LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Jan. 19, 2021

Photo: City of Fayetteville

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Dec. 15 meeting.

Council Member Kyle Smith brought the item forward and said the idea is to address some major issues that the council has discussed for at least three years. He said the plan doesn’t remove any uses, but increases planners’ ability to conduce contextual review of projects.

The first change would move Use Unit 18, which is gasoline service stations and drive-in/drive through restaurants, to a conditional use for Community Services. He said proposed rezonings on Mount Comfort Road have been contentious in the past because of the potential for these types of uses.

The second change would move Use Unit 8 (single-family dwellings) and Use Unit 9 (two-family dwellings) to conditional uses. Smith said this is in response to development patterns on south Rupple Road. He said previous council members made it clear when they rezoned the land that it was intended for a walkable mixed-use center with a neighborhood that could access nearby services. Instead, he said, developers began exclusively building homes with no mixed uses at all. He said in order to protect the remainder of the property from the same fate, the council should make this change to allow the Planning Commission to look at whether or not the variety of uses being proposed is appropriate for that area.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
Smith said it’s a band-aid approach, but without a major overhaul of the zoning code, this is the best option if the city is to get the type of development it wants.

Marsh agreed and said this has been needed for several years.

Bunch asked if real estate stakeholders were a part of this proposal. Kinion said stakeholders must be involved in a process like this. At the very least, it needs more discussion.

Smith said he’s happy to leave the item on the first reading to allow more time for people to consider it.

Scroggin said he doesn’t want to vote today, but it’s worth looking into. He said while some people say the city has too many restrictions, there are a lot of people who prefer living in a city with tight restrictions on development.

Marsh said she’d like to advance the item to the final reading tonight. Bunch disagreed and said developers need to have a say-so and should be given more time to consider the proposal.

City Attorney Kit Williams said this should have a slow rollout or phased implementation to protect the city from potential lawsuits. He said he can draft that language soon and have it ready at the next meeting.

Turk said the item should be held to allow time for more input.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 5.

Jan. 5 Discussion:
Williams again stressed that the changes, if approved, should be delayed so as not to have a negative effect on any current deals that may already be in motion. He presented a possible amendment to include a six-month delay.

During public comment, former Council Member Kyle Smith said it’s understandable to grandfather in anyone who already has a permit submitted with the city, but six months is too long for a city that is growing as fast as Fayetteville is.

Another person who spoke said it’s certainly right for current applicants to be protected, but the city shouldn’t need to protect people who might simply be thinking about submitting a permit for a development in the future.

Kinion said just because someone doesn’t have a permit already in place, that doesn’t mean there aren’t plans that could already be in motion and investments being made with the intent of submitting a permit application. He moved to approve the amendment. Scroggin seconded.

The council voted 7-1 to approve the amendment (Petty voted against).

Gutierrez suggested the Ordinance Review Committee take a look at the ordinance before the council votes. Kinion agreed.

The council agreed to leave the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Jan. 19 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said he drafted an amended ordinance that separates the portion of the Community Services proposal into two parts – one that includes the gas station use unit and the other that includes the dwelling unit change. That idea was approved by the Ordinance Review Committee.

The council voted 8-0 to approve the amendment, effectively splitting the original ordinance into two parts.

Several council members said they’d like to see completely separate ordinances, one for each of the two parts of the CS uses, and a third for the UT use. Williams said he could do that, but he’d need to draft all of them separately and bring them back as New Business at the next meeting.

The council agreed to table the item. The discussion will continue on Feb. 2.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Jan. 7 meeting.

The school district purchased the land for a new middle school.

City staff recommend approval of the request. The Planning Commission forwarded the request to the council with a recommendation of zoning the entire property as CS, Community Services instead of the requested P1, Institutional.

Location:

Jan. 7 Discussion:
Scroggin asked why the council has a request for P1 before them instead of the Planning Commission’s recommended CS zoning. City Attorney Kit Williams said the council always takes up the applicant’s request, regardless of the Planning Commission’s preference. Scroggin said he’s heard that schools prefer P1 because they’re safer than using CS, which puts buildings closer to the road. Scroggin said he’s not sold on that theory, but he is certain this location is right for a new school.

Bunch suggested holding the ordinance on the first reading to allow time for the Transportation Committee to discuss the proposal before the next meeting.

Kinion said he has total faith in the school district and the work that has been done. He said he thinks P1 is an appropriate zoning for the area and he’d like to move forward with a vote tonight.

During public comment, some people said they’d like to see the request approved tonight as it’s written, while others said they agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to rezone the land as CS.

District representatives said changing the zoning would delay the school project, which is part of a recently funded bond issue that needs to be used as soon as possible.

Those against P1 said the city has had a longtime vision for Rupple Road that includes form-based zones with walkable environments, and veering from that vision for this project would set a bad precedent, even if it’s for a public school.

Kinion moved to send the ordinance to the second reading. Turk seconded. The motion failed with Bunch, Gutierrez, Petty and Scroggin voting against.

Petty said he will work on getting the item up for consideration at the next Transportation Committee meeting.

The item was left on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Jan. 19 Discussion:
Staff said city and school representatives met about the issue since the last meeting, and the Transportation Committee also met to discuss the proposal.

Megan Duncan, the school district’s associate superintendent for support services, presented the following slides and a design change with a narrowed parking lot and an outparcel that remains CS next to the road:

The outparcel includes about an acre of land fronting Rupple Road and will be reserved for some type of development allowed in the CS list of use units like dwellings, eating places, shops, offices, etc.

Here’s a list of uses allowed in CS without needing any additional permits:

Petty thanked the district for working with the committee and making a good faith effort to listen to the council’s concerns. He said he’s ready to move forward and approve the proposal tonight.

The council voted 8-0 to amend the ordinance to reflect the district’s new plan.

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

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Jan. 7 meeting.

As of a few years ago, state law requires local governments to approve or reject permits for new private clubs before the owner can apply for a liquor license.

Jan. 7 Discussion:
Deputy Chief of Police Jamie Fields said the applicant has a pending ABC violation related to COVID-19 restrictions at another one of his locations. She said the department is not necessarily against the permit, but wanted to bring that to the council’s attention.

Robert Rhoads, an attorney representing the applicant, said the owner is working to resolve his other business violation issue, including paying the first of two tickets. He said the applicant has had no violations at the current location.

Turk said she wants to hold the item on the first reading to allow the applicant time to resolve the second ticket before approving this permit.

Gutierrez said she’d like to move forward tonight. Petty agreed and said the only difference in the current permit and the requested permit is to be able to serve mixed drinks.

Turk said she doesn’t want to send the message that violating COVID-related restrictions is OK, which is what approving the permit tonight could be doing. Kinion agreed.

A motion to move to the second reading failed, with Turk, Kinion and Scroggin voting against. Mayor Jordan declined to cast the last vote needed to advance the item.

The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Jan. 19 Discussion:
Police Chief Reynolds said there have been no issues at the business in question, but there were issues the applicant’s other business, which is the nearby VIP Lounge.

The applicant’s attorney said the lounge in question has never had any issues. At his other business, he had no issues at all before the pandemic, despite a series of problems at that location with its previous owner before he took over. He has since implemented new COVID-19 safety protocols at the other business, including staff training, plexiglass panels, new seating and other changes.

Kinion said he takes the pandemic very seriously, but wanted to at least acknowledge that handling social distancing at a dance club would be more difficult than at other types of lounges.

Decision:
The council voted 7-1 to approve the permit. Turk voted against.

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Jan. 7 meeting.

The property is on the northeast corner of Mount Comfort Road and Rupple Road. The request contains the southern portions of two separate properties, which are developed with single-family dwellings and associated rural land. A similar request was approved by the Planning Commission in August 2020 for a smaller portion of the site where a Kum & Go was proposed, but was ultimately withdrawn by the applicant before the council made any decision.

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

Location:

Jan. 7 Discussion:
Scroggin said almost all of the comments he’s seen in opposition to this rezoning are based on not wanting to see a gas station at this location. He said if the applicant does not plan for the property to have a gas station, there are tools the applicant can use to proceed with the current rezoning to address those concerns.

Hertzberg asked if the applicant is under contract with any gas stations. The applicant’s attorney said they are not.

Jim Hazen, a resident who in 2018 successfully rezoned part of his property to CS, said he is against this rezoning request.

Kinion asked Hazen what is different between his property and the current property that they shouldn’t also get a CS rezoning. Hazen said he never planned for a gas station on his property and he’s worried that the current applicant might eventually build a gas station on their land if CS is approved.

Another person who spoke against the rezoning said before a decision is made on this request, they’d like to see the council first finish a previous discussion about gas station permission in CS. That proposal, which was left on the second reading on Tuesday, was to move gas stations (and some other uses) from by-right permission to conditional use permission, which means the applicant would have to apply for and receive a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission before being able to build a gas station in a CS zoning district.

Others who spoke said if the applicant offered a Bill of Assurance that a gas station wouldn’t be built on the property, they would be in support of the request.

Kinion motioned to send the ordinance to the second reading. He said he’s OK with not making a final decision tonight, but wants to move it forward one step. Kinion’s motion passed, with Turk, Gutierrez and Petty voting against and Mayor Jordan voting in favor.

The council agreed to leave the ordinance on the second reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Jan. 19 Discussion:
The applicant’s attorney said she would not recommend to her clients that they restrict their options for the property, which was suggested at the previous meeting (some who spoke said they’d like to see a Bill of Assurance that a gas station would never be built there). She said she’s obtained signatures from about 65 separate households who have said this area is a good location for a gas station or a drive-thru restaurant.

Scroggin said he likes CS for the area, except for the gas station use unit. He’ll vote against the request. Turk agreed.

Kinion said the area already includes CS zoning, even across the street which the council recently rezoned as CS. To say that the property directly across the street shouldn’t also be zoned CS, is unfair, he said. “How can we deny the CS request on these few acres when we recently did a vast rezoning of CS in this area?” Kinion asked. He said he’ll vote in favor.

Hertzberg said her vote won’t be based on whether a gas station should be built at this location. She said CS is appropriate for this property and she’s in full support.

Petty said he also is leaning toward voting in favor based on fairness. However, he said he has little faith that the city’s current design standards can lead to a fueling station that meets the council’s walkability goals.

Decision:
The council voted 6-2 to approve the requested rezoning. Turk and Scroggin voted against.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Jan. 7 meeting.

The property is on the south side of East Zion Road and has a single-family dwelling with associated outbuildings for what has long been an agricultural use. Hilton Creek runs east and west through the site, and the area surrounding the creek is designated as a flood plain. The property is located within 1 mile from the Fayetteville city limits, and the westernmost portion of the property is adjacent to the current city. An associated PZD rezoning has also been submitted (see next item).

The applicant has stated that the annexation is needed so that the property can be developed.

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

Location:

Discussion:
Those who spoke against the annexation said they were concerned about potential flooding in the area from development, the possibility of development negatively affecting water quality at Lake Fayetteville, limited infrastructure availability for new residents and the potential for traffic issues.

The council left the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Jan. 19 Discussion:
City staff said if this land is annexed, the city’s streamside protection rules won’t apply without changes to the streamside protection ordinance.

The applicant’s representative said they already had plans to comply with the streamside rules despite the ordinance needing to be corrected. She said the applicant would be happy to provide a Bill of Assurance that all streamside protection measures would be adhered to with any development of the property.

City Attorney Kit Williams said he’d prefer to correct the streamside oversight before annexing the land into the city.

During public comment, some residents said they’d like to see an independent wetland delineation study of the area to ensure that development of the property doesn’t cause damage to Lake Fayetteville.

Turk suggested tabling the item until the code is changed, and to give time for the wetland study to be completed. Bunch suggested leaving the item on the second reading, and if more time is needed, it can be tabled at the next meeting. Turk disagreed, and moved to table until Feb. 16 (Kinion seconded), but the motion failed 3-5 with only Turk, Jones and Kinion voting in favor.

The council left the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on Feb. 2.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Jan. 7 meeting.

This property is the same as the previous annexation request. It would be divided into three planning areas:

Planning Area 1 – 6.20 acres: This area is primarily commercial in nature, though it does allow for multi-family dwellings, and is intended to serve surrounding residential areas with convenience goods and adaptable mixed use. The area is divided into two locations, the first being located along the property’s North Crossover Road frontage, and the second is located towards the center of the site.

Planning Area 2 – 39.63 acres: Making up the primary acreage of the proposal, this area is categorized by a mix of housing types, ranging from single-family to three- and four-family dwellings. The map shows a variety of lot widths, alley-loaded development, and a gridded street pattern throughout the site.

Planning Area 3 – 36.06 acres: Scattered throughout the site, with primary consideration for the area surrounding and north of Hilton Creek, this planning area’s primary purpose is to provide open space, detention, drainage, and natural areas (though does allow for low-density single-family dwellings with two-acre lot area minimums). The site plan also indicates an intention to provide a linear park extending north and south through the eastern part of the site, as well as a dedicated area for parkland.

Location:

Discussion:
A few people spoke against this request with the same concerns as the annexation above.

The council left the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Jan. 19 Discussion:
Staff said the ordinance needs to be amended to correct some language referencing the three planning areas. The council voted 8-0 to approve that amendment.

The council left the item on the second reading since it’s tied to the previous ordinance.

Background:
The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration has provided federal and state grant funding to the city for drug task force activities since 1991. This resolution would accept the latest grant money.

Arkansas Drug Director Kirk Lane said Fayetteville is the fiduciary of the grant money, which also covers Springdale, Prairie Grove, Farmington, Lincoln, Greenland, West Fork, Elkins, Elm Springs, Tontitown, Goshen, and Washington County.

Fayetteville Police Chief Mike Reynolds said last year, 93% of drug arrests were for cocaine, meth or heroin.

Police officials said there were seven homicides in Fayetteville 2020 as opposed to three in 2019. With an increase in gun violence, they said a special unit to investigate those crimes is needed now more than ever.

Council Member Jones asked whether this money could be used for any other purpose rather than drug enforcement. Chief Reynolds said no, the money is specifically intended for drug enforcement purposes, but there are other grant opportunities for things like treatment programs, etc.

Petty said he can’t support transferring the judiciary powers away from Fayetteville, but he’s conflicted because he doesn’t think the program is necessarily working. Lane said he’ll discuss with Petty some of the other funding options that are available.

Several people who spoke said the council shouldn’t keep questioning the police department for this particular grant each year since it has a specific purpose, especially when there are other grant opportunities for other purposes. Some likened the discussion to holding the funds hostage over issues that could be dealt with in many other ways.

Jones and said there are two issues being discussed – the grant and the need for other services that could be provided to the community if funds could be acquired. But not all of those services should be up to the police department to identify, fund, and implement, he said.

Petty moved to pass the resolution. Jones seconded.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to pass the resolution.

Background:
Staff said this change order will kick off the construction of the new police headquarters. The scope of the package includes excavations required for the site and building pads. The change order also includes the earthwork for Fire Station 8. Subsequent bid packages will be forthcoming for foundations, structural steel, building envelope, and MEP and finishes. Staff said this will ensure the city is completed by the August 2022 bond disbursement deadline.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
A capital improvements plan is a tool used by the city in the budget process. It is a five year-plan which addresses the capital needs of the city for future periods. The CIP is not an appropriation in itself or an authorization by the council to expend funds. It is, instead, a future plan which must be re-evaluated and/or adjusted each year prior to incorporation into the annual budget. Each year the plan must be evaluated 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.

» See the full plan

Discussion:
There was no public comment. Petty asked why there were no meetings with the council to put together the plan this time. Staff said the pandemic led to the decision to work in-house because of financial uncertainties. Council input would resume in the future, said finance director Paul Becker.

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

Background:
The property includes 0.21 acres of unbuilt right-of-way north of Gregg Avenue’s intersection with Taylor Street. The applicant proposes to vacate approximately 225 linear feet of public right-of-way, totaling 0.25 acres. Where right-of-way vacation requires consent from affected, adjacent property owners, the applicant has not received this. As an alternative, evidence of the multiple attempts to contact the property owner have been provided with the application. The non-responsive property owner has a county-listed address in Wilmette, Illinois.

City Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Kinion said he’d like more time to look at the area. The council left the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Feb. 2.

Background:
The city has permitted shared electric scooters to operate since November 2019. Staff said they have been very popular in Fayetteville and on the UA campus. Typically, staff said there are between 1,000-3,000 trips taken each day. Since issuing the original permit to Spin for 250 e-scooters the program has added a second vendor, VeoRide, and expanded to 1,000 total e-scooters.

Staff said there are economic benefits to both the city and university. City permit fees are $20 per scooter every six months which equals about $40,000 in revenue per year. University of Arkansas fees are $25 per scooter every six months, generating $50,000 in annual UA revenue. Scooter rides also generate sales tax revenue, and as employers, VeoRide and Spin have created approximately 25 full-time jobs in Fayetteville. Additionally, e-scooters help support trailside economic development, staff said.

E-scooters also offer several environmental benefits by providing low-carbon, convenient and economical transportation options for residents and visitors, according to staff documents.

This amendment would do the following:

1. Increase the permit fees from $20 to $30 to better align with peer markets. This will generate an additional $20,000 per year in revenue.
2. Clarify that vendors may request to increase their fleet size during any permit renewal, not just the initial permit renewal (increasing the fleet size will be at the discretion of the mayor and will require equitable distribution of e-scooters across the city).
3. Remove restrictions on pricing to allow companies to introduce more innovative pricing and promotions for customers.
4. Give the city final approval authority of all customer pricing options.
5. Lower the required rides per scooter per day from 2 to 1 to allow greater flexibility during seasonal periods of lower ridership.

New revenue would be used to pay for safety and infrastructure improvements for e-scooters and bicycles. Those expenses include parking areas, signage, bike lane painting and other infrastructure improvements.

Staff said both Spin and VeoRide are in support of this amendment and intend to renew operating permits under the amended ordinance in February 2021. Staff said the UA also plans to increase their fee to $30.

Staff provided this analysis of scooter fees in peer markets:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The Sustainability Department in consultation with Planning Staff have drafted amendments to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances for publicly accessible EV charging stations. The primary issues proposed in the revisions include the following:
1. Adding an Electric Vehicle Charging Station definition to the Unified Development Code Chapter 151: Definitions

Electric Vehicle Changing Station (Supplementary District Regulations). Publicly accessible Electric Vehicle Charging Stations shall have a minimum amperage of 30 amps on a 240-volt circuit and shall be a “Level 2” EV Charging Station or higher. Publicly accessible electric vehicle charging stations shall be networked for remote access to online management tools through an online portal known as an EVSE network.

2. Amending UDC Chapter 164: Supplementary District Regulations to contain EV charging station regulations.

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations that are publicly accessible shall be considered an accessory use in all commercial, mixed-use, industrial, and institutional zoning districts. Publicly accessible electric vehicle charging stations shall be reserved for the parking and charging of electric vehicles only and information shall be posted indicating that the space is reserved for electric vehicle charging purposes only. Electric vehicle charging equipment must be designed and located to not impede pedestrian, bicycle or wheelchair movement. Property owners may collect a service fee for the use of an electric vehicle charging station. Information shall be posted identifying voltage and amperage levels and any type of use, fee, or safety information related the electric vehicle charging station. Electric vehicle charging stations must be maintained in all respects, including the functioning of the equipment. A phone number, email address, or some other contact information must be provided on the charging equipment for reporting when it is not functioning, or for when other problems are encountered.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
Staff said this ordinance would remove the pilot program sunset provision (set for Jan. 30) to allow the Outdoor Refreshment Area program to continue in Fayetteville.

Staff plan to launch a survey this month and hold a meeting with stakeholders to ask what changes, if any, need to be made.

After that, regular meetings will be held to get input from performing art organizations and anchor institutions, police officials, merchants including locally-owned restaurants and bars, retail and non-alcohol-serving businesses, along with the visitors bureau and the chamber of commerce.

Staff said by making the program more permanent, businesses would also have more confidence in their decisions to purchase the required ORA cups.

Discussion:
Staff recommended an amendment to allow the mayor more authority to take immediate action if an issue arises. For example, if a large event occurred in the entertainment district, the mayor could limit alcohol consumption in the streets if it’s a potential safety issue. That amendment passed unanimously.

Another recommendation was to include another sunset clause so the council would have an opportunity to revisit the ordinance in the future to decide if it’s still working post-pandemic. Turk moved to include a three-year sunset clause. Williams suggested setting the date for April 30, 2024 so as not to put it on an agenda near the beginning of a new year when there’s a lot to discuss. That amendment passed 7-1 with Petty voting against.

Petty said he foresees a value in changing the policy to allow an ORA in other areas, such as P1 districts like Centennial Park where the world cyclocross championships are scheduled to take place in 2022.

Molly Rawn, CEO of Experience Fayetteville, said she was disappointed with the sunset clause, and hopes the council can make this permanent in the future.

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