Fayetteville City Council recap: July 18, 2023

Council action

Approved

• Opposing the release of nutrient or phosphorus waste into water supplies.
• Changes to the Historic District Commission.
• Rezoning 0.3 acres on Happy Hollow Road.

Denied

• Rezoning nearly 113 acres off Dead Horse Mountain Road

Held

• Razing and removing a structure at 3301 S. Coach Road.
• Changes to monthly water and sewer rates.
• Approving the city’s 2024-2028 capital improvements plan.

» Download the agenda (PDF)

Decision:
The council voted 7-0 to pass the resolution.

Location:

Dec. 6 Discussion:
Staff said the home has been vacant for at least six years.

Several councilmembers said they were worried about the safety of anyone who enters the home.

There was no public comment.

Bunch suggested tabling the item for two weeks before authorizing the raze and removal of the structure. The council agreed, and voted 8-0 to table the resolution until Dec. 20.

Dec. 20 Discussion:
The homeowner emailed the City Council today and said he plans to manage the removal of the structure himself. City staff said they gave him the information he’d need to get started, including how to get the proper permits.

Turk suggested tabling the item until the second meeting in January to give the homeowner time to take action. The council voted 8-0 to table the resolution. The discussion will continue on Jan. 17, 2023.

Jan. 17 Discussion:
The homeowner said he has talked to city staff about obtaining a demolition permit, which he plans to do in the next week or two. He said he regrets forcing the council to the point of needing to take action.

The council agreed to give the homeowner six months to complete the demolition, and request a progress report in four months. The discussion will continue on July 18.

July 18 Discussion:
Staff said the owner hired a company to raze and remove the home, which should be complete in 4-6 weeks. Staff recommended tabling the item until the first meeting in August.

The council voted 7-0 to table the item until Aug. 1.

Background:
This ordinance would make the recommended changes to the city’s water and sewer rates as discussed in the public hearing on tonight’s agenda.

The changes would apply to water and sewer customers who live outside the city limits. Rates would stay the same for those whose addresses are inside the city limits.

July 19 Discussion:
Paul Becker, the city’s chief financial officer, asked that the ordinance be tabled to allow time to meet with Farmington city leaders to negotiate a new contract. He requested the item be held until Dec. 6.

Mayor Jordan said he would also like to table the item to allow time to make some changes to the recommendations. The council agreed and voted unanimously to table it.

Dec. 6 Discussion:
Paul Becker, the city’s chief financial officer, asked that the ordinance be tabled to allow more time to negotiate with Farmington city leaders on a new contract. He requested the item be held until March 7, 2023. The council agreed and voted unanimously to table it.

March 7 Discussion:
Paul Becker, the city’s chief financial officer, asked that the ordinance be tabled until April 18, 2023. Becker said staff needs more time, partly because they’re still negotiating with Farmington city leaders. The council agreed and voted unanimously to table it.

April 18 Discussion:
Paul Becker, the city’s chief financial officer, asked that the ordinance be tabled until May 16, 2023. Becker said staff needs more time with the proposal. The council agreed and voted unanimously to table it.

May 16 Discussion:
Paul Becker, the city’s chief financial officer, asked that the ordinance be tabled until July 18, 2023. Becker said staff needs more time with the proposal. The council agreed and voted unanimously to table it.

July 18 Discussion:
Paul Becker, the city’s chief financial officer, asked that the ordinance be tabled until Aug. 15, 2023. Becker said staff needs more time with the proposal. The council agreed and voted unanimously to table it.

June 20 Discussion:
Councilmember Jones said he’d like to table the resolution for one month to allow time for a representative from Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield to come and speak to the council.

Turk asked about the cost, and Jones said the services would be free to the city due to a grant that the partners received.

The council voted 8-0 to table the item until July 18.

July 18 Discussion:
Councilmember Jones said he’d like to amend the ordinance language to encourage the city to “explore” the idea of partnering with Arkansas Rural Health Partners and Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield for free mental health first aid training for city employees. Jones said he wants to make sure it’s clear the resolution is nonbonding. The council voted 7-0 to amend the resolution.

Councilmember Bunch asked if the city is working on this idea already. Jones said he spoke to the city’s HR department today and was told that the city is indeed exploring the idea, and if he’d known that before, he might not’ve moved forward with the resolution.

The council voted 6-1 to table the item indefinitely. Moore voted against.

Background:
The property is southeast of the intersection of Dead Horse Mountain Road and Goff Farm Road. It is currently minimally developed with low-density residential structures and also incorporates the Stonebridge Meadows Golf Club. The property is currently zoned R-A and RSF-4, and the RSF-4 section has a Bill of Assurance that limits the property to a density of 2.5 units per acre. The property has a long development history, though multiple plans have failed to come to fruition. It was previously part of the Villas at Stonebridge Planned Zoning District, which expired in 2015. Upon that expiration, staff recommended the property revert back to its original zoning of R-A. The property was eventually rezoned to its current RSF-4 designation with an associated Bill of Assurance limiting the density to 2.5 units per acre. In February 2018, a preliminary plat for Meadows at Stonebridge Subdivision was approved on a portion of this property, which was not built. After two additional failed rezoning attempts in 2021 – one was a Planned Zoning District that was denied by City Council in March, and the other a request to remove the Bill of Assurance which was denied by the City Council in December – another preliminary plat received approval on 51.32 acres of the site from the Planning Commission in July 2022.

The city planning staff recommends denial of the request, and said the proposed development is partially incompatible with surrounding land uses, the existing infrastructure cannot support the potential density without significant investment, the proposal contradicts City Plan 2040 and adopted land use policies, and the lack of detailed development plans for the large site raises concerns.

The Planning Commission in May voted 5-4 to recommend approval. Commissioners was opposed the request found that the proposal was not in line with the goals outlined in City Plan 2040, or with the Growth Concept map. Commissioners in favor stated that the traffic and infrastructure concerns could be addressed at the time of development.

Location:

June 20 Discussion:
In a letter to the council passed out before tonight’s meeting, attorney Robert Rhoads said the requested rezoning will allow the golf course to build a new clubhouse with a pool on what is the region’s only public 18-hole champion course. The balance of the property is to have a variety of uses such as a coffee shop/cafe, small mercantile, and some cottages, townhomes or condos.

Rhoads said the applicant is prepared to present a Bill of Assurance limiting the density on the NC property to 350 homes (without the Bill of Assurance, he said the new zoning district would allow for 800 homes). He said 100 of the homes will be for the age 55+ demographic, which could reduce the traffic impact.

Mark Marquess, CEO of Riverwood Homes, said about 100 of the remaining homes are designated as affordable cottages between 1,300-1,700 square feet starting at around $275,000, with about 100 more set as traditional manor-style homes at 1,800-2,100 square feet starting at $350,000, and about 40 lots available for estate homes at around 2,400 square feet.

Rhoads said if the property were left as is and developed with only 134 homes, the current economics would dictate that the homes all be priced starting at $500,000, which is far less affordable than his client’s proposed plan.

The applicant is also prepared to offer another Bill of Assurance that no apartment buildings or gas stations could be built on the CS property and that some of the land will be earmarked for retail, such as sidewalk cafes, offices, and coffee shops with no more than 50 residential lots.

Rhoads asked that the ordinance be left on the first reading to allow his clients some time to draft both of the Bill of Assurance documents.

Five people spoke against the request during public comment. They all said they were concerned about the added traffic that more homes could bring to the area, and said there isn’t adequate drainage infrastructure to handle more density. Some said their properties currently flood during heavy rainfall and they’re worried those issues will only compound with hundreds more houses nearby.

One person said while he thinks the project is sprawl, the city needs more housing and it might be time to make some concessions in order to address that problem.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on July 6.

July 6 Discussion:
The applicant has submitted the Bills of Assurance that were discussed at the previous meeting:

The first applies to the portion requested to be rezoned NC which limits the property to 350 lots. The second would allow no multi-family dwellings, no gas service stations, and designates 5 acres be limited to commercial use.

During public comment, one person spoke in favor and two said they had softened their stance since the last meeting.

Jones said it’s a difficult decision, but he’s leaning toward voting in favor of the request. He said he’s talked to a lot of the neighbors and many of them seem to have shifted their position to be in favor of the proposal.

Moore said she is concerned about the existing infrastructure and whether the improvements required for development would fill the necessary gaps, but she also said the city needs more housing. Moore suggested the council reject the portion of the Bill of Assurance that limits the NC property to only 350 lots.

The council agreed to leave the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on July 18.

July 18 Discussion:
City staff were asked about the drainage issues in the area. They said after studying the area, there are indeed drainage problems – about one major incident per year – but this particular property is downstream from those problems so a development there would not compound any issues. Because it’s downstream, they said, it should be noted that a development with new drainage infrastructure also would not necessarily help those existing problems.

During public comment, several area residents spoke. Some were in favor and others were against.

Wiederkehr said he understands the concerns of the neighbors who argue that the area’s infrastructure cannot handle any more growth, but property owners have the right to develop their land and cannot be held liable for the mistakes of the past.

“They cannot be legally required to remedy the shortfalls of all the incremental growth that has occurred previously,” said Wiederkehr.

Still, Wiederkehr said he feels very cautious about the proposal considering the infrastructure fixes could come at a major cost to all the city’s taxpayers.

Jones said he was once inclined to support the request, but has since sided with the neighbors and won’t be voting in favor.

Bunch said she feels the pressure to approve developments that will add more housing to the city, but she’s having a hard time getting around the fact that the city’s planning staff are not supportive of this particular project.

Berna said the city is at point where all the remaining pieces of undeveloped land will come with challenges because the most easily developable properties have already been built upon. He said while there are no infrastructure improvement projects currently on the horizon near the property in question, it should be considered that if an area becomes more dense with housing, it’s possible that improvement projects could become more of a priority simply because they’ve become more necessary.

Turk said she’s also concerned about the price tag on the infrastructure improvements that the city would need to make to handle a major development in the area. She said she also shares Bunch’s hesitations concerning city planners’ rejection of the proposal.

Hertzberg said she agrees with Berna’s suggestion that more development could expedite infrastructure improvements. She’ll support the request, she said.

Moore said the city needs to increase its housing supply, specifically through projects that will offer affordable homes. She suggested removing the Bill of Assurance that limits the property to single-family homes so that the property isn’t forever bound to less density if the rezoning is approved, but the land is never developed.

Decision
The council voted 3-4 to deny the request. Jones, Wiederkehr and Turk voted against, and Mayor Jordan declined to cast the required fifth vote in favor.

Background:
Councilmember Turk sponsored this resolution which opposes the issuance of any ADEQ permit to Synagro or any other company that would allow the release or land application of nutrient or phosphorus industrial waste or similar material within the Illinois River or Beaver Lake watersheds, emphasizing the efforts made by Northwest Arkansas cities and businesses to reduce nutrient overabundance, the negative effects of excess phosphorus on water quality and purification costs, the importance of protecting Beaver Lake as a source of drinking water, and requests the ADEQ to regulate and prohibit land application of such waste in nutrient surplus areas with karst geologic formations.

Discussion:
Turk said she hopes the council will adopt the resolution and that it encourages the state to adopt more stringent regulations regarding the release of waste into watersheds.

Decision:
The council voted 7-0 to approve the resolution.

Background:
The city’s Long Range Planning staff, along with the Historic District Commission, have recommended an amendment to the city code that would update the Historic District Commission chapter to include changes such as state code references, member qualifications, historical markers, local historic districts, and clarifying instances where a Certificate of Appropriateness is not required. Staff said the amendment aligns with the Certified Local Government Program, a partnership between the National Park Service, the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, and local governments, promoting historic preservation standards. Staff said the proposed changes address the need for clear criteria and processes for establishing local historic districts, and the amendments have undergone review and revisions by the commission, staff, and feedback from the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. The proposed amendment also includes adjustments to when a Certificate of Appropriateness is not required, focusing on work facing a public right-of-way rather than work visible from a public right-of-way.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The property is in south Fayetteville on the west side of Happy Hollow Road, just south of Huntsville Road. It is currently developed with a single-family home. The applicant has stated that the rezoning would coincide with the surrounding neighborhood and allow for higher-density residential infill.

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

Location:

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’s CIP must be re-evaluated and/or adjusted each year prior to incorporation into the annual budget. Annual adoption of the plan is not an appropriation in itself or an authorization to spend money, but rather serves as an ongoing evaluation in response to changes in economic conditions or project priority modifications. Once included in the annual budget, it must be approved by the council and only at that time does it become an appropriation authorized for expenditure.

Discussion:
Turk said she needs more time to look over the plan. Bunch agreed.

The council tabled the resolution 7-0. The discussion will continue on Aug. 1