Fayetteville City Council recap: April 2, 2024

Approved:

• A combined resolution for dealing with housing affordability.
• Rezoning 6.3 acres on Old Missouri Road.
• Rezoning about 2,400 acres of public parkland.
• Rezoning 1.1 acres on 12th Street.
• Rezoning 11.67 acres in the Oakbrooke and Bridgeport subdivisions.
• Rezoning 0.13 acres on Mount Comfort Road.

Denied:

• Appealing a denial of the removal of a future street from the master street plan.

Held:

• Approving the funding for the West Transmission Waterline project.
• Prohibiting dumping mulch, dirt and other natural materials on vacant lots in the city.
• Rezoning 0.3 acres on Markham Road.

» Download the agenda (PDF)

Turk’s proposal would prohibit dumping mulch, compost, fill dirt and brush on vacant lots within the city. It would not include non-vacant lots or any commercial activity.

Feb. 20 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said he would prefer the proposal to include wording like “unreasonably” rather than “any” when describing the prohibition of dumping those materials since it could be necessary to place some of those items on a property in preparation for its development. He said he thinks the proposal needs more work before a decision is made. He said a permit system is likely the best solution.

Bunch said she looked at the property and was surprised at how much mulch is piled on the land. She said that much material can create a runoff issue that clogs the street drains when it rains.

There was no public comment.

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

April 2 Discussion:
The council’s Ordinance Review Committee discussed this proposal once, and members said they plan to discuss it again before it’s brought back to the council on July 16. The council voted 8-0 to table it until then.

Staff said the $85 million in federal funds would be paid back over 20 years. There is no interest attached to the bonds, but there is a service fee.

March 19 Discussion:
Staff requested this item be tabled until the next meeting, and the council agreed with a vote of 8-0.

April 2 Discussion:
There was no public comment, but there is some confusion over which version of the ordinance was read, so the council tabled the item until April 16.

It would declare that the city is in a housing crisis, and also:

• Commit to establish a housing crisis task force by the second quarter of 2024 that is active for at least one year, and is made up of representatives from government agencies, non-profits, renter groups, developers, landlords and community members.
• Request that the mayor hire a new employee who would coordinate efforts to address housing insecurity, facilitation collaboration among stakeholders, and implement recommendations from the task force.
• Commit to working with the new employee and the task force, as well as other stakeholders to develop and implement strategies to increase the supply of affordable housing units, streamline the permitting process for affordable housing projects, and explore innovating approaches to address housing insecurity.
• Call upon state and federal lawmakers to provide additional funding and resources to support local efforts to combat the housing crisis.
• Pledge to form regional partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions in developing comprehensive strategies to combat housing insecurities, recognizing the movement of residents and workers across city lines.
• Pledge to establish metrics and regularly assess progress in addressing the housing crisis and to adapt strategies as needed to ensure equitable outcomes for all residents in its jurisdiction.
• Request the city clerk to transmit copies of the resolution to relevant state and federal officials, as well as to local media outlets, community organizations, regional stakeholders, and other relevant entities to raise awareness of the housing crisis and mobilize support for solutions.

March 19 Discussion:
Before the meeting, Councilmember Stafford proposed and submitted three amendments for consideration.

The first amendment would list several accomplishments and current efforts the city has taken to address housing affordability.

The second amendment removes the creation of a task force, and instead states that the council and city will identify tasks that can be taken on by the Community Development and Assistance Programs Advisory Board and the Public Facilities Board and roles they can play in addressing housing needs in Fayetteville.

The first part of the third amendment would remove the request that the mayor expedite the hiring process of a housing coordinator position, and instead states that the city will commit to identifying opportunities to accelerate the approval of housing and housing opportunities in Fayetteville and further commit to considering the hiring of additional staff in areas with a need for greater capacity. The second part of the third amendment removes the language that discusses working collaboratively with the new housing coordinator position and replaces it with the Community Development and Assistance Programs Advisory Board and the Public Facilities Board.

» See the full amendment language here

Billy Cook, Anna Hurley and Solomon Burchfield from a group they named the Fayetteville Housing Action Coalition spoke about how and why they drafted the original resolution and sought council sponsors to have it heard tonight.

About 30 people spoke during public comment. Almost all spoke in favor of the resolution or some combination of it and the other proposal on the agenda. Many told stories of their own challenges in finding an affordable place to live in the city. One person said they were concerned that adding a new task force might complicate the work of the Community Development and Assistance Programs Advisory Board and the Public Facilities Board which already receive HUD funding to address affordable housing.

Stafford said he’s like to withdraw his second proposed amendment because he heard from some council members who said they weren’t happy with the potential removal of the task force.

Moore suggested adding the achievements listed in the competing resolution to the list in Stafford’s proposed amendment so they’re all combined into one proposal.

Wiederkehr said he appreciates the council’s commitment in coming together to find an agreeable resolution. He said he’d even support tabling his proposal to focus on formulating a combined resolution.

Berna suggested tabling both resolutions and bringing a combined resolution for approval to the next meeting.

The council voted 7-1 to table the resolution for two weeks to allow the city attorney’s office to draft a combined resolution. Moore voted against.

April 2 Discussion:
Despite the council asking the city attorney’s office to combine the two resolutions at the last meeting, the council later agreed to hold a workshop session on March 26 to work through the changes. The result of that meeting is the combined resolution here.

During public comment, 13 people spoke in favor of the new resolution.

The council voted 8-0 to amend the resolution to include the new draft that was agreed upon at the workshop session.

Moore said she wants to see a housing coordinator hired, and moved to amend the new resolution to include language requiring that the new position be added to city staff. Jones seconded. The amendment failed 2-6 with only Moore and Jones voting in favor.

Jones said tonight’s combined resolution is a win for everyone. Wiederkehr agreed, and said it’s an easy proposal to support.

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

Instead of declaring a crisis, it lists 17 efforts the city has completed or is currently working on to address housing issues, and also:

• Acknowledges that while cities cannot contribute money toward the private production of homes, the desire remains for a full range of housing stock in a variety of forms and price points such that residents may more readily find clean, safe, and affordable housing to purchase or rent within the community.
• Acknowledges that housing prices are only half of the affordability equation, and that income levels are the other half, and points to the $2 million in ARPA funds that the council put towards childcare services and another $2 million appropriated towards job training.
• Considers the results of an in-progress study that assesses developer fees, which haven’t been adjusted in 17 years and if increased, that revenue could be reinvested in the supporting the means of delivering planning, entitlement processing, plan review, and inspection services that could benefit housing production.
• Reaffirms the council’s desire to continue working with regional partners, stakeholders, commissions, boards, committees, neighborhood groups, residents, and staff with the goal of adequate housing availability.
• Calls upon state and federal lawmakers to restore programmatic funding for the creation of housing which was lost in the 1980s.
• Acknowledges the desire to form regional partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions with the goal of developing strategies to nurture the creation of housing.
• Pledges to act in the best interest of the community to responsibly utilize resources to balance long-term environmental wellbeing with the need for housing, considering the needs of the least fortunate residents.
• Suggests adding a new employee such as an engineer, a deputy of development services, a planner or an inspector whose salary would be funded using increased development fees appropriated by the council but left to the administration to implement.

March 19 Discussion:
Wiederkehr moved to table his proposal for two weeks. The council voted 8-0 to approve that motion.

April 2 Discussion:
Wiederkehr moved to table his proposal indefinitely. The council voted 8-0 to approve that motion.

Both the Planning Commission and city planning staff recommend in favor of the request.

Location:

March 19 Discussion:
Turk said she wants to hold this item on the first reading so she can have some time to go visit the area. The council agreed, and will continue the discussion on April 2.

April 2 Discussion:
Stafford said he likes the idea of having smaller, single-family houses next to Butterfield Trail Elementary. “I really like this, I think it fits, and I think it will help towards our goal of getting some housing built and stabilizing the market,” said Stafford.

Bunch agreed, and said she’s happy to see that the public has come around to the idea of allowing more housing next to the school, considering it was just a few years ago when many neighbors in the area opposed an increase in density on the subject property.

One person spoke during public comment, and they were in favor of the request.

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

The Planning Commission denied the request in February, so the petitioners have appealed that decision to the City Council.

Staff said the petitioners are primarily concerned with a perceived diminished value in their property due to the existence of the plan. They also said they are concerned about the impact on the wildlife habitat and the watershed and existing flooding in the area if a new street is built that leads to subsequent development.

Location:

March 19 Discussion:
This item was tabled at the start of the meeting at the request of the applicant.

April 2 Discussion:
Staff said the road was put on the master street plan because it is envisioned that the area will one day have more traffic, considering that Highway 16 is the only east-west option.

Robert Rhoads, an attorney representing the seven applicant families, said the annexation of property on that side of town has not been as extensive as previously expected, which removes the practicality of ever building a road in the area.

About 10 people spoke in favor of the appeal, and said if the street is built and the area is developed, it will negatively affect the watershed, wetlands and prairie land in the area, and traffic from vehicles on the road would create pollution.

One person who spoke against the appeal said removing streets from master street plans is not the way to go about preventing future development because it limits a city’s ability to respond to inevitable growth.

Turk said she’s also concerned about the potential effects a road would have on the watershed. She said she’ll support the appeal.

Berna said he doesn’t typically go against the city staff’s recommendations, but he’s considering siding with the neighbors because he’s also worried about what a road would do to the natural areas.

Wiederkehr said if the neighbors want to guarantee that their property is never developed, one option is to join forces and put all their land into a permanent conservation area. If that happened, the city could happily remove the street from the master plan since it would obviously never be needed. But if the landowners plan to one day sell, then the city may need to build infrastructure if it’s eventually developed by the new owners.

Bunch said she has to apply the same rules of logic to this street as any other area, and there are only so many tools the city has to respond to development.

Decision:
The council voted 4-4, and Mayor Jordan declined to cast a tie-breaker, so the appeal failed. Jones, Stafford, Berna and Turk voted in favor, while Moore, Widederkehr, Bunch and Hertzberg voted against.

Before that rezoning takes place, staff included this proposal that suggests changes to the P-1 zoning district to make it more adaptable and supportive of the needs of public institutions, cultural, and recreational facilities by offering more flexibility in development standards and allowing for a broader range of complementary uses.

Discussion:
Williams suggested an amendment changing the word “churches” to “religious organizations” so as not to appear as though the city favors a specific type of religious organization. The council agreed, and amended the ordinance.

There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it. Bunch left after the Unfinished Business portion of the agenda.

The properties represent a diverse range of parks and greenspaces that vary widely in terms of size, scale, and level of development. That range includes everything from small, undeveloped neighborhood parks acquired through parkland dedication to larger, developed areas with regional attractions such as Centennial Park, Lake Fayetteville, and Lake Sequoyah.

Staff said the need for the rezoning became apparent following two redevelopment projects funded by the 2019 Bond Project: the expansion of the Yvonne Richardson Community Center and the redevelopment of the Lake Fayetteville softball fields. Those projects highlighted that many of the department’s properties did not comply with current zoning standards, which restricts the ability to expand or reconstruct facilities if they are deemed non-conforming to those standards.

The rezoning proposal aims to bring those properties into compliance with current zoning standards to ensure they can be used and developed in line with the parks master plan objectives.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Turk said she doesn’t think the neighbors would support this and she’ll vote against it. She asked the council to hold the item on the second reading. Moore moved to send the item to the third reading, but that motion failed.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it.