Hey, good evening, everybody, and welcome to the Tuesday, September 16th meeting of the Fayetteville City Council.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Here.

Ms.

Turk?

Here.

Minister Jones.

Present.

Mr.

Stafford?

Here.

Dr.

Jones.

Ms.

Moore?

Here.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Here.

Mayor Ron.

Present.

Please join me as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay, before we go to our first item of business, I want to just announce to the group that the City Council has received requests from the applicants related to items C6 and C7.

That's an annexation and subsequent rezoning.

The applicants have requested that that item be tabled.

And I suspect that the council will act in that direction in accordance with that request.

So if you are here to listen to that item or to speak about that item, there's a strong likelihood that it will not be heard this evening.

So okay, and that brings us to our first presentation, which is the nominating committee report prepared by the nominating committee chair, Councilperson Bob Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

The nominating committee recommends the following candidates for appointment.

For animal services, no applications received for the unexpired licensed veterinarian term ending June 30, 2028.

For Board of Adjustment, public at large term, Peter Norman for public at large term ending March 31st, 2028.

For construction board of adjustment and appeals, Andrew Brooks for an unexpired member at large term ending March 31st, 2030, and Kelly Freeman for an unexpired member at large term ending March 31st, 203030.

For the Fayeville Public Library Board of Trustees.

Public at large term ending April 1st, 2029.

For Planning Commission, Ashland Holyfield, citizen at large term ending March 31st, 2029.

I believe that was an unexpired term.

Or no, we're carrying it through, sorry.

For the Town and Gown Advisory Committee.

And for the mayor's appointment for the U of A student living off campus term ending September 30th, 2027, that'll be Elizabeth Gunderman.

And finally, for Urban Forestry Advisory Board, Carlo Bertani for resident at large term ending December 31st, 2027.

And Joe Donahue, unexpired resident at large term ending December 31st, 2026.

Okay.

Um do we have a motion?

Uh Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um motion to approve those nominations.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and several seconds.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Eric?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheataker?

Yes.

Oh, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cara.

Okay, that brings us to the consent agenda.

Item A1, approval of the September 2nd, 2025 City Council meeting minutes.

A2, a resolution to award RFP 25-3 and approve a contract with Partwise LLC in the amount of 125,000 to commission artist David Eaton to create his sculpture camburata for the upper ramble and to approve the related budget adjustment.

A3, a resolution to authorize the termination of an agreement with prime sanitation for the hauling and disposal of solid waste in the city of Fayetteville.

A4, a resolution to award bid 25-43 and authorize a contract with Kinkok constructors in the amount of $4,697,184.26 cents for Walker Park Improvements Phase 1 to recognize Southeast Quadrant Park Land Dedication Funds in the amount of $613,685 to approve a project project contingency in the amount of $255,000 and to approve a budget adjustment.

Item A5, a resolution to approve a three-year lease agreement with elite aircraft services LLC doing business as EAS flight training for approximately 1,128 square feet of office space in airport terminal build in the airport terminal building for 1200 per month for the first year.

A6, a resolution to approve a three-year lease agreement with Skydive Fayetteville for approximately $133 square feet of office space in the airport terminal building for 1,041 dollars and 25 cents per month for the first year.

A seven, a resolution to approve a three-year lease agreement with SkyTime Aviation LLC for approximately 297 square feet of office space in the terminal building for 437 per month for the first year.

A8, a resolution to approve amendment one to the cost share agreement with Greater Productions LLC and the amount of 160,729 for the installation of sanitary sewer and storm drainage upgrades to serve the park hotel and other downtown developments and to approve a budget adjustment.

A9, a resolution to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of 190,000 to move funds to the sales tax inventory items account within the water and sewer fund.

A 10, a resolution to approve amendment one to the contract with Galls LLC for the purchase of uniforms, equipment, and quartermaster services.

A11, a resolution to establish a franchise fee special revenue fund.

A12, a resolution to approve a budget adjustment allowing up to $70,000 from the franchise fee fund, contingent upon the Salvation Army successful award of an emergency solutions grant of up to $70,000 from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

And A13, a resolution to authorize Mayor Ron to sign a contract with CERV Northwest Arkansas doing business as new beginnings NWA for homelessness assistance services for a five-year period in the amount of 150,000 and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $15,000.

Council person Burnout.

Mayor make a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Burna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turt.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Okay.

Seeing as we have no unfinished business this evening, we'll jump right into new business.

Item C1 is an ordinance levying a tax on the real and personal property within the city of Fayetteville for the year 2026, fixing the rate thereof at 2.3 mils for general fund operations, 0.4 mils for the fireman's pension and relief fund, 0.4 mils for the policeman's pension and relief fund, 2.5 mils for Fayetteville Public Library Operations, and $1.2 mils for the Fayetteville Public Library Expansion, and certifying the same to the County Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1, that a tax is hereby levied on the real and personal property within the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas for the year 2025 to be collected in 2026 for the following purposes and at the following rates.

For real and personal property purpose, general fund operations, levy of 2.3 mils, purpose Fayetteville Public Library Operations Levy 2.5 mills, uh purpose fateable public library expansion, levy 1.2 mils, purpose policeman's pension relief fund levy 0.4 mills and purpose uh fireman's pension and relief fund levy 0.4 mils for a total amount of 6.8 mils.

Section 2 that the real and personal property tax soul levied and the rates provided therefore are hereby certified to the county clerk of the Washington County, Arkansas to be placed in the tax book and collected in the same manner that the county and school district taxes are collected in section three.

The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance in the office of the county clerk for Washington County, Arkansas.

Thank you, Kid.

Stephen, would you like to speak about this item more, please?

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Uh I think uh those descriptions pretty well cover what we have here.

We bring this item forward every year.

We're required to uh provide an approved millage levy to Washington County to be included in their consolidated levy ordinance.

And uh as a reminder, this is 6.8 mills.

This is essentially the same uh millage that we've been bringing forward since 2016.

No changes except for that one year that I mentioned at the agenda session when we had the rollback, but uh other than that, this is the same that we've always had.

Be happy to answer any questions.

Great, thank you.

Do we have questions for Stephen?

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um and as I understand at this time, um, there are additional mills available.

Is that correct to the city in the event that those needed to be used in some way?

Can you explain to us how much is available that we're not currently using?

I believe we can go up to five mills for the general fund.

Okay.

Hearing no more questions, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Do we have anybody in the room or on Zoom that would like to speak about this item?

If so, please go ahead and approach.

Keith, I don't think we have anybody on Zoom.

We do not.

Okay.

Council person stafford, yes.

I motion we suspend the rules to move to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Burnet?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunn?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheelker.

Yes.

That passed, so I'll read the ordinance.

And ordinance levying a tax on the real and personal property within the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas for the year 2026, fixing the rate thereof at 2.3 meals for the general fund operations, 0.4 mils for the fireman's pension relief fund, 0.4 mills for the policeman's pension relief fund, 2.5 mils for the Fayetteville Public Library operations, and 1.2 mills for the Fayetteville Public Library Expansion and certifying the same to the county clerk of Washington County, Arkansas.

Okay.

Minister Jones.

I do have one more question.

Can I can I ask you, Stephen, just one more question?

I know we did the um Fayetteville Public Library expansion, and I see the 1.2.

Do you know how many more years we have on paying out that expansion?

I'm sorry, could you how many more years that we have on paying the Fayetteville Public Library expansion?

I believe the outstanding debt is approximately 15 million.

So I think there's I could be wrong, but I believe there's another four or five years left on that.

Okay, thank you.

I can follow up with you though to get the exact number of years that are left.

I appreciate that.

Thanks.

Okay, seeing no more clarifying questions or comments.

I am going to um ask Clerk Paxton to please call the roll.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Buddhist?

Yes.

Ms.

Hart?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker.

Yes.

Item C2, an ordinance to approve vacation 2520 for property located at 322 South Walker Avenue and Ward 1 to vacate 0.03 acres of general utility easements.

Mr.

Williams.

Whereas the city council has the authority to remote states.

ACA section 14241 or vacation.

And whereas the city council has come in the funds by a portion of the gentleman's show notes required for name by the city council city of Fairbar.

City Council or City of A RA, there's B attacked by memo.

Section 3 of Congress 500 memo that we filed in the office for Washington County.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan Kirk Development Services Department.

This property is just southeast of the downtown square area, is at the uh somewhat awkward intersection of Barton Avenue and uh Walker Road, uh, which are found to the south and to the north of the property respectively.

Uh the overall site includes about 0.7 acres, and the applicant is before council requesting to vacate an area totaling roughly 0.03 acres of utility easement on the property.

Uh today, about a fifth of the overall property, uh, which you can see below in light pink is encumbered by utility easement, uh, which necessitates some degree of vacating if the property were to be expanded upon, uh, which is exactly what the applicant is proposing to do to build an accessory dwelling unit on the property.

Uh staff does not find any issues with the request.

So the applicant solicited and received uh approval from all our franchise utilities that serve the city of Fayetteville, and accordingly, we are recommending approval with the one condition that uh Mr.

Williams noted, which is our standard that any damage or relocation of existing facilities will be at the applicant's expense.

And I'm happy to take any questions that the council has.

And mayor, I believe a representative from the Meehan is families available for questions, but I don't believe they have a presentation.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Um Mr.

Stafford, you have questions for Jonathan?

Yes.

Jonathan, you know, when I when I looked at that map that showed the overlay of the of the easements, um, is there a reason we wouldn't just vacate, you know, majority of those easements on the on the uh the one coming through on top and the and then just taking the one down on the bottom.

Is there a reason we don't the you know, is it that they're only requesting that small amount or that's correct.

This is the specific area that the applicant requested when uh property owners or their representatives approach franchise utilities, they come with a very specific area, and those utilities evaluate those specific areas.

So it may be that the other easements do include uh some sort of facility, whether it's a fiber line, a water line, a sewer line.

Uh I'm not able to speak to that though with any certainty, but this is the specific area the applicant has proposed to vacate and which they've received consent to vacate.

Okay, thank you.

Certainly.

Okay, I'm not seeing any more questions, so I'm gonna open this one up to public comment.

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

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay.

Council.

Okay, y'all are pointing at each other.

I saw you both at the same time.

Council Person Vernet.

Uh Mayor, I'd make a motion to suspend the rules go third by an oriented.

Oh, second.

Okay.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the role?

Mr.

Vernon.

Yes.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

In order to approve AC 25-20 for property located at 322 South Walker Avenue and Ward 1 to vacate 0.03 acres of general utility easement.

Okay, Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Burnet?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Mr.

J Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheaker.

Yes.

Okay.

And that passes.

Thank you.

Item C three is an ordinance to amend the Holt Village Planned Zoning District in Ward 4 to adopt a new site plan, modify the acreage for neighborhood zones A and B, and to change the lot width minimum in neighborhood zone B.

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 Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves the owner's request to amend the Holt Village Plan Zoning District as shown in exhibits A, B, and C attached to the planning division's agenda memo by adopting an updated site plan, reducing the size of the neighborhood zone A from 9.9 acres to 6.1 acres, increasing the size of neighborhood zone B from 6.9 acres to 7.72 acres, and changing a lot with minimum for planning area B from 24 feet to 22 feet.

Section 2.

At the City Council, the City of Fayetteville arcs are here by men's official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to Northwest Fayetteville, located just off of the northeast corner of RuPaul Road and Mount Comfort Road.

If you're familiar with the new gas station located at the hard corner there, this is property that largely encompasses the uh the area just north of that and a portion of the property to the east.

This property remains largely undeveloped, and it was approved as a PZD in February of this year for a mixed uh housing development totaling about totaling about 105 lots.

The request before council today is in response to uh some of the more detailed construction permitting work that the applicant is going through.

Uh, what you can see on the left-hand side is uh the uh the the site plan that was originally proposed with the planned zoning district in February, and what they're proposing tonight to council is a slightly modified version of it.

Uh as can be seen on the screen.

The intent is to maintain the street network as generally shown.

Uh but there is an objective to try to create more of a transition going from uh RuPal to the west where townhome development will occur into single family dwellings as you move into the lower density neighborhoods to both the north and the east.

Uh as a part of that, the uh applicant has identified uh that this will fall into two different planning areas.

Uh planning area A, which you can see in uh a blue here, to the including the northern portion of the property and the eastern one, and planning area B, uh which uh is encompassed in the red area.

Uh staff uh unfortunately may have confused y'all.

We've used the terminology planning area one and two, uh, but those do correspond with A and B with what's being proposed.

Uh as for what is being proposed specifically, again, planning area one, that portion that's on the east side of the property in the north, uh, proposes to uh reduce in size overall to accommodate the tension that is intended for the northernmost portion of the development and to modify some of the lots that were intended to originally be green space facing to be street facing, so more conventional lots uh with direct access onto public streets uh for planning area B, that portion closer to RuPaul Road.

Uh the uh intent is to reduce some of the lot width allowances from 20 or the overall lot width allowances from 24 foot to 22 width to respond to some of the designs proposed for that portion of the development.

Uh staff finds that the request is consistent with the original PCD's approval, uh, and we are recommending approval of it.

Uh however, uh you may have noticed that I passed out something prior to the meeting, and if you're at agenda session, you noted that we were working through some uh concerns about legal description and consistency between what was approved in February, uh what is was proposed to the planning commission and what ended up in your packet.

Uh ultimately what we've asked for is a you'll see there's a three-part legal description request in there.

There's an overall property to ensure that uh the whole PCD is captured in there, but there's also specific carve outs for that planning area A and planning area B so that as staff administers this planning zone district moving forward, there's a lot more clarity.

Uh so it's more of a clerical uh issue, if anything, uh but we do ask that the planning commit, or excuse me, that the city council uh's first action is to amend this proposed ordinance to uh adopt the exhibit A and B that I handed out before the meeting.

Um again, staff is recommending approval of the request.

Uh the planning commission forwarded it to city council recommending approval as well by unanimous five to zero vote.

And I'm happy to take any questions that the council has.

And Mayor, I believe uh either Adamzi or Mary McGettrick are here as the applicants for the item.

Okay, great.

Um does Miss McEdric or and I'm sorry, I missed the name of the other person.

Do either of you all have comments at this time?

As the applicant, okay.

Yeah.

Um Mary McGetrick, I'm here representing landmark um homes, and essentially the changes because when we initially did the PCD and the entitlement zoning, um, we did not have the construction plans approved or the the units designed.

And as we got into more in-depth construction design and unit design, um, the kind of weird shape of the property forced us into different lot sizes than we had originally anticipated, and that's where that change came from.

But we tried our best to keep the uh intent of the overall PCD, so the um street network and the the green spaces.

We kept all those intact and at the same size.

So I can answer any questions that you guys have.

And our engineer is on the line as well if you have any questions about the legal descriptions, but I think we've got that resolved and should be able to get that submitted.

All right, thank you.

Um Minister Jones, do you have a question for the question?

I was just trying to see what's your name, ma'am, and who are you with?

I'm Mary McGetrick.

I work for Buffington Homes, and I'm here representing Wayne Mark, the owner of the property.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Ms.

Morton, thank you, Mayor.

Um, are you able to share with us?

I understand there were constraints to make the changes, but how many of the proposed houses were originally gonna face the green space that are now gonna face street facing instead?

Are you able to share with us what the change has been on that?

Yeah, so originally the orientation of the homes hasn't changed.

Originally it was a um a rear entry uh single family home, and those ended up being a little bit longer than than would fit um on the site, and so we essentially just switched those out for town homes.

So we got a few more um you know available units, but they're a little shallower.

So Minister Jones, do you also just following up?

So are they still rear entrance?

Yes, they're they're still all the townhomes are rear-entry homes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna turn it over to public comment.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

And any on uh virtually, Keith, any on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay, I'm gonna bring it back to the council, Council Vers and Stafford.

Yes, I motion we suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

Second.

Do we need to make the amendment first on the exhibit?

Oh, just that Jonathan wants you to explain that amendment again to them.

I think we have a new map and a new legal description, and we need to have that put into this before it gets passed.

That's correct, Mr.

Williams.

Thank you.

The legal description that was submitted for the project uh did not appear to be consistent with the PCD that was originally approved and what uh the planning commission considered.

So we'd worked with the uh representative surveyor to ensure that we had an overall property legal description and also one that includes both the planning areas being discussed, and that is the exhibit B.

You see the legal description version that's almost uh unintelligible, and that's reflected visually in exhibit A, which is the map amendment to it.

So uh it is not expanding the the areas of entitlement for this PCD necessarily.

Uh as I described, it's it's more of a clerical issue to make sure a staff evaluates uh the development as it comes through.

We very clearly understand what's allowed where.

So we're looking for a motion to amend this.

I'll motion that we uh amend uh uh as presented property description, yeah.

Property description has uh presented okay, okay.

We have a motion and a second um to amend the property description as presented by Mr.

Kerr.

Clark Paxton will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Bernard.

Yes.

Ms.

Benich?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones, yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Okay, so now we have the amended item still on the first reading.

Council person burnout.

Oh it doesn't matter.

Okay, I'll make a motion to expand the rules and go third and final reading.

Okay.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxton.

Mr.

Burno.

Yes.

Ms.

Bench.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheaker.

Yes.

In order to amend the Holt Village Plan Zoning District in Ward 4 to adopt a new site plan, modify the acreage for neighborhood zones A and B, and change a lot with minimum in neighborhood zone B.

Okay.

Um Ms.

Bunch.

I'm sorry.

Oh, no, it's okay.

Okay.

Clark Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Burnett?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheeder.

Yes.

Okay.

Item C4.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2025 31 for approximately 9.9 acres located at 3900 West Dinsmore Trail in Ward 1 from NC neighborhood conservation to CS community services.

Thank you, Mayor.

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

At the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of property shown on the map, exhibit A and a legal description.

Exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's denim MO from NC neighborhood conservation to CS community services.

And section two, that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby amends the official zoning map of the city of Fakeville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Mr.

Kurt.

Thank you, Mayor.

Since this property does not have a lot of distinguishing physical features, I wanted to start out with a little bit of orientation.

This request takes us to West Fateville, uh beyond Interstate 49.

Uh, however, it is uh within Ward 1, reaching uh towards its western and northern extents.

Uh the property includes uh a total of uh overall 60 acres that are located on the east side of RuPa Road, about equidistant between Owl Creek Elementary School to the north and John L.

Colbert Middle School to the south.

Uh it does have a Densmore Trail address, uh, given that they're the one structure on the property, uh, does have direct access to Densmore Trail.

Uh, and as a uh piece of mind for the council as I shared at agenda session, despite having that Densmore address, we did make sure public notification occurred on both frontages since the reality is most people would probably interact with this property along RuPaul.

Um moving into a oops, excuse me.

Sorry, a little bit of a technical difficulty.

There we go.

Moving into a discussion of the request, uh, the applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of the overall 60 acres.

Uh today the property is zoned uh partially neighborhood conservation uh that you can see here.

Uh this totals about 48 acres of the overall 60 that are neighborhood conservation uh with the balance of the 60 acres uh just over 11 uh CS community services.

Uh the request is to square off that zoning designation uh such that about 21 acres of the 60 acre property are zoned CS community services and the balance on the east side uh adjacent to Dinsmore Trail will remain in C neighborhood conservation from a land use compatibility standpoint.

From a land use compatibility standpoint, uh staff finds it to be such.

Uh this area's uh overall development is mixed in character, uh, in addition to the two schools I mentioned earlier.

Uh there's attached residential housing to the south, uh, there's uh townhome construction to the north, uh, but then there's additionally a significant amount of single-family dwellings uh overall.

Uh it does bear mentioning uh the history of this proper or this uh rezoning for a moment.

Uh this street was built uh uh somewhat speculatively, as you will, as a way of creating a ring road around Fayetteville to improve transportation options.

At that time, the rezoning along the portion of RuPaul Road was uh designated CS community services with uh several hundred acres to the east and west zone neighborhood conservation.

Uh the outcome we've seen as a city, however, is that it's mostly been single family in nature, and we believe a contributing factor of that is the narrow amount of property that was designated as as community services, which limited the viability of developing things other than uh single-family dwellings.

Uh, accordingly, we find the request to be uh despite uh seeming to be discontaged in congruent with that uh previous rezoning decision.

Uh, we feel that it does meet the intent of that to develop RuPaul uh road as more of a mixed-use corridor.

And looking at it from a land long-range plan standpoint, uh, we do find this request to be consistent with uh both City Plan 2040, the future land use map uh in the area, uh, and those infill factors that do uh uh are can be found on the property.

Uh while it does appear that there's not many of those in play right now, uh being just five for fire response, water and sewer access, public school, city park, and and paved trail nearby.

Uh it does bear noting again that when this was originally developed as a street, it was a largely rural, completely undeveloped area, and as it's been built out, those factors that contribute to uh it being appropriate infill have also increased accordingly.

As far as other issues, uh the true preservation requirements on this property uh will remain 20% uh between the existing neighborhood conservation and community services zoning districts.

Uh I did touch a little bit on the uh zoning history, so I won't uh repeat that here, except to note that staff feels that the this uh proposal is very is remains consistent with the intent of the 2015 rezoning along RuPaul Road.

Um we have received some public comments on this request.

It was, however, uh more of a question about construction and development.

We advise the resident who lived on Densmore Trail that more didn't more details would come forward if the rezoning were approved and a development were to come behind it.

With those factors in play, uh staff is recommending approval of the request.

Uh the planning commission forwarded the proposal unanimously to city council, uh finding that this would create more consistent zoning standards and increase the developability of a mix of uses along RuPaul Road.

And I can take any questions that the council has.

And mayor, I believe uh Blake Jorgensen and Mark Marquis are available as the applicants on this item.

Okay.

Mr.

Jorgensen, would you like to address the council?

Yeah, good evening.

Blake Jorgensen.

Um we also have Mark and Taylor Marquis with Riverwood Homes.

Um it's nice to see the full picture of this development.

Um we had the pleasure of uh designing uh Ruper Road for the city of Fayetteville back in 2014, and uh when that reason that mass rezoning went through, um, we've seen a couple things uh change.

When uh we did um John L.

Colbert, we did have to do a little bit of a modification of that rezoning, and um we think this this rezoning is actually going to get the city um what they want along RuPaul Road.

I know there's been a lot of uh mixed development as you go along that corridor, but we think this uh new density allows to maximize the uh and utilize this uh corridor as it is intended to.

So I'm happy to stand with any questions you may have.

Thanks for your report, John Fakirth.

Um, and thanks for your time, City Council.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions for Mr.

Kurth or for the applicant?

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I don't know quite who to address this to.

Um really two questions with going from um CS to NC, so I've got it backwards going from NC to CS.

Uh, isn't there a five?

Isn't there a five-story limit uh with CS?

Am I correct?

That's correct.

And so you could theoretically build townhouses that were five stories and not have this really uh a business development or mixed use.

Is that allowed under this change?

Both residential and non-residential uses are allowed, you're not required to mix those uses.

Really, the difference is really just the the extra two stories um of a change between these two categories, right?

I in terms of form of the building, perhaps, but in seed and every conservation uh only allows single family dwellings by right, whereas uh community services allows the full breadth of potential residential uses, whether duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or or multifamily, in addition to the potential for uh services like restaurants and offices.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

My second question is um more minutiae, I guess.

Um, since you're so close to John L.

Cobert, and I believe CS allows liquor stores in there.

Would those be prevented um within a thousand feet of the of the school and maybe some other kinds of um businesses.

That's a good question.

Uh please allow me a moment to remind myself what those the expert weigh in before I put my opinion for.

I I know this is a little bit in the weeds, but uh since we're so close to the school, I just thought I would bring it up.

And I'm apologize for the dead area, you may need to come back to me in a moment.

Is it we may if that's been a while?

Go ahead, Mary.

As again, we may move into Ms.

Bunch's question and then come back and address that in just a moment while Jonathan leaks up.

So uh Miss Bunch.

Yes, thank you.

Um this is not really a question.

Well, it might be a question, but it's not really for the applicant, it's really more for Jonathan whenever he gets a chance.

If it, you know, but what I remember about the rezoning of um you know RuPaul Road is when this was put in, there weren't a lot of houses out there, there wasn't a middle school, there wasn't anything really.

So we were hoping to zone it in a way that would create a lot of mixed use, like bring it all together and make it more of a community and have walkability and all of those things instead of just people zooming through to get into their little subdivision and you know their enclaves and be there.

And that did not turn out to be what we wanted.

And um, and I believe also when the the school was going in, if I remember correctly, we had this little strip of land in the front of it that we tried to zone to allow for some small type of of um you know commercial there, like a you know, coffee shop, ice cream, something like that.

And that didn't go in, did it?

Nothing, nothing like that.

So um, you know, and this is one of the few pieces of property out here that's still open, and it's a sizable property, and I would certainly hope that we could get something in here that would make this less than just a pass-through to everything else because it's it's really you know, we're going back well, when was that?

2004.

That was 10 years ago at least, wasn't it?

2014, yeah.

So we're going back a long time, and things have not transpired the way that we hoped that they would.

And uh I hope we can we can get that with this property.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Jonathan, would you like to address the earlier question?

I do, thank you.

Uh I had to work backwards.

We had changed our liquor store requirements in uh 2020 to reference state law, so I had to jump back that direction.

Uh so our state, it's based on state statute, which is a thousand feet from any church or school house.

So that would potentially impact what what was built there.

Um I mean, I'm guessing that John L.

Cobert is still at a thousand within a thousand feet of that um proposed rezoning.

Uh believe it's again, sorry, give me one more moment.

The intervening property is about 12 to 1300 feet, so it would be it would it appears initially that it exceeds that distance from a nearby school.

Okay, thank you.

I I'm with council member bunch.

I'm I'm hoping um that that would be it would stimulate business in that area and not just uh more subdivisions because right now that's exactly what we have is just uh just a pass through, and the only thing slowing folks down are those roundabouts, and uh we really need uh a neighborhood out there, a core business neighborhood.

Thank you.

Minister Johnson?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Ms.

Bunt for bringing that up.

So I wasn't around Jonathan 2014, and he referenced um mass zoning new density.

Is that documented on what the new density goals were?

I I also was not here when that happened.

I had the benefit of starting just after that begun.

Uh there was a quite a bit of uh of work that went into evaluating what would be a value valuable depth of non-residential zoning or mixed use zoning along RuPaul Road that would hopefully be conducive to seeing services and businesses along there.

Uh as you can see as you're out there, that has not come to fruition.

Um I'm not able to speak to the the marketability issues with that, uh, but the hope is that allowing more depth and how somebody could could feasibly build out that property would afford more opportunities to add more housing in form of uh whether it's higher densities or different housing types, uh, but also services as well.

Okay, Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and building oh, sorry, building on the comments from my council colleagues.

I just was trying to figure out when I look at CS along Drupal, and especially too, we are hoping there'd be built to is I think towards the trail, and we ended up backing to the trail.

I just didn't know with looking at Densmore Trail.

I'm not as familiar with that as that, and that's where this property will sit to change from NC to CS.

Um, will that change at all potentially how the frontage would be and the engagement um, you know, to that particular road, if we're trying to make that potentially a corridor connection where we don't just want to cater towards automobiles, but we're hoping there'll be some walkability there as it connects to all that infrastructure we done on Drupal.

Uh just wasn't quite sure.

Like you talked about that becoming an a future connection, and so just wanted to kind of understand that history too as we're making that change.

That that's a good question, and it would involve a lot of speculation for me to answer confidently.

Uh one item that I think I failed to mention during the presentation is there is a master street plan connection to come from the roundabout on the northwest corner of this property through this property connecting to Densmore southward, uh, which would uh create a parallel uh transportation route along the east side of this property.

And I think that could afford uh more connectivity opportunities.

Also, to answer the first part of your question, second, we have updated our development codes since some of the development in this area and elsewhere we've seen in Favil where uh we have not realized some of the outcomes we'd hope for along our major corridors where uh buildings were uh oriented away from streets, uh and uh because of state law, we're not allowed to regulate how build or single family homes specifically can appear.

So we've uh sought to uh have regulations about creating through lots on pieces of property, uh, meaning if if you have a street a lot that fronts two streets, uh the planning commission has a higher degree of discretion about how that's incorporated into a development to make sure we don't um do that insensitively in areas where we've invested a lot in infrastructure and trails in particular.

Mr.

Stafford, do you have a question for Mr.

Kirth or Mr.

Jorgensen?

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to make sure that the applicant had a chance to expound on or you know, most of the questions have been geared to Jonathan, and I just want to make sure you had a chance to expound on anything or or or add anything to to what you know the the previous questions.

Yes, sir.

I appreciate that.

Um we are happening to be the engineer to the property to the immediate north.

Um, and that was intentionally zone CS as well.

There's a very large swath of CS that at the time there was vacant property just everywhere along this 400 acre tract of land.

Um we're intentionally expanding the CS on this the T the property we're doing now to not offer up just single family.

There if we were asking a request to minimize the CS and go to NC, that would be one thing.

We're intentionally requesting to expand the CS zoning to offer up this new product, this new build to zone, this new thing that the city wants.

Um and so there's this cohesion between the property to the north that I have privilege to know what they're wanting to build there, um, which is a warehouse district with mixed-use development.

Um, and it wants to tie in cohesively to this development to the south for my um client, Mark Marcus and Taylor Marquis.

And so there's an intentional reason we're expanding the CS zoning, and there's a very intentional um purpose that we want to honor um this built-to zone that fronts along RuPa Road, and as far as it um tying in the Densmore Trail, yes, at the intersection of that roundabout, we're bringing the Master Street plan uh road, and it curls into Densmore.

Um Densmore will become you know another outlet to this development, but it will be um citizens residence development.

Um Densmore will become you know another outlet to this development, but it will be um citizens' residence development, they can walk to school, and as far as the as commercial development goes, all of my clients that own property there.

They're saying we need the numbers, we need the drive numbers.

We need that we need to know how many road trips are coming so we can get a Starbucks to that corner.

And the idea is, yeah, the numbers are getting there.

Um years ago, it was 400 acres of vacant property, and now we've got uh he our developers built over five of our homes within his uh Slumbrook estates.

Uh so the numbers are starting to get there, and uh I'm I'm extremely excited to bring the next phase of what this is to Fayetteville.

Uh it's uh it's gonna be an I'm extremely excited about it.

And I and thank you for asking me.

Um a lot of times I it's an internal discussion that goes back and forth, and then um as Keith likes to know I like to sit down and and and try to minimize my time at the podium, and that's just out of respect for time for the city council and everyone else.

But I'm happy to be up here and answer anything I can tonight.

Thank you, and we certainly appreciate that.

Okay, I'm gonna turn it over to public comment if we have anybody in the room that would like to comment on this matter.

Keith, is there anyone on Zoom?

There's not, Mayor.

Okay, Councilperson Burnout.

Mayor and make a motion to spend rules bill third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to go to the third reading.

Uh Clerk Paxton, you please call the roll.

Mr.

Burnout?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench.

Yes.

Ms.

Turr?

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheaker.

Yes.

In order to rezone the property described and rezoning petition RZN 2025-31 for approximately 9.9 acres located at 3900 West Densmore Trail in Ward 1 from NC neighborhood conservation to CS Community Services.

Okay.

We don't have any further questions.

I'm going to ask the clerk to oh I do have a lot of people.

We do.

We do.

I missed that.

Just not a question.

But I certainly hope that we find that the numbers are there to see that we get something in here that is a little more conducive with what we originally hoped for when we zoned this years ago.

Because what we have right now is just any city you've been in, you've seen you've seen areas like this where you just drive and drive and drive and drive, and there's nothing.

And there's just houses and houses, and everybody has to get in their car and go even a mile or two to get to something.

And so I I would hope that we would get something in here that would um be more add a better experience for the community, but also be um, you know, a commercial could bring in, you know, more tax revenue for our city and for this this area in particular.

So that's just my two cents there.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yeah, I just want to say I I totally agree with Councilmember Bunch.

Uh and I I think there's a golden opportunity here based on the location, and I hope we see this come to fruition in a way that's gonna benefit uh the people of the neighborhood and the city.

Thank you.

Clerk Pexton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Burno?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch, yes, Ms.

Turk, yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Okay.

And that passes, and that brings us to item C5.

An ordinance to approve a residential plan zoning district entitled PZD 2025-3 for approximately 49.2 acres located on North Raven Lane in Ward 4.

Mr.

Williams.

Thank you, Mayor.

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

That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves PCD 2025-03 as described in exhibits A, B, and C attached to the planning division's agenda memo, which allows the development of approximately 26.84 acres of residential single family homes at a maximum density of 5.61 units per acre.

And sets aside 22.36 acres limited to stormwater, green space, and open space.

Section two that this PCD approval is subject to the following conditions, which shall be reflected in the updated PCD booklet.

Number one, connectivity through public streets shall be maintained to the subdivision to the south.

Number two, the main north-south street throughout the development shall remain public to connect to the northeast section of the site.

In section three, that the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change criteria change provided in section one above.

Okay, Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

As with the last item, this property may not be as apparent exactly where it lays in the city of Fayetteville.

So I'll start from a very high level to orient you.

This is in northwest Fayetteville, west of Interstate 49 and north of Mount Comfort Road, a fair distance, located in Ward 4.

More specifically, it is southwest of the Underwood Park, which recently had its major groundbreaking on it.

To the south is the Crystal Springs Phase 4 subdivision, and to the north is Cliver Creek, which with which its floodplain is associated, that you can see on the screen here above it.

The property is largely undeveloped, with that about 1.5 acres of the overall property of the overall 49 acre property within floodplain, which you can see in the light blue in that upper left-hand corner.

What is less apparent is the Master Street plan and its implications for the property.

Some on the council may recall earlier this year, staff brought forward a proposal in February to remove a master street plan connection across Claver Creek.

There were a number of reasons why staff supported this and recommended it be removed, and presumably why the council supported that removal.

That included its impacts on Clapper Creek, its floodplain, and some of the conservation ownership of the land in between this connection and the area to the north.

We did not support at the time, however, a larger removal of a connectivity in this area.

And when the request that I'm about to go into shortly came forward earlier this uh this this year, uh it was done concurrently with a proposal to remove this master street plan connection, which, as you can see, uh envisions going north and then across the underwood park property, connect creating connectivity back to uh Dean Solomon Road to the east.

Uh staff did not recommend in favor of the removal of that portion of the master street plan, and the planning commission concurred.

Uh so what was ultimately forwarded to the uh city council is as Mr.

Williams just described it.

It's a PZD for the 49-acre property of which uh will include a public street that will pass through it.

Uh, what the development uh proposes otherwise is a system of private streets uh that are intended to serve a mix of two different planning areas.

Uh Planning Area One, which you can see in the uh light brown reddish color, is intended to be the one that will be developed.

Uh it includes allowances for small-scale residential development, uh, and then planning area two, which uh represents about 22 acres of the property, is intended to remain as open space to serve uh the residents of the neighborhood.

Uh put in tabular form, uh, which you can see here in planning area one uh is the allowance for uh very typical uh single family neighborhoods, but also an allowance for uh duplex to allow us a little bit of uh potential housing flexibility among its uh allow or uh among the the use units that are permitted on the site.

Uh you do see a couple marks on there where I have uh crossed out uh numbers and added new numbers.

Uh there is a PZD packet in front of you uh that was uh shared with staff during agenda session last week that we are currently evaluating.

Uh and that is uh that captures the numbers that you see on the screen here, which includes the the potential to reduce the front setbacks along the properties uh for that are adjacent to the public street that runs through this development as originally proposed.

Uh, since it was intended to be a network of private streets, there was not a need to have uh setbacks that responded to the streets.

They only needed to think about setbacks from the outside of the property.

Um, if that makes sense.

And a whole touching on that shortly will help clarify that a little bit.

Uh also the as I noted before, the second planning area is intended to be open space and so only allows those uses you typically find in open spaces uh in the city.

Um, in terms of compatibility, uh staff does find this request to uh complement the surrounding area.

This is a almost uniformly single family uh portion of the city of Fayetteville.

Uh the planned zoning district associated with Underwood Park and the Underwood PZD to the east does allow uh up to multifamily housing.

So this property's proposal allows single and two family, uh allows for a nice or logical transition down to the lower density neighborhoods to the immediate south.

From a land use planning standpoint, uh we do recognize that this property is uh increasingly distant from some of our major transportation corridors, so that lower density may be more appropriate where uh a greater allowance of housing types may be appropriate if it was closer to Dean Solomon to the east or Mount Comfort to the south.

So that lower density may be more appropriate where a greater allowance of housing types may be appropriate if it was closer to Dean Solomon to the east or Mount Comfort to the south.

The infill factors reflect this with its access to some of the more basic elements of development in FAGO, such as nearby fire access, water, sewer, city park, and trail.

For other issues to consider with the request, free preservation will remain the same.

RSF4 has a 25% true preservation requirement and PZD is also 25.

We have received some public comment about this request, chiefly from the residents of the Crystal Springs phase four subdivisions of the South.

Their concerns lie with a desire to see the green space in this area preserved and what the implications may be of having traffic from this development need to pass through their neighborhood prior to getting to Mount Comfort or Dean Solomon.

This type of connectivity was a major factor in staff's recommendation to preserve that master street plan connection that could connect back to the Dean back to Dean Solomon to the Northeast.

Finally, bringing us back to the PCD booklet that is in front of you.

As I noted, this was shared with staff the evening of your agenda session last week.

We have not had a full opportunity to review it and make sure that it's internally consistent.

That is typically a process that we do in the lead up to the planning commission hearing, and we've simply not had the time to do it in the week between agenda session and tonight.

So we are recommending that this item be left on the first reading today, so that we may do that and prevent the council from having to hear an item again to address uh minor uh amendments.

Um but uh otherwise staff is recommending in favor of the request.

We think it is compatible and consistent, uh, but bears uh being left on the agenda to be uh to confirm that that new PCD booklet uh is consistent with uh uh both internally and with uh our development code.

Uh the planning commission, when they heard it forwarded it with the commissions you heard Mr.

Williams read in the ordinance.

Um, and I'm happy to take questions.

And mayor, I do believe the applicant uh intends to have a presentation tonight for council understanding that a decision will likely be made at the next meeting.

Oh, okay, great.

So the applicant, um, would you like to go ahead and come up and give that presentation and please state your name as well.

Good evening.

Hi.

My name is Andrew Meltzer.

My address is 2500 Evans Trade Center Drive, Evans, Georgia, 30809.

Uh yeah, good evening.

Thank you for letting me take a few minutes.

I know, as staff just mentioned, maybe the vote won't take place tonight, but I do think me giving you a quick overview about what the project is, you know, answer some questions, and then maybe we come back in a few weeks, uh, answer some more questions and hopefully vote on it.

Um so I'm gonna explain to you briefly what a next chapter neighborhood is to project.

I'm gonna go through some pictures, some site plans, answer some questions.

But uh what I don't want to get lost, maybe from just more basic standpoint, um, is how excited both obviously we are as next chapter neighborhoods, both I am personally, um, how I believe staff is and and really everyone I've I've introduced as project to uh the opportunity here for what could be created in this area.

Uh, you guys are all obviously well aware with the underwood park that uh is recently started and underway.

This project is immediately adjacent to the park.

And in a lot of ways, in a lot of good ways, um, the two projects are gonna be joined, and there's gonna be a lot of synergies and a lot of uh really good interconnectivity um opportunities for us.

So I think with this, what I would consider the perfect site for a next chapter neighborhood that we've ever done being adjacent to this park.

Um I think there's an opportunity here for this not to only be uh the most exciting, but I would contend, of course, the best uh housing option, not only in the immediate area, um, but maybe the Northwest Arkansas region as a whole.

And I think it's equally as exciting that it can be located in Fayetteville.

So I just don't want that to get lost.

I I think just from a high-level perspective, um, this is a very, very unique and exciting opportunity.

So Jonathan, if you could um go to the next slide on the presentation.

Uh staff already mentioned where the property is located.

I have it again outlined there in red.

It's actually a combination of two parcels today, and at the end of the day, we would combine it into one uh roughly 49-acre piece of property.

Um the two parcels today, uh, one is zoned uh already in existing PZD.

You can you can go to the next one, Jonathan.

That's fine.

An existing PZD.

And uh the larger parcel just to the south of it is zoned RSF4.

Uh so while we can talk about the project and the specifics around it, just a quick note on some of the technical land use aspects of the request this evening.

What's allowed on the properties together today by rights is about 500 units, plus or minus.

And so the request this evening, and it sounds like we'll be in a few weeks, is actually a down zone of both of these properties from a unit count perspective.

And so I know there's usually a lot of very good rational questions about infrastructure in the area, the impact of projects on public services, et cetera, et cetera.

I just wanted to make sure I didn't forget to mention this, but at the end of the day, from a technical land use standpoint, we're requesting a down zone of about 200 units with this PZD.

So it's not like this land is zoned agriculture and we're requesting to put 300 units on it.

It's zoned for, I think by right, just over 500.

And we're downzoning it to just under 300 units.

Well, I guess technically if seven units per acre, our site plan shows just under 300.

Um, but we'll get into that.

Um, yeah, let's go to the next one.

I don't want to get bogged down on that.

Uh so fundamentally, what is a next chapter neighborhood?

Um we like to say we're not just building shelter, right?

That's kind of what we say all the time.

We're building great neighborhoods, we're great neighbors.

However, cheesy that may sound, it really comes through in everything we do and every decision we make.

Uh, we're not just looking to slap a bunch of units, as many as we can on a site plan to drive our bottom line.

Um, we value things a little more than that, and uh it comes through in the amenities that we propose, in the homes that we build, um, and in the way we do business.

Um, at the end of the day, we're always just trying to do the right thing, not only for the jurisdiction we're in, but of course, the neighbors that live with us.

Can you go to the next one, Jonathan?

Um more specifically, it's a market rate rental community.

Um, this functions and smells like and maybe looks like and feels like similar to an apartment complex, a high-end apartment complex.

Uh so this will, as I mentioned, this is one parcel with roughly 300 units on it.

So these are not individually platted, these are not 300 or 280 individual lots.

These are all owned commonly by next chapter neighborhoods, similar to an apartment, right?

Every unit in an apartment complex is owned by the apartment owner.

And that's the same case here.

And so, similar similar to an apartment, also, um, the practical nature of how it operates is almost identical.

So we take care of everything in this development, both the outside and the inside.

So if your light bulb goes out, we change it.

If your fridge goes out, we replace it.

Um we we take care of all the exterior maintenance of the homes as well as all the landscaping.

So if you have a question of like, well, do you take care of this?

The answer is most definitely yes.

Yes, yes, yes.

Uh, and so you can imagine this kind of housing product appeals to a wide variety, which I can talk a long time about, but there is perhaps a slight skew to the 55 and up crowd.

This is not age restricted, but just by the nature of what this product is, we have found that those people uh are attracted to this.

And so the idea for them, we've been told, you know, if you're for example, if you're on a fixed income lifestyle, um, this is attractive because it's a fixed expense living situation.

You pay your rent to us, and everything's taken care of for you.

Um an alternative housing option, again, this you may have a few similar things like this in Faiva.

I promise you, you have nothing like an extra after neighborhood.

Um, we technically fall under the build to rent umbrella, um, but there's yet to be a build-to-rent developer that puts a product on the ground like ours.

Um if you've seen in the past, or you I promise you, you will see moving forward other build-to-rent projects come through.

Pay attention to the density, pay attention to the density.

I would contend you will never find a build-to-rent product under 10 units per acre.

It just simply it doesn't pencil out.

Um, they're usually amenitized significantly less than ours.

And so we've taken almost the inverse approach here.

We've said we're gonna put less units, way more amenities, way more attention to detail, and while we may have less units to run out, the quality of our neighbors and the quality of our tenants and our retention rates will support our business plan.

And that's proven out thus far.

Um we've done this will be our our sixth development.

Um we've been around since about 2015, and um we you know we've learned new things in every project we've done thus far.

So you can go on, Jonathan.

Uh I mentioned you know, pay your rent, and that's it.

What one of the things I get asked sometimes is you know conversation about the individually owned units versus you guys owning all of them.

One of the one of the benefits of that from the city's perspective is that we take care of everything.

So if the grass is too long or the landscaping is unkept, or a home becomes decrepit, you're not chasing after 300 individual property owners to fix it.

You just come to one.

And so while that's beneficial for us from an operational standpoint, it also gives you a semblance of assurance from a uh jurisdictional standpoint as well.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

I I just want to emphasize and won't spend too long harping on this, but we are truly trying to build a neighborhood here.

And I have the presentation that has um I think almost 40 slides on it.

I'm not going to go through all of them, but I have about 15 just loaded up with pictures.

Pictures of our most recent developments to where the people who live with us have organically created these communities, almost subcommunities within themselves of just interacting with each other.

And it's so cool to see.

You know, we don't want to be an apartment to where you you drive up to your apartment complex, you park your car, you walk to your unit, and you don't really ever see anybody ever.

We've created something that's the complete opposite of that.

You know, last fall at our at our most recent project in Indiana, our neighbors got together without us.

You know, we don't have these.

It's just a whole thing, and I have pictures loaded up.

But what we're building and what we're proposing is is similar to an apartment.

I've said that, but I don't want you to think this is similar to an apartment.

Okay, the people who live with us are looking for something much more than that.

Um, and we've strived to try and provide that.

I think we've succeeded.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

And I just want you to be mindful that you had about 40 seconds left, just succeeding.

Okay, want to keep clicking.

I think my last slide, we can get to these if you want to.

Click, click, click, and see, just see what we have here.

Site plan, click.

We can come back to all of these, click.

Rental rates, I'm sure you guys are wondering.

We can just leave that up, and then uh I'm open for any questions.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Yes, I appreciate it.

Okay, do we have questions for Mr.

Carthair for the applicant?

Uh Ms.

Turk.

Um, I have a couple of questions about, and maybe this can get answered next uh in two weeks.

But it looks like you've only got the one pro the one public drive right through the middle of the uh why the private drives?

What are the advantages of Jonathan?

Of having a private drive versus all of them being public.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, and that was actually uh I'll say the primary, but that's almost understating it.

Uh the primary topic of conversation thus far about this project and through planning commission because what we were previously proposing were for all of these roads to be private roads.

Um, but to meet the intent of the master street plan connection, we are going to be granting public access easements over them.

And so our contention was well, these roads are still public because the public can access them.

The distinction is um when you call a road public, which what I think is really intended by that is public right of way being dedicated.

So the distinction there is publicly owned property versus privately owned property with a public access easement over it.

Um and there's a lot of reasons we are pushing for that from a spacing standpoint.

You see, now that we've gone away from that, we've had to up the density to seven units per acre.

We had to adjust those setbacks to maintain a certain level of unit count.

So we've adjusted, and we'd still prefer to do it the way that we proposed, but I mean, we heard the planning commission loud and clear and staff that they they would prefer that we don't amend the Master Street plan around that technicality.

So to answer your question now, what we're left with is this.

Um the condition of approval, of course, is leaving certain roads as as public roads through the development, public right-of-way through develop through the development to meet the master street plan.

And so we've done that.

Um it's it's the two connections at the bottom, and you can kind of trace both of those as they snake their way to the very top right.

Okay, and so those will be uh that will be public.

Um can I point to them?

So next week or two weeks, if you could if you could actually draw on there which are public and which are private, that would be extremely helpful for us.

One more, yeah.

Sure, I will.

Okay, but I'll answer your question.

I don't feel like I have yet.

Um it's around spacing.

You know, what we're doing, and with our current site plans, we're meeting all the requirements.

The rest of the roads, other than the ones that I'll highlight for you for next week, will uh remain private, but they will maintain public access easements over them as well.

And so it'll give us a little more room to position the units how we usually like to, but it'll keep public access over them.

Okay, I think I understand most of that.

Um, my second question is um, will you be building those um private streets to public city affable standards?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so it in the future, if something comes along, they could be converted to public streets.

I mean, I'm just for you guys to decide.

Right.

I you know, they they would they would not be substandard.

Yeah, that that's I'll I'll just add to that.

Um, if public right-of-way was dedicated over them, there might be some some variances needed for setbacks since we're not requesting those today.

So, in theory, it could happen.

I do think there's a few steps that need to occur though, if you guys elected to do that.

And that that's great.

That's my follow-up question.

And so if you if you face a private street, you don't have to abide by the city of Faithful's setback requirements.

Is that correct?

We have this is a PCD, so they can make their setback requirements whatever they want, is the short answer.

So they could make them zero, they could make them 50.

And we have so we understood that.

And um, in that table uh Jonathan was going through, you actually see one of the lines that says front building separation, and then right below it, front building setback.

And so we see front building setback, those are for units that are fronting public right-of-way.

And then when it says separation, those will be units that are fronting the private roads, and we've made them equivalent.

Okay.

Final question from me.

Um, you kind of talk about this great community, it sounds really wonderful.

Um, but are there any restrictions?

Um, you know, there's a lot of weird things going on these days, and I just wanted to ask that question.

Yeah, well, we're not age restricted.

That's the first question that usually comes up.

Um the next question usually comes up is are you some kind of you know, tax credit housing or government subsidy housing in any way?

The answer is no to that as well.

Um market rate, rental community.

So you do have to meet certain income requirements, two and a half times the rent to qualify for one of these units.

In addition, we do background checks, credit checks, etc.

etc.

Very similar things to uh high-end apartment complex.

I hate keep saying that, but yeah.

So nothing out of the ordinary, just pretty standard.

Okay, thank you very much.

Yes, ma'am.

Ms.

Moore, I saw you next and then thank you, Mayor.

Honestly, I'm a little confused about this development.

Um, as I looked at the photos, it doesn't feel very faible.

I'll be real honest.

I see a lot of concrete.

We've had a lot of conversations about stormwater, um, and it's sitting right there in an area that's gonna you know struggle to manage that.

We have the underwood park there, right?

That's also gonna be faced with that.

Just I want to give you at least that feedback.

So maybe next week uh or in two weeks when we come back, maybe we could you know have some conversation on that, and you're welcome to respond.

Um, you know, the other thing too, you talked about recent developments in other cities.

Would love to really see what those look like because I'd love to understand how you're gonna approach this project to the uniqueness of the character of that particular area.

Um, there are very like small cottages that are over to the other side and wondering how that's gonna really um interact and become a part of that community over there.

The other thing too is that we talk a lot about the investments that are everyday taxpayers are making and trying to improve the amount of households that are there to pay for those amenities.

And so I heard you talk about um again, the park right beside it is gonna have millions and millions of dollars of amenities there, and you kind of flipped it where it's sitting right beside this amenity rich underwent park, but you're gonna put a lot more amenities versus houses.

And I'm real real kind of confused about that because um, you know, then we're gonna have our park goers and our you know, our our city um uh community members there, you know, who may be living in poverty and they're sitting there staring at these lush amenities, and I'm just kind of having a disconnect of that.

So just would like to understand that a little bit better.

Um and then you talked about being on a fixed income lifestyle, and I haven't been able to do the math, but talking about two and a half times the rent on some of the rents that I saw.

I'm just real curious about what kind of profile of an individual when you look at our housing assessment in the city that we had that was delivered by our city staff.

I'd really like to understand what part of our city that answers for when you come back in two weeks, please.

Um, and then my other question is I see on page two, it's not numbered, sorry.

It's on this this page with the map.

Just uh uh I notice on the zoning reversion, and this might be partially for city staff or the city attorney on the zoning reversions when we go to make this decision.

Um it says that if um no action takes place within two years of the date, then this reverts back.

And I think that's contrary to maybe what we've had in the past, feel like it's 10 years or it's a higher amount of time.

And so um also want to understand that because I I do believe this is currently single family zoning, so just want to understand the implications because you know we don't know what the market might do, and so want to understand if we you know approve this potentially, you know, what the implications just might be of what that would revert to in two years.

And so want to understand if we you know approve this potentially, you know, what the implications just might be of what that would revert to in two years.

I have responses to all four.

Thank you.

Would you like me to do it now in two weeks?

Well if you feel like you're prepared to answer now, that would be great.

Sure.

Um the first one, uh, you're gonna have to kind of help me walk through.

Maybe I can go backwards.

Um, the the no action in two years, uh, we felt that was a reasonable amount of time.

Usually we've seen about one year in other jurisdictions about planning decisions, especially PCDs like this.

It's essentially to be put in there to say, okay, we're getting this project rezoned.

If uh China invades Taiwan tomorrow and the market tanks, and we don't move forward with the project, we just feel it it's our responsibility to the landowner that their property be reverted to the zoning that as it exists today by right.

So it was just our way of trying to be responsible in our development approach with the landowner.

Um the the second the one before that, and I'm gonna struggle remembering the first two, but the one before that about the housing study, Jonathan.

If you actually go to my presentation, um I have quite a few slides in there addressing the housing study with some quotes about how I do think we do meet it.

Um it's not the whole thing, and I can definitely go back and bring some more in two weeks, but there's a lot of language in there there that talks specifically about people who are looking for alternative housing options, and that people don't all want to live in regular single family homes.

You can just keep scrolling, Jonathan.

You have to click a few times.

I'm sorry, it's uh I think one of the last to keep going.

Here we go.

Okay, so here's here's a quote for example.

This is just pulled straight from the study.

Um providing a range of size type and price options give residents more choice about their housing options.

Uh expressed a recognition that all not not all residents want to live again in a traditional single-family neighborhood.

So I think the biggest thing that we're meeting as a part of that study is we're providing a diverse set of housing, an alternative housing option for those who do not want to live in the existing housing options that Fayetteville provides today.

Um I believe your first question was about stormwater.

Um, we're not requesting any deviant in any deviations or variances from the Fayetteville required stormwater standards, and so we're going to be held to meeting all of those engineering requirements, and we're not requesting any variances from it.

We've already done some preliminary look at the stormwater in the area, including the floodplain and wetlands, and we've accounted for all of them.

And so, whatever um Fayetteville tells us we have to do, we're going to do, just like any development would in the city of Fayetteville.

What was the second one?

Does anyone remember?

Oh, I think it I I think it I don't know if it's the second one, but it's about uh people looking at our amenities and maybe feeling a little envious.

Was that it?

And this is fine to answer in two weeks.

Um, I'm happy to send you my same questions over email as well.

Okay, that's fine.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Jonathan, um, tree canopy requirements, this being a PCD, not falling under our regulars uh zoning districts.

What would the tree canopy requirement be for this?

PCDs require 25% minimum.

PCDs require 25% minimum can be okay.

Thank you.

And and just a question for the candidate.

When I look at your plans, which I mean those look like new neighborhoods, so maybe trees haven't been planted yet, but you incorporate trees into the neighborhood, like shade trees, not just decorative trees, but you're absolutely correct.

Along the public roads, obviously Fayetteville has uh street tree requirement, we're not requesting any deviation from, and we're also not requesting any deviation from the tree preservation requirement or new planting requirements.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I've read through this a lot, and I'm my question is about the private streets again.

Okay.

So there's um private streets in my neighborhood and what tends to happen.

Is that's not one of the amenities that is upkept.

So is that in your um proposal to keep up those?

Yes, ma'am.

Private okay.

100%.

Mr.

Barnett.

Thank you.

Um appreciate the presentation, I'll think uh this has been very well thought out.

And um I, for one, would look at it being next to the park is as a great amenity.

Uh what's can you explain to me again the connectivity to the park?

Yeah, that's a great question.

And I haven't even touched on it.

My time ran out, I suppose.

Uh Jonathan, you can go back to the the site plan as an exhibit here.

Sorry to put you on the spot, Jonathan.

Um we're uh what I want to show you is several connection options and points to where we're not only connecting our existing sidewalk network, you can just click all the way up.

Um one more.

Yeah, there you go.

So um if you look at that, you see a bunch of red dots pointed out on the perimeter.

That's where my engineer is sitting back there and I have gone through and said, here are potential options to where we could connect our internal sidewalk and trail network to the parks.

And this is something that was of paramount importance to not only ourselves, but the underwoods, and that was almost almost it was an it's an absolute requirement from them and ourselves that we make these connections.

And so we the what we envision is for a child who lives in Crystal Springs to the south or in our development to be able to have unfettered access via safe sidewalks through our property into Underwood Park to the elementary school and to the Claver Creek Trail.

So we're gonna have our own internal network of sidewalks and trails, and they'll connect to Underwood Parks at several points throughout the perimeter of the property.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Stafford, do you have a follow-up for Jonathan or for the application?

I do for the applicant.

Um speaking of the sidewalks and park access, the neighborhood directly to the south.

Yeah, will they be able to use the sidewalks to address, you know, yes, come through the neighborhood and it'll be a public back to the streets, these darn streets.

I tell you what.

Um when I show you the highlighted streets next week, you'll see the public right-of-way that have sidewalks on either side of them, and those are uh publicly accessible.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you so much.

I'm gonna open it up to public comment at this time.

Do we have anybody in the room that would like to speak on this item?

Yes, please come on up and state your name and address.

Hi, I'm Lillian Glass.

I'm here for a government class.

Um, I was curious if a traffic study has been done or would be done like around the surrounding area, especially considering with um school and park traffic, and if any improvements like widening lanes or in turn signals would um be uh planned to accommodate the extra space.

Yeah, so thank you for being here.

I um always appreciate it when classes come to watch.

So typically we don't use this time as a QA, but what I want to allow you to do, because I know that you're learning about this.

If you have other questions, if you'll ask those right now as well, and then I can direct them afterwards to Mr.

Kurth, or were those the two that you had?

Yeah, absolutely.

Um no, those would be the only okay.

All right, great.

Thank you so much.

That's your and um Mr.

Kurtz.

Do you mind to go ahead and uh answer the question about the the traffic study if you're able?

Certainly.

Uh, we have not received a traffic study to date, which is not uncommon for rezoning requests.

Typically, those come with a development given the size of this proposed project, it does hit our thresholds that would require a traffic study to be done, though.

Wonderful.

Great, thank you.

Okay, please come on up.

Wes sorry, Wesley Bates, 1022 South Balm Avenue.

I think this sounds a bit tone-deaf based on all the conversations we've been having uh locally, and I'm not exactly sure a down zoning makes sense right there.

And some of the comments about a diverse types of housing, there's not really any diversity in that type of housing.

It just looks like a uh single family neighborhood that nobody can own their house in, which is not exactly what we've been talking about.

So thank you.

Okay, do we have anybody?

Oh, we do.

Hey, my name's Conrad uh Shimmick, 324 East Huntsville Road.

Um, I kind of echo Sarah was kind of mentioning earlier with her questions, and also uh Whitwest just said I think there's a lot of opportunity to do something a lot differently adjacent to this park.

Um so uh yeah, thank you.

Do we have any other comments?

Please state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Jim Irwin, 2925 West Topaz.

I never like coming up here for some reason, but so I live right on the park, and when Underwoods bought it, they we try to go through the Lindsay development, and all the neighborhood voted against a big subdivision.

And so this for Lynn for Underwoods doing this, we agreed with when we made the deal and we gave them our support that this was gonna be a neighborhood service thing, which would and he showed us there was gonna be clinics and all that kind of stuff, like lawyers' offices and dentists' offices and all that.

And I don't feel like he's lived up to his part of the the deal on this part because the first thing we've heard is a housing subdivision, which we all voted against, and for everything I've ever heard, we talked about affordable housing for for everybody in Fayetteville.

Well, we're selling out to another state's rental thing, and he even said it.

Once you see this one come in, there'll be others to come in right behind it doing the same thing, and that's not bringing affordable housing.

That is that pricing, because I do have one rental property, and I do keep it affordable.

That is the high end of the going rate of college students' apartments at about $600 a person, and that's pretty high for anybody that is 55 and over or on a fixed income or anything like that.

So and those people have no, it's a basically an HOA.

They have no rights to change the color of their house, how they want to decorate it, or anything like that, because we're now going to be in an apartment complex style thing, and I bet you you can go drive around any of these apartment complexes and see how well they've kept up their pavement on their apartments.

So I don't feel like this is a great use of this piece of property.

Um, and I ask that you don't not allow it to be rezoned for that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm not seeing any other comments from the room.

Um Keith, I believe we have somebody on Zoom.

We do not.

Oh, okay.

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

I know we have a request to table from the applicant.

Oh, just to I'm sorry, it's an ordinance.

Forgive me, I'm sorry.

We're gonna leave that one on the first reading.

Um, just because there's been a lot of um talk about what's happening in two weeks and one week.

I just want to clarify that because September has five Tuesdays, that next week we do not have an agenda session or a council.

Well, we have a there's a the special meeting, but there is not a traditional council agenda session, nor is there a city council meeting.

So the next agenda session is Tuesday, September 30th.

Is that correct, Ms.

Paxon?

And then the next council meeting is uh Tuesday, October 7th.

So just sharing that with you all for information's sake, and we will move on to our next item, which is our last item, and it is C8, an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning RZN to I'm so sorry, Mayor.

I think we need it.

Oh, but then you said we okay.

That is what I thought, and then I called for a motion to table, but then somebody told me that we would just be leaving it on the okay, yes.

Okay, got it.

I see, I see what you're saying.

Um item C6, forgive me, an ordinance to annex that property described in annexation petition A and X 25-1, submitted by RMP LLP for property located on West Lyarley Lane, adjacent to ward four, containing approximately 19.92 acres.

Councilperson Stafford.

Um sorry, I didn't mean to have my mic on.

I just had the same concerns.

Do we just leave it on the first reading?

No, that we left the table.

We I that was my that was my mistake.

The item just before that, item C5 we left on the first reading.

Item C6, we have a request from the applicant to table.

So I'm ready for a motion to table second.

What's that?

I think to specify for the clerk, I believe, was that an October meeting that we are asked to table it to?

Yes, Mayor, the applicant is requested to the October 7th City Council meeting.

That's be the next meeting.

So the October 7th meeting.

Okay.

Yes, we have a motion in a second to the uh to table it to the next city council meeting.

And Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

I'm sorry, let me just clarify.

I want to make sure I understand.

Yes, we're tabling it to the next council meeting, which is the Tuesday, October 7th, and that is for C6.

That is for item C6, yes, ma'am.

And we have this listed as an ordinance.

It's not gonna be left on the first reading because y'all are not wanting to go through it here at the meeting or hear the item, correct?

Is that the understanding that I'm following with y'all?

Okay, that is my understanding that was the applicant's request.

Mr.

Kurth, can you confirm?

That is correct, Mayor.

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, and could I get the first and then second one more time, please?

Um, I believe Councilperson Stafford.

And then Minister Jones.

Thank you very much.

Okay, um, yeah.

Mr.

Berna, yes, Ms.

Bunch, yes, Ms.

Turk, yes, Minister Jones, yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Ms.

Moore, yes, Mr.

Weedaker, yes.

Okay, so that brings us to item C seven, um, which we also have the request from an applicant to table.

Um, which we also have the requests from an applicant to table.

I'll make a motion to table to the October 7th meeting.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to table item C7 to the October 7th meeting as well.

Clark Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Burnet?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stacker.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker.

Yes.

Okay.

So that is also tabled.

Yes.

Thank you.

So now we are on to the last meeting or last item of the evening.

And it is item C eight, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-27 for approximately 0.4 acres located at 3070 west Mount Comfort Road in Ward 4 from RSF 4, residential single family four units per acre to NSG Neighborhood Services General.

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 Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes zone classification of property shown on the map, exhibit A, and a legal description exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo to Mars F4 residential single family four units per acre to NSG neighborhood services general.

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

Okay.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request keeps us in ward four.

Excuse me.

It is just south of the PCD request that the council considered shortly ago, and is more specifically at the northwest corner of Mount Comfort Road and Gooseberry Lane.

The property includes about 0.4 acres, uh located at that northwest corner and is developed with a single family home today.

The request before council is to rezone the property from its existing RSF4 residential single family four units per acre designation to NSG, neighborhood services general.

Staff finds this request to be both compatible from a land use standpoint and a as well as consistent with our long-range planning goals.

Given its location on a corner of a major uh transportation corridor, Mount Comfort Road, uh staff finds it to be uh an appropriate location to add additional housing as well as the potential for services in an area that is does not otherwise have a lot of access to uh some of the small scale amenities, uh retail and offices that are allowed in the neighborhood services general zoning district by right.

Uh similarly, uh from the long range planning standpoint, uh we find this corner location uh to be appropriate in uh complementing our city plan 2040 goals, particularly the the effort or the the the goal to establish compact complete and connected neighborhoods.

Uh that complete uh portion of neighborhoods is the focus here uh where we need to uh be able to provide a range of housing options for residents uh as well as the ability for them to access services in close proximity.

Uh we feel that the number of infill factors uh limited to five uh suggests that it may not be appropriate for a higher increment of of housing or more intense non-residential uses, but those limited in the in the neighborhood services general zoning district to uh small attached resident small residential units that can be attached up to four units uh as well as uh smaller non-residential uses is appropriate.

Uh regarding some other issues of the staff considered with this request, uh, for those who have not uh been on Goose Berry Lane before, it is effectively a dead end lane street today.

Uh while our master street plan does envision at some point connecting it to the Crystal Spring subdivision to the north, uh neither the right-of-way exists.

Uh if you take a very close look at our our GIS maps, you note that there is a gap between the northernmost end of Gooseberry Lane and the subdivision to the north.

And similarly, we don't have any identified uh near-term uh plans for the city to acquire that right-of-way or to fund that uh that connection there.

Um that said, uh perhaps conversely, uh there are some plans uh within the city of Fayetteville in the next five years to develop our trail network in this area and have the ability to remove the bike lanes that are on Mount Comfort today.

Uh as a community, we've recognized that the bike lanes on Mount Comfort Lane are not ideal given the traffic speeds there, and having a trail network that can run parallel to it may be more appropriate.

That would afford the city the ability to push the travel lanes towards the outside of the street and incorporate a turn lane into the middle of Mount Comfort Road.

Uh so between those two issues, staff recognizes that it's not ideal that Gooseberry Lane is is not a through street today, uh, that it could be, uh perhaps in the long term, but more close to the short term.

Uh there are uh forthcoming changes to Mount Comfort Road that could uh make access to this street and this site uh more safe and and readily uh readily done.

Um also uh we've received quite a bit of public comment on this request.

Uh I believe uh much of that has come since the planning commission, and we've worked to forward that to city council, and I hope you've had the opportunity to uh to consider that rather than me attempting to characterize all of it.

Uh the majority of the concerns revolved around what I just described, which is that again, Gooseberry is a dead end uh road, and there is no connectivity there.

Um but also with concerns as how gooseberries access from Mount Comfort Road and concerns about traffic backing up uh to gooseberry coming from different directions and perhaps uh limiting access to the site.

All those findings in mind, uh staff is recommending approval of the request.

Uh you are, however, hearing it on appeal uh from the planning commission's denial uh when they heard the proposal, uh the planning commission voted three to six on a motion to forward it to council recommending in favor.

Uh the three votes that supported the request uh felt that neighborhood services general afforded the the potential for small scale services to be incorporated into a neighborhood that does not have uh much in the way of uh of those services.

Uh the six dissenting uh planning commissioners uh shared a lot of the neighbors' concerns about access management, um, but also are and also expressed concerns about the the potential scale of development and that it could be incompatible given that this area is uh almost uniformly single family, uh, with the exception of some nearby uh religious institutions.

Um that said, and those of you that were at agenda session did hear that uh it may be that the applicant is bringing forward an amendment to their requests, but mayor, I'll defer to them uh whether uh they want to bring that forward formally or not.

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

And West Bates and Conrad Sheemick are here as the applicants to present for this item.

Great.

Um would the applicants like to speak now, or just make yourselves available for questions.

Oh, okay.

We want to speak now.

So come on up.

Hello, good evening.

Um thanks.

Um, thanks everybody.

So we have a short presentation.

Um, I want to start with a couple questions, and this is something that's been lingering um last couple weeks.

It's who absorbs additional housing and what neighborhoods are responsible for absorbing that additional housing.

Uh, we do a lot of work in South Fayetteville, and we both live in South Fayeville, and um we're gonna run out of buildable lots pretty soon in South Fayetteville.

And we can't say that only South Fayeville is in in near downtown.

That can't be the only spot where we um have infill.

So we need to be thinking about other neighborhoods where we can do small infill projects that don't change the character of the neighborhood.

Next slide, please.

The next question is what do we envision for the future of Mount Comfort?

And as we present these slides, I want you to think about not necessarily where we are today, but how we can get to where the city wants to be with Mount Comfort, and what are some of the small incremental changes we can do?

Um and I think as a council, you've seen some of the other projects we're working on and the risks that we're taking in terms of um alley frontage, trail frontage, ADUs.

We're doing the things that the planning department is um asking for, and the council has voted on.

Um, and so I just want you to keep that in mind, please.

Next slide, please.

So I want to talk about compromise.

So, you know, you can see the um you saw the vote of the planning commission, and it went to a vote pretty quickly.

Uh, we weren't exactly prepared for that, but we're we're really proud of the compromise that we've come up with with the neighbors.

And we've had a lot of back and forth.

And if you go to the next slide, Jonathan.

Um, you know, we went back and forth and we talked about their concerns and we understand the concerns.

Um, and ultimately, uh, you received this email um, you know, that was from a representative of the the neighbor group saying that they support RSF 18.

And we think that's a great compromise, and we'd be very happy with RSF 18.

It would allow us to add some single family dwellings.

It's not our personal uh top choice, but we'd be we would be comfortable with that.

Next slide, please.

And you know, a couple more questions.

Why not RSF 8?

So RSF 8 would allow one more.

This is a point under half an acre, it would allow one more single family dwelling.

What's wrong with RSF8?

Well, it creates an incentive for us to tear down an existing house and to build two big houses in its place.

That that's not the type of development that we're encouraging, and we believe in.

We want to uh save an existing structure that a lot of people wrote off and would write, you know, would say it's a tear down.

Um, but to have you know the ability to only build one more house, we it gets the incentives mixed up.

Um C does the same thing.

There's a uh if you go to the next slide, Jonathan.

Um you can see to the north of the house, uh, which is to the right in this photo, there's a big red oak, and we had an arborist come out and look at that red oak, and um it's a healthy tree that we want to we want to save.

Uh NC would essentially put that red oak in the middle of a lot based on just the simple lot configuration and dimensions.

Next slide.

So you can kind of see on the right the spread of that red oak, and it says about 52 feet to the north of that red oak.

So we said, look, if we want to try to get two houses here, NC is uh, you know, there's NC across the street, it's less than ideal.

Uh it puts that red oak in the middle of the lot, and most likely would have to get cut down in order to get two two small houses.

Next slide, please.

So now on the left is kind of uh configuration with NC.

On the right would be a configuration with RSF 18.

RSF 18 requires um less street frontage.

So we could get those two lots, but get them further north to avoid the spread of that red oak and kind of put that red oak between um two houses.

You know, preferably we'd have a shared drive off of Gooseberry to service those two lots and really avoid that that tree.

Next slide, please.

So I'm gonna move a little faster.

Um I was in Bentonville this past weekend, and this is 8th Street, um, about near like the Best Friends Animal Society.

This is 10 years ago on 8th Street.

It looks similar to Mount Comfort today without the housing.

Next slide, please.

And this is what they just did.

One lane in each direction, a parking lane for the park nearby, and a trail on the side of the road.

Um, I mean, this could be Mount Comfort in you know, two years, five years.

Like we we could have a road like this that's much more pleasant to be on for all users.

Next slide, please.

Right, Conrad, sorry.

Okay, I'll go through this slide pretty quickly.

Um, just the zoning map.

Um, two things I wanted to kind of note are all this a lot of single family homes facing Mount Comfort Road, which is a well-trafficked street, in addition to the other zoning types, NSG, RI-12, um, uh some other, I think there's uh yeah, community uh residential offices.

Uh next slide, please.

Okay, so this this slide I want to show.

I I call it the the wild gooseberries.

I thought that was kind of cool.

But um, so we basically have a right-of-way that's been dedicated in 1960 uh approximately, and then we have a newer subdivision to the north, in which case the developer had the plat, you know, develop a street and have it dead end.

So if the city built out this right-of-way, and you imagine yourself standing at into this cul-de-sac, just imagine how that kind of looked like.

Right?

Uh, next slide, please.

Um, so here's a master street plan.

It shows good the wild gooseberries being tamed and connected.

Uh on the right is a regional link street.

That's what Mount Comfort's designated as.

Um, and so you note the turning lane, and there's also, I got a call from engineering today.

There's this in the next um, yeah, I guess five years, there's a multi-trail and multi-use trail slated to be on the south side.

That's required before they're gonna do the turning lane and also get rid of the uh bike lane.

Um we had a lot of folks mentioned uh what look you know, Weddington and how this could look like Weddington.

I just want to say Mount Comfort, I think is a bit different.

This is not like greenfield empty farmland.

These are there's a lot of individual parcels already here.

Um I think the risk is a lot less for that, but also that I think the risk is that this could look like highway 45 or Huntsville Road.

Um let's see.

Oh, two main comments last time were turning lane, dead end street.

Uh those were the some of the factors.

Next slide, please.

This is kind of uh a what-if scenario.

What if gooseberry was tamed?

Um you can get to to the you know other side of Mount Comfort quite quickly, three minutes as opposed to some neighbors are saying 10 or more minutes during traffic, trying to take a left uh on the Mount Comfort.

Um, you know, and then the the final thing uh on on here is allowing verse reasoning, you know, there's eventually when the street is redeveloped at the top by the two property owners, right away will have to be granted by the city, and this connection will be made.

So I think this this is an inevitable, but then the reason of it being a dead-end street and not being further developed is actually hindered by not allowing the street to be connected, um, which I think is interesting.

Uh next slide, please.

Okay, just sidewalks at development.

We'll have to put in sidewalks or fee and move of sidewalks.

And next slide, please.

Uh these are street widths of uh common common streets here in town, two lane streets.

Um the final one on the right is Gooseberry.

Um we have Willow and then Mount Sequoia assembly drive in the middle.

Next slide, please.

So I this is our last slide, and I put this in here as just talking through our ultimate goal.

And tonight what we're asking for is we would like this to be left on the first reading.

And we're um we're we we got a survey back from our surveyor today, and we're looking into um a split zoning potentially where we keep the existing house.

Um we would like the existing house to be NSG to keep that corner really small, and the development potential would be very small and incremental.

Um, and then RSF-18 to the north of that house.

Um we have the legal descriptions, but because we just got that back today, we would like to schedule time with the neighbors to talk through a potential build assurance to say what are what are the uses that they're really afraid of.

And you know, we can we can tell you that like the uses that they're afraid of, we wouldn't want either, and like we wouldn't want that in our neighborhood.

So we'll have assurance just that's easy for us.

Um so we we would like to set more time up with them to see if there is any opportunity to find some common ground there and then revisit this in a few weeks.

And if we can't find common ground, we're not gonna take this to a vote for NSG.

We'll um you know, we'll we'll ask for RSF-18 in three weeks.

Um, I don't we're out of time, but we'd like to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Okay, who from the council has questions?

Council person Burnout.

My only question is if they're gonna request us to hold it.

Do we prefer to you know let them get with the neighbors first before we go through a lot of conversation, or do the neighbors want to go ahead and have their public comment?

I'm just asking for saving time.

Uh Ms.

Tart, do you have um there's a lot of neighbors here, so it would be nice to hear from them.

Okay.

Okay, well, then I'm gonna turn it over to public comment.

Um who would like to speak on this matter?

If so, just go ahead and come up, state your name and address, and please be mindful of the three-minute time limit.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Um, my name is Jake Hertzog.

I live at 2278 North Gooseberry Lane.

I believe we were told we would have 10 minutes, so if it's if it's three, I'll do my best to keep this at three.

Uh the property in question 3070, Mount Comfort sits right across the street from our home.

And I'm gonna share a bit of a collective response from the residents on our street.

Uh I'm gonna skip the part where I recap a few other things that happened at the planning commission and their reasons for denial.

Uh, but I want to say that even though the uh taming the wild gooseberries sounds great, uh the right now the wild gooseberries are absolutely not tamed, and it seems like the the master plan does not have all of those uh ducks in a row per se to make that happen on a timeline that makes uh makes this request um reasonable.

Right now, Mount Comfort has no middle turn lane.

It's nearly impossible to get uh a turn out of Gooseberry during peak hours.

And as I speak, uh Jonathan, I wonder if you could pull up the slides that that uh that we sent.

We sent them to somebody, I don't remember who they said uh was gonna pull them up.

Um but uh we agreed with the planning commission's findings when they denied it.

Uh they found NSG to be far too broad and permissive.

This is important, permissive of things like a medical office, a deli, a grocery store, a dry cleaner, things that genuinely make no sense on Mount Comfort and Gooseberry, especially considering the large development that is currently going on at RuPaul and Mount Comfort Road in terms of walkability and access for residents to business services.

That is an excellent project.

We are excited about it, we're supportive of it, and there is no reason that any kind of business services to serve that neighborhood shouldn't be placed in that development instead of on our corner.

Uh so the the planning commission found that this would be a highly inappropriate neighborhood for NSG.

Uh and uh to the point that uh the developer just made.

Uh we we did have a lot of back and forth with them since the uh planning commission uh meeting.

Tonight is the first instance that we are hearing that they are plan that they would like to split it in two parcels in zone one as RSF-18 and one as NSG.

What we had previously agreed to in our conversation, and I believe that it was me that emailed you all about this, was that uh we we would be willing to go for um RSF-18 for some very specific reasons, mostly because an RSF uh four, RSF-8, and RSF-12, the lot size restrictions and the particulars did not necessarily allow for uh us uh for them to build the two properties that they wanted and preserve everything.

And I realize I have to do that.

Jake, I'm gonna ask you to pause right there because I believe Councilperson Berna is going to give you some more time.

Yeah, I'd like to give him uh another five minutes.

Can we add that to the clock?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Please continue.

Uh so just to just to recap that last point, um, we we had some very productive discussions with the developers about uh RSF uh four, eight, and twelve.

Um we also got uh some information from city staff about RSF-8 and 12.

And our understanding of it is that the very particular dimensions of the existing structure and the trees that they would like to preserve necessitate this this change to RSF-18.

So, with that, um I want to recap some of some of our remaining concerns with RSF-18 because it is a much higher residential zone than we had hoped for.

Uh, and if I it might be the um Jonathan or or kind staff members, thank you.

So I think you may know this already.

If you go maybe to the slide with the maps on it, all the surrounding areas are um RSF-4.

And uh, and and so RSF-18 is quite a high um distance from RSF uh RSF-4.

And our our main concern is uh are twofold.

Number one, uh the traffic and congestion issues that we were uh concerned about with NSG would certainly still exist, even with the change to RSF-18.

Uh the development, both residential and commercial on Mount Comfort and Drupal is going to significantly increase that traffic.

So let's say, even if we do connect the wild gooseberries together, and even if we do in several years uh create a street that eliminates the bike lanes and widens uh widens Mount Comfort, we are still looking at a significant increase in the traffic on Mount Comfort Road, to say nothing of the other proposed development we heard this evening that would add upwards of 200 homes also being served by those main arteries.

So I believe those concerns are still uh quite relevant.

The traffic, the turning.

Um, if you don't mind uh swapping to uh the next slide, please.

Uh this is what Gooseberry looks like now.

Um this is a view from our our driveway, and the trees uh with this arrow on it uh have now been removed.

Um, if you don't mind uh going to the next slide, please.

Uh this is uh a closer shot uh of a a couple days ago that where the the proposal would um build two houses.

Uh and and so what what we keep coming back to is uh we have discussed this with the developers.

We we do understand why RSF-18 would accommodate their proposal, uh, but we certainly want to urge this council to uh deny any uh NSG uh for this proposal of any kind, whether it's split or not.

And we do want to encourage this council and the developers to consider that directly across the street from this property is a property that had been split into two homes, and it now has two single family homes on it.

And we feel, and the planning commission felt at the time that uh two homes would be appropriate in this uh location, which could be accomplished with one of those other zoning changes or with a conditional use permit, so that the existing structure could become a business and office of some kind.

Um so we believe that there are still multiple potential solutions that would be even a better fit.

Um I do want to acknowledge that uh the developers are concerned, at least in some part with what fits the neighborhood, and we're grateful for that.

Uh, but we think that uh there are some other solutions that would that would either accommodate what they need that would not be an SF-18 or would would be a slightly um variant version of that.

Uh so with that in mind, um we agree with the planning commission that this the lowest the lowest zoning possible to accommodate uh what the developers are trying to do that fits the neighborhood would be the best scenario for us.

And I want to reiterate uh for this council that we are uh very opposed to any kind of uh commercial zoning, even if it is uh in a split way uh for all the concerns we shared last time and for the concerns about the types of businesses that would allow, uh the traffic problems that would create, things like uh deliveries and uh goods and uh utilities and um sanitation services for those businesses would all become a problem for our street.

Uh and to us in regards to walkability and that that goal for the neighborhood uh walkability for businesses means a project like Mount Comfort Square.

We think that's a laudable goal and something that seems like it's doing the right thing in the right place.

Um walkability to us doesn't mean overburdening a narrow street in a quiet section of the neighborhood.

Um and uh so I want to uh I want to thank you for the extra time.

Thank you very much.

Uh and uh we hope that we can eventually come to the lowest possible residential zoning that accommodates uh what everyone hopes to accomplish.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

If we have other do we have other public comment in the room?

Do we have any oh yeah?

Hi, please come on up and state your name and address.

Hi, good evening.

Um Cynthia Smith, 2299 Gooseberry Lane.

And my home adjoins uh the property line for 3070 uh Mount Comfort.

My husband and I moved to the I call it the Mount Comfort neighborhoods 31 years ago, and we moved there for the reasons of we love that it's almost out of town, um, that it um has mature trees, a peaceful, a very peaceful place and large lots.

And we moved there, there was a horse that ran behind our home, and and now it's Cropton Manor.

And so there have been a lot of changes in the last years, and that was one of the good ones.

We have great neighbors behind us that sometimes their chick little chicks crawl under the fence or a ball comes over, and that's helped us get to know them.

Um, but I think this is not a good change for that the neighborhood.

What we uh don't have on our street, our sidewalks.

We don't have gutters, we have the natural um grass gutters, which as Jake referred to, just parking is we don't park on the street.

I mean, the only time you'll see parking on the street is if there was a you know social gathering or something, but having uh an office or a business there, I can't see how that would be avoided, especially if there's uh the lot is split and there are two additional homes on 0.4 acres.

Where would people park for a business or an office?

But what we do have, Jake mentioned is the walkability.

I don't want to just talk about for my street, but uh the walkability for the Mount Comfort neighborhood.

Um, when you guys put sidewalks, you know, into the streets, people started walking, scootering, riding their bike all up and down Mount Comfort, and they come on to our little cove of the street.

I see my vet assistant with her Rottweiler that comes early in the morning and other neighbors that I recognize from when I walk in their neighborhoods over in Bird Haven or next door in Crafton Manor.

So some of my issues would be one is how would that impact um the neighborhood just for the enjoyment of having uh a leisure place to be on a quiet street?

Um and why a business or an office there?

Uh as Jake mentioned, just in the big development that's happening, it's um a Mount Comfort um square, it's 26,000 square feet.

I know I don't have to tell you guys this, but a business space and 9,000 square feet of offices.

So why do we need that in the middle stretch?

Um when we are we're walkable to that area and we're walkable also down to come and go or uh the Maverick.

Um we can walk to those areas.

Why would you uh have a business around that corner?

And um, there's a thing.

Just in closing, I do appreciate Wes trying to keep the trees and talking with us.

And I agree with Jake that having uh mirrored um development like across the street, a split lot with a new home gives us time.

Thank you.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Do we have other comments?

And you're welcome to line up if you would like if we have if you want to.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, City Council um Brian Teague.

Um, I would like to ask the um city council to support the NSG zoning at this particular location.

Um thinking about it a little bit today, um, I might just ask the crazy question of you know what what if uh Mount Comfort was more like a rural main street for for lack of a better example, something like downtown Goshen, for instance.

Um, would it be would it be a more um desirable place?

And you know, if the question was yes, then the the RSF for the residential zoning all up and down Mount Comfort has has held that back and not enabled it to be more of a main street feel.

Uh I think a lot many people would think that it it would be a more desirable place if it were in fact a more rural like main street, if you will.

Um the second thing I want to bring up is is walkability.

Um, in in the neighborhoods all along um all along Mount Comfort, there really are no destinations within walking distance.

Um, hopefully soon there there may be some.

But um I think if you were moving to Fayetteville and you were looking at this neighborhood and and you were used to being able to have a walkable destination um within walking distance, uh I think you'd probably look elsewhere.

Um, you know, if you want to walk to dinner or something, it's probably a 25 or 30 minute walk over to to Weddington.

Uh so I I think given the busyness of of Mount Comfort, um, I I think that NSG or allowing some non, you know, a limited amount of non-residential on on Mount Comfort, even though I don't think that's what Wes and and uh Conrad want to do with it.

I think that would be more than appropriate and in accordance with with our city plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

So I'm Kathy Freeman.

I live on 2327 Gooseberry Lane, been a resident for over 32 years.

Um I just wanted to agree with my neighbors um support of continuing a residential zoning, and also uh let you know that we are very grateful for the dialogue that ADNU um has afforded to our residents and has you they've met with us several times, and we do appreciate that and the willingness to compromise, which gives me hope in small scale development.

I would say that actually, in answer to um the last comment, uh having been on Gooseberry for over 30 years, uh I think it is a very desirable area because there has been extreme development to schools, countless neighborhoods.

Um it is a desirable place.

People enjoy living out on this west side where it is there's not there has not been a lot of traffic.

It's easy access to 49, um, and it's not crowded with a lot of business.

Um I would submit that as well as uh the fact that walkability, we are fine with I think the people that live there are not like oh there should be a restaurant on our corner.

We're used to driving, and then there are going to be there's going to be this new development down the street.

So wise um planned commercial development, I think is what we're looking for.

And again, many of us have said yes, we are for that.

We want to continue though, the the neighborhood feel of walkable neighborhoods and not just mean that you can walk to any place, but you lose the feel of a neighborhood.

Um so I do support continuing with a non-commercial zoning for this time.

It can be revisited in a few years when there's more space on Mount Comfort, and um perhaps our road has been expanded and there's room for a turn lane.

Um, but at this point, it sounds it seems very inappropriate for this little street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Someone come on up.

Good evening.

My name's Carl Zach.

I live directly across the street from this area.

I am in one of the houses.

Um 2246 Gooseberry Lane.

Um, I'm in one of the houses that is the split across the street.

Um right now, um, I've been witness to three or four accidents on that street just in the last few years of people trying to turn.

I think to put a commercial building right there, considering it's residential to the north, south, east, and west, and we already have a lot of traffic.

I totally support them 100% and agree with them 100%.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rebecca Smith.

I live at 2299 Gooseberry Lane.

Um I have been born and raised on Gooseberry Lane.

I've lived there about 20 years now.

I've also lived the past better past of the last three years in Germany and South Korea.

So I'm very used to walkable cities.

That is actually obviously many people's preference.

It's my premise as well.

I do not believe this is a good solution to walkable city.

I believe it changes completely the neighborhood the vibe and to the community.

I fear that it would take a lot of community out of it.

I think we already have a really good community.

I think you can tell that based on how much of our neighborhood is here.

A lot of our neighbors couldn't make it tonight because the Tuesday was harder than they make than it was on Monday.

Um but all of that being said, these new developments on other parts of Mount Comfort.

So we've mentioned multiple times that Mount Comfort Square, we're really excited about that.

That's absolutely walkable.

It's bikeable, it's walkable, it's drivable.

I don't think we would usually drive it.

But all of these things that are already being developed make much more sense than putting something that's high traffic on such a small lane.

I sent in some pictures.

I don't know if anyone had this time to see my email.

Our lane is really very, very small.

Um whenever the they've been doing some development, you saw some pictures of like trees getting ripped out whenever the trucks were there for that.

It was really difficult to get around that.

And that being said, it was also difficult to leave the street because of that, because it's right on that edge, right?

So one of the our cars there, people visiting, it's not wide enough for us to be able to literally leave the street.

Um that being said, we don't really want it to be a through street.

It's kind of really lovely the way it is.

I don't know if you've been on a lot of through streets in the area, but people really drive through it very fast.

Um people already take Mount Comfort around 50 miles per hour, even though it's zoned for 40.

Um I've seen people driving 30 to 40 on the bird neighborhoods that are right near us.

That's dangerous.

Um, but leaving our street, I mean it's already a really high traffic area leaving my street today.

This was at about 540, so not even peak traffic.

It took me five minutes to turn out of Gooseberry Lane.

And that was like not even like a slow, nice turn.

That was like me, you know, kind of an aggressive turn.

And so this is a really a development.

It worries me that the developer has said some things that we haven't heard today as a neighborhood.

Um that's really concerning to me.

It's concerning that maybe something could happen that has not been discussed, but under the guise that we have discussed it and come to an agreement that I find really concerning.

And all this being said, I'm really grateful to live in Fayetteville.

I'm really extremely grateful to be here in front of a council that will listen to its people that will listen to its constituents.

I'm really grateful that you're taking this time out for to hear us.

Um yeah, and I just really hope that you understand that this is a pretty big deal for us for our little street.

Most of our people are retired or people raising families.

It's a very narrow street.

They walk it all the time.

I don't want to worry for their safety.

I mean, he just mentioned there was a fatal accident just a couple years ago that was horrifying, and we all were really near it, and it was really sad.

And I just really worry that the safety could be a huge issue with even with all these things.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thanks for y'all's uh patience and uh my name's Burke Russell, I live at 2395 Gooseberry.

I'm at the very end of the street.

Uh I won't take up much of their time.

I'll support everything that's been said.

I don't want to repeat any of that.

Um I used to work at restaurant on the corner.

And that's as much as I miss it, but that's not what needs to be on the corner of Gooseberry and Mount Comfort.

Um I just hope that we can we met with the developer in Hannah.

I think we came to a tentative agreement, and I hope we can keep talking and come up with something.

Um if we don't have any more public comment in the room, um, Keith, do we have any um comment virtually?

We do not.

Okay.

Then I'm gonna bring this one back to the council.

Um sounds like we have a request to leave it um on this first reading.

Uh councilperson Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, yeah, I I'd like to keep this on the first reading uh if other council members are meanable to that because it it seems like there's more stuff for the uh developers and the neighbors to look at with each other, and I I hope they can come to something that they it seems like they can't.

I I feel like maybe they're close and it's just getting together.

Yeah, so uh yeah, that's it.

Um Ms.

Butch.

Uh yes.

Um of the comments that were made, I would just like to address just briefly.

Um it was mentioned that that the uh the owners might be working on a bill of assurance.

And uh Kit, could you kind of give us for for some of the audience exactly what a bill of assurance is and you know, kind of because some people didn't seem to understand what that might I um we don't know what's going to be in it, but what it might be.

Well, bill of assurance has to be offered by the applicant to restrict their rights uh that they're asking for in the rezoning.

And it actually becomes if it's a if the zoning is approved, then it actually becomes part of the zoning.

Uh it remains with the zoning and only the city council and change it in the future.

They can either rezone it to something else so that uh bill of insurance goes away, or they can just remove the bill of assurance, which is not happened very often.

So really it becomes part of the zoning, and and everything that the bill of assurance says can't restrict the the uh owner's uh rights to do something with their property.

And and so just it goes with the land if it were to be sold, and it uh that was if there is a restriction, a bill of assurance goes with the land and it goes to the next owner with that restriction on it, right?

That's absolutely correct.

It's like zoning goes with the land.

Okay.

Uh it remains with the land until the city council decides to change it.

Yes, okay, thank you very much.

Mr.

Wheataker.

And I'll be very brief.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh it's a pleasure to see people who love their neighborhood, and that's a that's a treat for us.

It's also a privilege for us to see developers want to preserve significant trees, and I I commend them for trying to explore an avenue for accomplishing that.

And um you guys met together in the past and made some progress, and our hope is that you can do that once again.

We've seen this team of developers do some good things in town, but it's always a privilege that to hear people describe their neighborhood in such affectionate terms.

Thank you all for being here tonight.

Okay, so we are gonna leave that item.

Um Keith, do you have any announcements?

I do not at this time.

Okay.

Then um, I want to thank the group that came.

Can you raise your hand if you came from your class or from the honor society?

I think there were several of you.

I'm not gonna make you come up here, I promise.

I just want to say thank you for spending your time with us this evening.

And you picked a a good night.

We don't often get out before eight, so all right.

Thank you all so much.

We're adjourned.