LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Feb. 2, 2021

The street fund was up about 5% because of a wholesale gasoline tax recently passed by state legislature.

Parking revenues for December were down 42%, possibly in part because of the pandemic but also because of very cold temperatures that month. HMR funds were down about 15%, most likely because of the same reasons. Because of less parking, expenses were able to be reduced, so that helped, Becker said.

Recycling and trash collection is down about 2%, but a reduction of expenses has made up for it, Becker said. Residential fees were up, but commercial collections were down. Suspended late payments also led to a decline in collections.

Water and sewer is up about 3%, possibly because of more hand washing during the pandemic, Becker said.

“All in all, I think when we look at the year 2020 and the challenges we faced, the city of Fayetteville did very well,” said Becker.

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Jan. 19 meeting.

The property is on the south side of East Zion Road and has a single-family dwelling with associated outbuildings for what has long been an agricultural use. Hilton Creek runs east and west through the site, and the area surrounding the creek is designated as a flood plain. The property is located within 1 mile from the Fayetteville city limits, and the westernmost portion of the property is adjacent to the current city. An associated PZD rezoning has also been submitted (see next item).

The applicant has stated that the annexation is needed so that the property can be developed.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.

Location:

Jan. 7 Discussion:
Those who spoke against the annexation said they were concerned about potential flooding in the area from development, the possibility of development negatively affecting water quality at Lake Fayetteville, limited infrastructure availability for new residents and the potential for traffic issues.

The council left the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Jan. 19 Discussion:
City staff said if this land is annexed, the city’s streamside protection rules won’t apply without changes to the streamside protection ordinance.

The applicant’s representative said they already had plans to comply with the streamside rules despite the ordinance needing to be corrected. She said the applicant would be happy to provide a Bill of Assurance that all streamside protection measures would be adhered to with any development of the property.

City Attorney Kit Williams said he’d prefer to correct the streamside oversight before annexing the land into the city.

During public comment, some residents said they’d like to see an independent wetland delineation study of the area to ensure that development of the property doesn’t cause damage to Lake Fayetteville.

Turk suggested tabling the item until the code is changed, and to give time for the wetland study to be completed. Bunch suggested leaving the item on the second reading, and if more time is needed, it can be tabled at the next meeting. Turk disagreed, and moved to table until Feb. 16 (Kinion seconded), but the motion failed 3-5 with only Turk, Jones and Kinion voting in favor.

The council left the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on Feb. 2.

Feb. 2 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said he’d prefer the council to take up the streamside protection proposal (New Business) before any further discussion on this item or the next item, which is a PZD request for the same property.

Turk moved to table for two weeks. The motion passed 8-0

The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Jan. 19 meeting.

This property is the same as the previous annexation request. It would be divided into three planning areas:

Planning Area 1 – 6.20 acres: This area is primarily commercial in nature, though it does allow for multi-family dwellings, and is intended to serve surrounding residential areas with convenience goods and adaptable mixed use. The area is divided into two locations, the first being located along the property’s North Crossover Road frontage, and the second is located towards the center of the site.

Planning Area 2 – 39.63 acres: Making up the primary acreage of the proposal, this area is categorized by a mix of housing types, ranging from single-family to three- and four-family dwellings. The map shows a variety of lot widths, alley-loaded development, and a gridded street pattern throughout the site.

Planning Area 3 – 36.06 acres: Scattered throughout the site, with primary consideration for the area surrounding and north of Hilton Creek, this planning area’s primary purpose is to provide open space, detention, drainage, and natural areas (though does allow for low-density single-family dwellings with two-acre lot area minimums). The site plan also indicates an intention to provide a linear park extending north and south through the eastern part of the site, as well as a dedicated area for parkland.

Location:

Jan. 7 Discussion:
A few people spoke against this request with the same concerns as the annexation above.

The council left the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Jan. 19 Discussion:
Staff said the ordinance needs to be amended to correct some language referencing the three planning areas. The council voted 8-0 to approve that amendment.

The council left the item on the second reading since it’s tied to the previous ordinance.

Feb. 2 Discussion:
As requested by Williams, the council also voted 8-0 to table this item until the next meeting because it is connected to the previous item.

The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Jan. 19 meeting.

The property includes 0.21 acres of unbuilt right-of-way north of Gregg Avenue’s intersection with Taylor Street. The applicant proposes to vacate approximately 225 linear feet of public right-of-way, totaling 0.25 acres. Where right-of-way vacation requires consent from affected, adjacent property owners, the applicant has not received this. As an alternative, evidence of the multiple attempts to contact the property owner have been provided with the application. The non-responsive property owner has a county-listed address in Wilmette, Illinois.

City Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval.

Location:

Jan. 19 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Kinion said he’d like more time to look at the area. The council left the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Feb. 2.

Feb. 2 Discussion:
Petty said he can’t support he request. He said just because the city hasn’t yet imagined what it might need the right-of-way for doesn’t mean it won’t one day be useful. “I can imagine some day needing this right-of-way for some transportation service,” he said.

Gutierrez asked staff about Petty’s comments. Staff said while a transportation connection would not be possible in the future if this land is developed, it’s unlikely that any connection would ever be proposed for that area.

Kinion said he’d like the developer to be able to build the way they want, but he also has some concerns about relinquishing the land at this time.

Turk said she’s concerned about the property’s proximity to the nearby creek.

Decision:
The council voted 0-8 to deny the ordinance.

Background:
This item was tabled at the Jan. 19 meeting.

Council Member Kyle Smith brought the item forward and said the idea is to address some major issues that the council has discussed for at least three years. He said the plan doesn’t remove any uses, but increases planners’ ability to conduce contextual review of projects.

The first change would move Use Unit 18, which is gasoline service stations and drive-in/drive through restaurants, to a conditional use for Community Services. He said proposed rezonings on Mount Comfort Road have been contentious in the past because of the potential for these types of uses.

The second change would move Use Unit 8 (single-family dwellings) and Use Unit 9 (two-family dwellings) to conditional uses. Smith said this is in response to development patterns on south Rupple Road. He said previous council members made it clear when they rezoned the land that it was intended for a walkable mixed-use center with a neighborhood that could access nearby services. Instead, he said, developers began exclusively building homes with no mixed uses at all. He said in order to protect the remainder of the property from the same fate, the council should make this change to allow the Planning Commission to look at whether or not the variety of uses being proposed is appropriate for that area.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
Smith said it’s a band-aid approach, but without a major overhaul of the zoning code, this is the best option if the city is to get the type of development it wants.

Marsh agreed and said this has been needed for several years.

Bunch asked if real estate stakeholders were a part of this proposal. Kinion said stakeholders must be involved in a process like this. At the very least, it needs more discussion.

Smith said he’s happy to leave the item on the first reading to allow more time for people to consider it.

Scroggin said he doesn’t want to vote today, but it’s worth looking into. He said while some people say the city has too many restrictions, there are a lot of people who prefer living in a city with tight restrictions on development.

Marsh said she’d like to advance the item to the final reading tonight. Bunch disagreed and said developers need to have a say-so and should be given more time to consider the proposal.

City Attorney Kit Williams said this should have a slow rollout or phased implementation to protect the city from potential lawsuits. He said he can draft that language soon and have it ready at the next meeting.

Turk said the item should be held to allow time for more input.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 5.

Jan. 5 Discussion:
Williams again stressed that the changes, if approved, should be delayed so as not to have a negative effect on any current deals that may already be in motion. He presented a possible amendment to include a six-month delay.

During public comment, former Council Member Kyle Smith said it’s understandable to grandfather in anyone who already has a permit submitted with the city, but six months is too long for a city that is growing as fast as Fayetteville is.

Another person who spoke said it’s certainly right for current applicants to be protected, but the city shouldn’t need to protect people who might simply be thinking about submitting a permit for a development in the future.

Kinion said just because someone doesn’t have a permit already in place, that doesn’t mean there aren’t plans that could already be in motion and investments being made with the intent of submitting a permit application. He moved to approve the amendment. Scroggin seconded.

The council voted 7-1 to approve the amendment (Petty voted against).

Gutierrez suggested the Ordinance Review Committee take a look at the ordinance before the council votes. Kinion agreed.

The council agreed to leave the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Jan. 19 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said he drafted an amended ordinance that separates the portion of the Community Services proposal into two parts – one that includes the gas station use unit and the other that includes the dwelling unit change. That idea was approved by the Ordinance Review Committee.

The council voted 8-0 to approve the amendment, effectively splitting the original ordinance into two parts.

Several council members said they’d like to see completely separate ordinances, one for each of the two parts of the CS uses, and a third for the UT use. Williams said he could do that, but he’d need to draft all of them separately and bring them back as New Business at the next meeting.

The council agreed to table the item. The discussion will continue on Feb. 2.

Feb. 2 Discussion:
Williams has divided the ordinance into three separate ordinances. He has proposed an amendment that would move Use Unit 18 (gasoline service stations and drive-in/drive through restaurants) to a conditional use in Community Services, effectively removing all of the other previously proposed changes. Those other changes are now part of two new ordinances that are the first two items of New Business.

The council voted 8-0 to approve the amendment.

Former Council Member Kyle Smith spoke and urged the council to approve the ordinance.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.

Background:
This item was previously part of a different ordinance, but the council requested this section be removed and placed into a new proposal. This ordinance would move single-family and two-family dwellings from permitted uses to conditional uses under CS-Community Services.

Discussion:
Kinion said he doesn’t think CS should exclude one- and two-family homes from permitted uses just because a lot of developers have built those types of homes in CS instead of mixed-use projects. He said he was around when CS was implemented and when certain areas were zoned CS, and it was not the intent to exclude those types of homes, but rather to make it easier for a developer to build mixed use neighborhoods, whether they chose to or not.

Bunch said she admits being part of the crowd that might’ve said CS hasn’t panned out the way it was expected, especially on Rupple Road. She said she remembers discussions about rezoning the property along Rupple Road, and those talks were about ways to get more diverse neighborhoods, not just residential developments like what has been built since then. However, she said those houses are desired and are selling, so she’s not sure this ordinance is necessary.

Petty said he has definitely called CS a failure in the past because of those same reasons. He said there’s a subtle difference between providing more opportunities for residents and providing more options for developers. He said real estate surveys show there are people who are settling for either the house they can afford in a neighborhood that doesn’t work for them, or for a more expensive house in a part of town they prefer. Getting developers to experiment with mixed use takes more than just giving them a lot of choices, he said. While this ordinance won’t likely solve everything, it might lead to more experimentation of mixed use.

Hertzberg said this ordinance could lead to developers not wanting to build in Fayetteville.

Petty said developers have been saying that for 20 years but they still keep coming. Scroggin agreed, and said Fayetteville is a great community and people want to live here so developers will definitely keep building no matter what.

Two residents spoke in favor of the ordinance.

Kinion said he wants to leave the item on the first reading.

The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Background:
This item was previously part of a different ordinance, but the council requested this section be removed and placed into a new proposal. This ordinance would move single-family and two-family dwellings from permitted uses to conditional uses under UT-Urban Thoroughfare.

Discussion:
Some council members said they didn’t see the same issues as with CS. Scroggin said he doesn’t think it even matters whether the changes are approved or not.

Similar to the previous item, the council agreed to leave this ordinance on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Background:
This ordinance would approve the 2021-2022 pavement, sidewalk, and maintenance workplans. The plans were presented to the Transportation Committee, who recommended approval. Here’s our story about that.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
This item was brought up after city staff determined that a piece of land that is proposed to be annexed (see Unfinished Business agenda above) wouldn’t be subject to the city’s streamside protection rules. The council requested that the law be changed so that streamside rules would apply to land annexed into the city.

Discussion:
Council members said they’d like to advance the ordinance to the final reading tonight.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance and an emergency.

Background:
The city has been working with Startup Junkie since 2017 after the council approved a two-year agreement that allowed for three renewals. The first two-year renewal was approved for 2019-2020. This would be the second two-year renewal.

Discussion:
Startup Junkie representatives gave a presentation.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
The city has been working with the chamber for 12 years. Similar to the above item, the council approved a two-year agreement for 2017-2018 that allowed for three renewals. The first two-year renewal was approved for 2019-2020. This would be the second two-year renewal. Instead of placing this item on the Consent Agenda, staff said they felt it was important to have a full discussion of this item and provide an avenue for the chamber to highlight their work.

Discussion:
Chamber staff gave a presentation and the council discussed the issue for about a half hour.

Petty questioned a variety of aspects of the contract. Gutierrez said she hasn’t forgotten the chamber’s opposition to the city’s civil rights ordinance, and said she hopes the chamber is actively pursuing changes to be more inclusive. She said the perception of the chamber’s position on inclusivity and equity needs some help and she hopes they’re working on that. Chamber President Steve Clark said he wants people to remember that the chamber supported the second civil rights ordinance after changes were made that its leadership felt were needed. Clark said diversity is key to Fayetteville’s success, and the chamber had planned to be a park of the Pride Parade festivities this year before Covid cancelled the events.

There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 6-2 to approve the resolution. Gutierrez and Petty voted against.

Background:
This property includes 0.04 acres of unbuilt right-of-way at the northwest corner of Combs Avenue and 4th Street. County records indicate that the right-of-way was dedicated with the Combs Addition plat in 1888 (attached). Despite its narrow width, it is unclear whether the right-of-way was intended for street or alley use. It was not until the mid-1900s that 4th Street’s connection between Willow and Washington was completed to the south, consuming most of Lot 17 of Combs Addition. No private or public development has occurred within the right-of-way and it exists on fairly level terrain that overlaps floodplain of the Spout Spring Branch along its western extent.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment. After the council advanced the ordinance, Gutierrez said she had a request from a constituent that this be held tonight. She moved to table for two weeks. That motioned passed 8-0. She later said she was mistaken and that it was the next item she meant to hold. She moved to reconsider her motion to table. That motion passed 8-0.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to pass the ordinance.

Background:
Development on the property includes a 784-square-foot, single-family home that was built in 1915. Prior to 2008, the subject property and most others on the block and in the immediate vicinity were zoned RMF-24, Residential Multi-family, 24 Units per Acre. With the adoption of the Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan, the property was rezoned as NC, Neighborhood Conservation. Although specific development plans have not been offered, the applicant noted that approval of the request will afford an opportunity for appropriate infill.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval.

Location:

Discussion:
Gutierrez said she would like to hold this item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Feb. 16

Background:
This contract would continue the use of services for each of the city’s 32 parking pay stations. The cost of this service is $100 per month per pay station, totaling $38,400 annually. The proposed term of this amended agreement is through Dec. 31, 2021 at which time it will automatically renew for three additional one-year terms.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
This contract is for lighting at the skate park in Walker Park. It has been used primarily by area youth who have frequently requested lighting. The lighting will be turned on by push button and turned off by a timer.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.