LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Feb. 18, 2021

Background:
This item was walked on by Council Member Teresa Turk. She said this item would show the city’s support of two items that are up for consideration at the state level. She said she’s heard of several other cities around the state that could also soon express their support.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
This was pulled from Consent by Council Member Scroggin at the request of a constituent.

Discussion:
Resident Sarah Moore said she’d like to see the district consider sending reminders for people before their court appearances to help avoid Failure to Appear charges. She said being able to remind people could help to facilitate some cost savings for the district.

Turk asked staff to investigate the possibility of implementing a reminder system and to report back to the council. She said she didn’t want to hold up the acceptance of the funds, though.

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

Background:
This item was tabled at the Dec. 1 and Jan. 5 meetings.

A short-term rental is the leasing out of a furnished residential dwelling on a short-term basis, generally less than a month. It is estimated that there are approximately 500-600 STR units in Fayetteville. However, Fayetteville’s codes do not have specific rules for STRs and they are classified as hotels/motels in the zoning code. This prevents them from legally operating in a single-family district and there are numerous STRs currently in violation. In July of 2019 the council adopted a resolution directing staff to study and develop an ordinance for STRs for their consideration.

This proposal has support from city staff and the Planning Commission.

Here are the overview slides presented tonight:

Dec. 1 Discussion:

Several people spoke during public comment, some who were in favor and others who were against. Some of those against said the rules were too overbearing and would make it difficult for people to operate short-term rentals. Others said they’d like to see the proposal be changed in some places, particularly the limit of eight people per residence.

A few council members also said they’d like to see some fine-tuning. Staff agreed, and said they would work more on the proposed language.

Turk and Scroggin suggested tabling the issue until the first meeting in January. The council agreed, and voted 7-0 to table until Jan. 5. Petty’s vote wasn’t audible.

Jan. 5 Discussion:
During the vote to move the second reading, Gutierrez and Kinion voted against. All other members voted in favor.

Staff asked to forward the ordinance to the council’s Ordinance Review Committee. Several members said they like that idea. The council voted 8-0 to table the ordinance until Feb. 16 to give the committee time to meet and discuss the proposal.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said the Ordinance Review Committee approved some changes but noted that there are still some complicated things to consider about this proposal, but they sent it back to the council so the public could continue to weigh in. It might need to go back to the committee before a final decision is made.

Here are the proposed changes:

Staff quickly read over some other proposed changes, but the slides weren’t loading. The proposed changes, however, are highlighted in yellow in the latest staff report (click here to read that report).

Council members said they’d like to table the item and send it back to the committee to further fine tune it.

During public comment, Sue Madison said she’d like to see the committee consider parking issues around short-term rentals and events that are held at short-term rentals that might need health department approval.

Others who spoke said they don’t understand the need for these regulations, they think the city should wait a while before enacting new rules, they’re concerned about the Conditional Use Permit process taking too long, or they think there are too many rules proposed.

The council vote 7-0 to table the item for a month and refer it to the Ordinance Review Committee (Jones’ vote wasn’t audible).

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Dec. 1, Dec. 15 and Jan. 5 meetings.

This contract will authorize a land purchase needed for the replacement parking deck to allow the project to move forward and expedite the completion prior to beginning the Arts Corridor Civic Plaza Project.

Dec. 1 Discussion:
City staff shared the following updated conceptual images of the new deck (see PDF here):

City Attorney Kit Williams said the contract is not ready to be approved. He said more time is needed to make adjustments to both sides of the deal.

There was no public comment.

The council agreed to hold the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Dec. 15.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
City staff said more time is needed to work with all parties to come to an agreement. City Attorney Kit Williams said he believes the council could wait to approve the contract and still meet the city’s bond obligation.

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

Jan. 5 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan said he’d like to table the ordinance until mid-February to give him more time to work through the contract with the developers and to seek some advice from professionals who are experts in public-private partnerships.

Kinion said having a specialist’s opinion would make him more comfortable. Scroggin and Bunch agreed.

Cary Arsaga said he closed his business in the Depot Lot when the pandemic hit and was prepared to re-open in July but decided against it because he heard the council might be making a decision about this in October and it wouldn’t have made any sense to only open for a few months before closing for construction. He said it’s frustrating for the decision to continue to drag on because he is depending on this deal to go through to make it as a business owner.

The council voted 8-0 to table the item until Feb. 16.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
Shortly before the meeting, an updated ordinance and contracts (with exhibit) were distributed to the public.

The council amended the ordinance with the new language that includes the names of all the entities. The contracts still need a signature from the bank, so this can’t be approved tonight, but Mayor Jordan said he’s planning a special City Council meeting next week and he will likely add this item to that agenda.

Staff said the new contract includes specific entity names, a shortened term for the city’s option to purchase the mobility hub, and adding language that the developers make a good faith effort to add a sixth and seventh floor to the parking deck within 15 years, instead of the previous 20 years.

There was no public comment.

Kinion said he likes the idea of having more than just a parking deck, but he’s having a hard time justifying the risk of moving forward with such a project when all the city really needs is replacement parking.

Mayor Jordan said he understands the risk and he has a backup plan to simply build a deck on School Avenue if this project falls through. He said he has a vision for a much bigger structure that can also support commercial activity with added social elements, and that’s why he’s directed his staff to pursue this plan.

The council voted 8-0 to table the item until the Feb. 23 special council meeting.

Background:
This item was tabled at the Nov. 17, Dec. 1, Dec. 15 and Jan. 5 meetings.

The work is related to a replacement parking deck near the intersection of Dickson Street and West Avenue.

From a staff memo:

This amendment includes the Balance of the Architectural Services for the Architectural Elements of the Deck and West Avenue Police Substation including Design Development, Construction Drawings, Bidding and Negotiation, and Construction Administration. It also includes the structural Design of the Colonnade, Survey and platting.

Nov. 17 Discussion:
Staff requested this item be tabled until the next meeting to allow more time to get an acceptable contract. The discussion will continue on Dec. 1.

Dec. 1 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan requested this item be tabled again until the next meeting to allow more time to work on the contract. The discussion will continue on Dec. 15.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since it can only be approved after the previous item is approved. The discussion will continue on Jan. 5.

Jan 5 Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since there’s still no contract in place. The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since there’s still no contract in place. The discussion will continue on Feb. 23.

Background:
This item was tabled at the Feb. 2 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:

Jan. 7 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.

Feb. 2 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said he’d prefer the council to take up the streamside protection proposal (New Business) before any further discussion on this item or the next item, which is a PZD request for the same property.

Turk moved to table for two weeks. The motion passed 8-0

The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
The applicant would like to table the item until the March 2 meeting.

Background:
This item was tabled at the Feb. 2 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:

Jan. 7 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.

Feb. 2 Discussion:
As requested by Williams, the council also voted 8-0 to table this item until the next meeting because it is connected to the previous item.

The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
Since this item is tied to the previous item, it was also tabled 8-0 until the March 2 meeting.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Feb. 2 meeting.

Development on the property includes a 784-square-foot, single-family home that was built in 1915. Prior to 2008, the subject property and most others on the block and in the immediate vicinity were zoned RMF-24, Residential Multi-family, 24 Units per Acre. With the adoption of the Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan, the property was rezoned as NC, Neighborhood Conservation. Although specific development plans have not been offered, the applicant noted that approval of the request will afford an opportunity for appropriate infill.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval.

Location:

Feb. 2 Discussion:
Gutierrez said she would like to hold this item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Feb. 16

Feb. 16 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the final reading, and voted 6-0 to approve it. Gutierrez and Turk voted against.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Feb. 2 meeting.

This item was previously part of a different ordinance, but the council requested this section be removed and placed into a new proposal. This ordinance would move single-family and two-family dwellings from permitted uses to conditional uses under CS-Community Services.

Feb. 2 Discussion:
Kinion said he doesn’t think CS should exclude one- and two-family homes from permitted uses just because a lot of developers have built those types of homes in CS instead of mixed-use projects. He said he was around when CS was implemented and when certain areas were zoned CS, and it was not the intent to exclude those types of homes, but rather to make it easier for a developer to build mixed use neighborhoods, whether they chose to or not.

Bunch said she admits being part of the crowd that might’ve said CS hasn’t panned out the way it was expected, especially on Rupple Road. She said she remembers discussions about rezoning the property along Rupple Road, and those talks were about ways to get more diverse neighborhoods, not just residential developments like what has been built since then. However, she said those houses are desired and are selling, so she’s not sure this ordinance is necessary.

Petty said he has definitely called CS a failure in the past because of those same reasons. He said there’s a subtle difference between providing more opportunities for residents and providing more options for developers. He said real estate surveys show there are people who are settling for either the house they can afford in a neighborhood that doesn’t work for them, or for a more expensive house in a part of town they prefer. Getting developers to experiment with mixed use takes more than just giving them a lot of choices, he said. While this ordinance won’t likely solve everything, it might lead to more experimentation of mixed use.

Hertzberg said this ordinance could lead to developers not wanting to build in Fayetteville.

Petty said developers have been saying that for 20 years but they still keep coming. Scroggin agreed, and said Fayetteville is a great community and people want to live here so developers will definitely keep building no matter what.

Two residents spoke in favor of the ordinance.

Kinion said he wants to leave the item on the first reading.

The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
Kinion said he still feels like this is too restrictive. Bunch said she’s still leaning in that direction herself, and thinks requiring a Conditional Use Permit for single-family and two-family dwellings would make it too difficult for developers to build those types of structures. Turk agreed.

Petty said he thinks the extra step could help level the playing field for buyers who want more choices of housing types. Jones agreed.

The council voted 4-4 to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading (Kinion, Bunch, Turk and Hertzberg voted against). That motion requires six affirmative votes, so the motion failed. The discussion will continue on March 2.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Feb. 2 meeting.

This item was previously part of a different ordinance, but the council requested this section be removed and placed into a new proposal. This ordinance would move single-family and two-family dwellings from permitted uses to conditional uses under UT-Urban Thoroughfare.

Feb. 2 Discussion:
Some council members said they didn’t see the same issues as with CS. Scroggin said he doesn’t think it even matters whether the changes are approved or not.

Similar to the previous item, the council agreed to leave this ordinance on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Feb. 16 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

The council voted 5-3 to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading (Kinion, Bunch and Hertzberg voted against). That motion requires six affirmative votes, and Mayor Jordan chose to vote in favor.

Decision:
During the final vote, the ordinance failed with Kinion, Bunch, Turk and Hertzberg voting against. Mayor Jordan declined to cast a vote to break the tie.

Background:
A new apartment complex on Razorback Road just south of the intersection of MLK Jr. Boulevard is located on a missing section of the Tsa La Gi Trail. One of the conditions of approval for the complex was that the developers build the missing section of the trail across their property and to help pay for a pedestrian hybrid beacon for trail users to cross Razorback Road. This cost-share is for that crossing signal.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
This contract is for Phase 2 of Kessler Mountain Regional Park, which includes a four-field baseball complex with synthetic turf, 211 parking spaces, a concession and restroom facility and batting cages.

The project is part of the 2019 voter-approved bond package, designed to give Fayetteville residents more opportunities to participate in ball sports and to add a facility capable of hosting large tournaments that would help strengthen the city’s economy.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Petty said there are a lot of good reasons to build the ball fields, however, he said it’s unlikely that the city will ever see a return on investment when it comes to hosting tournaments. He said he hopes that is considered with future projects when using tournaments as a justification to spend money on infrastructure.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
The Planning Commission last month approved an extension of the venue’s Conditional Use Permit that includes:

• No expiration of the permit
• An extra hour of allowed outdoor music on Friday (6-11 p.m.) and Saturday (11 a.m. to 11 p.m.)
• The extended hours allowance expires Jan. 11, 2022, but includes an option for renewal

After complaints from neighbors, city staff are recommending changes, including adding a one-year expiration of the permit, and reducing live music hours to no later than 9 p.m.

Staff said while there has only been one documented noise ordinance violation, the volume of music and operation of the venue is having “an adverse impact on many residents.” Staff suggested giving the venue a year to operate with the proposed new rules to see how it works out, and then the venue can bring forward a request to extend the permit further and possibly add additional days or times for live music. Staff said by then, the city should be able to make some improvements to the area, like adding new sidewalks and more parking along Prairie Street that may alleviate parking concerns and encourage walking to the venue.

Discussion of an appeal needed support from three council members. Those members are Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, and Mark Kinion.

Discussion:
During public comment, about 20 people spoke in favor of allowing the venue to continue operating with its current permit, and three people spoke against.

Scroggin said he believes the neighbors who say they are disturbed by the sound. He said there were a lot of comments in support of the venue, but most of them have a financial interest in the issue because they either work for the venue or make money by playing there.

Hertzberg said the venue deserves a chance to see if they can make the new permit hours work since they’ve only had one noise ordinance violation. Jones agreed and said it’s important to make a decision tonight since there are events scheduled in the coming weeks.

Kinion said he believes the owners are committed to doing the right thing. He said their permit was already a compromise to what they asked for. He said he sponsored the appeal because he wanted to hear everyone’s point of view, but there weren’t many people who spoke against the expanded hours. He said the council should uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.

Turk said she wants the owners to be successful, but a lot of the homes in the area were there before the venue, so she suggested allowing the venue to operate as it has for the past year (stopping music at 10 p.m.) without the one extra hour that the Planning Commission recently approved. Scroggin said he would support that idea. Turk moved to amend the resolution to make that change.

Kinion said he won’t support that. Bunch agreed.

Scroggin said if the council wants to approve an extra hour, maybe the owners should have to come back after a year to get an extension to create an opportunity to deny the permit if the new hours aren’t working out.

Turk suggested requiring the owners to add some type of sound dampeners before granting them an extra hour of live music.

The owner said she needs to have confidence that she can operate indefinitely before she can invest the thousands of dollars needed to add sound barriers.

Turk moved to amend the resolution to include everything the staff recommended. There was no second.

Scroggin said he wants to see a review of the permit after a year. That’s more important to him than requiring a sound barrier, he said. He made a motion to allow the extra hour, but not an extra day per week, and to require a review of the overall CUP after one year. That’s what the Planning Commission recently approved, except Scroggin’s amendment requires a one-year review of the overall permit. Gutierrez seconded. That amendment passed 5-3 with Jones, Kinion and Bunch voting against, Petty recusing and Jordan voting in favor.

Decision:
The council voted 6-1 to approve the amended resolution (Kinion voted against and Petty recused because he owns the building next door). This decision upholds all of the Planning Commission’s decisions except that it requires a one-year check-in for the venue to continue operating.

Background:
The property is located northwest of the intersection between I-49 and Wedington Drive. It was annexed by the city in 1967 and shortly after a duplex was built on the land. The request is to rezone the parcel to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, 12 Units per Acre. The applicant has proposed a development which would retain the duplex and construct an additional duplex on the back of the property for a total of four units.

Both the Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval.

Location:

Discussion:
During public comment, one person spoke against the request.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on March 2.

Background:
This proposal would allow camping in public parks during special events, such as races or tournaments. Camping would only be allowed in designated areas, and only with a special permit authorized by the Parks and Recreation Director. After approval, permits would be issued to applicants along with guidelines and rules concerning trash deposits and fees.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
The council has the power to adopt amendments without having to refer items back to the Planning Commission. This ordinance would make it clear that public notification and hearing requirements of Planning Commission items only apply to annexation and zoning map amendments that are initiated to the Planning Commission by private parties, not amendments made by the council during their own meetings.

Discussion:
Turk suggested holding this item on the first reading. Discussion will continue March 2.