So we're gonna go ahead and call to order the agenda session meeting for um Tuesday, January 27th.

And hopefully everybody has their agenda.

The first order of business at the city council meeting next week will be um Steven's monthly financial support or financial report.

And then I am gonna move in and read consent.

And just because I can't see everybody on my iPad screen, if you are a council member and you want to interrupt me or talk about a specific item on consent, please do just unmute and and start talking.

I don't want to accidentally miss you.

Also, just to go ahead and let you know when it gets to new business.

Jonathan is going to be proactively presenting on each item of new business.

So you will not have to worry about we're gonna have a presentation on each of those.

So okay.

Beginning with consent, we'll of course have the approval of last week's minutes first.

A2 is a maintenance renewal with the NeoGov HR software.

It's a resolution to approve the purchase of annual software maintenance from NeoGov in the amount of 65,419.19 cents.

This was budgeted.

And Missy, I believe is on the call and can answer questions about it.

Should you have them?

I didn't know if I missed it in the packet.

If the contract was included, I didn't see it.

That is a great question.

I believe I've seen it, but I don't know if it made it into your packet.

Missy, are you able to speak to that?

Yeah, and I may have Brad chime in, but basically, these are this is a contract renewal of combining all of our products into one contract, because I think the original ordinance was set in 2010, and we've had these products uh auto-renewing every year.

And because we brought learning software to you separately last month, we needed to combine all of the NeoGov products into one contract that would renew together instead of having to break them apart.

Am I saying that correct, Brad?

Yes.

Yes, that's correct.

And then I think her question, though, correct me, Sarah, if I'm wrong, is just can is there a way for council to see that one big I don't think she got the, I don't think the actual contract combining them all was put in the packet.

That's what you're saying, right, Sarah?

Correct.

So Brad, do we have new contracts or is this just to change the ordinance so that we can auto-renew every year?

Um it should be in the packet.

I think it's just maybe maybe I missed.

I apologize if I missed it.

No, I think the issue is so this is not an ordinance change that's coming forward.

A2, it's a resolution to approve a purchase.

So if it needs to be an ordinance change, then we need to correct that and pull it because that's not how it's listed in here.

It's listed as a resolution.

And so I think what we just want to make sure we distribute is the purchase agreement and or contract that we're saying we're voting on.

So mayor.

Yep.

Uh what we may need to do is include the original resolution approving the very first contract.

And that that original contract has the renewal terms.

And we're we're working from there, you know, several years after the fact, where we've just continued to renew that year after year.

Uh, but we can certainly include that resolution.

I I think in addition to including the resolution, what we're asking is to be able to see the contract itself.

So can we also send out that original contract?

That would be included in that resolution packet.

Great.

Okay, perfect.

Yes, if we could redistribute that to council so they know so that just so they have it, I think that'd be really helpful.

And and thank you for explaining too what the history has been on that too.

I appreciate that because I didn't realize how long that had gone back.

So that was helpful to know, Missy and Brad.

Okay.

Item A3 is a resolution to approve amendment number six to the professional engineering services agreement with Hawkins Weir Engineers Incorporated in the in an amount not to exceed $97,130 for additional services associated with the Goshen Water Storage Tank Improvement Project.

And I believe Tim is on the call and can speak to questions if we have them.

Okay.

I'm not seeing any.

A4 is a resolution to award bid number 25-54 and to off and authorize a contract with OPW commercial services of Arkansas LLC in the amount of 47,000 for the painting of approximately 1,000 fire hydrants in Fayetteville's water service area, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $9,400.

I know this was a joint effort between Tim and also fire department.

So if we have questions about it.

Really, the schedule is whenever they get looking so bad that they need repainted.

When's the last time we painted them?

Do you guys have record of that?

Well, this is the first time that we've done a blanket contract for a thousand.

Usually internally, we just paint them as we had the time to do.

Okay.

Okay.

And then are they going to be painted the same color they are?

Are they changing colors in any way?

They're going to be the same color.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Tim.

And that, unless I am missing a page in my printout, is all that we have on consent.

So that brings us to unfinished business, which is the there's one item and it's the Michael Cole Drive rezoning, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-50 for approximately 7.67 acres located at 5901 West Michael Cole Drive in Ward 4 from RA, residential agricultural to RI 12, residential intermediate, 12 units per acre, and CCR, conservation, cultural, and recreation, subject to a conservation easement.

And I believe Jonathan has an update for us that we're hearing about just today.

Jonathan.

That's correct, Mayor.

Thank you.

The applicant left the meeting last week on January 20th with two main items that they heard from the council.

One was a concern about the alignment of the rezoning request boundaries as it related to the floodplain.

And the second big piece they heard uh from you all was concerned about uh the potential to build a detention pond in the area being proposed as for conservation easement.

Uh to date, the applicant is still evaluating what the implications would be if they move those boundary lines or if they remove the ability to have detention in the area proposed in conservation easement.

Uh so I did receive in writing from them a short while ago that they've act they're asking to be tabled to your next meeting in February so that they can make sure they come back to you with an informed response on what that looks like.

So uh, but more succinctly, the applicants are requesting this be tabled to the February 17th meeting, please.

I'm happy to take questions.

Or if the council had other concerns that I I missed in that summary, please let me know and I can circle back with them.

I think Trace has got questions.

Yeah, thank you, Jonathan, so much for that update.

And those were the two outstanding items um I remember.

Um I had I had another thought.

Um so is it prohibited to put detention ponds in a uh floodway flood uh in that flood area that's overlapping with the um with uh with the uh what's the um our with the RI-12, or could they put potentially put a detention pond in there?

It's not prohibited, and I see our public works director's on, and he may be able to speak to more level of detail.

There are additional design considerations that have to be made so that the detention ponds or retention ponds don't impact the way water moves through the floodplain or the speed with which water comes out of that detention pond into the floodway.

Basically needing to evaluate that they're not aggravating any flooding conditions if they already exist, but it is possible to design detention that goes in floodplain.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan.

And that brings us um to new business, all of which I think uh Jonathan are coming from your your department.

The first one being a vacation, an ordinate um vacation 2025-28, southwest of West Cato Springs Road and South Emma Avenue.

It's an ordinance to approve vacation 25-28 for property located southwest of West Cato Springs Road and South Emma Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate 0.01 acres of ride away.

Thank you, Mayor.

This item probably looks eerily familiar to the council members and uh just acknowledging up front this is the result of an administrative error on staff's part.

Uh, this was a request to vacate a strip of right-away along two properties uh at the corner of uh Cato and Emma in South Fayetteville.

Uh, what came before you previously only included the legal description for the right-away in front of one of those properties where it was intended to be both.

So we're bringing them back through with both right-of-way, both right-of-way descriptions in there.

So uh as a reminder on this one, staff does recommend in favor of it.

The planning commission forwarded it to you all in favor of it.

And when they saw they saw both legal descriptions, so it was considering the entirety of that right-of-way.

Uh, and uh, we hope the council will look on it favorably as they did last time.

I'm happy to take questions and sorry to have an item back on your agenda due to an error.

Jonathan, I just I haven't watched that particular meeting.

It shows Brink dissented.

Do you have why he dissented?

Certainly.

That was uh I can't remember how much I touched on it when you last heard this item.

There was concern initially from our transportation department about how the sidewalk could align with existing sidewalks, several properties to the east, given where the master street plan locations are.

And after receiving that comment, our engineering and planning groups uh discussed internally if we could even require sidewalk to be located further south, because that's that's inconsistent with our master street plan today.

Ultimately, we realized no, we legally could not require, we want our our sidewalks to align with our master street plan, which is complemented by this request.

So I think Bricks Brink's uh vote was in response to uh some concerns about the what he what he perceived to be a uh disagreement between staff, but I feel like we've since evaluated that and are all in alignment.

Okay.

All right, thank you, Jonathan.

Thanks for the question.

Thanks, Jonathan.

Um, item C2 is vacation 2025-32 on South School Avenue.

It's an ordinance to approve vacation 25-32 for property located at South at 902 South School Avenue and 1020 South School Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate 0.36 acres of utility easement.

Jonathan.

Thank you.

Uh, this is in South Central Fayetteville.

It's at the northeast corner of school and 11th Street.

Uh, if you're familiar with C where City Lumber is, it's just north of that or uh farmer's table, it's just across the street uh on school from that.

Uh the property is currently under development review for some housing.

Uh, there's a multifamily residential project proposed at that location.

And as a part of that, the developer is doing due diligence in cleaning up some uh remnant property lines and easements on the site.

Uh so they're requesting the vacation of about a third of an acre of utility easements, and these are in two parts.

Uh the first is in the southwest corner, uh, which you'll see in the exhibit at the corner of the northeast corner of 11th and school.

And the second easement uh is a very thin narrow piece that runs north south, bisecting the property, uh, both of which uh conflict with the their ability to develop it.

Uh staff is recommending in favor.

Uh, we've received consent from all the impacted utilities.

And there's only two conditions of approval recommending.

Our standard one that uh any any of this work will be done at the developer's cost, uh, and the other, which is from our utility department, since they have some existing lines in the area, uh, that those lines will be relocated and done so within uh dedicated easements before they sign off on the project or sign off on the easement vacation.

And I can take any questions council has on that one.

Um, will the uh the Southwest vacation will that in any way impact the future plans for South School that we've seen recently?

Not that I'm aware of.

Uh most of those are intended to be streetscape improvements that are more based about right-of-way.

Uh, these are utility easements.

Um not that I'm aware of, but let me confirm that for you before the meeting.

Um it's been a minute since I looked at that exact interaction, and I'll make sure that's the case.

Thank you for the question.

Yeah, thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Um, I'm not seeing any other mics on.

So the third one is C3, RZN 2025-66 on North Double Springs Road.

It's an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-66 for approximately 1.18 acres located at 1171 and 1173, North Double Springs Road in Ward 4 from RA, residential agricultural, to RI-12, residential intermediate, 12 units per acre.

Jonathan.

Thank you.

This request takes us to West Fayetteville, uh, is one lot north of uh the intersection of Weddington and Double Springs Road on the west side of Double Springs.

The property includes about one and a fifth acre of land uh that is currently developed with a single family home.

Uh the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from RA residential agricultural to RI-12, residential intermediate 12 units per acre.

Uh, when this request was our staff is recommending in favor of the request and the planning commission as well.

Uh, when the planning commission heard it, they forwarded it uh by a vote of six to one, uh, again, recommending approval.

And I can take any questions, and we've not received any public comment to date.

Um, Jonathan, what was the reason for the dissenting vote?

Do you recall?

I do.

It was there was some concern about the the adequacy of services in the area.

And I think it was more in terms of um uh not necessarily water and sewer, because those are both present uh in this part of Fayetteville, more uh access to um like personal services, if you will, like future residents having access to services.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, that brings us to C4 on South Washington Avenue, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-63 for approximately 0.4 acres located at 1090 South Washington Avenue in Ward 1, from NC, neighborhood conservation to RIU, residential intermediate urban.

Jonathan.

Thank you.

This request is southeast of downtown.

It is one block east of Walker Park.

More specifically, that's on the north side of 11th Street between Washington to the west and the Willow Bend subdivision to the east.

While county records show that it is one parcel, if you're looking out on a map, you'd notice it does look like two because it is bisected by a portion of unbuilt alley right-of-way that extends northward from 11th Street.

The request, as Mayor noted, is to rezone it from NC neighborhood conservation to RIU, residential or intermediate urban.

Both staff and the planning commission are recommending in favor of this.

And we've not heard any public comment to date.

And I can take any questions.

So I have a question.

So since there is that alley in the middle, can uh houses be facing the alley?

How would that configuration uh look?

That's certainly an option under our our our current or the more recent somewhat recently adopted standard to allow subdivision for lots based on alleys.

Uh with the RIU zoning district, the biggest limitation would be uh uh beyond development standards like parking uh and tree preservation and storm water, uh the biggest limitation would be RIU's uh lot width requirement of 18 feet.

Um so um doing the math there, you could probably subdivide each side of that uh multiple times, um, but maybe required to go through a more rigorous platting process uh without getting too much in the weeds.

Once you go from an administrative lot split process to a plating process, it generally kicks in some higher expectations from the city as far as street improvements and and public facility upgrades uh like street water and sewer infrastructure.

And would those um upgrades also be with an alley, or is that just limited to um to a street?

The where or the way the ordinance is written today, uh if you if a pro if a developer is proposing to use alley as their frontage, uh they're required to bring the alley frontage uh up to standard as though it were a street uh frontage.

Um I'm not sure if the context behind why you're asking.

We have seen a few requests go into our planning commission asking to vary that, uh depending on the context, uh, if it could be appropriate to have street trees or not along alleys.

Um so the planning commission's long range subcommittee is is looking at the implications of of of what that looks like and if it bears further consideration, but nothing has been drafted or is coming forward to date.

So right now, the way the language would work is if if it fronted the alley, then they would be required to meet the standard of the street.

Yes, for the most extent.

They wouldn't be required to put in uh curb and gutter like it was a street necessarily.

We have an alley section standard that that is less intense of a footprint than a street standard, but otherwise, yes.

Okay.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Thanks, Jonathan.

That brings us to C5.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-65 for approximately 0.4 acres located at 1807 North Garland Avenue in Ward 2 from RSF 4, residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Jonathan.

Thank you.

This request takes us to North Central Fayetteville.

Uh it's on the west side of Garland Avenue, about 400 feet north of where Garland and Dean Street intersect.

It includes about 0.4 acres of land that was is developed with a single family home.

And uh if the mayor, if the council will recall, this is uh immediately north of a piece of property that was rezoned to RIU residential intermediate urban uh in April of last year.

Uh the request before you here is uh similar.

It's to rezone the property from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Uh staff and the planning commission are both recommending in favor.

And we did receive some public comment in opposition with concerns about drainage and uh a preference to see any development of this area uh be in the form of uh ADUs uh rather than uh potentially other residential housing types, uh like duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes that are allowed in the RIU zoning district.

And uh I can take questions if the council has any.

Um I have a question, Jonathan.

It looks like that's a section of Garland Avenue that's uh divided.

And so it looks like this property only have a right in, right out kind of uh setup.

Is that am I correct in that?

Yes, that's correct.

Um, are there any issues?

Do you see any further issues, you know, surrounding that?

Uh as far as as far as like adding density there uh in the amount of traffic, you know.

I imagine that like those folks will have to like uh again, like go up a block, turn around, or or go over on Janice and loop the neighborhood.

Do you think that's gonna cause any uh do we foresee any issues uh with that kind of, you know, only having that right in and right out and added density is that again just gonna cause any issues there?

Given of the scale of the property, we did not find there to be the potential for it.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Moving on to C6, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-68 for approximately 0.83 acres, located at 1967, located at 1967 East Huntsville Road in Ward 1, from RSF 4, residential single family four units per acre, RMF 24, residential multifamily 24 units per acre, and C1 neighborhood commercial, rezoning all of that to CS community services.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This particular item uh takes us to Southeast Fayetteville.

It's on the south side of Huntsville Road between Happy Hollow to the west and crossover road to the east.

Uh, more specifically, it's about a block or excuse me, uh, one lot east of the uh Maverick gas station that was, I guess at this point it's not been recently built, but the the relatively new gas station uh located on that uh property there.

Uh the property includes about 0.83 acres.

As Mayor noted, it is split zone three ways.

The majority of the property, about 0.6 acres is zoned RSF4 today, residential single family four units per acre, about 0.2 acres is zoned RMF 24, residential multifamily 24 units per acre, and then a portion less than a tenth of an acre is zoned C1 neighborhood commercial.

Uh the applicant is requesting to rezone the property in its entirety to CS community services.

Uh staff recommends in favor of the request, and the planning commission uh also does forwarding it to city council unanimously recommending in favor as well.

And uh we don't have any documented public comments uh to this point, and I can take questions if the council has them.

My question just in that area is about setback with CS versus the current, like the RSF4, I think has 15, and I think you can get up to 25 with CS.

And so just I'm curious because like as we're looking at the walkability of that area, and I know there's been just some discussion about some of those bigger setbacks than just creating you know a wider berth for like automobile type oriented things that might be mixing with pedestrians.

So I didn't know if there was any discussion of that.

Uh just as a clarifying question, or I guess a clarification, CS is 25 foot, isn't it?

It's not a setback, it's a build two zone.

So it's the invert, it's an inverse of a setback.

So instead of requiring the building to be set further back from the street, the intent is to have it near the street.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

I was thinking for some reason.

Okay, so what's the what's the maximum that it could set back from the road with CS versus RSF4?

Maybe I've looked at that wrong.

25 foot is the furthest that can be set back.

Okay, so we okay.

And that one that was a consideration uh when we see areas like this along major corridors that have a lot of established structures that is a consideration staff has, and one of the historical elements of Huntsville Road is it has gotten wider over time.

So a lot of those properties down there that previously may have had very deep front yards actually have fairly narrow front yards.

So the streets been getting closer to the houses rather than the houses moving closer to the street.

So these zoning districts that are more acknowledging of that, having the structures closer to the street can uh be more contextual.

Okay.

All right, thank you, Jonathan.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

That brings us to C7, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-64 for approximately 0.33 acres located at 1417 North Addington Avenue in Ward 2 from RSF 4, residential single family for units per acre, to RSF 18, residential single family 18 units per acre, subject to a bill of assurance.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us back towards the area of North and Garland.

Uh rather than going further north towards Dean.

Uh this is a little bit uh more in line, going northwest from uh Garland and North towards uh Lewis Park.

Uh specifically, it's at the northwest corner of Mount Comfort and Addington, which is a three street between uh Mount Comfort and its path between Garland and Lewis Park.

Uh and Addington connects Mount Comfort with Hendrick Street to the north.

Uh this property at the northwest corner is currently developed with a single family home and an ADU.

Last year, uh the planning commission heard a request to rezone it from its existing uh designation of RSF four residential single family four units per acre uh to RSF 18, uh 18 units per acre, and it was denied by the planning commission at that time with concerns about density.

Uh the applicant came back recently uh with a bill of assurance offering to only subdivide or uh excuse me, only to to limit the number of residential uses on the property to two.

Uh effectively, the property owner's goal is to split the house and the ADU into separate pieces of property.

Uh so the planning commission voted by a vote or by five to two to rehear the item since it would been within a year of its denial.

Uh and then they voted five to two to forward it to city council recommending in favor.

Uh staff, however, we are recommending denial of this request.

Uh, we feel as though the bill of assurance is is creating an unnecessary uh permanent uh hindrance to the redevelopment of this property for where we feel is a location for potentially more housing uh in this area.

Uh so you are getting it with a uh mixed recommendation with staff not in support and the planning commission in support of it.

And I can take any questions the council has.

So would Jonathan would would staff be in approval if they didn't offer the bill of assurance?

That's correct.

We recommend, I'm sorry if I've skipped over that.

We recommended in favor uh last April of the of a rezoning straight to straight RSF 18 without a bill of assurance.

Um does a bill of assurance like that uh carry over with like if the property sold and there's a new property owner.

That's correct.

Yes, to amend or remove the bill of assurance would require action by council.

Okay, and so I guess that would be the concern.

Like this owner has their project in mind and they just want to do this, but the concern would be that once you have that bill of assurance attached, then you might be uh limited it in the in the future.

That's correct.

Okay.

And Jonathan, could you clarify did the applicant ask for the bill of assurance or did the planning commission the applicant proposed the bill of assurance in response to the planning commission's denial last year?

Okay.

They offered it, I guess, to be more explicit.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

That brings us to Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, go ahead.

No, I'm sorry, it took me a second.

No, it's okay.

It took me a second to hit my button.

Um this might be a question for Blake.

Uh if in the future, like it is it difficult, like if there was another buyer and they wanted to remove that bill of assurance.

What's that process look like?

Is that a uh a difficult kill to climb or uh they've got a couple of options.

They could either uh attempt to rezone the property the way that it's being done now and and rezone it to something else or rezone it to RSF 18 without the bill of assurance.

Otherwise, they could ask uh one of you to sponsor a resolution removing the bill of assurance.

Okay.

Thank you.

I see Mr.

Weedaker is his hand.

And uh and Blake, my question would be don't we have the option to not accept the bill of assurance and to go ahead and and approve the RSF 18 zoning?

Certainly.

Uh it would just require a motion to amend the ordinance to remove the bill of assurance.

Okay.

Thank you.

Did that clarify it for you, Mr.

Mr.

Wheataker, Mr.

Tepp?

Okay.

Um moving on to C eight.

An ordinance.

Okay, here we go again, Jonathan.

No laughing.

I'm gonna say it.

This is how I say it.

RZN 2025-62, North Rupple Road.

That's how the mayor says it.

REPL, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-62 for approximately 4.8 acres, located at 1439 North REPL Road in Ward 4 from C1, neighborhood commercial, RSF4, residential single family, four units per acre, RMF 12, residential multifamily, 12 units per acre, and RSF 8 residential single family eight units per acre, rezoning all of those to CS community services.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request is in West Fayetteville.

It's about 800 feet north of Weddington's intersection with RuPaul on the west side of the street.

As Mayor noted, it is split zone several different ways.

Although compared to the last item, it is more singularly a single zoning district today.

The split zone portions of the property are areas of bleed over from adjacent properties from perhaps previously requests, previous requests that may not have perfectly aligned the legal descriptions with the property lines.

The request is to rezone the entirety of the property to CS community services, which staff is in favor of.

The planning commission forwarded this unanimously by vote of seven to zero.

And we've not received any public comment on the item.

And I can take any questions council has other than on enunciation.

Okay.

Thank you, Jonathan.

All right.

Now we're moving away from RuPal, I guess, as it's been decided, to item C9, North Crossover Road and East Zion Road.

An ordinance to approve to approve a planned zoning district entitled PZD 2025-5 for approximately nine acres located at North Crossover Road and East Zion Road in Ward 3.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request is in Northeast Fayetteville.

If you can imagine the intersection of Zion and Crossover, this is a rectangular property that's uh uh longer going east-west than it is north-south.

And it is uh currently zoned as the Chandler Crossing PZD, which was a mixed-use zoning district approved in 2021 with an intent to develop the eastern portion of the site, uh, largely as single family with the potential for additional uh residential housing types, and then seguing into uh more uh more of a mixed use uh zoning category or planning area as you get closer to crossover road.

Uh the request the council has before them uh is a amendment to this planned zoning district, effectively, uh, or more realistically, it's a or perhaps more accurately, it's overlaying the existing PZD with a new one uh that has two main component planning areas, the majority of which is the seven acres closest to crossover road.

And the intent is to develop this area with a uh grocery store and a convenience store and fueling station on the property, and then two acres of the property would remain uh as open space moving east through the site.

Uh staff is recommending in favor favor of the request, and the planning commission also uh supports it.

They forwarded it to city council by a vote of six to one.

Uh the majority of their discussion had to do with the interactions of the PZD uh and and how um this project would relate to some of the existing construction that's happening on the property today.

Uh, there are uh hopefully the council, there are existing processes on how to do that, revisions to grading permits, revisions to plotting processes, uh and that would be all required to go through as a part of this proposal.

And uh I'm happy to take any questions.

I know uh given it's been five years since that PCD was approved.

There may be questions uh about background or anything, and I'm happy to offer that as interested.

That would be helpful, Jonathan, if you could give us a little background.

And then also it looked like uh planning commissioner Warner disagreed um with this decision.

Uh what do you recall why that was?

Uh his concern was specific about the use.

Uh he did not uh I don't believe know that he fully agreed that uh the singular grocery store use was was needed at this particular location.

And and then could you remind us a little bit about the background?

Um, because it has been a long time.

There was a lot of discussion about that Chandler crossing, but I've forgotten the details on this portion of the uh of the of that PCD.

Certainly.

If you, I'm not sure if you have the project map in front of you, but uh it may be easiest to think of the the area immediately adjacent to crossover road was meant to be a form-based mixed-use zoning district or a planning area that imitated the CS Community Services Zoning District.

Um, because gas stations were previously allowed in the community services zoning district.

It is worth noting that that was something that was incorporated into that PCD at the time.

So uh those uses may be a wash if if you would like to think about it in that way.

Um seguing eastward into the property.

Uh it went from uh the potential to have uh non-residential and and and fairly intense residential uses uh into single family homes.

And I believe there's the potential to have townhomes as well as you move eastward uh and Zion is to be built out uh in alignment with the Master Street plan, uh stubbing out to the edge of the new city limits that were uh a part of this project, which annexed land into the city.

As you look northeast of on the PZD property, uh there is a portion of Hilton Creek uh which runs through the property and that feeds into Lake Fayetteville.

Um my numbers if I remember my numbers correctly, I believe it was somewhere between 10 to 20% of the water that ends Lake Fayetteville comes through Hilton Creek with the balance coming from Clear Creek, which uh largely passes through Springdale.

Uh and the PCD intended to acknowledge the sensitivity of that area by having that remain open space uh with uh I'll have to double check this before the council meeting, but I think there was the allowance for a few estate lots at the northernmost portion along where uh the excuse me, I think it's Zion, yeah, Zion Road today goes.

Uh, but I can get into much more depth at the council meeting if that that context helps uh for the council.

Um and for what it is worth, the uh the applicant uh did offer uh a tour if the council, if there's consensus that it's worth visiting the property uh in advance of the meeting.

Uh so if that's something that um uh multiple council members are interested in, uh we can get that scheduled.

And also, Jonathan, um, Ms.

Bunch has her hand up.

And I think so does Sarah Moore.

So Sarah Bunch, you want to go ahead?

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Thank you, ma'am mayor.

Um Jonathan, I I I'm having trouble pulling up my stuff here on my iPad, but um so for this PCD, the last time we had a grocery store of this type was down on MLK.

And we had um we we had um build it up closer to the street, weren't we, with part maybe in the rear work.

How is the layout for this store to that one?

The yeah, I think the most recently built grocery store of this scale was down on MLK and that property was zoned to C2.

Uh, it's the uh Walmart neighborhood market, uh, government and MLK.

So the C2 zoning district allows uh buildings to be built near the street or set back from the street with parking in between.

If you're familiar with that in a red market, it is does have parking along MLK and the building towards the rear of the property.

Uh this PZD contemplates uh something similar, uh perhaps a similar user uh ultimately uh with the the more auto-oriented uh services focused towards crossover road, the gas station and the convenience store with the grocery store building itself on the eastern side of the property.

Uh and working with the applicant on the site, uh, we did have concerns about acknowledging the street.

Uh and you may notice as you look at the site plan and some of the the elements incorporated into it, uh, that they propose a much higher standard of pedestrian elements, both along the street and the trail connection uh that goes along Zion Road along this properties, uh would be this property's southern boundary.

Uh so that was definitely uh something that staff had at the forefront of our mind as we were uh looking at this request and working with the applicant.

Um but I'm not sure if that answers your question, Councilmember Bunch or not.

It does.

It does pretty much.

Um, you know, I I know you know this area right now maybe not that um pedestrian friendly, but that doesn't mean that it will stay that way.

It it's gonna change over time.

And um, I know that the MLK property was a big deal to not, you know, to try to have it more pedestrian friendly.

And we didn't quite make that that goal as much as we would have hoped for.

So thank you, Jonathan.

That's very helpful.

Um, Sarah, go ahead.

Mine's similar in nature to council member bunches.

Um, I I guess I'd like to better understand our vision on crossover.

I understand it's gonna always have to be kind of autofocus, but I feel like there's been a substantial amount of taxpayer resources that's been put towards pedestrian pathway through there, but yet I don't see that many people utilize it.

And I kind of agree with Sarah that, you know, I would like to think that it will evolve over time.

And so I have a lot of hesitation as I look at this because as I look at all the other gas stations that have come into being in the last handful of years, I don't know that I see any that I think fully honor um the way that pedestrians have to engage.

And so I guess that's when I look at this, it's not ideal to what I'm trying to think about how all this has evolved over time, but I guess I'm just really struggling with it.

So maybe I benefit from a tour and a better history.

But I think I'm just trying to think about what we've already invested, millions of dollars in that corridor pedestrian-wise.

And like if we're thinking about wanting to continue to try to figure out ways that people will find alternative modes, I think that that has to continue to still be an option.

I don't know how it stays an option if we're gonna drive the kind of traffic that something like this would do.

I'm just trying to, it's not it's not equating in my brain.

So I'm kind of struggling like Sarah on this one.

Um Bob.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Jonathan, I um a couple of things.

Um, one, so this there's already a PCD.

And uh so this is is it common for us to to get like changes to a PZD like this, uh a new PZD on top of a PZD or separate it out?

Uh I I wouldn't say it's common, but PZDs themselves are not common.

So I don't know that it's uh fair to say that there's there's some trend line in that regard.

I it maybe that may be a good question to ask the applicant about why they are proposing to amend the PZD if it's been an issue with the land's viability to be developed as it was zoned, if that's diminished or never was realized uh or or something to that effect.

Um I I think that I I would also like a tour if I didn't know if I heard some other members uh would um, but I I would definitely uh like a tour if some other members would.

Um the original PZD, the the like you said, the it was going for more of a community services type approach to the commercial, more street facing.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And then and then it seems like we're going backwards.

I I I don't have a problem with it.

I think we do need extra grocery stores.

I think this is not a bad place for a grocery store.

I do have concerns about the gas station part of it.

Is I mean, if we allow the zoning, they get to build the gas station is that correct?

Like we can't we can't separate that out or anything, can we?

Well, I mean, it's always possible to for the council to amend PCDs.

Uh, I think that's certainly a conversation to have with the applicant about if I mean if the project is not viable without the gas station component, and maybe that they're not interested in advancing the proposal at all.

Yeah.

Okay.

I I meandered all over the place, Jonathan.

But I guess my question really too is going back to so could the grocery store not front the road and honor like the pedestrian and have a way to be able to route the automobiles to the back.

So your parkings towards the back and even the gas station potentially could be towards the back.

And that's probably not being fully familiar with the whole layout, but I just I'm I agree with what Bob said.

I mean, I think services in the area, but it's how it gets executed.

And Sarah talked about MLK.

And you know, we've had a lot of struggles with pedestrians um having harm happen to them when they're trying to interact.

And so I'm trying to think about is there a way to orient that project where it pulls like the market building towards the front.

If we're doing a PZD, it seems like we normally have some latitude, and I just didn't know if we did.

Yeah, it it's a good question.

I apologize if I'm gonna sound like I'm deflecting as I answer several of these questions because many of them were ones that staff worked with the applicant on specifically, because we we absolutely share many of these concerns.

Uh ultimately the applicant does not have an ability to serve the store given their model uh having the building reoriented in different ways uh given the amount of large truck traffic and not all those have to interact with the properties.

There's concerns with different orientations would mean that larger delivery traffic and truck traffic would have to be interacting more with pedestrians uh by having the building closer to the street.

Um but to the to my comment about deflecting, I think that that may be a good question again for the applicant about what's what their ability is uh to to reorient or move the footprint of the building.

Thank you.

Okay, um, Sarah, do you have your hand up?

Yes, I raised my hand again.

Uh Jonathan, um just a you know, a point of of clarification here.

You know, you mentioned Hilton Creek.

I think it's Hilton, this property.

Um how close, you know, I I'm thinking we were not quite anticipating this much of a high traffic um commercial or or you know, services at this is this location with the first PCD.

How close would this location be to the creek?

Because there was a lot of uh concern about the um the sensitivity, the environmental, you know, environmental sensitivity of the property and and the runoff into um you know Lake Fayetteville.

This as it is, the so they have the two planning areas that are being proposed, the larger one, but the grocery store and the gas station near it a crossover, and then the two-acre open space one on the east side.

That two-acre planning area is what's closest to Hilton Creek, uh, which would be about 600 to 500 feet, five to six hundred feet from Hilton Creek.

Um, as Hilton Creek passes through the other part of the PZD, it's moving east-west before it dips southward and then goes to the northwest towards Lake Cafayetteville.

And and so they are anticipating that that buffer of two acres there is sufficient to prevent runoff and and you know, things that that a gas station would produce and a high traffic uh location would produce from running into the creek.

Is that their theory?

That's the design intent, yes, to have detention and stormwater be that in that open space area.

Okay, all right, thank you.

I just want to make clear sure that thank you very much.

Okay, um Teresa, I think your hand was up next, or maybe um I can't uh zoom.

I think Scott was next.

Okay, well, Scott, then Teresa, then Monique or Monique, I think your hand's up.

Okay.

Mine was very simple.

I was just gonna say, even with the large uh development, uh, I I don't know if Sarah has heard anything, but I haven't heard anything in the way of uh communication from residents, either positive or negative on this development.

Nothing.

Okay.

Um my question was um Jonathan, let's see, I've lost you.

Um there you are, okay, on the screen.

Um so you know, you talked about the two planning areas.

Are these all in a and I I'm a little confused here because it's a PCD on top of a PDC or uh amending a PCD?

So is the the planning area that um the green space that would be required to stay green space, right?

They couldn't come back later on and overlay another PCD to expand the parking lot or to put more um you know, more industrial use in there or or whatever, because I am concerned about the creek and uh and you know the um the stormwater that could flow in there.

That's a good question.

The to amend that planning area would require a very similar process to this one, which is to say they'd have to effectively rezone that portion of the property, they'd have to amend it to allow uh additional use units in that area, uh whether they're wanting to put uh uh like housing or or something else there if that if that answers your question.

Yes, thank you.

Um Monique Mine wasn't in response to the oh okay.

Um Bob.

Yes.

Um I'm just wondering, is it possible for us to get a copy or a link to the original PCD?

Yes, I can get that sent out uh either this evening or tomorrow.

Okay, and maybe if we could get a link to or just the date of when that went through planning or or city council, so we can if we want to go back and watch that, uh we could see what the discussions were then.

Okay.

I can put that together.

Oh, and I don't know if anybody else wanted to tour uh I see Sarah Moore's hand.

I know at least three people said they wanted one, so and since this is the end of the agenda, mayor.

If I could be so bold to just maybe would you like to do tour planning now or is there a presentation?

Do it uh in communicating with the applicant, they and with acknowledgement of the weather, uh Monday seems like the best fit if the council members are amenable to that or available for that.

That would be or is February 2nd, uh if that is an option.

We definitely don't want to go Friday.

Okay.

Sounds like groundhog day it is.

I would just I would just say uh you're able to um I'd pass by this every day.

So you can park in the Elks Lodge parking lot and there's access on that north end, there's an access gate there.

Just wear your boots because it's gonna be wet.

Hey.

Sarah, bunch.

I do have one, I have one more thing up uh before we close here.

I at our last meeting, I had asked Kit to give us a copy of our our uh the ridge, the very I think it was the very last rules uh and procedures, and I asked for red lines on that.

I I want to take off the request for red lines.

I don't want to, I don't want to to put that kind of burden on anybody to to go back and do that.

So I talked with Kid about it, but I just wanted to tell the the council that that's what I had requested to for him to not send out anything with red lines.

Thanks got it.

Okay.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Um I am doing a walk on.

I'm not sure.

I didn't want to interrupt the agenda.

And this is to add the amendment to the food commission ordinance to add the term length of three years.

Okay.

Um have you do you already have a that's sounds great?

And I think we can add that.

Is there already an ordinance language?

This is my um I have not dealt with that many walk ons.

So Blake, do you already have that language to share out or to add?

Uh I do.

It looks like that ended up in our February 17th folder.

I'm not sure why.

Uh and the agenda request form also says February 17th.

Oh, so we can revise that and add it to this agenda.

Do you want to do that, Minister Jones, or leave it on the 17th?

It matters not to me at all.

It's whatever you want.

No.

No, we want to, I wanted to walk it on now, so we can go ahead and get those.

Okay.

Um, so Clark Paxton and Blake, do you all have what you need to get that published um that it's going to be heard the next week?

I can get it done.

Fantastic.

Blake finishes.

We'll take care of our part.

Thank you.

Okay.

Fantastic.

And um, we will just add it.

Do you have a preference?

Do you typically put those at the very beginning of new business?

The walk ons or at the very end.

Anyone?

I think it's just varied over the time I've been on council.

I don't know if um council member guns.

Do you have a preference for where it is on the agenda?

So I don't know if we're gonna have applicants present, maybe we put it at the end if that's okay.

Sure.

Is that okay?

Um so in terms of announcements, the transportation committee is meeting right after this.

Um, I believe that is on the same Zoom link.

Is that correct, Brad?

He will let us know if it is not.

Um it's not.

It's separate.

It's on a separate Zoom link.

City staff will be getting um a notice soon.

We will be doing a delayed opening tomorrow.

City offices will open at 10 a.m.

As always, and it goes without saying, but we're gonna say it anyway.

Safety is most important.

If you do not feel like you can get to work safely, um and you are approved to work from home, please reach out to your supervisor.

Um, we want to get back to normal as quickly as possible, but we don't want anyone to take unnecessary risk.

So, particularly for staff who lives in more rural areas um or areas that haven't been um plowed, please you know be mindful of that and reach out and communicate.

Um, Minister Jones, do you have your hand up for another announcement?

Or is it still left over?

Okay, got it.

Um, and then the final announcement.

Um, I hope I'm not putting you on the spot.

Um, Councilmember Bunch, I had reached out to you a little earlier about this, and I know that Keith has been in touch with you.

Um, I will um only miss one meeting, um, God willing, in my term, and it will be next Tuesday.

I um have to attend to a um medical um medical procedure.

I will not be able to be with you all next Tuesday evening.

Um, I am very sorry.

Um, council member uh bunch, you are all are in very good hands with our vice mayor.

Um, and I will, if I'm able to watch the meeting, I will do my best to watch.

So wanted to let you all know that I will not be with you next Tuesday, and that will not be that will not be commonplace.

And unless I missed any other announcements, I think we'll adjourn.