Fayetteville City Council recap: May 3, 2022

Background:
Council members Harvey, Jones and Kinion have signed on to help Prairie Street Live appeal the Planning Commission’s decision not to grant a temporary extension that allowed for an extra hour of music (from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.) on Thursdays, and not to grant an allowance for amplified music from two days per week to three days per week.

The owners said they lost $20,000 in contracts since the decision was made and they were going to use 40% of that money for noise reduction to try and mitigate sound ordinance violations.

City planners also recommend against the extra hour of music.

Staff said most of the opposition to the request came from neighbors who have issued complaints about noise disruptions, vulgar language, and parking difficulties when the venue is operating. Those in favor, staff said, said the venue supports the local performing arts community and reflects the spirit and intent of the nearby cultural arts corridor.

April 5 Discussion:
Harvey said she supports the business and thinks it’s a good fit for the adjacent cultural arts corridor.

Kinion said it’s a unique venue that expands upon the cultural arts corridor, but he is concerned about the noise violations. He said he wants to see the business succeed, but there have been promises broken about noise abatement that concern him.

Turk said she is also concerned about the noise and the other issues the neighbors have complained about. She said she likes live music, but the business is not located in the entertainment district.

Bunch said at this point she’s not sure the business owner’s promises about noise abatement will ever be addressed.

Wiederkehr said the city has a great track record of supporting the arts and also supporting quality of life for neighbors. He said the conflict won’t solve itself and the challenge here is that the owner is making another promise to solve the noise issues, but only if the council allows extra time for live music that will generate enough revenue to pay for a solution.

Kinion suggested tabling the item for two weeks. Scroggin seconded the motion and said that should be fine because the question is not whether to take anything away from the business, but rather whether the council should give more.

The motion to table passed 8-0. The discussion will continue on April 19.

April 19 Discussion:
The applicant said she’s serious about complying with the noise ordinance and discussed some infrastructure changes that have already been implemented or are in the works, including improved noise monitoring, sound curtains on the stage and new trees planted around the property. She said without the extra hour she will lose significant business from the University of Arkansas.

Jones said without the extra hour allowance, the council will be holding the applicant back from a potential for success and he doesn’t want to do that. He said he’ll support the appeal.

Turk said she’s concerned about the complaints from the neighbors and asked what new noise monitoring practices would be implemented. The applicant said she has a new, more accurate decibel meter and that she’d be monitoring the sound herself instead of using a third-party provider.

One person who lives in a condo building near Prairie Street Live said the amplified music is a problem. He said he’s had to add soundproofing to his windows and keep them permanently closed in efforts to keep the sound out.

Planning Commissioner Porter Winston spoke and said during their meeting, while the commissioners didn’t all agree on every point, they did agree that the venue should have an opportunity to exist, and since there were only six members present during the meeting, they had to come up with a “lowest common denominator” approach in order to pass something that would keep the business open so it wouldn’t immediately be required to close the following day. He said it’s a good location and personally, he thinks it’s important that the venue owners be allowed a chance to improve the situation.

Kinion moved to amend the resolution to allow music until 10 p.m. on Thursdays.

Turk said the venue continues to ask for more each year and they continue to receive it without addressing the complaints of the neighbors.

“I don’t think we should reward bad behavior,” said Turk.

Kinion said he thinks the owner has stepped forward after her two violations in an attempt to resolve the problems. He said if there’s another offense or they violate their permit, then they could lose their privileges.

“This is a pretty restricted resolution,” said Kinion. “But I’m going to support it based on the tightness with which the conditional use could be revoked.”

Turk said there have been ongoing complaints from property owners in the area who were there long before the venue existed.

“I think we need to think about who got there first,” said Turk. “I love outdoor music, but we need to also be sensitive to our community and the people who are there that invested a lot in their livelihood before there was outdoor music.”

Bunch said it’s a tough decision because she wants to support the arts, but she also doesn’t want the neighbors to be uncomfortable in their homes. She said she knows there are people who have issues with the venue, but she has also talked to several adjacent neighbors who don’t have a problem with the venue at all. She said she’ll support the request for the same reasons Kinion mentioned – because of its strict language that doesn’t allow for further violations.

April 19 Decision:
The council voted 5-3 to approve the appeal. Turk, Scroggin and Wiederkehr voted against.

UPDATE 4/26/22: The council voted 5-3 to amend the resolution to allow for the extra hour on Thursday, but didn’t take the required additional vote to pass the amended appeal. At the time, nobody realized this mistake, and everyone in the room believed the final vote had been taken. The city clerk noticed the error the following day and alerted the city attorney. The council will need to revisit this item at the May 3 meeting.

May 3 Discussion:
Council member Sloan Scroggin, who originally voted against the extra hour, said before the meeting he’s heard from some people who are worried that the 5-3 vote from April 19 might not be repeated on May 3, so he plans to switch his vote from ‘no’ to ‘yes’ in hopes of ensuring the original intended decision remains intact.

“I think it’s only fair that we stick with what we voted last time,” Scroggin said last week.

There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 5-2 to pass the resolution. Turk and Wiederkehr voted against. Jones was not present for the vote.

Background:
This rezoning would allow for a redevelopment of the 112 Drive-In property along Highway 112 in north Fayetteville. A submitted site plan shows a variety of housing options and several commercial uses across the property. While the current movie screen at the north end of the site would be replaced with housing units, the site plan does show a smaller outdoor movie screen on the southeast corner of the land next to an 805-seat cinema with a beer garden. The southwest portion of the site includes a proposed 10,000-square-foot retail or restaurant space with associated parking.

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

Location:

Submitted Site Plan:

Discussion:
Attorney Steve Brooks, who represents the developer, said he can’t say much about the plans at this point, but told the council the development does include a drive-in movie screen.

One person spoke during public comment and said he’s worried the proposed housing development will only cater to wealthy people.

Scroggin said UT is likely the best use of the property, and whether the homes that are eventually built are affordable for everyone or not, Fayetteville still needs more housing. He said he frequents the drive-in and will be sad to see it go, but the proposed development might be the best chance for Fayetteville to continue having an outdoor movie theater.

Turk said the nearby floodplain makes the current drive-in an appropriate use, but there’s no guarantee that the drive-in would survive if the rezoning isn’t approved. She said she hopes the city’s development processes will help protect the area when it’s eventually developed.

Bunch said the drive-in property has belonged to the same family for many, many years and now they’re ready to move on. She said it’s unfortunate for fans of the drive-in, but business owners do that all the time. She said the rezoning request is an appropriate change for the property and she’ll support it.

Kinion said UT is a vast improvement over the potential uses that are allowed under the current zoning district. He said with the highway work that’s set to soon begin, he thinks it’s a timely decision to rezone and redevelop the drive-in property now that it’s clear the owners are ready to sell.

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