LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: April 6, 2021

The Advertising and Promotion Commissioners recommend the following candidates for appointment:

Andrew Prysby – One public at large term ending 03/31/25
Todd Martin – One Tourism Industry term ending 03/31/25

Background:
This item was tabled at the Dec. 1, Jan. 5, Feb. 16 and March 16 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).

March 16 Discussion:
Staff recommended this item be tabled to allow the Ordinance Review Committee time to review some possible amendments. The discussion will continue on April 6.

April 6 Discussion:
City Attorney Kit Williams said he has an amendment to include a 20-month sunset clause, as recommended by the Ordinance Review Committee. The sunset clause would allow the ordinance to be reviewed and safely changed in the future if problems arise.

Turk said she’d prefer a 12-month sunset clause. She moved to make that change, but there was no second.

The 20-month sunset amendment passed 8-0.

The council voted 5-3 to table the item for two weeks to allow the council more time to consider the ordinance, and to direct staff to bring forward an amendment regarding occupancy limits. The discussion will continue on April 20. Turk, Kinion and Jones voted against because they wanted to direct staff to explore several more regulation changes which would require the item to be tabled for four weeks.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the March 2 meeting and the second reading at the March 16 meeting.

The property contains 5 acres of undeveloped land with approximately 1,100 feet of frontage along West Wedington Drive. No development plans have been submitted by the applicant.

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

Location:

March 2 Discussion:
The applicant said they would like to change the request to a mix of RI-U and NS-L.

Turk said the applicant should go back through the Planning Commission process with any major changes. She moved to send it back to the commission. Bunch seconded. The motion failed with only Scroggin, Turk and Bunch voting in favor.

Mayor Jordan suggested leaving the item on the first reading to allow a new ordinance to be drafted. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on March 16.

March 16 Discussion:
The applicant asked that the item be left on the second reading to allow time for a new ordinance to be drafted. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on April 6.

April 6 Discussion:
The applicant has revised the request to ask for Residential Intermediate-Urban for most of the property and Neighborhood Services-Limited for the remainder of the land.

City staff are in favor of the new request.

Here’s a map of the revised request:

The council voted 8-0 to amend the ordinance to include the revised requested districts.

Scroggin said developing this land in the requested zoning district would be “too much too far out.”

Turk said she’d like to table the item and send it back to the Planning Commission to get a recommendation on the revised request. Petty moved to do so, and that motion passed 8-0.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the March 16 meeting.

The property was originally platted as a part of the Sunny Acres Addition in the Sang Valley neighborhood. The applicant intends to split the lot for additional single-family dwellings and has submitted a Bill of Assurance which will guarantee no more than three single-family homes are built, instead of the four that would normally allowed on this property under the RSF-7 district. The rezoning is meant to accommodate a configuration of lots fronting North Sang Avenue with a shared drive along the east property line off West Ora Drive.

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

Location:

March 16 Discussion:
The applicant requested the item be held on this reading. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on April 6.

April 6 Discussion:
The applicant said the plan is to build three two-story homes facing Sang Avenue with a shared driveway leading to Ora Drive.

On resident who spoke said she opposes the request because the applicant could instead apply for a variance to build what they want without rezoning the entire property.

Turk said the area has drainage issues that haven’t been resolved and she’s worried more development would compound those problems. She also said she’s concerned that the property owner might remove some of their trees and since there’s no Bill of Assurance guaranteeing the trees will remain, she will likely vote against the request.

Scroggin said he’s fine with the request instead of the resident-suggested variance idea because both would result in the exact same development. He said small changes like this need to be approved instead of making it so difficult.

Gutierrez said she personally likes the proposed development idea, but the neighbors don’t so she will side with the neighbors.

Kinion said he will also side with the neighbors and oppose the request.

Decision:
The council voted 3-5 with Turk, Gutierrez, Kinion, Jones and Hertzberg voting against. The ordinance failed.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the March 16 meeting.

This vacation approval is subject to the following conditions:

1. Any relocation of or damage to existing utilities or existing facilities shall be at the owner/developer’s expense;
2. A general utility easement shall be dedicated in place of the right of way.
3. A portion of the right of way to be vacated shall be dedicated as a public access easement the length of the property as depicted in the survey attached as Exhibit C.

Location:

March 16 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on April 6.

April 6 Discussion:
The applicant has revised the drawings as follows:

The amended changes were approved.

Decision:
The council voted 3-5 with Scroggin, Bunch, Turk, Jones and Kinion voting against. The ordinance failed.

Background:
The mayor is recommending a compensation package based on the fiscal results of 2020 operations and the Fire and Police Pay and Benefits Study recently completed.

Staff said the General Fund ended 2020 operations with a budget surplus of $2.1 million, and other operating funds such as the Street, Parks Development, Water & Sewer and Recycling & Trash Collection funds have the capacity to afford these salary increases.

The following items make up the package:

• The plan would provide an increase to Police and Fire uniformed personnel by placing them on the new step pay plan structure at their current step effective 04/05/2021.
• The plan would provide for a one step increase for eligible Police and Fire uniformed personnel beginning 04/05/2021 keeping everyone in a step.
• The plan would provide for merit increases for other employees comparable to the amount provided for a step to uniformed personnel, to be distributed based on merit (4.0% merit pools will be created for that purpose).
• Amounts to merit employees will be based on performance as determined by the appropriate department/division head. These increases will go into effect beginning 04/05/2021.
• To be eligible merit employees must have completed at least six (6) months of service which means they must have been paid on Pay Period #22, 2020 which equals a start date before 10/19/2020.
• Uniformed personnel to be eligible to receive a step increase must have completed at least one year of service which means they must have been paid on Pay Period #9, 2020 which equals a start date before 04/20/2020.
• The 2021 cost of this plan is projected to be $1,448,000 in the General Fund. The 2021 cost for all funds would be $1,905,000.
• The on-going cost of the plan in future years will be $1,981,000 for the General Fund and $2,607,000 for all funds.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
HFI Fletcher, LLC is developing three existing lots along Fletcher Drive. Two single family homes will be removed for the addition of 10 infill homes/lots. No public sewer exists today in front of these parcels and a public main extension is necessary.

Discussion:
Turk said she doesn’t want to subsidize a project that the neighbors oppose. She said she voted against recommending this item for approval at the Water & Sewer Committee meeting. She said she’ll oppose it tonight as well.

Scroggin said the infrastructure is needed, and the city is saving money with the cost-share so there’s really no reason to oppose this ordinance.

City staff said the city would save thousands of dollars by entering into this agreement.

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

Background:
The property consists of two parcels and is currently undeveloped. The land was rezoned to NS-L in 2011 in conjunction with the Fayette Junction Master Plan. No development plans have been submitted by the applicant.

City staff recommends approval of the application, but the Planning Commission recommends rezoning the land to CS, Community Services instead of what the applicant requested. Commissioners said CS would provide for additional services and amenities beyond just residential. The applicant has not submitted an updated request to reflect the commission’s recommendation. No public comment was provided on the item at the Planning Commission meeting, and staff has not received any public comment about the request, according to city documents.

Location:

Discussion:
Scroggin moved to amend the ordinance to the Planning Commission’s recommendation of CS-Community Services.

The applicant said they’re requesting RMF-24 because they have another connected property that’s also RMF-24 and they want them to be the same district.

The amendment passed 5-3 with Gutierrez, Hertzberg and Jones voting against.

Decision:
The council advanced the ordinance to the final reading, and voted 8-0 to approve it as amended.

Background:
The property contains one single-family dwelling. No development plans have been submitted by the applicant.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request. Staff has received public comment on the item both in support of the request and in opposition.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Turk said the street is narrow, and she thinks the council should tour the area to see for themselves.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on April 20.

Background:
The property includes 0.49 acres of unbuilt right-of-way. City staff said there is no indication that it was ever improved or utilized by the public.

City staff does not support the request because it would negate the established lot and block pattern in the neighborhood with the historic platting of the Meadow Vale Subdivision. Staff said the request would also be in conflict with the stated goals of City Plan 2040.

The Planning Commission, however, recommends approval with the following conditions:

1. Any damage or relocation of existing facilities will be at the applicant’s expense, or at the expense of the property owner or developer.
2. 20-foot wide dedication of public right-of-way connecting S. Razorback Road and S. Vale Avenue as a multi-use trail along the south border of the property.
3. Any constructed buildings must comply with dedicated public right-of-way for any relevant design standards, in such that the right-of-way is treated as frontage.

Location:

Discussion:
The applicant shared this image of their plan.

There was no public comment.

The council left the item on the first reading.

Background:
Current city law prohibits on-street parking spaces within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection and within 30 feet upon the approach to any flashing beacon, stop sign or traffic control signals located at the side of a roadway.

Staff said while those requirements are a necessary safety measure in certain scenarios, other scenarios may exist where the distance requirements are overly restrictive, thereby eliminating otherwise safe on-street parking spaces. Staff said examples could include 4-way or All-way stops or areas where curb bump-outs are installed that clearly delineate defined space between a crosswalk or traffic signal.

The proposed amendment would allow the City Engineer or Traffic Superintendent to use discretion in determining whether an on-street parking space could be installed or even allowed to remain in certain instances where the parking space is located within the otherwise prohibited distance.

From city documents:

As various projects potentially add new marked on-street spaces (e.g. West Ave. streetscape improvements from the Cultural Arts Corridor project, West Ave./Prairie St. improvements, or Dickson St. overlay), staff feels it is important to establish requirements that maximize right-of- way use in a safe and practical manner.

Discussion:
Staff requested this item be tabled indefinitely since it was recently discovered that an existing state statute would conflict with this proposal.

The council voted 8-0 to table the item indefinitely.

Background:
City law requires the recycling and trash user fee to be adjusted annually based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as published by the U.S. Department of Labor. The CPI increase applied for 2021 rates was 1.24%.

Rates for residential and commercial services are set to cover all operating expenses for the programs. Solid waste disposal fees are 23% of the residential’s operating expense budget and 35% of the commercial operating expense budget. Because of the discrepancy in language between Ordinance 6138 and Resolution 229-19, 23% of the Recycling and Trash Collection Division’s residential operating expense budget and 35% of the commercial operating expense budget were increased disproportionately to revenue collected from residential and commercial rates for service.

For revenue collected to off-set the CPI increase for disposal and hauling expense in the future, staff recommends amending the language in 50.40(A) Fee Increases to specify that:

…the recycling and trash user fee shall be adjusted annually based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI) sub-index for Water, Sewer, Trash Collection as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, unless specifically waived by City Council resolution.

There would be no impact for 2021. The recommended change would take effect in the 2022 budget.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
This was sponsored by Sonia Gutierrez on behalf of a constituent.

See this memo from City Attorney Kit Williams:

» Read the full packet with Williams’ original memo here

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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