LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: March 2, 2021

Background:
This item was held at the Dec. 1, Dec. 15, Jan. 5 and Feb. 16 meetings.

This contract will authorize a land purchase needed for the replacement parking deck to allow the project to move forward and expedite the completion prior to beginning the Arts Corridor Civic Plaza Project.

Dec. 1 Discussion:
City staff shared the following updated conceptual images of the new deck (see PDF here):

City Attorney Kit Williams said the contract is not ready to be approved. He said more time is needed to make adjustments to both sides of the deal.

There was no public comment.

The council agreed to hold the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Dec. 15.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
City staff said more time is needed to work with all parties to come to an agreement. City Attorney Kit Williams said he believes the council could wait to approve the contract and still meet the city’s bond obligation.

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

Jan. 5 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan said he’d like to table the ordinance until mid-February to give him more time to work through the contract with the developers and to seek some advice from professionals who are experts in public-private partnerships.

Kinion said having a specialist’s opinion would make him more comfortable. Scroggin and Bunch agreed.

Cary Arsaga said he closed his business in the Depot Lot when the pandemic hit and was prepared to re-open in July but decided against it because he heard the council might be making a decision about this in October and it wouldn’t have made any sense to only open for a few months before closing for construction. He said it’s frustrating for the decision to continue to drag on because he is depending on this deal to go through to make it as a business owner.

The council voted 8-0 to table the item until Feb. 16.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
Shortly before the meeting, an updated ordinance and contracts (with exhibit) were distributed to the public.

The council amended the ordinance with the new language that includes the names of all the entities. The contracts still need a signature from the bank, so this can’t be approved tonight, but Mayor Jordan said he’s planning a special City Council meeting next week and he will likely add this item to that agenda.

Staff said the new contract includes specific entity names, a shortened term for the city’s option to purchase the mobility hub, and adding language that the developers make a good faith effort to add a sixth and seventh floor to the parking deck within 15 years, instead of the previous 20 years.

There was no public comment.

Kinion said he likes the idea of having more than just a parking deck, but he’s having a hard time justifying the risk of moving forward with such a project when all the city really needs is replacement parking.

Mayor Jordan said he understands the risk and he has a backup plan to simply build a deck on School Avenue if this project falls through. He said he has a vision for a much bigger structure that can also support commercial activity with added social elements, and that’s why he’s directed his staff to pursue this plan.

The council voted 8-0 to table the item until March 2.

March 2 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan said he’s still waiting on the bank’s board to make a decision, and expects to have this contract ready in two weeks. The council voted 8-0 to table the item until March 16.

Background:
This item was held at the Nov. 17, Dec. 1, Dec. 15, Jan. 5 and Feb. 16 meetings.

The work is related to a replacement parking deck near the intersection of Dickson Street and West Avenue.

From a staff memo:

This amendment includes the Balance of the Architectural Services for the Architectural Elements of the Deck and West Avenue Police Substation including Design Development, Construction Drawings, Bidding and Negotiation, and Construction Administration. It also includes the structural Design of the Colonnade, Survey and platting.

Nov. 17 Discussion:
Staff requested this item be tabled until the next meeting to allow more time to get an acceptable contract. The discussion will continue on Dec. 1.

Dec. 1 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan requested this item be tabled again until the next meeting to allow more time to work on the contract. The discussion will continue on Dec. 15.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since it can only be approved after the previous item is approved. The discussion will continue on Jan. 5.

Jan 5 Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since there’s still no contract in place. The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since there’s still no contract in place. The discussion will continue on March 2.

March 2 Discussion
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since there’s still no contract in place. The discussion will continue on March 16.

Background:
This item was tabled at the Feb. 2 and 16 meetings.

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.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
The applicant would like to table the item until the March 2 meeting.

March 2 Discussion:
City staff recommend a flood study be completed before the following PZD is approved.

Staff said the Environmental Action Committee supports the annexation of the property and recommended the applicant provide floodplain delineation before the property is platted. Staff said while the committee was agnostic on the specific development plan, they did recognize the benefit of having the property inside the city limits so it could be subject to the city’s environmental regulations.

Six people spoke during public comment.

Some said they are concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the project on the land and on Lake Fayetteville.

A few others said the area has a flooding problem and more development could compound that issue.

One person said the annexation should include an older bridge on Zion Road so as not to avert the responsibility of addressing any attention that the bridge would need to support future development.

Scroggin said he supports the annexation. The flooding issues, he said could be a result of problems with existing nearby retention ponds that might need to be addressed. He said he also supports the PZD.

Petty said he agrees with Scroggin, and that development under city controls will be better for the environment than development under the county’s rules. He said he thinks the proposed PZD could potentially mitigate some of the flooding issues in the area.

Bunch said she believes the property will eventually be developed, and while she would also like to see it stay farmland, she doesn’t think that’s a reality. She said best option is to annex the land into the city so it can be subject to the city’s environmental regulations.

Kinion said he’s in support of the annexation, but he’s not completely comfortable with the proposed PZD.

Turk said she’s disappointed that the flooding in the area hasn’t been addressed. She said the city should remediate that issue before considering this project. She’s also concerned about the potential environmental impact the development could have on the area. She said she’s on the fence about the annexation, but she’s against the PZD.

Decision:
The council voted 6-2 to approve the annexation. Turk and Jones voted against.

Background:
This item was tabled at the Feb. 2 and 16 meetings.

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.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
Since this item is tied to the previous item, it was also tabled 8-0 until the March 2 meeting.

March 2 Discussion:
Public comments were similar to the discussion above, in that neighbors are worried about flooding and water pollution at Lake Fayetteville, and safety in the area around the other bridge. The council decided to leave the item of the second reading. The discussion will continue on March 16.

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Feb. 16 meeting.

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.

Feb. 2 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.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
Kinion said he still feels like this is too restrictive. Bunch said she’s still leaning in that direction herself, and thinks requiring a Conditional Use Permit for single-family and two-family dwellings would make it too difficult for developers to build those types of structures. Turk agreed.

Petty said he thinks the extra step could help level the playing field for buyers who want more choices of housing types. Jones agreed.

The council voted 4-4 to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading (Kinion, Bunch, Turk and Hertzberg voted against). That motion requires six affirmative votes, so the motion failed. The discussion will continue on March 2.

March 2 Discussion:
One person spoke during public comment, and they were in favor of the ordinance.

Kinion said he still thinks the ordinance too restrictive. He said developers need to feel confident that they can build in Fayetteville into the future without the rules being changed. He won’t support the ordinance.

Scroggin said the city prepped the area’s infrastructure for high density mixed use, but all it’s getting are lower density neighborhoods with single-family homes. He said the plan for the area was a failure and this ordinance could help diversify what’s being built.

Gutierrez said people are really concerned about traffic, and bringing in more mixed-use amenities could help solve that issue by bringing more destinations to the area which could lead to less driving. She’ll support the ordinance.

Bunch said she’s still not in favor of changing the ordinance.

Petty is still in support.

Decision:
The council voted 4-4 with Kinion, Hertzberg, Bunch and Turk voting against. Mayor Jordan declined to cast a deciding vote, so the ordinance failed.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Feb. 16 meeting.

The property is located northwest of the intersection between I-49 and Wedington Drive. It was annexed by the city in 1967 and shortly after a duplex was built on the land. The request is to rezone the parcel to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, 12 Units per Acre. The applicant has proposed a development which would retain the duplex and construct an additional duplex on the back of the property for a total of four units.

Both the Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval.

Location:

Feb. 16 Discussion:
During public comment, one person spoke against the request.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on March 2.

March 2 Discussion:
Turk suggested the council tour the area. The council left the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on March 16.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Feb. 16 meeting.

The council has the power to adopt amendments without having to refer items back to the Planning Commission. This ordinance would make it clear that public notification and hearing requirements of Planning Commission items only apply to annexation and zoning map amendments that are initiated to the Planning Commission by private parties, not amendments made by the council during their own meetings.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
Turk suggested holding this item on the first reading. Discussion will continue March 2.

March 2 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The City Council in April approved an ordinance allowing pedal carriages to operate within specific areas of the city. Similar to the city’s taxicab rules, the council must hold a public hearing and then grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity before the carriages can begin operating.

Discussion:
The applicant said she’ll start with two carriages, but would like the flexibility to grow with public demand, which is why she’s asking for approval for up to 10 carriages.

There was no public comment.

Turk moved to amend the resolution to change the maximum allowed carriages to six instead of 10. She said she thought 10 might be too many. Scroggin seconded the motion.

The amendment failed with only Kinion, Turk and Gutierrez voting in favor.

Decision:
The council voted 8-0 to approve the resolution.

Background:
This item was brought forward by Council Member Teresa Turk. She said the goal is to eventually have a plan on how to improve the water quality of the lake so that residents can “eat the fish” they catch in the lake, and swim in the water.

Turk said the resolution asks for five things from the city:

1. Endeavor to work with local, regional and national environmental partners including but not limited to the Illinois River Watershed Partnership, NWA Land Trust, Natural Heritage Association, and Lake Fayetteville Watershed Partnership.
2. Intend to work with those stakeholders and others, and also to seek federal grants and funding to move projects forward.
3. Develop a watershed strategy improvement plan with those stakeholders.
4. Implement a watershed improvement plan recommendation within a decade.
5. The mayor should direct all relevant city departments to consider the potential water quality impact of projects that are within the watershed.

Discussion:
Petty said he’d like the city to make a good faith effort to partner with the city of Springdale on this project.

Six people spoke in favor of the resolution.

Decision:
The council voted 7-0 to approve the resolution. Hertzberg’s vote was inaudible.

Background:
This item is for the purchase of three refuse trucks.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 6-0 to pass the resolution. Hertzberg and Bunch’s votes weren’t audible.

Background:
This item is for the purchase of a new forklift for the city.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to pass it. Hertzberg’s vote was inaudible, she might’ve dropped off the call.

Background:
City Attorney Kit Williams sent a memo about this item. Read it here.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it. Bunch’s vote was inaudible.

Background:
The property contains 5 acres of undeveloped land with approximately 1,100 feet of frontage along West Wedington Drive. No development plans have been submitted by the applicant.

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

Location:

Discussion:
The applicant said they would like to change the request to a mix of RI-U and NS-L.

Turk said the applicant should go back through the Planning Commission process with any major changes. She moved to send it back to the commission. Bunch seconded. The motion failed with only Scroggin, Turk and Bunch voting in favor.

Mayor Jordan suggested leaving the item on the first reading to allow a new ordinance to be drafted. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on March 16.

Background:
This is to approve bids for the construction of two fire stations. The projects are part of the 2019 voter-approved bond issue.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 8-0 to approve the resolution.