LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Aug. 3, 2021

Discussion: Mayor Jordan said he knows the Legislature is set to meet on Wednesday to discuss possible changes to Act 1002 to allow schools to enact mask mandates. However, he said there’s been no discussion about changes that would allow cities to also enact mask mandates for residents who enter city buildings and public indoor places.

During public comment, former Council Member Kyle Smith spoke in favor of the resolution.

Hertzberg said she can’t support the resolution because there might be an issue concerning enforcement. She said she thinks it would put business owners in a tough spot if a local mandate were issued that couldn’t be enforced.

Turk said local control is important during a pandemic. “I think the Legislature overstepped its boundaries,” said Turk.

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

Background: This item was left on the first reading at the July 20 meeting.

Staff said many sections of the city’s building regulation laws are now over 20 years old and are in need of updating, general housekeeping, and a review for consistency. Two years ago the council approved a set of updates, including formalization of the temporary certificate of occupancy allowance, elimination of fire zones, and several text changes to align ordinance with codes adopted at the state level.

Staff said this proposed revision would align city ordinances with current building codes where possible, to eliminate unnecessary requirements that have little impact on the quality of the built environment within the city, and to improve the ability to enforce local building regulation laws.

July 20 Discussion: One person spoke against the ordinance. He said adopting the International Property Maintenance Code, which regulates the minimum maintenance requirements for existing buildings, could lead to more tenants complaining about the properties they’re renting since it’s more strict than current law.

Scroggin asked if other cities are using the code, and staff said there are cities in Arkansas using it, including Fort Smith and Little Rock.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Aug. 3.

Aug. 3 Discussion: There was no public comment.

Turk said a constituent asked her if the council could hold the item on the second reading since he couldn’t be present tonight to speak. Hertzberg said she’d like to hold it as well, but Scroggin, Bunch and Petty said they’d like to go ahead and vote. The motion to advance to the third reading passed 8-0.

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

Background: The parcel at 111 S. West Ave, contains a single-family home, and the parcel at 115 S. West Ave. is currently undeveloped. In 2004, the property was rezoned to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, as part of the Downtown Master Plan. The applicant stated that rezoning to MSC, Main Street Center would support many of the Downtown Master Plan strategies and the Cultural Arts Corridor (CAC) project by expanding development options to include flexible retail, housing, entertainment, and arts cultural space.

Both city planners and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request. Staff said they have not received any public comment on this item.

Location:

Discussion: The applicant said a gentle increase in density is appropriate in that neighborhood.

There was no public comment.

Turk said she’s concerned about the requested district’s allowance for building height, the allowable reduction in tree canopy, and some of the business types that are allowed in MSC.

Decision: The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and voted 7-1 to approve it. Turk voted against.

Background: The property is currently undeveloped. It once included a single-family home that was demolished in the late 1990’s. There is a substantial difference in elevation between the property’s access onto North Crossover Road and its east property line – a roughly 13% grade is present. The applicant has not submitted any specific development plans, though they indicated an intent to develop the site with added residential density.

Both city planners and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request. Staff said one person spoke against the request at the July 12 Planning Commission meeting, and said they think the requested zoning could exacerbate traffic and safety issues on North Crossover Road.

Location:

Discussion: There was no public comment.

Gutierrez said the area includes a major corridor and she’d like to see more density there.

Decision: The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-1 to approve it. Turk voted against. She did not say why.

Background: The applicant has requested the vacation to allow for the construction of a small storage outbuilding on the northwest corner of the property.

City planners recommend approval of the request with the following condition of approval:

• Any damage or relocation of existing facilities will be at the applicant’s expense

The Planning Commission doesn’t hear vacations of utility easements.

Location:

Discussion: There was no public comment.

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

Background: The property is currently the site of a mobile home park, a barn, and semi-trailer storage. In 2013, large-scale development was approved to develop a Kum & Go gas station on the property, but construction never occurred so the development entitlements expired. A second large-scale development was approved in 2019 to develop a Casey’s General Store which was built. As a part of the Casey’s plan, the applicant proposed to close an off-site driveway to address traffic safety concerns. Staff said that closure was a factor in their support for a new curb cut onto Mount Comfort that serves Casey’s, and the Planning Commission required it to be closed as a part of their project approval. The applicant is now requesting a modification to the Casey’s plan to allow use of the driveway.

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

Location:

Discussion: One person spoke in favor of the appeal.

Scroggin said it sounds like there is a legal dispute between Casey’s and the applicant, and that it might need to be decided by a judge, not the City Council. He said he’d like to table the item to allow the city attorney to take a closer look.

Bunch moved to table for two weeks. The motion passed 8-0. The discussion will continue on Aug. 17.

Background: The council in 2019 passed an ordinance banning the use of foam containers, but state lawmakers later passed a new law that prohibits cities and counties from restricting the use of container types.

City Attorney Kit Williams said he believes the local law can still be applied to concession stands, food trucks and caterers operating on city property.

Williams said in order to accomplish that, the council needs to amend the original ordinance, which is what this item is intended for.

Discussion: There was no public comment.

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

Background: Staff said the city’s laws regarding refund procedures for off-site impact fees need to be amended to clarify that they comply with state law. The issue arose after a church received a refund of off-site impact fees from the city and later claimed that the amount should have included more interest than what the deposit actually earned in the city’s interest-bearing account.

City Attorney Kit Williams disagreed and said state law only requires cities to refund the actually accrued interest of a deposit amount. To prevent further confusion, Williams recommend the council amend city code to clarify that information.

Discussion: Williams said he’d like the council to hold the item to allow him time to bring back a slight amendment. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on Aug. 17.

Background: This item was brought forward by Council Member Petty. It would express support for and allow the city to join, if possible, a lawsuit that was filed Monday challenging the state’s recent ban on mask mandates.

Aside from prohibiting local officials from enacting mask mandates, the ban also prevents a city from using its property ownership rights to require a face mask for entry into its own buildings.

The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the ban. It also seeks an eventual declaration that Act 1002 is unconstitutional. The legislature could meet this week to consider an amendment of the law to allow public schools to enact mask mandates as requested by the governor, but such action would also require a two-thirds vote to include an emergency clause that would allow masks to be mandated before the upcoming school year begins.

Discussion: Hertzberg asked if the city became a plaintiff whether there would be any outside legal fees involved. City Attorney Kit Williams said there would not be any fees, as he’d handle it in-house.

Williams said he needs to further study the possibility before he makes any decisions about joining the lawsuit, but if the council passes the resolution, he’d get to work on that.

During public comment former Council Member Kyle Smith spoke and said this is not about masks, but rather who gets to make the decision about masks. He said local cities should be allowed to make the call for their own communities. He said the Legislature overstepped its authority by taking away local control.

Mayor Jordan said the pandemic is at a much more dangerous level than it was this time last year. He said every city in the state is different, and each one needs to be able to make the safest decisions for itself.

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