LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: April 21, 2020

Background:
The council in March granted extraordinary powers to Mayor Jordan to enact temporary regulations regarding the COVID-19 outbreak. This item would amend the original ordinance with two main provisions – 1) that there is public notification for any directives the mayor makes, and 2) that the council would share some of the authority with the ability to reject any newly enacted directives at their next regular meeting. It was sponsored by Council Member Kyle Smith.

Discussion:
Gutierrez and Bunch said they hope this doesn’t interfere with the mayor’s powers and cause any delays.

City Attorney Kit Williams said if this is approved and any new directives are issued by the mayor, those new directives would be added to the next council agenda as a resolution to simply approve or deny.

Scroggin said he has complete trust in the mayor, and won’t support the amendment.

Marsh said she also trusts the mayor, but wants to set a precedent for any future administrations. She said she’ll support it.

Bunch asked whether this would really set any precedents since it would only be amending a temporary ordinance. She said she doesn’t think the council would want to reject any of Jordan’s directives, but if they did, they already have the power to do so.

Kinion said this ordinance was built specifically for this administration, so there’s no reason to set a precedent. He said he won’t support it.

Smith said this would not set a legal precedent, but it could provide some guidance for future councils.

Turk said there are plenty of mechanisms to walk back directives set by the mayor. She said she appreciates the intention, but it’s not necessary in this particular situation.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third and final reading. The ordinance failed in the final vote with only Marsh and Smith voting in favor.

Background:
This item was tabled at the March 16 meeting.

City staff have proposed an ordinance to allow pedal carriage businesses to operate within a specific area in town.

The proposal states that pedal carriages would have to be operated by a driver at least 21 years of age who is an employee of a company that has obtained a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Pedal Carriage Drivers Permit from the police department. The ordinance also requires the permit holder to carry at least $1 million in general liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage. The rules also include numerous safety parameters, including required enhanced braking systems.

Pedal carriages would not be allowed on sidewalks, trails or any closed streets.

Location:
The proposed area of operation is illustrated in the map below, and also includes two routes to allow pedal carriage operators to access other areas of interest outside the downtown zone.

Consumption of alcohol would only be allowed on the pedal carriages if the city eventually establishes its entertainment district. The topic was first discussed in 2019, but was tabled by the City Council in September to give staff more time to further fine tune the proposal.

March 16 Discussion:
There was no discussion. This item was immediately tabled 8-0 until April 7.

April 7 Discussion:
The applicant requested the item be tabled for two weeks. The council ultimately decided to leave it on the first reading.

April 21 Discussion:
Staff are requesting the following amendments at the request of the Police Department:

• 117.123 (C): Changes the word “investigation” to “background check” to be consistent across the city’s other ordinances;
• 173.123 (B)(1)(d): Deletes point “Proof of training in the use and operation of a pedal carriage pursuant to a curriculum approved by the Chief of Police.

The amendments were passed 8-0.

Staff said if this is approved tonight, it would not mean pedal carriages would automatically be allowed because any new company would have to receive a council-approved certificate of public convenience and necessity, similar to new taxicab companies. Staff also said they would not bring forth any of those applications until the CDC recommends people can begin to congregate in groups again.

Decision
The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.

Background:
The property is currently undeveloped and used periodically for firework sales and as a mobile vendor location. The applicant has indicated that the request is to encourage nonresidential development, including for drive-thru use. Both the Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the request.

Location:

April 7 Discussion:
There was no public comment. The items was left on the first reading.

April 21 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.

Background:
According to city documents, right of way and easement acquisition began for this project in September 2015. All but one of the 18 properties needed have been acquired. Staff said the owner of the final property has “expressed concerns” and has refused to sign right-of-way and easement documents based on those concerns. Staff said they will continue to negotiate with the property owner to avoid condemnation if possible, but this resolution would clear the way for acquisition so as not to delay the construction of the project if negotiations are unsuccessful.

Location:

Discussion:
Staff said they believe they are close to reaching an agreement with the property owner, so condemnation might not be needed. However, if that doesn’t happen this item is still needed to authorize the condemnation process so a court can decide the value of the property.

The property owner said this project would remove too many trees from her yard.

Scroggin asked if staff would have a problem holding this item for two weeks. They said that would be fine. The council agreed to table the item until May 5.

Background:
The council in March granted extraordinary powers to Mayor Jordan to enact temporary regulations regarding the COVID-19 outbreak. Those powers are set to expire on April 29. This resolution would extend the date to June 2.

Discussion:
Jordan said if the outbreak somehow subsides before June 2 and the restrictions are no longer needed, he will roll them back early.

Smith said he’ll be voting against this resolution, but not out of any lack of confidence in the mayor. He said he thinks there needs to be more oversight, which is why he walked on the first item of this meeting’s agenda.

There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 7-1 to approve the resolution.

Background:
Each year the council reappropriates funds to the new budget because some items that were previously approved were not yet completed or were appropriated for future time periods.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
This project consists of a conceptual analysis of alternate drainage routing designed to help alleviate flooding near the intersection of North College Avenue and Sunbridge Drive. It includes, but is not limited to a survey as well as hydrologic and hydraulic studies. This project was identified as a priority project by council after the April 2017 flooding event.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
A thermal dryer at the Biosolids Management Site is out of service due to a failed bearing earlier this month. Staff said this bearing was replaced as part of an overhaul last year and should have a life span of at least five years. The plan is to investigate why this failure happened and attempt to recover some money from the service company, it is critical that this part be purchased immediately and installed as soon as possible because downtime of this machine means that solids are sent to the landfill at a cost of about $20,000 per week in tipping fees.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
This property is a residential lot between Addington Avenue and Stephens Avenue north of Mount Comfort Road in the Hendrix Subdivision. It includes a single-family home built in the 1950s. The applicant intends to split the property and develop both street frontages.

The Planning Commission has recommended approval, but city staff recommend denial of the request. Staff. however, would support rezoning the property to RSF-8.

Location:

Discussion:
Turk asked if the applicant is wanting RI-U because it allows four unrelated people to live in the homes, whereas the city’s recommendation would only allow three. Blake Jorgensen, who represents the applicant, said the goal is to build a four-bedroom home regardless of how many unrelated people eventually live in it.

Kinion said people sometimes request RI-U specifically so they can build homes that cater to college students. He said he can’t support RI-U in this neighborhood.

Smith said he likes RI-U and if the applicant were planning to build several smaller homes, he might be in favor of the request. But for a large, 4-bedroom house at a high price point, he won’t support RI-U in this neighborhood.

After some debate between council members and the applicant’s representative, Mayor Jordan said this item should probably be held on the first reading to allow more time for consideration.

The council agreed. The discussion will continue on May 5.

Background:
This property has no street frontage and is located west of Frisco Trail about 350 feet north of Prairie Street. Despite its I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial zoning designation that was adopted in 1970, staff said historical aerial imagery from as early as 1955 indicates that the property has remained largely undeveloped and has only been used as a vehicle turnaround. Staff said development has likely been constrained by a combination of large, industrial zoning building setbacks, a section of the Tanglewood Branch running along the western boundary, and lack of access to infrastructure. The applicant said the request is to increase the feasibility of developing the property.

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

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
This property is a portion of a larger 16-acre group of parcels on the southeast corner of Huntsville Road and River Meadows Drive. In 2008, the parcels were rezoned as a residential planned zoning district which has since expired. That PZD was intended as three planning areas allowing for 60 single-family homes, about 30,000 square feet of non-residential space, and 24 multi-family units. After the PZD expired, the council approved a rezoning request to CS, Community Services, NS, Neighborhood Services, and NC, Neighborhood Conservation to reflect the three planning areas. This approval was subject to a Bill of Assurance limiting density. The NS zoning designation later became known as NS-L, Neighborhood Services, Limited, following an amendment to city development codes. The property remains largely undeveloped, except for three single-family homes built in the 1930s and 1940s. The applicant has not shared an intended use or development plan, but staff noted that a preliminary plat was recently approved for 43 single- family lots on the property that is zoned NC to the south (see map below).

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

Location:

Discussion:
Because the council’s most recent rezoning included a Bill of Assurance, the applicant offered the same assurances for this property. Those are listed below:

The council amended the ordinance to include the Bill of Assurance.

There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The city’s current vehicle noise ordinance laws would not apply to pedal carriages, so staff have recommended the council amend the law to include all vehicle-based businesses. If approved, the carryover effect would mean the law also applies to pedicabs and horse-drawn carriages or similar vehicles pulled by horses or livestock, including the carriages at Lights of the Ozarks on the downtown square.

Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams asked if the council would like to amend the ordinance to include bicycles and the city trails, as suggested by Council Member Marsh.

Marsh said she would like to add that amendment because she’s noticed people with amplifiers on their bikes on the trails recently, some playing loud music and others who are using amplifiers to preach.

The amendment passed 8-0.

There was no public comment.

The council advanced the item to the second reading, but Turk said she’d like to hold it there for two weeks since the ordinance was amended to include bicycles. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on May 5.

Background:
Staff said this amendment is required to recognize CARES Act supplemental funding for the CDBG Action Plan.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.