LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: June 16, 2020

Notes: See a copy of the report here.

Background:
This resolution was tabled at the June 4 meeting.

This idea was brought forward by Council Member Matthew Petty. He said meetings have become so long that some people end up having to return home for the night and never get to voice their opinion.

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.

March 3 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.

April 7 Discussion:
City Council Member Matthew Petty requested to table the ordinance until the first meeting in June.

June 4 Discussion:
Council Member Kyle Smith said before the meeting that the Ordinance Review Committee met three times and has recommended an amendment to the original ordinance. He said to ensure everyone has time to digest the recommendation, he hopes to table this item for two weeks.

At the meeting, Smith presented the amended version to the council. The amendments included required signups for people who’d like to speak, limits on presentations by applications/staff to 10 minutes, no comments on amendments unless approved by the council, and a three-minute limit on speakers unless approved by a majority vote by the council.

Council Member Turk requested an amendment to remove the signup requirement, and said other public meetings which require signups can be difficult. She also cited other concerns such as a problem that could arise if speakers arrive late.

Council Member Petty, who worked on the ordinance review committee on this issue, said the intent of the signup sheet is not to restrict people from commenting, but rather to predict how many speakers might be interested in speaking on a given topic. He said the council could still allow late arrivers or those who decided to speak spontaneously to do so.

Smith said the signup sheet could have other benefits, including helping speakers get cued up to speak. Smith and Petty both requested the amendment stay as written without Turk’s requested change for two weeks until the council can provide some additional information.

Turk’s amendment failed 2-6 with only Turk and Kinion voting to remove the signup sheet requirement.

Smith’s amendments were adopted, but the resolution was tabled for two weeks as expected.

June 16 Discussion:
Kinion said he appreciates all the work that went into this, but he thinks it only complicates a system that already works just fine.

Turk said she’s still concerned about the signup process. She said signups are typically clunky and difficult to manage. She also said she thinks the public needs more time to consider these potential changes considering the majority of the discussion has taken place in virtual meetings where there’s not been a lot of public dialogue. She said also appreciates the work that’s gone into drafting this proposal, but said the “timing is terrible.”

Petty said he doesn’t feel strongly either way about whether the vote should happen tonight, but said they should be adopted before public meetings resume if they’re going to be adopted at all.

Turk said she thinks the public is intimidated by the virtual meeting process and she would prefer to table this issue until in-person public meetings resume. She moved to do so and Kinion seconded the motion.

Turk’s motion to table failed 2-6 with Turk and Kinion casting the only votes in favor.

Decision:
The council voted 6-2 to pass the ordinance. Turk and Kinion voted against.

Background:
This resolution was tabled at the June 4 meeting. It was initially tabled until July 7, but it was the council’s intention to only table it until June 16 so the item is now back on the agenda.

This item is related to the previous annexation request, and is the preferred zoning district of the property if the council approves the annexation.

Like the item above, city planning staff are in favor of the request, but the Planning Commission is not, so the applicant has appealed the commission’s decision to the City Council.

Location:

May 19 Discussion:
This item is tied to the previous annexation, so the council agreed to leave it on the first reading as well. The discussion will continue on June 2.

June 2 Discussion:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third and final reading.

Turk made a motion to change the portion of the property designated to be rezoned RSF-8 to RSF-4. After the applicant said they would provide a bill of assurance not to develop that property on more than 6 units per acre. Turk then withdrew her motion.

The council voted 5-3 to table the rezoning until the first meeting in July to allow the applicant to prepare that bill of assurance, with Scroggin, Smith, and Marsh voting no.

June 16 Discussion:
Although this item was officially tabled until July 7, City Attorney Kit Williams said it was the council’s intention to only table it until June 16 so the item is now back on the agenda.

The applicant said they’d like to leave the item tabled until July 7. That’s when the discussion will continue.

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the June 4 meeting.

The property is on the north side of Old Farmington Road’s intersection with One Mile Road. In 2015, the City Council approved a rezoning request on the property from R-A, Residential-Agricultural, to RSF-8, Residential Single-family, 8 Units per Acre. More recently, in 2019 the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 19-6812) on the property for the development of two linked cluster housing developments. Where the property was previously developed with one single-family dwelling, that has been demolished and two new single-family dwellings of approximately 600-square feet are being built. Overall, the property is heavily wooded and slopes upward to the north, rising almost 100 feet from Old Farmington to the northern property line. Roughly the northern third of the property falls within the Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District.

The applicant said “upon detailed site design in association with CUP 19-6812, the need for a street-fronting build-to zone was identified.”

Both city planning staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval.

Location:

June 4 Discussion:
Kinion requested holding the zoning on the second reading, and the council agreed to do so.

June 16 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to pass the ordinance.

Background:
The mayor has already used his authority to delay the start of this ban from May 1 until July 1, however city staff said some restaurant owners have said they are currently having problems obtaining the recyclable materials needed to comply with the new law (read their letter here). They have requested a further delay, which is supported by the laws co-sponsors Mayor Jordan and Council Member Teresa Turk.

This measure would extend the effective date of the new law to Dec. 15.

Discussion:
Turk said she’s had a change of heart after talking to many business owners who want to see the ordinance go into effect sooner. She said she doesn’t want to penalize the businesses that have already ordered the necessary supplies and won’t have enough old items to continue using them through December.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to table the item indefinitely, essentially removing it from further consideration.

Background:
Nabholz is currently under contract as the Construction Manager at Risk for the Cultural Arts Project. With the requirement of completing the parking deck prior to starting the Civic Plaza, Nabholz will have to demobilize after completion of Phase 1 of the project, awaiting the completion of the deck. Staff said to avoid the remobilization fees to the city, Nabholz has proposed a significant incentive to select their firm as the construction manager for the deck. As already being under contract for the CAC project, they would be able to reduce or waive some of their fees. Below is the breakdown:

1. Waive Preconstruction Services (project meetings and estimating): Savings of $25,000-$30,000.
2. Reduce Fees from 4.5% to 2.5%: Savings of $200,000. (based on $10,000,000 deck cost)
3. Reduced General Conditions and General Requirements: Savings of $132,073. (These are
   overhead cost of supervision, field offices, temporary facilities, etc.)
4. Remobilization fees no longer needed: $50,000.
   
   Total of incentives: $410,000

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 7-0 to pass the resolution. Petty was unavailable for the vote.

Background:
The applicant said they need the vacation in order to legally build a 12×24-foot storage shed in an area currently designated for tree preservation. The area in question is about 154 square feet in size. The applicant has agreed to offer about 443 square feet of preservation space in another area of the property.

City staff are in favor of the request.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to pass the resolution.

Background:
This property is currently developed with one single-family home. The applicant said the rezoning is need to bring the property more into compliance and to allow further development that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. City staff are in favor of the request, and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.

Location:

June 16 Discussion:
Kinion and Gutierrez said they’d like to hold the item on the first reading to allow more time for public consideration. The discussion will continue on July 7.

Background:
This property had a multi-family residential structure that was constructed in 1911 directly across the street from the University of Arkansas. The structure was demolished in early 2020. The property has been home to the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity house since at least 2008 when it transferred to its current owner the Arkansas Alumni Corporation of Sigma Phi Epsilon. The applicant said they want to rezone the property to Downtown General as part their redevelopment of the fraternity house.

City staff are in favor of the request, but the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the proposal after the applicant shared their development plans for the property. According to city documents, the commissioners felt the proposed development did not respect the existing setbacks along Arkansas Avenue, or the historic nature of the street. In that denial, commissioners included a recommendation that the City Council consider an overlay district for the area between West Maple Street, the current boundary of the Downtown Design Overlay District, Arkansas Avenue, and the Arkansas & Missouri Railroad in the case that the applicant were to appeal.

Location:

June 16 Discussion:
Petty said he likes form-based zonings, but said Arkansas Avenue is a special street that should be treated in a sensitive manner. He said preservation of the way the buildings meet the street in that area should be uniform.

Several residents who spoke agreed and said the proposed design is not compatible and is a break from the historic nature of the street.

Representatives of the applicant said they agree that the street is special, and they believe the proposed design is in line with the area.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on July 7.

Background:
This property has a small one-story, residential single-family home that was built in 1951. It was recently rezoned in late 2019 to RSF-8, and the applicant is back with a new request to rezone to RI-U. The street has a complicated zoning history, and the multi-family dwellings at North Garland Avenue and North Addington Avenue were built following a clerical error which mistakenly zoned that land in the early 2000s. The council has since been sensitive to requests on Hendrix Street. A recent request to rezone a property to the west, on the south side of Hendrix Street to RI-U was approved on May 19 of this year. Additionally, five properties directly across the street on the south side of West Hendrix Street are also under a rezone request from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, 4 units per Acre, to RI-U from a separate property owner.

The Planning Commission voted 5-3 to recommend approval of the request, but city staff are against the proposal unless the applicant changes their request to RSF-18. Staff said since RI-U does not have a density cap, they’d prefer RSF-18 since it would provide a “soft increase” of density in the area.

Location:

June 16 Discussion:
The applicant said the goal is to build three small, affordable single-family homes. He said the property is within walking distance to the university and the commercial areas near the intersection of Garland Avenue and North Street.

Petty said this area needs more diversity in home types and he’ll support the request.

Turk said the neighborhood is stable and modest and the residents don’t want dramatic changes. Kinion agreed, and said they’ve fought hard to protect the heritage of their neighborhood. He said the clerical error started a domino effect and is being used as an anchor to try and justify compatibility of requests for similar zonings. Kinion said that’s unfair to the people who have established homes in this neighborhood.

Gutierrez said she agrees with Turk and Kinion and she won’t support the request.

Smith said the council should hold this item on the first reading since the next item is similar and the two should be considered in context with one another.

The council agreed, and the discussion will continue on July 7.

Background:
This property is comprised of five lots that include small one-story homes.

Just like the previous request, the Planning Commission voted 5-3 to recommend approval, but city staff are against the proposal unless the applicant changes their request to RSF-18. Staff said since RI-U does not have a density cap, they’d prefer RSF-18 since it would provide a “soft increase” of density in the area.

Location:

Discussion:
The applicant said he’s submitted a Bill of Assurance that the property will only contain single-family homes.

Petty said he’s never considered the clerical error that mistakenly rezoned a nearby property at a greater density when deciding whether to support rezonings. He said this neighborhood is within walking distance to several destinations and on its own is a good candidate for a moderate increase in density.

Smith said he understands the neighbors want to preserve the character of their neighborhood, but he’s concerned that with the Bill of Assurance being offered, the area might end up with something that is immodest and lacking in variety. He said he thinks limiting the property to single-family homes will lead to large houses that are leased by the bedroom to college students. He said he won’t support the Bill of Assurance, but hasn’t decided on the overall rezoning request.

The council agreed to leave this item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on July 7.

Background:
This proposal would allow restaurants to expand service into private parking lots. For example, a business could add outside tables to provide social distancing for customers as suggested by health officials. The measure states that if the outdoor service is determined to represent a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular use, the restaurant may be required to include an implied or actual physical barrier such as landscaping, fencing, changes in ground surface texture, material or color, or similar treatments. It also includes an emergency clause which would put the new law into effect immediately instead of the standard 30-day waiting period.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it, along with an emergency clause to put the law into effect immediately.