Covid-19 opens door to outdoor alcohol service

A temporary statewide policy relating to the coronavirus emergency may allow restaurants to serve alcohol to patrons dining outdoors within a designated area without the need for an entertainment district, according to City Administrator Phillip Patterson.

Patterson updated city board members on the policy from the Department of Finance and Administration and the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission during the Nov. 3 city board meeting.

“It recently came to my attention that in August of this year the Department of Finance and the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission created and issued a temporary expansion for restaurant outdoor seating provisions,” Patterson said.

The provision allows restaurants that are restricted on their indoor seating to expand outside into an outdoor service area and serve alcoholic beverages within

a designated area that is clearly defined by temporary fencing walls or barriers as long as the coronavirus emergency exists in the state, Patterson said.

Requests must be made in writing and contain a drawing of the outdoor service area sought to be under the temporary expansion along with the approval from city or county officials, according to a press release issued by the Department of Finance and Administration and the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission on Aug. 11.

Along with a temporary barrier, a 5-foot x 7-inch sign stating “No alcoholic beverages beyond this point” needs to be posted at locations to be determined by the director or board, the release states.

Along with the change in state policy, Patterson also told the board in some areas of downtown Siloam Springs, particularly Broadway Street, the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the building is on private property not on the street right of way.

“We have been approached by one of the restaurants downtown that has done a survey and found out that the first six feet of the sidewalk is on private property not on public property,” Patterson said.

Patterson did not name the restaurant during the board meeting but did say the restaurant has asked to use the waiver to expand their outdoor seating area. He did not immediately respond to later inquiries about the restaurant’s name.

Concerns about private property spaces would be two-fold, Patterson said. The first is whether there is a delineated area with rope, fencing or a wall, Patterson said. Secondly, there needs to be enough space remaining to maintain ADA (American Disabilities Act of 1990) access, he said.

Since establishing the expansion on public property would require a vote by the city board, Patterson asked directors how they felt about the issue. None of the directors commented on the matter.

City directors also voted unanimously to approve Resolution 50-20 regarding a preliminary plat permit for the Mission Hill Addition located at 14505 N. Country Club Road.

City staff recommended approval of the resolution with two conditions: The applicant must provide privacy fences along the north and east sides of the project, and the property must be annexed and zoned prior to the final plat, according to Senior Planner Ben Rhoads.

The resolution was originally on the consent agenda, but was pulled off by Director Marla Sappington over concerns about the second condition.

Sappington said she felt the annexation did not fit the guidelines because it does not touch the city’s borders other than the Endura Park subdivision, which has not yet been annexed.

The ordinance concerning the annexation of the Endura Park subdivision was placed on its second reading during Tuesday night’s meeting and still has one more reading to go before being adopted.

Rhoads told Sappington the city can connect to Mission Hill along the east side of the subdivision by Country Club Road. To the east of Country Club Road is the Nottingham subdivision, which is within city limits.

This was also confirmed by the applicant in that the county has included the North Country Club right of way in the petition so the connection to the east can be made, Rhoads said.

Jesse Fultcher, who represented the applicant, said annexation was held up for a few weeks because the county wanted the applicant to add a right of way in the petition. The petition is with the county and the applicant expects it hopefully within a few weeks, Fultcher said.

Jeff Farmer, who lives on nearby Davidson Road, asked about what kind of street lights the city planned to install and if the fencing has to be placed along the entire north and east side of the property lines. Farmer also mentioned a drainage issue on the eastern side of his property.

Rhoads said since fencing is a condition, it will have to go along the entire side of the property. Street lighting would be standard lighting the city would put up anywhere, Rhoads said. Street lighting would be illuminating the street and should not be angled to neighboring properties, Rhoads said.

City Engineer Justin Bland addressed the drainage issue. Underneath Davidson Road is a culvert that is undersized, Bland said. This is a county road and it overflows occasionally causing erosion in the road and when this happens the water backs up on Farmer’s property, Bland said.

The city will ensure peak flows from the development don’t increase so the situation should not get any worse than it already is, Bland said.