LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: March 3, 2020

This property is located on the northeast corner of Porter Road and Cornerstone Place. It currently has a single-family home and is zoned RSF-4.

The applicant originally requested RMF-12, but at the Planning Commission’s suggestion, the request was changed to RI-U. The major differences are that RI-U doesn’t have a density cap, but RMF-12 allows apartment complexes instead of just duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes.

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

Location:

Feb. 18 Discussion:
City Council Member Teresa Turk requested that the council leave the request on the first reading to allow more time for the public to weigh in on the project. A motion to advance the ordinance to the second reading failed 5-2, with Turk and Kinion voting against, and Mayor Jordan electing not to cast the necessary sixth vote. The discussion will continue on March 3.

March 3 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Turk said she doesn’t think the request is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of density, and she won’t support the ordinance.

Marsh disagreed, and said the existing neighborhood pattern prioritizes the construction of more expensive, single-family homes and penalizes lower income residents who tend to rent homes and want to live in areas that are within walking distance of amenities.

Smith agreed, and said it’s a diverse neighborhood that is begging for more modern-style residential construction with higher density.

Bunch said the area is not too far from existing apartments, and is within walking distance to a school, Lewis Park, and a bus stop. She said higher density is very fitting in that neighborhood.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted 5-2 to approve it. Turk and Kinion voted against. Kinion did not say why.

This item was left on the first reading at the Feb. 18 meeting.

The property includes about 8.6 acres on the south side of Wedington Drive between Broyles and 54th avenues. It is largely undeveloped except for a single-family house near Wedington. The southern portion of the property includes floodplain and floodway associated with Owl Creek.

The applicant proposes a mini-storage facility with an associated office building.

The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions:

1. The area south of the proposed mini-storage structures that is alternately described as right-of-way and access easement shall be dedicated as right-of-way at the time of development; and
2. An access easement shall be dedicated between the proposed parking lot serving the office/retail building and the property to the east.

However, city staff recommend denial of the request. They said the city’s 2040 plan calls for strictly residential uses in this area. Another issue is that staff believes the development would create a barrier that would prevent connectivity. And while the applicant did offer to dedicate right-of-way for a future connection, the offer was for land 800 feet south of Wedington, which staff said is too far away.

Location:

Feb. 18 Discussion:

The applicant said that they have designed the self storage units to be “virtually invisible,” with a building at the front of the property, and landscaping surrounding the property. He also said there is a need for self storage in the area.

There was no public comment.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on March 3.

March 3 Discussion:
City staff said the applicant has requested this item be held for another two weeks. The council agreed, and left the ordinance on the second reading.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

This particular gear was ordered by another city but when it arrived, it had the wrong color. However, it is the color that Fayetteville uses and the company has agreed to sell the gear at a reduced price. Staff said the gear will meet many of the city’s immediate needs, and has requested to purchase it without a bidding process since it would not be offered in the same color at a reduced price by another vendor.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Staff said they have received no public comment regarding this request. Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.

Location:

Discussion:
The applicant said the plan is to preserve and restore the green space around the Town Branch creek, and to eventually create an animal and nature sanctuary.

There was no public comment.

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

City staff recommend approval.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

A city survey included responses from 2,167 residents and 154 businesses. Staff said 60% of respondents supported a 10-cent fee on single-use bags, and 58% would bring reusable bags or use fewer disposable bags at checkout if a bag fee were enacted.

If approved, the fee would begin on Jan. 1, 2021.

The proposal is based around 7 major provisions and applicability criteria:

• A 10-cent fee assessed for paper and plastic check out bags (does not include produce or meat bags distributed in the store prior to check out),
• The entire fee is kept by the retailer with a portion of the fee allowed for the retailer to offset cost associated with bags, implementation of the bag fee and reporting of the fee and bag sales,
• The balance of the fee must be invested by the store into a community environmental benefit (re-usable bags, litter clean up, recycling education, etc.),
• The single-use disposable bag fee applies to all stores that sell food and are larger than 10,000 SF (this would apply to all grocery stores, CVS, Walgreens, Target and Walmart but would not apply to small ethnic grocery stores, specialty grocery stores, hardware stores department stores or restaurants),
• Customers purchasing food with SNAP, Food Stamps and WIC are exempt from paying the check-out bag fee,
• Retailers must provide quarterly bag sales numbers to the city, and
• Signage is required at stores.

Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said there was a typo that needs to be corrected, and requested the council amend the ordinance to include the corrections (see the corrected language here). The council voted 7-0 to amend the ordinance with the requested corrections.

Two people spoke during public comment. One said he doesn’t recall seeing any plastic bag litter around town, but said if the fee is approved, it should apply to every business that uses single-use bags. The other person said he recently read an article which referred to a study that shows plastic bags have a smaller carbon footprint than paper bags and are easier on the environment than paper bags.

Council Member Turk said she rides along the bike trails and frequently sees areas that are littered with foam and plastic bags. She said measures like this have proven to reduce the use of single-use bags in other cities. She said starting with just charging a fee at the larger stores was a planned effort to not do too much too soon. Turk said she hopes the council will agree to leave the ordinance on the first reading to allow more time for public consideration.

Bunch said this is a reasonable and fair proposal that could be a good stepping stone for a future expanded measure.

Marsh said plastic bag litter is a problem around the creeks and neighborhoods in south Fayetteville where she lives. She said she moved here from Seattle which has an all-out ban on plastic bags, and said this measure is just common sense and should’ve probably been enacted years ago.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on March 17.

Aside from reducing public comment from 5 minutes to 3 minutes, the resolution also includes a mechanism that would allow the council to move through three ordinance readings with one vote instead of requiring three individual back-to-back-to-back motions, seconds, and votes to get through it all.

The Flyer tracks the adjournment times of all meetings in our council recaps. Here’s a graph of meeting durations over a nine-month period from May 2019 through January 2020.

Discussion:
Council Member Petty said he hopes people don’t think this is an effort to quash public comment. He said his reasoning is the opposite, and he was asked by constituents to consider anything that could reduce the length of meetings since they’ve begun to last so long that it’s difficult to get a word in before it’s time to go home to bed.

He said he also is concerned about the well-being and morale of the council and city staff who are present at the meetings and asked to make important decisions late into the night and early morning. He said the idea could also increase the efficiency of the meetings.

A possible amendment was proposed that would limit presentations by applicants to 10 minutes unless that time is extended by unanimous consent of the council. Additionally, it was suggested to include specific language allowing anyone from the public to receive extra time by unanimous consent or a majority vote.

Petty said it’s been suggested that council members also have a time limit on speaking. He said he’d support any of those ideas if the council agrees. He’s also open to sending the ordinance to a committee to be fine-tuned, or to table it tonight to allow more public consideration.

During public comment, one person said if the intent is to reduce meeting times, maybe the council should put a limit on the overall duration of the meetings instead of reducing individual speaker times.

Another person said suggested that reducing commenting time would ruin democracy in Fayetteville and said if City Council members don’t want to stay late at meetings they should resign.

Kinion said this idea bothers him a lot. He said reducing the time by two minutes is overly restrictive, and he particularly doesn’t like the idea to move through three readings with one motion. However, he said he would support sending the proposal to a committee for further development. “Five minutes is not that long,” he said. “And three minutes is nothing.”

Bunch said she expected more people to show up for this discussion. She said she’s reluctant to vote without hearing from more people.

Turk said maybe agenda items could be arranged differently based on whether they’re expected to draw large amounts of public comment. She questioned whether more items could be moved to the consent agenda if they aren’t thought to be very controversial. She also said she’d like the proposal to be held for another two weeks.

Gutierrez said she also wants to wait before voting on this proposal. She said her first reaction was that a three-minute limit is a good idea, but she’s still listening to public comment.

Marsh said she’s excited by the idea because she has also seen people leave meetings before they were able to speak. As for moving through three readings, she said she thinks that mechanism should only be allowed by unanimous consent of the council.

Smith said he’s hesitant to shorten the speaking time because it can sometimes be unnerving to stand in front the council and try to be concise in a short amount of time. However, he said four- and five-hour meetings have become more common so he’s keeping an open mind about the idea.

Kinion said the Planning Commission has a three-minute time limit, and he’s heard from people who are upset and feel restricted by that rule, and he’s concerned about bringing that kind of resentment onto the council.

Mayor Jordan said he has some concerns about limiting council member speaking time since they are representatives of the people, which could be seen as further restricting input.

Petty suggested the measure be sent to the Ordinance Review Committee for further development. The council agreed, and voted 6-1 to table for two meetings. Turk voted against after saying she would prefer the tabling only apply to one meeting so the council could hear this one more time before a committee takes up the issue. The discussion will continue on April 7.