Good evening, everyone, and we are now going to call the Tuesday, December 2nd meeting of the Fayetteville, Arkansas City Council to order.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Dr.

Jones.

Here.

Ms.

Moore?

Here.

Mr.

Wiedinger?

Here.

Mr.

Burnett?

Here.

Ms.

Bench.

Here.

Ms.

Hart?

Here.

Minister Jones.

Mr.

Stafford?

Here.

Mayor Rowan.

Here.

Please join me as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay.

First manner of business.

We have a couple of staff reports.

The first is our monthly sales tax and financial report from Stephen Dotson, our CFO.

Thank you, Mayor.

This is the September sales tax report.

In September, we saw taxable sales in the city totaling approximately $305 million, which is an increase of nearly $1.3% or $12.5 million compared to September of 2024.

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

And that represented an increase of $7.3 million.

In retail trade, we noted that building materials were up $11%.

And auto dealers were up 23% or around $740,000.

Transportation and warehousing was up approximately $2.6 million.

And we also saw accommodation and food services sectors up 4% or roughly $1.5 million.

Once again, all in all, we did note a 4.3% gain in taxable sales compared to 2024.

Moving on to the actual tax collection results in September of 25 compared to 24.

The city one penny was up 4.2%.

County portion of the city was up 2.4% or approximately $53,000, resulting in a total combined sales tax collection increase of 3.4% or roughly $173,000 compared to September of 2024.

Year to date, the combined city and county sales taxes are up approximately 5.5% or $2.6 million compared to September of last year.

In the general fund, the city is up around 3.2% or $125,000 compared to September of last year.

And now when we look at the uh at the results compared to budget, the city one penny is up around 3.9% compared to budget or roughly 114,000.

The county portions up 1.83% or roughly 40,000 for a combined total for the month of September up 3% compared to budget.

And that's going to put the city on a year-to-date basis compared to budget through September, up a combined 2.7% or roughly 1.33 million for sales tax.

Okay.

I'll uh go ahead and move on to the monthly financial report.

And this report is for October of 2025.

Starting off in the general fund, we did note that our uh property tax is down roughly six percent around $350,000, but we do expect that to level off throughout the year to end roughly flat uh for 2025.

Our sales tax is up three percent or roughly 1.1 million.

Franchise fees are down roughly 7%.

Our alcoholic beverage fees are up three percent.

Um building permit fees, those are up 43 percent or roughly 1 million dollars.

Our turn back is up 3%, charges for services, those are down 2% or roughly 57,000.

And we noted that our court fees are up 10% or roughly $92,000, and that's gonna put us in the general fund through the month of October up roughly 2% compared to budget or about 1.3 million dollars.

Looking at the street fund, that fund is flat through the month of October.

Uh we're up roughly $33,000 for the year.

Over in the parking fund, we're up one percent uh for the year compared to budget, roughly $18,000.

In parks development, we noted that our HMR is up roughly 1% or about $40,000.

And uh that's gonna put our fund total up roughly 2.2 percent compared to budget or around $103,000.

That's led strongly by our charges for services, which have been up roughly 2%.

That's been holding steady throughout the year.

That's going to put us up in the fund total, roughly 2% 2.3% compared to budget, or about 1.2 million dollars for the year.

In stormwater management, we're on track there.

We have our revenues are holding at about $626,000, and that is on track.

We do project to be on target through 2025.

In recycling and trash, our franchise fees are up 13% through the month of October, around 46,000.

And our charges for services are up around 1% or roughly 143,000.

And that's going to put our fund total for recycling and trash up around 1.6% for the year or around 245,000.

And finally, in the airport fund, our gasoline sales taxes for the year are up 4%.

I'm sorry, just gasoline sales, not taxes, but sales in general.

And that's about $120,000 in our number of flight operations.

We are up now 6.9% for the year, or roughly $1,500 more of flight operations than we had last year.

So those are all pretty positive, pretty positive numbers.

Any uh questions on the sales or the monthly financial report?

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you.

On the property taxes, Steven, you had reported that down $350,000, but saying that it should end flat for the year.

Yeah.

Do you know what the drivers are of that?

Is that just delinquent or light taxes that are coming in?

Is that just how it's flowing from the county?

Do we know what's driving that?

I think that's probably it's how it's floating from the county and what we expected compared to last year.

So I do expect us to be roughly flat for the year.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much, Steven.

Thank you.

Okay, next step, we have a brief update from Marley Stark, our housing and community services chief housing officer.

And we may need a V for this one.

Do you need it?

Do you need to hook up Marlowe?

All right, good evening, everyone.

So this is the first in a series of monthly presentations with the intention of trying to provide you all with ongoing updates about our local housing strategy.

I recognize that housing is front of mind for all of us in this room and for the community as a whole.

So tonight I really want to use sort of the opportunity to ground us in our current moment, kind of as a starting point for those conversations.

Specifically, I'll start with an overview of our department structure as well as give you a better picture of who our current programming is supporting.

So our current department is currently a team of nine.

The majority of our staff fall within two divisions.

As we have uh three case managers who are focused on our permanent supportive housing program or hearth program, which supports 51 formerly homest homeless residents.

Having stable housing after going without for so long can be a challenging transition.

So that wraparound case management is critical for our long or for our clients' long-term success.

We also have three project coordinators who support other initiatives funded by our federal block grant programs.

I'll talk about that a bit more.

While this department has historically structured its programming around two pillars, community development and animal services.

We're in the process of reimagining what this department can do for our community, including around housing.

So that includes supporting a full spectrum of housing services and providing residents with critical resources that set them on a pathway of upward economic and social mobility.

I think that's really the core purpose of this department moving forward.

An important first step in that process was rethinking how we're communicating information to the public.

So in past years, my team was only permitted to have a Facebook page for Ranger's Pantry, which is a really important program.

It's a food bank that provides dog and cat food to lower income residents.

So that's a good platform for that specific resource.

But I think it was clear that we needed a broader platform to be able to communicate with the public.

So the new Facebook page that we have here will allow us to share information about our full sort of suite of services while also giving us a dedicated space to promote the work of other organizations in the community.

So I think now would be a great time if you're not following us already on Facebook.

Feel free to get out your phone and give us a follow.

So in some of my past conversations with you all, I've heard kind of a request and to really have a more comprehensive look at who benefits from our programs and our initiatives and where we're investing our dollars kind of along that full housing spectrum.

So I've tried to map that out here.

Um so I think you'll notice we've got some programs on here that are longer standing, but we also have some initiatives that will be new for this year and things that we'll continue working on in 2026.

But I wanted to spend some more time tonight focusing on a program that is actually one of our longest programs within the department, our housing rehab and repair program.

So this is run by Laura Wilson on my team who is also celebrating 20 years of service this week with the city with a focus on fixing up homes owned by existing lower income residents.

Really the crux of this program is keeping folks in their home.

So that's a really important part of our affordable housing strategy.

So these are places that they love but just might struggle to maintain because of financial resources.

So this can fund anything from roof replacement to post-fire or flood repairs, installing ramps or AC units, things like that.

I've had a really fun time going through our detailed records of this program, which stretch back to 1997.

But even looking at more recent numbers, I think it really underscores the value of this program and our strategy overall.

So between 2021 and 2025, we funded 78 projects across 33 homes.

23 of those homes are repeat clients.

I think indicating there's a clear need over time for a lot of folks.

And then also, you know, while most of our or all of our beneficiaries are lower income, we also commonly see individuals who have disabilities.

We have single parents, and then single elderly folks are kind of the other big category of people we see come through the program.

Moving on to a few community services programs.

So in addition to housing rehab rehab, one of the programs that we fund year over year, we set aside funds for our redevelopment program.

So the core goal here is providing dedicated funding for lower income residents who need support correcting city code violations.

So that can be anything like helping clear overgrown grass, it can be clearing structures that are unsafe on our property.

There's sort of a wide variety of things that we can do here to support people who want to fix the problem but just don't have the funds to do so in a timely manner.

I think we also provide one of the most important things we do right now is really providing direct financial assistance to lower income residents across two other sort of major budget, if you think of a household budget, two other major categories, which are child care and transportation.

So I think as folks with kids can attest, the cost of care today is expensive.

It's akin to a mortgage or rent payment for a lot of people.

So our child care assistance program has provided 180 households with 12 months of childcare payments for every child in their family.

So that's supported almost 250 kids since 2023.

All households participating in this program are lower income with about 60% of families falling below 50% of AMI.

Our transportation program currently focuses on mobility needs for some of our most vulnerable residents.

In partnership with the Fayetteville Senior Center, 17 seniors or residents with disabilities receive vouchers to cover the cost of taxi services.

These rides help them access things like doctor's appointments or haircuts or just things that they wouldn't otherwise be able to participate in and they'd miss out on without these services.

This year we've also provided 20 residents with monthly vouchers for on-demand transit rides through Ozark Regional Transit.

95% of these recipients are earning at or below 50% AMI, underscoring the importance of transit options for lower income folks.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't take an opportunity to spotlight some of the work that Robert on my team has been doing in terms of coordinating our food donations that we've collected through the citywide food drive, kind of in the face of frozen SNAP benefits and also just rising grocery rising grocery cost overall.

We'll continue to collect food for the foreseeable future, but we've also added a map of different our collection points, but also little food pantries and those types of resources that's now available on our city website.

So we look forward to supporting this work, but also thinking about the work we'll do with the food commission in 2026 as that comes online, what we can do to implement their recommendations moving forward.

And then last but not least, we set aside some funding every year for a community grant program benefiting local nonprofits that serve low and moderate income residents or other special populations.

So in 2025, we awarded a total of 40,000 across four nonprofits that are focused on things like advocacy services for children in foster care, financial literacy initiatives, and no cost medical and dental care.

We also use this funding stream to set aside money for cold weather response in partnership with local service providers, in addition to that 40,000.

So while applications for the 2026 grant year are currently under review, the average funding request was approximately 17,000 just to give you a framework of sort of the pipeline of the projects that we have coming in.

So while we do have a federal cap on how much we can allocate to grants each year, we're working to review opportunities of how we can kind of stretch those dollars to their to their fullest extent, set clear annual funding priorities and also streamline the application process just to make that a little bit easier on our nonprofits.

So as a quick preview for next month's update, I'll walk through the annual funding process for kind of our three core funding streams that we get from HUD.

I'll also provide an overview of our federally required planning documents and sort of provide a sense of how I think we can do a better job at integrating our annual housing needs assessment with those required federal planning tools.

And then lastly, um we'll share some findings about sort of a pure city comparison of how other uh communities are using those sort of core funding streams and what lessons we might be able to learn from that.

So with that, I'm happy to pause for any questions.

Thank you so much, Marley.

Um Dr.

Jones, we'll start with you.

Yes.

Uh thank you, Marley, for that amazing presentation.

I have a question about the funding.

How many uh organizations apply?

What does that look like?

Yeah, so it definitely varies year over year.

This year we had 10 applications.

We had, I think, a total of 23 organizations that came to our budding workshop.

That's sort of the the pre-um application process, but that translated into 10 actual applications.

I know that's I think the previous year was around six, so it seems like we've we've increased within the last year.

Okay, and when does that process begin?

So uh we kind of start in advance.

So we're we're collecting you know potential project ideas.

We we do the workshop in October, um, kind of explain how the process works, what types of things can be funded.

Um, and then they submit an application by the end of that month, um, and then we're in the process of reviewing.

So by um, you know, sort of the middle of this month.

Um, our team will take those applications to our advisory board, who will then kind of have a chance to review those, provide some input about what what areas we might prioritize, and then they'll be included in our annual action plan, which is what we submit to HUD to kind of get the final um approval on being able to commit those funds to the projects.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay.

I don't see any other questions.

Thank you, Marley.

Um, and now we will begin with our consent agenda.

Item A1, approval of the November 4th City Council meeting minutes.

A2, approval of the November 18th City Council meeting minutes.

A three, replacement asphalt paver for the transportation department through JA Riggs Tractor Company.

A4, replacement generator for fleet operations through Nixon Power Services.

A five, replacement Bobcat UW 56 for parks operations through Williams Tractor Inc.

A six, replacement work trucks for parked operations and water and water sewer through Randall Ford Inc.

A seven, a resolution to approve franchise agreement with Ozark Dumpster Service, a eight contract amendment for Ozark Compost and SWAP, a nine Holler Franchise Agreement, a 10 approving the purchase of a recycling of recycling in glass carts, a 11 bid 25-50 from Carl Hawley Plumbing Incorporated, A12, the City of West Forks Water Purchase Agreement, and A13, a bid waiver for Payro Technologies Incorporated.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clark Paxton, we please call the roll.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnham.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Oh, forgive me.

Yes, I'm sorry.

That brings us to the next item on our agenda.

Um, Ms.

Bunch, did you mean did you mean to have your mic on for now?

Okay.

Okay.

Um, for unfinished business, we have one item of unfinished business, and that is RZN 2025-48 on North Marks Mill Lane.

Um, it's an ordinance to rezone the property described in that rezoning petition for approximately 26.7 acres located south of North Marks Mill Lane in Ward 3 from RSF4 residential single family for units per acre and UC Urban Corridor to P1 institutional.

This was left on the first reading at the last meeting.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas Section One, that's the city council, the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby changes the zone classifications of property shown on the map, exhibit A, and the legal description, exhibit B, most attached to the planning department's agenda memo for Marsh F4 residential single family four units per acre and UC Urban Corridor to P1 institutional and section two that the City Council or the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby amends official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville, reflected zoning change provided in section one.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just as a follow-up on the last meeting, I wanted to share with council that there have been no amendments or changes to this request, although the applicant did issue a letter today, which I believe you have copies of in front of you.

Although the applicant did issue a letter today, which I believe you have copies of in front of you, uh that outlines a few items that had come up before council, either directly as questions to you all or maybe as public comment.

And that included uh sharing with the council that this project, uh the project associated with this rezoning request is on a roughly 26 month construction timeline uh with the need to have the the associated school anticipated on this property brought online in July of 2028.

Uh also uh that there is an anticipated early 2026 completion of geotechnical work uh on the site uh that was discussed at the meeting as well.

Uh and uh the final item in that letter included a summary of the traffic analyses that have been done uh in that suspicion that in anticipation of this rezoning and the uh the the large scale development that's coming behind it to date.

Um otherwise, I did hear at the agenda session that there was a request for the traffic study information.

I appreciate Mr.

Masito for for resending the email that I had shared with you all uh in mid-November.

Um happy to take any questions that you have uh or uh if our uh city engineer can assist with that or anybody from the applicants team.

Uh and finally, as a reminder, uh staff is recommending in favor of this request, and it came to you all from the planning commission with a uh positive recommendation of seven commissioners in favor, uh, one opposed and one recusing.

Uh otherwise, mayor, uh believe there's several members of the applicant's team available, and I'm happy to take questions.

Okay, great.

Um, I'll open it first up to any clarifying questions we might have from the council, and then I'm gonna go straight back into public comment.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, um, yeah, so I've been receiving uh a traffic studies and efforts from a traffic study that came out on October 27th, and I guess this was released as part of a FOIA.

And so I I've heard that that's not the that that traffic study was an error because they were looking at old feeder patterns, and I'd like to know like what's the status of that study.

Are we looking at the wrong study?

And is there a new state?

I I guess there's a new study in the works, and and when are we expecting that?

That is correct.

And again, I appreciate deferring to the applicants team on specific dates or when that may be available.

But uh, as with many development projects, traffic studies and traffic analyses, they morph and they evolve as additional details with the project come forward.

Uh it's my understanding that uh some of the assumptions made in the original traffic study were very conservative, meaning they anticipated much higher levels of traffic than uh are being borne out by the the design of the site.

Uh, I think some of the uh uh modifications to the current analysis that are being made now are in response to staff's initial review of the large scale development that is happening uh kind of parallel or sequential to this rezoning request.

Uh so we the current one is not available, the large scale development has not been resubmitted.

Um that that traffic analysis is associated with that development level item.

And so and the reason I'm asking is because you know, before uh I we didn't have a traffic study, and so but now there's been one made public, but the information's bad, but the information that's there is kind of like uh like it gives me pause and and and gives a lot of our constituents pause as far as it if we're to make this decision and traffic is one of the concerns that we have to take into account.

I I almost feel now that to do our due diligence, we need to have some updated at least something that could counter what's in this current traffic study that says no, it's not that's not what we're looking at.

Does that make sense?

And I don't know if there's a question for the applicant or or or you is this is this traffic study coming and is it gonna is there a chance that we uh could see it like on the 16th or gotcha please may I would invite the the applicant's team to the podium if they're available.

I think to your point, Aubrey, is important to acknowledge that as part of a rezoning request, ultimately the main consideration when it comes to traffic from for council is whether there's an existing traffic concern or if this project or this rezoning will create or exacerbate one.

Yeah, and I guess what I'm saying is based on the what's supposedly the faulty information, it's kind of scary and looks like it would create an issue.

And I, you know, you just it'd be great if we had an assurance that no, those are not good numbers or or that new numbers are coming.

Because now that I have information, I have to kind of go with the information I have if that makes sense, you know.

Um Dr.

Mofer, would you be it?

Yes, if there's if a representative from the applicant would like to address and if you could kind of understand the statement you're making, but the question is that it should and I think there was a specific part, I think it was page 10, paragraph two, yeah.

88% of traffic.

I'm familiar.

Yes.

Uh so first of all, let me say that we do have our traffic engineering consultant here, Nathan Becknell.

He'd probably have better one to come up.

I do want to clarify a couple things that were inaccurately stated.

Before we purchased the property, we had a traffic study completed, and it assumed one entrance and exit off of college.

And that traffic study yielded that as long as there was a traffic light put in at Poplar and College, that the school there would not uh increase and have minimal impact on increased traffic, and the stoplight overall would improve that intersection over what it is now with one entrance and exit.

We did an updated study in October.

Um, and the feeder patterns that were provided to uh Mr.

Becknell were the current feeder pattern.

So he actually considered all the traffic coming from Vanderf and McNair.

What you're referring to on page 10 is an assumption that uh most of the people would come down Ash, include if it would include Vander Griffin McNair.

I'm sorry, not Mayor, Van Ruff and Butterfield, and that they were therefore enter off of Ash if an entrance was there.

So that's what that's referring to.

Now he's in the process of redoing that with the new feeder pattern, which will come mostly from the south.

So he would probably be better equipped if you're okay with me having him come up here to kind of speak to that.

I think we're two, three weeks out.

We may have it by the 16th, we may not, but he can provide some reassurance around that.

Yes, please.

Hi, Nathan Becknell traffic engineering consultants.

And yes, I will strive to get that to you before the 16th.

Okay.

Um I have that already collected.

I just need to do the analysis.

And what the what superintendent just described is is what I have found.

So it's you can think of that 88% as kind of a high bound of what we would consider with the an eastern approach.

So that's more people on Ash than we actually think will happen.

So the one that I did in February shows everybody going on college.

The one that I did in October or a little later, um, shows people coming more down ash.

And what we realize is it'll be it'll look in somewhere in the middle of those two.

Okay.

And and to be clear, as far as feeder patterns go, what we have now is the only schools that will feed into uh you know, the base of the neighborhoods that'll feed into uh the new junior high will be root and happy hollow at the south.

Those are those are the only ones coming from the south and east or southeast, I should say.

The east side I believe so.

I from memory, I would have to look at what I was provided for that.

But okay.

Dr.

Mulfer gave me a thumbs up.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

Do we have other questions from the council?

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I have a couple of questions also about the traffic report.

So if the gentleman could come back up here, I would really appreciate it.

You were you were sorry, fire really doesn't want me to be in here right now.

Apparently, there's too many people.

Okay.

Um page um, let's see, page four of the uh of the report that you provided in October.

I was wondering how you generated some of these estimates.

Like uh, I think it was 60% of the kids will be traveling by bus, and and also your trips, how you calculated your trips.

I mean, you must have made an assumption that there would be two children per car.

So where how were those assumptions generated?

So those two numbers were generated two different ways.

Um, the the first for how many will use bus is from existing data that the school district provided me from existing bus ridership um in the city of Fayetteville.

The trips generated like per student is from a national publication by Institute of Transportation Engineers, and it's what we use generally for a traffic impact analysis like this to predict what a future amount of vehicles entering us in exiting a site will be.

So it's not Fayetteville specific, it's a national standard that you can so we may be different, we may be the same, but that is correct.

And have you done other traffic studies here that could support um the national assumptions that are made or different yes, I have.

And what have those what have you seen from that?

I've I've seen that they're pretty much in line with what happens in Fayetteville.

Okay, thank you so much.

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

Um, everybody will have three minutes at the microphone.

Um, you are allowed to speak one time um on this item.

And whomever is first, if they would like to go ahead and come up, Dr.

Mulford.

Looks like that's to you.

Good evening.

I apologize.

I thought I would have some time to present.

So I you you if you would like I didn't that was yes, earlier before public comment.

If you I didn't, I wasn't aware there was a presentation.

You absolutely, if the applicant wants to present, there's 10 minutes on the clock and you have that.

Okay, and I won't take it all, and it's not a presentation, it's just a few things I'd like to hit.

No, that's fine, and then we'll have we'll need we'll have clarifying questions for you after, and then we can have public comment at that time.

Okay, thank you.

Well, good evening, mayor and council.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

Um, you did receive an email, I think late yesterday with a letter from me as well as some supporting documents.

Mr.

Kurth referenced that.

Uh, one thing I do want to speak to in my letter, I did uh request that you consider suspending the rules for a third hearing and consider voting on that tonight.

I do want to uh say that that request was made with the utmost respect for the weight of this decision.

And I also recognize that you are not at full capacity tonight.

And the last thing I would want to do is ask you to suspend those rules when you don't have a full council here.

So please disregard that request, but I would like to amend it and ask as we consider going ahead to the 16th, that we we do not look to table, and really it does play into the timeline.

And so the timeline I sent to you all uh really shows that uh we need to be able to submit the the large scale submittal on the 17th, the day after the next council meeting to ensure that we have a good path forward to being open August of 28th.

So I just wanted to mention that.

With that said, um, last month there was some was some conversation about tabling.

There were three things that we heard is rationale for potentially tabling this conversation.

One was uh group raising funds in hope of purchasing the property.

The second was the outstanding additional geotechnical report, and the third is transportation study, which we've talked about.

So as you all know, these are not types of things that are typically considered in in a rezone, but I do want to kind of speak to those.

The first being the selling of the property, and I want to be very clear that our board is not interested in even considering selling the property until the rezoning process is complete, and then whatever you all decide, we'll make our decision from there.

Um I have repeatedly stated that hey, if you find a property out there that is a better option than this one, share it with me.

We'll check it out.

I've had many properties shared, none of them are better options.

Most of them either have similar training challenges or are uh far worse location.

Had one shared as recently as yesterday that was out off of 265 by Happy Hollow Elementary.

Um, and again, it's five miles from the spaired middle school.

We'd have significant east-west travel.

So that is if you all were not to approve the rezone, might be something we'd want to look at, but it would not be something that would replace this site.

The geotechnical investigation.

I do have Wes Burgess here uh with Crafton Toll who can speak to this, but we did have a geotechnical report that we were able to review on this site prior to purchase, the standard report.

This additional report is not about determining site suitability, it's about determining how we need to design the foundations now that we plan to go up instead of out.

So I he can speak more to that if you have questions, but waiting on a geotech additional geotechnical report, thinking it might provide something about site suitability, that is not the purpose.

So I want to be very clear on that.

We already touched on the transportation study.

Um, and so hopefully your questions were answered there.

Uh also we have Hunter Atkinson here, he's our landscape architect with Prison Design Studios.

I know there were some things this wasn't part of the tabling conversation.

There was some discussion about the site current site condition.

If you have questions about that, he can speak to that and would be happy to do so.

Um so with that, you know.

I there was a uh uh article editorial in the Northwest Democratic Gazette today that kind of spoke to this project.

One of the things that the writer mentioned was that schools, much like fire houses can't just be placed anywhere.

It is about being strategic, and that's what we're trying to do.

We're trying to be strategic, serve our community the best way that we can while also meeting as many of the city's goals in our site selection as we can.

And so I hope you'll consider that.

Um, I also want to just say this one last thing.

As you consider our request for rezoning, this is not a conversation about development versus non-development.

It is already zoned to be developed as residential.

The conversation is does it make sense from a cabot compati compatibility standpoint to shift it to institutional instead of leaving it residential as it currently sits.

I think it speaks a lot that the staff reports supports the request, the planning commission, and we are hopeful that come on the 16th that you also will support that.

So again, I'm happy to take additional questions, or any of those design professionals would take additional questions as well.

Thank you, Dr.

Mulford.

Um Mr.

Burney.

I'd like to hear from the engineer about the geotechnical uh drilling that you've done because we've heard a lot of conversation about the shell on that hillside.

So that might be very difficult.

So I think Wes is in the hall.

So Wes, if you can hear us.

All right.

So I'll let him come up and speak out.

I'm gonna take my seat if you need me, I'll come back out.

Wes Burgess with Crafton Toll.

And just for clarity, I'm not an engineer, I'm an architect.

So what was the specific question?

We've heard a lot about the uh composition of the hillside being shell, and that there'd been some geotechnical drilling uh done already, and I was just wondering about the results of that, and then also the challenges that you have positive or negative with the shell composition of the soil.

Sure.

The site uh in 2014, GTS engineers were hired to do a geotechnical report on this site for a proposed residential development at that time.

And so they went through and did, I believe, 16 borings and a test at least three test pits to analyze, discover what the soil was and and analyze what it was.

There's three stratas basically, this is very typical to most soils in northwest Arkansas.

There's the top strata is basically topsoil, it's unsuitable for uh building and foundations to be supported.

The second strata is the expansive clays that we hear a lot about that are in their native form are not suitable to build on because of their expansiveness when they get wet and then shrink when they get dry.

And then the third uh strata is uh shale and and a mixture of of more suitable soils for for development.

So the record that those stratas vary in depth.

I think if you looked at the report, they typically are the upper two stratas generally take up about four to six more or less feet before you get down to the suitable soil.

So this is very typical to what we see in most sites, um, particularly in Fayetteville.

So there's really from that report that that uh GTS did, we asked them to come back when we uh were looking at the property as a potential school site and re-evaluate the the work they had done for a school instead of residential subdivision.

So that re in that report they confirmed that these soils are not unsuitable, and they are out there now drilling deeper holes, uh doing some supplemental work because uh as Dr.

Mulford said, we're we're trying to determine the specific foundations.

But as far as the shale and some of the other things, um, there's not a particular concern from a building and development standpoint.

Those are uh good soils to bear a structure on, and the unsuitable expansive clays are such that those can be excavated and then replaced on the site and compacted, and those would be suitable for for bearing the structure in certain conditions as well.

So I don't know if I answered your question, but but that's what we've found out there.

Thank you, Mr.

Burgess.

Uh Mr.

Oh, stay there.

Sorry.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for being here.

Um, so in terms of excavating those expansive clays that you just mentioned, um, that sounds like a pretty big uh enterprise, pretty big chore to to do.

Do you have an estimate of how many truckloads of clay you're gonna have to take out?

Are you gonna have to blast the side of the mountain out?

Uh, and then what kinds of soil will you have to transport in?

We do not anticipate any blasting or anything like that.

If these uh supplemental borings do encounter rock, then we would have to deal with that.

But typically the rock uh it would not be in fatable, would not need to be blasted out, but it would just need you know large machinery to to break it up and then take it out.

Um, as far as the soils, we're aiming to keep as much soil on site as we can and reuse it.

And I don't know what the current estimate is as far as what needs to be hauled off versus hauled on, but um our civil engineers are aiming to do what's called balance the site, which means whatever you're excavating, you'll use that as much as possible for where the site needs to be built up.

So that's what we're endeavoring to do.

I don't have any quantities on what will need to be hauled off versus um brought in.

But like I said, that that expansive clays, even if it's excavated, it can be replaced.

It can be taken out and then put back in and compacted in what's called lifts.

So they put in a you know eight or ten inches of soil and then compact that and then bring another lift in.

And that soil on site can be used for that.

But that geotechnical report, once it's down to 30 feet, it could identify areas where you have really significant rock, and that may that so your opinion may change depending on that 30-foot depth.

So that you may have to blast potentially.

Are there are there not any areas in Fayable where that doesn't occur?

Uh I I can't speak to all of the projects.

I'm not aware of any blasting that takes place.

I but I'm not aware of every project.

But at the depth that we're at, if we get down to 30 feet, and uh because the current report from 2014, those borings were anywhere from 10 to 20 feet.

Uh so they did not encounter any rock down to 20 feet in any of those borings.

If we go to 30 and we do encounter rock, what that will mean most likely is that then we'll be doing what's called a deep foundation, which is piers that will be drilled into that soil and bare on that rock down there.

So it would not, at that depth, we would not anticipate taking any rock out.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

And now we are going to open it to public comment.

Oh, I'm sorry, no, it's okay.

I just I'm glad we have the geotechnical uh folka.

I I do there is one other thing that has been a concern uh with our constituents from the beginning, and it's the the forestry, and and I think the school board has a forester hired that's been looking at this land.

And I I just wonder if we could get a quick input from them if that's possible.

I don't know if they're here this evening or not.

So we do have a landscape architect, that's Hunter Atkinson, who I mentioned earlier.

I do believe he's here.

So, Hunter, if you can hear me.

He's right behind you.

There is all right.

Thank you, Dr.

Muller.

And and thank you, Hunter.

And I I guess you know, there's lots of talk about and I know I know this you have to save a certain amount of forest just by our codes, and you guys are gonna try to see that.

I hope, but there's been a lot of talk about the state of the forest, the health of the forest.

I I just like to know maybe a little bit about your process, what you're finding, what you're seeing, and and if you could just give us a brief uh summary.

Sure.

So that's uh northwest or sorry, north-south ridge, uh predominantly the site uh sloping from the east on the top down to the west towards college.

Um it's oakery forest, which is typical of this area.

Um it doesn't show signs of development other than a few road cuts uh that have happened across it over a number of years.

Um it does have some larger species, which we've identified and tried to privilege in the site design.

As far as the forest condition, it's what I would consider to be a typical unmanaged Arkansas forest, which means that since the removal of regular fire and grazers, which the land evolved with over millennia prior, um the forest densifies basically.

So typically the species that we see on site, the post oaks specifically, um, and and then the other species mix are indicative of an open woodland or savanna forest condition or vegetative condition.

So that's gonna be um that's gonna be uh a handful of trees with light that extends down to the canopy.

So you'll see uh multiple layers of vegetation, ground cover, herbaceous layer, uh understory trees, and then an overstory.

And so what you see right now with the removal and the lack of fire and the lack of management over the last 150 years, uh, is that um there's a lot more trees there than would have been there historically or would have been evolutionarily appropriate to the site, which means that um in this condition uh there are a handful of invasives in the understory, which are the only kind of things that can survive with that low level of light.

Um really you don't see anything more than the overstory layer.

What a lot of what you're seeing is um when you look at the the composition and the distribution of those larger post oaks specifically, uh you'll see them scattered across the site, uh, which again suggest that those are the long-lived trees that have been there a long time, and what they look like is basically a big cotton candy uh shape.

So a large orb-like shape that's full throughout the throughout its form.

A lot of the younger trees are going to be more like a lollipop where they're going to be straight with no side branching and a little bit of canopy on top.

So that creates a continuous canopy cover, which means that again, light is not getting down to those lower levels and allowing for those multiple layers of vegetation.

This is an issue for biodiversity because it limits how many different species can be on site.

And it tends to lead towards again introduction of invasives which can uh perform better given the lack of fire and the limited light conditions.

But that so that that is what we would find.

And there's a number of really great reference books about Ozark Forests that talk about postdocs specifically as indicator species for this kind of forest condition, the open woodland savanna.

And especially also I forgot to mention because of the western aspect, basically the site sloped like this more towards the sun, tends to be more drier conditions or xeric soils.

And so that's also gonna privilege that uh savanna condition, which is more open grassland.

Um so we would expect that historically the site would have been open woodland savannah with a much greater uh species diversity, a different kind of habit of tree generally than is currently existing on site.

So estimates would be that there's four times as many trees on site as there would have been historically, potentially more.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

I wasn't quite sure where uh my question fed in, so now I'll just put it out there since we've got a bit of a pause.

Um and it's kind of traffic and connectivity has to do with the access points.

Um, I saw in the letter that we got from uh the attorney in our packet, um, I think it spoke to that it was adequate to just have the access point at Poplar in college.

However, I think in the large-scale development that has been provided in the past, which is not finalized because we haven't gotten the new, there were shown two additional access points that are on ash.

Um, you know, while uh we won't finalize what that looks like, that is in a later um portion, that is a consideration we take of traffic safety and that connectivity that's there.

And so I was hoping that we could get a better idea of in particular.

I have a couple of questions about that, and I'll kind of just do them one at a time.

The first one is when I look at um that stretch of college, um, it was pointed out to us, and I'm very um familiar with it because that's right where I live, um, that that is one of our um areas that has I I believe I was uh scene quoted 10% of the accidents in the city of Fateville um occur between uh those two lights that are there on college.

Um and so I know we're gonna be looking at children crossing uh with the crosswalk there, and then we're talking about the access of the the cars that are turning in and out of the egress for the school.

And so I just didn't know what the the traffic uh study that we've done in considerations.

If there is those accidents, or we do know those are that are those occurrences are happening today.

I just didn't know what's been taken into account in the event that we need to be accessing from other areas and can we um handle that load of those vehicles for those in and outs, um, and then what other accommodations might be needed when we've got folks trying to come in the morning and in the afternoon.

Um so again, some of those we may have to call Nathan back in here only.

But um the drawing that shows access to ash, again, that's conceptual.

That has to go through large scale, and at the end of the day, if city staff determines it's unsafe to have access there, then there won't be one there.

So it has to go through that process, and that's where part of this traffic study will inform that, whether that's you know, safe to have or not.

I think we would all agree that to have any kind of ingress or egress onto ash, some improvements are gonna have to be made to ash.

So I think we all recognize that.

So that'll be just part of that process that we'll have to go through.

As far as uh college, Nathan back here, okay.

As far as college, um, I believe his report showed that with a stoplight being added there, that that should account for greatly improve that, but should account for a lot of that.

Now I do want to make a couple points as we consider this, because I've heard this argument, which I guess for me, you know, I it's not as much of a concern for two reasons.

Number one, um most of our schools that are at any kind of a primary road intersection, there's a lot of accidents right there.

And that's so whether it's mission and crossover, whether it's MLK in front of the high school, whether it's MLK in front of RAMI, whether it's out on RuPaul, there's when you have main thoroughfares, there's gonna be a higher number of accidents.

So uh then also there's already already a junior high school of 800 plus kids right there with no intersection, right?

So, you know, the idea would be that improvements are going to help addressing those things.

Additionally, as you guys know, we improved the initiative around the 71B corridor improvements, which is all about higher density living and businesses, right?

So I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but in your own efforts, you're trying to increase traffic to that corridor.

So I think it would be uh, you know, a little odd to be concerned that a school at a couple of times of day um might might be unsafe, but yet we're bringing higher density.

So when I think about it, I think through all those those things, but I'm gonna let Nathan kind of speak to how I think really hopefully I'm not misspeaking, that that stoplight is kind of a key piece in improving safety around accidents in that area.

I have not done a full analysis on it.

I did see the data that is being discussed.

Um, and you can see a little bright area on Poplar in college.

And I I can tell you that a first approach would be to analyze whether a signal would help with that.

And that is already being proposed by the plan for college avenue and is supported in my study for if you put a school here that you do need a signal.

You actually need one already from capacity wise.

And I do suspect that the study that was done for College Avenue informed that need as well from safety.

Um, I believe it also there's there's a strong need for we want pedestrian connectivity because there's such a long stretch of college there without that um help pedestrians get across safely as well, is probably a major component of that.

But I do believe if I if I dug into that, I I suspect it would come up with the same recommendations that are already in the report to put a signal there at Poplar.

Okay.

And then I don't know if this is for you or for someone else, but um the uh drive length that's being kind of indicated right now for how we're gonna queue the cars, you know.

I think about, and I've been watching the patterns, especially of our campuses where we really only have one in and one out that's being navigated and not in a lot of additional connectivity.

And I'm seeing, you know, 15 and 20 cars, you know, queuing up in those like turn lanes that exist.

And I'm thinking about that north to bound traffic that's coming at college, getting stuck at a light or also thinking about them trying to turn into and maybe the backup occurring.

Um, are we then?

I don't know if this is part of with you or with the district looking to see is all of that kind of meandering through their property, is that gonna cue up those cars sufficiently that we're thinking that we're not gonna have the Chick-fil-A situation that we have on college.

Um, I'm sorry, on MLK happening on college.

Yes, that was that is part of my study, and that is something that will remain the way it is now, unless I get new data.

But I I did the school district hired me to go and observe existing schools.

So the rate that I'm using in that report now is Fayetteville specific and is based on what I've observed at existing junior high schools in Fayetteville for for typical queuing.

And it we we were more concerned if they put a driveway on ash, because they're proposing to do pickup drop-off on the east side of the building.

Um, and they have shown ample queuing, um, even to that western drive of ash.

We had some concern if they did an eastern drive at the top of the hill that it might actually cause some confusion and people backing up on the ash, which is why they're proposing to not do that eastern drive.

But the western drive would even would would not interfere with the queuing predicted.

It definitely I I have confidence that it would not back all the way up to college if there was only the college access.

Okay.

And based on the going and observing existing junior high schools in Fayeville.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Okay.

And then my final question might be um well, I don't know who it's for, I'll be honest.

Um, so when we are looking at ash, and again, I know we're kind of going into the future, um, but um, you know, ash is I'm on transportation committee.

It's not one of our roads we're looking to invest in in the near future.

And so I'm curious.

Um when we look at our 26th budget, we currently have a balanced flat budget that's been approved.

You know, we know we have some headwinds coming at us in the city, and so I'm curious if the district is ready to um be able to absorb all of those improvement costs that might be needed, which could be substantial on Ash Street, the way that it exists today.

And I think that'll be quite challenging potentially to make that safe because I that's a pretty um hard to maneuver area.

I think some folks showed the pictures of the buses and the vehicles that cross over like on the curb.

So depending on it, sounds like with a property that you have um pending that potentially there's some ability to maneuver further into that area to try to create some additional safety and and make some of those changes for Ash.

But I just wanted to understand what conversations have been had with the district on bearing that cost.

Yeah, so uh we do understand that there would likely be uh a portion or if not all on us to to bear the improvements of a connectivity at that western point.

I think that's as we go through the process.

If it's determined it can be done and here's what it's gonna take to do that, then we'll have to assess the cost, and if it's something we're we're able and willing to do at that point.

Uh again, we feel confident with a single access point from college and an emergency access point on the Marks Mill if that's what needs to happen.

But um, if we can make improvements there at Ash, that would be good not only for the district but the community, and we can keep that within budget, then that's something that we understand we might be tasked with.

Okay.

Going back to the queuing, I do want to mention something uh on that that lane that goes around the school, it is a three-lane road, and so the way it's designed is two lanes of queuing in the afternoon, and so you get two wraps around, is what you get for cars.

That's why we're confident we can keep that off of college.

So I used to pick up at John L and I oftentimes was stuck sitting on RuPaul Road.

So I'm definitely familiar with those you know, car queues.

You might think they're gonna happen one way, and then you might get a different outcome.

So yeah, just was curious.

Yeah, I understand, and and we've had those exact conversations that this is one place we cannot afford any spillover, and so that's where the the long drive all the way around and the double queuing, that's where that comes into play.

Okay, thank you.

All right, yes, Bob.

Dr.

Mulford, uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh, just real quickly, just uh off of what you just said.

So what you're saying is that the queue line around the school is gonna have two lanes of queuing and then a traffic lane.

That's right.

And is that around the whole that's correct?

Oh well, okay.

In addition to the parking spots, which I don't have the exact number off the top of my head, but I think it's around 100 to 130 parking spots on site.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Got one other question for okay, Mr.

Or I'm sorry, and Mr.

Mr.

Okay, Ms.

Turk.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Mulford for being here again.

Um, so just a couple of questions.

So from your letter, you mentioned that you're prepared to have one egress and ingress on college drive.

But you just also mentioned um emergency access by Mark's Mill.

And I thought the property owners association prevented any of that kind of access.

Uh that's not accurate.

Actually, the agreement when we purchased it was that any access into Marks Mill would be limited to emergency personnel and maintenance, and so that is in the agreement.

We are allowed to do that.

It just calls for keeping it gated.

Um, so that way, you know, the general public can't access it.

So that option is there.

If we connect to Ash, we won't need that connectivity.

We could still do it, should it be determined through large scale development that it is needed, an additional emergency one is needed.

But uh the covenants do allow for emergency connectivity.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Burning.

Thank you, Dr.

Mofford.

Uh oh.

Dr.

Mulford on the queuing, it's just proportion of the loop.

Okay, so Hunter's correcting me that that double queuing does not go the entirety of it, it goes a portion of that loop.

Okay.

So is that typical though on in queuing?

Is do you typically do two lanes or just one and a traffic lane?

Yeah, we have a mix at our buildings, and a lot of it depends on the site size.

I would say most of our buildings, it's not typical to have a double queue.

Some of our smaller sites do.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Moore.

You you mentioned Mark's Mills, and so that's an area that I'd had some questions about.

And so if that's an emergency personnel, does that mean that is a completed roadway that comes through, but then it's connected?

Or that or you said it's gated or it's regimented?

That's correct.

Is it there the potential that um kids because I think about the children who would potentially kind of live in that that direction that would be kind of north of the site, would they have the ability to have like a footpath to be able to come through so that they don't necessarily have to so that's the part I think councilwoman Turk was referring to.

So the the purchase agreement requires that we keep both traffic and pedestrian access closed off, except for emergency and maintenance.

So the neighborhood association would have to approve allowing uh pedestrian access for the kids in the neighborhood.

Okay, but it but it would be a fully um it would meet all the requirements of our street roadways for the city of Mayetteville when that would be put in because of the emergency personnel that would yes, good that's correct, and we can build a sidewalk that connects.

And we can build a sidewalk that connects, we would just have to keep it closed off to pedestrian traffic without HOA approval.

We and we likely would ask the HOA to consider allowing pedestrian access.

I think it would make sense for those kids.

But as it stands now to clarify, students that are living right there would not be allowed to walk to school.

That is what the covenants say.

That's correct.

Got it.

Okay.

Uh Dr.

Jumpson.

Uh yes, uh Dr.

Mulford, I have a question for Hunter.

And this question is about the existing stormwater conditions.

Okay, we'll get Hunter back in here.

I'm sorry.

Existing uh I have a question about the existing stormwater conditions.

And uh I've had several people ask about it.

I said, Well, someone should be there tonight, so I'll ask then.

So uh is there would you like me to generally discuss?

Yes, please, please, yes.

Uh well, so I can speak to that in general terms, Trent Wasner or um or Westner, sorry, is also here.

He's our civil engineer, and he can speak more to the quantities of detention, but um I I'll refer briefly and he can fill in if I'm missing anything, but again, it's uh it's a north-south ridge, so it slopes from the east to the west.

It's close to the top of the watershed, which means that there's pretty limited amount of water draining onto the site from off of the property.

There's a few residential properties that are largely clear to the east of the site.

Um, and there's one location in particular where that collects apparently from an old roadbed, and that water aggregates and is cut into the hill slope a little bit.

Um our work would improve that condition.

Um, another uh related to the forest health, the lack of uh those different canopy layers means that uh the trees do a great job at reducing the initial impact of of uh water hitting the ground, and that their routes do a great job of uh securing the ground from erosion, but because there's those lack of layers um, especially in winter when there's rains, um the tree roots only go down typically uh within the top 18 inches, except for a uh a tap route occasionally for trump some tree species, whereas uh grasses and more diverse herbaceous layers are native species can go down four feet, eight feet, and so they do a much uh they do a really great job at holding that soil in place and at infiltrating water, and so uh I think there's an opportunity with the vegetative character of the site to improve the drainage as well as to address areas where it's falling uh and combining and and deal with it in multiple places that it crosses down the site.

And Trent, if you want to fill in anything else.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Hi, uh Trent Westner, civil engineer with Craft and Toll.

Um can you repeat your question again?

Yes, uh, the question is about stormwater concerns.

Okay.

Um we understand those concerns and those concerns are valid.

Um, but I'm excited about improving the stormwater condition.

Um we have the opportunity to catch water, slow it down, soak it into the soil underneath through infiltration.

We'll have multiple bioretention cells, multiple detention cells that will treat water and slow it down.

Um we're required to not release more water off the site than what currently is, and um we always meet those requirements and the water quality requirements for the city as well.

Um so uh we have opportunity to make it better and it will function better drainage-wise because it won't just be all sheep flowing.

We're gonna capture it, collect it, control it, um, and let it irrigate the new plants and the existing ones.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Bench.

Uh yes, I have a question, and this is possibly for staff and the city attorney.

Um I am wondering on Marks Mill, is that a city street or a private drive?

It's a public street.

Public street.

Does it have sidewalks along it?

Yeah.

I believe it has back of curb sidewalk on one side.

Are those city sidewalks or are they private sidewalks?

I believe those are dedicated in public rightway with the flat for the subdivision.

So at the time this the existing um subdivision was developed.

Was there ever an attention to uh continue marks mills on across to Ash?

And I mean, where it were it dead ends there, is that a dead end?

Is it a stub out, or is it a cul-de-sac?

I mean, I'm just trying to figure out.

Yes, before I answer that question, sorry, I pulled it up on an aerial correct.

It is being built out with sidewalk on both sides of the street.

So sorry for that inaccuracy.

Uh it was intended to be extended.

That was how it was originally platted at the time.

Uh, if you look at a right of way map, you see that it just considers continues straight through the property.

There's not a bulbout that you might normally see if the intent was to build it with a permanent cul-de-sac within right away.

Um that is uh probably an acknowledgement of the city's connectivity standards, which uh don't allow that ends by right.

Uh so this was originally platted with the intent to extend it as a public street.

Okay.

So I understand that this is I'm thinking about this neighborhood, and I understand that they are anticipating if a school goes in, they do not want a bunch of people driving through their neighborhood, dropping their kids off, but uh the the idea that kids can't walk to school seems if there is a school there, seems ridiculous to me.

Um, and and I'm wondering if if it is a a platted to allow a street to connect through there, you know.

How can we it it how can I mean I guess it's in their contract?

How can they say, well, we're not ever gonna open this street to people to use, it's always going to just be for safety purposes.

Is that well, the uh city of Fayville is not party to that contract, and we do have a connectivity uh basis for all of our developments, and that being a city street, um a contract that would not allow uh what the city would believe would be a necessary connection uh there uh might mean that that part of the contract would be void as against public policy.

I haven't seen the contract, I have don't know the layer of the land, but uh so I can't give you a definite uh opinion on that, but I know that we're not parties to the contract, and generally we're not bound by restrictive covenants.

Uh there have been many times somebody would come in and say we have a restricted covenant because you can't zone it this way because our restrictive covenant doesn't allow you to do that.

And I've always said restrictive covenants between two private parties, the judge enforces that, not the city.

So we're gonna go ahead and act regardless of what your uh restrictive covenant says.

Uh obviously uh we that's never been challenged.

We've never had a problem like that before.

I I'm not saying that we should uh contemplate litigation or anything, but the city does have uh rights for connectivity and and for access to uh streets.

Now we weren't parties that contract, the school district was.

I'm sure they're gonna try to follow the contract that they signed, but uh that does give me a little bit of pause about having a gate there because you know, we also had a a statute of an ordinance a long time ago to say no more gated communities.

If you remember that and uh it's so anyway, there I see some problems with that uh that agreement or that restrictive covenant or whatever they had there on that.

Uh don't know if we'll need to do it really.

You're the policymakers to make that kind of decision if if something like that need to be challenged.

Okay, thank you very much for that clarification.

I was just wondering, we're talking about a city street and how we close it off, you know, if it's if it's closed off.

It was just my I was just wondering about that.

I don't know that that really affects the rezoning, but I'm I do have concerns about that.

Thank you.

Okay, I think yes, Bob.

Thank you.

Um, and I guess questions be got questions tonight, and and I had this very same question as uh council member bunch is is how does an HOA prevent uh pedestrian access on a public street?

I think you've kind of answered that.

We they really can't.

I I feel like is well, I think they're they're big problems with that.

Like I said, I have not seen uh the contract restricted covenants or anything else, or really all the lay of the land.

I don't know uh how this would be fully developed.

We used some sort of concept map, but uh it's not gone through large-scale development, and so that's where you usually look at connectivity, and so until something like that would happen, we wouldn't know if well, do we even need to do that?

Maybe we don't need to do that in this case, but uh so it's a little premature to say exactly what we can do, but I can say that in the past the city has not been stopped by restrictive covenants.

Okay, thank you.

And then just one final uh uh, and this isn't a question to be answered tonight.

I don't think I hope we get to that December 16th reading.

Uh and it is just uh information I would like at that reading, uh, which is um uh I guess for the the school district.

Uh, if you could give us more information on the the queuing and like more like how many how many total cars fit in the WQ, how big is the W, you know, how many cars are going to be able to fit a prospect around in queuing, and then you know, with that third lane to for traffic, uh it'd be good information.

Uh and I don't expect an answer on that tonight.

So thank you.

Okay.

All right.

I'm not hearing any more questions of clarification regarding the matter of the rezoning, so I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Um, each commenter has three minutes.

Please be respectful because I know we will have a lot of commenting to the extent that our uh fire marshals will allow.

If if you're able to line up one right after another, you don't have to wait on me to call you up.

We can just keep it moving.

Yeah.

Got it.

Okay.

Okay.

Oh, and also please state your name and address.

Good evening.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

Uh my name is Kirsten Mormon, 1165 East Ridgway.

I'm a root parent and a big fan of Fayetteville Public Schools.

In just the last two weeks, we've gathered gathered over 1,100 signatures from Fayetteville Public School parents, grandparents, caregivers, and family members who support the new Raimi Junior High site.

These are people who are driving these routes every day, walking these sidewalks, volunteering in our schools, and seeing firsthand what our students need.

For context, the opposition collected around 1,400 signatures over three months.

Our Fayetteville Public School community reached more than 80% of that number in a fraction of time.

This is not a broad citywide petition.

These are the voices of the families directly impacted, many of whom would be here tonight if they weren't at home doing dinner, bath, and bedtime.

Their support is clear, urgent, and growing.

Thank you for considering the voices of the families you serve.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening, council and mayor.

My name is Carla Ritani, uh, 581 North Rockcliffe Road in Fayetteville.

I'm also a parent of three.

Uh one of my kids actually goes to root elementary, which would be fed into the new proposed um Ramey Junior High School.

I'm also a taxpayer.

I'm a volunteer at the city, and I'm actually a volunteer at Root Elementary.

Um, but I also come to you today as a representative of the Urban Forestry Advisory Board.

And I would like to read a letter that we sent to the city council and the mayor a few weeks ago regarding this decision.

As mayors of the urban or I'm sorry, as members of the Urban Forestry Advisory Board, our role is to advise the city on matters that affect Fayetteville's urban forest and its long-term sustainability, helping to keep Fayetteville the gem of Northwest Arkansas.

We are committed to ensuring that development decisions strike the right balance between growth and environmental stewardship.

The upcoming vote on rezoning of the property at Poplar and College to allow construction of a new junior high school and affiliated sports complex raises significant concerns.

Rezoning the site would enable a project that conflicts with the city plan 2050 and the urban forestry management plan, both of which prioritize canopy expansion, climate resilience, and sustainable development.

The site itself is environmentally sensitive and geologically complex, as we've heard a lot about already.

It's located on cars terrain and a steep hillside at a major intersection, conditions that raise concerns about slope stability, water infiltration, and ecological disruption.

Rezoning to P1 institutional would permit would permit high intensity usage that the site cannot accommodate without substantial impacts of the environment and the urban tree canopy.

While a school may be feasible, the athletic complex, particularly the football field and associated grading, represents a level of intensity that the site cannot particularly support.

Given the steep karst terrain and mature canopy, these facilities are environmentally and structurally inappropriate.

For these reasons, we do not recommend rezoning the property.

Urban forests are under increasing pressure from tree removal for development.

Mature trees provide essential benefits, stormwater retention, erosion control, carbon sequestration, mitigation of urban pollutants, and resilience against hotter, drier summers predicted by climate models.

These functions are critical for climate adaptation and public health.

Rezoning this property would pave the way for the removal of at least nine acres of tree canopy and possibly up to 16 acres.

You'll see stats like 696,000 square feet.

Look at that in acreage and think about 16 acres of canopy being removed.

To date, no publicly available analysis explains why this specific site was chosen all over different alternatives.

We respectfully request that Fayetteville public schools provide economic and environmental evaluations to ensure transparency and accountability before any decisions made.

Thank you.

Thanks.

And it would also be um helpful when you all come up if you because we know the district boundaries don't always track with the city.

If you are able to say the city that you live into, sometimes that's helpful.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

My name's Kelly Mulholland.

I'm 885 North Fritz Drive in Fettville.

And I appreciate everybody's attention to this important issue.

I know it's a complicated issue.

I feel you know, I had a number of people have warned me against talking about the trees and my arguments, and uh, but I just can't help myself.

And it because I had what I've not heard enough about is the inherent value of an unbroken forest that of that size, which there are none other in central Fayetteville.

And there are woodland species that will simply disappear once those trees are cut down.

I was very, very pleased to see the Northwest Arkansas Audubon Society write an official uh opinion that this should not go forward, and I assume you've all read that.

And I I just hope that that we will take this to heart.

I I can envision a day when Fayetteville, a long college there has apartment buildings and multi-story apartment buildings crowded in there, and what a joy and treasure it would be to have 27 acres of green space right next to it.

Wouldn't be but how fortunate could we be?

Um, I feel like we're at a crossroads right here.

You know, this town has stood for environmental priorities for a long time, and we're about to walk away from that, and there's no taking it back.

There's no other piece of property that's gonna replace that one once it's gone.

I can hardly imagine looking up at that hill and not seeing the forest anymore.

But I must admit, we all took it myself included.

We've all taken this for granted for a long time.

It sat there for all these years, and um nobody thought twice about it.

But now it it's we but it's not too late.

I actually disagree with Dr.

Mulford and a few other comments about this going back to development if it's not turned into a school.

Actually, we have net Fayetteville Natural Heritage as an offer on the table.

There is a perfectly good solution to walking away from this.

And uh, so I hope that's exactly what we'll do.

At least table the issue tonight so that we can get to the bottom of this, but but I I feel like we need to give it a second thought.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor, council, my name's Charles Watson.

I reside at 11 East David Visit Street.

I've retired from 27 years of field technician for an engineering firm.

One of the things that strikes me is the environment underground.

I know that there are three major uh fault lines that run through Fedville.

I know they're inactive, but they still create a lot of voids.

An instance is the Washington County parking deck.

It had to be replaced.

Now, there was a lot of drilling occurred, test drilling, found no voids.

Then we removed the parking deck and started drilling for peers.

Took a 400,000 dollar change order to address the issues where the piers were actually located.

So once that building is designed, and once the peers are won't be in a particular spot, there's a quite a possibility, in my opinion, that there will be voids.

Maybe not.

Maybe so, but it's going to drive cost exponentially.

Just something to consider.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

Good evening.

My name is John Fritz.

I'm a resident of West Fork, but I've been in my 26th year of service to Faithful Public Schools, driving their school buses.

We have a very hard time maintaining driver staff.

Everybody quits because it's a tough job.

It's my understanding that there's been rezoning on College Avenue is going to allow either seven or eight story apartment buildings from north to Millsap.

Once the infill is completed, traffic there is going to be choking, it's already there very bad.

And the additional school buses there and parents.

We're gonna have a lot of drivers not wanting to do it.

So I just think that uh it needs to be looked at again, what the real impact is going to be.

And perhaps, I don't know if it's been looked at.

Claim an eminent domain on the old Jefferson School, build build up there, go to stories there for a school.

Instead of on a hillside that's gonna erode.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is David Druding, and I live at 107 Southwest Avenue here in Fayetteville.

I've been a resident of Fayetteville since 1974.

Uh I want to first correct the statement or just add something to a statement a gentleman made, an engineer earlier this evening.

He said he knew of no blasting that had been done in Fayetteville.

I lived on South Street at 411 West South, and uh well, we bought the house in 1978, but I believe it was in the early 1990s that uh what was then City Hospital was putting on an addition along the north side of South Street or directly across the street from me, and they had surveyors and architects uh work on the site, and when they began to dig for the foundations, they found to their surprise uh that there was uh rock, I think it was carst, I think that's what it's called, uh, there that had to be blasted through, and there was a considerable expense in their doing that, and when they were doing it, there was damage done to the uh some of the buildings close by the residences.

Then in uh what year was the library when when it was being built in 2003, uh they started building the foundation on the uh uh east side of uh West Avenue where the parking structure is, and they found again about six feet deep, there was stone, and they had to do extensive uh blasting, and it added exponentially to the cost of building the library.

And when they were doing that, there was extensive damage done to several of the houses directly across the street.

So there are cases where blasting has been done and wasn't expected, and I would say it's very likely when you're uh gonna be building on a site of a very steep rocky hillside, you will be seeing uh uh blasting happening to be done.

And the only other thing I want to state is that I have noticed the last few years that there's been immense changes in the amount of traffic there's been on college, on Martin Luther King, on crossover, and as the prior gentleman said, with the expansion of what they're gonna be doing uh along college.

I'm sorry, that's time.

Thank you.

It's just I think we have to cut out the time if you could come up with the person next.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council and Mayor.

My name is Ross Tompkins, live at 1701 Northwild, Oldwire Road here in Fayetteville.

And I plan on using the traffic study significantly in a PowerPoint this evening, but I don't think it's gonna be 100% relevant.

But I will use pieces of an abridged of that to indicate that we need accurate, timely, and transparent data, which unfortunately we do not have.

So with that said, we've been presented with an appealing illustrations and narrative suggesting the site will create a cabin in the woods style where students can bike, interact, and seamlessly have a nature experience.

However, the data, engineering studies, and topographical realities indicate a much more different outcome.

Instead, we'll get a site characterized by massive hillside filling retaining walls surrounded by traffic congestion.

The suitability, which is what we're here to talk about of any major project, is determined by how well it supports key community goals, including safety, efficiency of traffic circulation, good civic design, and wise and efficient use of public funds.

On the majority of these critical points, the site proves to be unsuitable.

Since several factors have been already discussed, I'll previously uh with us previously.

I'll focus specifically on safe engineering and a little bit on the traffic pattern.

Next slide, please.

Perfect.

Thank you.

So taking the width of the reduced practice field and the car and bus loop and the 15 degree slope, the resulting retaining wall is over 53 feet tall.

You can go back a slide, please.

For comparison, the height of the wall behind the Dairy Queen on Crossover Road is 18 feet.

Also has safety fencing.

This is not a general slope adjustment that can be addressed with simple engineering workarounds.

It's a significant undertaking.

The visual show how dramatic the difference between the existing hillside and the necessary modifications are.

On the left is a 15-degree hillside slope, the last plan shown, a cutout using uh artificial intelligence to show what that would look like, and then a projected image of the cutaway.

So moving on to the traffic.

I'll skip a lot of this simply because of the incorrect data that was provided for the study.

Suffice to say that we went from a C to an F to a D, ironic ratings for an intersection for a school.

The study confirms that even though we add traffic lights with that, we're still not going to get to a level that's not an unstable flow.

I do want to point out in this study, I'll skip the rest of that since it's invalid.

The study explicitly states in section eight, it's unlikely students will bike to school considering a need to share lanes with vehicular traffic.

The data confirms the very premise of the Cabin in the Woods vision is undermined by the traffic it creates and the hillside it consumes.

It will be neither safe nor practical.

The inclusion, the facts demonstrate the site's fundamentally unsuitable for the proposed use, and I urge a council mayor to design the rezoning application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Will Pendleton.

I am the parent of a route first grader, three future school district members.

I'm a local architect, and I strongly encourage you to vote yes in support of rezoning this property.

There have been a lot of voices here arguing exactly the categories of qualities that are specifically related to rezoning, be those the health, safety, welfare, increased equity, highest and best use, and perhaps the most convincing the comparison to the development as an RSF4.

However, seeing that much of the opposition to the project is resting on the eventual idea of architecture, I wonder if it wouldn't be at least slightly helpful to discuss the merits of educational architecture in general and the design of this in particular.

Buildings, public schools, most importantly, public buildings play an outsized role in the shaping and reflection of values on and of a community.

For much of the last century, those buildings have been in the focus of educating and equipping our nation's youth, both in physical education, science education, leading to much of the progress and success of the past 20th century.

In each case, these evolving tasks for public education have carried a physical creation along with them, and so ingrade those institutions in our conscience to be considered canon, the science fair, high school football, uh, you know, innocuous occurrences that create ripples through our nation and our world.

So, what then is the moonshot of our time and challenge that we face today that we collectively look to the children of tomorrow to do battle with?

As I think both camps here tonight would attest, it's undeniably a restructuring of our relationship to nature and climate, uh, fostering a love and appreciation.

So I would argue, as with the designers of this building and the Fayetteville Public School District by association that love begins with interest and interest with daily exposure and routine.

Uh, because if it were as simple an equation as having nature equals a love of nature and therefore a prior prioritization of it, then all of Arkansas would be in agreement that our climate is precious and should be protected on a personal and policy level.

Um I believe it takes physical placement of our children within that space on a daily basis, uh, studying under those trees, being isolated in those woods, and experiencing a piece of that land as intimately as possible to breed that kind of interest.

How exciting then that as a district, Fayetteville has adopted uh buildings, programs, renovations, strategies that put ecological and sustainable practices integral in the architecture of the buildings themselves, including the design team.

Um, if as history proves our public educational spaces have such a ripple in future generations as to both reflect and create impact, Fayetteville seems to be on the right track for the very things it espouses to value, especially when viewed as an investment in our town's future by way of fostering a love of our city in our children.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Gladys Tiffany, Fayetteville.

I'm have to tell you that I'm just really impressed by the quality and the thoroughness of the questions that the council is actually surfacing tonight.

And I want to really thank you for that because I think that's really critical in a case like this where there's so much uncertainty.

And the thing that I wish to say is that I think we have fine public schools in Fayetteville.

I think we have every reason to trust our city council to deal with our children well on educational issues.

This situation has really made me question whether they are capable of dealing with issues on environmental issues.

This is not their area of expertise, and I'm feeling like there really needs to be a serious serious managing of how this situation is developing based on other points of view besides the city council, the um uh school board's opinions on these things.

And so far, I have not heard much that really gives me confidence that they have all their ducks in a row on this, and I'm really hoping that every council member here continues to ask questions on the level that you have already demonstrated that you're interested in doing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Natalie Bailey.

Um, I live at 2061 East Row Terrace, and um my son Clay goes to root.

Um, I also am a root elementary alumni.

Um and I'll spare you my whole letter, but um I am um requesting your consideration of um how much our families need um the support of our council in this issue.

I'm currently the only adult in my household.

If you aren't in that life phase now, it can be hard to imagine how full it is and how complicated the logistics can be.

I live off Old Wire Road near the center of Fayetteville.

If this rezoning doesn't pass with a new feeder pattern, I'll be driving my child 25 to 30 minutes or more each way through traffic to the current remaining location rather than five minutes to a more centrally located campus.

That's up to an hour a day for school drop-off alone when I already have more to make happen in a day than feels humanly possible.

For families like mine, that would mean almost 40 hours per month, more in the car, and the same numbers fewer for playing outside after school, helping with homework, sitting down for dinner together, or visiting with neighbors.

We cannot ignore the importance of proximity to school for families.

Schools have always been the center of our communities.

This is a quality of life issue.

And I know that Fayetteville wants to provide a good quality of life for our families, but this is one way that we can do that.

And I feel that it is spending far too much time in the card to get to our public school for a town the size of Fayetteville, and more gas than any of us can afford, I might add.

So please please approve the rezoning.

Thank you so much for listening.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Alex Sloan.

I am part of Ward 3 in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Um, and I am coming up here to speak to the rezoning of the school.

And that is what I'm here for.

And that's what I'm gonna say.

I'm gonna keep it short because I know you guys have heard a lot this evening.

I have two kids that are gonna be going through the root feeder process.

Um, so far we've had a great successful couple of years.

I have a son with a physical disability, and um yeah, just continuing to see um where this school will be placed and how that'll serve our community.

Thank you so much for your time.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Leah Jacobs.

I'm in Ward 3, 2389 East Camelot.

I currently have a fourth grader at root and a first grader, and then we'll soon have a kindergartner in a couple years there as well.

I am here to ask you to consider rezoning to P1 from the RS4.

I'm asking that this is or this is the best use of the land.

Whether there is a school there or not.

I believe that your focus is the rezoning, not whether it goes to a school or a park.

And I think we can all agree that nobody really wants it to be residential.

We want it to be P1.

So I'm asking you to support that rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, council members.

My name is Jana Dredden.

I live in Ward 3, and I've lived in Fayetteville since 2011.

I am a small business owner, and I am a mother of two young children, one of whom is a first grader at Root Elementary, and one will be a kindergartner at Root of Elementary in 2027.

I am here to thank you for your time and your consideration in approving the current land to be used for the new Rami campus.

I do believe that it is the best use of the land, and I believe that it the current plan will maintain the environmental integrity of Fayetteville while providing a safe and equitable campus for generations of Fayetteville students to enjoy and benefit from for more years than any of us will really be here.

So thank you so much for your time and again thanks.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Robert Villa Tourette, 205 West South Street in Fayetteville.

I'm a Raimi graduate, and my son was a Raimi graduate, and he's doing very well, thank you.

I I understand I sympathize with and understand the parents' concerns for wanting a beautiful new school in a conveniently located place.

The problem that I have is I think this site is unsuitable, and I think that we're, I fear that we're going to run into significant cost overruns.

And this is related to my direct experience with drainage plans and so forth that have been approved by the city on development near South Street, and that is who's responsible if the drainage and the retention bonds and all that fail and impact all the surrounding businesses and homes.

Currently, the city does not take responsibility for the failure of those systems, and it is the individual property owner's responsibility to sue the adjacent property owner with the new drainage system.

And on a final note.

And also that there is an option for this land to be purchased, not donated, but purchased, which gives the current property owner their money.

And that is for it to be used as a park, which of course I know involves more expense on the city's part, and that has its own set of problems.

But my bottom line is I fear that the site is unsuitable and will prove to be much more expensive than you think.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there.

My name is Claire Koch.

My address is 2339 North 12 Oaks Drive.

I'm here tonight as a Fayetteville resident, a graduate of Fayetteville Public Schools, and a parent, a parent of two current FPS students, and currently serving as the PTO president for Root Elementary.

I know you've heard from many voices over the last several weeks, so I'll be brief and add mine in support of the re of the rezoning for the new Raimi Junior High Campus.

This project reflects the best of what Fayetteville values access, community, walkability, thoughtful planning, and a commitment to doing things well.

One of the most meaningful parts of this process for me as both a parent and PTO president has been seeing how Dr.

Mulford and our school board have approached our community with openness and respect.

They've taken citizen concerns seriously and created multiple opportunities for open dialogue with both FPS families and the neighbors of this property.

That level of transparency makes a real difference, and it gives me hope and confidence in the future of this project with the partnership of both the district and the city.

I appreciate your commitment to listening, weighing concerns thoughtfully, and serving the needs of our community.

This decision represents growth, opportunity, and a meaningful investment in our students and families.

I respectfully ask for you to vote yes to the rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there.

My name is Arden and I live in Fayetteville and at Edwards Road.

I was a teacher for years.

Can you pull the dam sorry ma'am?

Do you mind to pull the mic a little bit closer to the street?

Can you hear me now?

Pull it down.

Yes.

Is that good?

Okay.

My name is Arden.

I live in Fayetteville.

I was a teacher for years, and public education is something I care deeply about.

In the classroom, it was very easy to get lost in the noise, test scores, all the things I'm sure you've heard of.

And it was easy to forget what was truly important, which was the students.

The decisions we make today have an impact on future generations.

Those same students that should be at the heart of this conversation.

Let's show our children that we can be wise about the long-term effects of our decisions and resist the temptation of urgent short-term thinking.

I hope you'll consider rejecting this proposal and helping to protect this forest so that our children and those children's children will know that Fayetteville remain committed to sustainability in this beautiful natural state that we call home.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Helen Hamlin.

I live at 2474 East Victoria Lane in Fayetteville.

I have four children in Fayetteville Public Schools.

This rezoning will affect three of them.

My oldest will be going into eighth grade when the feeder pattern switches, and he will have to go from woodland to the current Rami.

And my biggest fear about that is I have absolutely no idea how I get children to root.

Then what will be the new Woodland Middle School and then him all the way to RAMI?

I am worried that it will cause people to go to other schools.

It will pull people from our amazing school district, send them to the private schools, charter schools, even do school choice to go to Woodland to the new woodland, which I will admit I myself have thought of.

And I do not want to see our Fayetteville public schools suffer.

We are so incredibly lucky to have this school district.

And coming from Little Rock, where it used to be a very uh strong school district.

I grew up in the public schools there, that it is now people are leaving it.

I have almost no friends who send their kids to public schools there.

And I do not want to see that happen in this city.

Um, I strongly support this, and I really, really hope that you um approve this rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Donna Mulholland and 885 North Fritz.

I've lived in Fayetteville for 50 years.

Um my son went to Ramey.

I appreciate all the attention you all are putting into this issue.

I love this community so much.

Last time I was here, you know I sang a song for the trees.

And I don't, some people might not know, but it I don't, I don't know technology.

It went viral.

There were millions and millions of views, and I have gotten hundreds and hundreds of emails.

I wish everybody that sent an email about wanting to save that forest were here today.

And if you want, I'll try to figure out how to print them all and send them to you because there are more people than you know that wish that we would keep that forest.

So thank you all so much.

Thank you, Donna.

Keep little 2406 Camelot Place Fayetteville Ward 3.

I'll be brief of respect for your time.

Um, as previous citizens said, I think it's great that everyone's passionate about this.

If you are asking the hard questions, while it may seem divisive, the one thing that everyone seems to agree on is no one wants to see four houses per acre.

And that's simply the issue on the table tonight.

What is the highest and best use of the zoning of this property?

Is it RSF4, which it currently is, or is P1 a better outcome?

Many of the other issues that we've talked about, they're going to be hashed out at later things, assuming this is rezoned that goes forward.

But the issue on the hand on the table tonight, and again in two weeks is going to be does the current zoning reflect the highest and best use of this property, or does P1 represent a better use of that?

And I don't think you're going to have anyone come up after me and say they want to see this stay, RSF4 and build four houses per acre.

So I think that in of itself speaks to this.

Thank you for your time.

I appreciate a good book tonight.

Hi, Ashley Milburn, 848 East Rockwood Trail, Ward 3.

I'm a root parent, I'm a McNair parent.

I've spoken to the council before, so I do want to be brief, but there's also a story I want to share that I haven't heard shared in this room yet.

So the district has been working on these plans for two years now.

We've heard that, but this conversation goes back much further.

Four years ago, in an effort to reduce overcrowding at McNair, there were proposals on the table that would have sent more kids from the east side of town to school on the west side of town at the Colbert Middle School facility that's almost in Farmington.

That facility is literally one mile away from a Farmington School District elementary school.

And the neighborhoods that were in that conversation four years ago are the same ones in this conversation tonight.

Mount Sequoia, where I live, historic district, Wilson Park, Happy Hollow, which notably has attendant zone boundaries that extend as far east as Elkins.

So those proposals would have sent kids that live almost in Elkins to school almost in Farmington.

And environment is multidimensional.

We can't look at that solution and say that that was a good solution for the environment.

And because of that, many of us in this room have been advocating for a better solution for four years now.

Many people in this room have been working on a better solution for four years now, and we have it.

We have a solution that is good for Fayetteville, good for kids and families, and it's good for the environment because it takes miles and miles and miles traveled off of our roads for decades.

So please, let's focus on the re on the future.

Let's approve this rezoning.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Arita Hill Mosley.

I'm in Ward 3 at 2953 East Pebblestone.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council for your time tonight.

I'm a proud FHS alumna.

I have a second grader at Happy Hollow, a sixth grader at McNair, an eighth grader at Woodland.

I proudly serve as the Happy Hollow PTO president, the vice president at McNair, and the Vice President Woodland.

I want to tell you a little bit about these happy hollow kiddos that could be impacted by this.

I want to remind you this is a rezoning decision of institutional versus residential.

So it is very, it's very paramount that you keep that in mind.

Our Happy Hollow population is over 40% poverty.

Our kids, four years ago, were being sent all the way to JLC for junior high.

This plan and this feeder pattern give those kids an opportunity to be with more students and to be in a school that is proximity in proximity to where they live.

A lot of our students ride the bus.

They rely on that transportation.

That will also reduce your traffic.

We live in the south side.

We will not be coming down ash, just to kind of put that traffic point out there as well.

Those students need to be included in our city.

And by being included, being in a centralized junior high location makes them know how much they matter.

If they are sent to the edge of town, our students will be f will feel like they do not matter.

I am here every week, and I've been in all those conversations for four years because our students deserve to have the same opportunities that those students and the other two-thirds of our city are gonna have with brand new beautiful buildings with access.

Our kids deserve that.

It is equitable.

We can with the help of the city and fable public schools, we have the opportunity to close the socioeconomic gap to provide equitable environments for all of our junior high students.

We can remove the Rami versus Woodland that has gone on for so long by having this third middle school option or junior high option.

Okay.

Again, I'm very worried that if this does not pass and become zoned for a school, people with the means will transfer to that new woodland and will not stay with this feeder group.

And that will just continue to make the gap of the haves and have nots larger, which is not a goal of this city.

And I am proud to be here.

Thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Sarah Rack.

I'm in Board 2 resident at 408 East Lafayette.

I am also the Washington Elementary PTO treasurer, chair of the Washington Tour of Homes, and a regular volunteer at JLC.

I spend a lot of time inside Fayetteville schools and with Fayetteville families.

I'm here tonight because I care deeply about the future of our district and the strength of the city we're building together.

Since this discussion has just started, I've heard the conversation drift into so many side topics.

And I want to refocus the decision before you.

Placing RAMI here supports equity, access, engagement, and the kind of involvement that strengthens the fabric of our city.

It also aligns with the broader Fayetteville vision that emphasizes a connected, thriving places for all families.

I urge you to vote yes on P1 and help create a junior high that will serve Fayetteville well for generations to come.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Dr.

Savannah Connor.

I typically do not introduce myself as doctor because I don't feel like the credentials are necessary for you to take me seriously.

But I share that tonight because I'm a counselor of a PhD in counselor education, and one of the things I do for a living is help people learn to have to live with two conflicting ideas.

I think so much of our town loves trees and loves the view, and so much of our town loves kids, and we get to hold both of those, and y'all get to hold both of those and know that you represent a community that feels both of those, and both of those things can be true.

And in this instance, RSF4 makes it already able to be developed.

We're not talking about whether the land can be developed or not.

That option is already there as its current zone, but I'm asking y'all to change it so it can be developed for our kids.

I'm the McNair PTO president, and I am here tonight to unanimous unanimously share the support of the board and ask that you change this to allow our kids to grow and be in the beautiful trees.

My name's Colleen Gaston.

My address is 3270 North Rom Orchard Road, Fayetteville 72703.

Since folks are mentioning where their kids went to school, I am the proud mother of three children who went their entire school years through the Fayetteville public schools.

My granddaughter currently lives in the Root School District.

I assume you can either your memories will recall some of this, but I would ask that this decision please not be rushed.

If the council had rushed previous rezoning request, we would not today have Mount Kessler Regional Park or Sequoia Woods.

I think that all of us would agree that those are wonderful amenities for the city, and that also they improve add to our economy greatly.

Second, it's a false choice to say that the council must either approve the rezoning and support our children or preserve our environment at the jeopardy of our children.

We can do both.

We can provide great school facilities and preserve the green space that makes Fayetteville what it is and makes it the community that we all want to live in and love.

I think it's also a false choice to say that it's either going to be developed as a school or as a residential subdivision.

Those same cost considerations will apply to the development of a school on this side.

My last point, and again, I'm not going to go into detail, is that the school or engineers can say that all sorts of things can be designed to capture and store stormwater.

And they're correct.

The question is what's the cost and what is required by the city's current ordinances.

And I would just say that the cost to do what has been suggested will be excessive.

At that point, taxpayers are going to wonder about the cost of this entire project.

It also will come down to the fact that though those type of expenditures are not required by Fayetteville's current ordinances.

So I ask that you again take the time to consider these and the other factors that have been raised tonight.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Chelsea Churchill.

I live at 1351 East Columbus Boulevard here in Fayetteville.

I moved to Fayetteville nearly 18 years ago and proudly decided with my husband to stay and raise our family here in large part because of the schools I knew they would one day attend.

I'm a mother of three, all who will be part of the Raimi feeder pattern, all who'll one day be driven to and from by me to three different schools.

I serve as a vice president on the Route Elementary School PTO and love our community so very much.

I can go on and on about why I love Fayetteville and about the many reasons you should all support this rezoning, but I won't because you have already heard it many times over.

I strongly support the rezoning of this land for Amy for the future of my children and for the future of all Fayetteville Bulldogs.

Please vote yes in support of this rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Lana Harris, 4277 West Kinley Place in Fayetteville.

And I always want to start with I think that it's safe to say that every person in this room is for the kids of Fayetteville.

No one, even those of us who are opposed to this site are opposed to our kids.

We are not opposed to a new school.

We are simply opposed to this site and the issues that it presents.

And you've heard a lot of those today.

One that I haven't heard talked about that I'd like to bring to your attention is the floodway that the main entrance on College Avenue crosses.

And it's not a floodplain, it is a floodway.

And as you were told, I think Jonathan at the last meeting explained a little about the difference between a floodplain and a floodway.

A floodway is federally regulated.

It requires FEMA permission to have any type of work done on the land, let alone a road built over a floodway.

And so I would ask that if the documents exist for the FEMA certifications, that you would review those, you would make sure that this meets FEMA certifications before it goes any further to have that entrance on college, because if it doesn't, then where's the entrance?

Sorry, the school district, because that's not your job to spend their money.

Your job is to spend the city's money.

And that's the question that I hope that you will all take to heart is how much will this cost our city to fit a square peg into a round hole and a three to four-story school building on a slope of over 20%?

There will be sidewalks that will be needed.

There are no sidewalks on the north side of Ash, the side where the school will be.

So kids walking along Ash will not have a sidewalk unless someone ponies up the money for it.

And who will that be?

Will that be the school district or will that be the city?

If we have to expand ash, who is going to pay for that expansion?

Will that be the school district or will that be the city?

If we have to extend any of our infrastructure, our sewer or stormwater infrastructure, the city was asked to help pay for the John L.

Colbert Middle School when it was built.

Will the city be asked again to pick up the tab for the costs associated if you choose to rezone this?

And because of all of the issues that have been presented tonight, the safety of our kids and the few the fiscal future of Fayetteville, I ask you to deny this rezoning and at the least table it so that you can research and make sure you have all of the information you need to make a responsible decision.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Tim Hudson, live at 202 West Island Street in Fayeville.

I love kids.

I love trees.

I love Still on the Hill.

I love a lot of the folks who've been talking here tonight, even if they disagree with my opinion as a school board member.

And I'm just here to say thank you on behalf of the school board.

That's 21 potential minutes that I'm going to cut off of this by speaking on behalf of the rest of my colleagues on the board.

We thank you for your time and hope you'll vote to uh approve this rezoning request at the next meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, council members and mayor, Andrea Fournay, 503 West Prospect.

I wasn't going to speak, but then all these questions came up about the uh the um covenants, and I want to answer Sarah.

I want to just read this to you because I can send you a copy, but the owners of Summit Access Track may construct this is because uh they created this with Dr.

Milford, a two-lane roadway and adjoining sidewalks across the summit access track, which connects to Marksmill Lane for the safe purpose of enabling the following to access the um property for emergency vehicles and other vehicles used for the purpose of school safety and maintenance operations.

Such access access shall not be used for students, faculty, parents, or any other members of the public except in emergency circumstances where there is an imminent threat.

Each owner, directly or indirectly benefiting from such access, shall jointly and severe severally, sorry, keep such roadway gated at all times and only access to the permitted vehicles described above.

Install and maintain fencing, which prevents pedestrian traffic from accessing Marks Mill Lane.

The installation of such gates and fencing shall not require any consent described in section three.

So when they talk about walkability, none if you if you live in Marks Mill neighborhood, you will have to take your kids down township, south on college and back up to the school according to their current covenants.

So it says it right there.

I just want to read it to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a picture put up.

Mayor, City Council members, thank you for your time.

My name is Shelby Rogers, 2228 North College, 2190 North College Avenue.

And I'm coming before you tonight with solutions.

And I'm also asking for considerations on three things.

Um, the picture, the picture that's being posted, and you also have in front of you in paper is nine and a half acres on 265 that connects with Hoppy Hollow Schools and 33 acres already owned by the Fettville Public Schools.

The second page that you have written that the council members have that is not up on the screen, is a letter from the owner expressing their willingness to sell.

I also have a survey that has been provided by that property that you were sent, an email was sent to you by.

And I've also discussed this location with Dr.

Milford.

He expressed interest in this site and went and visited the site and has since sent me an email stating quote, this site might be a good alternative if the city does not rezone the property in question.

End of quote.

The next school board meeting for them will be on December the 18th.

We've brought them almost 10 property, all over 10 properties to Dr.

Milford for consideration, and all of them have had many criteria that are needed, as many as the Hillside has provided.

Dr.

Milford also in my meeting with him had asked if they could have some assistance with University of Arkansas properties, which we have agreed to do so, but we need extra time.

The second thing I would request is that the rezoning of this property to P1 at this time triggers another seven acres being purchased for 1.2 million dollars.

And we don't know that we even are gonna have a good use of taxpayer dollars to build on this property, and we're putting more money into it.

Thirdly, I represent a group that is willing to purchase this hillside site.

I have a letter of financial ability that is available to you, and it was posted, it's just not coming up on the screen.

It says that we do have the financial ability to write a check today for that property.

The only reason there's not a formal offer on the table is Dr.

Milford has told us that the property is not for sale until the zoning does not go through.

P1 zoning would be fine, and it is for institutional for a park.

We would want the CCR, which was just instituted by your board in earlier this year, and we would want that zoning for this park.

We also have money to set up an endowment to take care of the park so it does not fall on the city's responsibility.

I have all of those details and more uh information if you would like it.

Thank you for your time.

Please table this issue.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Dr.

Quinn Montana, and I mentioned that because my uh PhD was in hydrology, specifically runoff.

And so I just wanted to talk about briefly the idea that yes, there may be excuse me, um, things placed into the the um land that's there to absorb some of the runoff, some of the water, but there's going to be obviously a lot more impervious service with the buildings and the parking that's going to be there and the uh fields.

And so a lot of what we talk about is an average when you're talking about runoff, but it doesn't talk about the amount of rain of if there's a lot at one time, and with something with that degree of slope, I can foresee long-term much more uh need for maintenance in those built-in facilities to absorb the water from the silt and the runoff that would be happening and litter with kids.

You're always talking about litter, so there's some of that.

And so the long-term cost of much higher maintenance for that area as opposed to a more flat um place where a school could be built.

So I just wanted to bring that up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um against the um school.

Understood.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Hi, someone told me once to acknowledge they're nervous and it helps a little, so I'm gonna do that right now.

Um, my name is Lydia Corbel.

Um, I grew up in Fayetteville, graduated from Fayetteville High School.

I'm a current resident living in Ward 3 at 1735 North Charlie Avenue.

I'm a mom to three boys in the Fayetteville Public School system at Root and McNair, of which this directly will affect.

I'm also a working mom who works in the nonprofit sector with a focus on community vitality, and currently serve on the advisory committee for Northwest Arkansas's learning ecosystem.

I had a few things to share, but I did want to address one point that a neighbor mentioned a couple of people back, that that space on 265 near Happy Hollow would be present a challenge because that feeder pattern would still have to feed at the current Woodland Junior High site as their middle school.

That would be a five-mile, a five-mile commute for those families.

So, although I love that there are neighbors looking for solutions for us, I don't think that one would be possible under our current issues.

I did want to also note, excuse me, um, I have been one of those community members involved in this process for four years, and breathed a sigh of relief when I was grateful that the count um the school board heard our concerns and um came up with this wonderful feeder pattern.

Um that might be why you haven't seen me yet, but um when friends had shared with me that this was becoming a challenge.

I want you to know what my reaction was when I heard about the new space as a mom of three boys.

Before we knew this was um potentially not going to happen.

It was, oh my gosh, how Fayetteville is this, a perfect location for my children to go to school in a tree house.

So to reiterate, I'm a faithful lover.

I'm passionate about Fayetteville.

And my initial reaction after two years of work on this project was oh my gosh, how perfect is this?

My three boys get to go to school in a tree house in the greatest city in the country.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we have anyone who would like to speak virtually?

Yes, Mayor, we have several.

We have a Beth Shock.

Okay.

Go ahead, Miss Shaq.

Um, yes.

My name is Beth Bowen Schrock.

I'm a word for resident, and um my husband and I own property in Word3 that houses my business.

Um I have spoken to you guys before.

I have emailed all of you multiple times.

And so I am respectfully asking again that you rezone this property from RSF fork to P1.

Um again, I think we can all agree that we do not want to have this developed.

And as I've listened to so many people speak this evening, I know that we are all so passionate.

Um, but I work in healthcare, and every day I have to have discussions with people, um, presenting them their options of what they can do for their health.

And it's incredibly frequent that people want the ambiguous third option, and I have to be the one to tell them that third option is not on the table.

And so I really have a lot of compassion for the position that you are in as our city council.

I think there are a lot of people who would really really love to see this property remain untouched and have nothing happen to it.

But to go back to what Mr.

Wolford said when we started this discussion.

Um probably over an hour ago, I've lost track of time that the argument is not develop or not develop.

Um, what we're talking about at this point is school or houses, and so I understand the the love of Faithville and the love of our town's history and the want to keep the property untouched.

However, that's not a choice.

Um, and so I would respectfully ask you to rezone.

Um I do think in this situation that the P1 institutional zoning is what we would all prefer over the RSF4 residential zoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a Drew Connor.

Go ahead, Drew.

Okay, here we go.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, great.

Uh, good evening.

Um, I'll try to keep this brief.

Uh, my name is Drew Connor.

I live at 497 East Ozark View Drive in the Thummit Place neighborhood that borders the property in question.

I am a product of the Fayeville School District, a former Raimi student and FHS class of 2004.

I have two young children, including a six-year-old at Root Elementary and a four-year-old who will be a future root rocket.

Uh, both will be future students of Raimi Junior High.

I want to emphasize that this is a rezoning request.

Uh, what I've heard today is that nobody, and I mean nobody wants this land to remain RSF4.

Nobody wants 70 homes built on that land.

So please, please listen to your constituents and vote to rezone this property.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have a Susan McDonald.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Go ahead, Susan McDonald.

Sorry, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Susan McDonald, I live on North Wheeler Avenue behind the forest.

And I wish this had happened before they bought the property.

I called last, I called in on a Zoom last year, and I said, what's gonna happen to that little forest?

And you someone said there are no plans, but now I'm hearing the plans have been going on for four years.

And what's refreshing about this is that everyone's talking and they're coming up with questions.

What we don't have are testing facts yet.

And if I were gonna buy a house or buy a property to build a house on, I would that was sloped and kind of like, do I build a house here or not?

I would want to do testing first.

So my tax dollars have gone into something I didn't know anything about until six months ago.

And I asked, you know, so yeah, how do we do this more often?

Like transparency.

How do you involve the community in big decisions like this?

And as far as a forest goes, an urban forest would serve the children forever.

It wouldn't just be a few years.

And as far as thinking about driving across five miles to a school, it's gonna take as much time because I live on this road.

The traffic already is so bad.

And if you have to wait for five traffic lights to get out onto college, I mean it's time consuming.

So I think my point, the biggest point is I feel very refreshed that we're all talking, but I wish we had done it before so many decisions that decisions had been made.

You know, and thank you for your time.

And I hope you do not vote to rezone it yet.

It needs to be tabled for a while.

And let's get more information on the tests.

This is this is a forest that cannot be replaced.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I believe we have two or three more on Zoom.

Yes, Clark Eccles.

Go ahead, Clark.

Uh hi, my name is Clark Eccles, and I I live at uh 95 East Madrid and Ward 3.

Uh I couldn't be there in person because I'm doing parenting duties tonight.

I'm sitting next to the bathtub as we speak.

Um I uh I spoke last time, so I'm not gonna repeat all my comments, but I I want to uh voice my support for the rezone and for the school.

Um I think uh as people have uh as I'll echo everyone else.

No one wants to see RSF4 here, and so whether you support the school or not, I I think we all need to come together to make sure that that does not happen here on the site.

Um and uh and so you know, I would encourage city council to go ahead and vote to approve the rezone.

Um I uh I I'm ex you know, I I live nearby, I'm excited for the the potential um for my daughter to be able to uh walk to school, uh write her bike to school, you know, for it to be in proximity to us, you know, like her middle school and her junior high.

Um very very excited about that potential.

Um I'm really excited that uh that even though there would be some loss of canopy that the district is um being really intentional about wanting to preserve as much canopy as possible and you know have that as part of the programming for the school, and as others have said, you know, uh foster like a web for nature for the the kids who attend.

Um and so uh I hope you will support and and while I have the ears of the the district, um it I I will I I will say that that I would prefer to see the district utilize the practice field at Woodland um and preserve that canopy.

Uh I understand there's logistical challenges and and I think those can't are worth uh working to overcome, and I think they can be overcome.

However, in the event that the school uh is that sorry, that the practice field is built up on the hill.

Um I would like to see the district use that existing practice field that would lend for uh district employee housing, workforce housing, uh housing for families with children.

Um, and so uh but overall support the rezone, support the school.

I hope you do too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have an Anna James.

Hello.

Uh Anna James, I live on 1834 North Wheeler Avenue, right behind the forest.

Um, I just wanted to say that you know, people keep bringing up that it's either we rezone it into a school or it's gonna become residential.

And we literally just had I'm sorry, I can't remember her name, but we literally just had a woman come up saying, you know, she has the check ready to go to buy it and turn it into a park.

Um I think you know, at this point, that's kind of being ignored as an option uh to conserve the forest.

Um I just think that this should be thought through a lot, a lot more, and at this point, it's like just let's stop prolonging this, and let's all admit that you know this seems like a great thing for our kids, but it's just not feasible, and it's gonna cost the city too much money, and we are gonna be regretting this as soon as that starts to uh to affect us.

So uh please at least table this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We do not have any more, Mayor on Zoom.

Great, thank you.

I'm gonna bring this back to that.

I'm so can I still speak?

Um yes, please, go ahead, but then let's this this will be the last comment.

I have one city comment back here, and I'll just keep drinking it.

Hi.

I'm Dot Neely, I'm Ward 3, 1244 North Mission, and uh EJ has a few pictures to put up.

Some of them I'm gonna rush through because I decided they probably weren't appropriate to use.

But anyway, uh so there's there's one before this, EJ.

Is there is that right?

There's one of the the hillside site.

My time's running.

Anyway, there's one of the hillside site, and um uh just shows the proximity of the woodland uh football field.

Uh it would be great if we could work out something like that that at least save more of the tree canopy up on the hill.

Um, you know, if this goes forward.

Uh uh, I thank you all for for your your attention.

Everybody here, um, while our community is divided in our certain uh opinions about things, this is a great coming together of the community to kind of work things out, and uh uh it would be a lovely if this collaborative this could be a collaborative experience.

I've said this every time I've gotten up to talk.

Anyway, so I've read through the um the drilling report uh that was done in 2014, and at the Marks Mill Lane, and it's all one uh geologic uh outcrop up there, but um in the Marks Mill Lane at depths of four to eleven feet, there were uh there were blowouts, what they what they call in the borings, and those blowouts uh indicate the presence of groundwater at certain times.

And the uh recommendation uh for Marksmill Lane, and I don't know that it was done, uh, was that um that there'd be a psiometric study so that you over time so that you can understand water moving through the site because we have wet and dry periods, and there needs to be an evaluation of water over time and how it moves through the site.

There's also the expansive clay soils, um, and those do uh affect even peers that are put down below the ground.

Uh concrete will weather in in these situations because of the cycling because of wet, dry, wet, dry, wet, dry.

And as you've heard, you know, if you don't like the weather in Northwest Arkansas, wait 15 minutes and it'll change.

So uh you've you've got that constant cycling going on, and then let's put the kid.

Oh, here's the the site, and then up there around in red.

That's just one example of you know, we could talk to the University of Arkansas, there may be some opportunity to negotiate.

That happens to be where the chili pepper run and stuff is, but that's 27.22 acres.

And and can I have a little bit more time because we were waiting on my picture?

Um, anyway, that this is one example where uh a site could be if we just have a little bit more time to talk to uh different parties.

Ms.

Turk, I believe you'd like to allow Miss Neely more time.

Maybe we have one more minute due to the technical two more minutes.

Okay, go ahead.

Sorry, Mary Molly, I know you're tired.

Uh next slide.

Okay, so this is the way I look at at the site right now.

It just seems like you know, the square peg in the round hole, it just seems like it's so claustrophobic up there to try to put all of this up there on that hill slope.

So that kitty cat's not very happy.

Okay, let's go down uh one more slide.

So here's here's if the trees are removed, uh you know, this is what it's beginning to look like with the trees going.

Next slide.

Oh, sorry, yeah, okay.

Well, I I kind of I kind of waited too late, but uh uh uh uh uh uh so I have some pictures of the buses again that that cross the center lane every time they make each of the Bindy parts, and um and then I have just uh one that I probably shouldn't put up anyway.

That's time dot thank you.

Yeah, my minutes up anyway.

I love y'all, thank you.

Please table thank you.

Okay, I'm bringing this matter back to the city council, and we have a request from the applicant to hold it till the next meeting and leave it on the second.

Is that what you all would look Mr.

Wheedaker?

Well, well, other people made a presentation, so uh I would like to be left out.

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Keith.

Do we have uh council member weedakers?

I anticipate that we'll leave this on the second reading when I would fully support that.

I have no problem with that at all.

So if you go to the first slide, that's the last.

And I appreciate your help, by the way.

The I start off with kind of a message to the the school board, whom we love and respect and appreciate the worst thing that could happen would be if we get started into the project and find out that in fact expenses uh preclude us from completing the project after we actually get started and into it.

And so on the hillside development, uh it's critical.

This is the the two junior highs.

We know the 103 million is just an estimate, um, but the the woodland price is locked in.

That's a 5% slope.

If you'd go the next slide, thank you.

So, same as last time, great proximity, problematic location.

It doesn't mean it's impossible, but let's look at some of the challenges.

If you go to the next slide.

So, this is just using the grading plan that I had access to.

And if you look at what cut and fill means for folks that don't know, cut is we're removing soil fill, we're filling in space.

So, with this slope, given that it's uh a moist slope, given that we know that there's shale, given that we know they have expansive clay, you have to over-excavate.

So everywhere you see the red, because I just tried to make it easy for you, you're gonna have to remove more than that amount of soil and then refill.

So the someone commented about the sports field probably being the largest cut and fill, and that's true.

If we go to the next slide.

So there's a cost premium to building on slopes, especially with uh shales, springs, and with the roads.

This I'm putting up just because it's being recorded as a meeting, and people can view that at their leisure between now and the next meeting.

If you go to the next slide, please.

Here's kind of the the conservative cost estimates that I came up with.

Some people would say building on a wet 20 degree shale slope would be a 50% increase.

I'm thinking that in the 25 to 35% increase is perfectly viable and not unnormal.

The caution to the school board is this you don't pay your consultant to tell you you can't do something.

So until you actually say, help me get a number for this, it's not their job to unsell you on employing them.

And so you have to your credit hired world-class architect.

You're using fabulous engineers, and I commend you for doing that.

Use them well, torture them, get them in a room, and ask your hard questions.

Next slide, please.

So you notice I don't say good or bad, right or wrong.

The truth is just the truth.

These are just some concerns to resolve.

So I know that we have a FEMA floodway, someone stole my thunder on that.

I thought I was doing good research.

Why do I even bother?

There's a FEMA floodway that we need to account for.

Why?

Because when you look at the hatched area, that water flows to an area of repetitive loss.

It simply means that it's all the more critical to maintain that stormwater in a responsible manner.

I'm too concerned about cost to the city for the city's upgrades to accept the stormwater.

And when you look at grading, you could theoretically be talking about a hundred thousand cubic yards of soil that would need to be removed and brought in.

And for those of you that don't know, a dump truck is 10 cubic yards.

That's 10,000 dump trucks.

And so it's not just at the site, it's where does that truck go to get rid of shale, which you cannot use as fill material.

Next slide, please.

And again, not make or break, but connectivity is just a concern to resolve.

It would be nice if we had alternative routes when things get icy, alternative routes, when there's an accident, alternative routes.

And so council member bunch is a genius to say how does someone have the right to gate a city public street that we own.

Next slide, please.

So the city attorney has given us the code section.

This is what we can and cannot consider.

Next slide, please.

This is just the issues within the allowable parameters that I think are worthy of my consideration.

It doesn't mean yes or no, it just means you expect me to consider these things, and then the last slide.

And these in his words and other words, what we cannot legally consider.

It's none of our business, what is appropriate to consider.

And I simply offer that to remind us all.

I'm no smarter than anyone else.

I just simply wanted to express it's a complicated decision you're asking us to make, and we're doing the best we can.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmember Wheedeker.

I did not come up with fancy good logical slides like you did.

But what I heard tonight was that we we are in need of the traffic study to be uh resolved.

Um that may or may not be available in two weeks.

Um what I read uh was that the geotechnical report will not be available likely until the end of January.

I think there were um Councilmember Wheedaker brought up as did one of our public citizens um about the issue with FEMA and the flood the floodway uh and uh I think that needs to be resolved.

And giving those outstanding issues that I think are very important in terms of the cost of the city in terms of traffic, I would like to propose that we table this until the January 27th meeting so that we will have adequate time, we'll have all the information, we'll have plenty of time to have read the new traffic report, digest all that information, ask uh ax ask an uh a geologist and an independent um uh structural engineer to be able to discuss the findings of that report.

Um so um that is my motion.

I'm making a motion to table two January 27th.

Uh Councilperson Stafford.

Um yes, uh I just wanted to, you know, uh mention a couple things.

One thing you're not making a second, I'm sorry, I called it you're not gonna be able to do that.

I'm not making a second.

No, I have my mic on the micro.

Okay.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay, thank you, Mayor.

Um, and uh I I think if this needs to be tabled, the proper time to do it is at the third reading.

But with that said, uh I I want to thank everybody for their presentations tonight.

And and I would ask, because we had a lot of presentations come from uh the audiences, please email us those.

Uh and and I'll ask the same my uh council member Mr.

Weedaker.

Uh please uh please get those in my inbox.

I'd appreciate that.

Um, and and then I could spend more time instead of just kind of try to absorb all that right now.

Um I tell you the the the uh one of the first decisions I made uh when I got my seat here was the uh 71 uh corridor rezone.

That was easy peasy compared to what we're looking at today.

And I want to remind everybody that just a month ago, we went through three readings and then had a reconsideration, so four whole meetings just for a single lot on Mount Comfort Road.

So anybody that thinks we're dragging our fee, we are not dragging our feet, we're doing our due diligence.

And I know that a lot of times developers are under pressure and we get these emails, and and I I appreciate Dr.

Mulford walking that back because we get these emails that say, hey, you know, we need this now.

And it's like I have to treat everybody the same.

I I can't give people special preference, and and in a project this scale, this big in the middle of our city, where we're we've got so many people uh invested in this, or this is gonna change the face of our city, uh, whether it gets developed as RSF4, whether it turns into a park, or whether it turns into a school.

Whatever happens there is changing the middle the heart of our city, and so we need to take the time, we need to take the consideration.

We are not dragging our feet, we're doing you know what is what is incumbent upon us, which is to do our due diligence and to make sure that the decisions we make are well-informed decisions and uh and good decisions, the best they we can make them.

Things like this are extremely difficult, and I appreciate those folks.

We we've gotten I think we're um I'm to my account, I'm getting close to 200 emails that I've received on this individual emails from individual different parties.

And I I'm really thankful to the folks that that no matter what side they're on, the first thing they say is we appreciate the difficulty of this decision, and and it is and it is that difficult.

Um if I look at this at on a land use basis, I you know I do not want to see this as ours of RSFF4.

Um, but there are things we need to take under consideration.

We need to take the time to do so, and I'm glad we're doing that.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Burton, I saw you next, and then Dr.

Jumps.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, it's obvious we're gonna we're gonna hold this on on the second reading uh as we should, but um something a gentleman said really just kind of the way he said it really uh hit home with me, and it was it was basically at the end of the day, we're talking about a zoning issue.

Uh yes, this is a large piece of property, and yes, it has significant impact, uh, and we need to look at it.

We need to look at this very carefully, but we are scrutinizing this project far more than any project that I can uh remember in the three years that I've been on here.

Um it you know, the cost of construction that although as a taxpayer I'd want the school district to to be very considerate of the taxpayers' money, and I as I think they have been, but it's not something that we can take in consideration uh you know when we're doing a rezoning request.

Uh we've never been able to do that that I'm aware of.

Um, you know, and we've got people, you know, wanting us to mandate them choose a different site.

We can't do that.

We we have before us a rezoning request.

Uh so I I think we're getting a lot lost in a little bit of the weeds that um uh uh it concerns me a little bit.

Um I can't mandate them sell their property.

I can't mandate them to zone it to something that not they're not requesting.

Uh if we the CCR zoning is the one zoning that I'm aware of that requires the owner of the properties request to do that, or it would be an illegal taking of their property, basically.

So we can't do that.

So at the end of the day, it's a zoning request.

So at the end of the day, the development plan that the stuff that the school has will be scrutinized.

So I look at it as the rezoning of set uh of 71.

We want that as a mixed use.

You tell me we're gonna deny this zoning, and you tell me a developer's not gonna look at that piece of property with the way we've rezoned it with 71 business, College Avenue, that's gonna become a very attractive piece of property for redevelopment.

So is it gonna be costly to redevelop?

Absolutely.

Is it gonna be costly to develop?

Absolutely.

But at the end of the day, this is a rezoning request, and I don't want to lose sight of that fact.

We're scrutinizing this far more than any project that we've ever done.

So we're getting a little loud in the room, so I'm gonna ask that we be respectful of when council's talking.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Scott.

And I understand this is a divisive issue, but my hope at the end of the day, if this gets passed, we can look back at this and say we've got a beautiful school set in a beautiful wooded area.

So I hope we can come to some sort of agreement that let's do what's best for everybody involved.

Everybody's not gonna be happy on everything, but again, go back to the fact that this is a rezoning request, and that's it.

Thank you.

Uh Dr.

Jims.

Uh thank you, um Councilmember Berna.

And I echo um many of your sentiments.

We've been receiving a lot of emails, more emails than I can probably count.

And I've been on this council for five years, and I don't remember um uh uh us tabling or discussing or examining or doing any of that with any topic like tonight, and going back to the emails.

One email that I received that we received today as a council stands out, and it referenced the students at Ramey, and that the students at Ramey deserve a centrally located school and a beautiful environment, and that uh challenging us to drive the Raimi catchman area, and that we'll find many students living in housing complexes, apartments, trailer parts, or even small homes surrounded by almost no trees whatsoever, and that we would love for those students to get to experience going to school in a pretty magical environment.

Is asking us to table it until next week.

We talk about being transparent.

I think we've I think they've been transparent enough.

I think sometimes, and I'm saying this, and others have said it as well.

We want more information, but sometimes it comes across as a delay tactic.

And we were at least myself.

Absolutely.

Is it for the best interest of fable?

Absolutely.

And I believe that hopefully by the 16th, we will vote yes.

I do think that if we wait any longer, I don't think that I don't think that's necessary because I think that the longer we wait, there's so many challenges with that.

I don't feel like when we are opposing something, we have a tendency to reach.

And so you're gonna reach and reach and reach and reach and reach.

Thank you.

Thank you.

One of the things that we we talk about frequently at council when we have rezoning requests, and this has come up many times, is that a lot of the good land in Fayetteville, the easy land to build on has already been sorry, as a lot of the good land to build on and the easy land to build on has already been built on, and we're down to the odd bits now that are unusual or steep or oddly shaped.

And when we talk about this property, bearing that in mind, I don't know if housing will be built here immediately, but sometimes there's gonna this land will be developed.

It's not it's not just the school or it's gonna be housing.

And what Scott brought up about the um rezoning of college avenue, that makes all the land that is just off of College Avenue much more desirable, even if it is steep or whatever.

There will be something going in there, I think.

That is not we're just looking at rezoning right now.

So housing or the school is not my issue.

Rezoning for the request that is in front of me is the cost of construction, the potential cost of construction of the school, that's not that's not in my wheelhouse right now.

That's large-scale development issue, and the and between the school and their their developer.

What is in my wheelhouse is considering traffic and safety for citizens and pedestrians, people driving, people walking, that sort of thing.

Stormwater runoff is a consideration, and also looking at this site, and you know, I don't can't really can you know fully consider this yet, but what might possibly be the cost to the city if this is built here?

So these are all the things that I consider and I have to focus on as a rezoning request.

It's not about whether I like the trees.

I I would prefer that that you know, I kind of like for things to stay the way they are.

I'm just like everybody else in Fayetteville.

I I've I've seen this hillside my whole life.

I know there used to be a mobile home park down at the bottom of it.

There used to be a putt-putt golf course there, you know, but but these trees have been there my whole life.

I I'm used to seeing them.

I'd like for them to stay, but that's not what I get to vote on.

I get to vote on the the issues of safety, stormwater, and and potential cost of the city.

Those are my concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Clark Maxon, I'm we had a motion on the floor, but not a second.

Um, so we will leave this.

So motion dies without a second.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um, and we will leave this on the second um second reading and move to the next item.

Miss Moore.

Is it possible?

There were with the public comments, there were a few things stated, and so in hopes that we could have those questions answered at the next meeting or prior to.

Can I kind of revisit on a couple of those points just to see if those are things that we're gonna hear about?

Sure.

Because some of these were some factual statements that were stated, and so want to understand.

Um there was talk of um, I'd like to understand.

I'm just uh a di uh digesting, and thank you, Councilmember Whitaker, for all that information you you bestowed on us tonight.

But I'd like to understand on the cut in the fill to understand you know what that impact is going to be there, because there is a you know cost to those trucks that are running on the roads, and we'd like to understand that impact better.

So if you're in agreement with um Councilmember Wheedaker, that'd be helpful to understand, or if you're seeing that differently, that would be helpful.

Um, there also was talk of um how big the retaining walls are going to be.

There's something mentioned are like 53 foot retaining walls, and I understand you had large scale development that was put forward, and that's going to be revised.

Um, but that does go into you know these additional considerations on you know stormwater and other potential mitigations that the city would um find and cost and in the future.

And um, I understand again during large-scale development, we'll look at access, but I really want to stress the importance of connectivity and our our grid networks being so incredibly important as we continue to add uh more and more people um to our community.

Um and so I really want to challenge us.

Um I don't think one um entrance is is adequate.

I would question whether or not we have any campuses in Fatewood Public Schools that enter and exit in the same place, and I can't think of any.

Maybe I'm wrong and I'm okay to be corrected on that.

Um I've been sitting and watching, it's not fun, but I've been sitting and watching the traffic coming in out in and out of our buildings.

Um, and so I really for me too, I need additional comfort level to understand additional access points and connectivity that we're gonna offer to the residents long term in that area to really honor uh the investments that we're making in the connectivity in that area.

Um, and then I really would um like to see if there's any additional um uh cost or information that we can understand on any potential road improvements that might be needed, um, in particular if we're looking at um ash as one of those um points, and I would strongly urge us that we need to be accessing mark mills, and I think our attorney has been very clear uh that you know the the city our you know our connection points are uh don't don't necessarily have to be um in alignment with contracts that are made with private parties, and so um I especially if we're building out a road, um and in my opinion, I'd like to be able to have that access to our community as well.

Um, and so at the very least, foot traffic would like to understand more solidly because I feel like I've kind of seen conflicting in one letter it said we only need this one access area, but it would be nice if we did these two other accesses on ash, um, and then I've heard other statements, and so I'm I'm feeling a little fuzzy on that.

So we're just trying to get some clarity around those points if that could be possible.

Thank you.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, yes, I think sorry.

Yes, uh Miss Bunch and then Ms.

Kirk.

Oh, it's alright, go ahead.

I just had one thing I wanted to add on to uh what Ms.

Moore just said.

Um talking, sorry, just talking, I'd like to add one more thing on to what Ms.

Moore just said.

I'm kind of a visual person, and when we talk about these cutting into the hillside and how tall potentially uh a retaining wall might be, if we had some other possibilities in round Fayetteville where you know, I'm thinking about the Walmart on MLK, that's got a big retaining wall.

I don't know how tall that is, you know.

But but I'm but that's what I'm thinking.

How many feet is that?

You know, so if you could provide us, Jonathan, with just a you know, since that's been brought up and that has to do with runoff and it has to do with uh stormwater and that sort of thing.

I think I think I'd like to be able to have some visual on that.

Thank you.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I have three additional questions also to follow on uh with councilmember Moore's request.

So if we could get an update on the status of the of the FEMA um permit, and if one is required, um how long that will take, uh, what are the parameters of that?

That would be really helpful.

The second thing is, and I know this is speculation, but we do need to consider what the cost is to the city.

If we could estimate what the school would be required to pay for, would they be required to pay for the sidewalks and how how wide would those be?

Would the city be required to pay for the stoplight that's recommended at Old Wire and Ash?

Um, so all of those kind of cost uh considerations.

We also had a citizen that asked about who's responsible to damage uh businesses that are downstream if the drain if the um if the detention ponds fail uh but the dependencient detention ponds meet our standards.

I mean, I get um emails all the time about stormwater issues and that our standards are not up to par to prevent that, even though a developer has dotted all the I's and crossed all the Ts with our drain to our drainage manual.

So who actually in that scenario who would be responsible for that?

How would that work out?

Um so if we could get some information on those items, I would appreciate it.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, we are going to take a break until 8 30.

Then we will resume.

Okay, yes.

Devin, could you please close the doors?

And we are back to order.

And believe it or not, we are on, we are just in the beginning new business.

Um, but first I think we have an agenda addition from Miss Sarah Bunch.

Yes.

Um, this is for uh a reconsideration of a rezoning issue that uh rezoned 25 2025 0046.

Oh, I'll wait till the clerk gets back here.

So this is a reconsideration of a rezoning issue, which is number 2025 0046 on Penelope Lane, which did not pass a couple of weeks ago.

The applicant uh approached me and asked me if I would bring it forward to the city council for reconsideration.

And oh thank you.

And I am doing that now.

And what I what my understanding is is that we we don't really have a discussion about it, it's just we we talk about the if we would bring it forward for reconsideration.

Great.

Okay, so we have a motion to reconsider and to be clear a yes vote simply means you're willing to reconsider.

It does not mean that you are voting for the rezoning, just for the reconsideration.

So we have a motion.

Uh second.

We have a motion and a second to reconsider the matter as described by uh Ms.

Bunch.

And oh, I don't know if are we allowed to have discussion?

I don't know if we can I just want to know the rules.

Does it have to be a simple majority?

Oh, that's a good question.

Yes, it's a simple majority, and you can have discussion if you want.

You can have discussion if you want.

Okay, forgive me, discussion only on whether the reconsider.

Okay, yes, sir.

And is it a simple majority taking in consideration?

We're missing one uh council member, or does it have to be a majority reflecting the whole council?

It's gonna take five votes out of eight.

We have eight members here, a majority is not four, that's 50 percent.

Oh it's so you could include the eight, even though they're not in the eighth person isn't here.

Yeah, whether there was eight or nine, it still takes five votes to pass it.

Got it.

Okay, okay.

Um we have a motion and a second to reconsider the matter.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call a roll?

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk, no.

Okay, Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Sorry.

Okay, and your rule say that um once that happens and you're back immediately before taking the vote.

Normally you do not move forward.

Instead, you would table it to the next meeting so the public would have a chance to know what's happening.

I would like to table this matter to the next meeting.

Is that a motion?

Okay, yes.

Motion and a second to table the matter to the next meeting, which for clarification is December 16th.

Uh, Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll?

Dr.

Jones?

Yes, Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

No.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Okay.

So the uh Penelope Lane rezoning in Ward 4 will be on the agenda at the December 16th meeting.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we are moving on to item C One.

First item of new business.

And that is Cato Springs Sewer Project.

This is some easement condemnations.

It's a resolution to authorize the city attorney to seek condemnation and possession of certain lands owned by individuals needed for the Cato Springs Sewer Extension and Lift Station Project.

Tim is not here.

You will be taking this one, I believe.

Yes, uh, Tim, of course, is the head of the uh utilities department that is doing this project, which is a um uh sewer project uh for the Cato Springs sewer extension and lift station project, and we've already acquired some of the property that was needed, some of the right-of-way that was needed, but there are two pieces of property that we need right of way or easements from, and they're listed in section one and section two of the resolution.

And before I uh my office files suit to condemn property, we need to get the city council approval to do that, so that's why we're here.

And if anybody has any questions, I'll be I'll try to answer them.

Yes, Ms.

Moore.

Thank excuse me.

Thank you, Kit.

Um, I just uh the one condemnation says it's like 24,000 square feet, and so I was just it um raised my curiosity and have time to go look up the parcel.

How much of that uh parcel are we asking to condemn of that property?

That might be a substantial one, but that just seems like a larger condemnation than we're normally seeing.

So I didn't know if you knew how big the entire parcel was.

I do not, and this is done by our engineers or consulting engineers to determine what we need in order to build this project, and so it's up to them.

And then after they determine how much the easement, how big the easement has to be, long and wide, then at that point in time we have it appraised, and then this the amount you see that have been asked for for the initial uh money going into court is the value of the to the whole property, the loss of value of the whole property that we need to pay them.

Okay, all right, thanks, Kit.

All right, thank you.

Um we have any public comment on this matter.

Okay, we do not.

Um, and it is a resolution, so we'll take a motion to pass it.

I move that we pass this resolution.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will we please call the roll?

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Is it more?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Okay, great.

That passes, and now that's item C2, downtown or uh downtown outdoor refreshment area amendment.

It's an ordinance to amend 11.07 of the outdoor refreshment area to adopt a new downtown outdoor refreshment area boundary map.

And I believe um Devin will be asking for an amendment on what is presented.

Kit.

So we can either do the amendment now or I can read it first.

And I would suggest we do the amendment as suggested by Devin, which would add a third whereas clause, uh talking about uh the moon house, a new restaurant recently opened in downtown Fayetteville at 129 West Lafayette Street.

So if you want to do the amendment now or if you want to wait and have me read the original ordinance first.

Yes, do we have a motion to amend what's before us for consideration?

So moved.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to amend uh the item as Kit just read.

Uh Clerk Paxson, we please call the roll on the vote for the amendment.

Could we I'm sorry, could we hear what the amendment is?

I'm so sorry.

That's what my understanding was that's what Kit read.

Yeah, it would add another restaurant located at uh 129 West Lafayette Street.

I what I'm looking at the map right now, and I thought it was already included in the existing map.

I had to change the map too, but um and so I guess your amendment needs to be not only to amend the language of the ordinance but also the exhibit.

Correct.

Councilmember Turk, I've got a great presentation, it's gonna show you exactly what we're at.

Okay, we have a motion in a second on the amendment to uh Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Moore, yes, Mr.

Wiedaker, yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Whereas pursuant to Arkansas Code annotated 1454 1412, the city has established both temporary and permanent entertainment districts permitting alcohol possession in outdoor public spaces.

And whereas the 1834 Tavern Lafayette, a new restaurant recently opened in downtown Fayetteville at 572 West Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard is just outside the boundary of the Fayville's downtown outdoor refreshment area.

And staff recommends amending the map to enable this new business to participate in the outdoor refreshment area program.

And whereas Moonhouse, a new restaurant recently opened in downtown Favil at 129 West Lafayette Street, is just outside the boundary of the Fayetteville downtown outdoor refreshment area.

And staff recommends amending the map to enable this new business to participate in the outdoor refreshment area program.

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

That's the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas here by amend subsection D of Section 111.07 outdoor refreshment area of the Fayville City Code, adopting a new downtown outdoor refreshment area boundary map as shown in exhibit one attached to this ordinance.

Great, thank you.

Devin.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, Council.

Devin Howland, Economic Development.

And thank you for your amendment to this request.

I have there's a very appreciative restaurant tour on the other side of it that is not going to have to hopefully wait two months to join this program.

Um the second is we um staff is recommending approval of this resolution.

This resolution adds two areas to our downtown outdoor refreshment area, and I'm gonna walk through what those are.

I call the Moonhouse one the St.

Charles edition because that's the road that we're going to be adding.

And so I'd like to orient you.

If you see the map here, this little circle, you can see a current map on the left of the district, and then the right is the proposed edition.

This is a 300 or a 270-foot edition that will connect Moonhouse into the district.

And here's an aerial look of that current restaurant now.

But I wanted to make sure that everyone was really clear what I'm not adding to this district.

I'm not adding any of this.

We're not adding the alleyways into the west.

We're not adding in Lafayette.

We're not adding in sidewalk past this restaurant either.

What we are adding is this a connection that will enable them to walk down towards Dixon Street, make that turn right there.

That's really simple for Moonhouse.

That gets them in.

We will work with that restaurant owner too.

We have the anytime we have a restaurant that is on one of these ends, we work really closely with them.

They help us make sure folks know to keep it in the boundaries.

The second edition is actually part of the original request, and that is for Tavern Lafayette.

You can see the circled area here that we're adding in, an extension of Prairie Street and South Govern and South Government Avenue.

Again, um, you can see the Tavern Lafayette's going to be located at the intersection of South Government Avenue and MLK.

I've got a yellow flag there on the bottom left-hand screen.

What am I not adding?

No, we're not going into state right-of-way.

Um, I'm not adding in Greg.

Greg does not have sidewalk and pedestrian safety features.

I don't put those on those.

What we are adding is the prairie street from government to the trail, and then from government just down there.

Well, on government, it will be one side of the sidewalk.

It will be the side not that Walmart is on, it will be the one that you're seeing the new businesses.

That's the amendments.

I'm happy to take any questions.

I appreciate your consideration on this item.

Thank you.

It's a great presentation.

Um, do we have clarifying questions for Devin before we go to public comment?

I just have a clarifying one.

So Devin, I'm looking on the map that was sent to us, and you know some of the outline, I guess that's where I was confused.

Maybe that was the cultural district.

So there's three lines on that map.

There is a dash line that's cultural.

There is a solid black line that is called the Aura District.

And what that aura district is giving those um property owners is your special event provisions that we've got in all our parks in the sidewalk cafe expansion.

Even though they had those provisions, they need your approval to amend the map so that the open consumption walk around district can actually be used.

Thank you so much.

I was confused.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Stafford.

Yeah, another clarified question.

Devin, uh, on the so on the left side of the map, uh, or the the left image up here that's that's being displayed.

Uh there's that north-south road, uh, this red right now, the the uh one block to the east of what you're proposing.

It's it's just kind of another connector down to uh MLK between prairie and MLK.

And you know, we have the uh food trucks over there, there's the uh event space bar there, and then the new place that's being added.

I'm wondering does it not make sense to include that road as well, or is there a reason that can be folded in later once we actually have on-street pedestrian safety features?

There's no sidewalks on that road right now, okay, which is also the same reason we haven't brought in South Greg all the way up to Dixon Street.

There's no sidewalks on Greg there, it's just not safe to do.

Okay.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

I know you took it under consideration.

I says thank you.

Okay.

I don't see any more questions from the council.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak about this?

Keith, did we have anyone call in?

Yes, we have one person.

Great.

Uh Carl Doji.

Mr.

Doji.

Uh 420 saying we're for.

Um I just would just ask what I'm sure there's reasons and stuff, but I'm sure this has taken time and hours, and I know there's rules and regulations to like how the being in the entertainment district with an open work.

And so therefore, I'm just wondering, does like what what's the necessary need to like?

Are we just going to keep expanding the boundaries and we add more bars?

Is there not like a way to just say there's these rules?

And that's what you need to follow, because I don't think you can just have a beer without like some sort of band or whatever.

Um I just just saw this on the agenda and was just wondering about like the time and effort it takes the redraw map.

And what's the point if we're allowing people to walk in this place with no uh with alcohol, but under some rules and not like just over this border?

Uh I don't know.

I just from time perspective, just figured I would throw it out there and see if you guys had any comments on it.

All right, thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Do you have anybody else on?

Okay.

I'm gonna bring it back to the council.

And um, this is on the first reading.

Um Miss Moore.

Or I'm so sorry, Dr.

Jones, I saw you first.

Oh, I was just going to make the motion that we go to the suspend the rules and move to the second third part of the sorry, yes.

I I'd be happy to there was a question though from a resident.

I don't know if if we want to go through the vote and maybe at least answer his question because I can understand why you'd be quizzical about it and try to understand better about the beverage control and the fact that you ain't have open open container laws and the sales ark and so I wasn't clear on the question, and so that's why I didn't know.

Yeah, I think I felt like that was kind of his confusion about you know, why do we need to keep doing this and take take keep taking this effort?

I think folks maybe don't absolutely know and would hate for somebody to make a misstep and you know end up with a criminal infraction.

Okay.

Do you want to do the vote to the third reading first and then discuss it and then okay?

All right.

So uh Clerk Paxton, will you please call the role on the motion to suspend the rules?

Dr.

Jones, yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes, Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Mr.

Stackford.

Yes.

And in order to amend section 11.07 D, outdoor refreshment area to adopt a new downtown outdoor refreshment area boundary map.

Great.

Thanks.

Devin, do you want to address?

Did you are you clear on what some of the questions were?

Yes, I believe I was um chief of staff helped me on that.

Um, and if I'd missed one, please let me know.

Okay.

Um, this kind of gets to what me and council member Stafford have been talking about.

When we look at this, and when we built this district, we kind of built it in three phases.

There was the initial phase that was done during COVID around the heart of downtown the square, Dixon, all of that.

Um, you saw Lower Ramble brought in once lower Ramble's construction was completed.

We waited, though, actually, council passed over a year in advance to bring that into the district.

But we waited until it was safe.

We waited until construction was done, lighting on the trail was up, recycling receptacles out, all that good stuff.

And so, as of right now, in regards to downtown, we are only doing amendments when I get a request from a restaurant.

I'm not actively looking at trying because I believe it's currently covering.

In regards to the can we cover the whole city?

No, Act 812, the enabling legislation from the state that created entertainment districts makes it very clear.

Certain things you have to satisfy to do this.

One of the first is it has to be zoned for or customarily used for commercial purposes.

It has to contain the number of cultural and restaurant and museums, etc.

And it also has to be contiguous, which is why you don't see me doing squiggly lines and routes, and then we bring in blocks at a time.

We do have other outdoor freshman areas throughout Fayetteville, Centennial Park.

Actually, all of our parts can actually be activated with that.

Um Evelyn Hills has been done to get across the sidewalk for um Mockingburg Kitchen.

And it we've actually had other requests in the future from you and council saying, can we look at this?

We can look at it from a case-by-case basis in the future, but it's not something we're actively trying to deploy.

The program works really, really well, and we just want to keep it rolling that way.

Miss Moore, do you think there were another question?

It felt like um there was some confusion too of like why we have to keep revisiting this as far as you know what uh can you kind of explain too that there's beverage control and that it is we can't be in conflict with that as well, like you talked about.

Absolutely, thank you.

So to understand Councilmember, what council member Moore just said, it's key to understand that the outdoor freshman area gives the city the ability to regulate the possession and consumption of alcohol, not the serving.

We still have to be really good friends with the alcohol and beverage control division.

In fact, the law says you've got to contact them 10 days after this ordinance passes.

So we've got a great working relationship with our local agents and our little rock office, but that coordination has to happen.

And so we are just following what that statute requires us to do.

Okay, thank you, Devin.

Thank you, Mark.

Thank you, Ms.

Mark.

Do we have any other um follow-ups or questions?

Or we are on the third reading.

Okay.

Uh Clerk Patchson, will you please call the roll?

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Is more?

Yes.

Mr.

Wedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Okay.

We are now at C3.

Uh, thank you, Devin, for your work on that.

And um moving on to C3, an ordinance to align the Unified Development Code with the urban forestry management plan by amending section 167.04, tree preservation and protection, and 167.05 tree protection measures and construction kits.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas on December 4th, 2024, City Council passed a resolution 29 298-24, adopting the urban forestry management plan to provide a 10-year strategic plan to preserve and expand the city's tree canopy and recommend updates to the city's tree preservation policies.

And whereas priority actions include developing incentives to preserve existing canopy rather than opting for mitigation and conservation and protection of significant green spaces through protective easements and other development provisions.

And whereas on October 7th, 2025, the planning commission recommended approval of all amendments by vote of seven to two.

Now, therefore it be ordained by the city council, the city of Favel, Arkansas, Section 1 at the City Council, the City of Fayville, Arkansas, heard by amend section 167.04 tree preservation and protection by repealing it in its entirety and enacting a replacement section 160 167.04 as shown at Exhibit A attached here to Section 2 that the City Council of City of Favel, Arkansas here by amends section 16705 tree protection measures and construction by repealing it in its entirety and enacting a replacement section 167.05 as shown in exhibit A attached here to.

Thanks.

And I think I believe we have our urban forester Willa is here.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, Council.

So this is a request to amend it's a uh the staff initiated request to amend Chapter 167, which is our city's tree preservation and protection ordinance to align it with the 2024 Urban Forestry Management Plan.

Um so as you all know, this plan was adopted in 2024.

Um it's a 10-year strategic plan to preserve and expand tree canopy in Fayetteville.

Um based on an analysis of multiple stakeholders and an analysis of the citywide urban forest preservation and protection of the canopy was identified as a uh priority of this plan.

Um so as of 2019, approximately 39.4% of um our city's uh total area was found to be in canopy cover.

Um, and a 30-year goal um of getting that canopy up to 44.4 percent is um what was ultimately decided upon in this plan.

Um, with that, another goal was to increase the canopy by 1.2 percent within the first 10 years.

Um, and in order to meet that goal, um the plan involved coming up with guiding principles and 15 sort of more specific sub goals.

Um goal C2 is to update or amend tree-related ordinances to support that citywide canopy cover goal.

Um, and so that is what these ordinance amendments aim to do and to align with.

Additionally, an independent contractor was hired to analyze our current chapter 167, our current tree protection ordinance, and they found that there is a need for more incentives for tree preservation rather than increasing that canopy purely through mitigation.

So seeking to stop you know the decrease of what we have, our mature forest.

So with that, we have several sections of 167 that we're recommending code changes to.

So I'll just try to go through these pretty quickly and leave room for questions.

But essentially, we've got three sections that we're recommending bigger changes to that would help to bring our UDC into alignment with the urban forestry management plan.

So those include 167.04H4, the analysis report, which would initiate a requirement for projects not meeting their minimum canopy requirement on site to submit a report prepared by an ISA certified arborist.

So essentially the primary challenge that we've seen with the current analysis report requirement is that those design decisions are sometimes finalized before canopy impact has been fully assessed, and the justifications that are submitted with those projects can be post-rationalized.

So staff feel that the requirement for an ISA certified arborist to prepare those reports would increase the level of informed decision making regarding tree preservation and also tree loss in terms of looking at the health of trees that are proposed to be preserved and making sure that those are the highest quality significant trees on any given site.

Moving on, we're also proposing changes to 167.04L3, continuing preservation and protection under approved tree preservation plans and tree preservation easements.

So we're recommending to add some clarifying subsection titles just to give a little bit more direction to this section overall, and then also to create a new section.

That would be the three under 167.04L.

And that section would describe the extent of activities that are permitted within tree preservation easements.

This new proposed language would also allow for maintenance within those tree preservation easements for the purpose of eradicating invasive species, while clarifying that you know any sort of activities that would be harmful to the mature native canopy would not be permitted.

Moving right along, 167.05B tree protection essentially details what is necessary in terms of tree protection fencing during construction.

What we are proposing there will clarify that where the specifications in terms of distance from trees to the tree protection fence cannot be met.

Those trees may be preserved, but they should be preemptively mitigated for.

To 167.04C canopy area.

Yeah, to submit a tree preservation plan A.

But then this also actually requires a 5% increase in the minimum preservation that they need to account for on site.

And then lastly, to 167.04 H1D, we would like to clarify the location within UDC of the definition of significant trees.

So in terms of public comment, we did have all of these changes vetted by the Urban Forestry Advisory Board.

We heard from multiple members of the development community as well as members of the public at Planning Commission hearings.

And we had multiple opportunities along the way to integrate changes that were suggested and to address questions.

And with that, city staff and the planning commission do recommend approval of this item.

And I'm happy to answer any questions you all might have.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate it.

Do we have questions?

I saw uh Ms.

Turk first, and then Miss or I'm sorry, did you that's I I try so hard.

Um Teresa, you go first, please.

I'll go ahead and start.

Um I want to commend uh city staff for these changes.

Uh I think they're really, really great and necessary.

Um, however, I did have a couple of questions.

Um I noticed in 16704 that um you you required, and I think there was no change to this requirement uh about the development community or the developer submitting information about um their plan, the tree preservation plan.

But my question is um, can you it I didn't see a requirement that it was sent digitally, so I don't know how that integrates with our Arc GIS system, and I would think that we would want something like that.

The information's already there, we'd want it compatible with all of our information systems to make it easy and efficient within our calculations of tree canopy or mitigation trees.

Um so currently uh we receive DWG files, which are compatible with AutoCAD, and so we do have digital versions of these tree preservation plans.

Um, you know, currently all of our canopy tracking goes into XL.

Um if this was to be something that would be codified, I think it would need to be vetted, you know, by the urban forestry advisory board, the development community.

Um I'm also not certain of whether it would require a code change to integrate that data within ARCIS, if that's what you're asking.

I think that would take interdepartmental collaboration between planning and GIS to work out you know how we would get that data in ARCPRO and then onto the map.

But um so right now it's not seamless, you can't import it into the existing um systems within the city.

Not that I know of, no.

I see, yes, Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

Everybody was eager to let me know that you had to relight on.

So we just haven't heard from you.

How to clarify the question for Councilmember Turk if possible, Mayor.

I I think at the end of the day it would be helpful to understand what what the goal is with having that information.

I think if I'm understanding correctly, it's possible to have it more spatially available uh on a property by property basis.

Is that the intent?

Well, you know, as we've talked here a lot, um, this kind of tree accounting process that we've been discussing in terms of canopy and what's been removed, what's been planted, you know, using that within a GIS system is is really transparent, it's really easy uh to document and archive.

And so I'm uh I'm suggesting that that's the way that that we should go.

And since they're collecting all this information, it would be great to be able to use it very efficiently and transparently uh when we're trying to figure out our our tree accounting and our cam canopy coverage for the future.

Thank you.

I appreciate the clarification.

I don't I'm not I don't think I dispute the value of having it be as clear and available as possible.

Uh I think I don't know that we have had the opportunity to vet what that would look like necessarily in terms of to to Miss Thomason's point, like how what format documents we would need from an uh an applicant, what kind of uh additional standards or professionals they may need to bring on board, similar to the the the amendment that's before you was discussing bringing arborists into the development review process, and we had a lot of discussion with the development community about what kind of burden or cost that was associated with it.

Um so I think this could be something that we could bring forward uh subsequently and also be able to look at how that integrates with our whole city picture of Canopy as far as the I'm gonna get the acronym wrong, so please one of you correct me, is that the NIAP nape data that we get that that shows the the leaf on data that we're able to look at, which also accounts for properties that don't submit development projects.

So it's a homeowners who are removing trees or planting trees.

Because I know we've really had these challenges of of accounting, and it just when I was looking through this, I was like, wow, there's a lot of data in here, there's a lot of information.

Why are we not using it as efficiently that I um speculated as possible?

So if if I would uh I think it'd be great if we could follow up on that and um and see if that that couldn't be discussed a little bit further.

Um I have some other questions.

Can I can I take a little bit more time?

Is it okay?

Um so over here, um again, I thought this was really uh a really great work that you all are doing.

Um, under on page eight, it's talking about residential on-site mitigation.

And there we've we've had several comments in the past about um uh adding not just the three years of the requirement for the developer to replant the trees and ensure that 90% of them are in okay condition.

Uh, was there a conversation or discussion about extending that to five years or something more than the three years that we have right now?

Not with this current round of code changes, and I that would actually require an amendment to 177 as well, because that chapter reiterates the terms of the maintenance um agreement.

So in both chapters for right, you know, currently it lists that maintenance agreement as needing to be for three years.

Um so I think that would be worthy of looking at.

I mean, I don't want to hold up what you all have done, but I've had heard citizens really asking that requesting that three years is too short.

So um, and then in that same section, this is just a a question about you uh you all.

Um this was talking about uh uh upon the completion of the three years of the landscaping and that the 90% were in good shape.

Um it says under item three, if the applicant is not take remedial steps to bring the property into compliance, the city shall use the necessary monies from the landscaping establishment guarantee to do so.

How often does that happen?

Never since I have been here, which is just a year, but um I don't know if Jonathan could speak to that.

Unfortunately, I do not have that information.

I'm not close enough to that whether we've actually had to pull any of those guarantees or bonds, but I do know historically as a city, we very rarely do.

It tends to be the point at which we threaten the call of bond or a guarantee that we get compliance very quickly because of the costs associated for the property owner, developer, whoever it is.

Okay, great.

So it sounds like it's working.

And um then the final one, um, item four, in the event trees are injured or destroyed, financial disasters, including but not limited to tornadoes, straight line winds, the applicant shall be relieved of this responsibility.

Has that happened very often?

I mean, fortunately, we've missed most of the tornadoes, but I I'm just wondering uh what the occurrence of of that has been.

I've never um heard anyone dispute that that was the case, you know, that they shouldn't be held to replacing a tree because of a natural disaster.

So I'm similar experience.

I've not heard that section be invoked before.

Uh I'm not sure if anyone in the council or Mr.

Williams, if you can speak to the I guess infamous ice storm.

I think it was 2009 or 11.

I think that may have been either 2009, the ice storm of 2009.

Thank you.

Yes, I don't think you quite I knew it was an odd number, I'm sorry I can remember the year off.

I'm sorry if you can remember the year off.

But I I think we realized after that ice storm or during the ice storm of 2009 when we you couldn't even drive on the streets.

Uh took me two days to get here from a mile away.

Um that when you have something like that, uh the property arc or developer can't be responsible for that.

And in fact, really we're trying to clean up property and doing all that stuff, and it'd just be an impossible thing to try to say, okay, now you're gonna replant all these there's no place to plant them for a while.

So that's why that was done.

Uh and so I think that we really probably need to keep that because sometimes something really terrible happens, and we just can't uh require everybody to rebuild a tree or replant decrees.

Okay, thank you.

Those were all my questions.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um and thank you, Councilmember Turk.

I mean, I I appreciate some of the one, I appreciate the work that's been done.

I mean, there's obviously all kinds of things that we can to add to the list, but I do agree with you that the bond length of time has come up in a lot of our conversations about whether or not we could revisit on that.

So I think that would be incredibly I hear that from other constituents as well, and so I'm appreciative of that getting lifted up.

Um I wondered on the um first um item that the changes happen into the analysis report that's being required.

Um, what percentage of projects are not meeting the minimum requirement that we're gonna potentially start to see that on?

That is a great question, and I don't have an answer to that right now.

Um I mean, does it happen often?

Very often.

That's why I mean I I have a gauge, my assumption is it's it's becoming a fairly regular practice.

It's I would would say it's rare to see a project meet that minimum uh rather than going to mitigation or um that's what we most commonly see planting mitigation trees, but um in pardon my ignorance because I don't know what that report accomplishes for us.

So can you help me to understand that particular report then?

What does that um provide to us?

The current analysis report requirement?

That would be required.

Like what does that then I just I just don't know.

Can you inform me on that?

I'm sorry.

Yes.

So and I have it, I have the language in here.

Um is that just back to being more proactive to kind of look at the site and uh before they've gone through further design or removal of trees to then say, okay, I can't meet the minimum canopy.

It's meant to um here's the language, you know, the report shall detail the design approaches used to minimize damage to or removal of existing canopy that were considered in arriving at the proposed design, written justification shall be presented as to why individual trees or canopy must be removed.

Um often what we see uh it's it's hard to know to what degree that justification was post-rationalized, you know.

Maybe the design was created um before the canopy was considered rather than the other way around.

Okay.

No, no, no.

Thanks for the clarification.

And then the only other question I had was um with a consultant um uh speaking to uh looking at um possible like incentives um to try to get folks to do more preservation.

Um is there information that could be made available to us of kind of like maybe additional reports, or maybe it's somewhere and I've missed it to try to understand other things that maybe they've had us consider, or were things pointed out that are happening in other places that might be being more successful because it does seem like there's an easy default to just um replace with you know let's get rid of you know this huge oak, and we'll just you know, whatever mitigating trees they tell me I have to do, I'll go put up the little you know, tiny trees.

And there isn't a thoughtfulness that happens.

So I hear you with doing the report, and it sounds like that will help to alleviate that.

Um, and so I'm just curious too, though, for those that too are gonna have that additional still kind of what incentives or carrots um did a consultant potentially share with us.

Were there other things?

I would be happy to reach out to the consultant that worked on the urban forestry management plan um and see if they have any insight into other incentives.

Um, but there's none that were presented to you that were.

There were none that were presenting.

Okay, that's what I just didn't know to me.

No.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Witeker.

Thank you, Mayor.

And uh Teresa, I appreciate your questions.

I pursued the bond question uh previously and found out that the market wasn't providing five-year bonds.

The market just is providing three-year bonds for landscape because as my wife tells me, it sometimes dies on its own.

And three years is the professionally recognized timeline that the market is willing to incur in bond four.

So that was the answer I got.

So with that, I would actually make a motion that we suspend the rules and go to the third reading.

And if we find out anything different on acts of God or bonds, that we can amend it later.

I love that idea, but we should go to public comment first.

Yes.

So if we could hold that motion for quickly after, but a little bit.

Do we have any?

Thank you, Ms.

Thompson.

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

Okay, do we have anybody that is called in?

No, we don't.

Okay.

Now we have a motion.

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

Second.

Okay.

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

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turr?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

In order to align the unified development code with the urban forestry management plan by amending section 167.04, tree preservation and protection, and section 16705, tree protection measures and construction.

Okay.

Clark Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turr?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Great.

Okay.

That passes.

Thank you.

Moving on to the next item, C4, an ordinance to approve vacation 25-27 for the property located at 2411 West Megan Drive in Ward 2 to vacate 0.02 acres of general utility easement.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

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

And whereas the city council has determined that the following described portion of a general utility easement is not required for corporate purposes.

Now therefore it be ordained by the city council, the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1.

That the City Council, the City of Favel, Arkansas hereby vacates the portion of right-of-way as suscribed in exhibit B attached to the planning department's memo.

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

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

Great.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This property may be familiar to council members.

It was before you've heard rezoning request about two weeks ago.

Is in uh towards northwest of Fayetteville, uh, at the southwest corner of Megan Drive and Porter Road.

Uh the property is currently developed with a single family home uh that faces or with a driveway that faces uh Meghan Drive to the north.

Uh the property was successfully rezoned at the last planning commission, or excuse me, city council hearing from RSF4 to RSF 8.

Uh the request before council tonight is to vacate a portion of uh the utility easements on the property.

Uh today there is a 25-foot utility easement that extends into the property from Porter Road, and the applicant is proposing to vacate the five feet furthest into the property, uh, totaling about 900 square feet.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of the request.

Uh all the franchise utilities have consented uh to the proposal.

Otherwise, there's two main items I wanted to touch on uh that may not have been immediately apparent with the request.

The first is that the existing house today encroaches into the easement.

Uh, I'm not able to identify any records of how that happens other than periodically during construction.

Homes are built and easements, and it can be a cloud on a title, and uh this would afford their uh the the property owners uh an opportunity to uh eliminate that.

Uh the second uh which came up uh I believe at the agenda session uh was a question about what the development plans are for the property, understanding that this is another grain of detail with it.

Uh the applicant who is, I believe, online tonight has a presentation to share that her intent is still to develop one single family home south of the existing one and facing Porter Road.

Uh so she may have uh something additional to share and uh has a presentation uh when I get to that.

Uh otherwise, as I noted, we are recommending in favor of approval, and there's only one condition on this uh the venture relocation of the existing facilities will be at the owner's expense.

Uh that means your relocation of the existing facilities will be at the owner's expense.

There are no utilities in the easement at all, and the portion of the easement being retained will protect uh the existing uh public and private infrastructure on the property.

Uh with that, I'm happy to take questions and mayor uh Christina Ju Weaver is uh online as the applicant for this one item, and she does have a presentation.

Okay, great.

Mr.

Weaver, would you like to go ahead and uh stand by on promoting her to a panelist?

And I I have her presentation, Mr.

Masito if that helps.

Hello.

Yes, go ahead.

Okay, hi.

Uh good evening.

Uh is my presentation up.

I'm sorry, I can't see.

Okay.

Good evening, uh, Honorable Mayor and City Council member.

My name is Christina Drew Weaver, and my husband and I are long-term owners committed to investing.

Ms.

Weaver, if I may interrupt you, is it possible to speak up?

Oh, okay.

Good evening.

Uh good evening, Mayor and City Council member.

Yes.

Um, my name is Christina Drew Weaver, and uh my husband and I are long-term owners committed to invest in this neighborhood uh for decades.

Um, I'm a proud alumni and welcome college of business.

And next slide, please.

Um, basically, this is a GIS map.

Um, as you can see, uh this lot, usually the utility easement on the um private lot is five feet.

In this case, it's 25 feet on the south side and 25 feet on the east side.

Um, I I'm requesting about five feet of vacation, so maintain 20 feet.

Next slide, please.

Next slide.

Okay, so why this request is needed, as Jonathan mentioned, when I purchased this property, I did a survey, it found out actually the house is encroaching.

The house has been there for 30 years and has been encroaching the 25 feet of utility easement on the east side.

And the easement is oversized, it's not used by any utility provider.

So I confirmed with ATT, Cox, Sweatco, Black Hills, Ozark Electric, and all of them have confirmed there are no facility in this 25 feet of easement.

I when I talk to the city uh water and sewer, they say there's no water and sewer line there.

However, they still would like to retain 20 feet, um, starting from mass planning right away in uh in my lot.

Next slide, please.

So what I'm requesting is approximately five feet, which is 25 feet minus the 20 feet the city would like to reserve.

The benefits are fixed the uh legacy issue has been there for 30 years, and also maintain our uh full 20 feet easement for the city uh in case in the future they need for future uh for development purpose.

Uh, this actually uh have no impact on any utility providers, and also a um you know the lot split is not um we have not had done a lot split, but if I would develop a single family, it will face Megan Drive.

So, as far as the setback is about um usually the RSF4 and RSFA from setback is 15, the 20 feet is you know exceeding by five feet, the side setback usually is five feet, it is five feet, and this is actually exceeding 20 feet.

So if this lot were divided, um I am improving the existing home, doing a lot of major upgrades, infrastructure upgrade.

So the um the lot that is left is only 1.4 acres, and that's including the 25 feet setback on the south and east side.

So I um would respectfully ask you to consider to approve the five feet uh of unneeded um utility easement on the east side.

Thank you.

Great, thank you so much.

Do we have questions um from the council about this vacation?

Okay, do we have any members of the public that would like to comment?

Keith, do you have someone?

Uh we do not.

Oh, you turned on turned on your light, just to make sure I was paying attention.

Um okay, uh, Mr.

Stafford.

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

Second, okay.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Weedaker, yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Budge, yes.

Mr.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

And ordered to approve VAC 25-27 for property located at 2411 West Megan Drive in Ward 2 to vacate 0.02 acres of a general utility easement.

Okay.

Clerk Paxson, we please call the roll for the final vote.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheataker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

Thank you to the applicant and Jonathan for your presentation on that.

Um item C5, an ordinance to approve vacation 25-23 for property located at 65 South Duncan Avenue in Ward 2 to vacate 0.11 acres of right-of-way kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

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

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

Now therefore it be ordained by the city council, the city of Federal Arkansas, Section 1.

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

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

And section three, this vacation is approval is subject to the following conditions.

Number one, any damage to or relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner developer's expense.

Number two, a 15-foot utility easement shall be dedicated centered on the existing gas line.

Number three, the existing ATT service shall be terminated before ATT can abandon a cable serving the associated units.

This includes units 13, 21, 22, and 22 at 65 South Duncan.

Number four, a the 12-inch water line shall be constructed along the proper the project's frontage for the approval of the associated large scale development, LSD 2025-07.

And number five, any easements required to serve the associated development shall be dedicated with the easement plat.

Thank you, Kid.

Jonathan?

Thank you, Mayor.

This request is in Central Fayville and includes a fairly narrow stripper right-of-which you can see on screen in the bold uh black outline.

Uh this extends uh roughly uh from center street to the north uh to south or to excuse me to Stone Street to the south.

Uh it averages about five feet in width uh and is associated with a purpose-built student housing project on the west side of Duncan Avenue uh that council may recall came through this body for a rezoning request in 2024 and has since been approved for large scale development by the planning commission this year.

Uh as I described, uh it is a very narrow strip of strip of uh public right away running along the west side of the street.

Uh as the project has gone through its development plans it's identified that this area is not necessary either or not necessary to make the public improvements associated with our master street plan.

Well, uh despite totaling about a tenth of an acre, it really is a very narrow piece of land that extends uh well over about three blocks in length.

Uh, in terms of what those public improvements look like, uh some uh degree of reassurance for the council.

Uh this will include urban sidewalks, uh, which will be extending from reoriented the picture on you if you don't see the narrow north arrow there for you.

So uh north is to the left, south is to the right.

Uh these improvements will include sidewalks uh all along the west side of Duncan, uh including street trees and uh a piazza area, uh which is intended to be a more walkable intersection uh towards the northern end of the project.

Uh we've not identified any issues with the request.

All the associated franchise utilities have consented to it.

Uh you I believe you heard Mr.

Williams outline some of the conditions that uh ATT and uh the gas company specifically requested uh to be applied to this to protect their services or to have them removed appropriately.

Otherwise, we have our standard condition of approval that the developer will uh move any of these facilities or repair them at their own expense.

Uh when the planning commission considered this item uh their November 11th meeting, uh they or excuse me, November 10th meeting, they're forwarded to city council by unanimous vote.

And again, staff is recommending in favor.

Uh I can take any questions, and Mayor uh Alex Brown and uh I believe Brom Driver are here as the applicant's representatives.

Mr.

Driver and Mr.

Brown, do you have a presentation?

Okay, you're welcome to make comments.

Uh Rom Driver with Ecological Design Group here for uh any questions you may have.

We don't have a presentation.

I'm just trying to clean up the right-of-way edge and uh match the master street plan.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Morgan.

I do just have one clarified question.

It might be for the applicant.

Oh, I think it would be for the applicant.

Um, is just in that picture that shows us the piazza and how that's being realigned.

So what what is the uh footage of the roadway today in that area versus when it's kind of changed?

Do you know how that's I'm just thinking about how people it's an area frequent, and so I'm just curious how people are maneuvering through it today and trying to kind of understand with how that plan coming together, what that's gonna look like.

As far as the width of the road goes, is that the question?

Yes.

Yes, that's all being maintained per the master street plan.

We're not narrowing the road in any way compared to the master street.

So it's so that overlay of that grid.

Is that going to be like like a paver or cobblestone that comes through there?

Okay.

Yeah, uh well, uh it'll be a scored concrete.

Alex maybe it'll be.

Sorry, I'm just trying to interpret the picture and I'm struggling there.

Sorry.

Yeah, I can speak to that.

So in the intersection there, it's scored concrete.

Uh yeah, so don't be too distracted by all the all the crass hatching there.

It's all concrete.

Okay.

So it's just roadway that's got um some flair to it.

I mean, it's got to it.

We're maintaining the the required width for the street going through that intersection.

Uh it'll be curbeless, but we'll have bollards and boulders for traffic protection.

Do you know anything about um like with this type of design element?

I know that that is an area that we get, like I know the speed cushions further down, and we hear a lot about the speed going through there.

Some of those elements help to kind of like slow down.

I mean, I would think just with the elements coming in, it might slow things down, but I just didn't know if you had any information too on like does that start to that was that's part of the idea.

Yeah, so the when I said the intersection is curveless, so we're actually coming in from every direction, you'll hit a speed table before you hit the intersection, so that'll slow some people down.

Um, also the idea is we we fought against kind of straightening out this intersection a long time ago because they're kind of having it be kinked just kind of slows people down.

Um there's a lot of theory to traffic design that adding um a little bit of inconvenience uh slows people down as opposed to you know getting a straight shot through.

Okay, thank you for walking through that.

I appreciate it.

Absolutely.

Great.

Thank you.

Um do we have any members of the public that would like to comment about this project?

Okay, bringing it back to the council, Mr.

Wheedaker.

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

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

And orange approved VAC 25-23 for property located at 65 South Duncan Avenue in Ward 2 to vacate about a ninth of an acre of right-of-way.

Okay.

Uh Clerk Paxton for the final vote, please.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Okay.

Item C6, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-52 for approximately 0.2 acres located south of 11 East Rock Street in Ward 1.

From RO residential office to DG, Downtown General.

Kip.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayevill, Arkansas, Section One.

At the City Council, the City of Fayville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map, exhibit A and the legal description of Gibbot B, both attached to planning department's agenda memo from R.

O.

Residential Office to DG Downtown General.

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

Thank you, Mayor.

Sorry to not have my presentation queued up, but this request is in Central Fayetteville.

It's just about a thousand feet southwest of where we're or southeast, excuse me, of where we're sitting right now.

It is includes a property located along the alley frontage between Rock Street to the north and South Street to the south and College Avenue to the West and Mill Avenue to the east.

There we are.

Apologies for the dead air.

And the request is to rezone it from D or from his existing RO residential office designation to DG Downtown General.

Staff is in favor of the request.

Uh there are a wide variety of uses uh not just adjacent to this property and in terms of residential uses uh but also non-residential uses as you move further north into the uh area more commonly considered to be downtown or even moving to the east where some legacy non-residential uses exist today.

Uh the downtown general zoning districts allowance for any type of residential development, whether single family up through multifamily uh or uh non-residential uses, uh including offices, retail restaurants, uh allows it to uh could be compatible with with all the surrounding uh land area.

Uh from an adopted uh plan standpoint, uh we find DG to be consistent with the residential neighborhood area, uh, while a standalone property being zoned to downtown general under that future land use designation uh may not be fully consistent with it.

Uh staff took a wider perspective of this and recognizes that there are several pieces of downtown general zone property immediately across the alley and immediately to the south of this property that could be developed uh very coherently uh and then and acknowledging that that uh future land use map designation.

Uh similarly, uh perhaps unsurprisingly, this close to the center of Fayville.

There are a number of infill attributes uh that uh contribute to the site being uh staff finding the site to be an appropriate location for uh additional development.

Um other considerations as well uh going from the RO zoning district, which requires 20% tree canopy to DG, uh would reduce it to 10%.

Uh I did over here at the agenda session there was a question about whether multifamily was isn't allowed use in the downtown general zoning district.

I do want to confirm that that is indeed the case.

Uh and finally, we did receive some public comments on this item.

Uh I regret that it was received, uh it sounds like immediately before the planning commission and and was not uh presented directly or wasn't able to be included in the staff report, uh, but that was included in the report for you all, and if I'm not mistaken, I think the the resident also sent it directly to the council, but in the event that they did not, uh and in an effort to characterize their concerns, uh they do have uh the the priority, the major piece of that was uh fears that it'll be uh it'll exacerbate or create a traffic problem here, uh, and also with uh concerns about uh the availability of parking in the wider area uh down here, especially with consideration for uh the urban lofts project that's proposed several blocks further to the west.

Again, staff is recommending in favor of the request.

Uh the planning commission forwarded it unanimously to council by an 8 to 0 vote, recommending that you all also uh look upon it favorably and support it.

Uh I can take any questions about the proposal.

And Mayor uh Ali Thurman Quinlan, it looks like she is online as the applicant for this item.

Okay, Alison.