.

Gutierrez agreed, and said this project sets a good example for how a developer could propose a subdivision by an established neighborhood. She said she’s in support.

Turk said she has a few concerns about drainage, and asked the applicant to discuss how they plan to address stormwater runoff. The applicant said water will be routed through pipes and into a retention pond. From there, the water will be slowly released into an existing drain, which will be increased in size at the developer’s cost.

Smith said this is a model project that he hopes will influence other developers in the future. He said it will improve connectivity, and add variety to an existing neighborhood while also integrating well with the area. On top of that, he said, the public will also receive added parks benefits.

There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.

Background:
This item is to approve the 2020 project list for street overlay and sidewalk construction projects.

Sidewalks:

See the full list of overlay projects in the agenda packet for this item.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 6-0 to approve the resolution. Gutierrez was not present during this vote.

Background:
The city has participated in the educational program provided by the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension since its inception. Staff said the program has been very successful and has proved to be a valuable asset to the public as well as the city.

This agreement is for participation in a one-year program, however, the intent is to waive competitive bidding until the end of the permit period which is 2024. Due to the fact that the cost is expected to fluctuate, the council will still have the opportunity to review and approve the new agreement and fee each year by resolution. The agreement will not automatically renew.

While the participating jurisdictions obtain separate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, they jointly contract with the Cooperative Extension as a cost-effective means of implementing the control measures required in their permits.

Cost Allocation Per Jurisdiction:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.