Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-09-01 - Minutes -Council Member Sonia Gutierrez Ward 1 Position 1 Council Member Sarah Marsh Ward I Position 2 Council Member Mark Kinion Ward 2 Position I Council Member Matthew Petty Ward 2 Position 2 Mayor Lioneld Jordan City Attorney Kit Williams City Clerk Kara Paxton City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Meeting September 1, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 1 of 29 Council Member Sloan Scroggin Ward 3 Position 1 Council Member Sarah Bunch Ward 3 Position 2 Council Member Teresa Turk Ward 4 Position 1 Council Member Kyle Smith Ward 4 Position 2 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on September 1, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Mayor Jordan called the meeting to order. In order to create social distancing due to the Coronavirus, COVID-19 pandemic, Council Members Sonia Gutierrez, Sarah Marsh, Mark Kinion, Matthew Petty, Sloan Scroggin, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, and Kyle Smith joined the meeting via online using a video conferencing service called Zoom. Mayor Lioneld Jordan, City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton, Chief of Staff Susan Norton, Police Chief Mike Reynolds, Fire Chief Brad Hardin, Chief Financial Officer Paul Becker, and two staff members from the IT Department were present in City Council Chambers while demonstrating recommended social distancing. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor's Announcements, Proclamations and Recognitions: Mayor Jordan: In light of the current health concerns, Fayetteville City Hall is closed to the public. This meeting is being held virtually. I am present in Council Chambers with a handful of essential support staff. City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton, Chief of Staff Susan Norton, IT Director Keith Macedo, Police Chief Mike Reynolds, Fire Chief Brad Hardin, Chief Financial Officer Paul Becker, and two representatives from the IT Department. City Council Members, City Staff, and the public are participating online or by phone. Other than 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 2 of 29 those of us you see before you, the voices you hear during the course of this meeting are being recorded for public record and piped into the Council Chambers. Participation remains of the upmost importance to the City of Fayetteville. We have provided many ways to participate in the meeting, which includes contacting Council Members, City Clerk office or city staff prior to the meeting. The meeting can be viewed through Fayetteville's government channel online, YouTube, and joining the Zoom conference by smartphone, tablet or computer. Staff can view when you join the meeting and when you raise your virtual hand. We ask that you refrain from doing this until the public comment portion of the item on which you wish to comment. I will provide a longer than usual period of time for you to raise your virtual hand, so as to ensure time to be recognized. Fayetteville residents will be allowed to speak first. When recognized, please state your name and address for the record. Public comment shall be allowed for all members of the audience who have signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda item they wish to address being opened for public comment. This is a time for public comment only. Each speaker has one turn to speak. Each speaker is allowed five minutes to be broken into two segments of three and two minutes, which staff will monitor. Amendments may receive public comments only if approved by the City Council by unanimous consent or majority vote. If public comment is allowed for an amendment, speakers will only be allowed to speak for three minutes. The City Council may allow both a speaker additional time and an unsigned -up person to speak by unanimous consent or majority vote. Everyone is to stay on topic. Don't engage a Council Member or anybody in the public and no rude behavior. City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports, and Discussion Items: Monthly Financial lZeport Paul Becker, Chief Financial Officer gave a summary of the Monthly Financial Report. He stated the General Fund is doing very well considering the pandemic. He stated at this point we are doing about as well as we could expect to do. Azenda Additions: None Consent: Haynes Pump and Process, LLC: A resolution to approve Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Haynes Pump and Process, LLC for aeration basin gates at the Noland Water Resource Recovery Facility in the amount of $5,761.88. Resolution 215-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Electric Motor Center: A resolution to accept a quote in the amount of $22,456.77 plus applicable taxes and freight charges from Electric Motor Center for the repair of a jet flow mixer pump used at the West Side Water Resource Recovery Facility. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 3 of 29 Resolution 216-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Afterglow Aircraft Solutions, LLC: A resolution to approve a three year lease agreement with Afterglow Aircraft Solutions, LLC for the Airport Hangar at 4580 South School Avenue for rent in the amount of $2,492.23 per month. Resolution 217-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk RFQ 20-01 Selection #16 Engineering Elements, PLLC: A resolution to authorize a contract with Engineering Elements, PLLC, in the amount of $4,500.00, pursuant to RFQ 20-01 Selection #16, to provide design services, bid documents and construction administration for the installation of lighting at the Walker Park skateboard area, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $500.00, and to approve a budget adjustment. Resolution 218-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk HUB International: A resolution to approve a contract with HUB International in the amount of $16,252.00 for insurance brokerage and consultation services through the end of 2020. Resolution 219-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Bid #19-52 Benchmark Construction Change Order #2: A resolution to approve Change Order No. 2 to the contract with Benchmark Construction of NWA, Inc. in the amount of $145,771.00 for construction of the Fleet Truck Wash Facility, and to approve a budget adjustment. Resolution 220-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk RFQ 20-01 Selection #20 Modus Studio, PLLC - 2019 Parks Bond Project: A resolution to authorize a professional architectural services agreement with Modus Studio, PLLC, pursuant to RFQ 20-01 Selection #20, in an amount not to exceed $61,000.00 for the design of a restroom and pavilion at Centennial Park at Millsap Mountain, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $6,100.00, and to approve a budget adjustment - 2019 Parks Bond Project. Resolution 221-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Cox Advanced Services Arkansas, LLC- 2019 Transportation Bond Project: A resolution to authorize a contract with Cox Advanced Services Arkansas, LLC in the amount of $22,589.70 for utility relocations for the Zion Road Construction Project, and to approve a budget adjustment - 2019 Transportation Bond Project. Resolution 222-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Council Member Gutierrez moved to accept the Consent Agenda as read. Council Member Kinion seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 4 of 29 Unfinished Business: Arkansas and Missouri Railroad Futrall Drive and Gregg Avenue - 2019 Transportation Bond Project: An ordinance to waive competitive bidding and authorize a New Railroad Crossing Cost and Maintenance Agreement and an Easement Agreement with the Arkansas and Missouri Railroad for a new railroad crossing at Futrall Drive and Gregg Avenue, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $28,344.86, and to approve a budget adjustment for the estimated total project cost of $750,000.00 - 2019 Transportation Bond Project. At the August 4, 2020 City Council meeting this item was tabled for two weeks. This item will be placed on the 0811812020 City Council meeting agenda. At the August 18, 2020 City Council meeting this item was tabled for two weeks. This item will be placed on the September 1, 2020 City Council meeting agenda. Chris Brown, City Engineer gave a brief description of the ordinance. He spoke about presenting several options to the Transportation Committee. He stated the Transportation Committee voted 3-0 to pursue the closure at Frisco, but the request from the committee was to also get input from the Active Transportation Advisory Committee. He stated the Active Transportation Advisory Committee didn't like the idea of closing the Frisco location. He stated they voted 7-0 to recommend to the Council that the closing remain open to all traffic and if the Council wishes to pursue another option other than the Garrett closure, they recommended looking at improving the Frisco crossing with lights and signals, as opposed to the Garrett or some of the other options that were recommended. He stated the ordinance in front of Council is the current ordinance of the budget of $750,000 and approving the agreement for the new railroad crossing at Futrall with closing the crossing at Garrett. He stated tonight, we want to talk about the other options, look at the agreement in front of City Council and make some decisions. Council Member Scroggin: This doesn't need to be approved today, does it? Chris Brown: The only thing that could be approved is if you want to accept the current agreement in front of you that has been signed by the railroad, which includes the stipulation of closing the Garrett crossing in exchange for the Futrall. If you want staff to pursue changes to that, then we would have to go back to the railroad and get a revised agreement. None of the other options at this point are guaranteed that the railroad would be acceptable to those. Council Member Scroggin: Is the current agreement the one that's by Ridout? Chris Brown: Correct. The Garrett crossing is what's tagged to the proposed agreement that is in front of you right now. Council Member Scroggin: Which Ridout has said that they aren't happy about? Chris Brown: That is correct. We have gotten feedback from Ridout, the storage facility, and SWEPCO, which owns property. They are concerned about loss of access. Council Member Turk: You presented three new plans over by Garrett to hook up to Poplar Street. Have any of the businesses you just mentioned seen these three different options? 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 5 of 29 Chris Brown: I've not shown the two latest ones. We did talk about the extension along the railroad track last time, but we have not shared publicly the other two options. Council Member Turk: It would he really important to get some feedback from those businesses that have concerns. Council Member Gutierrez: I appreciate that Chris came to the Active Transportation Committee last night. Matt Hoffman came to help us understand what happened in the Transportation Committee. Chris was able to send out notifications to neighbors in the area of the Frisco area. Is that correct? Chris Brown: Yes, that is correct. Council Member Gutierrez: Maybe we could do a similar thing with the options to the businesses. Chris Brown: We did contact all the businesses prior to this. The area around the crossings, property owners and tenants of those locations have been contacted. If you would like, I could go through these drawings that we have got. Council Member Gutierrez: That would be awesome. Thank you. Council Member Bunch: Chris, that would be good. A representative from Ridout spoke about their concerns with being able to turn a truck around. Chris Brown showed the view on the computer screen. He stated it runs along the railroad track and connects with Shady Avenue. He stated the weakness of this plan is that we would have to go in the railroad right-of-way, and we would have to get permitting taken care of with that. He stated there is a short distance to get in and out of there. He stated the second option would be to go around the backside of Ridout Lumber, which is between the SWEPCO property and Ridout property. He stated it would connect up with the middle street in a subdivision and then connect a little bit further away, which the cost goes up with that. He stated the third option is even further and goes all the way around the backside of the SWEPCO property and comes down to Birch Avenue, which is a little more expensive because of the additional length. He stated if this crossing was close, it would allow traffic to go either direction to get to a crossing of the railroad. Council Member Bunch: You are saying that none of the businesses have looked at option two or three? Chris Brown: That is correct. We just completed these. Council Member Bunch: I'm curious to see if there is no other access to the back of Ridout, if they could hook a semi coming in where those streets are coming. They would have to make a really hard turn there. I don't know if that would be convenient. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes September I, 2020 Page 6 of 29 Chris Brown: That is just a concept. We could make that radius large enough to accommodate trucks. Council Member Kinion: I would like to talk more about the Douglas Street, Frisco crossing. It's not going to interrupt any business in that area. The crossing that comes into the area is over a one lane bridge and it's not really a high traffic area. In fact, it's unsafe. I use it a lot because I live over there and cut through. I think that is worth talking about if we have to close a crossing. I don't know what happened at the Transportation Committee last night, but it seems to me if they thought it was a valuable option, then we do have to look at it. It's not going to force an alternative route that we would have to pay for. It's an option that needs to be considered. Chris Brown stated some of the discussion was, if you remove this crossing from a vehicular standpoint, you end up with about a half a mile distance between Maple Street crossing and North Street. He stated it does create a very long distance where we don't have an opportunity for vehicular crossing. He stated the pedestrian and bicycle crossing is not quite as bad because we do have the Maple Street crossing and the trail goes under the railroad and that's not as long of a distance. He stated the benefit of that closing is that it makes for a safer trail experience. He stated we have a weakness in that because of the low water crossing. He spoke about the other options and scenarios. Council Member Gutierrez: The Active Transportation Committee met last night, we voted unanimously to avoid any closures whatsoever and instead try to go back to the railroad and propose we improve the crossings to reduce the liability. Council Member Kinion: Chris, is it a possibility that they would consider not closing a crossing somewhere? Chris Brown: What we have heard from them, because of feedback from a customer on the Garrett crossing, they now are rethinking whether they want to close the Garrett crossing. I believe we have some ability to negotiate leverage with the railroad to look at other options. Council Member Marsh: There is a crossing just north of the Garrett crossing at Township. What is preventing these businesses from using that crossing? Chris Brown: Nothing really. The way that Ridout is using the existing Garrett crossing allows for a much smoother in and out for their truck traffic. A lot of the vehicular traffic in and especially out of those businesses are using the signalized intersection. It doesn't cut access off for anybody. It just makes it a little less convenient for some of the businesses. We have some of the business owners on the line tonight and could expand on that answer if we get to public comment. Council Member Marsh: We also have an unimproved crossing just north of that at Jocelyn Lane. Is that one we could negotiate with instead? Chris Brown: That's an option we haven't talked about. We looked at it a little bit and we discounted that. I think the railroad probably would be less interested in that. We could talk to them about that. It has only one house on it. It does get used by trail users, which is a cut across to 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 7 of 29 get over to some of the businesses along Gregg Street. We do get some usage there. We could pursue that option as well and talk to the railroad about that one as well. Council Member Marsh: That would be such an easier transition. If we were to go ahead and close this one at Garrett, those businesses could use the one that's just right up north at Township. Then if we were to look at closing Joselyn, would we have an opportunity to go back and not close South University? I am concerned the neighbors weren't notified about the closing there and I'm also very concerned we arbitrarily tied developments to railroad closings. I would be more apt to close the Garrett crossing, but I would rather see the development that's tied to the Garrett crossing go forward because that's the one that includes the hospital expansion. I would like to have a little bit more understanding of what our options are. In terms of usage, South University versus Jocelyn Avenue, it's easy to determine that South University is going to have a lot more users. Perhaps if we had actually notified the adjacent businesses and residents, then they might have contacted the railroad as well and we might have more negotiation power. Council Member Bunch: Some of the improvements we are looking at for Drake Farms, when we are talking about possibly improving other intersections like with Frisco, what is the cost of these improvements we are looking at? If we are looking at maybe making some changes there, what would that be? Because it's not going to be $750,000. It's going to be something less than that, isn't it? Chris Brown: I would expect the cost of the railroad improvements to be similar to the cost of what you are talking about here. Probably in the $500,000 range and depending on how much we want to change the alignment of the roadway and all of that. The railroad crossing is the big expense and adding the lights and gates is going to be somewhere in the range of that $500,000. We also will have the stipulation of maintenance cost and other items similar to the current agreements. Council Member Bunch: I'm in favor if we can find a compromise. It doesn't seem like it's that far to go down to Township, but if you've got a truck coming in and you've got an entrance right at your business entrance, you would much prefer to keep that entrance. For customers, I wouldn't think it would be such a big deal because you are coming out at a stoplight on Township. We need to get something figured out so we can get moving on with the development that will affect the hospital and the apartments that are going in on Drake Farm. Mayor Jordan reiterated the public comment rules. He stated Fayetteville residents will speak first. Ross Ridout, Owner of Ridout Lumber: It's not inconvenience going down to Township. The road that reaches from Ridout to Township is basically like a private drive. It is not wide enough to have 18-wheelers passing each other on it. It's a place where rail cars are unloaded. There are grievance issues with running 100 trucks up and down that road every day. It's going to be unsafe and it is going to be much less safe than having an unprotected crossing there. Back in 1995 when we put the lumber yard on Gregg Street, we put it there because there was access. We had our largest month in 25 years in August 2020. 1 would have never put a lumber yard doing several million dollars a month at the end of a dead end street where my customers have to drive through 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 8 of 29 my competitors parking lot. The proper approach is to leverage them to drop this Garrett closing and move forward with the development. I have been told the Frisco crossing is very dangerous, but if you've got to get into re-routing roads, that's going to get expensive. Out of the three options Chris described, the only one that's feasible for us is the first one, even though that does cut off the south east corner of our lumber yard. It would allow us to exit through the back of our property. If you have a little leverage, the goal would be to get them to drop this part of the requirements and if not, our first request would be for you to consider improving the crossing at Garrett Avenue. Drew Wallace, 805 North Hall stated he is the Chair of the Active Transportation Advisory Committee. He stated the committee is adamantly opposed to closing the crossing at Frisco and Douglas. He stated it would block off an area that we should be creating more access to instead of creating giant cul-de-sacs. He stated by cutting the intersection off, it completely cuts off that entire spot. He stated as a private citizen he is opposed to closing all of the intersections. He stated we should be improving the connections and not cutting down on them. Mayor Jordan: We have had several discussions with the railroad, but I guess we can always go back to them again. I see that we have some more work to do. Council Member Smith: Mr. Ridout said they wouldn't have put a lumber yard there if they hadn't had the access. Does closing access there put us at any risk of a takings claim? City Attorney Kit Williams: I don't think there is a big risk there. It's difficult to say there is no risk and something to think about. The other thing to think about is not just the legal risk, but also the business risk. Chris has suggested some potential alternatives, all of which are somewhat difficult and expensive. It would be better if we could somehow convince the railroad to support one of their best customers and not require this to be closed. I think that is potentially possible. It might be that tonight we can't have a final decision on this. It would be an expensive lesson if we did have some liability there. Council Member Smith: I tend to agree with what Mr. Wallace was saying. Closing anything is a move in the wrong direction. We push for more connectivity as one of our major goals. It really hurt to close University Avenue and finding another east -west connection that we can sacrifice is a real challenge. I know the leverage with the railroad is limited, but it's real hard to trade established development and economic potential for future. Sometimes you have to do that, but I would love for us to find another way to open up land that the hospital needs without having to sacrifice somebody that has been there for a long time. Mayor Jordan: Why don't you all table this thing again. Chris and I will go back to the railroad and try to fight to keep the railroad crossings that we have and get the two new ones too. We settled the University crossing last week. I want the Council to keep in mind that we didn't really want to close any crossings either, but the policy of the railroad is, you open up a new one, you got to close an old. Council Member Turk: We are growing in population. How do railroads accommodate growth of new cities? Shouldn't that be part of the consideration? 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 9 of 29 Mayor Jordan: We have made that argument. We will go back and try to make that argument again. We have been about as stubborn as the railroad. Susan Norton, Chief of Staff: This last round I got to join Chris and the Mayor. I asked logical and innocent questions that you all are asking, but the railroad was really adamant. Perhaps because of the business there and Ridout being customers of the railroad, we might have a new way to talk to them. Mayor Jordan: I have a couple of ideas and will get with Chris tomorrow. Council Member Bunch: How many times have we talked to the railroad about this? Chris Brown: Many times. This discussion has been over a period of multiple years. It's been on the Master Street Plan for at least five years. I have had dozens of conversations and emails over the last year. Council Member Marsh: I would like to see us look at the crossing at Quality Lane. That's a little bit further north if we do have to close one. That's really just serving one apartment complex, which it looks like we could re-route to Drake Street. It's an option worth exploring with less impact than the ones currently on the table. Mayor Jordan: If I remember the last conversation with the railroad, we asked them what other one we could close besides Garrett and they pointed us to Frisco. Frisco does not seem to be an option. We also offered improvements to the Garrett crossing and we did not get a rosy response on that one. We will offer something else. Council Member Smith: Would there be an opportunity for a representative from the railroad to join us here to visit? Mayor Jordan: We will see if they would like to join one of the Council meetings. Council Member Smith: It might save you some trips back and forth, as the go between. Susan Norton, Chief of Staff: I heard Sarah mention Quality Lane and Jocelyn Lane. In the next day or two if anybody thinks of anything else around town that we should look into, please let Chris know. Mayor Jordan: Keep in mind that we have an expansion to a hospital out here that we are trying to secure in this city that we really need. That is a big investment. We don't want to lose a hospital expansion. Council Member Smith moved to table the ordinance to the September 15, 2020 City Council meeting. Council Member Marsh seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. This ordinance livas tabled to the .September 15, 2020 City Council Meeting. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 10 of 29 New Business: RFQ #18-11 Nabholz Construction Change Order #3: A resolution to approve Change Order No. 3 to the contract with Nabholz Construction corporation in the amount of $10,494,726.00 for construction of Phase 1 of the Cultural Arts Corridor Project, and to approve a budget adjustment. At the August 18, 2020 City Council meeting this item was tabled for two weeks. This item will be placed on the September 1, 2020 City Council meeting agenda. Wade Abernathy, Bond Projects & Construction Manager gave a brief description of the resolution. Council Member Gutierrez moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed unanimously. Susan Norton, Chief of Staff: I am really excited about this. We are planning a groundbreaking next week and we will be getting an invitation to you all very shortly. Mayor Jordan: Thank you, Council. Resolution 223-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Appeal: RZN 20-7133: (6040 & 6074 W. Wedington Dr./Houston): An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-7133 for approximately 3.05 acres located at 6040 and 6074 West Wedington Drive from R-A, Residential Agricultural and RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, 12 units per acre. At the August 18, 2020 City Council meeting this item was tabled for two weeks. This item will be placed on the September 1, 2020 City Council meeting agenda. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated staff received a fair amount of public comment leading up to the meeting. He stated there were a couple of residents who commented expressing opposition to the proposal. He stated staff received a petition leading up to the Planning Commission meeting from about a dozen neighboring residents and expressed concerns about traffic, drainage, property values, trees, and negative impacts on agriculture. He stated staff is in favor of the request. He stated the Planning Commission voted 7-2 to deny the request. Council Member Bunch: If we change the zoning, does it change the person's ability to cut down trees on the property? Jonathan Curth: Not necessarily. Depending what kind of development that comes in on the property, it may or may not be subject to our city's tree preservation requirements. There are certain manners in which a property can be subdivided and developed with either single family or two family homes and they don't have to meet any of the city's tree preservation standards. If it 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 11 of 29 were to be developed as a larger home or subdivided into multiple lots, it wouldn't be subject to tree preservation requirements. Out tree preservation ordinance does have a look back period of five years. If this property was to be brought in for development, that is subject to tree preservation. Our foresters would have the ability to go back and look at historical aerial imagery to assert whether canopy was removed that may result in penalizing or the need to mitigate some of the canopy. Council Member Bunch: If it's zoned RI-12, then it can have single family, duplexes, two, three, and four units? Jonathan Curth: Correct. Council Member Bunch: How many ADU's could they fit in there? Jonathan Curth: The way our ordinance is written is that ADU's are only associated with single family dwellings. It's difficult to calculate exactly what it would be over the span of the entire property. If the property were rezoned and the developer was seeking to develop it to its maximum potential, I don't imagine Accessory Dwelling Units would be part of the equation because they would have to sacrifice the ability a building attached to residential. Council Member Smith: The Planning Commission commented about the development codes not providing for our planned goals. What are they concerned about and do you agree with that assessment? Jonathan Curth: Despite the fact that we have 35 or so zoning districts in Fayetteville, sometimes it seems like we need more. A lot of our zoning codes are not necessarily calibrated for peripheral parts of the city or areas of greenfield development. The staff, Commission and Council have seen instances of this, which Rupple is the best example. Council very deliberately allocated a large amount of money to construct Rupple and then rezoned portions of Rupple for mixed use development and what's being built is single family dwellings. The entitlements are there to be able to build things to a higher density, but on the flip side there's no requirement to build up to that density. Council Member Smith: On something this size and location connected to Wedington, what is the worst case scenario they were worried about? Jonathan Curth: It's risky to speak for others, but my take on the conversation was that it wasn't exclusively about the pattern, but dense sprawl use. While it may be an ideal place for development, the time may not be now and despite we are getting the level of density that our plans may want, in the short term, it may not be facilitating the overall city growth patterns we want to see. Vicky Wood stated she is representing the property owners, Gordon and Linda Houston. She stated the planning and zoning committee, as well as the City Council has supported and approved the 2040 Plan. She stated within the plan, this property is in the area that has been deemed to be 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 12 of 29 higher density. She spoke about the petition brought forward by neighbors and feels that the area has already moved past feeling rural. She spoke about affordable housing. Council Member Scroggin: I suspect that if this was appealed, the people around there that came to speak the first time have no idea this has come back to us again. I don't want to move it forward today. Mayor Jordan: Is that the consensus of the Council? Council Member Turk: I agree. Council Member Bunch: I do too. Council Member Smith: Is there typically a re -notification of the surrounding area on an appeal? Do they get notified of that? Jonathan Curth: The Planning Division does not re -advertise items that go to City Council. That is typically done through the Clerk's office. Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer: We post information on the agenda and that's the only notice we give. Mayor Jordan spoke about getting some kind of notification out to the neighbors. Susan Norton, Chief of Staff. Jonathan, will you please do the typical 200-foot radius for notification that you would normally do? Jonathan Curth: Certainly. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. Resolution to Request that City Staff Study: A resolution to request that city staff study and present an ordinance eliminating discretionary proceedings for religious uses to the extent possible, provide for regulations based on the size and intensity of the proposed use, and employ non- sectarian language. At the August 18, 2020 City Council meeting this item was tabled for two weeks. This item will be placed on the September 1, 2020 City Council meeting agenda. Council Member Smith gave a brief description of the resolution. He stated in the last couple of years there has been several times where church related issues have come up and we have run into issues with the federal law about religious land use. He spoke about the resolution being a request for staff to facilitate some public input. He stated the main goals is to eliminate discretionary hearings about churches and to enable them to be built by right in a wider variety of zones as appropriate. He stated hopefully we can distinguish based on the impact of the church by size, rather than by its content. He stated he wants to include some appropriate ways for them to apply 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 13 of 29 the design standards or exempt them as appropriate. He stated he wants to modify the language to refer to all religious gathering places instead of churches. Mayor Jordan: Your intent is to do a study in these areas. Correct? Council Member Smith: Correct. Mary McGetrick, Long Range Planning & Special Projects Manager stated staff has done some preliminary research on other municipalities and how they have addressed this. Council Member Petty: Council Member Smith, do you envision a particular process for when these come back or do you think they will be ready for the Council? Council Member Smith: I anticipate we will have a draft that comes from a consolidation of the three sets of notes that are out there and public comment. I would like for it to go to the Ordinance Review Committee for Council to look at it and then refer it here from that venue. Council Member Petty moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Gutierrez seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed unanimously. Resolution 224-20 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Amend UDC 166.23: Urban Residential Design Standards: An ordinance to amend § 166.23 Urban Residential Design Standards of the Unified Development Code to increase flexibility for small building design. At the August 18, 2020 City Council meeting this item was tabled for two weeks. This item will be placed on the September 1, 2020 City Council meeting agenda. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mary McGetrick, Long Range Planning & Special Projects Manager gave a brief description of the ordinance. Council Member Turk: Who is the Zoning Development Administrator? Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager: The code designates me as the Zoning Development Administrator. Council Member Turk: What does the current code say about 48 feet wide or less street frontages? What is the current code requirement? Mary McGetrick: The current code requirement is that any two family, three family or multi family dwelling incorporate two or more of the design elements. Of that 48 feet wide or less is the amendment to the code. Right now, if you had a duplex, each principle fagade would still be required to have two or more design elements. That is what we are trying to reduce because it is 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 14 of 29 burdensome, and it can create a situation where a fagade looks crowded. We are adding that element to the code. Council Member Turk: We are reducing it. Thank you for clarifying. Will Dockery, 4149 West Bradstreet stated hopefully this will help with middle housing. He stated the way the code is right now, it makes it hard to build some of these. He spoke in favor of the ordinance. Council Member Marsh moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Turk: We should hold it right here. We need public input more broadly. We only had one person speak. Council Member Kinion: I agree. This ordinance was left on the Second Reading. eCourt Pay, LLC: An ordinance to waive the requirements of formal competitive bidding and approve a one (1) year contract with eCourt Pay, LLC with an option to renew for up to four additional one year terms to provide online citation payment software for the Fayetteville District Court. City Attorney Kit Williams rend the ordinance. Keith Macedo, IT Director gave a brief description of the ordinance. Dena Stockalper, District Court Administrator stated now that the University students are back, they like to have the option to pay and not have to go anywhere to do it. She stated this might create an improvement in collections with eCourt Pay. She stated it would be an asset to the court and to the City of Fayetteville. Council Member Scroggin: This is adding options and not taking away options? Keith Macedo: Correct. Council Member Scroggin moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Scroggin moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 15 of 29 City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 6351 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 20-7170 (921 W. Berry St./Homestead, Inc.): An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-7170 for approximately 0.18 acres located at 921 West Berry Street from RMF-40, Residential Multi -Family, 40 units per acre to RI-U, Residential Intermediate -Urban. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated the city's Long Range Planning documents support the request, density and intensity at this location. He stated it is very complimentary of the urban uses. He stated no public comment was received. He stated staff is recommending in favor and the Planning Commission recommended forwarding the item to Council unanimously. Council Member Smith: This looks almost identical to a rezoning that we considered a while back, a block south of here on Eagle. The big hang-up there was not the housing types, it was the single tree on the corner. This also has some trees on the corner in a similar position. What does Urban Forestry have to say about those trees and how is the one on Eagle doing? Jonathan Curth: I will attempt to answer that on the Foresters behalf. For the one on Eagle they did make efforts to save it, but to my understanding the tree did not survive the construction near its root ball and it had to be removed. These are similar properties in a lot of ways, including they do have tree canopy on the current site. If it's developed in a similar way, it's also not subject to our city's tree preservation ordinance. Daniel Lazenby stated he represents ESI for the project and was available for questions. Council Member Kinion: I want to keep it on this reading or the second reading. The neighbors on Eagle Street that had so much concern about the development that was mentioned earlier with the tree, I'm not sure they know this is happening. They might have a comment on it, and I will contact them to see. The street as a whole was upset about losing the other tree. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. RZN 20-7182: (South of W.15th St. & S. Van Buren Ave./Sanctuary at SoFay): An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-7182 for approximately 17.00 acres located South of West 15th Street and South Van Buren Avenue from RMF-24, Residential Multi- 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 16 of 29 Family, 24 units per acre and I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial to CS, Community Services. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated the city's Long Range Plans do generally support the request. He stated it is in the Fayette Junction Plan. He stated the main staff concern and issue discussed by the Planning Commission were the riparian corridors. He stated although staff did initially have concerns with this, we do feel like the existing entitlements on the property and zoning districts make it a reasonable request to rezone. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval. Garrison Roddey, Applicant stated he was very encouraged by looking back to the Fayette Junction plan and trying to align with those plans that the city invested in 10 years ago. He stated he is encouraged by some of the new zonings. He spoke about the positive changes in South Fayetteville. Council Member Scroggin: Does staff feel that the new zoning would protect the riparian zone more than the old zoning? Jonathan Curth: That was the biggest consideration with this request. The short answer is, yes. The allowances and CS zoning would give the developer an entitlement that would allow them to concentrate it out of the riparian corridor. The existing city standards near streams is that the Streamside Protection zone allows a heightened amount of protection compared to what you might see elsewhere in the region. We feel the proposal to CS was a comparable request that would allow the flexibility to avoid those streams. Council Member Marsh: I'm really excited to see this moving forward. We desperately need more housing and services in South Fayetteville. Council Member Marsh moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council Member Gutierrez seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Turk requested for the map of the streamside areas to be put up on the screen. She stated she's seeking clarification about the buildable area on the lot and wants the public to understand what a buildable space is. She stated there is quite a bit of the floodplain and some other areas that flood on a fairly regular basis. She stated she wants to know what the rules are with this piece of property if we approve it to rezone. Jonathan Curth displayed the map and spoke about the floodway. He spoke about the 100-year floodplain. He spoke about the 500-year floodplain. He stated the FEMA standards are much lower for floodplain than floodway for construction. He stated the city's Streamside Protection zone has a series of zones setback from the creek. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 17 of 29 Council Member Turk: I would like to hold it on this reading. This is a complicated piece of real estate. It's got a few constraints on it. Jonathan, if we hold it, can you find out what the Streamside Protection Ordinance would restrict in that particular area since it's based on slope. I want to make sure the public has a chance to review this and understand how close this area is to these two streams. Council Member Marsh: This parcel has existing development rights that actually exceeds what they are asking for. Whether or not we rezone it, that will not change the buildable area of the lot. We are not changing anything there; we are just offering more flexibility to have Community Services instead of high density apartment buildings. The neighborhood needs opportunities for services. Council Member Bunch: I was looking at the South Fayetteville Facebook page today where there were a lot of comments and Council Member Gutierrez posted a link for people to attend the meetings. I don't know if we need to wait on this because they already knew about it. Council Member Scroggin stated this will be seen in a Large Scale Development at some point. Susan Norton, Chief of Staff. It was also written about in the newspaper today. Council Member Gutierrez: I reviewed the comments that were on Facebook. The concern seemed to be more about the style than the water issue, although that was expressed as well. It's a modern, very northern Fayetteville style that we are seeing in South Fayetteville, however this is part of the changes we are seeing. Is that anything we can address with zoning? City Attorney Kit Williams: We can't consider the project. This is a zoning. We can only consider potential uses that would be under Community Services. Drawings and concept plans are not part of the zoning decision. That would come after the zoning has been done and development has been proposed. We need to stick with the potential uses of Community Services as opposed to the current uses that are allowed under a residential multifamily and Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. Council Member Gutierrez: Kit, thank you for reminding me of that and it's helpful for the public to know that. What types of options do the neighbors have when the development gets in here and exasperates water issues? City Attorney Kit Williams: We have a stormwater engineer on staff. I noticed that a lot of this is FEMA zoned districts, which have specific rules, both by the state and FEMA about what can and can't be done there. I got to know more about these FEMA rules from the three different cases we have been sued for flooding, which we have always won. I am impressed with our stormwater engineer, Mr. Pugh. He will be very careful in analyzing any proposal to make sure that the water issues are taken care of. We have a 50-foot setback from the stream bank before almost anything can be done. There are lots of protections that have been instituted through the City Council to protect water issues in Fayetteville and the federal government through FEMA. The stormwater issues will be looked at carefully by our very competent engineering staff to ensure we are going to be in compliance and that water issues will not be made worse by any development. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 18 of 29 Council Member Turk: Do the safeguards, requirements for FEMA and city code change at all with the different zoning designation that is before us tonight? City Attorney Kit Williams: I don't believe that they do. What it does do, is allow for different kinds of uses and maybe even some reduced setbacks from the street. If you look at the map, some of the better land farther away from the flood is toward 151h Street. It might allow better utilization of the parts of this project that will actually be able to be worked on. A lot of this land, which is close to the creeks, especially in the floodway will not be able to be developed. The Community Services might allow better flexibility to develop that land that's proper and available for development, as opposed to the Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and the apartment zoning that it is now. Mayor Jordan: Chris, do you want to comment? Chris Brown, City Engineer: The floodway is very restrictive, and you can't develop within the floodway. The FEMA requirements, as well as, our Streamside Protection Ordinance protect the floodway. Typically, you are allowed to build in the floodplain. With a project this large, we would be looking at a more detailed study and a lot more information than what you would see on a smaller scale project. I am confident that our codes are in place to protect upstream and downstream property owners, protect water quality, and make sure we don't increase the flow in the stream. Mayor Jordan: Usually, post -flooding is not supposed to be worse than pre -flooding. Is that correct? Chris Brown: Correct. Mayor Jordan: The build by right that they have right now would be worse on flooding if it was developed like it is than if we did this other zoning? City Attorney Kit Williams: I think it would basically be the same. The engineers aren't going to allow the pre -development flow to be aggravated by the development, as opposed to what is happening right now. Is that right, Chris? Chris Brown: Right. Those codes are the same, regardless of the zonings. Any type of Large Scale Development like this would be required to meet our water quality and flood protection ordinances. Mayor Jordan: The ordinances we have in place, the flooding would not be worse if it was developed? Chris Brown: That is right. We have multiple levels of water quality and flood protection in place. Council Member Gutierrez: In this case it is imperative we change the zoning. I'm interested in having as much protection for the flooding and it sounds like this is a better direction. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 19 of 29 Council Member Gutierrez moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Marsh seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-2. Council Members Scroggin, Bunch, Smith, Gutierrez, Marsh, and Petty voting yes. Council Members Turk and Kinion voting no. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Kinion: I do think there could have been more discussion across the community on the management of the stormwater runoff here into the watershed. I am fine with the way that things worked out. Council Member Turk: I feel like the public needs a little bit longer time. I'm glad there was an article in the newspaper today and the discussion on Facebook, but this is a substantial change. I realize they already have building rights there, but I wanted the public to be little more aware of the project. Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 6352 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk VAC 20-7167 (4280 W. MLK Blvd./Flying Burger): An ordinance to approve VAC 20-7167 for property located at 4280 West Martin Luther King Boulevard to vacate a portion of a general utility easement. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval. Council Member Gutierrez moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council Member Marsh seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Turk moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 6353 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 20 of 29 VAC 20-7178: (4322 & 4334 W. Barhem Dr./Lots 52 & 53-Sloanbrooke Sd, Ph. V): An ordinance to approve VAC 20-7178 for property located at 4322 and 4334 West Barhem Drive to vacate a portion of a general utility easement. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval. Justin Jorgensen, Applicant stated he was available for questions. Council Member Smith moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Gutierrez moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 6354 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk VAC 20-7184 (2160 N. Rupple Rd./Hazen-CoF): An ordinance to approve VAC 20-7184 for property located at 2160 North Rupple Road to vacate a portion of street right-of-way. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval. Council Member Gutierrez: Why would we move the road when it aligns with the other one at that intersection? Jonathan Curth: As a part of the realignment of Rupple Road with Mount Comfort running north from Wedington, the former alignment is to be vacated. The new alignment of Rupple Road that is within public right-of-way and will remain within in public right-of-way, it's the former right- of-way that's being vacated with this request. The pavement has already been removed, but there are some utilities still located in that area. Council Member Gutierrez: Thank you. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 21 of 29 Council Member Smith: This is the finalization of a long standing plan. I am happy to see it through. Council Member Smith moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Turk moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Scroggin seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Jordan: This is something we started working on in 2001 and there were a lot of hours put into this. There were a lot of Ward 4 meetings. Thank you all very much. Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 6355 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Brian and Day Crowne Land Sale: A resolution to authorize the sale of a small parcel of land South of George's Majestic Lounge and West of the railroad tracks to Brian and Day Crowne for the amount of $17,000.00. Council Member Petty gave a brief description of the resolution. He stated this is a unique property. He stated it is kind of landlocked by drainage easements, pedestrian easements, and property that's already associated with George's. He stated George's is a unique business and there is nothing else like it in Fayetteville. He spoke about George's being an institution in Fayetteville and a stabilizing force for Dickson Street and the culture of Downtown. He spoke about the land sale being previously heard in the past. He stated his thinking has changed because COVID has changed a lot and the context of that decision was that we had a healthy economy and a healthy tourism industry and we were in the middle of designing the improvements to the parking lot in the Cultural Arts Corridor, which is the reason why we waited on transacting this property. He spoke about the tourism sectors being hard hit due to COVID. He stated tonight is just a property transaction. He stated this is going to capitalize on the modest success or the encouragement that George's has already seen from what they've been experimenting with doing outdoors. He stated George's having this land for live events is the highest and best use for this property. Brian Crowne, George's Majestic Lounge gave a brief history of his business. He stated George's is part of the cultural fabric of Fayetteville. He stated George's is an arts presenter and is only open when they have shows and special events. He spoke about George's awards, accolades, and community involvement over the years. He stated his business closed in March and spoke about how it has been affected by the closure due to COVID. He stated on August 2, 2020 we started 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September I, 2020 Page 22 of 29 experimenting with concerts in George's parking lot to a very limited number of patrons, socially distanced tables and the stage at least 12 feet from patrons. He stated the land purchase request would allow him to put a stage or deck under the tree canopy off the south side of his property. He stated he could expand his capacity, which would allow bands and employees to continue to work and possibly see some sort of cash flow again. He stated there is no silver bullet for the live music industry during this pandemic, instead that would be a vaccine and until then we are looking for a way to expand our outdoor lifeline as we try to survive this as a business. He stated when we do survive this pandemic, the new stage under the trees will be a great fit next to the Cultural Arts Corridor. He stated he would appreciate the consideration for Council to sell him the land. Council Member Bunch: You mentioned you were going to put a deck under the trees. Have you thought about what you might be able to put in, the size, and how many of the trees you might be able to save? Brian Crowne: Yes. The two smallest and youngest trees that are in the middle of this section would need to be removed. All of the large and mature trees will be saved. We will build in between them. It would be approximately a 28x28 deck that would fit inside the mature trees. Council Member Marsh: We received a higher offer from the Underwood's earlier when we first considered this proposal. They are also an adjacent property owner. Kit, what obligation do we have to take the higher offer because this is public land? City Attorney Kit Williams: It's basically the same thing I tried to explain to the Council when Kum & Go and Casey's were both wanting to get part of the old Tyson land to put a convenience store on. Before we opened the bids, I told Council that usually you have to accept the highest offer. However, sometimes you can receive some consideration by something that's not just cash. Kum & Go offered to build their building to LEED standards and a couple of other things that seemed to be very important to the City Council. In fact, Council did accept the Kum & Go bid, which was slightly below the Casey's bid. We are talking about over a million dollars for both of those bids and the percentage difference was much closer. In my memo before the bids were opened, I said that to accept some of this other consideration, the money part must be close. It can't be off dramatically or else the consideration would be suspect. That is still the same recommendation I have in this particular case. You can accept as some consideration, certain things you might feel like are valuable and important, such as saving the trees or helping an established business. My mother went to George's in the 1940's, which it is certainly a long established and recognized business. There is a limit, but I'm not exactly sure what that is and where your responsibility is to our taxpayers to take a higher offer. It is left to your best judgement. Council Member Gutierrez: Is that part of the public record of what the offer was? Can we consider that today and what do we do with that? City Attorney Kit Williams: It was a matter of public record in 2018. The offer from Underwood's was about $25,200. I heard that Underwood's might be making the similar offer and will let them speak for themselves. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 23 of 29 Council Member Marsh: Rather than selling the parcel, do we have the opportunity to issue a lease to enable them to expand? City Attorney Kit Williams: Certainly. The City Council are the landlords of city property. You aren't required to sell it or lease it. You could lease it if the other side would want to lease it. It takes both parties to agree to any sale or lease. Council Member Turk: If we went the lease route, wouldn't we make that open to anybody? How would we be able to selectively lease it to the Crowne's? City Attorney Kit Williams: It used to be state law required that if the property might be worth more than $20,000 it had to be out to competitive bids, but that state law has been repealed. It's the same thing for a lease situation. You might feel it is in the best interest of your constituents to open the lease availability for more than just one business. I don't know if that's required by any of your ordinance requirements that you put into code. I don't believe it is required under state law. It is left up to the good judgement of the City Council about how best to handle this situation. Craig Underwood stated he appreciates Brian and Day Crowne, but with that being said he feels that this land sale resolution is extremely unfair. He stated two years ago the land was up for sale by the city through a silent bid process. He spoke about winning the process with a bid of $25,203. He stated after winning the bid, the city changed their mind and refused to sell him the property. He stated now, two years later, the same land he offered over $25,000 is now being offered for $17,000 and he's not being allowed the opportunity to buy it. He stated that is shameful. He spoke about Underwood's being a 63 year institution on Dickson Street, their awards and accolades over the years. He stated the resolution is unfair. Will Dockery, 4149 West Bradstreet stated Council should table this and not sell the land. He stated George's is a part of the cultural fabric of Fayetteville and he would hate to see it go. He spoke about wanting the land to be preserved as a western entrance to the new Cultural Arts Corridor. He spoke about bioswales and the land being connected to the stormwater sewer system. He stated the Parks Department mows the land and keeping it in the urban canopy would not change the budget expenses. He spoke about preservation of the trees on the property. He spoke about the bid process. Council Member Petty requested for Brian Crowne to discuss his plans and about the way the property already handles stormwater and any other concerns raised. Brian Crowne: Regarding bioswale and drainage, our plan is not to infill that area. We would be building inside the existing storm drain that's there. A deck would be inside the mature trees. I can't fathom that we would be impacting any sort of drainage. I have no interest in being on or over the storm drain due to challenges. With a 28x28 deck, I don't think we would be within four feet of the open storm drain and we definitely would be well north of the existing south storm drain where it goes in. Stormwater shouldn't be a challenge at all. My wife has a degree in Horticulture. The trees are mature, and patrons would not be interacting with these trees. I can't fathom that there is going to be light damage to the trees given the fact that there are already streetlights all 113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 24 of 29 around them. We aren't wanting to infill that property with sub -texture to display any sort of drainage. Council Member Petty stated this is a unique property with a limited number of uses. He spoke about the possibility of preserving the land and making modest improvements but believes the plan that Brian Crown has described is the highest and best use given the context that surrounds it. He stated it's not unexpected that someone who offered a higher price might think of this process as unfair. He stated the Council acted transparently about this potential transaction the last time it came up. He spoke about things being different now because of COVID. He spoke about George's and Underwood's businesses being different. He stated he does not believe it's all about the purchase offer and that's why it is important for the decision to be subjective. He stated a sell to George's would generate more future tax revenues. Council Member Gutierrez: As much as I would love to see the Crowne's use this in this way, we need to think about our clear process. If the Crowne's proposal is the strongest, we could easily put the proposal out for the land, receive proposals and they would compete with everyone else. If it is the best use, then it would win out in the second more fair process. I wasn't around during the time of the last review when it was put up for sale and then taken back. It's fair to open that up to everyone that is interested. Council Member Turk: As a Council we need to decide if we want to lease the land or sell the land. That is the first thing we decide, especially given what happened in 2018. We need to figure out where we want to go. If we choose to sell the land or lease it, we need to have an open and transparent bid process. It needs to be the highest bidder and if it's not the highest bidder, it needs to be extremely close. As a Council Member, I have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens and usually that means getting the highest price or very near the highest price for a public piece of property. Council Member Bunch: I agree with Council Member Turk that it's our fiduciary responsibility, but there are things we do sell as a city or deals we make that are the intangibles. George's is an institution that people come here to visit. People come here to go to Underwood's too. I am torn on this issue. I would like more time to think about this. I do want to help a live venue small business, but we are in an unusual spot with this. Council Member Smith: I am stuck between my preference for process and preference for an outcome. As far as the public enjoyment of the land, the Crowne's will do a great job with it. I like following the rules and I know the rules have changed a little bit. I wasn't a fan of the idea of selling this when it came through the first time and was thrilled when we decided not to sell it. I am protective of public land. I still don't know that we've got the full picture of what the Arts Plaza is going to become and how this might play into it being adjacent. I would be open to a lease consideration. Maybe a Request For Proposal process that would let us consider the city's goals as defined on the front end and who could best fill them. I feel like we are in a position of picking winners and that's not comfortable, even though the benefit of this parcel to the two businesses in question is unequal. One has more substantially to gain, as far as their livelihood goes than the other. We don't have two offers in front of us, we just have the one and it would be inappropriate to proceed without considering some goal setting and how we might get other potential offers. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 25 of 29 Council Member Marsh: I agree with my fellow Council Members. I would be very supportive of giving a significant lease term to George's. That would have many benefits in terms of enabling us to have some programmatic influence, protection of the trees, and safeguard the stormwater issues. I believe they are making a good faith effort to meet our goals, but having that additional control will benefit us, as well as give us the opportunity to do something different later with the property. We could always sell it to them later. The relationship of this parcel to the Cultural Arts Corridor is extremely important and George's could be a great partner in expanding. I would be interested in knowing what the Underwood's would be using it for, as well as other interested persons. Offering the lease that would be favorable enough to allow them to recoup their investment that they would need to get this venue up and running might be a great interim solution until we figure out what the long term plan is for the property. Council Member Kinion: I would like to echo the idea of proposing a Request For Proposal and define some idea of a good economic driver. We know that this is going to be a transformation. There are a lot of things going on with COVID, which has changed our social interactions with each other as well as businesses. To investigate it more, would be fairer. Public property can be leased out and meet a desired outcome through a proposal. Council Member Petty reiterated what he heard Council Members say. He spoke about probably having the best proposal in front of the Council from the best entity already. He stated a lot of people in this city and a lot of Council get frustrated when we put blind faith in a process whenever we don't need too. He stated there had already been some preliminary conversations around leasing the property with Devin Howland and Brian Crowne, which was at the suggestion of Garner Stoll. He spoke about tabling the item. He stated the bid process and the proposal process are quite a bit different. He stated if the city chooses to go to bid, it doesn't seem fair because all the prices have already been discussed. City Attorney Kit Williams: It might be helpful for the staff if the City Council would provide some direction about what they would like to see. For example, if it was going to be sold, we would have to have a deed. As it stands right now, the deed wouldn't say anything about saving the trees or what the land could be used for. We heard a proposal from Brian Crowne on what he would like to do, but as City Attorney, I'd like to see that in black and white and not as an idea that may or may not come to fruition. Is this going to be a bid or proposals where various entities might say this is what I would like to do with the land. Council Member Marsh stated she would like to see the city do the Request For Proposal. She spoke about evaluating it more on a triple bottom line basis of community, cultural, and environmental values, as well as the economic impact. Council Member Turk: What we need to do first is to decide if we want to lease it, sell it or don't do anything. Mr. Underwood has offered in a letter to buy the property at the selling price that he had in 2018. It seems that the transparency or the inclusion needs to be required here with public property. I would like to make sure he is included, and other people are included if we move forward and start having these conversations. I love George's, but because we are the fiduciaries of the city, we need to keep all citizens and businesses on equal standing. We need to be fair and open about this as we move forward. I want to table it so we can discuss what we want to do. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 26 of 29 Council Member Kinion: Would it be appropriate to send this to the Ordinance Review Committee? City Attorney Kit Williams: Not really. That is for trying to figure out a complicated ordinance to get it worded right. This is a resolution. One thing the City Council could do, in addition to what Council Member Turk said, is communicate with Mr. Crowne and Mr. Underwood. They should present a written down hard proposal, including saving which trees, how they will use the land, and how much they want to bid for it, rather than going through the city's full Request For Proposal. The RFP is a very long project, especially if we are trying to get to a situation that might be of assistance to current businesses during this pandemic. When it was Kum & Go versus Casey's, we didn't do that. We told both corporations that we were going to have one final closed bid that they would deliver and would be opened at the same time. That proposal not only had the money, but also had the considerations the city might like in order to try and convince the City Council to select their proposal. This was done in two weeks, rather than the months it would take to go through a formal RFP. We could discuss if we want to lease it or not and ask them to respond to that. Council Member Kinion: My concern is keeping the discussion in a public forum. As City Council Members, we can't talk about business, unless it's in a public forum. I'm trying to get to an open and transparent situation where everyone can openly discuss possibilities. There was a lot of outcry of foul whenever we looked at Casey's and Kum & Go. It wasn't like we did it in two weeks and everyone was pleased because they weren't. I would hate to go through that again where people feel like it was not a fair and open process. Council Member Smith: I was initially supportive of the idea of an RFP process, but Kit raises an excellent point that if this is a lifeline measure, going the long road could be traumatic for Fayetteville. I'd like to set a direction tonight and come up with a shorter process. I like the two week thing and come back to it. My understanding is the Underwood interest is more of a long term preservation of interest. The Crowne need is a more urgent situation. Two weeks might give the two parties involved an opportunity to talk and see if there's a mutual arrangement that could serve both of their needs. If not, then we can look at the comparative offers. Council Member Petty stated it is a natural, but false hope for a new agreement between the Underwood's and Crowne's. He stated it was recently attempted in anticipation of this. He stated the Underwood's proposal is to preserve their interest in the land for use as employee parking. He stated the intended use for the Crowne's is to support their live event venue. He stated over the next two weeks, anyone who is interested in the property, could address some of the concerns that have been raised tonight. He stated he doesn't expect that would convince everybody who has spoken tonight to move forward, but he thinks that all the parties involved can make a good faith effort to address most of the concerns that have been put forward with respect to the way the land is used and the specificity of the written language. He stated he and staff can approach the conversation about leasing the land anew, but he wants to be careful he's not prescriptive. He stated in the end it will come down to, do you believe we should prioritize the sale price, or do you believe we should consider other things and those account for the difference. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 27 of 29 Council Member Petty made a motion to table the item until the September 15, 2020 City Council meeting. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. This resolution was tabled to the September 15, 2020 City Council Meeting. Appeal RZN 20-7140 (5152 W. Wedington Dr./Dedushaj): An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 20-7140 located at 5152 West Wedington Drive for approximately 6.91 acres from R-A, Residential Agricultural to NS-G, Neighborhood Services - General and RI-U, Residential Intermediate -Urban. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager gave a brief description of the ordinance. He stated staff interprets the request to be supported by the Long Range Plans and recommends in favor of the request. The Planning Commission does not recommend in favor of the rezoning. He stated there was no public comment. Robert Rhoads, Hall Estill Law Firm stated he was the applicant's representative. He gave a brief description of the history of the rezoning request. He stated the Planning Commission came up with multiple suggestions, which were acted upon by the applicant. He gave examples of the items requested. He stated after the applicant followed all the suggestions, it was heard again at the next Planning Commission meeting and his client was turned down. He spoke about walkability, connectivity, and compatibility. He spoke about the 2040 Plan. He stated rezonings that are not compatible, draw public comment and there have been no public comments at all. He stated with the immediate availability of sewer, water, trail system, and a very low Fire Department response time, coupled with the expected future growth of the area, this takes the city where it already plans to go. He stated one of Planning staffs' findings is that it would be impractical to use this land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classification. He requested Council to approve it or leave it on the First Reading. Council Member Smith: Jonathan, the block link isn't dependent on zoning. As an RI-U, they could have block links up to what? .Jonathan Curth: 660 is what is allowed in ordinance. Council Member Smith: With RI-U, I like the idea of housing and denser housing along Wedington, but I'm concerned that what we get is a row of very narrow houses with one cross street down the whole strip. My objection to the previous version of this in the mini storage was that it created a connectivity barrier. The developer of this parcel gets to decide how much cross traffic will be able to flow in this part of town and that makes me nervous to have all of that in one decision like this. I would love to know there was going to be a denser connectivity of streets because that's my only hang-up at the moment. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 28 of 29 Council Member Gutierrez: The applicant has made a good faith effort to bring back something that is improved. I wasn't in favor of the mini storage and now we've got something that has levels of steps of zoning. I appreciate being careful on the environmental side. I respect that people are concerned about the connectivity, but because of the topography, we are going to always be coming across this issue anyway. It sounds like the Planning Commission didn't want the sprawl. Council Member Turk: This is a long, skinny, and narrow piece of property, which is presenting some challenges. It looks like the Planning Commission in the first meeting asked for a PZD. Is that something the applicant would consider? Can we ask for that? It could provide some clarity in how the property would be used. City Attorney Kit Williams: The City Council has a lot of power in rezonings. However, just like we don't ask for Bills of Assurance, we don't ask applicants to have to come up with a Planned Zoning District. That is an option that applicants can have. The reason they choose it, is to be able to get the rezoning. There certainly is a reason they might want to look at something like that. It's not right for us to say, you must do that. They have the right to also ask for traditional zoning, which at this point, that's what they are asking for. Council Member Bunch: I like seeing PZD's because we know exactly what we are going to get, but it's a whole different level of application and it requires a good conceptual plan to be drawn. It's a much greater cost to the applicant. I don't know that I would expect that on this piece of property. Council Member Scroggin: There's a lot of cost with PZD's. I definitely want those more often than what we see, but a lot of the issues here is that we are putting a lot of density outside the Mayor's box. I don't think a PZD is going to fix that. They want to put a lot of density out there, which is my concern with this. Mayor Jordan: Do you want to hold it? Council Member Kinion: I want to hold it right here. Council Member Smith: Yes. At the Agenda Session, I asked if we could look at the broader area, including some of the Farmington development down in the southwest quadrant. Maybe in two weeks we could see what the density outside of the Mayor's box is bumping up against? Jonathan Curth: Certainly, Council Member Smith, we will look at your request. Council Member Scroggin asked a question at Agenda Session. He inquired about the Fire Marshal's take on the project. Up to now, the Fire Marshal had only commented on response times, which is typical for rezonings. I was able to get them to include some additional fire code sections that would be relevant given the shape of the lot. When a dead end road is proposed, it does have to have turn around requirements associated with it. If you go beyond 150 to 500 feet, it requires a cul-de-sac at the end of it. Once you go beyond 500 feet, not only is the cul-de-sac required, but the roads minimum width is 26 foot. This Ordinance was left on the First Reading. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar gov City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 29 of 29 Announcements: Susan Norton, Chief of Staff spoke briefly about City of Fayetteville news. Information can be viewed on the City of Fayetteville website. She spoke about Centennial Park trails. She spoke about Recycling and Trash bag fees. She spoke about food waste drop off locations and Bulky Waste Clean Up dates. City Council Agenda Session Presentations: Agenda Session Presentation: Department of Economic Vitality Update and Economic Development Contract Updates. 0ournment: 9:19 p.m. �t �ERK ` ��• • GIT Y OYA •'9�G: Jordan, ayor Kara Paxton, City Clerk reasuret AVE�EVILL E . - NSPS '47 �ON� COP ���`� 113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov