All right.

Good evening, everyone.

And I'm going to call to order the Tuesday, August 19th meeting of the Fayetteville City Council.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore.

Here.

Mr.

Wheaker.

Here.

Mr.

Burnett?

Here.

Here.

Ms.

Tart?

Here.

Minister Jones.

President.

Mr.

Stafford.

Here.

Dr.

Jones.

Here.

Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag.

Okay.

We are going to begin with our sales tax and monthly financial report presented by CFO Stephen Dodson.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

So this is the May Sales Tax Report.

I'm just going to begin as I usually do with an overview of the taxable sales in that month.

In May, taxable sales in the city totaled approximately 287 million, which was an increase of nearly 5.5% or 15 million compared to May of 2024.

This increase was led by the construction sector, which was up 3.4 million, as well as the information sector, which was up 2.8 million, and transportation and warehousing, which was up 2.5 million.

Retail trade, the city's largest source of taxable sales was up 2% in May or around 2.2 million.

Food services and accommodation sectors were they were flat in May.

And we did see traveler accommodations down 17.7, 17% or around 1.5 million from last year.

However, all in all, we did note a 5.5% gain in taxable sales compared to 2024.

And now to move on to the actual sales tax collections for Fayetteville.

As a reminder, this is the six months and sixth month in the fiscal period for 2025.

And I'm going to start off with a comparison of May 25 to May of 2024, so a month-to-month comparison.

The City 1 penny sales tax collections were up 5.4% or approximately 143,000.

The county portion to the city was up 5.63%, resulting in a total combined sales tax collection increase of 5.5%, or approximately 261,000 compared to May of 2024.

Year to date, the combined city and county sales tax are up approximately 5.44% or roughly 1.5 million compared to last year at this time.

So that was a comparison of May 25 to May 24.

And now I like to provide a comparison of May 25 to what was budgeted for the year.

The city one penny uh was up around 2.3% compared to budget.

The county portion was up around 2.55% compared to budget for a combined total for the month of May up 2.4% compared to budget.

That will put the city on a year-to-date basis compared to budget up or up a combined 2.37% or $688,000 for sales tax.

So that's good news.

So when I'm telling you that we're up a combined 2.37% compared to budget for the year for sales tax, basically what we're doing is we're reducing that deficit amount for the year, uh meaning we're reducing the amount of general fund balance that's going to be required to make up for that three million dollar budgetary deficit over the course of the year.

So these are good numbers.

We're just kind of making up some some ground as to uh where we were at budget-wise when we started off the year.

Any uh questions I can answer for you all about the sales tax report?

Councilperson Moore, thank you, Mayor.

Uh, thanks, Stephen, for that information.

Thank you also uh for pointing out that we did plan to ban a deficit um for the year.

Um I'm hoping.

Can you talk to forecasting given um kind of the conditions you're currently seeing and kind of forecasting out for the remainder of the year?

What's your expectation on what gains we might make on that three million given what you know today?

Well, I think uh, you know, you know what I just mentioned that 2.37 percent or that 688,000 for sales tax.

I mean, that's that's positive news right there.

It's difficult to tell what the sales tax numbers are going to look like in the future months.

However, we're about ready to enter, you know, some of our biggest months here with the students coming back with uh University of Arkansas Athletics kicking off.

Um so I I'm I'm pretty positive.

Um I think we're gonna see some uh good numbers here coming in the next couple of months.

I just have one follow-up.

I mean, would would we even lean in and say if we are um over 688,000 in six months of the year commenced?

If we double that, is there an expectation that we potentially would see the same momentum to make those gains?

It's possible, but I wouldn't want to speculate on what these sales tax numbers are going to be.

You know, um you've been here for quite a while and you've seen these numbers bounce up and down from month to month.

So I wouldn't want to go out on a limb there, but I you know I think it's a positive sign what we're seeing so far.

Okay, thank you, Stephen.

All right.

Um, Minister Jones.

Oh, I'm sorry, I saw the wrong mic.

I'm apologizing, Teresa.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I similarly, I'm just trying to figure out do you see us at least um reaching a point that we will take care of that deficit within the 2025 calendar year?

Well, please keep in mind we do have a healthy reserve balance in the general fund, and that's why we went into it with the three million dollar deficit is we knew we were okay financially.

As far as making up the full amount of that three million, I don't think that's really a possibility if uh if through the month of June we're up uh around 680,000 in sales tax.

Now keep in mind that's just one component of uh what goes into the general fund, but it is uh a strong component of the general fund.

Council person turn.

Thank you.

Um so Stephen, I'm just doing a rough calculation, so we're still down $2.2 million for the for the year.

So is that accurate a month?

Sales, I would say that we we are still, if you look at it that way, the sales tax uh gain that we have compared to budget versus the deficit that we started off with.

If you you know work that those numbers that way, we are down probably 2.4 million.

2.4.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, do we have any other questions for Steven?

Just to clarify too, please keep in mind uh my comments to uh Minister Jones a minute ago.

That's one component of the revenues in our general fund.

Um, but it is uh significant one, which is why we report on the monthly sales tax numbers separate.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now, if it's all right, I'd like to move on to the monthly financial report.

And this is the financial report for June.

And I'm just gonna quickly go through uh some of the major happenings in all of our funds as I normally do.

Uh starting off in the general fund uh through the month of June compared to budget, our property tax is up around four percent.

Our sales tax uh we're up around three percent through the month of June, franchise fees up three percent.

Um alcohol, alcoholic beverage fees were up around eight percent.

Building permits were we're up sixteen percent, which is uh good to see.

That's around uh two hundred and sixty-one thousand dollars right there.

Our turnbacks up around three percent in charges for services were down two percent or thirty-six thousand dollars, all in all, the general fund uh compared to budget, we're up around one point five percent for the year or five hundred and fifty-seven thousand dollars through the month of June.

And you'll note that uh I report the sales tax the month of May, it's collected in June, and then I report the month of June itself for the financial report.

So I'm always legging one month behind when I provide you with the sales tax numbers because they come in a little bit later than then what we uh what we would need to get them in the uh the proper month.

In the street fund, uh that's primarily driven by state turn back.

That's the the half cent uh turn back.

That was relatively flat.

We're up fund total around 1.1% for the year, around $33,000.

Over in the parking fund, our charges for services were down around 2%, but our fines and fees were uh way up around 49,000 through the month of June for the year, uh leaving us with the fund total up compared to budget of around 4% or around 42,000.

In the parks development fund, uh RHMR tax, that's up around 2% uh for the year through the months of June through the month of June compared to budget, around 47,000.

And our charges for services were up around uh around $30,000 for the year.

That puts us in the park development fund up around six percent compared to budget or around 158,000 over in the water and sewer fund.

The fund total for the year were up around 3.3 percent fund wide, and that equates to around $818,000 in recycling and trash.

Our franchise fees were up significantly 27% for the year through the month of June compared to budget.

That's uh around $34,000, and our charges for services were up 2%, or roughly $152,000 all in our fund, all in all our fund totals looking to be up around 3.6 percent compared to budget, or around $307,000.

And finally, in the airport fund, uh it looks like our gasoline sales for the year are down roughly 8.7 percent.

Uh that equates to about 125,000.

But our number our flight operations are up around 15 percent.

And keep in mind um the next few months are some of our strongest for uh gasoline sales out there at the airport.

So I'm expecting to see some uh some gains coming up here within the next couple of months.

And uh that concludes our monthly report for for the month of June.

Can I answer any any questions on this report?

Okay, we don't see any.

Thank you, Steven.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm just gonna do that.

Okay, sure.

Sure.

Stephen, just really quickly, um, the airport fuel sales being down.

Um you mentioned though that the busiest months are are coming up.

Is it common for at this point of the year for the fuel sales to be down on average?

I would say that it's definitely not uncommon.

And when we see up and down years, but really some of this is strongly tied to uh people flying in for football season um and the traffic that we see there.

So, and you know, the good weather throughout this summer and fall months, or people are out there using the airport.

So okay, awesome.

Thank you so much.

Great, thank you.

Okay, moving on to our um consent agenda.

Item A1 is approval of the August 5th, 2025 City Council meeting minutes.

A2, a resolution to approve an agreement with waste management for the hauling and disposal of solid waste in the city of Fayetteville for a period of two years with automatic renewals for two additional two-year terms.

A three, a resolution to an appropriate to approve an agreement with hogbox for the hauling and disposal of solid waste within the city for a period of two years with automatic renewals.

A4, a resolution to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $30,296, recognizing 2025 community development block grant program income received from a housing lien payoff.

A5, a resolution to approve the 2025 community development block grant action plan to authorize Mayor Ron to execute the CDBG and home invested investment partnerships grant agreements for 2025 when received in the total amount of 1,270,869.67 and to approve a budget adjustment.

A6, a resolution to authorize Mayor Ron to convey a night a $1,930 square foot right-of-way and easement to Southwestern Electric Power Company for utility relocations associated with the Buddy Hayes Park Improvement Project.

A seven, a resolution to approve a one-year contract with CUTAC Rock LLP pursuant to RFQ 2025-06 for bond council services as needed with four one-year renewal options.

A eight, a resolution to authorize a grant agreement with the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission for funding in the amount of $203,317.25 to support transit stop improvements and to approve a budget adjustment recognizing the grant funds and matching funds from Ozark Regional Transit and Razorback Transit.

A nine, a resolution to authorize an agreement with Crafton and Tall Associates Incorporated for design phase services for the Greg Avenue, safe streets and roads for all projects in an amount not to exceed $227,860, and to approve a budget adjustment.

Mayor McMotion to accept the consent agenda as presented.

Second second.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Okay, that brings us to unfinished business.

Item B1, an ordinance to approve communications and advice from Fayetteville residential renters by creating a residential renters committee, formerly seen as an ordinance to establish the Fayetteville Renters Council.

Dr.

Jones.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

I do appreciate another opportunity to present this and discuss this item this evening.

However, I've been uh collaborating and talking with community members, and some of those community members have been involved in this process.

And with the uh upcoming um selection of the housing officer, I do believe that it would be to the best interest of our renters if we would table this and uh revisit the um this item, gaining it more input from both the administration and the uh soon to be hired housing officer.

And so I'm asking the council this evening if we could possibly table this indefinitely.

Okay, so I believe that's a motion.

Yes, that is a motion.

Okay, second.

Okay, we have a motion and several seconds.

Um and Clerk Paxen, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore, yes, Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Okay.

Item B2, a resolution to express the city council's intent to provide $70,000 and matching funds to the Salvation Army for an emergency solutions grant from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development contingent upon the award of that grant.

This is one that was tabled at the last meeting.

Um the staff um intent and request was for it to be tabled for two meetings.

However, um we weren't clear in that request, and it was tabled for two weeks.

And so um the staff and administration would like for the council to please consider tabling it for the next meeting, which is August.

Oh moved.

Second?

Second.

Okay, thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Second.

Um, oh, yes, thank you.

Um, and just for clarity, that would be the um does someone have that date?

Is it the September 2nd meeting?

Would that be our next?

Sounds right.

Okay, great, until the September 2nd meeting.

Clerk Paxton, we please call the roll.

Just to make sure I have uh the council meeting, the second one in September as September 16th.

Um, no, I I thought the date of the meeting was the second, not the second meeting in September.

My interpretation of the motion is that they wanted to table it for the next upcoming council meeting, which we thought was the second of September.

That is the second of September.

Thank you so much.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Okay, that brings us to new business.

Item C one is an ordinance to establish the City of Fayetteville Firefighters Bill of Rights that provides basic protections for firefighters regarding personnel, disciplinary, and promotional actions.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas this year, the Arkansas General Assembly adopted Act 686 of 2025, which recommends a basic bill of rights for firefighters of municipalities in Arkansas.

And whereas the Act authorizes a city to adopt a local ordinance establishing any or all of the procedures under the act as a guide for negotiating personnel issues with firefighters.

Now therefore it be ordained by the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section One.

At the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas here by annex section 33.052 firefighter bill of rights as shown in exhibit A attached here to and made a part hereof.

Great.

Chief Harden.

Well, thank you, Mayor and Council.

So this is something that the uh that the union brought forward to us.

Uh, you know, and I initially firefighter bill of rights.

I would I had read the law whenever it came through as something that was adopted at the state level.

And and whenever you look at it, I'm like, well, I mean, we do a lot of this stuff.

Uh our city is progressive.

They they care very much about our employees, and they uh, you know, they they really want to be the leaders of it.

That's not the case all across the state, right?

I mean, that there, I mean, this is a very important part of uh legislation to a lot of departments that uh, you know, and we're hoping maybe that we can be the example uh by stepping forward and and you know adopting this and making it official that it's uh you know's official law is that we're gonna take care of our firefighters.

So I'd be happy to answer any questions about it.

Uh Dr.

Jims.

Uh yes, is Fayville going to be the will we will we be the first city in the state to adopt this?

It is my understanding, yes, that we will be the first.

Thank you, thank you.

Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you, Chief.

Um, and I do appreciate we probably are doing most of these things.

So um I didn't see any budget adjustment.

I don't think will there be any financial implications to this at all budgetarily.

As I look through, I didn't think of any, but just wanted to double check.

Uh no, I will be bringing back uh one policy on our uh for this very thing that adjusted a bit, but it really just adds one additional step to our process that we already follow.

So okay, thank you, Chief.

Okay.

Thank you, Brad.

Um do we have any public comment on this item?

Hello.

Uh thanks for letting me speak on the topic.

I'm Jimmy Vanier Proud, resident of Fayetteville Ward 4, um, representative local 2866, um, Fayetteville Firefighters.

Uh we request that you um support this ordinance.

It will provide um some legal protections that y'all are putting forward forth but are not guaranteed on a regular basis and can change it at any moment.

Um it protects our freedom of speech, our political activity, um, it protects us our personal life and privacy as firefighters.

Um by supporting this, you will increase the morale uh recruitment retention, which in turn will reduce a higher quality of service to the community of Fayetteville also.

Um and to my knowledge, yes, I worked on part of this legislation to in the state level, um, and we will be the first city to um enact this in the state of Arkansas as it was just put into play in early July.

Okay, any questions for me?

Thank you, Mr.

Vineyard.

Thank you, Mayor, for supporting this and pushing this.

I'd want to also thank the staff um kid in his office and HR um reviewed this um and vetted it for us also to help the community.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Gracie, do you have any public comment on Zoom?

No, okay.

So Councilperson Wheedaker.

I would move to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch, yes, Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

In order to enact section 33.052 firefighter bill of rights in the Fayetteville into the Fayetteville City Code.

Okay.

All right.

Um, Clerk Pikston, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

That passed.

So first in the state.

Item C2, an ordinance to approve vacation 25-15 for property located at East Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard and South College Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate approximately 0.04 acres of right-of-way.

Kid.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas the City Council has the authority under ACA 1454-104 to vacate public grounds or portions thereof which are not required for corporate purposes.

And whereas the city council has determined the following described portion of right-of-way is not required for corporate purposes.

Now therefore it being ordained by the city council, the city of Fayeville, Arkansas, Section One.

At the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby vacates the portion of right-of-way as described in exhibit B attached to a planning department's memo.

Section two, a copy of this ordinance, duly certified by the city clerk, along with a map attached as exhibit A to the planning department's memo shall be filed in the office of the Washington County Circuit Clerk.

In section three, this vacation approval is subject to the condition that any damage or relocation of any existing field facilities will be at the property owner's expense.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan Kurth, Development Services Department.

This request uh takes us to an area south of downtown in Ward 1 and associated with the property located at the northwest corner of College Avenue and Martin Luther King Boulevard.

This item involves a portion of Alley Rideaway that runs east-west between Fifth Street to the north and MLK, Martin Luther King Boulevard to the south.

It was platted in 1890 and remains undeveloped to today.

This 0.04 acres of property, which you can see in survey form here along the northern edge of that property, it's associated with uh at the corner of college and MLK.

Uh this 0.04 acre or 1750 square foot piece of property uh is unbuilt alley right away.

Um among the issues that staff uh considered with this request.

Uh there are three primary interrelated ones.

Uh first is connectivity.

Uh staff generally opposes vacating a right-away in central areas of Fayeville, finding that they're uh very critical for or for providing opportunities for mobility.

Uh however, in this case, uh the realities on the ground uh make realizing this connection unfeasible in our estimation.

Uh most prominently, uh barriers to this alley's development include the floodway, which you can see in the aerial image here, as well as a floodplain associated with the Spout Spring branch, which uh completely encroach upon or the alley right-of-way encroaches upon uh all the way westward.

Uh accordingly, staff does not find the right-of-ways uh preservation to serve the public interest, uh finding that all the adjacent properties uh have opportunities to access the nearby streets on both college and the MLK to the east and west.

And as a result, we are recommending approval of the request.

The planning commission, when they heard it, afforded the city council with a recommendation of approval.

Uh, they did so unanimously, and there was no comment uh received on this request.

And as Mr.

Williams noted, there's only one recommendation or recommended condition from staff, and that's the standard uh that um uh any damage to uh uh existing facilities or inner uh utilities will be at the developer's expense.

Uh with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

And mayor, I believe Brian Teague or Zara Niedeman are here as the applicants for the item.

Okay, great.

Do they uh Mr.

Neederman, do you have would you like to present?

Excuse me, Mayor, I had a question before you can.

Um okay, typically we're we're gonna do them after the applicant presents, and then we'll do them for Jonathan and the applicant, if that's okay.

Okay, Mr.

Neederman.

Thank you all.

Um Zara Neederman 3V development.

Um I don't have a lot to say here.

Uh it's part of a three parcel uh property that we are looking to develop uh pretty soon.

Where it's part of the uh Walker Park master plan, and we're looking at it doing a small-scale mixed use uh development here with uh commercial corner, bringing back commercial at that corner.

So I'm really excited for this project to move forward, and uh this is a key part of it.

Thank you.

I'm here for questions.

Thank you.

Do we have questions for Mr.

Kurth?

Uh Minister Jones.

Yeah, my third question was just to clarify the third issue.

I had the development pattern, floodplain.

What was the third issue?

The third issue is those two combined make it unfeasible to make the connection.

In the sense that the floodplain that encroaches upon uh roughly half the ride of way running east-west makes uh the alley's full development unfeasible as a result.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have other questions for Jonathan before we go to public comment?

Okay.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on this item?

Good evening, Mayor and Council Kyle Smith, 281Dove Drive.

And there's I can't think of anything nerdier for somebody from the other side of town to come talk about.

So to make it nerdier, I brought pictures.

If I can use the uh the presentation machine.

Um did you speak with okay, oh good, they do have that.

There you go.

Okay.

Um first of all, this is not about the development.

I didn't realize it was one of these projects.

Otherwise, I probably would have assumed that uh uh should just come support it wholeheartedly.

But I'm so sorry, Mr.

Smith.

If I may so rudely interrupt you to just let IT know that we do not have a time clock running, it's been not running.

I don't know if there's an issue, at least not the one I see.

So if we can get that remedied, that would be great.

But real quick, I promise.

Yeah, okay.

Go ahead, Mr.

Smith.

Um my only point on this one is that uh 11 units is great, but the staff memo says that the uh the alley could jog to the north of the project, and I would suggest it do so.

Uh next now we lost our now.

We lost our presentation.

Got it.

Okay, pardon.

I'm sorry, it didn't work.

It's okay.

It's okay, we'll stop the time.

It's all right for us to get it back up.

No worries.

Thank you.

I promise it was going to be quick.

Okay.

We're getting it.

Well he's pulling that up and if it's easier to not worry about the clock that's fine too.

Just submit.

I have spoken against a number of right-of-way vacations and master street plan revisions that removed connections in the past.

And it's rare to see an example where you can draw out why so clearly so if you look at the entire block by my count just from the GIS there's about 17 parcels you can go to the second slide there.

10 of them were developed two or three of them maybe probably never could be on the next one.

But y'all increased the value of this block substantially a few weeks ago when you changed the definition of lot frontage to enable parcels to front an alley.

So most of the lots here next could be split um to face an alley if it were developed in the future and you could get an additional eight maybe nine parcels in there.

If you developed out the fifth street uh frontage you could get in one more and there's another lot that could be split pretty easily so there's 11 more that way as well next I know what you're thinking why would anyone pay to pave a creek pave an alley across a creek that's going to be real expensive.

The cool thing about an alley is it doesn't need to be have connectivity to provide access.

And so if you cut that uh cut that alley at the creek go ahead and don't develop the uh or and vacate the the part that's under question today then you lose access to one two three four five six seven maybe eight of those additional parcels so if the 11 units on college can be developed as is and keep the alley intact I think that would be really cool.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Gracie do we have any public comment on Zoom?

No I'll turn it back to the council.

Council person more thank you mayor um I do have a question um of staff um in regard to the comments made by Mr Smith about and don't know this might be the applicant that would have to be maybe involved too so um is there the ability with the current project as far as it's been looked at to potentially jog the alley and in regard to what was stated versus staying in that alignment to still be able to do that project.

Just didn't know if that was something that had been even considered or looked at I I need to defer to the applicant whether that was explored as far as feasibility goes but I can comment to I think the the the the or the the speculation that the resident had about this being able to be developed with alley loaded development while it does on its face look like that's feasible but if the alley were to be cut out the stream which was likely necessary because it is very expensive to cross streams there begins to be a challenging constellation of development standards that can't be accommodated and most specifically fire access.

Once you create a length of alley or street or driveway beyond a certain distance our fire codes in the state of Arkansas require turnaround for a vehicle which is fairly sizable I think that may uh compromise it to to some extent additionally we do have standards in our development code as well that require lots to being developed in floodplain to have a minimum air amount of square footage outside of the floodplain that can be built on to avoid encroachments into that floodplain wherever possible so it's not to say alley alley fronted development or lot splits could not occur here.

I'm not sure that they could occur in as much abundance as as the the resident uh proposed thank you Jonathan that helps to answer my question um I agree with the commenter about you know I hesitate especially because we have um made the uh accommodation now that we confront to alleys um but in this particular instance with what staff has brought forward um I would be supportive of uh vacating this um but I guess um you know we can't I guess when we're looking at doing this vacation we know he shared what he plans to do and I know when we um we hear about it I think our city attorney has told us we can't hold them to that as well so I think we're having to think about that too while we're vacating it we don't necessarily know as much as we want that mixed use to happen there and I really hope it does and we can't hold into that necessarily so um typically I wouldn't be supportive of vacating but given the conditions I think I'd be supportive tonight and I'd be uh open to hearing others if they have other viewpoints so not a motion to suspend but just a okay uh council person burning uh seeing no other lots I'd make a motion to spin rules and go to third or third read second second okay I'm sorry we have a motion Bob's lot I'm apologize um I did I did have a final question or something I wanted to look at before I could make an informed decision and Jonathan can you bring up the the floodplain

So not a motion to suspend, but just a okay.

Uh council person burnout.

Uh seeing no other lights, I'd make a motion to spend the rules and go to third or third route.

Second.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

We have a motion.

I apologize.

Um I did I did have a final question or something I wanted to look at before I could make an informed decision.

And Jonathan, can you bring up the the floodplain uh map again?

I'm looking forward, but I might ask because we're the motion is simply to carry it on to the third reading.

If we might go ahead with that vote, okay.

So Clerk Paxton, if you could please call the roll.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Vernon?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Mr.

Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Um Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Okay.

And Arn Chaprove VAC 25-15 for property located at East Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard and South College Avenue and Ward 1 to vacate approximately 0.04 acres of right away.

Okay.

Mr.

Stafford, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan, can you pull up the Yeah?

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Just looking at that map and compare it to them.

That answers my questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Clerk Paxton, if you please call the roll.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Okay.

Item C3, an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2025-25 for approximately 180.84 acres of city park properties located in all four wards from various donate zoning districts to P1 institutional.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Section 1.

At the City Council, the City of Favela, Arkansas here by changes of zone classification of the City of Faithville Park property shown on the map, exhibit A, and a legal description exhibit B, both attached to a planning department's agenda memo from various zoning districts to P1 institutional section two.

At the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect zoning change provided in section one.

Okay, and do we have is this a Jonathan or is it Alison from Parks presenting this for us?

Mayor, I'll begin.

And then Miss Jump, I believe, is available if there are questions or items that I can't adequately address to the council.

Okay, please go ahead.

Thank you.

This request, uh, as the title suggests, includes subject properties that are found in all four wards of the city, and they are all owned by the city of Fayetteville.

Uh as council may or may not know, parks properties come into the city's hands in multiple ways, uh ranging from donations to acquisitions to dedications that come alongside the development uh review process.

Uh these properties come into our ownership under a wide variety of zoning designations, and we undergo periodic efforts between parks and planning to zone the land according to its intended use, uh, which tends to be an institutional zoning designation.

In this particular iteration, uh, we're continuing a rezoning effort from 2024.

Uh, while this is smaller in scale than what the council saw last year, uh it still does include 180, almost 181 acres uh throughout the city.

These range from a fifth of an acre down on South Razorback Road, uh, where you can find the welcome to Fayetteville sign along Razorback Road up to the largest piece, uh just over 60 acres uh found on the northwest slope of Markham Hill, uh known as the Markham Woods uh property.

Uh they range in classification as well from our regional parks, our largest designation of park in our our parks plan uh down to the smallest sliver of trail corridors uh that you can find uh underneath our our multi-use trails.

Uh these properties, as uh alluded to include are under several different zoning designations today, uh, from some of our lowest intensity, uh such as agricultural zoning designations, low density single family designations, all the way up through multi-family, mixed use, heavy commercial, heavy industrial, and some of our downtown zoning districts.

Uh, this effort will uh very succinctly uh clean those up and assign a P1 zoning designation, which will allow the parks department to pursue many of its standard activities uh of parks programming.

Uh we feel that this aligns with not only our our long-range uh plans and the land use category in terms of making sure institutional uses are available to serve our residents as our park system is, but also aligns with our 2023 parks master plan and giving these parks designations that allow them to be used the master plan for the community's purposes.

Some of the issues uh that we have run into are that uh parks facilities today uh would not be able to be developed on most if any of these properties.

Uh the wide variety of zoning designations, again, ranging from agricultural and single family up through industrial, uh do not allow uh parks, uh the typical parks functions that you may think of as a buy-right use on them.

Many of them would be by conditional use and they'd be tied very specifically to uh that one point in time in that one particular project that the that parks is uh looking to perform.

Uh the second item I wanted to highlight to council since uh it is the the main piece of public comment we received about this request is regarding the Rocky Branch Park properties.

Uh this is in uh far east Fayetteville in Ward 3.

Uh there were concerns by the property owners uh when the zoning notification went out that uh there would be a wider public awareness that these are parks properties, and this neighborhood has uh grown to uh feel that they're more for the benefit of of uh that community uh generally as we research their concerns uh more.

We discovered that a similar effort in 2008 had actually rezoned the Rocky Branch Parks properties to P1 institutional uh with the ordinance uh reference here.

So that is not necessarily at issue tonight.

That property has already been rezoned uh to P1, but we are asking council for consideration of rezoning uh the remaining properties.

Uh staff is recommending approval of this request.

Uh the planning commission forwarded it to city council unanimously.

Uh it was a split vote of eight to one.

Uh the dissenting vote did not make any comment on the item.

Um, but those in support of the request felt that it was uh similar staff consistent uh with our long-range land use plans and our parks plans.

Uh again, I'm happy to take questions, and mayors and staff submitted this.

Uh I stand on uh questions both regards, and then uh Alison Jump for our parks uh natural resources and cultural affairs director is also available.

Thank you.

Great.

Um, Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Jonathan, do you have a slide that shows us and reminds us of the use units in P1?

I do not immediately.

It's kind of swirling.

It's in your packets.

It is okay.

If you look in the uh Planning Commission staff report uh for this item, I believe it's probably the fastest way to view that.

Sorry, allow me a moment here.

I found it.

Thank you, page five.

Thank you.

Councilperson Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I have a couple of questions, Jonathan.

Um, so we've had we've seen this before with different parcels.

Are there any remaining city um parcels that need to be rezoned to uh P1?

I it's very possible.

We certainly make the best effort to audit these to the greatest extent possible.

Uh the fact is that these properties come into the city's possession sometimes on a monthly basis, and so there is no guarantee that between when this process started six weeks ago and today we may not have acquired more, or uh there may be additional ones.

Um I don't know if Ms.

Jumper, if you have any comments or feedback on uh the parks auditing process as a part of this or not.

So as of six weeks ago, these capture all the remaining pieces that were available six weeks ago.

To the best of our knowledge, yes.

Okay.

A couple of more questions.

Could you remind me?

I was just trying to look through here what the tree preservation requirement is for P1.

It's 25%.

It is 25%.

And then if you're in the hillside hilltop, it's another five.

Correct.

Okay.

Correct.

That's how we've applied the code.

Um I thought that was the case, but I wanted to make sure.

Um, and then do you have I'm just curious that and you probably don't know this, but what is the total number of parcels that the city owns?

Uh in this request or generally.

Generally.

I do not know, and an element that complicates that is sometimes when we acquire right-of-way, that actually has a parcel number that remains with it.

So we have actually in some instances we have city streets that actually are individual parcels, and it's not even the whole length of a street.

Sometimes it's a piece of parcel that was acquired as part of a grading effort uh during a street project.

So I I don't have a good answer for you on that one, though.

I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Very interesting.

Thanks.

Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I had a city attorney question on this.

Um, if we make the rezone, um, do we have the ability to strike one of the permitted uses?

Um, for instance, uh, it does say used unit 46 short-term rentals.

On the zoning issue, you want to know about the short-term rentals possibility on this?

One of the use units available in P1 is use unit 46 short-term rentals.

So my ask was can we do the approval to P1, excluding use unit 46?

I don't think so.

I think you have to go to the actual use unit itself.

It could be if you think that P1 is not appropriate for short-term rentals, then you probably need to amend the code or suggest an amendment of the code that we remove short-term rentals from P1.

Okay, thank you, Ked.

I'll be suggesting that.

Thanks.

Councilperson Stafford, do you have a question before we go to public comment?

Yeah, um to follow up on Councilmember Moore's question.

I mean, this is we're talking about city parks.

And the city can't really be in the business of upgrading short-term rentals, can they?

I I don't think we are offering any.

I'm not going to say it's beyond our power.

Um that's I've just never researched that.

Uh I would wonder about doing that.

Parks are supposed to be for park purposes.

Yeah.

And uh I don't know if that would be a legitimate park purpose.

You know, to have to have a parking lot with it too, probably.

And uh I doubt if it would be approved somewhere along the line, but uh, can't give you a definite answer.

Me too.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kate.

Okay.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

Okay, and Gracie, we don't I don't see anybody on Zoom.

No, it's just me.

Sneezing allergies, I'm sorry.

Pardon me.

I'm sorry.

Um, I'm gonna bring it back to the council.

Thank you, Mr.

Wheedaker.

Um uh councilperson Stafford.

Um I'm I move that we uh suspend the rules and uh go to a third final reading.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to take it to the third reading.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the role?

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheataker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

In order to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2025-25 for approximately 180.84 acres of city park properties located in all four wards from various zoning districts to P1 institutional.

We can okay.

Clerk Pexon, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Okay.

Moving on to item C4.

An ordinance to approve a residential planned zoning district, PCD 2025-002 for approximately 66.78 acres located southeast of North Double Springs Road and West.

Tipton Road in Ward 4.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mid ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Section 1.

At the City Council of the City of Fayhill, Arkansas hereby approves PCD-2025-02 as describes in exhibits A and B attached to the planning department as agenda memo and the pleas d booklet attached to the planning commission memo, which allows the development of approximately 18 acres of attached townhouses with rear entry access, 32 acres of single family dwellings, and 17 acres of open and natural areas on the property located southeast of North Double Springs Road and West Dot Tipton Road in Ward 4.

Section 2 that is PCD approval is subject to the following conditions.

Number one, use unit eight, single family residential shall be removed from planning area number one.

Two, use unit nine, two family residential shall be removed from the conditional use list in planning area three.

Number three, planning areas one and three shall have a maximum density of six units per acre.

And number four, planning area two shall have a maximum density of five units per acre.

Section three, that's the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas here is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in section one above.

Okay, Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This property is in West Fayetteville.

It is located in Ward 4, includes about 66.7 acres.

It's northwesternmost tip.

It touches Double Springs and Dot Tipton Road.

Whereas the, however, the majority of the property can be found south of Dot Tipton, which you can see in the aerial image here, with an intervening property that interrupts the existing frontage it has along Dot Tipton Road.

The property is largely undeveloped pasture and is about 2,000 feet west of our wastewater treatment facility, if that helps orient you to where we are at the western extents of the city of Fayetteville.

The request before council is for a planned zoning district that includes four proposed planning areas.

Planning area one, which would be closest to Dot Tipton for the most part, is intended to be developed with attached townhomes.

Planning area two, as you get more towards the central portion of the site, is proposed to be developed with smaller lot, single family dwellings, while planning area three would be developed with a larger lot, or excuse me, larger lot detached single family dwellings.

Through the middle of the property would be an area of green space that would be designated as the fourth planning area.

Excuse me.

Staff's findings were mixed.

Those properties immediately adjacent to it are generally agricultural in nature or larger estate lots, large pieces of property with a single family home upon them.

However, as you move further to the north, you begin to see properties that are more symbolic of traditional subdivisions.

Similarly, as you cross Double Springs to the west, this the land begins to be seen, or the land isn't located in Farm 10 has begun to be developed with single family dwellings as well.

However, when you look at the difference or the distinction between existing zoning designations and existing zoning or existing, excuse me, existing land uses and existing zoning allowances.

One question that the planning commission posed during their review of the request is how does the proposed PCDs proposed density relate to the surrounding developments that have happened over the last 10 to 20 years.

These subdivisions that you can see in yellow around the subject property, which is boarded in black, have a variety of different densities with as low as less than a unit per acre, up to those to the northern extents that can be found at closer to six units per acre.

This overall PZD is intended to be developed with an overall density of about four units per acre, which takes into consideration the set aside of land for planning area four as green space with the allowance for somewhat higher densities upwards of about six units per acre in different parts of the PCD.

Again, that's intended to shift the development to smaller areas to preserve larger areas of green space.

When reviewing the request from a long-range planning standpoint, uh staff found uh the the this request to be similarly mixed in terms of its consistency with our long-range plans.

Uh, this is designated in our future land use map as a residential neighborhood area.

Um, that is intended to be developed as the name suggests residentially, which this PCD very explicitly does allow.

However, when looking at other tools such as our infill score, uh this property uh has a uh ranges from zero to three, uh given various accesses to sewer mains, water mains, and uh the only uh nearby amenity being the Wolsey wet prairie to the east.

Similarly, we feel that there's only limited city plan 2040 acknowledgement.

In staff's estimation, this uh more uh accurately constitutes sprawl, uh given its location in the city uh and not in fill.

Uh we feel that it does make uh some acknowledgement of our enduring green network and the amount of green space it proposes to uh preserve.

Uh we do uh feel that it does not uh uh respond well to our goal to create compact complete neighborhoods, and that it is uh only single or only residential neighborhood or excuse me, only residential and land use and not allowing any non-residential uses or services that neighbors could use nearby.

Uh some other items that staff identified in their review of the request.

Uh the we do find that this uh proposal responds only in part to the planned zoning district intent.

Um the commission or the council does not see a lot of planned zoning districts, so you may not have delved into that lately, but it's intended to be a tool when our normal zoning districts could not otherwise work, when when a mix of single family zoning destinations, mixed use zoning designations, multifamily, when they can't serve the purpose, that's where PCDs are an effective tool.

We feel that that it does this in some ways, and the uh again the preservation of additional green space and allowing greater densities of housing in portions of the project.

Conversely, uh we're uh did find it lacking in the ability to add more uses in an area that is uh uniformly residential in nature and would in effect result in a more auto-dependent and uh auto-dependent development that would contribute to congestion and the wider street network.

And similarly, or relatedly, when looking at the infrastructure in the area, staff's concerns are heightened.

Uh Tipton Road today is a very narrow street uh with a uh unconventional curve, roughly halfway between 54th and double springs.

Uh our one concern that staff maintains is that the amount of infrastructure improvements that this may require to support the development may be larger than the impact of the development.

Uh sometimes the council hears me discuss the rough proportionality when the size of an impact can justify certain improvements.

Our concern is that the number of street improvements that would be necessary to make this uh a development without negative impacts is not there.

The project would need to be bigger, but it's challenging because the location may not justify a larger project this this far to the west of town.

Uh, when looking at the request from a water and sewer uh perspective, uh we did hear from our utility department that there is adequate water and sewer in the area.

Uh the water and sewer committee heard last week in evaluating a lift station to the north that is at capacity that this project would actually flow likely downhill to the south, uh, where there is uh adequate capacity today.

And another item I wanted to touch on is what the council is considering is slightly different than what the planning commission considered.

Uh there were several conditions that the planning or that the uh staff recommended be incorporated into the request, which the planning commission forwarded it.

Uh and that included uh uh making changes to the PCD booklet that would uh be more responsive to a need to have a wider diversity of housing types and not just be a single family subdivision.

Uh so that was a goal of the the developer, the applicant to respond to both staff and the planning commission's comments.

Uh finally, we have received uh public comment about this request.

Uh there were concerns about uh dot Tipton Roads adequacy that I referenced earlier in the presentation.

Uh also there are concerns uh about uh the congestion that is already beginning to be seen in the area with uh development nearby, and similarly uh concerns about uh stormwater effects that have been seen on some of those properties uh based on some of the residents' experiences.

Uh with that in mind, uh staff does acknowledge that uh there were several or there were changes made to the PCD booklet and the proposal that uh make it more responsive from a land use compatibility standpoint.

We still have overriding concerns in terms of in terms of infrastructure, and accordingly, we are recommending denial.

Um, when the planning commission heard the request, they forwarded it by a split vote of seven to two.

Uh the two dissenting voters uh had a similar concern to staff that the proposal included a lack of potential services and that it would be creating an auto-dependent uh development pattern that could contribute to uh congestion issues in the wider area.

Uh the supporting commissioners, those seven, uh, felt that the development that had occurred in the area in recent years since it was last considered for a rezoning, uh, merited uh more land use compatibility consideration.

Uh they felt that the growth patterns in the area were very consistent with what was being proposed in this uh request.

And with that, I'm uh available for questions after the applicants presentation, and Mayor Ginny Burbage is here to uh present on the applicant's behalf.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Ms.

Burbage.

Good evening, Jenny Burbage with Prism Design Studio.

Got a brief presentation uh reiterating much of what Jonathan Kurth already presented.

Get that ready.

So, as mentioned, this property is on the western side of town, close to Farmington.

It's south of Wettington, near Double Springs Road, but mainly front, not tipped in.

Um, if you look at the surrounding zoning within half a mile, uh we have RSF4, R F8, R SF6.

And if you look outwards of a mile, we start to get into commercial uses.

We have NC, RAU, C2.

So again, the aggregate request is for an RSF4.

So feeling feeling like it's appropriate.

Looking at the city 2040 plan, this is designated as residential neighborhood.

Uh, this property in all adjacent surrounding areas, all the way up to uh Wettington are designated similarly.

Um and this designation calls for the use of traditional design principles, which allow for livable walkable neighborhoods, which you'll see is reflected in the PCD.

Uh, it's also part of the enduring green network, uh, which overall calls for a sensitivity to natural systems, including streams and wildlife.

Again, we've incorporated that into the PZD as presented.

Um but we do want to be clear this property is not in the floodplain at all.

In the next slide, touching on connectivity and how the site is connected.

Uh, it's in point two five miles or quarter mile of future trails, it's in what in a mile and a half of existing trails as indicated on the master street plan by the city, a future neighborhood link, which is essentially a collector, it's a large collector bisects the site, further indicating that this property has been planned for residential, even on the city's planning documents.

Um and of course, it's within it's less than a mile from Wedding, which is a regional link.

Moving on to the actual PZD interior, the street layout.

You can see the bold pink line is that east to west corridor collector that's indicated on the Master Street plan.

And we're using a series of residential links, which is the smallest designation within the streets sections and alleys to create connected network, which aligns with the design principles outlined in the city 2040 plan.

Minimizing street cuts and promoting alley and rear access to promote walkability.

Speaking on tree preservation, uh, this project has minimal existing canopy, and we are planning and have written in we will meet the tree preservation requirement of the 25%.

Um touching on the layout, uh Jonathan laid out the different planning areas.

Uh attached townhomes with rear access are mostly fronting along Dock Tipton, which is the existing infrastructure.

Uh PZD area two are smaller lots, and then as you get closer to the creek, um, there's a small series of larger of larger lots.

Um, and then PZ are PZD area four is limited to open space and recreational uses, which include trails, stormwater management, and habitat establishment that we've incorporated.

So I wanted to paint a little bit of a picture of how it could be developed today by right, um, which we would consider sprawl.

Right now, there's up to 40 46 lots on 65 acres can be developed, and that would be large estate lots that would lack connectivity and honestly probably make the project unfeasible for the amount of infrastructure that would be necessary as dictated by the city master street plan.

Um so instead, we're proposing the next slide.

What we would consider a thoughtful PZD that's been particularly prepared to align with the city 2040 goals.

We've been responsive to neighborhoods, uh, the neighborhood feedback and we've been responsive to planning, and we're we're trying to eye the needle here.

Um, you know, we talked a little bit about commercial uses being proposed, and I think neighbor the neighborhood would probably be opposed to that.

So again, that's one reason uh planning and this PCD maybe aren't aligned currently right now, is in response to neighborhood feedback.

Um but the key requests uh in this uh in this rezoning is we need narrow lot widths to minimize private green space and maximize uh shared green space.

We're utilizing the rear access and alley access to create a walkable community, and by using the smaller lot sizes, we're going to be able to dedicate and um and this master plan indicates over 17 acres of open space, and that's not very common in most residential neighborhoods.

I would say we've committed to planning exclusively native plants within the PCD.

Um we've we've included posting habitat zones with separate landscape maintenance areas for these uh for the habitat areas.

We're including a variety of housing types, um, and again, we're fulfilling sections of the city master street plan and city planned infrastructure improvements, and for these reasons, we find that the project is in alignment and it meets the residential neighborhood objectives and is suitable for residential as depicted, residential development as depicted in the PZD.

And so I'm here.

Uh we've got Will that's going to speak to the next couple of slides, but here to answer any questions specifically.

Good evening, Will Kelstrom here on behalf of the applicant.

Um I've had to kind of alter my speech on the fly because Jonathan covered a lot of what I wanted to cover.

Um, but starting back with earlier this year, we asked for NC.

The reason we wanted that was like Jenny said, due to the lot widths, and so we could preserve more green space.

The problem is that NC has a density cap of 10.

The planning commission taking into effect or taking into account what we were trying to accomplish and what they wanted to see, suggested that we come back with a PZD at a lower density that had some of the lot widths in the preserved green space that we were trying to achieve.

That's what's in front of you.

Um in submitting this PZD, we worked with the comments of the planning commission gave us.

We've worked through multiple staff revisions.

We even met with the neighbors and we showed them the PZD, and three of them even signed off on it and said that they were okay with it.

They liked the new plan.

Those signatures were in your packet.

So going back a little bit further in time on this in 2020, someone requested to rezone it to RSF4, and that was denied.

And then in 2021, it was requested to be rezoned to RSF2, and that was denied.

Throughout this whole process, we've kind of found ourselves in a tug of war of the property is not quite big enough, but it's also should be a little smaller.

It's um could be denser, could be less dense.

And we we've kind of found ourselves simultaneously not being able to make it dense enough, but it being too dense at the same time with a lot of these issues.

So what you were looking at is our best approximation of what it takes to make everyone happy with this.

Um to that end.

If anyone has any concerns or questions with this project, as you all should know me well enough by now that we are more than willing to table or to leave it on the first reading and come back with answers for you guys.

Um I did want to point out a couple more things, and and Jonathan glossed over this, so I don't need to spend a lot of time on it.

But I do want to make sure that we're all being realistic about where this property is.

If you zoom in on it, it really looks like it's kind of farmland out in the middle of nowhere.

If you go to the next slide, um there are neighborhoods and infrastructure in place all around this.

Um those neighborhoods to the east, some of those are in Farmington, those are all on Fayetteville Sewer.

This would not be even be the furthest out project that's being served by Fayetteville Sewer.

Um it is also very close to Farmington.

So if you look at it with blinders on, it does appear to be way out west.

But if you zoom out a little bit, the city actually goes much further west, and we are extending infrastructure and development back towards the city.

So I last I checked.

If we're sprawling, we have to be going out, not in.

Um there are also some sewer upgrades in this area that have been planned by the city that have um they have drawn construction plans and they're requiring easements.

We would be responsible for paying for a good portion of those.

I think the city is expecting that we're gonna pay for a good portion of those if this development ever comes to fruition.

So again, this is an area where upgrades are already planned, and we would be helping to pay for some of those upgrades.

So with that, um, I'm here.

If you guys have any questions, if they're of a technical nature, you should probably ask Jenny.

But thank you guys for your time.

Thank you so much.

Okay, before we go to public comment, do we have clarifying questions for Jonathan?

Um Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I don't know if this is maybe Jonathan and the applicant.

Um, but I wanted um to understand um what kind of allowable uses would be allowed in the PCD, for instance, would short-term rentals be allowed in the PCD the way it stands today.

And by right is what I'm asking, I'm sorry, versus like a C UP, just to clarify.

Certainly.

Allow me one moment to pull that up.

And if missing And I'm going through a lot of pages, so I apologize if it's on the packet and I've missed it.

Yeah, it is in planning areas uh one, two, and three, which are the ones that are proposed to be buildable uh short-term rentals use units 46 is proposed as a buy right use.

Okay.

Was there any discussion about the possibility of removal of that during the PCD process that anyone can answer to?

Not that I'm aware from staff.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, we used the the base uses for RSF4 and then kind of went from there with planning direction.

Um, as I understand, short-term uses are also just a citywide conditional use.

So I think traditionally that's how they've handled those.

We have no intent for short-term use to this to be part of it, and we'd be happy to remove that.

It was just part of the base, the base zoning.

Thank you.

And before you leave, because I I'm not sure who can answer this.

I just my other question was about um, I'm just curious who this neighborhood is marketed to, because this is a PCD, so we really get to think about what the actual use is and how this fits into.

We've done a housing study and identified gaps that exist and recognize that um our typical household is one to two individuals in the city of Fateville.

And so I'm trying to envision who you're welcoming to town with this um neighborhood.

Uh well, you're absolutely correct in that we don't need large houses anymore, and that's part of the requests for smaller lots.

The traditional quarter acre lot that's required, the minimum lot width is 70 plus feet.

We don't need 70 feet anymore to build homes, and so that is honestly the reason we're requesting smaller lots, and so we can build denser housing in smaller houses, and people don't need as much square footage as they do anymore.

Um we've got uh in the PZD, there's one section that kind of talks a little bit about the square footage.

Um, so the small single family, it's roughly a thousand, you know, to 1700 square feet, but that's limited, you know, on a 40 foot wide lot instead of a 70 foot wide lot.

Um councilperson Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and I don't know who this maybe anybody can answer this question.

Um this is the third or fourth time they've been back and making adjustments and and coming back.

Sorry, is that a question?

Or yeah, like they this is their, you know, they they they brought something forward, it gets turned down, they make adjustments, they come back, they get turned down, they make adjustments, they come.

What round are we on here?

Oh, that that's a good question.

With PZDs that go through a development view process with staff beforehand.

Uh I I don't know the exact number of iterations.

This property has been considered for rezoning many times over the years.

I'm not sure if that's always been under the same ownership or not.

Gotcha.

I I think you may be referencing uh what I mentioned that agenda session where it was originally zoned as a PCD 15 or so years ago.

There have been two or three, what I characterize as straight rezoning requests on the property, whether it's RSF4 or NC that were turned down.

Uh and this is the first PCD that I'm aware of that has been requested since that original one that the uh previous council approved about 15 years ago.

But it seems like in the last couple of years that they've gone to planning commission and planning commission has been like not quite, and then they address concerns and then the planning commission has seen multiple has seen straight rezoning requests.

Okay.

So those aren't not, I don't believe any of them came with a bill of assurance, if I remember correctly, if that's what you mean by adjusted.

And can we bring up a map that that zooms out a little further so that everybody has an idea of where this relates to downtown Farmington and uh Weddington?

And I don't know if that's just bringing up a Google map or what's easiest or GIS map.

Yes, allow me a moment, please.

If the council can see the faint red, reddish brown color, that's the property in question uh before you right now.

Downtown Farmington is like directly south, pretty much.

Yeah, right roughly along uh where main MLK and Fayetteville crosses the the the um the city limits between the city.

A mile and a half.

Okay, thank you.

Um councilperson Burnout.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, could you be as best you can a little more specific on what infrastructure uh requirements are going to be on this property and uh who's gonna foot the bill?

And then also I I distinctly remember and help me the other night.

Uh we were talking about close proximity property that we were gonna do water and sure improvements and this project was going to, if I remember right, going to cost share some of that.

Did you am I remembering that right?

Um I think in part okay.

There is a list station.

Yeah, there is a list station in West Fayville, the station 22 that is currently at or very near capacity uh that is uh that went before the water and sewer committee recently for uh for for their recommendation on a project to to cost share that and start making those upgrades to the facility.

A question during that conversation was does this list station serve the res this property that the PCD is being requested on?

Uh at that meeting, our utility engineer advised that this property would likely gravity flow to the south, whereas the list station is to the north.

Uh and then our our uh utility director's evaluation of this property it's his estimation that there is adequate water and sewer capacity serving this project today.

Um so whether a cost share would come forward or not is difficult to uh determine at this time.

Uh when we when staff receives development requests, we often have to evaluate those for the necessary public improvements.

Um we evaluate it first for what public improvements would be necessary to bring it to the bare minimum standards across the board, and then we have to evaluate that in terms of the amount of impact that project is having.

At that point, it becomes a discussion of which one of those public improvements are the highest priorities if the project's impact does not justify making all of those improvements.

Typically, water and sewer are that they often take priorities in those conversations.

After that, it's bringing any streets nearby up to a minimum standard to meet state fire codes, which is a 20-foot width typically.

Beyond that is when we begin evaluating whether the project could support uh installation of curve and gutter, where a lot of the streets in this area are currently open ditches and then green spaces, trees, sidewalks, and things of that nature.

So that's something of a non-answer.

Hopefully, I answered your question about how this related to that lift station question, which is that this property does not flow that direction as far as what public improvements might be required of this project, is it's difficult to determine at this point.

Staff's concern is that there the infrastructure in the area is inadequate, especially the street infrastructure is inadequate in so many ways that the size of the project could not offset the amount of improvements necessary to not create either a dangerous situation or uh it's suggest or a situation that contributes to congestion in an adverse way.

Council person.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, that that last portion segues into my question.

So as we know, Dot Tipton's really narrow.

Um if I'd been here last week, I might have suggested a tour out there so everybody could kind of see how just narrow and windy uh and kind of obstruct uh there's a lot of trees and vegetation along there.

So um to get this up to the 20-foot width, because I'm pretty sure Dot Tipton isn't 20 feet wide, and also to put curb and gutter in there, um, a project this size, how much do you off the top of your head um proportionally think that that would be required to um reconstruct dot dot tipton and get it into uh kind of a you know a regulatory legal um road?

I I don't have a detailed answer for you.

I think part of the dilemma is that the property under this PCD request doesn't include all the dot Tipton frontage, and so in situations like that, if an off-site improvement is required, that's often uh uh preceded by requirement to acquire a right-of-way off-site, which can be very convoluted, costly process.

Uh, I think staff's priority at a minimum, depending on what other improvements may be necessary would be to make sure Dot Tipton meets that 20 foot uh asphalt width.

I think fire code would likely support that unless the project could identify other ways onto the site.

Do you have any um estimate about what the cost of that would be?

Uh, because I mean it's sort of a short street, relatively speaking, but it's got a lot of challenges.

I I I do not.

I may have to defer to the applicant if they've uh gotten to that level of due diligence at this point.

Thank you.

Mr.

Jones, thank you.

Mine is still in alignment with uh my councilman right next to me.

We're talking about um cost, um, smaller roads um winding.

Are we prepared?

Who who absorbs that cost, Jonathan, for us to improve those roads?

And when I think about it, as we um put in some housing up um on the Whittington area, we start encroaching it outside of the Fayetteville area.

Do we start working with the Farmington School District?

Because when you start building houses and bringing families, you have school districts and you have buses.

How are they gonna fit down these windy roads and with congested traffic?

I did an estimate if if they're proposing 267 units, that's an additional 534 cars if there's two house, not including buses, um, any other traffic they come in from the area.

Who absorbs the cost of expanding those roads?

Can they absorb that much traffic on those roads?

And then what does it do to that community?

Is that a cost that the city absorbs, or do we work with the school district?

Is it transportation that reviews that who reviews those costs?

I heard several questions in there, and please stop me if I've missed uh missed any of them.

Uh at the highest level, the developer absorbs the cost of the impacts they create.

The reality is sometimes again, projects aren't of a scale that justify all the improvements necessary.

Uh, in those instances, we have to evaluate which improvements are the priority ones.

Uh, it is an option for a developer to approach the city for a cost share to your question.

As the purse holders of the city, those ultimately come to city council, and they're there for you all's evaluation as a part of that.

And um your question about the school district.

We solicit comment on every rezoning from the school district in which the property is being proposed.

I don't recall getting any feedback from the Farmington School District on this one.

Okay.

And then I guess my last question is thinking of safety issues.

Safety with starting out knowing that that area can absorb, we already have a lot of traffic in that area already, and then we're going to add to it.

Is there a public safety issue that's been looked at or reviewed for transportation issues?

Oh, thank you.

I didn't miss that last question.

That is typically a development level review that we perform when a subdivision application is submitted to the city.

One of the of this size, one of the requirements is of standard requirements is a traffic study that our engineers evaluate.

They look at it for turning moment, turning movements, the amount of increased traffic on a given street, if that merits improvements being made made to that street, whether it's widening, whether it's uh signalization, adding stop signs, uh things of that nature.

Um but typically we don't have those uh with a rezoning request.

Uh sometimes we have seen them before uh when um staff does have that level of concern.

Um, but at this point we are recommending denial generally because of our infrastructure concerns.

Did you say you were or were not because of the infrastructure concerns?

That is a that is a significant portion of our recommendation of the Nile is we don't feel like there's there's adequate infrastructure to support the development.

Okay, and so you don't request a traffic study at all?

At this point, no council person burna.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Will or uh uh the representative of the developer?

Yeah, I just got a question for them.

Will you're probably gonna defer to her.

So considering you said that you got input from the neighbors and met with them.

I'm assuming that this transportation infrastructure question was a significant concern for them.

How did you uh how do you propose to address that?

Correct.

So um speaking a little bit to Jonathan, and this is a rezone and entitlements at this point, but as part of the large scale development, that's when we would do a full traffic study, and so that's when it would dictate if signals or widenings, D cell lanes, kind of you know, with any development would be required.

And we are, you know, for the code and ordinances required to improve our street frontage already, and then we have been in discussions with the city about how we can make Dot Tipton as compliant as possible.

And so I think that's a bigger goal for the development as a whole.

And so we've been kind of already, as we are moving towards construction documents and further development of how can we offset project costs to improve dot tipping.

So we we had a conference call with SE Masters and the planner um last week, and so we we're active in that uh coordination.

But a plan has not been developed yet because construction documents haven't fully started.

This is master plan level.

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Um do we have any members of the public that would like to speak?

If so, please approach the lectern, um, state your name and address and be mindful of the three-minute time limit.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

My name is Elizabeth Rumley, and I live with my family at 20 North Double Springs.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today.

And in fact, I want to speak to the last question that was asked and the last question that was answered, which was about interfacing with the neighbors before this happened.

And I want to be very clear that that did not happen in any extent.

In fact, they have three people that signed their letter of approval or a letter of uh assent, two of which uh don't even live in the area, they just own large parcels of land, presumably hoping to develop at some point in the future.

And in fact, when they submitted this earlier in the year, uh one of the signatures that they had, they had a fake address on.

So presumably they fixed it.

Now they say 35 acres at Double Springs and uh sellers instead of actually having the address.

But if this is the level of consistency that we are seeing from this developer, I would caution you that believing the things that they say may not be of the best interest of the city council.

Beyond that, I want to say that I agree with many of the things that the uh planning committee staff um included in the report, and I would encourage you to reference that before making your decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any other?

Oh, yes, please come up.

Mayor and council.

My name is Donna Treat, and my husband and I have lived at 6187 West Stock Tipton Road for 31 years.

Ms.

Treet, can you pull the mic down just a little bit, please?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Okay, my husband and I have lived at 6187 West Dot Tipton Road for 31 years.

We originally purchased the 45 acres in 97.

And we sold 30 acres in 06 for development.

And I had a plant with me of the subdivision.

It was dated June 09 when they were gonna subdivide.

And it reflects the conscience of our planning committee then.

Tipton Road where water pours onto the subject property from Penny Tipton's property, which is north of Dot Tipton.

After development to the north of Penny, even more water floods, floods her fields and runs to this low place, crossing Dot Tipton.

Water stands in the road during a heavy heavy rain, and it stands in the field, evidenced by large by a large patch of water grass that grows.

And while the water pools between two homes, the lady that just spoke, it pools between her home and her neighbor.

There's a lot of water that comes down through there, and this plan just indicates that there are is a row of townhouses there.

And also flooding occurs on the east portion of this proposed subdivision.

When Legacy Points retention pond overflows, it runs onto this property, and it's joined by a signature a significant amount of subdividion water that comes off of Penny and it flows into Penny's Pond and then it runs down the road.

And with this, and then it empties out about where the legacy water empties out.

It's a real problem with extensive building and all this property sloping to Gruce Creek, it could have a dire consequence on the city and residents.

We strongly suggest an environmental study be done before you proceed.

I've addressed the Ma'am Durand's time.

Thank you.

Pardon?

That your time limit, your time is up.

I would like to give her a little more time.

Okay.

You may have more time.

Ms.

Treat, um, Councilperson Bunch has given you more time, so we'll put more time up on the clock and you may finish.

So thank you.

Thank you, Sarah.

Okay, I've talked about the flooding and drainage problems.

Perhaps others can talk about an additional 500 vehicles using Dot Tipton is a one-lane road.

When you meet somebody on Dot Tipton, you pull over.

And also 54th is a narrow two-lane road.

And then persimmon is even more narrow.

So and then when we visited with people, uh nobody knew about this subdivision.

We knocked on doors, and uh nobody knew about the subdivision.

So and I'm a neighbor, and I live in that cutout.

The subdivisions on three sides of me.

And uh nobody has said anything to me.

I didn't even know about this until my neighbor brought it to my attention.

So my my friend and I knocked on doors, and uh I just want to say on behalf of my neighbors that we request that the council act responsibly.

There's also uh lack of infrastructure, parks, double springs is overused.

Our neighbors told us that they can it's very difficult to get out on double springs, and uh and also I imagine it'd be the obligation of Farmington to build schools for all these people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Catherine Harrison, and my first comments are on behalf of a lady named Penny Tipton who has a family illness and was not able to be here today.

She says, My name is Penny Tipton.

I live at 258 North Double Springs Road, which is just north of Dot Tipton Road in Fayetteville, across the street from where this company wants to build.

This property has been in the Tipton family since the 1930s when my grandpa brought his family from Oklahoma.

Grandpa Charlie and grandma built the farmhouse in the curve of the road in the mid-50s, and the house nearby in the curb was their milk barn.

I know sentiment and heritage are unfamiliar to people today, and it has nothing to do with what is happening around me.

I feel an obligation to speak for my Tipton family who were concerned with doing what is right and being a good steward of the land.

The subdivision Emerald Point to the north of me floods my fields when it rains hard.

An area north of the pond on the subdivision property accumulates on my property and flows across the road to the pond I mentioned.

The water grass grows between my property and the pond and indicates the water stands in that area.

The water from my place floods when it when the pond is full, and the water floods south of the pond and pools between the two south lots on Double Springs.

My fields are flooded, and I showed the engineer the seven places where the water spills over onto me and the subdivision from the subdivision north of me.

The city is ultimately responsible for allowing this to happen.

You can see there is a row of town houses.

You can see there is a row of townhouses, and no consideration is given to the fact that drainage is a major problem.

Some of the water from the subdivision and my place runs to the road and empties into your subdivision proposed to the east of the milk barn and the house.

In big rain events, the legacy subdivision retention pond fills and empties into the subdivision in about the same area.

Your plan does not allow for that amount of water.

Tipton is not wide enough for two vehicles to comfortably pass.

The number of vehicles coming out onto the land onto the one lane road is not even imaginable.

There is so much traffic on Double Springs that it is hard to get an opening at certain times of the day.

The DR Horton subdivision is only half built out, which is already scheduled to add more traffic.

The infrastructure can't handle vehicles for 267 residences at this time.

Tipton, Double Springs, 54th Street, and Persimmon Street must be dealt with before a subdivision of this size can be considered respectfully.

Penny Tipton.

Thank you.

That's time.

And may I have my own now, please?

Um, I'm sorry, that's you get one turn at the mic part item, and that was that was your turn.

I apologize.

That was on behalf of Penny Tipton.

I would request I understand one of the council, ma'am, one of the council members is welcome to give you more to give you more time.

Mayor, may she build she be allowed to speak for herself.

Correct.

Yeah, yes, thank you, Councilperson Turk.

We can put more minutes on the clock.

You may go ahead.

Thank you.

My name is I'm just trying to follow the rules fairly, ma'am.

It wasn't my name is Katherine Harrison.

And I've been observing this development on my own time.

And there are photos in the Monarch booklet on the city's website that indicate three-story townhouses, which in my opinion is excessive for height and out of character for the area.

They are intended to be affordable housing.

My question is what is the council's definition of affordable housing for this subdivision, and how much would a two or even three-story townhouse cost for a senior citizen like me who might want to buy one.

Also, will there be a consideration for ADA accommodation housing?

Because that has not been addressed as far as I could find.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Rusty Rumley, and I also live at 20 North Double Springs Road.

I would like to echo what staff had said about the road conditions.

I think we've heard quite a bit about Dot Tipton.

What we haven't talked so much about is that for one Double Springs Road, as staff lays out, currently getting about 4,900 cars per day in 2022.

That number's only gone up.

RDOT rec uh said 6,000 is about the limit.

We're probably at 6,000 or over three years later.

You guys have already heard that this is zone farming.

So parents will be taking their kids to Jerry Pop, which means they are going to be going east on Dot Tipton and then down 54th to get to Jerry Pop.

I know that the developers talked about potentially maybe widening the western part of Dot Tipton, but no one's talked about the eastern part of Dot Tipton.

The developer also mentioned the neighborhood link.

City staff, I believe it was the engineer, said that there are no plans in the next five years for any construction out in this area of town.

It is at the western outskirts of town.

On the other side of Double Springs Road is Farmington.

So all of this traffic is going to be dumped onto Dot Tipton.

Traffic from there is either going to go to Double Springs, which is at capacity, or it's going to go over to 54th, which is wider than Dot Tipton, but that's really not saying much in the grand scheme of things.

So I would just like to point out that the road situations are going to be a problem that Fayetteville's going to have to deal with.

This is urban sprawl.

Tipton right now, meeting a school bus is kind of a dangerous endeavor on that road any day of the week.

So I don't think that they've adequately considered all of the ramifications on existing infrastructure.

And if the city is not planning on investing significantly for roads in the next five years, this probably ought to be something that we we set aside.

We are going to develop this land.

Everybody knows that this is going to be houses.

If you don't have the infrastructure to support the houses right now, let's wait and put in after we've got infrastructure, or let's develop it at a less dense manner.

But I think those are the only two realistic options that we we have in front of us tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can we put up the uh image of the rooftops, the lots?

Mary, would you like me to put something on the screen?

Um if it's convenient and easy for you to do so, you may yes.

Thanks, Jonathan.

My name is Jim Gallagher.

I'm an architect here in Fayetteville, and we own a home just south of this proposed development.

Um your staff has studied this project for months, this site for years, they've recommended Indian Isle.

Please listen to your staff.

Add value to what they're doing.

Seven commissioners voted to approve this.

Uh that astounds me in that um look at all the problems we've already talked about tonight.

Um that seems to be okay for your commissioners.

I think you probably need to consider changing the name of that body to the approval commission because they're doing no planning at all.

You have no roads, you have limited infrastructure, you already have flooding from the properties you've already approved.

School buses can't approach this site.

Fire apparatus can't approach this site.

We have no plan on the table at all to fix any of those problems until you do some planning, some long-range planning, and you start improving infrastructure, you start improving the long-term outlook.

We out in the in the fourth ward do not want you bringing those problems out to us.

We live out there because we don't have those problems as much.

Please don't bring them to us.

Please vote no.

It's really your only choice.

Thank you.

Do we have any more public comments?

My name is Sheena Reed.

We live at 5605 West Dot Tipton Road.

And I just wanted to say that we are opposed to the rezoning and opposed to the subdivision due to lack of infrastructure and safety concerns due to the traffic.

So that's all.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm not seeing any more public.

Oh, okay.

No, we do have two more.

So sorry, forgive me.

We'll slow the stand up.

Yes.

Go ahead.

Kyle Smith again.

I wanted really hard to oppose this because, like you heard the history of it, it's it was denied a long time ago and has come back in various iterations over the years that I think there was a joke for a while that came back worse every time.

And it uh I kind of expected that after that kind of beatdown from uh trying and being denied over and over that why would anyone put any creativity into their application for this?

Um but as I'm sitting back there reviewing the the PCV booklet, it seems like they actually have.

Um the housing density is uh maybe not as high as somebody who's all for packing people in downtown would want, but it's also not substantially lower than what's surrounding it.

If you take one wheel scroll, we'll click back on the map um and see what's actually around it.

Um I understand the the concerns about the current roads, but uh looking at the map, I know you had some questions about what improvements would be and what how wide the road is.

The current pavement is real narrow, but it looks like there's about 60 feet of right-of-way the entire length of dot Tipton already, so they wouldn't have to go acquire any more to do off site improvements.

Um parcel goes all the way to Double Springs, so they've got a substantial bit of the frontage to another big road anyway, that they'll be required to improve as part of their development.

And well, look at the way they're handling green space and stormwater inside the development.

Um, I don't remember any of the previous approaches that that handled it that well.

Um this is a weird no man's land out there where it is sprawl if you only look at the federal boundaries, and it is about uh a third of the way out if you look at the whole region and and consider Prairie Grove as our sprawl now because we haven't built enough housing for people in the cities.

Um, we can't we can't just stop at our boundaries, even though the state took away our planning districts out or planning boundaries outside.

Um we're still responsible for the reality that exists on the ground in other jurisdictions.

So as much as I wanted to say, eh, not this one, if y'all could get the buy right uh uh short-term rentals out of there, I think this would be as good as you're probably gonna get.

Thanks.

Thank you.

My name's May Wetzel.

I live at 5968 West Dot Tipton Road.

Excuse me, and I know Dot Tipton Road's been talked about.

I would suggest that members of the council drive down it and see for yourself.

Uh, there are two blind desk curves.

It will not allow for two cars to pass, and I do want to give you an example.

Every time I meet my kids' school bus, I hit the ditch or they hit the ditch, or I hit a yard, or they hit a yard.

Um, I know it was mentioned about uh you know more uh more kids in the area.

That means more buses.

Um there really needs to be improvement to the road before this is even considered.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I am Diana Gallagher, and I live in Fayetteville.

We have two homes in Ward 4, one immediately in the area being discussed.

The mention that neighbors were approached, and this was discussed with them.

Nobody's approached me in person by mail or even a flyer in my mailbox.

I learned about this on social media before coming to tonight's meeting.

My husband and I drove Dot Tipton Road, just so we could do our appropriate research to speak honestly to you.

Doc Tipton, as you've heard, is a very narrow road.

My husband and I used to be Weddington firefighters.

I would be horrified to try to take one of the fire trucks down that road right now.

I am very concerned about public safety, and even if some improvements were made, you are still dealing with highway 16 and highway 62, both being oversaturated, and the increased number of accidents we're seeing, and both of those are access points beyond the immediate double springs or 54th Street.

We cannot afford more traffic on these roads.

My other concern is that it reminds me of when Hamstring Road went through this same process with the Rock Quarry development.

And promises were made, assurances were given.

In a recent meeting, I asked the Rock Quarry where the lake was that we were promised.

And he laughed.

And I said, Well, I see the lake in my generation because we were told that when the Rock Quarry had finished blasting, there would be a beautiful lake in a lovely venue for West Fayetteville.

No.

It will not be in your generation in your lifetime.

Well, will it be in my children's lifetime?

No.

Grandchildren's probably not.

A lot of promises can be made, but unless we can be assured that the promises are going to be kept, I'm going to be a skeptic.

I do thank you for your commitment to your service on this council.

I've served on numerous boards and councils.

I know what work it is.

But I urge you as a citizen concerned about the future of Fayetteville to please vote against this rezoning.

And there is nothing wrong with beautiful green pastures and farm space.

Arkansas is the natural state, and we need to work to keep it that way.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I'm not seeing any more comments from in the room.

Oh, okay, we have another one.

Yes.

I'm not trying to cut y'all off.

I just know it's okay.

Go ahead.

My name is Derek Lloyd.

I'm a local landowner in the area, and I've got a chance to know the development team and work with them in the past.

And uh kind of what I've been hearing tonight is a lot of technical, a lot of technical issues that to do with road infrastructure, flooding, um, and just traffic in general.

And uh I think those are the problems that are that are exciting for development like this because, like Jenny and the team have said, they're problems that they're working with the city to address.

You know, they've had conversations with staff about widening dot tipped and making that a safer place.

Um addressing the flooding issues, addressing the traffic issues, the uh utility issues out here.

Um I think there's a there's a great opportunity to work with the development team here and other landowners in the area who are awaiting development to really improve this area, make it a safer space, and honestly address a lot of the comments that you've heard this evening.

Um, additionally, I think it's important to keep in mind that this is just a rezoning ask.

A lot of these technical conversations or questions as they relate to road improvements, utility improvements, cost are addressed during uh their development review.

And um, and yeah, um, I know these this team has been here at every every planning meeting.

Um, they've sent out letters at every application.

So I know they're always standing outside ready to uh ready to talk, ready to address comments, issues, questions, anything.

And um I've had a great experience with them, and so I hope uh hope that is taken into consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Gracie, do we have anybody on Zoom?

No.

Okay.

I'm gonna bring it back to the council.

Councilperson Moore.

Sorry.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I have some additional questions for staff that came up from the comments, etc.

Um of the things too that I saw in the packet, and I don't know if Chief is still here or somebody from FIRE is I think I saw on the packet that it's a seven-minute response time.

Um, and so we all we know that it's only gonna get more um potential you know, traffic and vehicles, as we heard about, and so I didn't know what the insight was on our master plan that direction.

It's quite costly to add an additional fire station.

And so I wanted to understand too how that fits into the city's plans.

Um, so we do not have anybody from fire that's here prepared to speak on this item this evening.

Okay.

Um I had a couple other questions too, potentially that whether folks are here or not, I'm not saying.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, it's still fun to raise them.

I just was checking to double check one of the.

Yeah, no, thank you.

Thank you.

Um the uh other question uh that I um had was in regard to the uh the sewer um improvements.

I am not familiar in that area, and I don't know, I don't want to put staff on um on this potentially you may not have this, but I'm trying to understand if we do these potential shares and we come up with some configuration that allows for this development, then does it leave any additional capacity or what precedent does that set for the landowners that are there of what might based on current zoning get developed in that potential area because you know I'm hearing this precedent of because you approved and we ended up with a sprawl that we need to continue to do sprawl in this area.

And so I'm trying to understand what potential additional infrastructure we're gonna kind of be biting off potentially because the next development that wants to come says, hey, come cost share with me on your edges again.

So you can't maintain inside your your your boundaries and your core part of town.

Does that make sense?

And I'm not sure who that needs to be directed at.

I think I can I think I understand.

I think I could work through the question.

The concern if I understood correctly, Councilman Moore is if we overbuild capacity, are we going to be uh pouring accelerant on development in this area in some way, shape, or form?

Is that a fair characterization of the question?

That would maybe one version that I'd be interested to hear insight, but additionally, with what is being said might need to be accommodated, do they end up consuming all of that capacity?

Um then do we set ourselves up for we're talking about in increasing additional capacity in the future with changes that will be needed in that area based on raw land that might come to us and say, okay, we want to do our special accommodation as well.

Thank you.

I appreciate you clarifying on that.

Typically, when we upsize water or sewer uh facilities, it does not come at just one increment larger for an area.

Uh the city has both water and sewer master plans, and they as a part of it, they take our land use planning documents, particularly our future land use uh map, and they estimate from that the existing reason existing zoning in an area and how many units that could potentially result in.

And uh in some instances, scenarios where it would be what it what if that area was built out under the future land use map, which sometimes envisions greater density levels.

Um so that is to say I don't have a specific answer on what that would look like.

Um it does bear noting that when water and sewer is accessible to a property, we don't uh, to my knowledge, regulate whether a property owner can connect to that or not if there is available capacity and it's within the the city of Fayo Bill.

Thank you.

Um Minister Jones, I saw you next.

Yeah, I think you just confused me.

Because I was following into you said if available capacity.

So if we don't have capacity, I think the question is as a city, do we absorb a cost share knowing that we're building out and we could exceed the capacity that we have for the water and sewer.

The thank you for asking the follow-up question.

Uh, I think what I meant by that and possibly didn't convey well is when we are at capacity and a sewer or water line, the city does have some authority over whether property can be developed further.

Um referring back to the the list station 22 conversation that our water and sewer committee had uh last week, I think last week, thank you.

Um that there are several developments that are either at a standstill or can't receive a certificate of occupancy because the system is not cannot adequately accommodate their anticipated wastewater.

So if that uh clarifies basically if we because a property has zoning entitlement does not necessarily entitle them to build on it if they can't meet uh several of our development regulations, one of which is based on hygiene, having adequate water and sewer.

Yeah, thank you for clarifying that.

I have another question.

What was the height regulation for PCD?

I think somebody else brought it up, but I didn't hear the answer.

I believe all three planning areas propose a three-story height limit.

Allow me one moment just to reconfirm that.

That is what's in the packet, Jonathan.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, three stories.

And then I think my um the other question that I had, and it's just confusing to me.

Do we develop backwards?

I'm just and I'm asking this question because we will build and then we fix infrastructure.

Is there how do we as a city plan to develop infrastructure before we build?

And I see it all the time where new houses go up, and then soon as they're finished, they start tearing up the roads.

I'm just confused as the process.

And if you can help me, that maybe that'll give me a better picture, and maybe it'll help the public understand on building out infrastructure prior to development.

It's a very difficult fiscal dynamic for cities to build infrastructure speculatively.

Sometimes cities do that because they want to channel development to particular area.

I think it uh previously in Fayetteville, RuPaul Road was built, for example, with anticipation that development would follow, and development did follow.

One thing that is less apparent when people see water and sewer lines ripped up soon after development occurs, is it may not necessarily be because of that development.

Uh, when taking sticking with the topic of sewer, our sewer basins or those areas where sewer goes into the system can sometimes be dozens or hundreds of acres in size, and so it could be something much higher in that stream that is creating a capacity issue.

Um sometimes it may be because of that development.

Um typically they must for development to be occupied and to be used to get their certificate of occupancy, which is the city's final checkoff, they have to already have that adequate water and sewer.

Uh so I'm not sure if there's a specific instance and instance that you're referencing.

Uh, but it is it's difficult for me to say confidently whether it's a an infrastructure change or something being ripped up or put in is a direct result of a specific development.

And I am talking about water and sewage as well, not just the infrastructure of um public safety.

And the reason I'm asking about that is because we've heard neighbors talk about water overflowing, and we and I even I've even heard um Boston talking about long-range planning of building these ponds, but their ponds are already overflowing.

If we know that ponds are already overflowing into a space where you want to develop, why are we how do we address that before we put houses there?

I think there are many different answers to that.

Uh, some y'all may have heard during the stormwater utility conversation over the last year.

Uh a fact is a fact of our drainage standards is they change over time uh in response to growing concerns, growing needs of our community, changing weather patterns, uh better awareness of how of what Fayetteville is experiencing.

Um, and a piece of that is a lot of the developments we've had over the years have been built under different development standard or different drainage standards, uh taking that in that that specific instance.

So ponds that have made may have been designed for what we call a 100-year event, which is that every year there's one percent chance that you'll have this this type of that or downpour may be inadequate for uh when we have multiple of those in a year or multiple back to back, uh, and as a result, our drainage criteria manual that our engineering division uses has to be updated to accommodate that.

So that partially I think answers the question for newer development, existing development.

I think that is the crux of why the city recently adopted their stormwater utility is there's an acknowledgement that uh some of the development that has happened under uh older development standards has not been adequate, and some of our parts of the city that were developed under almost no standards as you get nearer to the center of the city and areas that were built in the uh the beginning of the 20th century, uh, those in particular may need uh to have uh that that that uh retrograde repair done or retroactive repair, excuse me.

Thank you.

Councilperson Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

And and Jonathan, you are earning your money tonight, young man.

I'm so glad you're here.

Thank you for helping us.

As I look at this development, um, don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm gonna be your mouth approximate.

I'm gonna be really close, so correct me here.

And that is part of the challenge is we've used the term cost share, but technically, this development is not in the in fill portion of the city that's eligible for cost share.

We've used that term, but we mean proportional cost to the development, is what I think we really mean.

So let me start with that as the first question.

That I think that's I do not mean this rude.

I think that's a matter of semantics.

I think as staff, we use the term cost share to refer to any time that public money is paired with private money.

I do recognize that our water and sewer department has a uh a fund that they've dedicated to a certain geographical area of the city that we consider a priority to try to support infill with water and sewer infrastructure.

Um I I think I've heard those use interchangeably, and I don't I don't mean to to to make it confusing and you're not confusing at all.

So great answer.

So when I look at, I'm not gonna switch from like a water and sewer to to roads.

I'm gonna make a statement and please correct me.

And my statement is part of the complexity of the project.

We want housing is when you look at describe the size of the project, and I interpret that to mean its potential to proportionally contribute fairly, not more than their fair share, but their fair share is not going to be sufficient to address something like the widening of Dot Tipton because they don't have the frontage to freely to the city as a condition dedicate that land.

And so to widen that road, we would have to acquire land from other landowners who may or may not be interested in that.

And there may be the need for money to be exchanged or acquiring right-of-way.

Is that an accurate understanding?

I think that is a portion of the concern.

I think the overall weighing of what public improvements may need may be necessary versus the size of the project, and that these cities in an effort to address those baseline needs of water and sewer access and to stick on the topic of dot tipton widening dot tipton to meet basic fire codes, it may be necessary to forego other improvements such as sidewalk facilities along Dot Tipton, uh, that could make this a more walkable area, or widening dot tipton to the point where it could have a left turn lane to avoid congestion issues or some of the concerns I think you heard the public mention about larger vehicles using the road uh adjacent to smaller private vehicles.

We had um some years ago um out in Dead Horse Mountain, for instance, a gentleman had proposed a subdivision, and he was going to put in a million dollars worth of infrastructure, but we were going to spend about eight to ten on a bridge that would be needed for the additional capacity, and so that was the kind of um uh a subdivision that would have added a couple hundred homes where a city could go broke, for instance, if we did enough of those on a you know a 10-to-one ratio of public money to private money for infrastructure.

And I don't have a ratio for this particular project, but if I'm looking to understand a portion of staff's recommendation for denial, I interpret that to be a financial recommendation and not not just a land use, not just housing and density.

Um, but I'm looking at it as investing capital perhaps further out from the city core that we would want to, or having to spend more city general monies than a project contributes to make that project viable.

And I'm I'm it's rare that staff do recommend denial, and I want to be extremely respectful of that and make sure that I'm I'm grasping that.

And so I'm projecting that a significant portion of that was financial caution.

Is that fair, or am I really just over-emphasizing that compared to issues?

I think that's fair in one side of the same coin, with the other side being if we don't have the finances to make these upgrades on the city's behalf, we may be creating an adverse impact for the residents who live there.

Yeah, okay.

Because we cannot build that street infrastructure to accommodate more traffic.

Okay.

I'm understanding.

Thank you.

I really appreciate you letting me ask you those.

Um Dr.

Jones.

Jonathan, that was part of my question.

There was um uh I think two references to technical concerns, and so I guess when the staff denied it, did you could did you I'm sure you did, but factoring in those those those concerns that the developer could address?

Did you take that into consideration?

I I'm not sure I understand the question.

If you could rephrase it, please.

Those issues that they could fix.

Did you was that part of your decision making process?

Yes, I think I understand you, and there were some concerns that I do feel like the the applicant addressed, one of which was staff was concerned that this the PCD, despite its intent to allow creativity and zoning, would result in something more uniform or monoculture as far as whether it's single family houses or otherwise, and the changes that the applicant made between the planning commission and the council, which is the the planning commission uh had also wanted to see address that to an extent.

Uh as far as other structural elements of the PCD that staff would uh would like to see it's some more diversity in the land uses.

Their concern is in the neighbors that they interacted with that there were assertions that they don't want to see those services in that area.

And so they I think to use Ms.

Beverridge's words, they were threading a needle between the staff's concerns and considerations and those that they were trying to address that they heard from community members.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilperson Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, um, could you kind of help me clarify um this process?

I know we're doing a rezoning, but you know, I think it's been pretty well known that there's been water issues out there, water flowing over Dot Tipton.

I don't think that's probably the first time you've heard that, and um leakage or spillage from some of these other um other developments.

So when I looked at the map that the developer provided, I see the detention pond to the south, not to the north, and I see some other ponds that appear to need to be filled in uh exacerbating uh these water issues and concerns.

During this review process or discussion process, do you guys go over that?

Do you review past history and and uh talk about where the detention pond might be built or or located?

Not typically.

Uh we there is acknowledgement of where there are existing issues, whether it's water through capacity, street capacity or stormwater concerns.

Uh we do not get into the level of a detailed drainage design uh during a zoning request like this.

Okay, thank you so much.

Councilperson Berna.

Jonathan, it's it's my understanding from previous discussions and previous tours and one in that area, that it's not the project that we're thinking about responsibility to control water in other areas.

It's their responsibility to control the water that runs off of their property.

Am I am I correct?

In its most base form, our drainage requirements require development to not change the pre-development flows from the post-development flows, meaning the existing conditions can't be exacerbated following the development of a piece of property.

But that is what our development, our drainage centers are predicated on.

And I think if I understand either a question within a question, is uh what is there, should there be an expectation that this development address all the existing issues that is not generally something that we can require where it does become possible is if a developer is willing to coordinate with the city, and that's another type of cost share proportionate share is when there's an existing drainage condition that the city can work with the development to address as a part of that project, whether that's upsizing a line, increasing the size of a pond or or grading a berm to redirect water, something along those lines.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah.

I I guess this project is really difficult.

I mean, anything like this is going to be very difficult, but uh I struggle.

Number one, I don't I don't look at this as sprawl uh with with all the development that's around it presently.

I just don't uh and I'm not a planner, uh, so I you know maybe my definition of sprawl is is completely incorrect, but um I I struggle with this because uh clearly over the years people have tried to develop this property and they they have uh consistently been denied, and then this developer has brought us forward a um a plan the neighbors have even acknowledged that at some point it's going to be developed.

Um it looks to me like we're we're in the rezoning stage, we're not in the actual development uh review stage.

It it sure looks to me like this is a good project uh with the understanding that considerable considerable review is done for the infrastructure and such.

I I just it it goes back to that as someone said threading the needle, but this is on a different subject.

You know, we're we're threading the needle on wanting housing, needing housing, but then we're we we have that needle that we're trying to protect the neighborhoods.

Uh so um I I this one's a this one's one of the tougher ones that we've tried to figure out, but I I tend to to lean toward it because I think that it is going to be developed uh at some point, and I think this is probably as good as we're gonna get uh for that area.

Councilperson Bunch.

Well right, thank you.

Um I kind of you know I've seen this, I've seen this land before.

I've been here long enough, I've seen it a couple of times actually.

Um and I agree with the council member Verna on this.

This is a tough one because this is going to be developed.

And we are, you know, eight years ago, I would have not even looked at this because it I would have considered it to be sprawled.

And I know what Dot Tipton Road is like.

I know what uh, you know, I know I know what the streets are like out there, I know they're narrow, but one of the things that we we face is that we can't, like Jonathan said, we can't always improve infrastructure to nothing.

We we can't we can't always do that.

Sometimes we have to have housetops that drive that infrastructure, and it always seems like it's behind the house tops that go in because it usually is because we just don't have enough an endless supply of money to build roads and stuff to you know to areas that we hope to develop in.

Um I hear the neighbors though, and I I know that I know about the the infrastructure being very narrow out there.

I'm very concerned about if sorry, Sarah.

Go ahead.

That's okay.

You know, it would be nice if everyone would turn their phones off because that's the second time a video is going off in the meeting here.

So um, or that was GPS or something, I don't know.

Maybe someone didn't know where they were at.

But um anyway, you know, the the the infrastructure I know is is lacking now, but it it that doesn't mean it's always going to be lacking.

The thing I was about to say before I was distracted was the thing that this concern to me is the response times are a little slow out there for fire.

And you know, with the street being very narrow, it makes it more difficult.

But you know, there are fire trucks that you know fire trucks get smaller, you know, things things change.

The you know, the the apparatus changes over time.

So it this is a tough one.

This is really tough because I do know we need housing, and you know, this is maybe not the perfect location, but I agree with the sentiment that this may be the best we can hope for.

And this is a rezoning request.

Is it correct, Jonathan?

That's correct.

And it's a PZD.

That's correct, which is probably which is our highest, which I can always consider to be the highest uh form of development.

So those are just my two things.

Okay.

Councilperson Stafford.

Um thank you, Mayor.

Um, and I I also tend to agree uh with uh council member a lot of uh council member burner's uh earlier comments, um, and and I think the neighbors hit on it too, that at some point uh this is gonna be developed uh whether we like it or not.

I I also agree that I just when you zoom out, I can't see this as sprawl anymore.

It's surrounded by development.

Um that said, um I appreciate that these infrastructure problems uh are being brought up.

Um but again, I think Councilmember Bunch put that very well that that sometimes you know we we need the housing to justify the infrastructure.

We can't uh go out and just spend money on uh infrastructure where we don't have the housing yet.

It's a it's a balancing act.

Um Jonathan, I do have a question.

Um there's been a lot of talk about the water issues out there.

When I look at the when I had the uh I'm on the GIS maps, and when I when I look at the elevations down there, it does seem that the property does slope to the south uh by about from about 1220 down to 1190 or 1180, depending on where you're at between 20 and 40 feet, depending on where you're at uh on on that southern end.

Is that correct that the property uh that the water would be shedding mostly southward?

That's correct.

Okay, and that's probably why that's where they're showing the that channel through the middle and the the pond where it's at and the the green space at the bottom, I would imagine.

Um I think council member Vernon brought it uh said it very well, and I I I don't think I could say it much better.

Uh I I tend to agree with uh most of what he said in the way he said it.

Um and this is very difficult.

Uh I thought it would be a lot easier.

I I do appreciate the developer in and adding that density.

My fear is if I don't allow this, then it's gonna be what I would consider sprawl, which is very not very dense where we just have where we're just gonna go all the way out to to Oklahoma and up to Missouri and east as far as we can with just this uh low density um but this is pretty much North Farmington, you know, when I look at this map, and so I can no longer knowing the projected growth we have in this region, uh I can't be looking at this as well any longer because it's it's just surrounded by by developments on all sides.

Um it's almost like an island.

So I'll leave it at that right now.

Okay.

Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I want to start off with the things I really like about this project.

Um, one, I think it's a very thoughtful design, and I think it did take into account a lot of our strategic priorities for the city.

You know, the open space of 18 acres, the native plants, the variety of housing types, and as council member Stafford just said, you know, some of the density that was added there.

Um for me, it's timing.

Um, I don't think that any of us, you know, we're not making this decision in a vacuum.

Um, and um we are gonna have necessities, which are gonna be some of our major infrastructure that we're gonna be spending bond money on in the future.

It's gonna be the needs to have and not the nice to have, in my opinion.

Um, and what I've learned a lot from our 2019 bond project is money never goes as far as you expect it will, and you don't get all the projects done and completed that you really you aspired to.

And so I'm faced with a cold harsh reality of um what our um incredible um uh water uh find and and sewer findings were for our infrastructure and that capacity to think about you know near term that we have like a hundred million dollars that needs to be invested, um, and then longer term thinking about you know some of those areas, and they're more in the core part of town.

Some of our more aged infrastructure is in the um the core parts of downtown where this project doesn't lie.

And so for me, it's really about timing that I I am concerned about putting additional density and kind of buying into the precedent of additional um housing that's gone out there so that um we set the message and the tone that yes, please build on our edges um on our east and our west um edges, and then we'll just leapfrog and accommodate you to what our um core strategic priorities are and what our residents are wanting us to do to really build this connectivity, this quality of life to get out of our automobiles because we do have finite monies, and so I like this project.

I just don't like this project at this current time in that location, and because I'm recognizing the challenges that we face ahead.

And so I I do you know, I I um apologize that you know this property keeps coming up, I wasn't here before, and so I hate to be tonight saying no, um, but to me it's not yet.

It's like, yes, it may develop in the future, but we have incredible priorities that need to be addressed.

We have you know, water lines that are breaking regularly in our city, we have to really think about that.

And so when I think about cost share, and we just talked about uh council member Whitaker, thank you for bringing that up.

That you know, we're talking about the reallocation potentially and prioritization of additional dollars that today we don't necessarily have going that way, and then I understand that maybe um possibly fire.

Um, we may be looking at um uh that is our next expansion that direction, but it's not currently here, and we do have budget constraints, and so if we needed to pull back, um it's gonna tip us that direction to have to make that decision and and go forward.

And so for those reasons tonight, I'm not supportive of the project to go right this moment, and and it's for those those reasons.

Councilperson Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and Councilmember Moore, I tend to agree with you on almost everything you just you just mentioned.

Uh for me, I'm not gonna be able to support this tonight because I mean the infill score is only three.

I mean, that's really, really low.

We rarely see something before us that has an infill score of three.

And I am very concerned about the narrowness of dot tipton.

Uh I think that is a massive safety problem and safety issue.

And I've had many, many residents over the years um call me about dot tipton and um their safety concerns and not being able to see around that corner and excess vegetation.

Uh so um I think that's a very, very important um component.

Also the response time that you mentioned from our fire department.

You know, we do have uh limited service.

We have uh, you know, we want to be there within four minutes, and this is considerably longer again down that narrow road, or at least portions of it uh to be able to respond to a fire.

Um I was also kind of concerned about the design.

I appreciate the green space and the thoughtfulness of that, but loading those townhomes right on Dopp Tipton where we have water issues already, and where those issues will be exacerbated by this, and yes, you can't solve the issues that are coming in from another property, but you already know you've got water coming in right there that you're gonna have to address, and those ponds that you're that I believe if I saw correctly would have to be filled in.

I think that that's a real challenge.

And finally, there is no bus service out there, so it's gonna be auto-oriented.

People are gonna have to use their cars.

That's a a lot more people uh that the streets can uh that have the capacity for.

So I will not be supporting this tonight.

Um I do think it as you mentioned, timing is a real issue on this, and uh, and right now I don't think the time is right.

Councilperson Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

One final question.

Does anyone on city staff have access to the five-year capital improvement plan?

Um the timing question brought that to mind, and I just thought does this road appear on the the projected five-year CIP.

Thank you.

Stephen, is that I don't want to put you on the spot because I know you weren't prepared to address it.

Do you happen to know?

I'd be happy to check into that for you, but I don't have the information here with me tonight.

We we could get it to you.

So okay, what would council like to do?

Do we have a motion?

Okay, well, then we're gonna move on to the next oh no.

We're gonna move on to the next item.

Thank you all for speaking tonight.

The next item um is actually we're gonna take a five-minute break.

But ma'am, uh I would like to make the motion to move to the is it too late?

Yeah, sorry.

Okay, we're gonna call back to order.

Mayor, may I uh bring back up the previous topic that we just discussed?

Because usually we'll say, okay, we're gonna table this for a week or two or excuse me, two weeks to the next council meeting, and we kind of left it hanging.

Right.

And and I was slow on the draw here.

So here I don't all I know is that everybody on the dice had two five-minute periods to which to speak.

Nobody made a motion to table, nobody made a motion to suspend the rules.

And so my concern, my understanding, and I want Kit to weigh in and correct me, is that with an ordinance, you simply leave it and it automatically rolls over to the next meeting, and it automatically is on the second meeting, and you don't have to take action.

So absolutely correct.

I mean, I I I hear you, but I feel like I gave adequate time to the topic, and so I don't I I'm confused as to what you're asking.

I just want to clarify for everybody though, because we didn't clarify that it will be on the next council meeting agenda under under old business, so that the people that are interested can um decide to attend or or not.

Yes, it'll be it will show up.

Um, so if an ordinance um doesn't get voted on, it will automatically roll, it will be on the next agenda, and so it um will be heard at the September 2nd meeting.

Yes, thank you for clarifying.

That is that is good to know.

And it will be published in that agenda packet.

Okay, moving on to item C5, a resolution to grant the appeal of council members Sarah Moore, Teresa Turk, and Mike Wheedaker and deny conditional use permit CUP 2025-25 for a type two short-term rental at 421 West Islas Street in Ward 2.

Um Councilperson Turk, Wiedaker, Moore, who who would like to Mayor I'd be happy to take the reins of my other council members are okay with that.

Um, this is these are properties in ward two, and so um we were approached by residents.

Um, I'd like to actually bring up uh Mr.

Kenyon if he wants to approach.

Um we were given a presentation um that's been put together by Mr.

Kenyon and the residents that we're gonna defer our comments to Mr.

Kenyon.

Thank you.

And so I've got your slides pulled up.

Okay, here's my uh dole mode.

I have a lot of information that I think is relevant.

It's going to be more than three minutes, but I'll give you what I want to discuss, and then we can move forward if you think that it's something that would be important.

I think customarily, if you can keep it to 10 minutes or less, that would be an appropriate presentation.

I timed it, it was 10 minutes or less.

Perfect.

Okay, well, I'm just gonna start and I guess off we go.

Um I want to first talk about the uh the way that we have to handle this is have uh city council members bring it forward for consideration.

And I want to thank councilman or councilperson Moore.

I know that you have a great deal of experience and the impact of SVRs on housing.

Um Mr.

Whittaker, I know you're in the historical society, so you probably understand a little about historical neighborhoods.

Ms.

Bunch, a long-term resident and realtor that no doubt knows the value of the character of neighborhoods enlisting and selling property, and council member Turk, who was on the historical commission, and we've had a lot of uh talks in the past about sustaining our heritage and the importance of uh protecting the nature of our history.

Uh tonight, what I want to talk about.

Well, first of all, let me we have a reservoir of knowledge here that I really trust.

Councilmember Stafford, you've been a long-term resident.

Mr.

Kenyon, can you pause for a second for us to under Could I ask a clarifying question real quick?

In your presentation, you've got the repeal of uh both uh on 421 and 462.

I need to ask about that.

So it's that was for both, basically.

Yes, they're they're uh next to each other, and they share a driveway, and in my request, I requested both of them be considered.

Both of them were considered in the planning commission meeting together.

So that's what what we have in front of us.

Yeah, I was surprised about that too.

So similar to how we have done things with staff when the items are are together, he's gonna present on them, and then we'll consider them separately.

But if you'll entertain that, that's what we are gonna try to do.

Okay, got it.

Thank you.

Mark, go ahead.

Thank you for that.

I also know that we have a reservoir of knowledge, and it'll be quick.

And I just I do trust the city council in reviewing this because of the reservoir of knowledge.

Uh council member Dr.

Jones.

You're a student of the Black Heritage and Black neighborhoods in the community, so you understand you're going to have an understanding of the character of neighborhoods.

Uh and council member Berner, you uh probably know more about the fabric and nature of individuals in our community, past and present, right?

And uh Minister Jones, I don't know you that well.

I know you're have a reputation of being smart and beautiful, so what else can I do look forward to knowing you better?

But the topics that we really need to investigate.

One is sustaining the character of this uh neighborhood that has deep heritage, and is constantly under pressure due to the expansion of the University of Arkansas and development along College Avenue, which I'm real pleased we now have a plan.

Um Street is the main and only east-west residential corridor in the center of the South Wilson Park neighborhood.

And I mentioned East and West Residential Corridor because it is a walkable corridor that is very uh well traveled on the 400 block because of the nature of the traffic uh pattern.

The rest of Isla Street is very walkable and very easy to navigate.

Um, let's see.

So I do want to talk about sustaining the character.

I want to talk about the safety, which includes the off-street parking associated with this, the impact of emergency service and the unique nature of traffic patterns and access, and the impact of the 250 plus or more non-compliant SVRs.

The data I have on non-compliant SVRs is research that's put together by an independent research that mines data from the internet through uh services such as Airbnb as well as other uh available uh activity where they can uh see what is being available.

I also have surprising data regarding safety on the number and the nature of reported complaints associated with SVRs.

And over half of the complaints are from SVR 2s.

And I've only included the Isla Street, Louise Street.

I can't remember Wilson Street is the other part of the quadrant and Park Street.

So it's very much the direct impact on Isla Street.

Now if I could have my PowerPoint, do I get to push something to make these go forward?

You can request you can just request, you can request, then he'll make the slide.

I need to go forward and backward because I've changed the nature of my presentation.

I understand we just don't have that.

Okay, I do want to talk about.

Well, let's go.

Okay, the first slide.

Okay.

I want to talk about protecting the character and nature of the neighborhood.

This is one of the items that should be considered according to our code.

This is one of them.

Uh, that should be considered when we're talking about uh repealing the CUP.

Uh go ahead to the next one.

The aesthetic, everyone probably knows it's historic neighborly friendly walkable, walkable family warranted.

Uh the convenience and the walkability near downtown, the greenway, the parks, the shops, the walking and the biking.

It's quiet, close enough to amenities, safe and engaging for kids and families.

And I made this list also out of research of what publications say about the neighborhood.

Uh, the demographic and culture nature, it's mixed for age residents, and this I think is important to understand generational family homes.

And I know we have Miss Jones here with us this evening that can talk specifically about that on her blog.

Uh it's primarily family students, it's known as to be in progressive and inclusive, and I think that's important.

It has a reputation for being creative, and they always mention the public spaces, which Wilson Park is always named as one of the most beautiful beautiful parks in America.

Not always but often.

And it has free lot Wi-Fi.

And it was noted in a couple of articles that it is near Wi-Fi, public art, outdoor play areas, family picnics, playful structures like the castle.

So reviewing this, you can see it is a tight neighborhood.

I know I've lived there 25 years, and I really would like to see our residential nature of our community be protected.

Go ahead to the next one.

Okay, this is just some things that people have said about our neighborhood in publications.

Uh, most of these are uh publications that specifically point out good neighborhoods, and um many are associated with real estate, so they might be a little biased, but I think they're true.

And again, it just talks about the community feel and the friendly faces.

Go ahead to the next one.

Uh family friendly streets, sense of community, and I like this.

It has a sense of creativity woven into daily life, and I think a lot of that is because it is a well-defined community neighborhood.

Next slide.

Uh in the report, they talked about the sororities uh being included in their report.

I think anyone that knows the neighborhood knows the sororities are quite separated.

There's a natural barrier between the sororities, which are on Maple Street and the neighborhood, Isla Street.

There is no entrance or exit from either of these sororities onto Isla Street.

Uh, there's no connectivity to Isla Street, and there is no historic records that show these sororities are in the Wilson Park neighborhood.

Okay, next.

It is a unique uh street.

It's it's different than a lot of streets.

It's very unique.

First of all, it's one of the older streets and established at the quiet family-oriented uh development about a hundred years ago.

And it has sustained its identity for a hundred years.

Mr.

Kenyon, you're at time, but I think perhaps Ms.

Moore.

Yeah, okay.

I was just gonna see Mr.

Kenyon, if you might want to move forward to sign 19 on grounds for appeal and go over the areas in particular, maybe for four minutes that the rest of council is.

I think let's move forward.

Four minutes.

Okay, so let's so how much four minutes is the rest of hold on, Mr.

Kenyon.

Just one moment.

Is the rest of the council okay with four minutes?

Yes.

Okay, if you could put please four minutes on the clock.

Well, I'm just gonna encourage you to do on the grounds for appeal just to make sure because I know we don't have unlimited time.

Thank you.

I need you got to help me out.

I'm okay.

I uh let's go on and I'll show up.

We'll stop it.

Which slide do you need to move forward?

Okay.

Uh back one.

Okay, this is the UDC sessions that I reviewed that I think directly impact the viability of this uh conditional use permit.

It's small, but there they are.

Go to the next one.

Uh I think the two most important uh in the uh and the example I want to use is 16411, it's the home protection standards, and it predicts it protects adjacent residential use for incompatible commercial or transient activity.

And I would interpret a V SVR as transient.

Uh also 16302, the next one, talks about uh conditional use criteria, and it requires the proposed use to be compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning.

I will point out in the report, they did show or say that this was not in line with our uh surrounding land uses that we've identified.

I think that's important.

Go ahead next.

Um 6302 does talk about the standards of the planning commission to evaluate ingress egress, safe access, parking and loading that doesn't distract disrupt the neighbors, utilities that's not important here, screening not important here, but neighborhood compatibility is discussed in a lot of the sections, and it must harmonize with adjacent properties, and then it says align with city planning goals, and in the report I'll mention again, they said that this doesn't align with current planning goals.

And let's go on.

But these are important, especially in looking at safety and emergency.

Go ahead.

Oh, wouldn't it go back?

There's an important word here.

Um the UDC talks about the character of the neighborhood, it's that they shall not create a nuisance or hazard to public health sector welfare.

And if you look at the use of this, the use, it will uh introduce safety risks more and more.

Uh part of this is the parking space conventions.

I'm very familiar with this property, and this property needs to have property needs to have a parking space for each bedroom.

There's six bedrooms.

I would like to see how these people are going to put six parkings off street.

That's what it says in the code, parking spaces on this property.

It's also to be defined, uh, and I think paved parking spaces, and I don't remember the dimensions, but one of the things that was discussed in the planning commission that I think was overlooked is the uh Mr.

Marsh said that there's room in the driveway for parking.

Our code specifically states that stacking cars in a driveway is not recommended, so that concerns me.

Go ahead.

Um, as far as section 16102 zoning regulations, conditional use shall be approved only if they're found to be compatible with the district and surrounding uses, and they will not adversely affect the public interest.

I think that this does uh impact the public interest.

Go ahead.

Home protection standards, no use shall be commercial, which creates no older vibration or other impacts that affect adjacent properties.

Mark, that's it, time.

Okay.

It would thank you.

Okay.

If anyone has questions about the UDC that clearly shows this is out of compliance, ask me.

Thank you, Mark.

Okay.

I'm going to turn it back over.

Um Councilperson Wheedaker, I believe you're a or Councilperson Moore, one of the co-sponsors of this would like to take it.

And anything to add before we ask for clarifying questions.

May I ask for clarification?

Does the applicant for the short-term rentals then have an opportunity to present?

Oh, that's a great question.

Yes, that is correct.

Okay.

Are you the applicant for the short-term rentals?

I'm okay.

Got it.

So we're um we're not yet to public comment, but oh, okay.

Yes.

That was public comment.

Oh, yeah, no, that uh, yes, that was a presentation from the person representing the appeal.

So we'll now if if the applicant for the short term rents is here, you may come and speak and we'll put their the okay.

Good to good evening, everybody.

My name is Michael Marsh.

I'm gonna have Jonathan pull up our PowerPoint here, but I do own the properties at 421 and 463 West Isla.

I'm here to speak on upholding the current approval per the planning commission back in July for these properties to be short-term rentals under the CUP.

So you can see here, these are the properties.

They do share a driveway.

It's a 14-foot wide driveway.

You can see the Pi Pi house to the right of the brick home.

Um it was never my intention to purchase two homes.

We purchased these homes from Bobbeck Brisk.

My wife and I have been looking in the area for years to get into Wolfson Park, and we saw these homes available.

Talked to Miss Risk and made a deal with her, and we have actually we acquired both houses.

A little bit about me and my family.

Um, I have three children, my wife and I, one, four, and seven.

I was born in Little Rock.

I came to school up here at the University of Arkansas.

I'm a nurse nest.

My wife was born down the street at Washington Regional.

She grew up in Altis, Ozark area.

She's a pharmacist.

Um my family and I, we spend a lot of time in Fayetteville.

We're really excited to have the homes.

We were actually up here this past weekend for the banana baseball game.

We uh stayed at the houses and had an excellent time, and honestly, I'm excited about doing the short-term rental, but also I want my kids to go to school here, and I see myself coming up here and I see them living here in the next 15 to 18 years.

So when they're in college.

We do my wife and I do have experience with Airbnbs.

We have a nice lake house in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Lake Hamilton.

As you can see, we maintain a 4.97 review of uh Airbnb classifies it as a five-star.

We've had 37 reviews now.

Um, we're also considered a super host as well as a guest favorite, meaning that we're in the top 10% of homes for Airbnb.

A quick rundown of the properties.

Uh the it is not six bedrooms total, it's five.

421 has two bedrooms and one bath.

463 has three bedrooms and really two and a half, three baths.

We worked with Fayart landscaping here in uh Fayetteville, and we put a lot of money and time into the exterior of the home and the landscaping, as you can see, some before and after pictures there.

Go to the next one.

And of course, we do want to honor the historic value that the home represents in the area.

So we did renovate the entire home of 421, but also what we did was found records for 421, and we have one of the oldest pictures that we found of the home dating back into the 50s.

So when you walk into the house, that's the first thing you see.

So it is very important that we honor that.

This is on the historic list.

It is a non-contributing home, but we still wanted to honor the historic value that it brings.

And then we have 463.

That home was built.

It's a little newer.

It was built in 07.

We have redone a kitchen as you can see, and that's really important to us.

We're not putting ping pong tables in here, booze ball tables, dartboards.

This is not gonna be a place for parties or events.

This is honestly for families to come up and hang out with their kids for we just had bid day.

We have mom dad day uh graduation, and then it's for my family as well.

I have three kids, like I said.

I brought my dad with me today since my uh little kids, they had their first week of school, but my dad and mom don't want to stay with us, so when they come up, they'll stay in the White House.

Um they don't want little Sawyer or Macy terrorized them at 5 a.m.

We can go to the next one.

So when we talk about ideal fit for the neighborhood, we are surrounded by sorority homes, and you can see the blue dots there.

Those are the homes of 421 and 463, and so to the west of that is the Pi Fi Sorority House, which we share a fence.

That is the barrier.

Um that Mr.

Kenyon was talking about, it's uh it's a fence, and then to the south of us is the Kappa Delta home.

And then if you're looking at our homes to the left, there's a White House that you can see that bottom left picture that's actually been rented out by the Lambda Kai F attorney members for the last several years.

So we really do want to bring, we want to bring us as a family, uh the Marsh family to come stay, but also we can't always be up here.

Um kids' activities, sicknesses.

We we're busy, super busy.

So we would love the opportunity to have the revenue for short-term short-term rentals, and it really makes us excited about it.

We've invested a lot of money and time into these properties as well.

Um, you can see across the street what the houses look like there, and what our homes look like.

We just want to maintain a really good modern look and make sure we're doing everything as safe as possible, and um really do a great job with these houses to make sure they fit an aesthetically pleasing uh front.

So we did tour tear down a two-car garage in the back of 421, and that was just because the uh that detached garage was dilapidated.

It wasn't even uh you couldn't really get a modern car into it.

I mean, this was built, there's there's ridings in the concrete from the 1950s, and that's when this shed was built.

So we tore that down to make extra extra space.

And I do want to mention here that when guests arrive on our property, they will have the adequate and clear communication from me to make sure they know where to park and how to park.

You go to the next.

So yes, ma'am.

Oh, and Mr.

Marshall, I was gonna let you know, since our timer isn't um functioning right now that I am timing, and you'd like the other applicant have the 10 minutes, and you're at um a little over halfway through.

So I'm just letting you know.

Thank you, Mary.

Yeah, so I will give you a signal when you've got 30 seconds left.

Okay, I appreciate that.

So you can see here how we have the parking spots labeled.

Um, number five is actually, I know Mr.

Kenya mentioned nine feet, but actually, you look at standard widths of parking spots, it's eight by eighteen.

Number five is actually 14 feet wide by 18.

Number four is nine and a half feet by 18, three is also over nine feet by 18, and parking spot two is 16 by 16.

Um, and then we also have the full-size garage there.

So essentially we have five spots on on site for people to park.

And when we talk about more parking considerations, you can actually see there's been mentioned that there may be a blind spot exiting or entering the homes, which is typical of the entire block.

If you look at the driveways of the other houses, there's actually parking spots up and up within a feet, a couple feet of the driveways.

But we this is the only section of the entire block where there's a seven feet by 25 feet area that labels it no parking, so there's no issues backing in, entering the driveway, exiting the driveway.

And as far as safety concerns, we did reach out to uh the assistant fire chief um Rusty uh holes, and he's he went and looked at the property and actually said, as long as people are in their spots, we have no issue with no trouble accessing these properties with emergency vehicles.

And I wanted to mention just really quickly, if you do pull up Airbnb or VRBO, there's these two homes that are near us, and they are similar.

Um, you can see there's a two-bedroom, one-bathroom house that's I don't know, maybe a mile and a half from where we're at, and they actually don't have an on-site park parking spot.

This is actually just for street parking, they just have one, and that's in their description.

And if you look at um the other similar property, this is three bedrooms similar to our house at 463, and in their description, they have one one parking spot that they allow, so we can go to the next one.

Obviously, this is a home that my family and I will enjoy as where as well as my parents.

Um, we don't want parties here.

We're gonna have an age limit of 25 and up, can rent the houses as well as a minimum night stay of three three nights.

So I'm open to any questions, and I appreciate you guys.

I do have one more slide because this was last year.

Uh we we stayed at one of the houses.

My girls got to meet the cheerleaders, and that just made their day.

So thank you guys.

Thank you.

Okay, um, Councilperson Stafford.

Just have a question for the uh the original applicant here.

Um you know, I was looking at the parking places when you were showing the parking place.

Yeah, we uh it looked like for 463.

If someone's parked in unit two, yeah, we can go back to the out if someone's in parking space basically.

That is that is correct.

So we do list this, we'll list this as we have two spots per home.

But typically, I don't know if you guys have done done any kind of short-term rental or Airbnb.

Typically, if somebody's hanging out for a weekend, they're probably gonna stash a car for the weekend or leave a car.

So that is an area actually that you can pull in a car and leave it for the weekend if you want to ride with others.

And then if someone's in the area, are you allowing people to park in the garage?

Yes.

If someone's in the garage or someone's parking number three, can that person reasonably get out of the garage?

If someone is in the garage, they so that's an 18-foot spot.

Typical cars are 15 feet wide, so you would be able to back out, but also these are going to be every the guests are gonna be in the home.

So if there is any kind of parking issue, I I understand that.

Um if there were only one of these that could be uh a short-term rental.

Which one would you prefer?

I would prefer both or I understand you prefer both, but if there was only one, which would you prefer?

Oh, I actually would just prefer both.

I think that's the way it needs both or none, or yes, sir.

Okay.

Okay.

Do we have other questions for um either the applicant or um Mr.

Kenyon or one of go ahead?

Uh Councilperson Burnout.

So uh my question is for Jonathan.

Um the applicant applied legally for a conditional use permit.

He was on the waiting list, came to the top of the uh listing for consideration for both properties, and was approved for both properties through the uh planning commission as well as staff.

Correct.

Uh I I have a presentation, but I think at this point the council has heard the crux of of all the topics on this.

Uh staff does recommend uh in favor of this request.

The planning commission uh approved these conditional use permits for both properties by votes of six to two.

So what the council's considering is an appeal of that approval.

Uh the applicant did submit their requests uh for a conditional use permit business license, and we're put on the city's wait list.

We don't have any documented violations uh of that of undocumented stays or documented stays, excuse me.

Uh, and then they waited until they're at the front of the wait list to go to the planning commission as a part of our process.

Okay, and I apologize.

We got so much information I did not realize that you didn't do it, didn't do a presentation at the front end.

So thank you.

Jonathan, uh would you like is there more that would you like to take this time to add more or you don't have to, but I'd if if we overlooked you, I apologize.

I I don't think so.

I think the one thing that I'd merited being uh noted is that there were no documented violations.

There are five main findings that uh are codified outside of the normal conditional use permit process for short-term rentals.

One is if it's within a thousand feet of a public school.

This is not Washington elementary, is beyond 1,000 feet.

There are no documented violations of the property.

Uh, when we evaluated the number, what one of the findings is um more broad, it's it's are there too many?

Is there a concentration of them in the area?

Uh, when staff looked at this, we counted 14 operating within this area.

If you take that as a proportion of the units in this area, because this is a denser part of Fayetteville, that would not rise to the two percent cap that we used to have, which is not a codified standard anymore, but it is a metric that staff considers is a part of this.

Uh and then finally, there the last two findings are whether there's adequate on-street parking and off-street parking.

And we feel that that was demonstrated by the applicant.

Uh it was a question internally, as we re-familiarized ourselves with the Wilson Park parking district since they all have their own uh unique eccentricities.

Um, each of these units would be allow two permits for permanent residents in this uh of these units, so those would not be eligible for the short-term rental uh users, uh, but they would have a guest permit per property that uh could be used for those on-street parking uh spaces in the Wilson Park district.

Okay, um council person.

Thank you.

Um Jonathan, just uh now this is not related to the short-term rental, but is there another it is has there been approval for another sorority building to be built at the corner of Maple and which Greg?

Is it Greg or the university has acquired property between the Razorback Greenway Wilson and Maple to the South?

We do not have oversight over university property, so we will not be issuing approvals.

We have had an opportunity to interact with the university about street interactions, but we don't have any approval authority.

Okay, so short answer is yes.

So not like the other sorority houses where they had to come through.

Yes, in that sense, it is different.

Okay, okay.

Just want to check on that.

Um this is a really unique area over here, and we've had um, you know, I I think the applicant has done a great deal of of put in a great deal of effort on the house to try to make it be a good fit, and you know, everything they show, and they already are have a short-term rental like Hamilton and so on.

But this is a really unique area, and it's had an issue with traffic for years, and primarily driven by visitors, not just people living there, but it's a problem from people visiting and and you know the sorority houses are are not um just houses where where girls live anymore.

They're they're more uh event venues now than they used to be.

So that's a that that kind of makes me look at this a little bit differently.

Um, but I do appreciate all the effort that the applicant has gone to on this, and they've they've done they waited their turn and they you know did everything by the book, but I am considering this parking in this area, and I'd like to hear some more from the other council members what they think about it.

Councilperson Target.

Thank you.

Jonathan had answered many of my questions, and then council member bunch um made me think of a few more.

Um so with the new sorority that's coming in.

Um, how is the parking issue going to be addressed there?

Do we have any uh control?

Has there been any kind of clarification about uh existing issues that have been in the Isla area and the Wilson area and and uh because uh you know, we've three or four or five years ago we went through this whole thing about how to address some of these parking issues with the different sorority house.

We we do not have oversight over how much parking they do or don't put on the proposed sorority house property um that does not give them leeway to use the Wilson Park district as they see fit, similar to the Pi Fi house, and I'm sorry, forgetting the other one now.

If they park on Wilson and they don't have to pass, they will be ticketed.

Does that answer your question, at least in part?

It it does.

Um, and have we actively ticketed?

I mean, I'm guessing right about now we're probably issuing a whole lot of tickets to uh since the school semester just started, and and what kind of burden has that been on our enforcement uh parking enforcement group?

We did hear from our police chief this morning that there has been some active ticketing happening around campus.

I'm not certain if any of this has been concentrated in this particular area.

It is an annual learning experience.

I think you hear that from our police, you hear that from our fire department, you hear that from recycling and trash groups that every year we have several thousand new residents who are not familiar with our one-way streets or when we put our recycling containers out, things of that nature.

Um so I can't speak to if the burden will be ongoing or not.

Usually there is a retraining period at the beginning of the school year that uh seems to plateau, uh, but I don't have numbers to back that up at this moment.

Okay, and I have one one last question, just is it related to the number of parking spaces required?

So I think the applicant said there were five bedrooms, and is uh remind me is there one parking space per bedroom?

Is that the requirement?

I know that's the combination of the two houses.

For a single family house, it's two per unit.

Uh it's only when you reach multifamily or townhouses that we start requiring parking spaces as at one per bed.

We don't have a separate short-term rental parking requirements.

It's an evaluation on a permit by permit basis about whether it's act adequate or not.

And trying to remember back in the depths of time as we've discussed this, and please, I know many of you all are part of those conversations.

I think the reason it was not assigned that way is because these short-term rentals operate in so many different contexts within the city, many of which have an abundance of on-street parking or uh or have a 200-foot-long driveway that can accommodate many vehicles and some are in tighter situations with with less parking.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Okay, if we have no more clarifying questions, we're gonna open it up to public comment.

Do we have any members of the uh public that would like to comment?

If so, please approach, state your name and address, and please be mindful of the three-minute time limit.

My name is Melinda Jones.

I live at 408 West Isla across the street from the proposed uh type two usage.

Um I've met Mr.

Marsh, he's quite the lovely fellow.

Oh, I have nothing against him personally.

However, we do live in a neighborhood that has historic character.

I see that he is trying to address that.

I live for 40 years now in an 80-year-old house in a hundred-year-old neighborhood.

Uh I understand that the zoning goes with the house, should he sell it.

Uh, decide.

Well, maybe he doesn't want to be here, or maybe he needs the money or whatever he decides.

So that creates a new problem down the road.

And I know y'all have to look at something at down the road for it to be a legitimate concern.

And I'm concerned about down the road.

I'm also concerned about the fact that the street really is not all that same.

It is now a one-way street uh when the kids are there, they can park part, they get there's paid parking on part of the street.

There's uh tagged parking like I have, and then I also have a driveway, which I happen to be running out because parking is so needed.

Um I am afraid of what might occur in the long term on my side of the street.

There are six owner occupied houses on the other side of the street.

There are three houses, and none of them are going to be underoccupied.

If you look at a percentage of how many houses are getting the type two zoning for Airbnbs in Wilson Park, you will see a lot.

If you look on my street, it's going to be 20%.

And for that reason, I object to the usage of them being both Airbnb type twos.

Uh that's really all I have to say about it.

Mark had a great presentation, and he's much more up on it than I am because he's done loads of research.

But for me, uh it's quite obvious about how long we are always trying to protect this neighborhood from the encroachment of the university, it never stops.

It has been a problem for four years, and I only live there four years.

So I just want to tell you I'm not in favor of it.

And for all the reasons that he is, uh, it will be an event center.

And he's been, they don't have a when they say there's been no complaints.

Well, they've not opened it up to uh anybody staying there but them.

So, and they're nice.

I'm not very lovely people.

So there wouldn't have been any complaints concerning this property because it hasn't happened yet.

But it will be an event center, like everything right around me has been since I moved in.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Kurth, I'm wondering if you could clarify for for me and for others.

Um, I think the the comment that our last speaker brought up about in the future and about zoning continuing with the house.

And since this is not a zoning change, but a CUP, or if whether or not that stays with the existing owner, or if it indees continue into continues into perpetuity.

Thank you for the question.

The I think what the uh property owner may have meant is a conditional use permit isn't is in a sense an element of zoning.

It's like a more scrutinized zoning request.

Uh and in that regard, conditional use use permits do go with the property, not necessarily the owner.

What we do require, however, is that new property owners would have to go to the business license for the property and go through that safety check, the HMR check, making sure they're on the landlord register, but the CUP, the conditional use permit does stay with the property unless they cease using it at uh at which point if it goes dormant for a year, um, it it expires out and goes void.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you for explaining that.

I know that gets that gets confusing, and so I appreciate knowing that.

Do we have any more public comment in the room?

Gracie, do we have any public comment on Zoom?

No.

Okay, I'll bring it back to the council.

Council person more.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you both to the the applicant of the properties for your presentation and for your care for our city.

I mean, you show that with those properties.

Um, for me, this comes down to I had no idea when I came on council hall, often we'd be talking about short-term rentals.

I feel like I spent the first two years, that's how we did an ordinance review.

Um, and one of the things that we spent a lot of time on that we haven't fully codified was we do look at the quarter mile density.

And we know that that's been a challenge because they have certain areas of town that are more saturated.

Um, in this particular area is um I live in this particular area.

It's an area I frequent a lot.

And I talk to the residents in the area.

And I get comments often from residents who say it's really changed the character of our neighborhood.

We used to have neighbors, we used to have eyes on the street.

I used to know folks that were here.

And so for me, my concern is I the saturation point has really um tipped.

We talked a lot in ordinance review about uh looking at um neighborhood blocks and looking the at the density in that way.

Um other communities have seen that once um as she spoke to um her particular area being at 20 percent that once it goes over that 10 percent, you know, that it has um a detrimental impact to the the community members that live there long term.

Um so for those reasons tonight, you know, we know yes, it's challenging with parking um and with navigating.

I'm in the traffic in the area.

I run through this area often, um so it's very hard to navigate with with traffic going the wrong way in certain areas.

Um, but really it has to do more with the compatibility and the density and saturation that to me the the both properties are not really compatible to be type two.

Um the other thing too um that was asked the question about the CEP staying with the property.

You know, these aren't folks that do live here, they they have some ties to the area, but it is an investment for them, and we know um it's really hard and to be attainable to get into the Wilson Park area at some of our higher uh property values.

When you add a CEP to it, we know it adds 30% market value, usually or higher.

Um, and so it makes these very unachievable for the everyday uh resident to access them in the future.

Um so I hope tonight we'll say no to both of these because we really um need to start to um kind of walk back on the saturation that's happened in this community so that we can protect what's been very important in that particular area over time.

Um councilperson Bunch.

Thank you.

Um looking at at Mr.

Kenyon's presentation when he talks about this neighborhood, you know, it's near downtown, it's convenient, it's walkable, it's right off of Dixon Street, it's close to the university shopping.

It's all the things that that I can see why the planning commission voted, you know, would have wanted to give a uh a CUP in this area because it's a great area to have a short-term rental in for those reasons.

But some of the things I I know about short-term rentals, especially when you are close to downtown, is you are the people that come here to go to ball games.

A lot of people are just visiting family and they have they have get togethers, and you know, they might have it.

It's not technically a party, but it's people coming over to visit family members gathering for lunch or whatever.

It's not really what you would categorize as a party, but but it's people gathering.

And I don't think I think this might be a little bit different than the hot springs area because people come to these ball games to throw down sometimes.

I mean, they do, they do, and and I don't think that if you know I've seen this in other areas where we have people that have short-term rentals and they're after the even if it is a three-day minimum.

When people leave, they leave the trash cans end up in the street, and people complain about that, or there may be there may still be parking on the street.

There may be people having loud, they're just enjoying themselves and they're loud, and it's a little bit different when you're close to this uh entertainment district, which is you know where all the bars and restaurants are.

So on one hand, it makes it really great for a short-term rental, but on the other hand, I can kind of see how it might be a little bit um different.

And if you don't live here, I'm assuming you have someone that manages the property for you, but sometimes my response with management companies has just not been very good.

Um, when I've complained for neighbors or helped them with complaints, they have not been addressed as as well as they should be.

And you may not know that as a as a short-term rent uh short-term uh landlord here.

So I I'm not I'm not sure on this yet.

Um, but I'm kind of kind of leaning toward not supporting it just because of what I know of the area.

I know of the parking problems, and with that new sorority coming in, we we don't really have a whole lot of say on what the university does.

So those are kind of my thoughts.

Thank you.

Councilperson Berna.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I'm not sure that I've uh heard Roseback Football Weekend described quite like a throwdown.

So I hope I hope the throwdowns that we have this year result in victories because it sure would help our tax receipts.

Kenyon greatly but I I struggle with this uh voting against or voting for the appeal uh strictly because uh as the applicant pointed out we have two within close fairly close proximity mile mile and a half I think is what what uh what you said uh that we have approved and I I have no preconceived idea that this council approved it but they they were approved with uh on street parking uh we have this applicant that is providing uh five parking spaces of which our bar marshal has said uh are very much adequate for the properties and would present no uh parking concerns for them I think when we have parking concerns uh it is about overflow into the neighborhood and also safety uh personnel being able to gain access to the properties so if we have our our fire marshal saying that um the the parking is more than adequate and does not present a safety concern then I I struggle with using that as uh as a uh uh a point to try to accept his appeal uh secondly is we uh we all know we have violators of the uh of our short-term rental rules uh throughout our city and uh it it seems counterintuitive to be uh looking at someone that has used followed the procedures as we have them in place uh been on the waiting list uh for his business license has not been operating illegally and then we're gonna you know essentially say hey you followed all the rules uh but we're not gonna approve you because of X even though it you know they're taking great uh great time and effort and money to fix those properties up so I know this I know we have a general distaste for short-term rentals uh but the rule is in the rules are in place they are allowed in our city and this applicant has to me gone above and beyond to make sure that their properties are uh a great representation of our city and they seem to be following every rule that we have put in place for them so I struggled to uh denying their opportunity to operate so for that reason I I can't support uh Mr.

Kenyon's appeal um councilperson Stafford and then Dr.

Jones okay um thank you mayor um it you know I in general I I agree with a lot of what's Scott said second time tonight um but it there were some things here that that I did have issue with uh you know when we talk about the density of these things in the saturation uh and I understand it's below the the metric but that's only because we have high density in that area and so when we have 14 of these units within a quarter mile that just seems like a lot to me uh another thing uh that stuck out to me when we were looking at the parking I mean technically and this is with mostly with 963 I didn't really get a good view of how 421 would uh it looked like they had space to get in and out but I don't know if they have space to turn around and go down the driveway forward but whether or not 463 look like you know yeah these all you have three parking spaces the people will be there so if you have to shuffle cars I I'm the type of person if if my neighbor starts if I hear a lot of car doors and and and cars going in and out I'm at my window going what the heck are they doing and it it's just nerve wracking drives me crazy.

I don't think that 463 has adequate off site parking because I think well I guess if you parked in number one and number three it would have two spots I don't see that that or I mean number one and number two it would have two spots you could get in and out with without shuffling I don't see that number three spot as being really a viable spot in in my view um but I I this is a tough one it it is council member bunch brought up it's in an area where you say well this is a good area for short term rentals people don't have to drive they can walk to the game they can walk to the entertainment district uh uh but also again the the the saturation of this neighborhood and and you know it you know I know it was brought up that the house next door is rented by members of the sorority it's like well right now it is but that that's not a that's not a forever thing necessarily um but yeah I I

It it is Councilmember Bunch brought up, it's in an area where you say, well, this is a good area for short-term rentals.

People don't have to drive, they can walk to the game, they can walk to the entertainment district.

Uh uh, but also again, the the the saturation of this neighborhood.

And and you know, it you know, I know it was brought up that the house next door is rented by members of the sorority.

It's like, well, right now it is, but that that's not a that's not a forever thing necessarily.

Um but yeah, I I don't know why I'm on this at the moment, but I I I think the other thing is having two of these next to each other.

I don't know how what the planning commission's thinking was on that, but you know, we're just saying this is a commercial section now, it's not a residential section, it's a the commercial money making section of this neighborhood or of this block, having two of these directly uh joined together.

Uh it kind of befuddles me.

And that's why I asked the question about which of these would you prefer.

Uh um, but yeah, uh don't know how I'm gonna vote yet, but uh those are my concerns.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes, um Mr.

Morris, how long have you how long have you owned this property?

We purchased those in August of 2024 and immediately got on the wait list for the business license, and we were told it was gonna take years.

So we were willing to wait it out.

Okay, and how long did it actually be?

I believe in April is when we got a call saying that you guys are up for the business license and you can go ahead and apply, and then we started.

I mean, it's a whole list of things, and we've learned so much from it, but then we started the whole list of the checkouts to make sure we could come well, not here, but to the planning commission and pass that.

And um, so okay.

Thank you.

Oh, you're welcome.

And uh from what you've told us, there haven't really been any complaints.

No, we've not received any complaints or indications that they were operating illegally illegally before getting a permit.

Okay.

Um I'm inclined to and and thank you, uh Councilmember Berna, because you said everything that I was thinking.

I mean, everything, and I mean if almost every word.

So including the comment about the football.

It only happens at LSU.

But um I mean, I just can't, I mean, and I have tons of respect for um Mr.

Kenyon because he used to sit right beside me.

But I I I don't see I just don't see how it would I can't in good faith uh support the appeal.

Um I apologize, I don't I usually watch USC first, and I don't know who I saw first.

Um, but I'm gonna go with Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh it's as lovely an applicant as we have had for short-term rentals.

I commend him for just being, you know, remarkably likable.

The challenge for me, and I can understand how the planning commission saw this, so no slight of them.

I look at it as both 14 within that half a mile diameter, quarter mile radius as being an issue for me.

And two bedrooms allows six unrelated adults, three bedrooms allows eight.

So I've got 14 potential people that can legally be guests in these two homes.

And the two in that proximity on that street, that's a that's a problematic street to drive down, to be perfectly honest with you.

So I understand they have off-street parking.

I'm understanding they don't need these spaces on the street to be legal.

I commend them for their patience and not violating anything.

My gosh, how rarely have we heard that that someone was waiting and did not begin to rent out prematurely.

So this is challenging for me.

I appreciated Councilman Stafford saying, you know, which one would you prefer?

Because um it's kind of that King Solomon move of saying, you know, um, you know, one day in Las Vegas isn't enough, two days is too much.

You know, it's it's that notion on okay, one works, two is problematic.

So I'm really struggling with this one as well.

Thank you.

Council Person Terra.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I think context is everything.

And that area um is so historic in nature as we've talked about.

It's a national uh register, I mean National Historic District, and um we've had so many challenges there, and I've read some of the data that you've read, Councilmember Moore about how the saturation over 10 percent, over 12 percent, really changes the neighborhood, and this is a very high percentage.

I've seen it down the street from where I live on Oliver, where there's way too many short-term rentals that is totally devastated that streets neighborhood community, and I'm I'm sensing that that is very similar here.

So because of the density issue, I will not be able to uh to uh uh uh I will I guess it always gets I always get mixed up here, but I will support um Mark Kenyon's uh request.

Um councilperson or Minister Jones.

I'm I'm sorry, when Minister Jones, go ahead and then Councilperson.

I just I just had a question um following um councilwoman are historic districts exempt from short term short-term rentals.

Is that something that we have in our regulations?

It is not no.

Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'd like to make a motion to grant the appeal for 421 West Isla Street.

Okay, we have a motion, second.

We have a motion and a second to grant the appeal.

Um for 421.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I'm sorry, Councilperson Burno.

One second, I we always do this.

Can I get clarification on what a yes or a no vote means?

Uh to pass a resolution to grant the appeal, it means you're gonna deny the conditional use permit that was in fact granted by the planning commission.

So a vote yes is to deny the uh uh conditional use request.

So to put it more plainly, is it is it accurate that voting yes means that they do not get to continue operating the short-term rental?

It means they cannot operate the short-term rent.

Got it.

And to vote no means that they can.

Yes.

Okay.

But we're only voting.

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Does everybody got that?

Thank you all for allowing us that procedural detour.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

No.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

No.

Mr.

Stafford.

Clarification.

Uh we're voting on just 421.

That's correct.

Okay.

Uh no.

Dr.

Jones.

No.

Okay, the resolution failed, so the planning commission's uh conditional use permit uh remains valid.

Okay.

And I'm declining the I'm I would not like to vote.

So I've I have the opportunity to vote, is my understanding.

I just wanted for the clarity.

I'm sorry, you're correct, Mayor.

Uh you do have the opportunity to vote yes if you care.

Got it.

And I um will be declining to vote, which means that the conditional use permit granted by the planning commission for 421 will remain in place.

Is that correct?

If if you do not two different things.

Okay.

If you vote yes, then the appeal is granted.

And if you vote if you do not vote, then the appeal, uh the resolution fails, and the appeal fails, and the planning commission's decision to grant the conditional use is in still in effect.

Right, and I I that is what I was attempting to convey, and I apologize.

I understand, so I'm declining to vote.

Okay, so uh again the uh conditional use uh resolution fails the appeal the appeal fails, an appeal fails, and the planning commission decision is upheld.

Correct, yes, thank you.

Okay, yeah, okay.

Now we're moving on to item C6, a resolution to grant the appeal of councilmember Sarah Bunch, Sarah Moore, Teresa Turk, and Mike Wedaker to deny conditional use permit C UP 2025-26 for a type two short-term rental at 463 West Islas Street in Ward 2.

Councilperson Moore.

Mayor, um, given that we've already had a presentation can we suspend the roles and go to public comment directly?

I would certainly welcome that.

Do we but may we need a do we need to say unanimous consent?

You don't have to vote.

Okay.

Um, so do we have any public comment on item C6, which is the appeal just next door at 463?

Okay.

Gracie, do we have anyone who's called in on Zoom?

No.

Okay.

So I'm gonna bring it back to the council.

Councilperson Moore.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to grant uh the appeal for uh 463 West Isla Street.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to grant the appeal.

And just to to if you want to pass the appeal and deny the permit, you vote yes.

If you would like to not grant the appeal and leave the C UP as it stands, you vote no.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

No.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

No.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

No.

So this time there were five affirmative votes for the resolution.

Therefore, the appeal is granted and the conditional use that was presented and approved by the Planning Commission.

Uh has been uh up and has been reversed.

And so this will not be able to be uh of short-term rental.

Okay.

I will I would like to right.

I would like to follow up with with your office for clarification after that to learn a little bit more because this is a new one for me.

So thank you so much.

Thank you all.

Um okay, and thank you to the applicant and um to the people that in in the neighborhood also that came and spoke.

We are moving on to our next item.

Um item C7, a resolution to request the prompt updating of the trash and recycling master plan of 2017 to analyze the advisability of transitioning to single stream recycling.

Councilperson Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, uh we've already taken a vote on a couple of these measures uh the last two weeks, but uh many of my questions have not been answered, and I think much of that is because this has sort of been rushed, and we didn't have an opportunity to really dig into some of those numbers.

But when we go through a um when we go through a master plan, all of that is sorted out and explained, and the the public is asked to comment.

And uh, and there is definitely a lot of different considerations that are included in a master plan.

And so I wanted to bring that forward tonight and ask that uh we slow down this, that we actually do our regular process, which is a master plan, and um and and delay any purchase of the trucks until more information is is uh available, and also that the council has had a had a chance to tour uh the cards um you know material recycling facility in Springdale.

Um so there are many outstanding questions, and so that's why I'm bringing it forward um tonight, and I'm available for any questions you might have.

Great.

Uh Minister Jones, do you have a questions for Councilperson Turp?

Oh, nope.

Uh Councilperson Moore, do you have questions for uh but I have a question for staff?

Um, would this be an appropriate time for staff on this potentially?

I or I'll put the question out there and you can tell me if it can be answered, maybe.

Yeah, I would invite um I'm just gonna go ahead and and and skip a few steps and assume that several of you will have questions for staff.

So I would like to invite Peter Nearing Garden Environmental Director to go ahead and come up.

And yes, please go ahead and feel free to thank you, Mayor.

I didn't want to just put them on the spot.

Yeah, um, one of the uh things that this is look is asking to do is update the master plan.

Um, and so can you um walk us through uh the last time it was updated and kind of what its recommendations were and then kind of walk us to kind of like where we're at in the quickest synopsis possible, I guess, because it's been over the course I think of 10 years or so.

Sure, be happy to do that.

And if you would uh allow me to um to just share my screen real quick, I can um throw up a slide that kind of um outlines kind of the high points of the existing um master plan and uh go up on the screen.

Um that's good enough, I guess.

Um yeah, so we currently we have a um the the 2017 solid waste reduction, diversion, and recycling uh master plan is what we're currently operating under.

That master plan was adopted in 2017, it's a 10-year master plan.

I would point out that the name of it is not just recycling master plan, but it's more broad solid waste reduction, diversion, and recycling to try to encompass the um the uh reduce, reuse, recycle philosophy of sort of all-encompassing waste reduction.

Um the scope of that plan included uh food waste composting, um, commercial multifamily recycling.

We also did a um uh cart-based recycling pilot project as part of that master plan.

That was a thousand households in Southeast Fayetteville that participated in a three-month pilot.

Um, that was the the results of that pilot, measured an 8% contamination rate through cart-based recycling.

Um, the timeline of that plan, it took a little bit over three years to complete.

Um, there was a resolution of intent passed in December of 2013.

The final plan was adopted in um, I believe it was February of 2017, and it cost a little bit over $304,000 with a couple of amendments uh through the master plan process.

So hopefully that answers your question.

Okay.

My my follow-up question to that was at that time.

Am I understanding correctly?

And I don't know if you have a slide on this, but did that at that time you did the cart-based pilot?

And so that master plan am I deducting then it recommended this.

Can you tell me why we didn't move forward at that time, or were there particular barriers?

Because it seems like based on the pilot, and I wasn't on council and can't quite remember what the discussions were, but there must have been some barriers why we didn't implement, and so it seems like we're just in a delayed implementation.

That's that's correct.

Um, the master plan did include a recommendation of moving forward with uh cart-based recycling, um, but that uh recommendation was ultimately uh removed by the administration at the time because we did not have a facility in the area that could do the processing of the mixed recyclables, uh, but now we do have um at least one viable facility in our area, and we have interest from other vendors in terms of um processing our mixed recyclables.

Okay, uh Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Uh Peter, there's been in going back to what council member Moore, her question, um what do you think the I guess the delay what do you think it would cost it would cost the taxpayers if we were to wait?

How much money would it cost the taxpayers?

Yeah, it's it's a difficult question to put a exact number on, but I can certainly say that um the longer we delay um transitioning to cart-based recycling.

Um we're gonna continue to have high numbers and amounts of recyclables that continue to go to the Tauntown landfill.

Obviously, that's bad for um that facility and filling it up with uh recyclables.

We'd rather just put trash there.

We'd rather keep uh recyclables in our circular economy.

Um so difficult to put an exact number on that, but uh certainly um the delay is is gonna um exacerbate just challenges with the landfill, um which ultimately will have a uh higher cost to our region.

Um it's just hard to put a number on what exactly that would be.

Okay, so it sounds like not only it will be financially challenging, but there will also be some it will it could it would be environmentally challenging as well, correct?

Absolutely, yes.

Okay, all right.

And as far as transparency, there's been some concern about your office not being very transparent.

Can you explain the your transparency process?

Uh your your team and what that looks like, how you historically how that what you do as it relates to making sure that the the council and that the community is aware of what you're doing.

Sure, sure.

Be happy to do that.

Um my other slide here uh has a little bit of the history of the um uh the the rate study uh that we've been undertaking.

Um we started that rate study back in August of 2024.

City council uh passed a resolution allowing us to hire RAF Tilius, who is the consultant that performed the rate study.

That was obviously a um uh a public item um on the council's agenda in September of uh 2024.

That was when we did a uh waste characterization study when we identified that we had more recyclables going to the landfill than we actually have uh going that are that are being captured in our recycling program.

We began discussing the initial master plan recommendations with council members in uh April.

Um, the Environmental Action Committee received a detailed presentation on the rate study and the recommendations to transition to cart-based recycling.

Um we brought a I brought a presentation to agenda session in June.

Uh, then you all adopted the rate study in July, and then um you all adopted the ordinance changes in August.

So not only have uh we talked about it publicly, but um the the final slide I have here is um a number a little bit of the press coverage that the process has received, um, a couple articles from um from July about the uh rate study.

Um there's been a number of other articles, including one just this past weekend in terms of a press coverage on this.

So it's it's seemed pretty widespread uh coverage and definitely been out there for um for the public to read about and hear about.

So, and thank you, Peter.

So during the time, did you experience any pushback from anybody?

Was there any questions or any anybody wanting to halt anything or say that they're needing more transparency then?

Uh we've certainly um uh interacted with a number of folks, and uh uh I personally have heard a ton of positive feedback, folks who are really excited about uh the transition uh and about what it means for moving our community forward and um the ability to capture more recyclables.

Um, a lot of excitement there.

Uh, I have also heard some concerns.

Um, a number of folks uh have come to me with what I felt like were very honest concerns, and I've had an opportunity to have um a good dialogue with with those folks, and a number of um those individuals have um have sort of understood and as I've explained that the sort of the rationale behind the change.

Um they've they've they've uh understood that.

Um, but but in all honesty, there have been folks who uh who haven't come around and I think still um definitely have concerns about the transition, and um we've tried to listen to those concerns and uh implement as much as possible into the the transition and the management of um contamination and our three-part strategy and dealing with contamination uh to address those concerns to the greatest extent possible.

Okay, and you do have an open door policy as it relates to all the council members and anyone in in general, because I know this past these past two weeks, uh people individuals they reached out to me about questions that I couldn't answer, and so I was more than happy to connect them with you, and you did an awesome job of explaining in great detail.

And so um to me, I mean, I'm not sure how much more transparent we can be.

Sometimes it's not the transparency, it's the information that we get that we don't like.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we have other clarifying questions for either council person Turk or for and I apologize?

I stepped out for a moment, so I believe that's where we are.

We have not yet begun public comment.

Is that correct?

Okay.

So seeing no further clarifying questions, I'm going to turn it over to public comment.

Thank you, Peter.

Do we have public comment in the room on this item?

Please state your name and address and be mindful of the three-minute time limit.

Thank you.

I hadn't started talking yet, but okay.

An 8% contamination rate on the single stream pilot.

How is that data?

And I'm sorry, do you please mind to state your name and address?

I'm Taylor, and I'm not gonna publish my address on a public forum that's live.

I don't feel safe doing so.

Go ahead.

How is that data tracked?

Where is it published?

There was a hotline about this pilot put up by members of the community.

People called and claimed that it was filthy with rats jumping out of the truck.

The public asked and was denied access to see those single stream trucks in the single stream pilot.

Transparency and accountability, that's a resolution.

It's resolution number 1911 that was put in by community members in Greg Letting in 2011.

That's the transparency that you currently have that you will potentially lose if you go to single stream.

Rules and orders of procedure for the city council, Fayetteville City Council, A6 public notification.

The city will go further than legally required in order to inform the citizens of items to be considered by the city council.

We did not see this in the news until July 10th.

If there were meetings regarding this issue prior to July 15th, we were unable to find the public notice of that anywhere.

On July 15th, we attended these meetings and were given a 10-minute presentation, and then y'all voted to accept the RAF Tellis study, which included legislation to change the current curbsword program to single stream.

On August 5th, you voted a rate increase to pay for the new program.

Last week, the recycling partnership published their NWA roadmap.

The number one item on their list is to increase household participation is by implementing single stream and faiville and asylum springs.

Do you know which corporations are behind the recycling partnership?

Concerns and questions from citizens and even your fellow council members have gone ignored because our trust has been eroded in this process.

We in the we are questioning the rush timeline, and if it was influenced by the recycling partnership and their corporate stakeholders, it seems as if it has been influenced by the wrong stakeholders.

We urge you to support your fellow councilmember Turk and implement a trash recycling master plan before you proceed any further.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, yes, yes, Councilperson.

A point of clarification, I think, and I could be wrong on this.

The reason we ask for people's address is we don't always ask for their specific address, but it is nice to know that they are sitting that they acknowledge they are citizens of Fayetteville and what ward they live in.

That helps us deal with that.

That's why we ask for address, I think.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you for pointing that out, and that is exactly correct.

Hi.

I'm Leanne Dark, and I am a citizen.

I'm a from Ward 4.

Uh at the July 15th meeting, the subject of whether or not the new recycling program would accept glass was presented as to be determined.

We assumed that meant it was not determined whether or not it would be a collected, but then at the August 5th meeting, uh it was stated that the timestamp 259 that the city would be continuing curbside cardboard and glass collection.

This stood out particularly to me since it was not revealed whether or not cardboard and glass would be kept separate from the other recyclables.

If they would be kept separate, that would require citizens to put out their large bin as well as smaller bins for glass and cardboard and would negate the touted improvements and worker safety and repetitive motion issues, since workers would have to manually add those to the truck or a different truck.

It would also greatly affect the cost for collecting glass and cardboard.

If they're not going to be collected separately, then that raises huge red flags in regards to contamination rates.

Glass can significantly increase contamination in single stream recycling because it often breaks during collection and processing, creating shards that mix with other recyclables and often rendering entire loads unusable.

Over 9 million tons of glass, one of two recycling materials that can be recycled indefinitely, end up in landfills each year.

When a reporter from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reached out to Mr.

Neargarton last week regarding the glass question, he was told that after the RFPs from the MERFs are submitted, if the MERF that is chosen accepts glass, it will go into the single stream cart.

If they do not accept glass, the city would continue to collect glass in the green bins.

So how can the projected cost in the rate study as well as the anticipated contamination rates that were discussed be arrived at without knowing the answers to these questions in advance?

This question, as well as every single unanswered question from the last two meetings, needs to be addressed before proceeding with any further development of this program.

I support council member Turk and ask you to vote to approve the resolution to request the prompt updating of the trash and recycling master plan of 2017.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We feel you.nealie Ward 3.

And I just want to reiterate, re-emphasize the fact that there are a lot of unknowns in this change.

The it's my understanding that it is cards, the MRF that will be handling these materials.

They don't get good reviews across the board.

They don't get good reviews if you research that part of it.

Um as far as increasing the collection of recyclables, uh that may be possible with single stream, but a master plan would allow the city to follow the stream to ensure that the recyclables collected are indeed going to be recycled and not ending up at the landfill in large percentages.

We don't have I don't think any eyes on solid uh knowledge that what we collect that goes to the MIRF in large portion does end up being recycled.

There it's it's like a it's like a side step before the landfill, particularly if you get your fiber materials soiled by what's not rinsed out of the containers very well.

Once your cardboard and your paper gets soiled with food products or what's on in beverages, it can't be recycled, it'll go to the landfill.

Likewise, if it's embedded with glass, the fiber materials will go to the landfill.

So we need very clear uh hardcore information and facts about what is going to happen to that from the MURF on if we go with this single stream, and we don't know that.

There's no guarantee guarantees that while you increase the collection that there's that much more that's being recycled, and we could do better with the uh separation with residents separating.

We could do better with that and the kind of trucks that we have to reduce ergonomic strain on the collectors.

So I encourage the council to support uh councilpersons Turks uh resolution.

Thank you.

Do we have other public comment in the room?

Hello?

Hi, my name is Sharon Ackererson and I'm a Fayetteville resident.

Um, I did want to talk about this particular item on the agenda because it talks for a fast action, and I guess I'm concerned about trucks costing a half a million dollars each.

Um, depending on the size that we get for as many people as we have in our community, that's 3.5 to 5 million, is what this study says that we're going to spend on one particular item of our city management.

That as a and the reason I say that as part of city management is because what we are doing currently is a known.

We know the budget, we know by 2027 we're going to be upside down, those are knowns.

What I can't find, and what um some of the other people are talking about is cards came up today just in this meeting.

I didn't, I was my question to you all is who have we talked to?

Have we started the program of talking to people to get a contract?

And then how long are contracts?

Because Little Rock lost their contract for six years on glass.

So that's a lot of weight in disposal things that we have present in a lot of items.

Um, I know a lot of people are going to plastic, but there are still several many products that are glass.

So I just want everyone to keep in mind at the rapid speed in which we're voting and doing this, that we also have other things in our city like roads that we've heard about, like wastewater or stormwater.

The reason I came late tonight is because of the storm because my street floods and it floods every time we've had a drought for two months, and then we have all this rain.

So that's a whole nother storm water issue that I've been talking already with Alan Q about.

But one of the pushbacks I get is money.

We do have a finite amount of money, so we really need to think about maybe starting one area of Fayetteville in this program, maybe get two trucks instead of six, maybe do something where we already have things in place.

I don't want the employees injured.

Um, I work in the medical field.

I don't think that's appropriate either, but maybe we can find them some safety gear while we plan this out a little bit longer.

I'm only talking three months, six months.

We need some more information before we go and spend 2.5 million dollars on trucks in your next item on the agenda.

So please bear the burden of other things that go on in this town that are we are growing in many different ways.

I'm from Bentonville.

I've seen it happen, and I've lived here for 40 years.

I went to college here after I graduated there, and I'm still here.

Time so thank you.

And I'm sorry about the flooding on your street.

Before you go, will you make sure to leave your specific if you don't mind your address with one of my staff members?

I know you've been talking to Mr.

Pew, but just to make sure that we're that that's on our radar and we know about it and that we're doing all we can.

Sure.

Thank you.

Do we have any more um public comment in the room?

Okay.

Do we have any?

Um, I believe we have public comment on Zoom.

Yes, we have two people.

Okay.

Uh Lisa Orton.

Okay, Miss Orton, whenever you're ready.

Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am, we can.

Okay.

I'm Lisa Orton and I live at um 1663 West Hossel Road in Ward 4.

And I ask that you would please support uh this resolution.

I agree with um what it says, you know, when the city Fayetteville undertakes significant modifications or amendments to fundamental citywide programs, that numerous public meetings should be held for review and discussion of the costs, benefits and downsides of the proposed changes prior to making a substantial change.

You know, Fayetteville doesn't have an authoritarian government.

We like to engage the public to get their input through meetings and discussions and and due diligent studies.

And we pursue this traditionally.

That's why I think this resolution is excellent for Fayetteville and illustrates our character and our ethics.

And included in that resolution, please do not appropriate or obligate funds or outside grants toward any new trash and recycling containers, vehicles, or any other expenditure to uh implement a single string recycling program prior to the completion, publication, and adoption of an updated or new trash and recycling master plan.

Please support this resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the next is it Miss Shirley or Mr.

Shirley?

Alex Shirley, yes.

Alex, whenever you're ready.

Rick, is that seeing that right, Gracie?

No, Rick doesn't have their hand up.

Okay, got it.

Okay.

And Alex's hand went down.

Okay, Zoom, but okay.

So, oh wait, it's back.

Now it's back up.

Okay.

Alex, whenever you're ready.

Sorry, can you hear me now?

We can, yes.

I I apologize.

That was actually my fault.

I wish I could blame it on you, but I can't.

Thank you for saying that.

You know it when I retell the story, I'll still blame it on you.

Oh, I'm sure that's okay.

I've gotten used to it.

It's okay.

Go ahead.

My name is Alex Shirley, uh, 121 North School Avenue in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

As um the last time we had this meeting, I'm also here on behalf of Miss Louise Mann, uh who's the owner of Waste Reduction Resources LLC, with her address being 629 Gray Avenue in Fayetteville, Arkansas?

Um, I will start with uh Miss Louise Mann's uh comments here, and all of her comments are actually questions, and in fact, our first two questions are about questions.

So if anybody's having an existential crisis, now's your moment.

Um so the first question number one is actually for Mr.

Kit Williams, which is is the council or staff required by law to answer the questions brought forth by citizens here tonight.

Number two is the staff required by law to answer questions brought forth from council members tonight.

Uh number three, how will the tariffs affect the price of aluminum?

Since one in three aluminum cans collected via single stream does not get recycled.

I think you'd want as much revenue as possible.

Number four, did staff share the Washington State report regarding contaminants of specific types of recyclables coming out of single string collection?

Single string is called by many names.

Fayetteville staff uses cart-based or all in one.

Co-mingled is another name for single string.

Louise will send the report link to council to pass along to their garbage geeks.

And you know that she will, guys.

Um, number five.

Has staff seen the difference in single string sludge pile versus a dual stream sludge pile in a paper mill?

Number six, why haven't you explored dual stream?

Has staff talked with communities that switched from single string to dual string?

Number seven, why did you not look at waste-high dumping trough trucks with hydraulic lifts?

As Louise suggested last time you were about to buy trucks.

She even came to City Hall and accused staff of buying the wrong trucks so they could come back and use trucks as an excuse to switch to single string.

Number eight, does city council stand by the numbers in the Ratillus report?

And number nine, do you intend to break recycling out as a separate fee or leave it as the same line item with garbage?

Uh I would also like to end just with my own personal comments in regards.

I know I got 28 seconds.

Uh I can be like Cuba Good and you can you can play me off.

Um there was a question about why this was delayed previously.

I I would just like to add to Mr.

Niedergarden's statement.

I do I hope that public outcry was a part of that.

I will also say he mentioned many news articles about this change.

I would urge council members to uh look at news articles as to the dangers and the problems with single stream.

And that was right under the belt.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Sherley.

Do we have anybody else on Zoom?

Okay.

I'm going to bring it back to the council.

Uh Councilperson Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh question for Peter.

You're behind the pole on me.

Peter, we've heard uh a a lot about rush timelines, rapid voting.

Uh I I personally have been looking at this for months.

Can you but can you tell me really like go back like how long because I know it's been more than a year, I know it's been years.

Like, when did we start looking at uh when do we start this process?

Yeah, the first serious look we did um at car-based recycling would have been that pilot project that we conducted under the previous uh master plan, the one I showed earlier that was in the spring of 2016, that thousand person pilot project that we did in Southeast Fayetteville uh was very successful.

We um it's uh the results of it are on our website if if you want to read um all about it there.

Um the contamination rate, as I said, was eight percent.

Uh we saw uh satisfaction rates from the public participants in the 90 plus percent rate in terms of uh citizen satisfaction with the pilot project.

Um and so I would say you know, from that point forward it um it really made a ton of sense for us from a collections perspective to transition to cart-based recycling.

The missing piece was having a processor that could process the mixed recyclables.

We have that now.

Uh it makes economic sense to do it, and I think the time um timing uh is right to to do it now.

Thank you.

And uh just a quick follow-up.

Uh uh we you originally presented to me, you met with all the council members that presented everyone.

One of my big questions was we we are gonna tackle glass, right?

We're not gonna let glass absolutely.

We are going to include um glass in our request for proposals.

And if the answer comes back that glass can go in the cart, then glass and cardboard will all go into the cart along with the other materials.

If the respondents say they cannot take glass at the processing facility, then folks will continue to use their green bin, and we will come around and collect the green bin glass only on an every other week basis for glass, but we absolutely will continue to collect glass curbside as part of the cart-based recycling program going forward.

Okay, and Peter, just to clarify you are you're telling me the truth and not lying to me.

I am absolutely telling you the truth, Councilmember Stafford.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

No problem.

Thank you.

Uh Councilperson Wheedaker.

Well, you're up there, Mr.

Near Garden.

Um so I think that I heard you say that the original recommendation from the 2017 master plan was to do single stream, but because there was no MERF provider in the area, it would have been cost prohibitive to send materials elsewhere.

Did I hear you correctly?

Cross-perivative to send them elsewhere or to build our own facility.

Yeah.

Okay.

And there's the illusion that we have control when we sell our recyclables to a broker that we know there's some form of guarantee on what's being done with those.

And my understanding was that when a broker assumes possession, we have lost control over our materials because we sold them at a market price.

Is that accurate?

That is accurate, yes.

Okay.

And that the same broker we currently sell materials to is a broker purchasing materials through the MERF.

That is also accurate.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilperson Burns.

Thank you, Mayor.

I respect uh councilmember uh Turk greatly and her knowledge on this particular aspect of uh what we're doing is is you know second to none.

Um and I I recognize that fact, and I I do I do recognize the fact that maybe the rollout wasn't as transparent as we uh looking back wish it was, but I I distinctly remember meeting with you and um asking questions and I I remember remember asking if any uh other council members had already met with you, and you said yes.

So the process had already been started, and that was probably helped me May.

Uh you and I met either in April or May.

April or May.

Uh so I pushed back on, we've gotten a lot of criticism tonight that we're we haven't been transparent, we haven't, the public didn't know about it and all that, but I distinctly remember uh respecting council members Turk request to table uh table this the first time it came before us, and if I'm not mistaken, we had a three-week gap because of the five five-week month.

Uh so we had a three-week gap before that was brought up again.

Um we we've talked about it extensively, and and although I wish maybe this was the rollout was a little better.

Um I fall back to and please don't please don't uh blackball me tomorrow, Peter, for what I'm fixing to say, but but I get lazy when it comes to to recycling because we've got the bin.

And if that bin gets full, uh I get lazy and I don't necessarily recycle as well as I could.

And I remember my father-in-law and mother-in-law say, and I see that big cart in their garage that and they don't miss a beat.

I mean, they recycle religiously because they have a bin that is bigger and they can do it.