Okay, I will now call to order the October 7th City Council meeting of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Banks?

Ms.

Turt.

Here.

Minister Jones.

Present.

Mr.

Stafford.

Present.

Dr.

Jones?

Here.

Ms.

Moore?

Here.

Mr.

Weekger?

Here.

Mr.

Barna?

Here.

Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thanks.

We will begin the evening with a special proclamation.

I want to first say thank you to Councilmember Dr.

DeAndre Jones for bringing this forward.

And also to members of the Mayor's Youth Council.

If there are any youth council members here, this is also a topic that we presented to them at one of their meetings that they were very excited to see the city speaking out about.

And it is in regard to Mental Health Awareness Week, which is why you see so many of your council members, most notably Dr.

Jones and Minister Jones.

I think they win the award for the most green, but that's what also the green um the green ribbons that some of us have on our lapels signify in recognition of that national week.

So I will now read the proclamation.

Whereas mental health is a vital part of overall health and well-being, and whereas positive conversations about mental health reduce stigma and encourage early support mechanisms in individuals, families, and communities.

And whereas nearly one in five people experience a mental health challenge each year, yet many do not receive the support they need.

And whereas prioritizing mental well-being through open dialogue, supportive environments, and access to resources strengthens our entire community.

And whereas the city of Fayetteville affirms that mental health is health and that asking for help is a sign of strength.

Now, therefore, I, Molly Ron, mayor of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, do hereby proclaim October 6th through October 12th, 2025 as mental health awareness week.

And Dr.

Jones, if you could just stay after the council meeting for just a few moments, we will get a picture with the proclamation.

Thank you for bringing that forward.

And thank you, uh Clerk Paxton, for attesting that.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

This is the July sales tax report.

I'm gonna begin with an overview of the total taxable sales in that month.

In July, taxable sales in the city totaled approximately 281 million, which is an increase of nearly 5.7% or around 15 million compared to July of 2024.

This increase was led by the retail trade sector, which is up around 5% year over year.

Our manufacturing sector was up around 51% or approximately 4.4 million.

Wholesale trade was up around 5.6 million, and our information sector grew 35% or around 2.2 million.

Um, and that that's comprised of data processing, publishing, cable, subscriptions, that kind of thing.

Um and that continued continued to trend that we have seen um since earlier this year, where employment-based sectors have been important contributors to our sales tax growth.

So that's uh kind of sets the table of where we were at in the month, and now I'm gonna move on to the actual sales tax collection results for Fayetteville.

For a comparison of July 2025 to 2024, the city one penny was up around 5.6 percent.

The county portion of the city was up 8.1%, and that results in a total combined sales tax collection increase of 6.7 percent, or approximately 315,000 compared to July of 2024.

Year to date, the combined city and county sales tax are up approximately 5.5 percent or 2.1 million compared to last year at this time.

Over in the general fund, the city is up around 7% or around 257,000 compared to July of last year, and up around 5.9% or just over 1.7 million year to date.

So that's a comparison of July 25 to 24, and now I'm gonna take a look at uh comparing July 25 to what was budgeted.

Uh the city one penny sales tax is up around 2.5% compared to budget.

The county is up around 4.9% for combined total for the month of July up 3.6% compared to budget or approximately 175,000.

And that's going to put the city on a year-to-date basis compared to budget up combined 2.5% for sales tax.

So that's uh we've been seeing some good uh tax numbers coming in.

Can I answer any questions for council on the sales tax before I move on to the monthly financial report?

Okay.

And this monthly financial report is for the month of August 2025.

I'm gonna start off in the general fund.

We saw property tax up 2%, around 45,000.

Our franchise fees were down around 1%.

Alcoholic beverage fees, those were down as well, 1%.

Our building permits, those are holding way up.

We're up 30% through August compared to budget, and that's around $590,000.

Our turnback was up three percent.

Our charges for services were down around 3%, and our court fees were up around 14% or around $100,000.

All in all, that puts our general fund uh through the month of August compared to budget up around 3%.

Moving on to the street fund, that's driven primarily by our state turnback.

Um that was flat and looking at the fund total, we're we're flat there as well.

We're up around $16,000 for the year.

In the parking fund, our charges for services were down around 3%, but our fines and fees uh were up around 32% through the month of August for the year, and that puts our fund total in the parking fund up three percent compared to budget or around 41,000.

In the uh parks development fund, our HMR taxes were up around 1%.

In our charges for services, those are down uh around $26,000.

All in all, our fund total in the parks development fund were up compared to budget 2.8 percent or around 100,000 over in the water and sewer fund that's driven primarily by charges for services as well.

We're up two percent there or around $632,000.

All in all, the fund total is up 1.9% through the month of August for the year compared to budget, and that puts us around uh $668,000 up.

And the new fund, our stormwater management.

We uh began billing for stormwater management in August with September due dates.

We have received uh some of those collections now, but uh you should be seeing that um in the future of financial reports when I deliver them in recycling and trash.

Our franchise fees are up 23 percent in our charges for services, those are pretty flat through the month of August.

All in all, we're up around 1% for the year, around $73,000.

And finally, in the airport fund, our gasoline sales for the year we're down around 2.9 percent, around $56,000, but our number of flight operations is up around 11.2 percent for the year.

And uh, we should be entering our um some pretty heavy heavy months as far as the uh airport is concerned.

And um, that is the monthly financial report for the month of August.

Can I answer any uh council questions on that?

Thank you, Stephen.

I appreciate it.

That brings us to our consent agenda, beginning with A1 approval of the September 16th, 2025, City Council meeting minutes.

No wonder it feels like it's been almost a month since we've been in here.

Um A2 contract for improvements to the Noland Water Resource Recovery Facility, A3, purchase of transit stop enhancement materials, a four contract with Burns and McDonald Engineering Incorporated for additional highway 112 project work, A5, additional investment in the Fayetteville Child Care Assistance Program, A6, improvements to North Street from Garland Avenue to College Avenue in partnership with Arkansas Department of Transportation, A7, recognizing revenue from Act 833 to fund future fire equipment purchases, a eight, acceptance of a 200,000 dollar grant from the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics to fund the pavement the pavement crack repair project at the Drake Field at the airport.

A9, continuation of central EMS services, a 10, a resolution a roof retrofit and street side boulders at YRCC.

A11, a sewer connection at 371 North Harvey Dowell Road, A12, a partnership with Arkansas Department of Transportation and the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission.

A 14, an Arkansas Department of Transportation Grant Agreement for Transit Stop Enhancements.

And A15, Secure Firearm Storage, a resolution to encourage secure fire and storage firearm storage and gun safety awareness for all residents brought by the youth council.

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

Second.

We have a motion and uh sounds like a couple of second seconds.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Hurt?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheateker?

Yes.

Mr.

Barnett.

Yes.

Okay, before we begin the next section of the agenda, I'm unfinished business.

I do want to let everyone know that item B2, which is a planned zoning district on North Raven Lane.

We have received a request from that applicant to table that.

So I suspect that the council will grant that request and vote to table it.

So if anyone in the audience is here to speak about that, it is likely that you will not have that opportunity this evening.

We will likely be skipping right from B1 to B3.

So I just wanted to let you all know as a courtesy.

And that brings us to B1.

PCD 2025-2, southeast of North Double Springs Road and West Dot Tipton Road.

An ordinance to approve a residential plan zoning district, PCD 2025-2 for approximately 66.78 acres located southeast of North Double Springs Road and West Dot Tipton Road in Ward 4.

Kit.

We can either amend this.

I'd move that we go ahead and amend to the what's been provided in front of us.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to amend it to what's been provided.

Um do I need to read that title or will you do that after we vote?

Kit.

Yeah, we'll we'll just do the amendment now, and I think uh Jonathan might have some explanation on this.

I think you worked on this with uh Blake Pennington to get this amendment done.

I guess my question was can we do the vote on the can we ask Clerk Paxson to call the roll now on the amendment, or do you need that that you want that explanation first?

Okay.

We could vote on the amendment if everybody's sure what it is, and you're ready to vote, then we could go ahead and vote on the amendment if that's what the city council wants to do.

Has there been an we have a motion to make the amendment and a second?

Yeah, we we had one already.

So Clerk Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Absolutely.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett?

Yes.

Okay, great.

So the amended ordinance is an ordinance to approve a residential plan zoning district entitled PCD 2025-2 for approximately 67.78 acres located southeast of North Double Springs Road and West Dot Tipton Road in Ward 4.

Kids.

Okay, I'll go ahead and read the amended ordinance.

As described in exhibits A and B attached to the planning department's division's agenda memo and the PCD booklet attached to the planning permission memo, which allows the development of approximately 18 acres of attached townhouse homes with rear entry access, 32 acres of single family dwellings, and 17 acres of open and natural areas on the property located north of Double Springs Road and West Dot Tifton Road in Ward 4.

Section 2, this PCD approval is subject to the following conditions, which may be reflected in an updated PCD booklet.

Number one, use unit 8, single family residential shall be removed from planning area 1.

Number two, use unit 9, two family residential shall be removed from the conditional use list in planning area 3.

Number three, planning areas 1 and 3 shall have a maximum density of six units per acre.

Number 4, planning area 2 shall have a maximum density of 5 units per acre.

Section 3, the PCD rezone amendment narrative dated October 1, 2025, submitted by the applicant, shall be attached to and incorporated into the PCD booklet.

The condition set out in the narrative by the applicant shall be fully implemented as part of any development and cannot be changed or removed without the approval of the city council.

In section four, that the official zoning map of the city of Favor hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in section one above.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kurt?

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan Current Development Services Director.

What I hope to speak to for council is that section three of what Mr.

Williams just read.

That is the PCD amendment document that was included in your final agenda and which is in front of you right now attached to the ordinance that the city attorney just read.

With that in mind, I'm going to highlight several of these.

Specifically, what's being proposed is a commitment to develop the portions of Dot Tipton that go from the this overall property's east property line, which you can see at the top center of this diagram on screen here, all the way back west, totaling about 200 or 2,011, excuse me, 2,100 linear feet of street improvements along that entire frontage to include street widening.

So anywhere that the street is does not meet our master street standard, whether it's for fire code or the master street plan standard itself, in addition to curb and gutter, green space, sidewalks, and trees.

The reason the applicant sees this as significant is typically a development would only be required to improve those portions of their frontage where their property touches a given street.

So this property, given that that gap between the two portions where it touches dot Tippin Road, may not otherwise be required to be improved as a part of this proposal.

The second component of the street improvements is to go the opposite direction.

Whereas that first section went from the properties east property line towards double springs.

The second portion of the commitment is towards the east towards 54th Avenue.

This is about 1500 linear feet, and the applicant's proposal is to widen this to a minimum of 20 foot width, which the council will recall is the minimum standard that the state fire code requires to be accessible by two fire trucks passing each other.

The second element of the proposed amendment what's touched on is uh a matter of fire access.

Uh, this has come up several times uh from uh the community in particular with concerns about how this area will be served, given uh not all the streets in the area are uh of uh of adequate width.

Uh the applicant is in discussions with the adjoining property area to the southwest.

If you're familiar with that portion of the city, there was an unbuilt subdivision there where streets are cut in, but it was never developed.

Uh and this applicant is proposing to uh pursue an access easement with them to provide an additional point of access to the subdivision for emergency access specifically.

So this would be in addition to the two points of access uh north to Double Springs Road.

This would connect out west to north to Dot Spring, dot Tipton, as opposed to this, which is west towards Double Springs Road, excuse me.

A third element of the request uh is uh a proposal to remove use unit 46 short-term rentals.

I believe that was feedback that uh at least one council member and maybe multiple multiple of them proposed uh at the last meeting.

In an attempt to speak to some of staff's concerns about the uh perhaps monoculture development pattern of this property as proposed is singularly residential.

The applicant is proposing to add use unit 12A, which is our development code's uh smallest scale of commercial development allowances that allows uh small retail, small services, offices between about 1500 and 3,000 square foot buildings, so on the small side of things.

And that portion or that use unit is is proposed to be allowed in planning area one, which you can see on screen here is the portion in uh purple or lavender uh that abuts uh double springs in dot tippen to the northwest and and dot tipton uh purely as you move further eastward through the site.

Uh additional proposal in response to some of the stormwater concerns that the uh applicant heard during discussions with the neighbors uh is a commitment to uh to include uh additional ponding areas uh in this area.

There were some large rainfalls uh this year, particularly since this item was last committed by the council.

I believe this is the applicant's intent to respond to that and coordinate uh during the development review process with the city's engineering division to uh incorporate that perhaps above and beyond our drainage criteria manual.

Uh, another additional concern I heard from residents uh in the area was the potential to have uh three-story buildings.

Um the applicant had incorporated that building height as a fairly standard minimum building height that we see in most of our zoning districts in the city, but in an effort to be responsive to the neighborhood or the neighbors, the nearby residents.

Uh, this is proposed to be reduced from three stories to two stories.

In the same vein, um, my understanding is that the applicant has received some feedback about uh concern for potentially privacy or aesthetics and is proposing to uh include privacy fencing anywhere that this development uh backs up to adjoining properties and any locations where this property fronts a proper an adjoining property would uh have split fencing as opposed to um uh uh privacy fencing.

And some examples of this can be seen.

I think it's on the last page of the uh amendment narrative uh towards the bottom of the page, some examples of that.

Uh finally, of the items I'm highlighting, uh, the applicant has spoken with the Farmington School District.

Uh, if the council were recalled, despite this property being within the city of Fayel, it is uh it is within the Farmington School District area.

Uh, and in discussions with their superintendent, uh, the applicant has proposed three specific locations that could potentially serve as uh bus stops or pickup locations for for school children.

And with that, you will notice there are a couple or items that staff I did not cover as a part of this.

Um, one, you'll note that the applicant is uh acknowledging that the a traffic study will still be required as a part of this development.

Um I did not feel compelled to cover that.

That is a development requirement.

It thought doesn't necessarily represent the commitment above and beyond uh what may necessarily be required.

Um, and finally, uh you may recall from an earlier piece of correspondence from the applicant that they were evaluating a master street plan connection that bisects the property from east to west.

Um staff's feedback is that we would, in order for staff to be able to consider that possibly favorably, we want to take a more holistic look at what that entire street connection looks like.

Um so the applicant has removed that uh as a uh discussion point tonight, uh, but may bring that forward in the future, which would ultimately still be subject to city council consideration.

With all those factors in mind, uh staff's overriding concerns about infrastructure still remain uh present, and we are recommending denial of the PCB.

Uh as a reminder as well, the planning commission it did forward it to city council uh by vote of seven to two.

Uh they felt that uh given a lot of the development patterns that have evolved in this area in recent years, particularly in Farmington to the West, it makes sense that this property uh also be allowed to develop, uh perhaps in a somewhat similar pattern.

Uh the two dissenting votes had a concern about services, which uh perhaps this addition of use unit 12A limited business could address uh along with concerns about infrastructure and connectivity.

And with that, I'm happy to take questions and mayor.

I believe uh Will Kelstrom and uh Ginny Burbage are here to speak for the applicant.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Ms.

Burbage or Mr.

Kelstrom.

Good evening, Will Kelstrom here on behalf of Goose Creek Edition, owner of the property and applicant on this request.

Per usual, Jonathan beat me to the punch on a lot of the stuff I was gonna say.

So I think we could we can uh cut my speech down a little bit.

Umathan did a good job of of uh laying out what we are proposing with this PCD amendment.

Um I will say that since the last time we've spoken to you, we had two public meetings and we tried to incorporate feedback from the public.

We also reached out to the Farmington school superintendent and incorporated some feedback from him.

Um this project has been a challenging exercise for us and threading the needle between making everyone happy and ultimately I don't know that we're gonna be able to do that here.

There are a lot of components of this development that while one party might have liked to see it in it, it would have caused the other party to have not liked to have seen it in it.

And so what you see in front of you today is is the best balancing act that we could try, or best balancing act that we could do to try to get a project that meets everyone's needs.

The planning staff, the planning commission, you guys, the public, the city of Fayetteville in general.

So I do want to remind everyone what the substance of the project is in front of you.

This is a PZD that is roughly four units per acre in the aggregate.

It is a mix of unit types, it has duplexes, small houses, and large houses.

All of these are to be for sale, none of them are going to be held as rentals.

Again, this is at a compatible density with almost all of the developments around it.

Four units per acre are pretty standard.

The only difference being that I would say none of them have thoughtfully incorporated green space and and um and water treatment areas and a mix of unit types, and that's something that we are we are trying to do above and beyond some of the developments around us.

This development is alley loaded, it has thoughtfully designed natural areas.

I would say that an added benefit of this is that it's a PCD.

What you see is what you get.

This is not an RSF4 zoning where we can come and show you a delightful site plan and then go and flip it to someone else for them to go and build whatever they want that's allowed under RS4, um, RSF4.

What you see in this PCD is is what you will get.

And if it's not delivered, then the project can't be built.

Um, and that again is is one of the reasons that we came with a PCD.

That's something that the planning commission wanted to see some more details and specificity and commitments from us.

So since 2020, RSF4 has been submitted and has been denied.

RSF two has been submitted and has been denied.

Um neighborhood conservation has been submitted and has been designed or denied.

These properties are currently zoned a mix of RA and RSF one.

So it at one at some point I want to beg the question what is the better, what is better for the city of Fayetteville?

Um, a project that where a landscape architect has been um involved from the get-go, where you have a mix of housing types and uses um, and in a thoughtfully designed PCD or 66 acre large homes on one two acre lots, which is what it's zoned for today.

So we we think we can do a little bit better than that, and that's why we put this in front of you.

Thank you guys.

Thank you.

Okay.

Before we open it up to public comment, do I have questions from the council at this time?

Yeah, council person.

Thank you, Eager.

Um, maybe this historically that Jonathan or um or Chris, you know, you mentioned conceptual stormwater uh retention ponds.

Can you kind of explain that a little bit?

I actually, if I may, I I would like to direct that to the applicant team.

I think they wanted to uh incorporate that as a response to some of the flooding concerns that the neighbors had had uh expressed.

Good evening, Jenny Burgidge with Prism Design Studio.

Um so on the exhibit B of the amendments, the highlighted area that were planning modifications after meeting with the neighborhood are on the western side, they're a little bit lighter of color, and there's two blue areas.

Um and so those were areas that the neighbors specifically identified that they could one of them is an existing pond, and so we we would go ahead and retain that, and then to the south, the most southern portion of that.

I was gonna see if we can pull it out too.

But that is an area that the neighbors specifically you know sent pictures in the recent storm event and their kids are in knee water, um knee deep water.

And so those are two areas where we previously had units and we've kind of shifted those around to accommodate.

Um, I think there's again a perception that this is completely final, like the footprints are real footprints and things like that.

And again, this is a master plan.

And so to alleviate some of those concerns, we just wanted to go ahead and designate other ponding areas to for flooding.

So I guess my question is this is a PCD, and I I realize that at the next phase, um, you actually go through in detail about where those locations of those ponds are.

So um uh even though the location may be moved, uh, are they are is the developer is the applicant bound uh to creating those retention ponds or actually maybe even increasing them, I guess is a question for for Jonathan or maybe for the city attorney.

I I can take stab of that, sorry.

Um yes, I think what is at question is where they would be located, and I think to in the applicant's defense because this is conceptual at this point that they had concerns about the exactly identifying what lots that may be taking the place of.

If you're not able to see it, uh as I was slow pulling it up from a spurbage, uh correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the two locations are shown here uh towards the western and southwestern portion of the site, uh, and as the plan enters uh more integrating review and and preliminary plat review.

That's when uh our engineering staff and the applicant's engineer and landscape architect can work together to identify the grade changes.

So I think that I think that's where the uncertainty is, is just where the location is not whether they will happen or not.

Okay, thank you.

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

Um, members of the public, if you would please approach the um podium, and please be mine.

Please state your name and address, and we have a three-minute time frame.

And also um for those who may not be able to reach the microphone, let us know that is handheld and it is detachable, so we can also do that.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Good evening.

I'm Jim Gallagher.

Uh, I'm a federal architect with a good deal of planning experience.

I'll wager I've been involved with more planning cases than any of you, including your staff or your applicant.

Um, I have a house on Forest Foster Lane, not far from the proposed project.

During our last discussion, the staff told you very clearly this proposal is bad for the site, the neighborhood, and the city at large.

I just told you a few minutes ago, it still is.

Their analysis is very detailed.

You pay them to advise you on things like this.

If you don't believe what they're going to tell you, why are we paying them?

You seem to be content to allow development in the city without the appropriate streets, traffic controls, or underground utilities in place.

Yes, they're adding a little bit more to it right now, but that's a short fall from where we need to be.

Why is that happening?

It's the very nature of the planning process.

Please don't tell us it's better to allow the development and later fix the problems that are caused by the development.

If you want to see how it's supposed to work, meet me out there tomorrow on RuPaul Road, and I'll show you how it's supposed to work.

Make the infrastructure improvements first, allow the development to follow.

No flooding, no water shortages, no traffic jams, but I guess all the people who knew how to do that no longer work here.

Some of you said that the bit this is the best we can do.

You're wrong.

The city has all sorts of developments that are better than this.

Why?

We had leaders who are not willing to say good enough is good enough.

I spent over 30 years as a first responder.

I designed fire stations, I designed fire apparatus.

I can tell you the fire apparatus are not getting smaller.

In fact, they're getting larger.

That road varies from 15 to 17 feet wide.

The east access that they're gonna have to use if something bad happens out there, is gonna be 20 feet wide.

Yes, that's a minimum for a parking lot fire lane, not a city street.

You can do better.

Why would you allow substandard development right from the start?

Some of you said last time it's only zoning.

This is an example of the parable of a camel getting in the tent.

First, he gets his nose in, next he's in that tent, and people are outside.

You're gonna have to find a way to do this better.

If you look at it closely, you're gonna see this proposal's like an episode of Saturday Night Live.

There's something in there to offend everyone.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Beshark and I live at 6507, West Mesa, which is in the neighborhood.

Um I'm a retired resident engineer for Darkins, the Department of Transportation.

Did that for almost 40 years, a whole bunch of projects in the city of Fayetteville.

The main problem I have is the impact of traffic on the existing roads.

One big one is the 50, the uh percentage road between 54th and Broad.

That road, every time it trains, it floods with the existing traffic, and now we're adding so many vehicles to it.

And the city owns the south part of that, so there's nobody else's gonna come there.

The north part is established houses.

When are we gonna go and actually build a road there with carbon gutter, drain?

It does not have ditches in there.

And Dot Tipton is even worse.

It's a Chipsy Road, and nobody is addressing what is gonna happen to that road when construction traffic starts.

If you think that road is gonna be able to stand all these dumb trucks and concrete trucks, you're mistaken.

Double Springs Road, there's a section in Double Springs Road, is already failing.

Just think of all that traffic is gonna be coming on it.

People are gonna have to suffer through all that stuff.

Road is gonna be really bad.

Who's gonna fix that?

Who is gonna have the plans?

Who had the plans to fix the issues while they're building all that stuff?

It's just so many vehicles we're adding to that area.

And construction traffic by itself is gonna be absolutely terrible.

So uh please consider that before you approve something like this.

It is the people who live there who have to put up with it.

And it is not something I lived all my life, my professional life dealing with roads being built, being destroyed, and that ride over there.

I could tell you it's not gonna be a lot of fun for the people who live on that road.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Rusty Rumley.

I live at 20 North Double Springs Road.

I wanted to talk about the meeting that you guys had on August 12th.

At the end of that meeting, there were several comments saying that this doesn't feel like urban sprawl.

I would disagree, but frankly, my opinion doesn't matter.

And the reason why it doesn't matter is we have an infill matrix that defines what is infill and what is urban sprawl.

Looking at the GIS map, we can see pretty clearly.

This land is primarily zero, one, and a small piece of it is three, but most of the land that is actually three is privately owned by someone else.

So this land is primarily zero and one.

I think there was a joke about you know Lincoln would be considered urban sprawl.

That's true.

If the GIS map went out to Lincoln, guess what?

It would also be zero and one, just like the property that we're talking about.

So I do think that looking at urban sprawl is an issue.

This is going to be a commuter neighborhood.

There's no buses that go out there, there's no jobs out there.

Everyone's going to be reliant on automobile traffic.

So I think at the end of the day, we take what the city has for their planning.

This is urban sprawl.

If you don't agree that it's urban sprawl, congratulations, you're the city council.

You can change the codes.

15 is considered infill right now, zero is urban sprawl.

You guys can change it so that everything is considered infill, just various gradients of infill.

But as of right now, zero is urban sprawl, and that's what this land is.

So please consider that when you're thinking about approving this project.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Do we have other comments in the room?

Okay, I'm not seeing any.

Keith, do we have any comments on Zoom?

Oh, it looks like we do have more in the room.

I apologize.

Please come on up.

Excuse me, madam mayor.

Yes, ma'am.

If you would uh maybe make a comment to tell people to line up, yes, that would be very helpful.

If you are intending to speak, and if you could if you're able to go ahead and line up, that would be really helpful.

That way we can make sure that we don't miss you.

So okay, please, ma'am.

Go ahead.

My name is Donna Treat, and I live at 6187 West Tipton Road.

And my main concern is flooding for my neighbors.

Um I understand you have added some ponds, but there has to be great thought given, and I did send pictures of the flooding that occurred after our two-inch rain just recently.

And uh you can see where the water, if it is not addressed, it will back up on our neighbors on the north side of Dot Tipton Road, and I feel like that this subdivision is not in keeping with the area.

Uh there isn't anything like this in our area on Dot Tipton, everything is on a large lot.

The density really concerns me because of traffic.

It is too many vehicles coming out onto Dot Tipton and then on to 54th and Double Springs with 267 residences, and also I have a concern about that DR Horton property across the road across Double Springs.

That was originally um designed for parks within the areas, and when D.R.

Horton took it over, he started building houses in those areas that were supposed to be parks.

So my concern is this green space is in phase four.

And is that green space gonna stay there?

Or is the council going to allow more houses to be built on it on down the road?

Goose Creek is another area that's going to be flooded.

And it's just a real problem.

I think that flooding is a problem.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, yes, please.

Yes, please.

Yes, go ahead.

I'm Diana Gallagher.

I am a nurse here in this community for over 45 years and a Fayetteville homeowner with my home at 612 Foster.

Available homes are all over Fayetteville.

You cannot drive up Weddington and north without seeing countless signs for available housing.

Fayetteville does have a lot of needs, but housing is not a priority.

We need improvements in roads, parks, and city services.

New projects should add value to our community and not strip funds from our budget.

You've heard countless concerns over this proposed project about the planning staff's position.

Failure to appropriately follow policy and notify neighbors prior to the planning staff's meeting.

Safe roadways have been addressed, and are real concerned as a former paramedic.

And we've had multiple fatality MVAs in this area.

That number is only going to increase with more traffic.

Who wants to live where fog and smog shroud our community and you can't see the sky, the stars, the sun, and the moon.

Lack of access to transportation is true.

There is an incongruency with existing homes, some being generational homesteads.

Ife Jones Goad Meadow Architect.

Planned buildings to serve its users and be congruent and add to the surroundings.

He believed that buildings should be complementary and congruent.

This project is instead conflicting in chaos, offering benefit to no one but those seeking personal profit.

That is not the way that we should be functioning.

Area schools are already full.

Adding students is going to hurt education.

Flooding isn't been addressed, so I won't.

And there is nowhere for these added people to go, and no room on that density planning to build their own shelter.

Saying perhaps it's as good as we're going to get.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we have more comments?

Okay.

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

Before I start, I want to thank the developer for holding neighborhood meetings.

There were none held before the past council meeting, and so I do appreciate them reaching out and doing that and doing what they can to address our concerns.

My problem is there are things that they just cannot do anything about, either because the development isn't there, because the services isn't aren't there, or because the surrounding area just isn't ready for that.

They aren't able to do anything that will make this less of an urban sprawl.

They are not able to raise that infill number no matter what they do.

They are not able to put this on a bus line.

They are not able to make sure that there is enough space in terms of sewage and water capacity.

They just can't do that no matter how hard they try.

Because of that, I ask that you listen to what the planning commission staff said when they wrote their report after looking at the report, looking at the information and the proposal, when they said we're just not ready for this yet.

This is not appropriate to this space.

I say you listen to that and decline the request for this proposal.

Thank you.

Do we have any more in the room?

It does not look like we have any more in the room, but I want to check and see if we have any on Zoom.

We do not, Mayor.

Okay.

And I'm going to bring it back to the city council for their final comments or thoughts.

And I also a point of clarification too that I'd like to ask uh the city attorney for the benefit of all the council, just to make sure we're doing it, we're doing it correctly.

Can um is it correct that if a council person wants to abstain from the vote that they need to not participate in the discussion leading up to the vote?

I want to ask that before that is required by our rules, and they also need to explain why they would be asking.

Perfect.

Okay.

Bring it back to questions or thoughts.

What would you all like to do here?

Madam Mayor.

Yes, ma'am.

I have a question.

Um what what is the does anybody know, maybe Jonathan, the composition of Dot Tipton Road now?

Is it like a it is a is it a built to a city standard, or is it chip seal, or is it just like what what type of pavement is on that road?

I do not have that information to hand.

I apologize.

I don't know if our public works director Chris Brown's available to answer that question, perhaps, or the applicant may have investigated that more recently if they have that information.

Chris, if you know, would you come on up?

If you don't know, just feel free to stay there.

But if you know and can provide insight, please come on up.

I think I probably should have stayed there because I don't know about I expect that it's uh it's an old uh county road uh that was uh a dirt road, a gravel road at some point, uh, has some level of chip seal, uh has been overlaid by the city.

Uh I would say it does not meet city standards, doesn't have the pavement structure that a standard street would have.

Okay, so one of the one of the other question I have, so someone had brought up the the condition of the road, and we all know when we have lots of big heavy trucks on a road like that, it causes it to deteriorate substantially.

Is that a fair assumption that uh it could, yes.

So yeah, as part of the the typical uh development process, uh that would be investigated and um the the standard structure would would need to be uh um provided.

Um there's still a lot of detail that would be needed as we go through the the uh design process if this project moves forward.

Okay, good point.

So this is not determined yet, but it will be determined if it if it is approved, it will be determined at some point.

Correct.

That's that's okay.

Thank you, Chris.

Councilperson Turk.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um, I wanted to just clarify which um uh uh are we on the first reading or are we on the second reading?

Which reading are we on?

Uh the it was left on the first on August 19th, and because of our new rules, we automatically go, we skip the second and go right to the third.

So I would assume that this was on my understanding is that this means it's on the third reading because we don't do.

Oh, okay, okay, correct.

I apologize.

We're on the second.

I got ahead of myself.

Thank you.

I was just a little confused.

I'll hold my questions for for later.

Thanks.

Okay.

Um council person Stafford, we'll just go this way.

Sure.

I I just wanted to point out to Sarah Bunch's question.

Uh when I look at uh Google Street View, it does look like a uh asphalt road, but a very narrow asphalt road, and as Chris Brown said, probably not to our standards, but I do believe that the one of the things they're doing is widening Tippin Road and uh bringing it up to standard, is that correct?

So they're actually gonna be widening the road as part of this project and bringing it up to our standards, as well as doing full improvements on the portion of it uh in front of the project.

Is that correct?

Yeah, thank you.

Dr.

Jumps.

Yes, uh, this is a question for Jonathan.

So Jonathan, your staff is still you're still not recommending this right.

That's correct.

Okay.

And what about the planning commission?

The planning commission forwarded it, I believe it was a seven to two vote when they heard this earlier the year.

Let me confirm that number again for you.

Yes, it was a seven to two vote when the planning commission considered it.

To recommend it.

The planning commission forwarded it to you all recommending approval by vote of seven to two.

Okay, so with uh I guess with the recommendation with with the potential changes.

Your team is still saying no, right?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, um, I'm curious with um, we heard uh Will with the applicant team sharing that it's and we've seen our packet kind of it's gone through all kinds of iterations over time.

Um, the way that it's currently configured today, what could actually be placed out there with the current zoning that it has?

With the current zoning today, it's a mixture of RA residential agricultural and RSF one residential single family one unit per acre.

So in essence, very low density, so that would allow houses on one-acre lots or two-acre lots.

So depending on drainage, etc., 50 or 60 houses could be built out based on current zoning potentially.

I don't have a exact breakdown based on the portions of the property zones, RSF one or RA.

Okay.

And then do you anticipate that some of the concerns that we have today with this development would still exist for developing at that lower density?

I know I'm kind of hypothesizing, so I apologize if you need to get some disclaimer with that.

Do you understand what I mean?

I think I think I think about what staff is is bubbled up and you know, concerns around um infrastructure and traffic, etc.

And so if they built it the current density, would some of those things still remain?

Are those gonna change in any way?

That's certainly a possibility.

It depends how it was developed in the existing zoning districts.

I think there are multiple ways you could develop an agricultural aid zone property.

It could be two acres of turf grass that requires watering every day and does not retain a lot of stormwater, or it could be more natural pasture land.

Uh so that from the stormwater perspective, it's hard to make an assertion one way or another.

Uh, from a traffic standpoint, it would certainly generate less traffic, and I think that's that's the crux of a lot of staff's concerns is uh whether it's the immediately adjacent streets and their their substandard nature today uh or the more off-site ones such as 54th and Broils and Persimmon and Double Springs.

Uh, that we find no project of any size here today could adequately address what are some system-wide inadequacies.

Okay, thank you, Jonathan.

Okay.

I'm not seeing any comments, and so I presume this will just be left on this second Mr.

Wheedaker, sorry.

Thank you.

I'm I'm slow.

It's okay.

The um I'm amenable to the interpretation of this if it's not sprawl being sprawl adjacent simply because of the location of it.

What we can't do is argue against a project for weather events that may or may not take place.

That's not attributable to the project.

Um certainly I wouldn't want anyone in the audience to underestimate the skill or the talent of the professional design staff working on the project that attended the E Faye Jones School of Design and Architecture, and are extremely well thought of in their profession.

So kudos to them for working with their client to try to find some amenable way to making the project viable.

Uh at the same time, uh the location makes me think as a council member that I'm not saying yes yet, simply because I do concur that there would be so much work that would be required to manage the stormwater in that area that on a few previous projects, I actually argued against them because the developer was going to put in two million dollars for infrastructure, but the city was gonna have to put in eight or nine million dollars just to accommodate the either the traffic or the stormwater management that the project was gonna trigger.

And so I it's not that I don't like the project.

I have concerns about the sequencing and how ready this area is, and for that reason, if we want to vote tonight, I'm comfortable if we want to leave it on the second reading.

I'm I'm comfortable with that as well.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilperson Turk.

Um, you know, I I've driven that road many times and had a lot of phone calls about that road, even before this development.

And that road is very, very narrow and and problematic.

Um we put we have put a lot of weight in our infill scoring system.

Uh I've wanted to amend it to make it more balanced, but at this point in time, we we really we're stuck with that infill scoring system, and this is a very, very, very low score.

My problem is similar to um Councilmember Wiedaker's problem.

It's it's the location uh of this proposal, um, not the merit of what they've put forward necessarily, but the location.

There is no transit out there.

Um there is nothing that is similar to this in the area, it's not compatible in the area.

And I do really appreciate the applicant, the developer really meeting with the neighbors.

That that was wonderful.

You've really done some thoughtful adjustments, amendments, but I I don't think it's um quite enough uh for this area.

Um so uh if we vote tonight, I will not be supporting this.

And I'd actually like us to go ahead and vote.

These um the neighbors have come out here many, many times.

They've been in the planning commission, they've been here before, and um, I think the applicant has had adequate time and and many meetings with the neighbors to come up with something that uh uh maybe they could comment on if this is a final plan or not, but um I think it would be good for us to vote on it tonight.

Thank you.

Is that a motion to suspend the rules?

Or I was gonna let my colleague um council member Stafford uh speak before making that motion.

Stafford.

Thank you.

And and thank you, Teresa.

Uh and the mayor.

Uh um I'm I'm fine with how every the council wants to move forward this evening.

Um, but I do want to uh point out a few things.

When I look at uh Google Maps and I look at the you know, zoom out a little and look at this area.

I mean, we have a large subdivision to the north, a subdivision to the west, a subdivision to the southeast, uh within a couple thousand feet.

We have more subdivisions to the east.

Um so this is kind of sitting in the middle, and I I know that this property they've been trying to develop it for uh many many years, it keeps getting you know no no.

Uh, when I look at these other subdivisions compared to what's being proposed, this is the only one where I see a large green space where I see active stormwater retention and and and public green space.

Um the Doptitam Road, it's in the what we have that they're gonna widen Dop Tipton Road the in front of the whole length of it, and in front of their piece of the property, they're doing all the improvements as well, herbs and gutters.

Um you know, I kid has pointed out before I don't know that this is relevant, but you know, if we deny a uh uh land to be developed and we decrease the value of that land, we can be held uh liable for this.

I think this is a good project myself.

Um also I want to point out a lot of people talking about the water are on the north side of Dot Tipton.

That's the uphill side.

Anything on this on this project is gonna be flowing south, not not north, not across dot tipton.

And we again with the amount of they're they're even talking about doing additional ponds, but with the amount of ponds they already have, the amount of green space they already have, uh and the way our rules are set up for stormwater.

I I am not concerned about this project uh creating more stormwater.

Now, traffic on North Double Springs Roads, I mean, definitely this city is infrastructure deficient, um in all sorts of ways and all sorts of places, and and it it's uh it's one of our our stress points.

But um, I just wanted to point out those things that I see on this project, and uh however the council move wants to move forward.

I'm okay with that.

Dr.

Jones.

I want to second uh what council member Tark said, but and I want to know what would be keeping us from from voting tonight.

Is there any other information that the residents want to know?

Or it sounds like we have someone that wants to make a motion but just hasn't done it yet.

So it sounds like you're all in agreement.

We just have to have a motion to suspend the rules, otherwise I'm gonna leave it on the second section.

Okay, so a second.

Well, we haven't had one yet.

Oh, I thought she made the motion.

I'm so sorry.

Okay, okay.

I make the motion that we vote it advances to the third reading, right?

It advances to the third reading, right?

So that we would suspend the rules and move to the final reading.

Yes.

Yes.

We have a motion to suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

Okay, we don't have a second, so we'll move our I had another I had some comment I'd like to make before we vote.

That's okay.

Okay, that's fine.

It would just be moving to the third reading.

It wouldn't be done.

So we can still find yeah, I just want to get my two cents in.

You know, I really appreciate all the the efforts that have been made with this this property, you know, because someone, you know, the idea that it's gonna that that someone can develop this at what is currently out there is really not believable.

I mean, it's it's just not you can't just take a piece of land and put one house per acre on it.

It's not it's not something that people can do anymore.

And you know, kudos to you if you have that, have large lots, you know, but that's not something that's really possible uh in in lots of uh situations, and you know, when we talk about things like Faye Jones House, boy, those are beautiful homes.

There's several in my neighborhood.

The last one sold for 1.3 million dollars.

That is not affordable housing.

Um so you know, I think there's been an attention to detail and trying to work this out to get something on this property.

Now, my challenges with this are the same things that have been brought up over and over and over again, and the same concerns that staff has had.

I am concerned about the traffic, I am concerned about the width of the road and and runoff.

Is this sprawl?

It may be right now, but will it be sprawl in five years?

Maybe not.

Um, you know, and and we just we we need housing.

It's it's not uh just because you see a sign of the house for sale does not mean there's an excess of affordable housing in in Fayetteville, and you know, I think the act that of working with the school district and making bus stops and everything, they're trying to do everything they can with this property.

I still have concerns about it though.

Um, and I'm not really sure how I'm gonna vote on it, but I just wanted to address those few things.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I saw Minister Jones first and then we'll go to the I just want clarification from the attorney.

So my abstaining was from the amendment, not the vote of the PCD or the actual unfinished business.

And the reason I voted and abstained because it's dated October 1st.

My first sight of this was today, October.

Today the seventh.

My first site, I like to read things before I approve things, and I did not have an opportunity to read over, so I was not in a position that I felt like I would comfortably be able to say yes to this amendment.

So I wanted to explain.

Thank you.

Uh Councilperson Turk.

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

I think we had a we had a motion, I think already from Dr.

Jones, so maybe a second.

I'm sorry, I'll second that.

Great.

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

Ms.

Budge?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

No.

Mr.

Stafford.

And this is just for the third reading, not the vote.

Just clarifying those of you coming out.

Mr.

Stacker.

I don't think I said yes.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

Okay.

An ordinance to approve a residential plan zoning district entitled PCD-25, 2025-02 for approximately 66.78 acres located southeast of North Double Springs Road and West Dopton Titam Road and Ward 4.

And I want to say that I don't, I think you can vote your conscience here.

I don't think that is dangerous to rezone or not rezone here.

You just do what you feel like is is proper.

I think there's been a lot of good discussions about this.

There's been good reasons on both sides whether to vote yes or to vote no.

So I think you can do that without any fear of litigation.

I'm not concerned about that in this particular case.

And since uh your uh abstention was only for the uh appeal or not to feel the amendment, then you're still allowed to vote on the final issue.

Okay, let's go council person more.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just I wanted to thank uh the residents as well as the applicant team just for you know continuing to have dialogue.

I know that can feel like a lot to keep going back and forth.

Um I wasn't here um on council when this property has come up in the past.

I think some other council colleagues have been.

Um, but I really think I probably echo the sentiments of uh council member um stafford tonight.

Um I really coming into this, um, I agree with one of the comments from the um uh members of the audience that lives out in that area staying true sometimes and feeling very bound to what our infill is um can feel you know like that's the direction we should go.

And oftentimes I'm very frustrated when we are developing to our edges.

I think you know what he what council member stafford uh pointed out this evening is that when you actually zoom out uh three 30,000 feet, you see how in that area we've already unfortunately ended up with a sprawl pattern, and so um for me, um our goals in the city as well, they're not homogenous, right?

We have a lot of of strategic plans that thank you taxpayers and our staff have done.

They also talk about that.

We need to um have a diversity of housing types and abilities of how we live and work and grow together, and so one of those things we've done is like our neighborhood hubs, and we have these like future areas, and so I understand too, it's like cart horse or you know, order of things, and so I agree with council member Whitaker, I was stuck in that mode of like really being and struggling with the timeline of this, but I did ask tonight, and you heard staff tell us.

I mean, currently today, the way this is zoned is not a way that it can go forward, and I don't think that there's any reality we can live in in Northwest Arkansas that land like this that abuts two very progressive growing burgeoning parts of our community is gonna stay undeveloped.

And so we have we're faced with all these competing uh strategies and and having to really welcome.

I heard a lot of things about traffic, and I understand on that side of town that's that is a huge challenge, and and and it's something we're we're really um trying to work towards.

But folks are moving to our area, and if they don't live close to you right there, they're going further out to Farmington and into the county, and they're gonna be on your roads because those neighbors are coming.

Um, and so trying to figure out thoughtful developments that envelop them in a way that they can be taxpayers and contribute to our community um to try to be able to create that infrastructure.

Um, we also are talking about the bond tonight, and one of the areas I think that struggled here was with fire um response.

And so we're looking at putting another um station out on that side of town.

And what happens when we add amenities is more housing and more people flock to those areas, and so someone's gonna develop at some point.

Um, so for me tonight, I've gone really back and forth, but with all that competing and rumbling in my head the last several weeks.

Um, again, I think that this is a very thoughtful way that this has been approached.

Um, and I appreciate that.

And I think nothing is perfect, unfortunately, that comes before us, and so uh for that reason tonight I'll be supportive of this project.

Councilperson Stafford.

Thank you.

Um Mayor, um final question for uh Jonathan.

Um the rezoning to the PVE is just part of the process.

If it does pass uh as they move forward, this would this be a large scale development that they would still given what the applicant said earlier this evening that they intend to sell and not rent these properties, they'll probably go through our plotting process.

I know I'm splitting a hair with you, but it would come through as a preliminary platform to our planning commission would be the next step.

Okay, but they would still at some point they would still have to go through a large scale development uh process or no.

No, you're a plotting process.

Oh, which uh large scale development without getting to the weeds is typically when you develop a single site when then you don't plan to subdivide it.

Mind is sending from the applicant tonight as they plan on selling these units, so it's more of a plotting process.

Both go to the planning commission, both require public notification.

Do both require the same sort of level of infrastructure, uh, you know, to make sure that they pass certain metrics as far as infrastructure.

Yes, but the biggest distinction with plating being that you typically have to install the infrastructure, then you're allowed to create your lots, then you get your building permits to build your houses.

Gotcha, exactly.

Okay, thank you.

Clerk Paxson, we please call the roll.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes, Ms.

Dirk, no.

Minister Jones, no Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones.

No.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Weaker?

No.

Mr.

Burnman.

Yes.

I believe we have four affirmative votes.

Do you care to vote?

I would like to vote.

I'd like to vote in the affirmative to allow the development.

All right.

So the resolution has passed.

The ordinance has passed.

Okay.

Moving on to B2.

PCD 2025-3 at North Raven Lane.

An ordinance to approve a I'm sorry, I'm just going to read the title.

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

We have a request from the developer to table it.

Move that we table to the next city council meeting.

That's a great question for Mr.

Kurth.

Is that the request?

Yes, the table to the October 21st council meeting, please.

Okay.

To the October 21st council meeting.

Second.

Great.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, we please call the role.

Ms.

Banks, yes.

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedekern?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett.

Yes.

Okay.

So that item has been tabled and we will move on to B3.

Um, a note about B3 and B4.

Um the first item B3 is an ordinance to annex property.

Um, if the council were to vote on the annexation in the affirmative, we would then do a subsequent vote to rezone.

If the council did not vote to annex the property, we would be for would no longer be discussed.

And the applicant has requested that he talk about while there'll be two separate votes, two separate public comment periods for ease.

The applicant has requested that he talk about them at the same time.

Um B3, Annex 25-1, West Lyre Lyarley Lane, an ordinance to annex that property describes an ANX 25-1 submitted by RMP LLP for property located on West Lyarley Lane adjacent to Ward 4, containing approximately 19.92 acres.

Kit.

I can read this, okay.

And you're whereas RMP LLP has properly secured to Washington County judges' authorization to annex 19.92 acres located on West Lyderly Lane adjacent to Ward 4 in the City of Fayetteville.

Now therefore it be ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1.

At the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas hereby confirms the annexation to the city of Fayetteville of about 19.92 acres as described in exhibit B and the map shown exhibit A, both attached to Planning Department's agenda memo.

Section two at the City Council of City of Fayville, Arkansas here by zones the newly annexed property are a residential agricultural section three that the city council city of Fable, Arkansas here by amends official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to recognize this annexation.

And section four that the city council of city of Favorville hereby assigns this 19.92 acres to ward four of the city of Fayetteville.

So Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

The property in question is in Northwestern Fayetteville.

It is located just southeast of Lyarley Lane between the Lyrelate Lyle Lane subdivision to the west and the Magnolia Place subdivision to the east.

As a part of this consideration, staff uh took two main factors in evaluating the request.

Are there two main elements that factored into our recommendation on this item?

Uh the first, uh, which is uh unique since this is the first annexation that uh the city council has considered this year is new state uh law that came into effect and was adopted in the most recent legislative session specifically that neutered any municipality's ability to have any regulation over their planning area, uh, where the council has previously heard me discuss the distinction between our development code, our development coded planning areas, and then uh unincorporated areas uh development codes.

Uh there is a hard line and no distinction anymore.

Where the city's limits end is where our regulations end.

Uh so as a part of that, that was certainly a major consideration in staff's mind.

Whereas we previously had some authority over subdivisions of land in particular, like a residential subdivision.

We don't have we now have no authority, and as a result, uh we find that to be a strong uh uh factor in our support of annexing this piece of property.

Otherwise, the main element in our recommendation to support this annexation uh can be found in the annexation guiding policies within our comprehensive land use plan, City Plan 2040.

These are enshrined uh under five uh general bullets.

Uh, the first of which speaks to the boundaries of our city.

Uh, one of the first considerations when we look at an annexation request is are we improving our city boundaries?

Uh and as a result, improving our ability to give efficient services and not create uh pieces of land that have tangent points and right-aways that are split between different jurisdictions.

And in considering that, uh staff does find that this will be improving what is uh today an existing uh peninsula of land that extends into uh city property that on that is currently surrounded on three sides.

While it will not fully diminish that peninsula of land, it will go a significant way towards reducing it, and we find that is uh a positive improvement.

Uh the second element or second guiding principle of our comprehensive plan when it comes to annexations relates to environmentally sensitive areas.

As I led into this conversation, we now have no development uh regulation authority in the planning area.

Uh previously we didn't have standards uh like our our uh uh tree preservation ordinance that we could apply, but we did have stormwater requirements that we could apply in the county.

We no longer have that.

Uh and uh by annexing this land into the city, uh we'd be able to apply that and hopefully offset some of the potential stormwater impacts that could result of developing this piece of property.

Uh additionally, uh on this particular piece of property, you can see in faint blue uh within the red boundary of this property that is an area that is uh characterized by hydric soils.

Uh the applicants in an acknowledgement of that being on the property has already done a preliminary wetland determination.

Uh, they have found that it's not likely that there are jurisdictional wetlands, which are those wetlands that are the the federal government's Army Corps of Engineers regulates.

But for what it's worth, if this is annexed and it's developed, our engineering division still does require that jurisdictional determination to be performed to the full extent to go above and beyond this preliminary finding.

Finally, the last three items uh generally fall into one bucket.

I realize that's overly reductive, but I I think they all relate to how the city serves as residents, whether it's regards to providing adequate water and sewer, whether it's ensuring that our police and fire departments respond efficiently, whether it's uh the city being able to administer our local regulations, whether it's speed limits or building permits efficiently, uh, we do find that uh this annexation will uh accommodate all of those things.

Uh in this particular image, I have overlaid uh several additional pieces of information.

Uh, all the subdivisions adjacent to this property contemplated this property at some point being annexed into this city.

Uh, for those of you who are more familiar with our development code, you understand that in an effort to uh avoid having uh situations where we have inadequate uh infrastructure where we uh have concerns about sprawling subdivisions, we make every effort possible to connect the the minimum standard water, sewer, and street connections to adjacent properties as you approach the edges of the city so that when that land is annexed, it can be developed in a uh a deliberate manner.

This property is no exception, it has connections to both the subdivision to the east and west.

Uh, additionally, Lyerley Lane to the north, although a county road today uh could couldn't uh provide for connectivity to the larger area as well.

Uh while you may have noticed in the staff report that this property does not have meet our our fire department standards for uh uh the the minimum response times that they they strive for.

Uh this will, as you can tell, fit like a puzzle piece into this area and potentially increase or provide some network efficiencies that we don't otherwise have because our fire services are having to navigate uh this gap between uh the different parts of the city.

With that in mind, uh staff again is recommending in favor of this request.

The planning commission forwarded to city council by unanimous six to one vote.

Uh those voting in favor of the request uh found that it represents an appropriate infill location with proximity to existing services and that it would be more appropriately be developed within the city of Faiva limits uh rather than outside of them.

Uh we do we did hear public comment on this request.

There were concerns or preferences expressed that this land remained undeveloped and concerns that developing it could contribute to traffic and then uh have a detrimental effect on city water and sewer in the area.

Um to that last point, I failed to mention uh one of the comments that the applicant did receive as a part of the our evaluation process, also related to the adequacy of sewer.

As council knows I I bring that up uh time to time as we identify uh pinch points in our system.

Uh this was one where our master sewer model suggested there may be an issue.

Uh accordingly, the uh applicant has worked with our uh our our consultant RJN to develop a model of what it would look like to serve the subdivision, and they have identified a route that does not have any capacity concerns and would uh uh work around uh what were perceived to be some wet weather issues previously where our sewer lines were exceeding capacity.

Um, so our water and sewer department have evaluated with that and feel comfortable with it at this point.

With that, I'm happy to take questions.

And Mayor uh Larry McCready is here as the applicant for this item.

Thank you.

Mr.

McCarthy, do you have a presentation or thank you, Mayor?

Good evening, uh Mayor, members of the council.

Larry McRetty.

Um I represent the property owners, Timothy Moore, Jennifer Moore, uh, and the Marilyn Christofferson 2004 trust.

Jennifer Moore, who is uh one of the owners, she is here with me tonight as well.

Um I don't have a presentation, I'll make a few comments uh just build on what what Mr.

Kerr said.

I appreciate his comments.

I think he did a great job.

I want to first start by thanking the council.

Uh, we were on the agenda at the last council meeting and we had to table it.

I had a personal conflict come up, so I appreciate the council's indulgence for that and uh uh in that consideration.

I will not I don't have a whole lot to add.

I will want to point out just a couple of things beyond what Mr.

Kerr said.

I think the most important thing is is that this annexation is consistent with the policies that are outlined in the city plan 2024.

Uh I think they meet all of the um the principles that are delineated in there uh as Mr.

Kurth explained.

Um I do want to um touch on a few things that he did note that might be viewed as uh potentially um downsides of the annexation.

One was the emergency response times.

There wasn't any negative comments from the um the Fayville police department, they didn't comment at all.

There was nothing positive, nothing negative though.

The the response time had to do with the fire department.

The response times are slightly outside of the fire department's guidelines.

Um we acknowledge that.

I think Jonathan mentioned how approving it though might improve that a little bit by improving connectivity.

But I'd also note when you look at the map of the property in the surrounding areas, um, there are there are houses that are that are right on the border of it as well.

So if they're if the response times to this place are slightly outside it, they're they're that way for other residents that are already in the city limits as well.

Um the second thing Mr.

Kurth addressed it as well that some at least known wet potentially wet weather issues with the sewer system.

Um those are downstream from this property.

Um the owner has had um at least some analysis of that done, and as Mr.

Kerr said, that uh that doesn't seem to be uh an issue that cannot be overcome during the development process.

Um I do think that the upside of it is if it's approved and it's rezoned, the city will have an opportunity to work with uh the developer to fix those issues.

So that is something that can happen if you all view these requests favorably.

Um there were public comments made about this um as well, and I'll just address a couple of them.

Mr.

Kirth mentioned them a little bit.

The uh there were comments about traffic.

Um I'll just point back to the the staff report on this when they looked at it.

Um the the staff when they looked at this, um the staff finds that the property connects to existing streets to the north, east, and west, likely reducing the impact of future development onto a single street and creating the potential for improved connect connectivity throughout the surrounding area.

Um so this was it looked at as well, and so I don't think the traffic, while certainly uh any development is going to increase traffic, this will be mitigated by the location of this and the connectivity to existing subdivisions.

Um there's also some concerns about density.

Um this ties into the rezoning request that that we are making as well.

Uh again, the staff addressed this in their report on the annexation, but they they talked about the rezoning the property from RA to neighborhood conservation, which is what our request is, uh, has the potential to increase population density, though it's not likely to undesirably increase the load on public services.

And so this is a relatively small piece, it's 20 acres, it's in an area that naturally fits within the city limits.

Um there also is comments as has been said, we have a petition for rezoning as well.

Um I can address that now.

I don't want to jump because Mr.

Kirth does such a good job explaining it.

If he has his presentation, uh, I can wait for my comments on that if necessary.

Um I know that the vote will be sequential.

If you'd rather do the one and then come up with the other, um, that's fine.

Or if you'd like uh to hear my remarks on the rezoning after Mr.

Kirst, that's that's fine on whatever the council prefers.

I think you're gonna make comments later at the next item about the rezone, correct?

That's correct, Mayor.

Then maybe that's fine.

I just just waiting until then.

Let's all yes.

Yeah, just point out to the council we do have this coming, and and certainly these are related for the property owner.

Um the the rezoning is important uh to go along with the annexation.

And so as you consider this, we request support for both, but I'll I'll come up and address some of the rezoning issues after this, and and I'm happy to answer any questions the council has.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

McCready.

Do we have questions for either Jonathan or the council person more?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'm not sure who to direct us at in the city, but I just um we haven't had a lot of annexations, so kind of have to dust stop dust us off a little bit.

Um, what are the customary charges that the city potentially looks at financially when we go to annex a piece of property?

I don't know who's appropriate to answer that.

That's a good question, but it's also a big question.

Uh we have in the past uh on larger annexations, especially PCDs, when they're associated with the PCD, sometimes are formed a fiscal impact analysis, uh and that's based on assumptions about the uh per capita cost of a police officer, a firefighter, uh the average maintenance cost of a linear foot of street water, sewer.

Um I think some I'm trying to remember the last time we did it if we had available uh turn back taxes data uh with regards to internet sales taxes, uh, because at one point in Arkansas it most residential developments were a losing proposition if you could not tangibly tie them to a uh uh a specific uh business for which they're but from which we're benefiting for tax dollars, but now that uh each individual house actually represents a revenue generator in transactional terms from their internet sales.

Um answer is we did not perform a fiscal impact analysis on this uh project given it's uh a smaller annexation uh and it's not associated with a PZD that allows us a high enough level of detail to know exactly how many linear feet of street water and sewer and how many units are proposed with it.

Uh but that has been something in the past that we have done.

Okay, and then just a follow-up question is so typically through the development process though that will happen through the rezone, parts of that based on our current code, then we would be recouping parts of those just because of the development for like through like impact fees.

Would that be correct or would that be an incorrect assumption?

Yes, and at the risk of uh putting the cart before the horse.

Uh many of staff's zoning considerations often inherently consider fiscal solvency for the city.

Uh, there's a reason that you do not often see staff supporting low density development because it tends to be a net loss for the city in terms of water sewer street maintenance and all those other services we provide.

Uh but yes, you're correct that for fire, police, water, and sewer, we have adopted impact fees that are intended to offset the the additional units or businesses that are being brought online.

Uh currently, I think some of the council saw that contract come through several months ago.

We are reevaluating our water and sewer impact fees right now to make sure they are they are accurately reflecting the amount of impact a new unit is having on our on our uh water and sphere systems.

Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any other comments, so I may open it up for public comment if we have public comment on this annexation.

Please feel free to come forward.

And while Kyle's making his way up, Keith, is there anyone on Zoom?

Just so we know.

There's not okay.

Good evening, Mayor.

Uh Council, I hope that you will approve this annexation.

This makes sense.

It's surrounded by city on three sides.

Jonathan showed you the connectivity issues.

Um this could be housing, or it could be uh a mini storage, or it could be a chicken house, or it could be a lot of things that are worse than what uh a little bit of traffic from some additional neighbors could bring.

Um I appreciate your questions about um fiscal sustainability on this.

I hope that the NC zoning also goes, and I will refrain from make coming back again to make separate comments on that.

I think that is probably the uh least dense responsible residential zoning that we could put on property.

Um at 10 10 houses per acre, you can support transit barely.

This is a quarter mile from RuPaul Road.

We spent $13 million about a decade ago to build RuPaul a different part of RuPaul Road with the expectation that it was going to carry a lot of traffic and provide services to our residents.

It'd be great if we had some residents out there to pay for it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to bring it back to council for um what would you?

This is an ordinance.

This is our first reading.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh I think I saw you both at the same time.

So it's a I'll make a motion to suspend the rules of both third and final reading.

So good.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to move it to the third and final reading.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turr?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Is more?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnet.

Yes.

In order to annex that property described an annexation petition, any ANX 25-1 submitted by RMPLLP for property located on West Lyrary Lane, adjacent to Ward 4, containing approximately 19.92 acres.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

So I'm going to move it to the vote.

Oh, I'm so sorry, Teresa.

I didn't see you.

That's okay.

Another person turk.

Thank you.

Um, I just um I think generally it's really a good idea to annex, uh, especially because we will be able to keep our water and sewer standards up to speed and have a little bit more oversight, especially since we lost some of the planning area discretionary um comments that we could make.

So um, I'm definitely going to be in support of this.

Thank you.

Thanks so much.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll for the vote?

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turr?

Yes.

Minister Jones, yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Vernon.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

So we will now go on to the um next related item B4.

RZN 2025-32 West Lyre Lee Lane.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025.

I'm sorry.

We did.

No, no.

No, we we voted to advance to the third reading, and then we immediately voted to pass it.

Is that correct?

Kirk Paxson, we correct me.

Okay.

That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure.

Okay.

Okay.

We did it very does that is everyone still okay with their vote knowing that?

Is that okay?

Then we were gonna move on to B4, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-32 for approximately 19.92 acres located on West Lyarley Lane in Ward 4 from RA residential agricultural rezoning to NC, neighborhood conservation.

Nice try, Mr.

Wheataker.

Trying to throw me off.

I see you.

Okay, Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh be it ordained by the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section One at the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map, exhibit A, and a legal description, give it B.

Both attached to planning department's agenda memo from RA, residential agricultural, to NC neighborhood conservation.

Section two at the city council, the city of Favel, Arkansas here by managed official zoning map, the city of Fayetteville to reflect zoning change provided in section one.

Thank you, Mayor.

As was discussed several times, uh this item is regarding the exact same piece of property that was considered with the annexation.

Uh as properties are annexed into the city of Faiville, they're given an RA residential agricultural designation by default.

That is often why, as infrequently as you see annexations, they're paired with a uh request to rezone property to afford the opportunity for uh uh near immediate development.

Uh, such is the case with this one, where the request is to rezone it from RA residential agricultural to NC neighborhood conservation.

Uh both staff and the planning commission are in favor of this.

Uh from a land use compatibility standpoint.

Uh, this area is uh almost uniformly single family in nature.

The NC neighborhood conservation zoning district is also a single family zoning district.

Both NC and the surrounding RSF4, NC and RSF 8 zoning districts that you can see in close proximity, allow single family dwellings and accessory dwelling units by right.

The biggest distinction between RSF4 and NC is that it affords the opportunity for additional housing at 10 10 units per acre, where RSF4 is limited as its name suggests to four units per acre.

And if considering this request from a long-range planning standpoint, staff finds that neighbory conservation complements our future land use map designation for the property, which is residential neighborhood area.

That coupled with a uh a number of infill attributes that's on the low end suggests that lower intensity residential uses are more appropriate, uh, where staff may be favorable of uh additional housing diversity, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and other parts of the city, uh having a location uh where this property is uh removed from any prominent uh roadways.

Uh in our estimation uh makes NC an appropriate and complimentary consistent request to align with uh the the future land use plans for the area.

Uh as for additional issues, I've already touched on the hydric soils and sewer capacity questions with the annexation item.

Uh otherwise uh tree preservation would change with a rezoning to NC.

Uh RA has our highest pre-preservation requirement.

Uh please note as I discussed during the um the annexation discussion.

If you have the opportunity uh during this discussion, or take my word for it, uh going back over the aerial imagery for this piece of property over the last decade, you can clearly see that the tree canopy that is there is very young and is largely the result of pasture land that has been allowed to uh grow up in recent years.

Uh additionally, uh, in terms of public comment, uh the planning commission uh heard uh similar concerns as were expressed about uh with the annexation about loss of this open space, uh, as well as uh potential impacts this development could have on city services and and traffic.

Uh as I noted before, staff is recommending in favor of this request.

The planning commission sent it to city council by a split vote of four-to-two with one recusal.

Those supporting the request found that neighborhood conservation uh promotes a development pattern that to our earlier conversation can uh move more towards fiscal solvency for the city, uh developing more units on fewer linear feet of water sewer, uh, water and sewer lines as well as streets.

Um also there are increasingly other examples of single-family development patterns in this area, including immediately to the northeast in the Magnolia Park Subdivision.

Uh the concerned commissioners, the two dissenters uh felt that it was an inappropriate amount of additional density compared to the immediately adjacent properties, which are all zoned RSF4.

And I'm happy to take any questions, Mayor.

And uh, as Mr.

McCready noted, he's also the representative for this one.

Thank you.

Mr.

McCready.

Thank you, Mayor, and Mr.

Kurth.

I won't repeat a lot.

Once again, he did a much better job than I can do explaining it.

Um I do want to make a few comments though about the zoning as was mentioned when a property is annexed, it comes in by default as RA.

Um RA, I think uh I would certainly posit it doesn't really fit in this area, it's surrounded all by RSF4.

Um, it is a lower density, but there's also other uses that are permitted by right under the RA, including agricultural animal husbandry, animal boarding and training and manufactured homes.

Um my position is those would be inconsistent with the RSF4 zoning that's immediately uh around this property on all of the borders.

Um, when you compare the uh NC zoning district to the RSF4, which uh is already predominant in that um there's only there's really slight variations between it.

As Mr.

Kirth mentioned, the the uses by right are the same.

Um the the density is a little bit higher.

The lot minimum lot width is a little bit smaller.

Um, but as staff has pointed out in their memo, most of the neighborhoods around this property are built to those minimum standard 70-foot lot lists.

So there is not a there's not a great difference between what the NC zoning classification would be with its surrounding properties.

That compatibility discussion was covered by staff in their memo to the city council, and they found that the NC would be compatible with those surrounding uses.

Um I did want to mention it's been been alluded to, but uh existing utility services are either on site or they're adjacent to the property.

Um I mentioned previously as to Mr.

Kirth, there's been a study done on the sewer, and there doesn't seem to be capacity issues.

There also was a analysis done to see whether or not there'd be any environmental concerns from a wetlands perspective, and there's not anticipated there'd be any uh jurisdictional coverage of the EPA for this property.

Of course, that would all be fleshed out in the development process, but um the the preliminary concerns show that it will it will be acceptable and will be uh environmentally sensitive.

Um the NC classification, it's consistent with the City Plan 2040 future land use map um that designates this as a residential area or residential neighborhood area that encourages highly connected compact blocks with gridded street patterns and reduced building setbacks.

That's exactly what the neighborhood conservation zoning district provides.

Um there's also existing infrastructure in close proximity to existing city services like park schools and trails that um also supports this request.

Um I don't have any other comments that he hasn't uh uh Mr.

Kurth is not already addressed.

Um appreciate your attention.

I'm happy to answer any questions and ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have questions before we go to public comment, either for Mr.

McCready or for Mr.

Kurt?

Councilmember Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Jonathan, um, what when do we do um kind of a financial analysis?

Um, because now we've just annexed it, but we have uh different densities, uh, an RA or an RSF4 that's surrounding, and then um the applicants proposing NC.

So are there any triggers that go in to see um what the what the cost benefit is for the city?

Historically, we staff has performed them when an annexation is submitted with a PCD, where there's a high enough level of detail that we can put hard numbers to specific numbers of units and and actually have a site plan that shows the units, the streets, their locations, roughly their distances, and associated amounts of water and sewer lines.

Uh, they've also tended to be larger.

I think the most recent one we did has been a while, but we don't see many annexations.

It was Chandler Crossing and that project.

Um I think the if that is something that the council would like in the future, we I don't know that we've ever done one with a rezoning, but if we do have it in our guiding principles, that it is something that could be beneficial during an annexation conversation.

Uh certainly something SAF can can bring forward or look into perhaps even if it's enough of a desktop calculation, something we could do between an agenda session and a meeting.

So it's usually triggered by the annexation process rather than the rezoning process after it's been annexed.

That's correct.

Okay.

Uh it just seems like it would be really important to kind of have all that flushed out.

So but yes, thank you.

Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so mine is triggered somewhat by the comment uh by Kyle Smith.

Um, but I you know, I always route myself back to uh the definition of residential neighborhood or whatever area that we're looking at in the city, and you know, that seems to say walkable, compact community design.

And then when I look at NC, I see single family dwelling, accessory dwelling, short-term rental.

And I just was curious because like I look at the map, um, you know, we've talked a lot about how RSF4 is not serving us well.

I think we've said it's it's an antiquated zoning that we hope to change over time.

And so when I look at NC, though, I'm trying to understand within the uh context of that area when I look at the mapping around that area.

There's RSF eight, that's actually a little further past, um, but a lot of that is RSF4, and so I'm just trying to understand with this piece of land why we would settle and be content with NC as residential neighborhood versus that definition around you know, compact walkable design.

Um, I'm sure there's a wide, you know, uh definition of what accomplishes that, but kind of to that uh what also an increased density probably meets that definition of residential neighborhood I that is another good question.

I think it is uh I think difficult to give a very simple answer to it.

A element in staff's consideration of an appropriate rezoning is not simply what's the highest and best use of a piece of property.

I know you often hear real estate agents use that term not to be derogatory towards the profession, but that that's a very common term in that profession or term of art.

Um when planning evaluates a rezoning, it is a conversation about what is complimentary to the surrounding area, which single family nice to single family is hard for for staff to dispute that.

Uh what does it uh what are those infill attributes that that contribute to this being a a uh a compact complete neighborhood or to the what what can support it being developed to more intense levels?

Uh I think when staff looked at this one in particular, we recognize that our future land use map in particular identified the intersection to the northeast along RuPaul, uh, whether it's been neighborhood services general rezoned uh in the last I believe it was three or four years, maybe longer ago at this point, that that would be a neighborhood node that was walkable and accessible to this neighborhood in particular uh and could serve that that wider area to begin creating that complete and compacted, complete compact and connected neighborhood.

Sorry, I have a follow-up question.

I apologize.

I turned off my mic.

Um, what would be the full density per acreage that NC can get to?

It allows up to 10 units per acre.

Okay.

And I mean it does bear noting we often talk about buy right uses when rezonings come up because there is an additional layer of uh permitting and discretion uh associated with conditional uses, but in sea, like most of our single family zoning districts also allow additional uses, it allows attached to residential to allow small scale commercial.

So developers are do have the opportunity to insert some of that.

Uh of course it does take that additional step, which can be a barrier uh to some projects.

Okay, but as far as duplexes, triplexes, townhomes are not allowed in NC?

Not by right, no, but by conditional use, yes.

Huh, okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay, I don't see any questions, so we're gonna open it up to public comment.

Is there anybody in the room that would like to offer comment on this item?

Do we have anyone online?

We do not.

Okay.

So I'm gonna bring it back to the council.

Reminder that we are on the first.

No, I'm sorry, we are on the second reading.

Because it was left on the first reading at the last meeting.

I'll make a motion to move it to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to move it to the third and final reading.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett.

Yes.

And you're going to rezone the property described and rezoning petition RCM 2025-32 for approximately 19.92 acres located on West Wyle Lane and Ward 4 from RA residential agricultural to NC neighborhood conservation.

Okay.

I'm not seeing any final.

Well, I'm going to support tonight.

I just I really hope that we'll look at and see.

I really am having heartburn that there's not duplex, triplex, and townhomes in there.

And so don't be surprised if I come forward with that.

I just I think the diversity of housing types is so needed to arrive at different price points and just take care of the unique needs of our community, and not everybody needs this one format of housing.

So thanks for listening to me.

All right.

Great.

And now for the vote.

Uh Clerk Pexton, we please call the roll.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett.

Yes.

Okay.

So that item passes.

Thank you.

Moving on to our final item of old business, B5.

RZN, or I'll just RZN25-2025-27.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning RZN 2025-27 for approximately 0.4 acres located at 3070 West Mount Comfort Road in Ward 4 from RSF4, residential single family, four units per acre, to NSG, neighborhood services general.

This was left on the first reading, so we will begin begin on the second reading.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the city council or the city of Fayville, Arkansas, Section One, that the City Council of the City of Fayville, Arkansas hereby changes zone classification of property shown on the map, exhibit A, and the legal description exhibit B, both attached to a planning department's agenda memo from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to NSG neighborhood services general.

And section two that the city council, the city of Favor Arcot hereby amends a picture zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Mr.

Kurt.

Thank you, Mayor.

As I shared at agenda session, there have not been any new changes or updates to this item.

I'm available for any questions.

I understand that the neighborhood and the developer may have been having conversations and that an amended request is possibly coming forward, but I will defer to them to share that and Mayor West Bates and Connor Chimik have a presentation for the site.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Okay.

Mr.

Bates.

You're missing your crutches.

Yeah.

Thanks, Jonathan.

So we we kind of asked this question last time, but we want to ask it again.

What do we envision for the future of Mount Comfort?

And specifically Mount Comfort.

Could Mount Comfort become more of like a main street USA and just you know, reference on the side here, um City Plan 2040 goals, which I think everybody's aware of.

Next slide.

All right.

Uh we showed this zoning map kind of earlier, uh last presentation, but we have residential office, some other NSG across the street.

Um there's some RIU down on the right.

So there's a kind of a variety of zoning types already here.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh this is just uh uh uh a rezone that was done not too long ago over in Rolling Hills.

Um confident coffee, I think isn't the NSG.

Obviously, these are two different sites, um, but we just wanted to kind of highlight uh what neighborhood services could could offer the community.

Uh next slide, please.

Okay, uh in 2007, this is a street view of Mount Comfort Road.

You can see that it was an old uh small county road, um, larger front yards, um, some trees that uh did you know don't exist anymore.

Um, and the bottom right uh is Mount Comfort today.

That's uh a subdivision built on the south side, southeast of this subject property.

This is actually where the mixed use trail is supposed to be put in in the next five years.

So if you can imagine going down this mixed uh this mixed kind of path here um with a seat privacy fence on your left, busy street on your right.

Um a lot of folks who who live on Mount Comfort um would probably like to have a privacy fence to give them some barrier between the street uh in their yard.

Next slide, please.

So asking a question of why we're why we're doing this, and as Conrad alluded to, um single family homes along Mount Comfort made sense when all those homes were were built.

And it's a busy road, and we can't really argue that, and it's not appropriate in our minds to force single family homes along Mount Comfort.

And you know, when we talk about noise, um air and light pollution of have you know, living next to a busy road.

Um, you know, our business tagline is sustainable living made attainable.

Um, we don't think that living next to a busy road is sustainable.

And you know, we'll get into it later, but you can even you know, and then we also know intuitively that if you're up against a busy road, the home values are lower.

And so you're potentially putting somebody who can't afford the most expensive house in the neighborhood in a position where they're having adverse um side effects from the housing choice that they made.

Next slide, please.

And how do we find define busy?

That's kind of abstract.

So you can see on the right the traffic count over the years in Mount Comfort, you know, 8,000 cars a day in 2008 to 18,000 um as of last year.

What does that look like?

You know, some other spots in town Greg near township, near the Onyx Coffee there, north at uh you know the Greenway and Leverett, um, and then Razorback near the football stadium.

And we would argue that these are not spots that we would force people to build um single family homes up against.

It doesn't make sense.

Next slide, please.

Okay, so what makes a complete neighborhood?

Um, you know, I won't uh go into uh a lot of this, um, but I will say that you know, um, yeah, it's having yeah, walkable commercial, it's not just having like a maverick or a come and go that you can go to.

It's having lots of diversity and in the uses.

Um you can see this is what the Mount Comfort will be improved to at some point.

It is labeled uh regional link street.

There will be a turning lane and there will be a median um uh obviously that trail, that multi-use trail has to go in first before that can happen.

Uh next slide, please.

Okay, so this is kind of talking about you know the one of the benefits of adaptive reuse.

You know, this is not um wedding 10 where you have lots of swaths of green field that were all developed at once.

Um adaptive reuse of old buildings is a really good way to give an entrepreneur a foothold into a more affordable commercial rental.

Uh adaptive reuse is kind of uh uh an integral part of of you know of of this.

Next slide, please.

So I want to talk about what Jonathan alluded to on compromise.

And you know, we we had a slight change at the last meeting.

We had thought that we had reached an agreement with some of the neighbors in support of RSF 18, and then we started receiving emails just before the last meeting that said um, hey, we're not going to support this, we're gonna show up and we're gonna fight this.

And so it it made us kind of go back to our team and back to the drawing board and say, well, well, what is uh what do we care about here?

And what would we feel good about?

Um I have a four-month-old daughter at home, and I and I keep thinking about um well, why are we here at these meetings?

Why do we fight for the things that we care about?

And I want to you know go down the road with her and be able to point out the projects that we worked on and that we feel proud about.

And adding more strictly single family homes along Mount Comfort is not something I could feel proud to show her someday.

And I, you know, that that's like weighing on me right now.

Uh and so we agree, you know, in our next our proposal is to do a small, very small adaptive reuse of the existing house.

We're talking about office along Mount Comfort only, uh residential buffer of RSF 18 to the north, and then no no change to the RSF4 around it.

We're not touching anybody else's property.

This is our our property.

We we had productive discussions.

We're happy that the neighbors are engaged with the the process, but we're not uh we're trying to find the sweet spot of what the planning staff recommended and what they suggested of NSG cutting that down and and converting an old building to most likely office space.

Next slide, please.

Just reference of where we put the legal descriptions and the proposed um, I think you've seen this before.

Next slide, please.

And uh why you know we we saw this already, but why RSF 18?

Um there's a mature red oak that we're trying to save, and RSF 18 would allow us to get two houses to the north with um you know avoiding a lot of the the spread of that tree.

Next slide.

And why no bill of assurance?

Last time we were here, we mentioned a bill of assurance, and you know, we agree with NSG.

We we find that the split zoning, um 0.2 acres of NSG on Mount Comfort is appropriate.

Um the bill of assurance creates additional work for staff and complexity down the road.

And we met, you know, we went out of our way to meet with the group, and we talked about a bill of assurance, and we received an email that said we don't support any commercial uses under NSG.

And so we went back to our team, and it's hard to negotiate when they there's nothing that um would be supported.

I mean, we're talking about ice cream shops, coffee shops, um, and and the email says no uses.

Next slide, please.

Okay, well, this is our final slide.

Um, but yeah, this is you know, one of the benefits of incremental development, kind of in in my eyes, and uh West is and I both both feel that this project uh the rezone to NSG uh meets a lot of these uh goals.

Thank you.

Pardon me, thank you.

Umbers of the council, do you have questions for either the um applicants or for Mr.

Karth?

Yes, yes, council.

I think there's for US uh you know, you talked about there have been the talk of RSF 18 and and people were worried about too much being but how much would like if you did the whole thing RSF 18?

Uh what would you um how many could they how many could you build?

Yeah, that's a good question.

I think we'd have to look at the math after the right-of-way dedication, but it's like eight eight houses.

So in our mind, if we just went ahead and tore that house down, built eight houses.

I mean, from a traffic standpoint, like that would be more traffic than what I mean.

If we're talking about a thousand thousand square foot office, is what we're talking about.

Okay.

Um there's a big tree on the property.

There are two big trees.

There's a big sycamore tree in the front yard that we did a crown crown raise on, just to you know, clean that up, and then there's a mature red oak to the north.

Um, and then we just done a bunch of brush cleanup um lately.

Are you are you gonna try to save the uh those trees or that's our goal?

Yeah.

Um I think that's my question for now.

Thank you.

Procedurally, I have a question for Kit since I've not been a part of an amendment not brought forward by a council person, but it sounds like the um there's an amendment being brought forward by the applicant.

Is that correct?

So whereas what we have in the packet is to rezone to NSG and we're being asked to consider instead a rezone to um RSF 18.

Is that am I mistaken?

Uh they did suggest that uh it would have to be approved by the city council, some city council member would need to make a motion to change that, and I think use probably the diagram that that shows that uh Mayor, I think for the council's benefit, it would be good for the applicants explicitly what they want.

Got it.

Okay.

If if an amendment is desired.

Okay, thank you.

And I didn't mean to write, and I didn't mean to jump over you, Council Parson Tark.

I just wasn't clear on what right now we are being asked.

Right.

I I think the uh the neighbors would like to speak, and I I think they have 10 minutes to do so.

Oh, got it.

Do we have a presentation from the 10 minutes?

You mean before public comment?

Uh okay.

Normally on something like this, if there are sp is a spokesman for the neighborhood, then they would be allowed 10 minutes just like the applicant.

Okay, got it.

And then everybody after that would be three.

Okay.

Do we I think we still get clear?

Do we still get clarifying questions before that?

Is that that's what okay.

Okay.

I think they're treated kind of like the applicant.

Understood.

Okay.

I mean I I think what I would like clarity on is that before we get too far down the road, understanding what we're being asked.

And that's what I don't know that we're clear on.

So Kit, you're saying though that they are treated like the applicant and they go before the public comment and before our clarifying questions, correct?

Yes, and they can answer clarifying questions too.

Okay, great.

Mr.

Hertzogs, good evening.

Uh, my name is Jake Hertzog, and I live at 2278 North Coosberry Lane, and I'll give a group response on behalf of uh many of our residents.

Just uh a quick review of how we got here.

At the August 11th Planning Commission meeting, we laid out our reasons for opposition to NSG, which I shall recount in more detail in just a moment.

Primarily, we were concerned about traffic and parking problems as well as the major neighborhood disruptions caused by the many types of businesses ill-suited for an area of primarily RSF for zoning.

The planning commission agreed with us, and they denied the zoning request, and in particular found the idea of businesses like Delhi's, dry cleaners, medical offices, drug stores, and appliance repairs to be a poor fit for uh for that area.

The developers decided to appeal this decision, and they offered us several ideas for rezoning that would allow two houses and an office space on their site.

I want to reiterate that when uh the sign first appeared for a potential rezoning, and we initially spoke with them, uh, they said that they were interested in building two homes and an office uh on 3070 Mount Comfort Road.

Then we proposed uh or they I should say they proposed the idea of RSF-18.

And uh well, we were uncomfortable with the allotted density of RSF-18.

We agreed because that would have prevented commercial zoning uh on our street and at that location.

Uh to that effect, following the developers' direction, I documented this agreement in an email to all city council members, Mayor Ron and City staff on September 2nd.

Uh, and we thought that this matter was closed.

At the September 16th council meeting, instead of asking for RSF-18, as I thought we had discussed, the developers asked to split the lot, which you have just seen, uh and the zoning part of the property for NSG.

And then it was tabled by city council.

Uh so I want to reiterate that uh we have communicated also with the developers and with city staff that we always were in favor of RSF-18 because it were would serve to keep uh commercial zoning from that area.

Uh and even though we had hoped for maybe one house instead of two, all of our communications reflected the fact uh that we were in agreement with the developers that RSF-18 would be all right for that uh for that lot.

On September 26th, we met with the developers and they proposed we attempt to agree on a bill of assurance uh on the NSG zoning to limit potential uses.

On September 29th, we received a possible use of those list of those uses.

And on October 1st, we sent a proposal to the developers and city staff on which uses we believed would be appropriate or inappropriate for a quiet family street.

We commented on every single use, and we included many yeses, for example, things like florist shop, stationary shop, and all of the office uses, but we never uh heard back from uh from anyone.

Uh so I think that one of the things you just heard was a mischaracterization of our communications.

We in fact did support RSF-18, uh and we did support a bill of assurance that would have limited uh most uses to the office uses.

The email that was shown there was a direct result of my communication with city staff a few days prior, where I asked specifically, did we forget to comment on any of the uses?

And the response was yes, you forgot to comment on the residential uses, and therefore I wrote a follow-up saying we would like the residential uses to be single family unit.

Uh, next slide, please.

Um, so first uh the uh the residents do not want this.

Uh we've made our voices heard over the past two months, and by this I mean specifically NSG zoning.

That is what is under discussion at this moment.

Uh we've twice sent a petition signed by 31 of the nearest residents, opposed to again NSG commercial zoning.

And as I mentioned, the planning commission understood these perspectives because we are the ones that will have to live there.

Um, there's no need for this development at 3070 Mount Comfort Road because over the last uh several years, uh large gas stations have been built on either side, and and if you may go to the next slide, please.

Uh Mount uh the Mount Comfort Road Complex is currently under uh construction.

This is going to contain 327 multifamily units, 21,000 square feet of office space, sorry, retail space, 9,000 square feet of office space, and this plan includes the very things uh that many people in this room have expressed they want in Fayetteville restaurants, coffee shops, small grocery stores, and it will clearly accommodate the local needs as the infrastructure for things like parking is appropriate.

Uh if you go to the next slide, please.

Uh most importantly, the simple truth is that the infrastructure on Mount Comfort Road is woefully inadequate to support a business at 3070 Mount Comfort Road.

First, the traffic on Mount Comfort Road increases daily, as you have just seen, and hundreds more homes are currently being planned that depend on Mount Comfort Road for access to the east side of Fayetteville and to I-49.

The development at Mount Comfort Square will dramatically increase that traffic, multiplying current problems with congestion.

The increasing traffic has made Gooseberry Lane a treacherous place to turn into and out of, especially at peak hours.

And many times a left turn is impossible.

If you go to the next slide, please.

This lack of infrastructure, we believe is dangerous.

There is no center turn lane on Mount Comfort Road.

On October 15th, 2022, there was a major crash right in front of 3016 Mount Comfort Road across Gooseberry from the property in question.

I have a picture of that accident displayed here, courtesy of our neighbors.

On September 9th, according to public record 2023, there was a fatal car accident near the property caused by the hazards of turning left on Mount Comfort Road into a driveway.

We feel putting a business at 3070 Mount Comfort Road could be an irresponsible endangerment of motorists and residents because parking will be limited at best.

Delivery vehicles will face major traffic and parking obstacles, and customers will have a very difficult time turning into and out of the business.

At the same time, for those of us that live on Gooseberry Lane, the infrastructure is also completely inappropriate.

We disagree with the characterization of Gooseberry as a major thoroughfare.

It is an asphalt street with no sidewalks.

There is a sharp drop-off for water drainage on each side, and the road is narrow.

If you go to the next slide, please.

If this is the situation with construction, how can we possibly imagine this with frequent customers, deliveries, sanitation trucks, and other business and parking-related traffic?

If you go to the next slide, please.

These images show the proximity of the driveway of 3070 Mount Comfort to the intersection.

Well, this didn't pose a problem with one resident in one home.

It would compound these dangers if this was an entrance to a business.

If you go to the next slide, please.

What you've just seen, and also at the September 16th meeting, slides were shown that attempted to mollify these concerns by highlighting the planned changes to Mount Comfort Road.

But I want to emphasize that we've received confirmation from City that no such changes will occur at least on the five-year timeline, potentially even more.

So we believe that putting a business on this property is putting the cart before the horse.

We feel it's very misguided and puts residents both near and far at risk.

If you go to the next slide, please.

Finally, we are opposed to NSG for the same reasons the planning commission were opposed.

The allowed uses are far too broad.

Our attempts to negotiate with the developers to limit those uses have not been successful to this point.

And therefore, we must oppose NSG in its entirety.

Almost every permitted use in NSG would involve significant customer traffic, major potential waste and sanitation issues, tremendous parking challenges, all compounding the dangers that I have described.

Now, we understand this is a great time of change for Fayetteville, and many people see opportunity in every corner.

So we've genuinely tried to work with the developers toward an amenable solution.

There's a great saying that a good compromise leaves everyone unsatisfied.

And we felt on September 2nd, as we feel now that RSF 18, while not ideal, would allow what the developers propose, two homes in an office, while also preventing what we as the residents seek to prevent.

City staff also confirmed today that this change to RSF 18 would also align with the city's 2040 master plan.

So I asked tonight that City Council please reconsider this option.

And on a personal note, this has really been a heartbreaking experience for us.

Many of us have lived on Gooseberry Lane for a long time, and we all feel that quiet streets and neighborhoods are why we moved here in the first place.

So let me be as clear as I can be.

The infrastructure cannot support NSG and might not for a very long time.

And the applicant's proposal might not even require NSG.

So we ask you to please vote categorically for the denial of NSG and please reconsider RSF 18 as a reasonable solution.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keith, I think you have a point of yeah, I have a point of clarification for Kit.

So I just wanted to read through our rules in order or city council rules.

So this is the public comment period where each person gets three minutes to city council can vote.

This is public comment now.

So three minutes.

Anybody from the public have three minutes and then the city council can extend their time if the app or the person speaking requests that.

That's correct.

Okay.

I think his clear yeah, it I think the question that Keith had was because he isn't an applicant or an appellant, why he got the 10 minutes is what I think Keith's confusion was about.

It's it's usually doesn't happen unless there's an appeal from the planning commission where there's a spokesman for the uh neighborhood as well as for the applicant.

Okay.

Got it.

Okay.

Um so we are still in the um opportunity um for you all to ask clarifying questions of um the applicant.

Can we get clarification back to our question earlier of what exactly the developers were wanting to change the request to, please?

Yes, I think that's a great question for the developer.

Yes, so the request would be uh changed uh via yeah, split zoning.

So doing NSG on the southern part of that line that you guys saw uh that splits kind of east and west, uh, and then doing the RSF-18 to the north of that.

So that was um what we were intending.

I don't know if uh Jonathan can put that back on.

And while that's coming up, Kit, a procedural question that I have is I don't know if our notification requirements can we make those changes on the fly potentially in the event we wanted to amend as proper notification happened for us to look at splitting the zoning.

There is no need for any further notification.

Uh, you can make those changes.

It's been done many times in the past where the city council has changed the request.

This is legislative decision, so you get to make it even if neither side liked it.

Okay, thank you, Ken.

Thank you.

So we would need to consider that we would need a motion from someone on the council to amend accordingly to the split zoning.

Councilperson Stauncilperson Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um sorry, I'm a little confused about a few things.

Um there was talk about, you know, that it was requested that the for you know bill of assurance to happen that the residents would submit a uh, you know, what acceptable uses would there were.

And it sounds like they said they did send a list of acceptable uses, but they didn't, or or we're was there a list of acceptable uses received at the risk of it.

Mayor, would you like me to answer that question?

Yes, please, Mr.

At the risk of inserting myself into that.

I think the most important thing for the council realizes only an applicant can offer a bill of assurance.

I think whether the neighborhood had preferences or did not have preferences, ultimately, whether the applicant offered a bill of assurance or not is what's at issue, and they have chosen not to offer a bill of assurance.

Yeah, the neighborhood did evaluate uses.

I saw a document that showed their consideration of the uses item by item.

Ultimately, the applicant has not uh decided to submit a bill of assurance with this request.

What's before you on screen to split the zone the property is what's being proposed.

Um can I ask a question of the neighborhood representative?

Why not?

Sure.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Jake, uh Mr.

Hurt, it sounded like you said you sent a a that you did have acceptable uses that you that you forwarded.

Uh yes, uh we were we were asked by the developers to comment on on the the many uses listed uh and and we were expecting uh discussion and a back and forth with them because we understand that only the applicant can offer a bill of assurance, but they allowed us to they asked us what we think about each of those.

But did you basically say none of the uses are acceptable, or did you say we would be okay with ABC and D.

We sent uh a document to the developers and and two city staff that had the various categories with comments on each one.

Many of them we said no to, like uh Delhi or an ice cream shop, and some many we said yes to, like uh the uh attorney's office, uh stationary store, florist.

Um there were a few other kind of office type uses.

There are four, I think four or five office type uses.

The reason we included city staff on that uh was was in no way to um obfuscate anything, but we just simply wanted to make sure we had found uh in the code all the um all the various NSG uses that we ought to include.

Uh so our question was also to city staff and say and saying um, did we miss anything?

Uh and so that wasn't meant to confuse anything, that was just us trying to understand because there are um NSG uses on on multiple different links in different places in the city code.

We wanted to make sure we had uh been able to view them all.

Um thank you.

Okay.

Um I want to remind the council we haven't had public comment yet, so I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Unless you want more okay, it's okay.

And Jonathan, this is for you.

Uh uh gas stations would not be allowed under uh what's being proposed, right?

That's correct.

Gas stations are not by right in NSG.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Or RSF 18, either one.

Yeah, okay.

Um okay, do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on this item?

If so, please come forward.

You have three minutes.

Please state your name and address.

And I might ask that if there are multiple of you that would like to speak, if you would like to go ahead and line up, that would be helpful.

Thanks so much.

Good evening.

I'm Cynthia Smith.

My family and I live at 2299 Gooseberry Lane, and I've been a neighbor of Mount Comfort for over 30 years.

And so to say that because I have a vested interest in choosing to live in the neighborhood.

Um, I wanted just to uh say a couple comments on what Jake did.

Um, you know, just really a lot of it's about the infrastructure.

He mentioned there's no infrastructure um on Mount Comfort, there won't be for a while.

And Goose Ferry Lane, you saw where the driveway was, or even if it moved down a little bit with splitting the lot, it that makes a lot for the business 0.2 acres.

It's really tiny to do that.

Um I am concerned um about just how dangerous it might be for those pulling in, pulling out, as well as walkers and bikers.

Are street a lot of people cut down just to take a walk with their dog or their kids.

Um and yesterday I there was an accident just four houses down on um the next street of someone trying to pull out.

It's a reality that we see.

So, you know, increasing that traffic of a business on that corner, I think increases that opportunity for more accidents.

The developers made a comment about you know, not people not wanting to live on Mount Comfort.

Well, I've had two friends that moved to out of house in Mount Comfort in the last few years, one just a few months ago, a friend of mine that works at the university with me.

I said, So why are you buying a house there on Mount Comfort?

He said, Well, it's affordable, it has a mature lot with a backyard, and uh the people aren't so bad either, you know.

And uh the people aren't so bad either, you know.

He knows.

Um, so I do feel like there are people that are looking for that.

So if you take away that option and put a business there, it is taking away affordable housing right on the street.

And it could be a domino effect uh where more of those houses that could be affordable housing turn into businesses.

Um as Jake mentioned, we do have um, you know, all these great things happening around of us that we can walk to, and we're looking forward to that, but we don't really want that in the middle of Mount Comfort.

Um, where it's in the middle of just the neighborhood.

Um, I encourage you to vote with the city kit planning council against the rezoning, and we really hope to keep our street and Mount Comfort residential.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sometimes hi.

Uh I'm Charles Shields.

My wife and I live on the corner of Gooseberry and Mount Comfort, right across from the proposed changes here.

Uh when this rezoning came up, uh, I walked up and down Mount Comfort and Gooseberry from Raven to Salem, about a mile.

I counted all the houses.

There's 61 single family houses.

There are no duplexes, there are no apartments, there are no commercial buildings.

There are 61 single family houses.

There's a couple churches, but of course they don't have much activity.

They're off the street, and only on Sunday mornings.

Uh so the other thing I want to let you know is we had a meeting with Mr.

Bates in the carport at uh the proposed, you know, where they're changing things about six weeks ago.

And so at the time, you know, he had basically dropped that.

Was it NSG, you know, the commercial thing, and he was talking about remodeling that house and building two houses on the lot, which they would split off of that.

So I didn't understand how we was gonna base them, change them.

So I picked up a piece of cardboard, and Mr.

Bates knew this on there.

What he proposed.

The split of the lot, the two houses on there, and remodeling the current house.

And then afterwards, it seems like he's changed and wants to do the commercial thing again.

So I just wanted you to know, you know, he drew this.

Uh lastly, uh, you know, we really like Fayetteville.

And the people, City Council, you know, everybody is responsive to citizens.

And I always hear them say, we care about the people.

We care about the neighborhoods.

The people on Gooseberry, the people around me on Mount Comfort are unanimously against any commercial use there.

There's no need for it.

So I'm just asking you to listen to the people to listen to the citizens and not the developer because his motivation is one thing, money, and we care about the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Oops, could you hear me?

I was kind of low.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Good evening.

My name's Carl Zoc.

I live at 2246 Gooseberry Lane.

Um the second house on the street directly across from the property.

Um, firstly, I think what they're doing, the house so far is looking good.

And I think at the end of end game, I think we're all gonna have something nice regardless of which side, you know, ends up uh you know getting getting their way.

Um we also have commercial right now east of us and west of us.

And um, but directly north, southeast and west.

This is all residential.

I don't believe there's any reason to throw a commercial uh use right there in the middle.

Um the infrastructure there, like was said before, is just not there.

It seems that we definitely need to put a turning lane there before we decide to have commercial there.

Being where I live now in rush hour, it's really hard to get off my street and on my street if a coffee shop or something like that gets put there, it's gonna be impossible.

It's gonna be probably a lot more accidents than already we have there, and unfortunately we can't unsee some of those.

Um area also um, I mean, like they said, this is a this is a paved street, but there's not really any planning had been done on it.

It's got you know uh ditches on each side for water runoff.

If we put a parking lot um with a commercial building up front, and then two houses there, where's all that water gonna go?

Um then uh last thing is transparency um through this whole thing.

We've been told um, well, it's probably just gonna be some small offices, and then the planning had said, well, you could do that with uh our with a RSF4 the way it is now, and it was like, well, then all of a sudden that changed, and then uh even with RSF 16 or an RSF 8.

I think it would be much better than having a commercial property there.

Um thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, Brian Hurley, 215 South Blood.

Um, I'm speaking for the the proposed rezoning.

Um, I it's been interesting to hear the the arguments.

I think it was very interesting.

I think that the reference to the changes to Rolling Hills, which I know is not the same place, but from what it seems there, similar kind of uh traffic patterns and people are like really loving the new developments, the commercial developments in those places.

Um with Mount Comfort Road um and that west side of town in general.

I guess like my I don't live there.

My experience in seeing people kind of who rent downtown and end up moving out there is they move there because that's where it is affordable to buy.

Um, and they are heading there and wouldn't many people I believe would love to have density and mixed use in those spaces.

And so I want to encourage us all to think about um kind of how we want to grow and what kind of precedent we're setting um with any sorts of rezoning or denials of rezoning.

Um I think yeah, there can be some initial challenges to change in density traffic patterns.

Um, I think there can also be um reduced traffic um if we have viable vibrant dense nodes on the outskirts of town.

Um I live right here.

There's traffic, you know.

If I turn onto Archibald or I'm sorry, Nelson Hackett, there's traffic that uh is is you know can make it hard to make a left turn, but it's not coffee shop traffic um and ice cream shop traffic that that we're fighting downtown.

It's kind of the traffic that comes with people commuting.

Um so I think there would be cars that would be taken off the roads.

I think you know, we we can meet the challenges of parking um wherever that happens to be.

Um, and so yeah, I just think thinking about this as positive growth.

This would be wonderful.

Lots of people are moving out there.

I think there's a lot of good energy in the community on the west side of town, a lot of kids out riding their bikes places, riding to school, those schools, Holcomb, Holt, um, a lot of uh kind of pedestrian and bike traffic that uh developments like this could really um kind of tap into and the the whole community uh could benefit from.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello again, Kyle Smith 2801 Dove Drive, and I come tonight on this item as a neighbor to the project.

Uh I know it looks like I came with the developers.

I promise I was here for 20 minutes, they sat down on both sides of me.

I did not do that.

Um I live right around the corner, and I do walk past this pretty often.

And I want to tell you NSG is the perfect transition for the current Mount Comfort Hellscape.

Um the described Mount Comfort is woefully inadequate and inadequate.

And if you look at it, it is one of the biggest sheets of pavement that we have in our city.

And if that's not a sign that more pavement makes doesn't always make things better, I'm not sure what is.

If we were to give it more capacity, what would we do?

We turn it into the interstate.

Um I don't think that's what we want running down Mount Comfort.

Um we we need to slow down traffic, we need to change the environment.

Uh not just keep pouring more into it like that.

Um the reason it is so bad is because we have pushed all of the housing far out Mount Comfort, and everybody has to get on that road and drive past us all to get anywhere.

And no, there's no left turn.

Uh, somebody who used to run a goofy morning Facebook live stream of my turn signal trying to get out.

Sometimes it would run for seven or eight minutes.

Um that's reality in the morning, and that's reality in the afternoon.

And the rest of the day, it is almost never a problem.

Um that's you can you can turn out of these neighborhoods left across Mount Comfort uh most of the time without too much trouble.

It's it's very very short period of time in the morning.

Um to add to that, the neighbors on Gooseberry opposed connecting Gooseberry to the neighborhood to the north.

Um their street comes about that close to it.

That's how I get out of my neighborhood now without having to turn left anymore.

I go through and around and the traffic light is there.

It is life-changing.

Um all that say, I would love to have a business that I can walk to on Mount Comfort that's not a gas station right now.

The only one is the Mount Comfort Vet, and I look pretty silly with a cat in a carrier walking down the highway.

Um, but I've done it, and other than that, it's five-mile round trip to Weddington for a calachi uh deli or ice cream right around the corner from my house would be amazing.

It would be the kind of thing that would uh take some of my traffic off of Mount Comfort and give people in the area an option that doesn't require car.

I think that's exactly the kind of change we need, and exactly the best way for us to add a little bit of housing and a little bit of commerce.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Good evening, council.

My name is Bo Counts.

I don't live on Gooseberry.

I live uh on Center Street right here, but I'm also a local business owner downtown.

And this one's really interesting to me because um as a local business owner, I own a business that's uh 3,800 square feet downtown.

And after reviewing this plan, I was looking at the amount of commercial real estate was only a thousand square feet.

That's a very small amount of commercial real estate.

Uh I'm in one of my biggest periods of the year right now.

I left here to come talk.

We we were entertaining three separate corporate events, we were not disrupting traffic patterns.

We were having three very lovely local businesses come in, you know, have times at our space.

And I'm thinking, you know, a thousand square feet that fire codes about 45 people.

Like that's not a huge impact.

But as a person who just opened up another brick and mortar in Bentonville, because we have a severe lack of commercial real estate in downtown Fayetteville, and everything can't be a downtown Fayetteville.

I remember looking at master plans and seeing all these nodes that we've always wanted to have.

And then I pulled up Google Maps when I heard talk about infrastructure.

2500 square feet or not square feet, but feet away from a major exit from I-49.

That's a major thoroughfare.

That's where this piece of property is.

And when you look and we draw out, that's the connective tissue.

It makes a square from Rupple and the other exit.

And we've been talking about how do we make Rupple more connective?

This is the connective tissue.

And I'm like, why is why is this a question that we're all having?

Because no one's being displaced, no one's being, you know, bulldozed their home, something I'm very familiar with, to build some infrastructure to have in fill, which we've all been trying to do.

We're talking about a thousand square foot of commercial space, and city nodes that we desperately need to bring some of the commercial properties outside of uptown mission and crossover in downtown.

This is a perfect opportunity for us to like pollinate small places here in the city of Fayetteville to give this that idea of maybe it doesn't all have to be in three, very compact areas in the city.

So, you know, I don't have a stake in this game because I don't live there.

I hear everything that everybody's having to say, but when you break the numbers down, like this makes sense to me if I were wanting to open up a business here, and it looks like a really great spot to have a neighborhood business.

And you know, take that into consideration when you're making a decision tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone else in the room?

I know we can't, council members.

I'm Bark Russell, I live at the end of Gooseberry.

Um I sent y'all an email on Friday, so I won't repeat all of that.

I'm just here to speak and show my support to uh Jake.

And it sounds like there's only one person in the neighborhood that's pro and there's 30 something signatures on the uh planning commission uh against the protest or petition.

And uh I just wanted to voice my support and show my face.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Geek, do you want to call on some of the people that are here virtually?

Yes, we have a Rebecca Smith on Zoom.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I apologize, ma'am.

Can you please ask Rebecca to hold for just a moment?

Yeah, can you please hold for a moment?

Yes, ma'am.

Go ahead and come on out, please.

I'm sorry about that.

Good evening.

My name is Joyce Thompson, and I live at 2398 North Goosebury Line.

I've lived there for over 50 years.

Gooseberry Lane is a residential street and it's surrounded by residential streets.

We see no reason whatsoever to plunk a business down in the middle of these residential streets.

You can talk about creating a buffer, but one business isn't going to be a buffer.

So that only leads to another business and another business and another business.

Part of Mount Comfort is already commercialized.

People have talked about that tonight.

It's also been mentioned that a large portion of Mount Comfort itself is residential and has been for many years.

Are we gonna displace all those people to create that buffer?

No matter how you look at a business, no matter how innocuous it seems on paper, it has an impact on the surrounding area.

And it will have an impact on our quiet, peaceful little residential street if there is a business allowed to locate on this property.

We're hoping that you will not approve this one because we feel like this is going to lead to another and another.

How can you deny the next request if you approve this one?

Will we have a domino effect?

And first thing you know, we have a series of businesses, commercial structures, and we have gotten rid of the ambiance and the comfort that we enjoy today.

We've seen Weddington and how it's developed into a commercial district over the years.

And frankly, I don't want to see Mount Comfort become the same thing.

If we have to have this rezoning now, then we're concerned that what's going to happen in the future.

So we're hoping that you will deny this and find another way.

Maybe you're at time.

I'm sorry.

It's no, it's okay.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we have yes?

Please come up.

Hello.

Um, my name's Savannah Burkhart.

I live at um 910 South Green Point Trace here in Fayetteville.

I'm actually here for a school project, but I had um as it pertains to like residential zoning and commercial zoning.

Um, as you can see, I feel in Fayetteville, the housing crisis, as she mentioned before, is something that is a growing issue.

While we are transferring um, or whenever we're looking and examining at rezoning certain stuff that are residential areas into commercial areas.

Um, my main concern is seeing the cost of living in those areas going up for various individuals.

Um can I also ask questions during this time?

Um, not during this time, but what you could do that we would be happy to accommodate is uh Miss Ziegler is sitting in the green right up at the front.

If you wanted to get contact info for me or for Mr.

Kurt, who is our zoning expert, uh, we'd be happy to talk with you for your project if you wanted to email them to us.

Okay.

But you're welcome to finish your statement if you have a statement, but not a QA.

That was essentially the statement.

Um just up here advocating for people that are in those residential areas.

Um, I've lived in Fayetteville for my entire life.

Um, and so I think even though it is just such a small area, um, and of course, earlier tonight I think they rezoned like y'all pass resounding on many things into residential areas.

Um, but as we shift into commercial, how it would affect the people that live in that neighborhood.

So thank you.

That's a great question.

And Gracie can get you Jonathan's info and we're happy to help you out with that questions later.

Thank you for y'all's time today.

I guess thank you.

Okay.

Keith, you want to on.

Yes, I have Rebecca Smith.

You're allowed to speak on Zoom.

Okay, go ahead, Miss Smith.

Hi.

Um, so I my name is Rebecca Smith.

I live at 2299 North Gooseberry Lane.

I'm actually calling in from Berlin, Germany right now.

It is after 3 a.m., so I will have to apologize for any uh incoherency or inconsistencies in this.

Um, but I really just wanted to make a statement.

Um, I've been there at all of the meetings so far.

Um, and you know, there's a lot of different things have been thrown around.

It's been really discouraging to see what would appear to us to be a lot of going back on people's words, um a lot of backtracking, and you know, I love this idea, right, of Mount Comfort becoming a cool area for fame in the future.

That's awesome.

That's so far in the future that I really worry um doing all this before then.

You know, we talked about all the traffic, all these things.

Um about a week ago, I was on my way to work and I was locked in by a work truck, um, literally in front of my driveway that was working on that property.

And it's like if one simple work truck can't even fit to do their work, then I really wonder where any customers can park, especially if only half of the lot is going towards this business that's point two acres.

Um, I find it really hard to believe that there's gonna be any parking there.

So, where's the parking gonna fall?

Um, I'm worried for my house, my property, uh, for my neighbors.

Um, you know, and a lot of these other commenters have mentioned some situations that are really not comparable.

So everything downtown.

I think if you move downtown, you kind of know what you're moving into, right?

If you move to the west part of Fayetteville, you saw the pictures in the in the first PowerPoint.

Uh there was really nothing there.

Whenever most of the people on in this neighborhoods, um, especially on our street moved there.

And so it's really frustrating to see this like focus on infill that is like disregarding the people that have lived there for so long and been really loyal to the city and really, you know, they pay their taxes and they come to city hall meetings and they care and they're active citizens.

And so this is just one thing I really hope that we are able to listen to the citizens on.

Um, I think it's been pretty clear, especially since we've been coming to so many meetings.

Um, and we've spent so many times.

I mean, I've been at this since uh midnight, right?

It's almost 3:30.

I'm actually really hoping I can make a flight.

Um, but this is something that is really important to us, right?

And so we are not against business, right?

We're against short-sighted business.

We're against things that in the future aren't gonna be really in place.

You know, if you want to make this huge center, then having this random business on this one corner kind of makes no sense, right?

And you know, this business, yeah.

The address is on Mount Comfort.

However, the driveway and the neighbor, I mean, they're on Gooseberry.

So this is a part of Gooseberry, it's a part of a very narrow lane, as we mentioned many times, and you saw in the pictures, work trucks take up almost more than half of it.

Um, and that's if they're parked really, really tidily, which they're usually not.

Um yeah, so we're just a little bit concerned about all of this.

We're not anti-growth, we're not anti-business really.

It's just we would really love for it to be thoughtfully designed and thought out so that this is sustainable for everybody.

And like the last person said, I think it's really important that we consider the neighbors.

Um, all these folks pretty much in our area are retired, they have kids, you know, those are like kind of the two options.

And so I think it would be really taking a lot from them, were we to ignore these things.

So I think very much for your time.

I think you for doing your duty to listen to your constituents, and thank you very much.

Thank you, Miss Smith.

We have Kevin Smith.

Mr.

Smith, go ahead.

Kevin, can you hear us?

We may come back.

All right, can you hear me now?

Yes, we sure can.

Go ahead.

Good.

Um, my name's Kevin Smith.

I live at 2299 Gooseberry Lane.

Uh, the lady that's just talk to you from Germany is my daughter.

Um, I don't have a lot to say other than I I think Jake laid it out so well.

Um and Jake has been very consistent every time he has spoken, he's been our neighborhood spokesman.

Um I'm I'm kind of dismayed that this talk of N Phil now, because that road is dangerous.

Um, this planning commission said when they talked about it doesn't make sense of it.

One of the councilmen and one of the planning commission people literally said who is going to cross that road to go buy a coffee or a coke.

I don't remember what what ill stretched you had.

Yeah, but um, so I just hearing so many things that scare me uh in the way people are saying things, not the development.

Um I like a lot what Becca said.

We are against business.

Um, but we are against um um not well planned business.

Build the road first if you want.

I mean, not front yards are gonna disappear, but because they're claiming they're gonna build um a cycle track on the the south side, I think it is of the road, and then they're gonna add turn lanes and all that.

Um it's gonna be a lot to do all that.

Um but it's not the time, it really is.

And this vague business thing is just really odd.

Um so that's all I have to say.

I love what everyone else said.

They said so much better than me.

I wanted to make sure I got to say something.

My neighbors.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

We have somebody online with a phone number that ends in 775.

You're allowed to speak.

Do they have their they have their hand up?

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh City Council, I'm Brian Teague.

I live on East Spring Street.

Um, I'm just calling in to encourage you to approve NSG in this location.

Um, you know, it's a half mile west of 540, but it's a half mile east of Rupple Road.

Fairly busy four-lane road that ideally should be more like a rural main street.

Um G would create the small potential for a walkable destination location, a location that really needs walkable destinations.

It really doesn't have any.

I think it's something like a small general store or like building would be very appropriate here.

Uh 0.3 acres, that's very small, almost tiny.

Um not much parking at all.

Almost all of the non-residential uses in SG are biconditional use.

So anything built here would be smaller scale and match the neighborhood.

The development code will dictate a smaller scale.

It's strange to me to have a busy street like this that isn't allowed to have any services.

Um left hand turn, you know, it's gonna take two or three minutes at rush hour, or you can just turn right.

Um, College Avenue still has services, and I I process I cross College Avenue on foot every day.

Um small scale, non-residential use in this location is in accordance with the City of Abbot Future Lands Plan, and I would encourage you to approve this.

Thanks for that to me.

Thank you.

Okay, no more on Zoom, and I don't believe we have any more public comment in the room.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Oh, we have a hand raised.

He's saying no.

Okay.

Sorry, she just raised her hand.

Kathy Freeman.

Okay, got it.

Go ahead, Miss Freeman.

Kathy.

Okay.

I don't we may move on.

What do you want me to do, Keith?

That's all we have.

Okay, all right, great.

Thank you so much.

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

Uh Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh question for our public works director about um Gooseberry Lane and any plans in the capital improvement program to extend and connect that road at the northern end.

Uh there's not an existing plan.

It would be a relatively simple um project to do, uh just a very small connection.

Uh, but we we've not made that a priority when that uh development came in behind.

There was some discussion about uh connecting at the time, but there's a little bit of ride-of-way that has to be acquired, and so the decision was made to not pursue that at the time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Councilperson Moore, thank you, Mayor.

Um, I like to move to amend uh to the uh map that was showing with the NSG on the um front portion of the property and the RSF 18 on the back.

Just I guess I'll use that as my exhibit, I guess the the picture that came up.

Okay, we have a uh motion to amend to a split zoning as described in the map or the image.

We have a second.

I think it's a good compromise for the neighbors who said doing the whole thing in SG.

We have a motion and a second to amend clerk Paxton.

We please call the roll.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes, Ms.

Hurt, no.

Minister Jones, no.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes, Ms.

Moore, yes, Mr.

Wheedaker?

No.

Mr.

Barnett.

Yes.

Okay.

So we now have the amended, the amended ordinance before you all to discuss.

Councilperson Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

You know, I think the neighbors have been up here expressing their concerns.

Many of them have lived there a very, very long time.

One of them, in fact, over 50 years.

That road, I've been down that road, and I hope you all have taken a tour down that road down Gooseberry, and also tried to make that left hand turn.

There are ditches on either side of Gooseberry.

And that uh road is unimproved.

There's no curb and gutter, there's no sidewalks.

It's a beautiful little lane that has not been developed.

And um, and when you come out, uh, when you try and make that left hand turn or even a right hand turn sometimes onto um Mount Comfort, it's difficult to do.

And it is definitely a safety issue.

There is no doubt that left hand turn is very unsafe.

Um I would like to ask um Chris, um, the public works director, um, when they anticipate changing uh or putting that turn lane in Mount Comfort, because without that turn lane, any additional development, I just think is is pretty irresponsible.

Well, there is space, uh the the street is wide enough to have a turn lane right now uh the the edges of the road are the bike lanes.

Uh so what we've discussed internally is uh when the when the bike infrastructure, when the when the side path is constructed, uh then we would be able to restrict the road to to add the turn line.

So there is flexibility there.

Um that project is not as simple as it may seem because there is some right of way, uh, some other things that are gonna have to be acquired in order to do the side path.

Uh so it is in our plan uh in the in the five-year plan, uh, but it's something we have to evaluate as we go forward, uh, really where it fits priority wise.

So it will be it won't be next year, won't be in three years, likely maybe maybe five or six, maybe.

Uh that's it, it's in the five year plan right now.

Um it's it's uh not 100% for certain that it will be done in five years, though.

So relatively low priority within your five year plan.

Uh I would say yes.

Okay, thank you, Chris.

So I I do believe until before Mount Comfort is changed that uh this is not uh a compatible space for business, even a small area, even if you have a thousand square foot business, you can have lots of traffic within that thousand square foot business.

You can have lots of folks coming in and out of there.

It is a dangerous area, it is not compatible with any commercial development.

Uh, and I think the neighbors have been loud and clear about that and very consistent about it.

They want to maintain their neighborhood as they've had it for all these years.

And and uh, you know, and who doesn't want that?

Um so again, I I am not going to be supportive of this.

Um they tried to seek a uh an agreement with the developer.

That seems to have been unable to be done.

So I think there was really good faith there, but I I don't believe commercial development on this road in this area is appropriate, and you have areas that are already being developed down there at the corner of RuPaul.

Thank you.

Minister Jones.

I think my my question is to Mr.

Brown as well.

He just spoke about opening up the road um on the other end.

I'm just also concerned, Chris, about how small that road is.

I have my biggest issue is is safety for our community.

Um and I know so then I ask myself, and maybe this is a question to Jonathan as well as you, Chris, is who absorbs the cost of widening that road and making it um safe for individuals to walk down, to drive down, to turn around to get because if you look at those cars that were just parked on the corner, and you live down that road and you're trying to get out, you have to drive into oncoming traffic to go around somebody parked in that corner.

So who who's the onus as a city if we decide to develop there and it's not wide enough to absorb the traffic that would come in and out of there and reduce the safety issues of possible future fatalities?

Well, I I would say generally streets are improved in one of two ways, either as part of development as it occurs, so if the neighborhood were to redevelop, um they would be installing sidewalks and things like that.

Um the other is the the city uh to come in and and make any improvements that are necessary.

Um just to you asked a question about connecting that street to the to the north.

Um that could be a city project, it's a relatively small project.

Um it could improve the the safety of that road uh because then residents could go north and get out to uh Dean Solomon and find a find a light.

So uh there is could be some safety improvements by having that connectivity to the north.

Thank you, Chris.

Um I saw you first, I think, Councilperson Moore, and then councilperson Steffen.

All right, thanks, Mayor.

Um, Chris, I don't have a question for you, but I don't I don't know about anybody else.

So I don't know if you want to stand there or get to sit.

Um just go on ahead and say I know you might want to say um I I did want to acknowledge and thank uh the community members that have lived lived in that area for a long time.

I mean, I've been here for almost 30 years in this community.

I've lived in my one neighborhood for 14 years, and I know that uh we feel very strongly and passionately and care about our community, and I really appreciate that that comes out in these conversations together.

You know, we're wrestling with we're changing and we're growing.

Um, and we have set um these future plans and pathways, and we're never gonna get there overnight, and they're gonna have growing pains, and that's what this is right now.

We're in the middle of one of those flux inflection points, and it's like what what thing has to happen first.

Really, when you look at the financials on some of these infrastructure developments, they don't pay for themselves to go out ahead.

I mean, we learned a lot of things with RuPaul Road, um, not getting necessarily the development that we had um thought would happen with a lot of the financial outlays that we put there.

And then when you think about you know the road improvements that we're talking about going ahead of any potential density or changes to uh Mount Comfort, you have to have density of taxpayer-based help to pay for that.

Single family houses don't do that.

And so our city is changing.

You know, I I am in a neighborhood that was typically single family and we're taking on new things.

Um, but we have to find that we um want these additional amenities to happen throughout our city, and they have to be thoughtful.

Um, and I also I want to, you know, there were some comments about, you know, and I feel like we've loaded this word developer, and I think I I want us to be careful about that.

Um, these are residents and taxpayers and community members too who are building housing.

And I am appreciative when folks come in early and start trying to have conversations, but sometimes what happens is also things change.

They find out new information, something doesn't pencil, they find out there's a deviation with you know within uh the property that they're gonna have to make a shift.

Um, and so you know, I do understand the the frustrations from the neighborhood on feeling like the communication wasn't there, but I also too want to make sure that we're having that thoughtful conversation and we have developers leaning in to want to try to figure out how can we maybe solve this or or how can we um meet the goals and the challenges of what our city's plans are while trying to think about the neighborhood that's having to be around those changes and and taking that on to account.

Um and so for me, I just clung to Mount Comfort, knocking doors for a particular candidate and word for Mount Comfort is terrifying on foot.

I agree with you.

Um and it needs improvements, but also we're not going to get there overnight.

It also needs different amenities too that help to slow folks down, that they're looking more, that they're paying better attention, that they're um maybe thinking they might pause and do something different with their day.

So all these things as I've gotten to learn from Chris and other folks on our transportation committee about how we slow roads down.

A lot of it has to do with all kinds of visual design elements, and some of those are the types of businesses and how things start to encroach to the streetscape as well.

And so they're all all a part of the solution.

And I know it sounds or feels counterproductive, but actually this small little inchworm step that that they mentioned um in their presentation, is just one little portion of envisioning that Mount Comfort doesn't have to be what it is today, which is um very dangerous, right?

But it's not very desirable to be on.

It may take us the next 10, 15, 20 years, but you know, I have children too, nine and fourteen, and I want them to inherit um a different place.

And if they're gonna live in Ward 4, I'd like it to be uh safer in that area, and I'd like it to offer amenities whenever they want to walk and they they don't want to own a car, and they can't potentially afford to own one.

Um so for all those reasons, I'm very supportive of this creative solution that's been put forward.

Um I don't again, just still wanting to acknowledge the frustration points, right?

Whenever we are growing and changing and understanding at the end of the day, I think you know, there were some things on both sides that were frustrating, and those are things that I appreciate are being bubbled out up so we can continue to work on those as a city too, um, so that we can communicate better with um each other as we grow.

Thank you.

Council person stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, Chris, real quick, do you know it?

I think I saw the number earlier.

Is it and if you don't know, that's okay.

Is it about 18,000 daily uh the traffic count on Mount Comfort?

That was that was the number that they posted, and that that seems reasonable to me.

Okay, and then on uh and again, if you don't know, that's okay.

Uh uh on Huntsville Road, my my neck of the woods, is that around uh 15?

I sound right.

Don't have that in front of me.

We could probably Jonathan might be able to look that up.

The the nearest traffic count I see it uh on Huntsville Road is uh a few blocks west of Sherman, and it's about the last count was 14,000.

142 and that's just a two-lane one.

Okay, thank you.

And then uh so I have a question for um, I guess one of the applicants, uh Simon or or or Wes or both, or um there was talk about you know, are you showing the pictures of the person missed parking on the on the side of the road there?

But it the parking for the residents as you're planning it will be on the residence, right?

There won't be like you're gonna put parking.

Yes, yeah.

So the parking, you know, we'd probably do a shared drive or something like that, and try to rearload the parking so the parking is not like at the street or in the front yard.

Okay, and then for the the house that's you're proposing to be a business up front, there will be will the parking be on site, like how will that because I look now and it's just a a little spot.

Yeah, how would that be?

Yeah, so all the parking for that should be on site as well.

There's a carport, and then the driveway is pretty pretty.

So you're not looking at any on road or expecting any on route.

I we don't have any plans for that, yeah at all.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Yeah, um so I I understand I I hear a lot of fears a lot every week.

I hear uh fear, and and and and I get it, but I I've never seen fear materialized.

Um we're we're growing, we're growing like crazy.

If we want to reduce traffic, the way is to incorporate mixed use in our neighborhoods.

That's how you reduce traffic.

I have I live on Huntsville Road, 14,000 a day, not quite as much, but close for a two-lane road.

Uh we have a funeral home down the street, we have an accountant on the corner uh with truck repair, uh up the street coffee shops.

Uh I want that I love that.

I want more of that.

I I understand if you don't, the difference, but I I think it's the kind of thing we need.

We're not gonna see a gas station here.

Uh stationary or an accountant isn't gonna have any more sanitation needs or or or traffic than than a residence.

Um I I get sick of saying this number, but you know, we're we're looking at over 150,000 people in Fayville in our city limits in short order.

We're we're blowing through.

I I say this all the time.

I'm sure these guys are all sick of it.

We're blowing through every uh population prediction every year.

We're exceeding it every year.

Now we could do two things.

We could keep building out Mount Comfort Road, you will never be able to make a turn on the Mount Comfort Road, or we could start to do what we need to do and say, hey, you know what?

We're not the cozy little town anymore.

We we are becoming a city, whether we like it or not.

We don't have to like it.

We can hate it.

I don't like necessarily like all of it, but it's it's a fact, it's a train coming down the tracks.

And if you think you're gonna stop a train coming down the tracks, you are not.

The laws of physics say you will not.

So we have to decide how is the best and smartest way to build our city and the safest way to build our city.

And to me, that's incremental development, is new urbanism.

It's it's MFIL, and and that's how we preserve what's best about our city.

And that's how we keep your street, it's gonna stay quiet.

You're not gonna have people going up and down the street.

I understand that fear, but I've never seen these fears materialize.

And so I support this for a number of reasons, and I think that the developer coming back and and and doing this and saying, Hey, you know what?

We're gonna give you residential on the on the street on Gooseberry, and we're just gonna keep the the small commercial, and it's gonna be small.

You can't do much in the thousand square feet.

Okay, and and that's pretty much it.

I think it was a good compromise.

I you and like I said, a good compromise is when nobody's happy, so I think we're there.

Thank you.

Councilperson Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh question for um Jonathan, if I may, and that is that current driveway is awfully close to the actual intersection.

Is that grandfathered?

Or if the use is changed, would they have to put their driveway a hundred feet from that intersection?

If the use is changed or they redevelop or add development to the property or access management centers kick in, and on a property like this, it would require it to be moved away from the intersection.

Okay, thank you.

This one is um a mixed bag for me.

I mean, I appreciate the the developers have a good track record here.

I greatly appreciate their desire to save the uh the tree.

Um the residents is kind of the truth serum.

If they just were saying no development, I mean we kind of hear that on occasion, and that has much less credibility than a neighborhood that says, you know, it doesn't have to stay RSF4, RSF 18 and allowing two to three homes to be built on the site works for us as well.

So I think that there's genuineness in their concerns that they express, and I want to acknowledge that and thank them for coming out.

So I'm I'm finally um want to acknowledge our uh ward for council members and um and acknowledge that you know that this is an area where you live and frequent much more often than I do, and I I appreciate your comments a great deal.

So uh if any other council member has a comment, I would I would sure love to hear it.

Thank you.

Dr.

Jones.

Uh yes, I do have a comment, and thank you for sharing that last part because I wanted to hear more from the board for representatives.

This is your award, and I feel like so many times we're having a conversation, and we don't, at least for myself, I don't take into consideration what the board representatives have heard from your constituents.

So if you could just briefly, Minister Jones.

I think mine is mine is still um, I appreciate the developer coming up to talk about where he would put the parking.

That is a concern.

It is a very busy street.

Um it just concerns me, not just for safety of the current residents, the safety of future residents, not understanding that you don't have a sidewalk, not understanding that your car has to go in a ditch in order to get around somebody else's parked on the street, and um are we creating safety hazards for somebody in the future as well?

So I don't just think right now, I think long term, I'm a visionary.

I don't have a problem with the development.

I have a problem with the safety it provides for our neighbors because when something happens, somebody's gonna look back at the city council and say, you voted to put that in, and you knew that there was a safety hazard there, and so this is why I asked about developing the street, making sure it's a safe entrance, it's safe exit, safer parking, because right now it's not there.

Could the neighbors possibly could this get developed in five years?

Yeah, but we better be rolling some good old dice to make sure nothing happens in five years and no one gets hurt.

Thank you.

Councilperson Tark, um, I would just agree with my fellow council member um Minister Jones.

Um, you know, I think safety is the highest priority.

I mean, I you know, this is not in this location, but for me personally, in the last five years, there have been two fatal accidents a hundred feet from my house on either side.

So safety is one of my top priorities.

And um, as Mr.

Smith noted, he used to have videos uh uh of trying to turn left and how long it would take him to turn out very close by the same street.

So that is that is a known safety issue uh right there without that turn lane and with the volume of traffic that can't keep increasing every single year.

So um those are my primary concerns.

Thank you, Councilmember Tower.

Okay, so this is on the second reading.

Shall we leave it there?

Oh, I'd like to maybe have to uh take it to the third reading, please.

Okay, we have a motion to take it to the third and final reading.

Second, we have a second clerk packsen.

Will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones?

No.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

No.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

No.

Mr.

Burnett.

Yes.

That failed.

It had to have to take six affirmative votes.

Okay.

So it remains on the it didn't fail, it remains on the second, and we'll hear it next time.

Is that my understanding?

Okay.

Remains on the second, and we will hear it next time.

We are going to move right on to item C1, the first item of new business, and after that, we're taking a break.

I also want to let you all know as a courtesy if you are here to talk about the change in lake access fees and the marina operations at Lake Fayetteville.

That is likely going to be tabled this evening.

So if you are here for that item, um, sorry, you'll have to come back in and you may have to come back in two weeks.

No, but in all seriousness, raise your hand if you're here to talk about that because if we do have a crew, we might rethink that table.

Okay, never mind.

We are moving right on to C1.

Um, a resolution of intent to call for an infrastructure bond election, a resolution of intention to call an election and request that Fayetteville voters approve renewal of the current sales and use 1% tax for financing capital projects needed by our residents.

Um council members, tonight I'm introducing a resolution of intent to call for a bond election.

Fable's residents have a long history of investing wisely in our city's future.

The 2019 bond program delivered major improvements that serve us all every day.

Projects like the Ramble, new fire stations, road and trail upgrades, park improvements, and more.

This proposal builds on the foundation our residents have previously committed to investing in.

It keeps Fayetteville on solid footing by continuing the same funding mechanism that's already in place without an increase in taxes.

This proposal totals roughly $320 million and includes the following categories.

Water and sewer, essential upgrades to keep our systems reliable, protect clean water, support current and future housing and business development.

Fire, new stations, equipment, and a modern training facility to ensure rapid emergency response citywide and to protect homes and workplaces as our city expands.

Roads, safer streets, smoother commutes, and better connections across Fayetteville, all of which make it easier to get to work, school, and to local businesses.

Pedestrian infrastructure, side paths, trail reconstructions, safe routes to school, connecting neighborhoods, which improves safety and livability.

Parks and recreation, upgrades and expansions that improve public spaces, strengthen neighborhood amenities, and support recreation, tourism, and local economies.

An aquatic and recreation center, a year-round facility that adds new opportunities for families, adults, youth, and track and attracts regional events and generates local economic activity.

An animal shelter, a modern, energy efficient facility that provides not only better adoption rates but also better better veteran services while also improving workforce conditions for city staff.

Sustainability, a west side recycling site that reinforces Fayetteville's climate action goals and commitment to green initiatives.

So a couple of things I want to add.

The projects before you have been reviewed for need, for cost, and legal compliance.

Every project in this proposed bond has undergone months and in some cases years of work, cost validation and review by staff and by bond council.

It provides an additional and important level of opportunity to ensure residents are well aware of what city staff has been working on and what we've identified.

We wanted to provide ample time for discussion, input, and feedback from the community before an election is called.

So to reiterate that tonight's resolution does not finalize the election language.

It simply signals to the public, the council's intent to move forward and supporting avenues to improve, protect, and grow Fayetteville with purpose.

Before we get to questions, I want to turn it over to Keith Masito to see if you have anything to add.

And also when it comes time for clarifying questions, um our CFO Stephen Dotson is also available, as is our um is Kevin still here, as is Kevin Font from Stevens Incorporated, who is our bond underwriter.

Steve, I mean Keith.

Yeah, I just have a few things to add.

There are definitely a lot of studies uh that we have behind this.

When you look at the water and sewer uh work that we have, we had a detailed study with Garver and they you recently approved a an agreement with Garber to kind of get into more of an implementation uh plan, uh transportation mobility plan.

Um just kind of go on with our recent aquatic feasibility study, our Parks Master Plan and our Animal Services Center.

We also had a feasibility study about a year ago.

Today I spent a lot of time just going through these projects and looking at how long we've been looking into these.

And I've been here a little over 10 years, and I would say the majority of these projects we've been in discussion over 10 years.

Uh one of the things that uh I know when I first started uh being IT background, I wanted to kind of keep projects documented in one place, and we worked with staff to have a single master list of projects.

So when somebody was talking about, hey, we have this new grant opportunity, or like when the CARES Act funds came up or ARPA funds come up came up, we're like, let's have a single document that we continue to reference.

So we're not redoing the document every time, or we're adding things to that.

And I think a lot of the projects when you're looking on uh tonight are projects that we had added to that original document that was probably created uh seven or eight years ago.

Uh and then in addition, some of these projects are things that we talked during the 2019 uh bond discussion where we weren't we weren't able to fund those.

We wanted to make sure that we could fund those at the next bond opportunity.

And just kind of an overview of our timeline.

Uh we had this discussion kind of a work session a couple weeks ago discussing this resolution of a 10.

And this resolution of intent has a couple purposes, but one of it is just get the in front of the public and letting them have an opportunity to see what we're talking about.

And then uh it does seem like it's uh March seems like a long ways off, but it really isn't.

When you look at all the different things that we need to meet, and we really need to get this thing approved by November 4th.

And if you look further out, uh you know, March is gonna happen really, really quick, and we need ample time to make sure we communicate this to the public.

So thank you.

Do we have questions for um Keith or for Steven more on the financing side or thoughts?

I I saw council person more.

Go ahead.

Okay, I saw yours as well first.

Um thank you, Mayor.

Um, I had questions because in the language, you know, we've we've obviously talked about the particular projects and uh as far as you know how the numbers were arrived at.

But in this language where we um set our intent, I noticed we have the total um amount of monies, but we don't um have each segment broken down, and I know that will happen through the bond council's language.

My question is with this resolution going forward, is there still the ability for us to converse about any particular you know changes to amounts within some of these lines in the event things can be more value engineered or to ask about ranges of some of these.

I just I know we're saying the whole 320, so I just was trying to understand what the movability is between the buckets.

Um Stephen, would you like to take that?

Yeah, and so uh just as a reminder, tonight this is just our resolution intent.

So really that that would come in the next council meeting when we actually bring the bond language forward.

Okay, thank you, Stephen.

Councilperson Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so I'm kind of wondering.

I mean, um, Mr.

Mesito, you just mentioned about that we're on kind of a short timeline and we need to have this on the ballot in in March.

Um, you know, the the next midterm election is is uh in November of next year.

And so I'm trying to understand what the urgency is of getting it on the ballot in March.

I'm gonna have Steve help me with that.

Um but kind of in short, and actually, if you I paused at the end of my answer earlier, my kind of my statement on that is because uh there's a good chance that we'll pay off our 2019 bonds in 2027, kind of early 2027.

So due to that, we only have two chances because of what they changed at the state legislator to to vote on this.

We either have March or November.

So if we didn't pass it in November, the tax would sunset.

Is that correct, Steve?

Yes, but I think I think a bit more to the point.

Um something that I talked to each of you council members about when we had our meetings.

Uh I have concerns about that Nolan plant, and I want to get that project moving to repair and rehab that plant going ASAP.

And so that was one of the reasons why I was pushing forward to have this come before you guys as soon as possible.

Okay, just a follow-up question on on that.

Um I realize that we're paying off the 2019 bonds very quickly, which is wonderful.

Um, but could we not slow that down so that um they won't expire if we had the uh if we had the election in November of 2026?

I too am concerned about the Nolan plant.

But we I would say that I, as a council member, was not really brought into the discussion until very uh very much toward the end, the end of which projects would be selected to be part of uh placement on the bond.

No, we can't slow that down.

That one said sales taxes pledged for payment of these sales tax bonds and any additional um tax revenues that we receive over and above what we're required to pay needs to be remitted to pay out these bonds.

We can't do anything else with these funds that they're committed to the bond payment.

Dr.

Jones.

Uh yes, y'all may have addressed this already, but I have a question about uh outreach to the community.

What does that look like as it relates to education?

I've had some people ask me questions about the bond and about the specifics, and so I just wanted to ask exactly what does that look like, letting the community know those details.

Um, and just for clarification, and I'm gonna ask Gracie to maybe come up as well.

But you are your question is about once you all vote if you were to vote to pass it and get it on the ballot, then what that outreach looks like.

Absolutely.

And so much similar.

I think the city did um an excellent job in 2019 when you all did um the earlier set of bonds.

There is an entire section of our website that is devoted to that.

Um we will also support that with social media efforts.

Um we also will, as in the past, we have mailers that go out and know with utility bills, and then I know um we'll have um I believe these are not planned yet.

Um, one of the things that we would be eager to plan pending your support, similarly to what we did in 2019, would be we had um open times at City Hall, where um Miss, I don't think Britain is here this evening, but um different people from the staff have come and talked about bond projects and been down in the lobby and made it available, so it's been a combination of in-person by mail, social media, um, and then the inner and then the website presence.

And Gracie, if there's anything you'd like to add.

I was just gonna sum up that.

Yes, the education piece of uh what is in the bond and what that does for residents in the city will be done by staff here.

And then um that's all I need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I saw council person more um Jones for Minister Jones first.

So go ahead.

Thank you very much.

Um I was um thank you for clarifying that we are just um voting on the amendment.

There hasn't been an amendment.

Sorry.

Resolution.

Let me finish.

Resolution of intent to call for an infrastructure bond election.

This is just what this is for.

I've seen I received so many emails this week because people are wanting to address me personally about the issues that are within the bond.

Let me be very clear.

This is not what we're voting on tonight, and it seems like it's been directed at me personally, so I want to address the fact that guess what?

We're just voting on the resolution, but I also want to take to go to our finance guy as well as the mayor to say I think that we have rushed this issue, and I would like, and I'm gonna say it again, to consider putting some funding in this resolution or this bond to talk about housing.

The resolution that was passed 11724 and April the April 2nd, 2024 said housing was an emergency issue.

Keith Masedo just said that issues have been addressed.

There's been detailed studies, there's been feasibility studies, and my request at the last meeting was to include similar studies around housing.

I appreciate the fact that our attorney presented a um he consulted with our long-term bond counselor, Mr.

Borden, uh of QTAC Rock based on their guidance.

I want to clarify that it is legal and it's possible to use bond proceeds to fund public housing.

According to the local government bond act of 1985, bonds may be issued for capital improvements of a public nature, which explicitly includes residential housing for low and moderate income.

Importantly, under Article 12, Section 5 of the Arkansas Constitution, the city cannot transfer a dedicate bond finance improvements to private entities.

That's already understood, but the housing must remain on the top of our list.

So I respectfully urge this council to think about the next steps of this bond as we vote tonight on the resolution to place public housing initiatives on this ballot.

Let the voters decide if they want to invest in affordable housing alongside other public improvements.

Let's use the tools available to us legally and financially to protect our most valuable assets, which are our residents.

That's fine.

I'm saying let's not rush this issue and not talk about something that is council voted is an emergency.

We have the authority, we have the need, and now we should have the will to serve our community.

I'm gonna put humanity first.

And so I want to thank you for your time.

I look forward to working together, but I really want us not to rush this issue and to take in consideration that some funding can be used for public housing.

Thank you.

Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, thank you for that, Councilmember Jens.

I appreciate that.

Uh, I'll be excited to speak to that later, not during our QA time.

So I'll I'll respond later.

But um, what I wanted to do during uh the time that we're talking about uh questions around projects, I don't know the entire history, and maybe not everyone in this room does of each time we've had um a bond go out, but I guess it just strikes me.

Um we've talked a lot about the aquatic center, and one of the things I think that is um the most um challenging to me when I look at that, you know, it's a lot of initial capital outlay, but over time uh there is seven hundred thousand dollars every single year that is not cost recovered.

I mean, the operations of that from the feasibility study.

Um it uh its operations are over two million dollars, and I don't know comparably in our city what we have that's operating at that level.

And then my you know, questions are I know that we had been talked about that there are these potential pathways to close that gap, but when we have talked about being in a housing crisis, when we've talked about looking at solutions when we looked during mid year of budgets, we've really struggled uh to eke out $300,000 or $100,000 for something.

And so I think that's where I'm struggling.

Even folks who are supportive of Aquatic Center are saying I can take it in many different forms.

That that part does give them pause.

And so I don't have any answers.

I don't know in the past if we've had bonds where we've had similar uh uh challenges that we've been faced with, but I mean that that's in concerning to me that we struggled in some of our other solutions to come up with amounts in that um capacity, and just and not sure what those solutions look like today to take that to voters.

Got it.

Um I would like to um ask um Wade Abernethy and um Alison Jumper if they could come up here because I'm not certain.

So on the numbers that you cited from the feasibility study, we don't yet know what those cost recovery uh options look like, and so I don't want that to get recorded as I'm not sure that that's accurate, and so I would like for them to speak to that.

So one of the items that uh was originally on the agenda that was pulled uh was the uh AE services, and uh a part of that was a pro forma exercise to uh come up with operations cost, and um like that will better inform us of what the operation costs would be.

Another exercise we're gonna look at are components that might be revenue generating and see if we can incorporate some of those into the project.

Yeah, and I can just add on that the numbers that you saw in the feasibility study were based on some pretty broad assumptions, and all of those will continue to be honed in as we move through a design process.

So we will design with cost recovery in mind.

Thank you.

I just wanted to I guess my only cautionary is that when we talk about equity and inclusion and things like that to me, you know, they extend into all of these areas as well.

And you know, that's the thing too that I'm curious about when we're talking about revenue generation.

I just keep thinking in my head, is that an elite party that someone else can't get access to the pool?

Is that an amenity that now you know a child he lives over at Washington Plaza, which is the neighborhood that for this is being looked at for Lewis?

Um they can't use that, but they know friends talk about how cool it is, but they don't have 20 dollars to go do it.

And so I guess that's that's a little bit of my pause when I hear revenue generation, and so maybe there's gonna be more information around that.

in my head is that an elite party that someone else can't get access to the pool is that an amenity that now you know a child he lives over at Washington Plaza which is the neighborhood that where this is being looked at for Lewis um that they can't use that but they know friends talk about how cool it is but they don't have 20 dollars to go do it and so I guess that's that's a little bit of my pause when I hear revenue generation and so maybe there's going to be more information around that and I believe that initially to get to the operational yearly cost we're that contract is going to cost what a couple hundred thousand dollars to do that as well is that correct somewhere in that neighborhood yeah but it'll be more than just that there's other they'll get us all the way to conceptual design uh they'll look at the streets um so it's more than just the pro forma okay thank you thank you thank you both um council person turk thank you mayor I just want to clarify uh um about this resolution of intent because right now there's nine items on there so are we limited to only moving forward and examining those nine items if we approve this tonight could somebody provide some guidance any time a resolution is presented to the city council the city council can make amendments if that's what they choose to do if you wanted to amend it to include something else or take one of the ones in out that would just be something we could do it's not binding on anybody it's just showing your intent so that's what you can do is this is not in stone we can do so if for example we pass this tonight as is um as we go forward if we wanted to add something different could we do that would that be possible or are we just limited to these tonight if we made no changes well I think that uh this resolution to some extent is going to be incorporated into the actual bond ordinance and the projects that are going to be in the bond.

Okay so tonight really is the night so okay thank you I also want to speak to that for me um and I'll ask Steve and um Kevin also for your help speak to the amount of money that is available to us um because there's not we don't have an unlimited ability to add and so Kevin could you speak to that perhaps or Steven if you'd like to start as well thank you mayor um good evening everybody um my name's Kevin Fopp with Stevens Inc.

and we'll serve as the underwriter assuming um the um voters authorize this um extension of the tax so we've done multiple analysis um based on um simply the amount of revenue available from the one cent sales tax so the 320 uh is based on a 20 year bond issue which um some of you will recognize is twice as long as we've ever done in the past at least those cities typically we've done 10 year bond issues um 320 is about the max um that we'll be able to issue maybe 325 in that range and all it all all this depends on interest rates and that sort of thing when the bonds would be issued but uh at the current analysis that's about all we can issue based on the revenue screen thank you yes ma'am minister jumps yes I was um I was actually going over a lot of the highlights from the Fayville housing assessment April 2025 update and there's a couple things that I just want to bring in before um I make my final statement is the main takeaway of the report is clear and succinct a city cannot build itself out of a housing crisis the retention of existing housing stock is critical additionally report claim three um demonstratable premises one cannot build new or rent or sell cheap without subsidy almost by definition when a unit or older housing is raised a unit of affordable housing is lost forever existing affordable housing programs as useful and successful as they may be must be realigned to address older housing stock and with that I'd like to see if um I like the post to make an amendment to add number 10 to the bond issue of affordable housing second so we have a motion in a second I have a clarifying question on what the amendment is to add number 10 to the to add a number 10 to the bond issue we have nine items I'd like to add a number 10.

Could I make a friendly amendment?

Yes could we um make that a motion to um preserve existing affordable housing stock and to increase the amount of voucher properties in the city of Hayabel.

Okay I accept the friendly amendment so I would may ask you clear I'd like to now ask a clarifying question and and council person my question is you're asking us to consider the the council to consider an amendment to a bond what is the I I I did I understand affordable housing in the preserving existing housing stock with what dollars for how much money what is the plan that you would want us to then incorporate in I'm unclear what the plan is for how to incorporate that into the ordinance.

And Council Person Turk I'm my question is you're asking us to consider the the council to consider an amendment to a bond what is the I I I did I understand affordable housing and the preserving existing housing stock with what dollars for how much money what is the plan that you would want us to then incorporate in I'm unclear what the plan is for how to incorporate that into the ordinance.

We jumped ahead sorry from the question to the amendments.

I have a presentation deck to to actually answer this whenever we get into the after the public comment but we can jump to it.

I don't procedure like you have a presentation deck about what regarding what regarding an amendment regarding this amendment.

Okay.

All right I didn't know council member since it's now since it's now on the floor and it sounds like we have a motion and a second should we vote on the amendment?

Yeah yes Dr.

Jones Mr Stafford I'm sorry I have some some uh some questions about the housing uh mayor Ron what are the details as it relates to uh adding housing what's the what because when we communicate to the vote to the voters well we have to have a plan of exactly what we're going to do and do we have that plan no okay so do we have time to come up with the plan because we have a housing officer here and if we're crunched for time I'm not sure I mean I don't it's it's kind of to be clear this is not something staff is supportive of but Marley would you like to speak more to that as the chief housing officer and Marley I do not mean to push that we're in the middle of a vote.

Oh I'm sorry.

I'm caught point of order wait okay well so hold we've three other times tonight we have you can do that three other times tonight we've made a motion and a second and you all have kept discussing and ask questions of my staff.

So that's correct to do so we need to be clear if that's if if if we are no longer going to do that that's fine we have historically done that we've done that earlier this evening if we want to draw that line now then I'm gonna ask that it be enforced consistently so if you all would like to go to a vote on the amendment let's do it let's go to a vote on the amendment.

Clerk Paxon please call the roll we have a motion and a second thank you someone can make a motion for immediate vote then if that passes by two thirds you can go to an immediate vote and cut off other discussion.

Okay and we haven't had that motion though so I don't know why it's a problem that we're continuing discussion.

That's my confusion it was never a problem with continuing discussion up on the city council members when you start bringing someone else up then I have an issue because we're still discussing we haven't finished discussing here as a city council.

I understand but Dr.

Jones requested and had a clarifying question of my staff so I don't know if you all no longer want to be able to answer questions to staff that's fine but we have to have some consistency here you just like you asked Mr.

Brown.

Mr Jones go ahead yes I'm I'm sorry I would like for Marley to come up if she's if she can yes she's welcome to just like throughout the meeting you all have requested that Mr.

Brown come up you have requested I mean you we have we're not deviating from the way the meeting has been managed since it began thank you Marley thank you all um I think one important point I want to clarify here before we move forward is really thinking about how we define what housing preservation looks like I'd encourage us to not think about it as narrowly defined as just public housing and what that could look like for the city.

Some additional housing preservation work that we have in the pipeline actually came out of a sort of a resident driven pitch competition um in relation to a workforce development program that will focus on affordable housing preservation.

So I think that's just one example um of how we can think about that sort of preservation piece that we pointed out in the housing assessment but I want to be careful um to not bake in a solution um as as proposed if I'm understanding correctly um on the affordable or sorry on the public housing piece I think um you know in some other work that we've seen sort of in the production space specifically with the city on land RFP um I think we've come down pretty clearly um tried to set an example of what producing mixed income housing could look like um sort of using that as a gold standard um moving forward um for our vision for for housing production happy to answer any other specific present uh questions on preservation thank you Dr.

Jones did that answer your question that answered my question and I have one other question so with with with all that being said do you it sounds like you're doing what what you can do and taking on anything else with the bond is that kind of double work because I still that part is missing and maybe I can't and and maybe that's a question that you can't answer now and maybe I shouldn't be asking it.

And maybe I can't, and and maybe that's a question that you can't answer now, and maybe I shouldn't be asking it.

I'm not sure I understand what the question is.

My question is about the bond.

If but because we have a housing officer, so what I'm I'm under the impression that if we have anything that's housing related, that that would be under the under the guidance of her.

Correct.

And so if that's I mean, I'm not sure if you are even if you are supportive of the bond project of housing being a part of the bond project.

So I guess that's my question.

I think I understand your question.

So I think one point I'd make is that I think you know, as written as it's in your the resolution of intent.

Um I I think that sort of infrastructure component is really that is there is housing in the bond, I would argue, um, from my my vantage point.

Um I think what we heard time and time again, what we heard a few times tonight is that if we don't have the infrastructure in place to support future housing production, um, I think we're gonna see you know future challenges uh with sort of closing that gap.

If you think back to the housing assessment, um the graph that I always think about is that sort of cumulative housing production line and that cumulative population growth line as we're currently standing, um looking at the most recent monthly numbers.

Um, we're very close to I think closing that gap, sort of our cumulative gap from the last six years, we're on track to close that um by 2026.

But I think if we don't make this sort of critical infrastructure investment, uh that sort of convergence that we're seeing, I think we could potentially see that continue to diverge.

Okay, and so when you say critical infrastructure investment, I'm under the impression that that goes back to uh the the items of the bond issue as it relates to okay.

Thank you for that.

Now that makes per thank you.

That makes perfect sense.

Thank you.

It's okay.

Councilperson Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I I guess I have a clarifying question.

This is it, it seems like we want to add something, but there's there's no fair vision of what that is.

Uh I don't know who this is a question for, maybe Steven, uh maybe Kit.

I don't know who uh but don't we have to have like when we bring this bond forward, we have to be able to say this is for X, right?

Am I wrong?

We can't you would have to say we can't just say housing, right?

You would have to say public housing because that's what the constitution says, and that's what the statute says.

Public housing housing.

Are we talking about well and I guess that's a question?

Are we talking about Fayetteville being able to getting in the landlord business?

We would have to own the public housing.

That's so we would have to own the housing, and we would have to fund the operation and maintenance and upkeep and so on uh related costs to that.

Is that correct?

We might be able to work with a full housing authority or something that has we haven't uh gotten there yet.

Uh I would also uh like if if the council allows to have uh our bond council come up and talk a little bit about whether or not uh we can do this public housing and what are the requirements for that.

Would that would that help?

I don't think we have bond council here this evening, otherwise that wouldn't be a problem.

What no?

He's not even a good question.

Yes, so but I know also Councilperson Burna had oh, I'm sorry.

Well, yeah, yeah, I I guess you know, I I think I don't personally think this is the right vehicle for what's the interposed.

I I think council member weedaker uh the other week brought up uh I watched the meeting, I wasn't here at the meeting and I didn't have internet reception, but I watched it this week after return from my vacation.

And and I think council member weedaker uh brought up some good points about other ways to create uh revenue and bonds for public housing, which was uh I think a facilities board, uh the FHA, they can both have a bond issuing abilities, and and to me that seems like more of a proper route for that, but that's just my personal opinion, and thank you all for entertaining my questions.

Councilperson Barney.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I would not be supportive of this amendment just because of the fact that number one, all of these items that we've dealt with that we have on the the bond uh uh resolution now have been studied.

A plan has been put in place, and there's a lot of communication that has gone on uh directly related to this bond.

Um housing certainly we have communicated that over the last couple years, how critical it is.

Um but we as a city of Fayetteville have done far more things proactively to try to address housing uh that than any community in Northwest Arkansas.

Uh so I want to take that off the table for anybody that says that we're not a compassionate uh group of folks.

We are, and we put our pocket, we put our money where our mouth is, and we have produced a lot of positive outcomes from things that we have done.

The housing uh task force, the mayor has implemented it or tried to implement several of the items that they had uh presented.

We we worked and cleared uh Faithful Housing Authority's uh situation up so that now we've got them in a position where they're gonna be better able to move forward with some of the projects that they have been handcuffed and not able to do.

So we are as the city of Fayetteville very proactive, but I look at this and two weeks ago.

We did not have we did not have the ability uh or we did not have the approval uh from the city attorney that we could do housing in a bond uh project.

So two weeks ago we found out we did.

Uh it came out in the bond meeting that we did last week.

It was very clear that uh some council members wanted to bring uh housing to the bond question, and today we clearly by bond representative we're maxed out at 320,000 or 320 million dollars.

So if we're going to put anything in housing, it's gonna have to come from something else.

So what are we gonna take that from?

Um the infrastructure question comes up to me almost on a weekly basis.

Uh critical critical needs that we have in the infrastructure of our city, and if we don't address them, um we're doing our citizens a disservice.

I have no problem moving forward trying to address the housing issue.

This is just not the avenue to do it.

Councilperson Bunch.

Yes, thank you, madam mayor.

Um I am a big proponent of knowing what I'm being asked to vote on when I vote, and I don't know what we're voting on tonight.

This just happened right this minute.

I it's not fleshed out, and I I just cannot support it.

And I agree with Scott, this is not the venue and not the time possibly for this infrastructure.

He I hear about that daily, daily infrastructure.

You know, and and that affects all the citizens of Fayetteville.

That affects people that rent, that affects people that own homes, that affects people that that are unhoused.

I mean, the infrastructure affects everyone, and I think this there's this has been well thought out.

It some of you may think it's moving too fast, but we've been talking about what we're gonna put in a bond, what what needs to be in a bond?

We've been talking about this for several years now, and it it you know, we just can't.

I I'm in favor of moving this forward tonight, and we can work on housing at some other point, but I can't vote in favor of this because I don't know what I'm being asked to vote on tonight, and I just can't support that.

Thank you.

Okay, uh yes, Clark Paxton.

Mayor Ron, I wanted to ask because there was a friendly amendment that was made.

One council member more if you could please repeat that friendly amendment, and also I need to know council member Turk, if you aren't going to continue with your second on that friendly amendment, since that hadn't been proposed yet when you initially second it.

Council member Minister Jones' motion.

So can you restate the friendly amendment?

I can simplify it to the preservation of affordable housing.

And does your second still stand?

I'm gonna withdraw my second.

Okay, so we have a I have some slides that I'd like to just we talked about specificity, and I mean it's not fair to go forward with a vote without specifics in my opinion to be able to provide you the specifics around this.

I'll be as brief as I possibly can, but it's not fair to vote on something like this without specifics.

I agree.

I want to I want to clarify because I've been questioned a couple of times.

We do have the motion, we do have a second that was withdrawn.

So do we need another second before we move forward with the discussion and a presentation on that amendment?

That is my question.

Yes, you do need another second in order to have a discussion on the motion.

I don't know if I can second being the friendly amendment.

You probably cannot.

Well, all second so we can have the discussion.

Sorry to confuse.

Okay, great.

Motion and a second.

So this is on the amendment of for, and so do we now call for the vote then?

Is that what you're saying?

Can't you can have discussions and then when you're ready to vote, you vote?

Can I that's right?

Can I have my slides for the discussion, please?

Do you guys have those okay?

I sent them to media and to IT this afternoon.

I can resend them to a new address.

Meeting they're not slides that have been seen by the by the mayor's office or the CFO.

Have you seen the slides, Stephen?

Okay.

Keith, have you seen the slides?

Okay.

Apologize for the delay.

Okay, it should be coming.

It's in a PowerPoint file.

Minister Jones, is your line on to make a comment or is it still from the comment?

Okay, yes, Minister Jones.

While we do you mind if we take comment while we have slides up.

Okay, go ahead.

Um, so sorry, I didn't know how this was gonna happen.

I was gonna do these later during discussion.

So this is asking to look at the 320 million and to see if we can get 40 million, and I'll get to why um for the inclusion um in the bond to be able to protect historically affordable housing that are usually at our 50% AMI and below.

Next slide, please.

So we talked a lot about what has been done, what are the assessments, um, what kind of scrutiny has happened.

Um, you know, Minister Jones talked about we declared a housing crisis, but we also do have been doing a lot of assessments that point to the need for housing to be a part of the 2026 bond.

Um we heard directly from staff that the gap is widening for types of housing needed at the lowest levels during our city's May 2025 housing assessment update.

Um, it was reported that more than half of FAIGL households still need housing at a cost below current average rent.

And in 2023, um the count increased to 6400 households needing rent below 500 per month.

In our strategic initiatives in the city plan 2040, um, we have things listed like maintaining the quality and quantity of his existing attainable housing, and then in more recently with our economic vitality master plan, um it indicated making sure to um focus on um reducing house cost burdens for residents and protection of um affordable housing.

Next slide.

But really, you know, this is about our residents and our community members, you know, who are there were a lot of different rumors swirling when we started talking about housing about who would this potentially protect and what are these properties that are that are going away.

You know, these are seniors.

We've seen it happen like with Weddington Senior Center or senior apartments.

We see single parents, um, we saw that at countryside apartments, which once we put in the amenity with the new police station across the road, we saw that affordable housing go away.

Those fleeing domestic violence are having to make choices to stay with their abusers because they can't find housing and places like West End departments helped with that.

And we've lost veterans housing.

We have some coming on board, but places like Highway Inn.

So we've we've lost veterans' housing.

These are the types of housing we're looking to try to protect with this.

Next slide.

So what opportunities and market pressures for housing make the sales tax bond a good vehicle?

Um vouchers, you know, inventory of properties that take voucher vouchers are not increasing.

So if you look at our heart program, it's been very stagnant and plateaued for quite some time.

And individuals that receive vouchers report increased challenges locating housing housing within their time frames and saying, you know, I'm gonna lose my voucher.

Um, over the past years, voucher participating properties um have end up ceasing, especially whenever they've changed ownership when the property's been sold.

And then those at the 50% AMI and below those historical affordable housing, especially those ones in our community that are part of our inventory today who had a federal protection through NSP or other vehicles like Litech, those are going to be ending, and those oftentimes are scooped up by investors from out of state or folks that are going to turn those into either market rate or luxury type housing that we've seen in the market.

Next slide.

So how does this particular funding position Fayetteville differently than other funding sources?

I want to give kudos to city staff, to the mayor's office.

We are doing a lot.

We, I mean, there's an incredible.

I hope we pass this out to kind of talk about we have a chief housing officer, we've redeveloped, we have our RFP, we're looking at revenue bonds, we're looking at private partnerships, you're looking at you know, our vehicle with FHA with the public facilities board.

But why this particular vehicle is flexibility and maneuverability.

When these properties are coming on and off the market, it's happening quickly.

When the federal protections are ending, other folks know to have those conversations.

And these are not things that necessarily are going to wait to go through the other processes.

The money being on hand allows for us to be opportunistic.

It also helps us knowing that we're, you know, this money could be sitting in a housing trust fund or however we want to structure it, but it helps us to be able to have proactive conversations so that the city of AW can work with those properties up front and talk to them about if they are looking to put those properties on the market, if they're looking to change ownership, um, for there to be a maneuverability and flexibility versus it ending up on the market, us then trying to, you know, if it's uh we're looking at public facilities board, you know, it has to be a very specific project and it goes through a set process for that revenue to then pay for that project.

And so it's hard to be active in a market like ours that um turns very quickly.

Next slide.

So the possible concerns raised too.

The City of Fateville shouldn't own properties outright doing due to having to manage these.

Today, the City of Faithville owns the Huntsville Seven Hills Managed property.

Um it provides housing already today.

Our same building houses Arts Live Theater and our college building houses SLS.

So really we're already doing this in a really small scale.

Um, and we do um do that management of those properties through buildings and grounds.

And it was asked who will run the properties.

Yes, these are questions we need to tackle.

Yes, we need to get um get that um information.

But you know, Fayetteville could, yes.

I don't see us doing that, but Fayetteville has the ability to RFP the operations and maintenance of the properties with the rents that would come in for the properties there, property management companies that do this.

I know Nantucket had um a management company that did that senior um protected housing in the past.

Next slide, please.

So what language could we potentially add to the bond today?

Um, really, you know, trying to have as much flexibility and leaving this up to the discretion of the mayor's staff and the departments to try to figure out what a final determination could be on the cost.

How I've come up with 40 million dollars is that in looking at the last two years of properties that have changed hand that have been multifamily places like the Marshall, who went for 92 million, and that's 226 units.

That's a 407,000 a unit.

Champion club was a smaller one that went for 23.3 million.

Um, and so that was 306,000 a unit.

So my hope was that we had the ability with 40 million to be able to preserve 100 units.

I know just in our conversations these last several years, we all can think about the properties, unfortunately, because of decisions we've made, that we've welcomed in fill development that has displaced and and gotten rid of historically affordable apartments because we could never have competed.

I want us to have the opportunity that we have a checkbook that's sitting there, that we create a matrix of decision making with the mayor's staff and we put this with our chief housing officers one more tool in her tool chest that she needs because we are going to pursue revenue bonds, but Litech is going to tighten up.

We don't know what the federal government's gonna do, but we know what we can do locally, and I want us to be able to maneuver as much as possible.

So I hope you'll consider at the very least the language to say a protection of affordable housing.

And then if there is the ability for the mayor's staff to go back and look, if that's they say it's only 10 million, okay, we can preserve that much if it's 20, that's fine.

But if it's 40, even better.

My hope is just thinking 100 units oftentimes is about the size of a mid-size apartment complex and hoping that one of those federally protected something in that range.

We want to see those absolutely leave.

And those are people with you know, they're disabled, they you know, schizophrenia, they may have an IQ, you know, the 10-year-old.

And these folks, it's very traumatic when they have to leave their safe environments.

So I want to respond to a a little bit of that by saying that it is troubling to me that we're asked to ask council to vote on an amendment with a presentation that the CFO has not seen, that the chief of staff has not seen, that the mayor has not seen, and that the chief housing officer is not seen.

Um and I can appreciate the desire to leave it up to city staff, and you mentioned city staff having discretion.

City staff use their discretion in generating the list of items that we have put before you.

And the chief housing officer, not because I directed her to say so, but because what she has said is that she doesn't believe that the bond right now in 2026 is the place for this kind of investment.

40 million dollars is a lot of money.

I don't know how you propose to where do you I would like to know where you would want to take it from.

Where in the bond, knowing that we have 320 million, where in the bond do you want to take the 40 from I I would just ask for there to be feedback as far as you know, as we're asked earlier about how much flexibility there is within some of the projects that are there today, if there's any potential in those ranges for any value engineering, and that's where I said maybe it's only it's 10 million.

I understand there's give and take that's gonna happen between that list, but I do think our house is on fire.

I do think this is emergency, and I understand that um uh the viewpoint from from yourself and from staff absolutely, and I and I um respect it.

I do.

I just do think if I can do anything to continue to add one more possible solution in my city, I think it's important for us to look into that as a possible solution.

I understand, and you've asked for feedback, and I feel like we've given it.

Council person bunch.