Good evening, everyone.

I'd like to welcome you to our uh February 3rd, 2026 City Council meeting.

Um we have a lot of rezonings tonight.

First thing I'd like to tell there's not too many people in the audience, but the drill is you turn your phone off.

That's what I'd like to ask if you turn the turn it to silent or turn the turn it off completely.

Ums Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Here.

Ms.

Turk?

Here.

Minister Jones?

President.

Mr.

Stafford?

Present.

Dr.

Jones.

Ms.

Moore here.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Here.

Mr.

Berna?

Here.

Mayor Ron is absent.

Yes.

Thank you.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay, our first item tonight.

Um we have a presentation for the sales tax and monthly financial report.

Is that right, Stephen?

And that will be presented by Stephen Dodson.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

This is the November sales tax report.

In November, we saw taxable sales in the city totaling approximately 288 million, which was a decrease of nearly 1.3% or $3.7 million compared to November of 2024.

Retail trade did post a positive gain.

It was up roughly 2% year over year, representing an increase of 3.1 million, but that was offset by several sectors that were down.

We saw accommodation and food services that was down roughly 11% or nearly $5 million.

We also did note we had some significant tax rebates affecting both the construction and education services sectors, which were down 1.2 million and 8.3 million respectively.

Overall rebates in November of 2025 had increased by over 60% compared to November of 2024, and those rebates totaled roughly 10.3 million.

This effect was largely due to construction related rebates associated with University of Arkansas projects.

So we we don't feel like this is necessarily a contraction overall.

Moving on to the actual tax collection results in November of 2025 compared to 2024, the City 1 penny was down 1.32%.

The county portion to the city was down 1.88%, resulting in a total combined sales tax collection decrease of 1.57% or roughly $80,000 compared to November of 2024.

Year to date though, the combined city and county sales taxes are still up approximately 4.9% or 2.8 million compared to November of last year.

And now to compare uh the tax revenues to what was actually budgeted in November of 2025.

The City 1 penny was down approximately 0.28% compared to budget or roughly $8,000.

The county portion was down 2% for a combined total for the month of November, down 1.1% compared to budget or roughly $56,000.

And as mentioned a few minutes ago, um, even with those negative numbers for the month of November, this is still going to put the city uh on a year-to-date basis compared to budget, up a combined 2.6% or roughly 1.5 million for sales tax.

So overall, uh, it's been a good year for us.

So we've been up compared to budget.

Uh it's just we had uh kind of a rough month there.

Any any uh questions I can answer for you on the sales tax report?

I just had one.

Uh Minister Jones, I'm sorry, I didn't see which one came on first here, but thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um you said the food services was down five million.

Was that um one a 30-month 30-day period?

I'm sorry, was that accommodation and food services?

That was down roughly 11% or nearly uh $5 million compared to November of 2024.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Uh Councilmember Moore.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um Stephen, you talked about a little bit about their rebates.

Um, I didn't know if you could give us any insight on.

Is there a way to be able to kind of have any idea about how those rebates might hit?

Unfortunately, no.

That's a problem that we faced as well as other cities have faced uh kind of a worse position than we have.

Um there's really not good data that we can access from the state that gives us information on when those rebates are going to hit and organizations have quite a long time to file those rebates.

They don't necessarily have to file them in the same month that they pay their taxes.

Um they can wait until later on in the year when it's advantageous to them to file those rebates.

So we don't necessarily know when those are going to hit.

Okay.

And then so I guess as a follow-up, then do we know the total potential liability of rebates that might be floating out there, possibly?

No, that's information that we can't really access either.

We we're kind of dependent on the information that we do get back for the sales tax collections when they're remitted to us.

Okay, thank you, Stephen.

At least I will say that I haven't seen any data.

If something does become available, I'll definitely report that.

That would be interesting to know.

Do we have any other questions for Steven?

Okay, if so, I'll I'll move on to the uh monthly financial report.

And this uh monthly financial report is for the month of December.

Starting off in the general fund, uh, we did see property tax was down roughly uh nine percent or around half a million dollars compared to what was budgeted for during the year.

Um, our sales tax that is up three percent, roughly 1.2 million dollars.

Our franchise fees were down uh roughly five percent, but our alcoholic beverage fees were up five percent.

Building permits continue to uh remain strong through the month of December, that is up uh 65% that revenue or roughly 1.8 million dollars.

Our turnback is up three percent.

Um our charges for services, that's been down.

Uh we've noticed that trend.

It's been it's still down around 1% or around $11,000.

But our court fees are up 9% or roughly $98,000.

All in all, in the general fund, we're up 2.9% compared to budget or roughly $2.1 million through the month of December.

Over in the street fund, that fund total is down around 4% compared to budget or roughly $470,000.

And uh basically what we're seeing there is a reduction from what was budgeted in the state turn back that we receive.

In the parking fund, our fund total is up one percent compared to budget, roughly $20,000.

In parks development, we're up 4.3% for the year for the fund total, or around $240,000.

And that was led uh by um increase.

We're up 2% for our HMR taxes or around $87,000.

Over in the water and sewer fund, our fund total uh is still up or around we're up around 3.2% for the year through the month of December, around 1.9 million dollars.

Uh and once again, that's led by an increase in our charges for services.

Over in the stormwater management fund, I don't have good uh necessarily budget numbers because if you'll recall, we implemented that fund late in the year in 2026.

I'll have actual budgetary comparisons that I can provide to you.

But we have uh uh issue charges for services billing, if you will, for around 1.1 million dollars, which is on track to what we had expected.

In the recycling and trash fund, our fund totals up roughly six tenths of a percent or around 108,000 for the year.

Um that is led by uh our franchise fees, those have been up around $62,000 uh from what was budgeted through the month of December.

And finally, in the airport fund, uh our gasoline sales for the year is up roughly 6.2% or around 191,000.

And our number of flight operations are up roughly uh 6.3% or nearly $1,635 more flight operations than in 2024.

And uh that concludes my monthly report.

Do we have any uh does anyone have any questions for Steven on the monthly report?

Minister Jones?

Thank you.

Stephen, I guess I want to go back to the annual report.

At some point in 2025, there were loans made from departments from the city to differ different departments.

Would it when do you report if those loans are paid back in the sure?

I think you might be referring to the stormwater management fund.

So we had initially anticipated we might need up to half a million dollars.

We're still looking at we're closing out the year, but it's looking like that amount is actually somewhere around $30,000 as far as the loan goes.

And so what we'll be doing is we'll be looking to pay that back from stormwater management fees as quickly as we can.

Likely that transaction will occur in 2026 to refund the general fund.

But our goal was to pay that back in 2025.

Was that is that how it was originally structured?

Yeah, well, well, it was structured to basically set up a receivable, so we would be paying it back, not necessarily by the end of 2025, but now that we are in 2026, we'll be making that transfer to pay it back.

Councilmember Moore.

Uh thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um now I have a question that was not a question until Councilmember Jones.

Um I hear you saying we're gonna make those payments in 2026.

Can you give us an idea based on kind of what we've seen accrue over time and the way the billing's coming through, um, what that payback looks like.

I mean, are we gonna have to wait for all of 2026?

Are we gonna get it done in the front half of 26?

Oh, yeah, the front half of 2026, it's only $30,000.

So it's uh it's much less than we had originally anticipated.

So and then um my other question was I believe that you reported on uh property tax that for the month um it had been down a half million dollars.

That's quite substantial.

And so I didn't know if that was an anomaly um property.

I'm sorry.

So I'm sorry, that's through the month of December, basically.

I'm sorry, through the entire year through the month of December.

So that's basically the final reporting.

Okay, assuming there's no other adjustments that take place.

Uh we are still closing the books.

Um, so if there's any adjustments that take place between now and then, that will obviously be reported in our annual comprehensive financial report.

Okay, thank you, Stephen.

So given that that was down um by a bit, I mean that's a somewhat substantial number of nine percent.

Um, I'm curious like what that gives us as an outlook for going forward into 26 with what we're expecting and have budgeted.

We we took this into consideration with what we budgeted in 2026.

So basically, we prepare those forecasts over the course of the over the course of the year so that we're not caught off guard by changes that take place that we say discover at the end of the year.

We don't like that.

So we're monitoring this throughout the year.

So I expect we we likely will be have a budget that's closer to what we're actually gonna receive in 2026.

Okay, thank you, Stephen.

Do we have any other questions?

Thank you, Stephen.

Thank you.

So now we're moving on to our consent agenda.

Mayor, I'd make a motion to uh pass the consent agenda as presented uh at the uh agenda session the other night and is in our um final agenda.

Second now, do we do we have to suspend the rules for okay?

I'll suspend the rules.

Okay, so we have to suspend the rules first.

So we have okay, we have a motion and a second to suspend the rules and I guess pass the consent agenda.

Ms.

Paxton, would you call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett.

Yes.

And now I believe we need a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda has been like a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Ms.

Paxton, would you call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um so now we're on to unfinished business.

And we have our first item is an old friend that we've seen several times.

It is a rezone on West Michael Cole Drive.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RCN 2025-050 for approximately 7.67 acres located at 5901 West Michael Cole Drive in Ward 4 from RA residential agriculture to RI 12 residential intermediate 12 units per acre and CCR conservation culture and recreation subject to a conservation easement.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Be it ordained by the city council or the city of Favel, Arkansas, Section 1 at the City Council, the City of Favel, Arkansas here by changes to zone classification of the property shown on the map, exhibit A, and the legal description, exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RA residential agricultural to RI 12, residential intermediate, 12 units per acre and C CR, conservation, cultural, and recreation, subject to the attached conservation easement.

Section two that the city council of the city of Favel, Arkansas, here by amends official zoning map of the city of Favor to select a zoning change provided in section one.

Okay, thank you.

And um Jonathan, you have this item, and it looks like you have all the items tonight except for one.

So do you have us an update for us on this?

I do, Mayor.

It's very brief.

The applicant has uh confirmed their desire to see this item tabled tonight, and that would be to your next scheduled meeting, which is on uh February 8th.

Excuse me, February 18th.

Is that right?

So I'm doubting myself.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

So um the 20th.

Oh, sorry.

I'll gladly make a motion to uh table to February 17th.

Second.

Is it the wait?

What is the date again?

Is it the 17th or is it?

It is the 17th.

Okay, okay.

Sorry.

Um so in this instance, if we're tabling it, we don't take public comment.

Is that right?

Or just we just take okay, thank you.

Um we have a motion and a second to table this item.

Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Who was the second?

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones is absent.

I apologize.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Now we're on to our new business, and the first item we have is uh item C1 is a vacation on West Cato Springs Road, an ordinance to approve vacation uh 25-28 for property located southwest of West Cato Springs Road and South Emma Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate 0.01 acres of right-of-way.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Whereas the City Council has the authority under Arkansas Code annotated 14-54-104 to vacate public grounds or portions thereof which are not required for corporate purposes.

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

Now therefore it be ordained by the city council of the city of Faville, Arkansas, Section 1.

At the City Council, the City of Favel, Arkansas hereby vacates the portion of right away is subscribed to exhibit B attached to the Planning Department's memo.

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

And section three, this vacation 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.

And number two, a general utility easement shall be dedicated to cover the existing facilities along West Catal Springs Road as requested by AT.

Thank you.

Jonathan?

Thank you, Mayor or Vice Mayor.

I do have a prepared presentation, but since it has been approximately one month since you saw this item, and because it's back before you due to a clock or a staff error where we failed to include two pieces of a right-of-way that were included in the original request.

Uh I'm content not making or presenting the same information again.

Uh that was previously considered and approved by the city council unanimously on your January 6th meeting.

Um but I can take questions or present as needed.

And uh the applicant is available online if there's questions.

Okay.

Would does anyone have any clarifying questions for Jonathan?

Okay.

Does the applicant have anything that they would like to include in this?

I don't see that they've raised their hands mayor.

Okay.

Um so uh do we have any member of the public that would like to address this item?

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay, I close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the council then.

What is what are the wishes of the council?

Uh on motion that we uh suspend the rules to move to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Uh Clerk Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

And in order to approve VAC 25-28 for properly located southwest of West Cato Springs Road and South Emma Avenue and Ward 1 to vacate a hundredth of an acre of right-of-way.

Do we have anything else?

Okay.

Is that the only vote we take on this?

So would anyone like to make a motion for that, or do I just call for that?

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

So this is the third and final vote.

Uh, this is the third and final uh vote on this.

Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

As Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turt?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Thank you.

Our next item is a vacation on South School Avenue.

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

City attorney needs to.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

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

And Raser City Council has determined that the following prescribed portion of utility easement is not required for corporate purposes.

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

As the City Council of the City of Fabiola Architect hereby vacates the portion of utility easement 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 to exhibit A to the Planning Department's memo shall be filed in the office of the Washington County Circuit Clerk in Section Three.

This vacation approval is subject to the following conditions.

Number one, any damage to a relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner developer's expense.

Number two, any and all conflicting water or sewer lines must be relocated and accepted by the city of Fayetteville, and new easements shall be dedicated as necessary.

Thank you.

Jonathan?

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

This request takes us just south of where we're sitting tonight on the east side of South School Avenue, just northeast of where 11th Street intersects with school and just southeast of where 9th uh intersects with South School.

Uh I mentioned both of those intersections since 9th Street does not continue westward and 11th Street does not continue eastward.

So hopefully between that and the aerial image here that helps orient you to the specific piece of property.

What is being asked of the council is to vacate two portions of easement that are on the property, totaling about one third of an acre, uh the first of which bisects the property from north to south, uh effectively continuing uh the full distance between 9th Street to the north and 11th Street to the south, and then a second uh portion of easement on the southwest corner of the property.

Uh at agenda session, there was a question about how this interacts with the South School improvements and South School street design that are currently underway.

Uh and in an effort to answer that question, uh I uh have a couple slides speaking to that specifically.

If you're not familiar with that project, uh it's included to uh encompass the full extent of South School Avenue between Martin Luther King to the north and 15th Street to the south.

Uh you can see 9th and 11th Street here is to uh help orient you because it's such a long stretch of road, I've flipped the drawing on its side, so bear with me.

North is to your right in this drawing.

Uh zooming in on this particular piece of property, uh, you can see where the easements are located and and why perhaps it was a question or concern of the council member asked the question since it immediately abuts where some of those street improvements are ultimately approved.

Uh in reconsulting with the staff that evaluated this request, uh they assured me that when they were evaluating the development that's on this piece of property that was previously considered by our planning commission, uh the street improvements uh were at the forefront of their minds uh as sits along uh South School Avenue for the full extent of its frontage.

As a part of that development, they are dedicating anywhere between three and 17 feet of right-of-way with this project.

It is a very variable width of right-of-way as you go southward along South School.

So that concern and our estimation is being addressed.

So this is not something that we're gonna have to go back to afterwards and spend public money to acquire that right-of-way for the South Street improvements.

So hopefully that allays any concerns.

I appreciate the question on that.

Uh with that in mind, we've also received consent from all the associated franchise utilities and are recommending in favor of the vacations request uh with the two conditions that uh Mr.

Williams read a moment ago.

And with that, I can take any questions.

Thank you.

Does any member of the council have a question for Jonathan?

Okay.

Seeing no Vice Mayor.

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.

Jonathan, I just had one as I go back to that map that shows the school upgrades.

So if we vacate that and we put because in the transportation meeting we were talking about putting um parking there right on school, if they own that, um, would they not have to have the parking that we're requesting from the transportation side?

The if I understand.

That's right.

Apologies.

If I understand your correct question, correctly, the concern is if the on-street parking will uh push the need for those improvements further into this property.

Uh, when staff reviewed that large scale development proposal that I had up previously, that was a consideration.

So between there are two aspects of that review that we feel like accommodate the South School improvements.

One is that right-away that I described there.

The second is uh whereas we typically require projects to improve a street or make modifications, sidewalks, curb, gutter, street trees.

Uh, and for projects like this, some of those improvements we're asking that the developer pay fee in lieu of it so that they're not making the changes, and then we're coming and ripping it all up and then redoing the work again.

Uh so we are comfortable or confident that all of those, whether it's the of those improvements, whether it's the on street parking, the street trees, the green space, or the sidewalk can be accommodated in that right-of-way that either exists today or that we're receiving as a part of this project.

Does that answer the question?

It does.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have any other questions?

Okay.

Um, seeing none, is there an applicant that would like to address any of these things?

Please state your name.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Uh, my name is Jay Young with Development Consultants Incorporated.

I'm uh here as a representative for the client.

Um this project, uh uh the large scale development has been processed, reviewed, and approved.

We've been coordinating with the neighbor to the north, coordinating with city staff and coordinating with um the uh water and sewer uh departments.

Um this is the easement vacation portion of all of that.

Uh the one of the easements is a north-south sewer easement where we are vacating the existing sewer and rerouting it to the east.

Um, and the remainder are some old outdated surveys that form some inner some non-connected pieces and some unusual shaped pieces of easement that either don't completely and cover the existing utilities today or that are way beyond the existing utilities today and unnecessary.

Uh, with along with the additional right-of-way that we're dedicating along South School, uh, we are also dedicating a uniform easement that will follow along the east side of that right-of-way to help incorporate those existing utilities that are there today.

So we think this is one of those situations where kind of everybody is is winning.

Uh or our clients kind of putting the bill on it, but the neighbor of the city and our client are all gonna benefit.

We have any questions?

Answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Um so we have no questions.

Okay.

Would anyone like to make a motion?

Oh, sorry, public comment, I forgot that.

Um would any member of the public like to address this item?

Okay, Keith, do you have anyone on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay, seeing none, I bring it back to the council.

Mayor, I'd make a motion to spend rules, go third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Uh Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Yes, Minister Jones, yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes, Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Bernard.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

In orders to approve VAC 25-32 for properly located at 902 South School Avenue and 1020 South School Avenue and Ward 1 to vacate 0.36 acres of utility easement.

Okay.

Thank you, Ms.

Paxton.

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Thank you.

Our next item is another rezoning.

Excuse me.

Vice Mayor, I just had a question.

John Jonathan, was there um your staff on your staff review form that it says that it wasn't, I didn't see where it was documented of how many what was the recommendation from staff.

Are you referring to the previous item, Minister Jones?

Yes.

Uh we typically don't put our our recommendation on the staff review form.

Typically they're on the the staff, this the city council memo, excuse me.

That should be on the other first page recommendation.

Staff recommends approval of VAC.

So apologies if it wasn't more clear.

Okay.

All right.

So our next item is another rezoning, and this one is on North Double Springs Road, an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2025 66 for approximately 1.18 acres located at 1171 and 1173 North Double Springs Road in Ward 4 from RA Residential Agriculture to RI 12 residential intermediate, 12 units per acre.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Be it ordained by the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section One.

At the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby changes its own classification of the of the property shown on the map, exhibit A and the legal description, exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda from RA, residential agricultural to RI 12 residential intermediate 12 units per acre.

Section two that the city council, the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas here by amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect a zoning change provided in Section One.

Thank you.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request will take us to West Fayetteville.

It is just north of the intersection of Double Springs Road and Weddington Drive.

There we are.

It is currently developed with a two-family dwelling on a property that is zoned RA residential agricultural, which if you cannot tell, uh just eyeballing the site here, it is non-conforming for both two purposes.

It neither meets the lot area requirements of the RA zoning district nor the lot width requirement of the RA zoning district.

With that in mind, the request is to rezone the property from its existing RA zoning designation to RI-12 residential intermediate urban.

Or excuse me, residential intermediate 12 units per acre.

I'm sorry.

Staff is recommending in favor of this request, and the planning commission is as well.

The proposal is compatible from a land use standpoint or land use existing land use standpoint.

While the zoning map that you can see here indicates that there are large areas of residential agricultural property, uh that can uh not as readily show that there are a significant number of attached residential units that are immediately adjacent to this property and in close proximity to the area.

Additionally, with the services that are located at the southeast corner of Weddington and Double Springs, uh staff finds this a to be an unusual situation for this an area this far west in the city of Fayetteville, where it may be appropriate to add additional housing where it does have some access to services and a uh very uh readily accessible transportation corridor.

From a land use plan standpoint, uh we find the request to be similarly consistent.

Uh it is designated as a residential neighborhood area, which is intended to support residential uses uh depending on the context.

Again, with the close proximity to services and a major transportation corridor, uh we feel that an allowance for the smallest increment of attached residential housing is appropriate at this location.

In terms of uh other issues, staff considered, uh, this would reduce the pre-preservation uh minimum standards for the property.

Uh, RA has the highest standard in the city at 25%, uh, where RI-12 will reduce that to 20%.

Otherwise, we've not received any public comment to date.

Uh we are, as I noted before, recommending in favor of the request, and the planning commission forwarded it as well, recommending in favor.

Uh the one dissenting uh vote uh did have concerns about the potential for additional density uh this far west in the city of Fayetteville.

And with that, I'm gonna take any questions that the council has.

And Mayor, I believe Jeff Bates is available here as the representative for the applicant.

Thank you.

Do we have any clarified questions?

Teresa, I see you look like you're debating.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, Jonathan, I mean, this is way far west, and um I did not have a chance to look at the transit schedule.

Uh, do we have bus services that far west?

I didn't I didn't see that in terms of the infill score.

None that I'm aware of, no.

Okay, thank you.

Minister Jones, thank you.

Jonathan, I guess um I'm confused, and maybe you can help me with this because if we're going to say that we're gonna um get away from sprawl, and but it seems like it continues to happen the further we go out west.

And I guess what my my question is, how do we stay in alignment with what our plan is, especially if we have low infill scores and we're still um because it looks like SPRM?

It may I may be wrong, but that is but that's what we I see that we continue to do the further west we go.

I I think if I understand your questions, just concerned about the location, like how how do we rationalize whether this is sprawl or not?

And I think that has been an ongoing question in the city of Fayville ever since we uh adopted a goal of prioritizing infill and discouraging sprawl.

Uh because of that, we have tried to establish several parameters and metrics for the council staff and the planning commission to measure that by, which you noted the infill scores being one of them.

Those are various attributes that suggest additional infiller density is appropriate at a given location.

Um it's a case on case by case basis.

Uh staff felt like on the balance of considerations, uh, despite there only being, I think it was four or five infill attributes for this particular property, uh, also its proximity to Weddington, which does give it direct access into uh the the interior of Fayetteville and the interstate though uh complemented it as well, but even as important or more so is the immediate access to services at that corner of Weddington and Double Springs.

Uh that shopping center has served as a a way of not necessarily eliminating the need to make car trips, but at the very least reducing the number or the distance of car trips for people who are uh I think that's there's been restaurants there in the past, I believe there's a gym there now.

I think there's some child care there as well.

Uh but those are certainly factors uh that go into it, and it does get difficult the further west you go in Fayetteville away from what was most commonly considered our urban center.

Thank you.

Um I'd like to ask if any members of the ward four have heard if you heard any comments on this issue or I I haven't.

Okay.

Okay, thanks.

Uh Jonathan, what do our infill scores, what is the what is the range on those?

It's one to what?

One to ten there.

No, I believe I believe the highest score you could get or the highest number of attributes of psychic out is 14 altogether.

Uh it is somewhat nuanced as well if you weren't uh with the city of Fayetteville or actively involved in 2020 when the infill uh scores were adopted.

Our planning commission also has a weighted set of infill scores, which could be confusing if you're ever navigating back and forth between the staff reports you have written for you and those of the planning commission.

Uh when the planning commission went through that exercise, they felt it was appropriate to assign greater weights to certain infill attributes uh because it may be assumed that most properties should or ought to have access to things like water and sewer and access to adequate fire response times, but it may be more conducive of appropriate infill if you have a higher intersection density, meaning traffic can move around if one street is closed, there's plenty of other opportunities or or proximity to parks or trails.

So if you ever see those different sets of scores, it's because the planning commission opted to assign weights to those in 2020 when they're adopted.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um is there is there any um applicant that would like to address this or add anything to it?

Are they online?

Okay, here.

Good evening.

I'm Jeff Bates with Bateson Associates.

Uh we're the engineers on the future project.

Um it's really a small project.

Um, and it seems like it's way out there, but really it's five minutes to Walmart and all the restaurants on Weddington.

Um there's water tour already available on the project.

It's all rentals around it already.

Um, if I'm not mistaken, not a mile away from this.

Didn't the council just approve like a 300 unit apartment complex on Double Springs or multifamily?

So it's not too far.

I don't think it's reaching.

Um I expect there'll be some sort of C store or some commercial eventually on that corner, and then this would just be the next step to get back to the single family residential.

Okay, thank you.

So I'll bring it back to the council.

No.

Public comment.

Sorry, missed public comment.

Do we have is there any member of the public that would like to address this item?

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay, I close the floor to public comment and now I bring it back to the council.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, I have another question.

Um, Jonathan, the street that runs, I guess it's north-south.

Is that a through street or is that dead end right there?

Are you are you referencing double springs as it comes north from Wennington Drive?

Yes, I am.

So if that is a through street, it is right on double springs.

It runs south into Farmington and north into the county.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have any other questions?

Okay.

So I'm sorry, it's all sudden there.

If the road forgive me, Vice Mayor, I should have raised my hand.

I think if the road and the water and sewer connections didn't exist, I would feel differently about this being sprawl.

Okay, Councilmember Moore.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um I appreciate our colleague uh council member Minister Jones and bringing up the question around sprawl.

And I think we had a lot of that conversation with that larger development.

I think it's still something that we're going to continue to weigh, and I don't think one develop development necessarily sets precedent.

I think we continue to evolve this conversation.

I think it uh for the the reasons that Councilmember Whitaker said, as well as you knew if you look at the street view, you can see that that road's been paved recently, and we think about you need taxpayers on roadways and our infrastructure to be able to pay for those types of improvements and the maintenance on things.

Um but I think it's worth us continuing to think about and sit with, you know, if we continue to approve at our edges, there's no pressure on the market to fill in the center of the city and to fill the density that we need.

We have a 71 corridor that we've rezoned, and we need to see development heading that direction.

And so it's something you know we should have conversation on, and maybe it's a retreat or something in the future.

But I do appreciate that being brought up in discussion and think it's something we're thinking about what our strategy is ongoing so that we can try to drive a development where we want to see it close to where we already have investment and transit in place.

But for for this project, I'd be supportive.

And so if there's no other discussion, I'd be um happy to um motion to suspend the rules and go to the third reading.

Second.

Okay, thank you.

We have a motion and a second on this item.

Um Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones, yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnham.

Yes.

In order to rezone the property, described and rezoning petition RZN 2025-66 for approximately 1.18 acres located at 1171 and 1173 North Double Springs Road, N Ward 4, from RA residential agricultural to RI 12, residential intermediate 12 units per acre.

Okay, thank you.

Um we're on the third, right?

Sorry.

Third and final.

Okay, Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones.

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Whedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

That passes.

Okay, thank you.

So on to the next, our next item is another rezoning on South Washington Avenue.

This is an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2025 63 for approximately.

Oops, lost my place.40 acres located at night at 1090 South Washington.

Now I'm doing it.

1090 South Washington Avenue in Ward 1 from NC neighborhood conservation to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

We had ordained by the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1 at the City Council, the City of Fayville, Arkansas hereby changes its own classification of properties on the map, exhibit A, and the legal description exhibit B.

Votes attached to the planning department's agenda memo from NC, neighborhood conservation, to RIU, residential intermediate urban.

Section two, that the City Council, 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.

Okay, thank you.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

This request is southeast of downtown Fayetteville.

It's about a block east of Walker Park.

It includes the extent of the properties on the north side of 11th Street between Washington Avenue to the west and B Balm Avenue to the east, which is part of the Will of Bidd subdivision.

The reason you see the parcel or the properties split in two on the aerial image here is because there is an existing alley right-away that runs north-south within this block from 10th Street to the north down to 11th Street to the south.

The request is to rezone the property from its existing NC neighborhood conservation zoning designation to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Staff and the planning commission both recommended in favor of this request.

In terms of long range plans uh we find RIU to be consistent with the residential neighborhood area designation being more towards the center of the city with more infill attributes associated with it we feel that the uh increased potential for uh smaller units and more units uh is appropriate at this location uh you can see uh listed there the seven infill attributes associated with the property in addition to those some of those we see commonly fire response sewer and water access uh this property is also in close proximity to park and trail uh transit and it is within the Walker Park neighborhood plan which on that note uh you can see here uh that the illustrative drawing from 2007 with that plan that did envision uh additional housing on these properties uh in addition to the house that was currently located on the westernmost extent of the property facing onto um onto Willow sorry no washington I'm sorry um this request uh does have a couple other items I want to touch on uh the first is that the tree preservation standards uh would reduce going from 20 percent in NC neighbor conservation to 15 percent under RIU another item which uh I was made aware of that was uh shared directly with the council is a concern from the adjoining property owner to the north about uh where the property line uh appropriately sits I believe our legal department the city attorney has issued a memo on that topic and it does not sound as though that is necessarily ought to be an appropriate uh consideration during this rezoning request uh and staff did not consider it as a part of our recommendation uh to date we've uh that is the extent of the public comment we have received uh no other items have been brought forward to staff or at the planning commission and again we are recommending in favor and it came to you unanimously from the planning commission by vote of seven to zero I can take any questions the council has and Vice Mayor West Bates is here as the applicant for this item okay thank you Minister Jones do you have a question what is the um the max height on the RIU is it three story it is three stories there is a slight nuance of uh what may bear noting uh the RIU zoning district was designed to try to fit in with short lower building neighborhoods so when you're up against the street it is only actually allowed to have a two story height limit so there's a slight setback so that when houses are near the street they can only go up to two stories.

Thank you I have a question Jonathan looking at this this does the alleyway it's just on paper only right through this block right through here correct I'm sorry could you repeat the question or maybe out of the alleyway that is being vacated is only on on a paper alleyway right on through this entire block of the the alley is I appreciate that I I didn't note that there's alley right away there it is only right away today it is not a built alley but also as a point of clarification this request does not propose to vacate that alley necessarily that right away would remain there until a separate request comes forward to council to vacate I get I guess what I was asking is if there was actually an alley that connected any of these behind any of these homes up here but I don't see it on the map so I believe there's a the northern end on 10th street there's a private driveway that's been incorporated into some of the houses there to access them in that alley right away but not on this southern end of the block.

Okay got you thank you very much do we have any other questions for Jonathan okay I do have I'm sorry thank you more thank you vice mayor um with uh the ordinance that allows for buildings to face to an alley it doesn't give a designation does it if the alley actually has accommodation or does it I'm trying to remember would you clarify what you mean by accommodation uh so I believe the structure could face we have an our ordinance that's for our alleys and our trails so that um housing can um base towards those but I don't know that I've um seen one where we don't have it fully developed in a usable alley so there's that still with this type of rezoning but that still allow for that because there is that alley right away that's there.

I think I understand that gets to question I believe commission or councilmember Kirk may have asked that the agenda session was a question of what standards apply with the allowance to subdivide property facing alleys if that is proposed the alley has to be improved it it cannot be based on a a paper alley so you could not use that as your frontage for splitting if they if they wanted to access or have that alley constituted instead of 11th street to the south or Washington to the west they'd have to make improvements to that alley okay thank you um so let's see council is the applicant it's West Faith's right do you have anything you'd like to add to that okay thank you um I don't guess we have any other questions from the council but um is there any member of the public that would like to address this item anyone in chambers Keith do we have anyone on soon we do not okay seeing none I bring it back to the council council member more thank you vice mayor um I move to suspend the rolls and go to the third reading second

Thank you.

Um I don't guess we have any other questions from the council, but uh is there any member of the public that would like to address this item?

Anyone in chambers?

Keith, do we have anyone on soon?

We do not.

Okay.

Seeing none, I bring it back to the council.

Councilmember Moore.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um I move to suspend the rolls and go to the third reading.

Second.

Okay.

Um we have a motion and a second.

Uh Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turt?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

In order to rezone the property to describe a road rezoning petition, RGN 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, and that's the third and final reading.

Okay, thank you.

Um so that's the third and final.

Okay.

So Ms.

Paxton.

Ms.

Banks, yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Our next item is another rezoning on North Garland Avenue.

This is an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2025 65 for approximately 0.40 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.

KIT.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

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

That the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes of zone classification of property shown on the map.

Exhibit A and a legal description, exhibit B.

Both attached to the Planning Department's agenda memo from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

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

Okay, thank you.

Jonathan?

Thank you, Mayor.

This rezoning request is in North Central Fayetteville.

It's on the west side of Garland Avenue, uh, between Janice Avenue to the north and Dean Street to the south.

Uh, if it helps the council familiarize refamiliarize themselves with the area, this is immediately north of a rezoning request that will came through in early 2025 on the property immediately to the south.

That was rezoned from RSF4 to RIU residential single family four units per acre to residential intermediate urban.

Uh, this request is similar uh to rezone it from RSF4 to RIU.

The staff and the planning commission are recommending in favor of the request.

When looking at it from a land use compatibility standpoint, we find that the property's location on a major transportation corridor and in close proximity to a variety of different houses, albeit uh all single family immediately adjacent to it.

Uh, but the wider variety of uh residential housing in the larger area uh could make this a complementary request resulting in development and residential development that is compatible in scale and type.

Uh, we feel it is similarly uh accommodating from a land or the request is similarly accommodated by our light range plan goals.

Uh has the residential neighborhood area designation or future land use map that I've described a few times tonight, uh as well as uh several infill attributes uh including access to nearby transit.

Uh other items that the staff considered was a part of this request.

The tree preservation would reduce on this property.

Uh RSF4, like RA discussed earlier this evening, has the highest tree preservation requirement in the city of 25%.

Uh so most rezoning requests will reduce that, and that includes uh what's proposed here to RAU from 25% to 15%.

Additionally, as a part of an evaluation of existing infrastructure, we did identify that there is a known wet weather serial capacity issue uh northwest of this property.

Uh, in consulting with our utility department, they did not have concern that the size of this property and the potential limited skill the development on this would have the potential to aggravate it to any uh significant extent, however.

Uh additionally, there was a question raised at agenda session about access to this property.

If you're not familiar with this portion of Garland Avenue, it is uh divided by a median running from north to south, and there's question of whether uh that gave staff cause for concern about access to the property since it would be effectively limited to a right into the property and a right turn out of the property.

And there were a pair of factors that put staff at ease and did not make us feel that there would be a concern for it.

One is that Janice Avenue uh runs around the block to the north, uh, which could easily be taken by uh potential future residents of this property.

Uh and the second has to do with highway 112 uh modifications that are coming forward.

Uh for the second time tonight, I apologize.

I'm giving you a drawing where north is not up.

So this is uh highway 112 going from Janice, which is uh uh towards the left hand side of the screen where the improvements are being made north towards the agricultural farms on the right hand side of the screen.

Uh so the property in question is not on screen here, uh, but uh this will be relevant uh in a moment.

Uh the main piece of that is as a part of these highway 112 improvements is uh RDOT often recognizes that by adding these medians they are creating restricted uh access to many properties so they incorporate these bump outs that you can see uh periodically, these are very common on crossover as well that afford drivers the opportunity of making a U-turn and going the other direction where it may not otherwise be possible.

So between those two factors, staff does not have a concern with access to the property.

Um otherwise, the item other item I wanted to touch on is we did receive public comment about this uh request.

It was a dual concern expressed by a nearby resident that the RAU zoning district would add uh an adverse amount of additional density and that any development under it may aggravate uh stormwater issues that they've uh been experiencing.

Uh as I noted before, staff is uh on the balance of issues recommending in favor of this request, and the planning commission forwarded it to you all unanimously in favor of it.

And uh similar to the last item, Vice Mayor uh West Bates is the applicant on this one as well, in case there are questions for him, and I'm happy to take them as well.

Okay, thank you.

Does any member of the council have any questions for staff on this?

Councilmember Moore.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um Jonathan, I think I heard you say that one of the comments was concern about a neighboring property and stormwater issues.

Do we know with the stormwater list that's being compiled currently with the new utility if this area has been identified as a project area?

I don't believe so.

Um if uh Justin Blander, city engineer, is here, and if I don't, I don't know if he has that information handy, but my recollection of the stormwater concerns we've heard previously had more to do with standing water, and as council has I think heard a lot of these stormwater concerns, those that are most often being placed on that list have to do with those that are damaging property, uh especially when stormwater is getting into structures first and foremost, and then when they're damaging personal property after that.

And the last time we considered the rezoning in uh leaves March of last year, it came up, and I don't recall there being any documented structure damage issues there.

It feels like every time it rains, things change, so I wanted to check in.

So thank you.

That's a good question.

Thank you.

Do we have any other questions?

So, Mr.

Bates, is the applicant.

Do you have anything you'd like to add to this?

No.

Okay.

I bring it back to the council then.

Uh Ambassador Mayer would make a motion to spend rules.

Go ahead third book.

Public comment.

Oh, I'm sorry, public comment.

I just well, usually we do have we do have public, you know, we have public comment, but is there any member of the public that would like to address this item?

Anyone in chambers seeing none, is there anyone on Zoom?

Keith.

Uh, there's nobody on Zoom.

Okay, I bring it back to the council now.

Now I'll make a motion to spend rules both third bottom right.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Budge?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard.

Yes.

In order to rezone the property, it's crying to re-zony potential 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.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Paxton.

Um I'm sorry.

Councilmember Turk.

Thank you.

I have one last question.

So Jonathan, as you know, as we all know, Garland is a very busy road and it's getting busier.

So with the RIU, you know, that's going to increase density somewhat.

Is there a requirement to have like a circle drive or some way to not back out into Garland?

Is there any requirement like that with traffic concerns?

I do know that the applicant has expressed their desire to not have traffic back out.

I know that's not something that that couldn't be guaranteed as a part of a zoning request.

The where we can require it is if this property was developed with enough parking spaces to constitute a parking lot, which in Faithville is five or more spaces.

At that point, we have regulations that prohibit backing out into traffic from uh parking lots, but uh if they're developed as single family houses, we we don't have standards that that require that.

Thank you for that explanation.

Okay.

Um I believe I uh asked Ms.

Paxton to call the role, but Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

On to our next item, which is another rezoning on East Huntsville Road.

This is an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2025-68 for approximately 0.83 acres located at 1967, East Huntsville Road in Ward 1 from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre.

Um RMF 24 residential multifamily 24 units per acre and C1 neighborhood uh commercial to CS community services.

Kit.

Thank you, May Vice Mayor.

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

At the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas here by changes the zone classification of property shown on the map, exhibit A and the legal description, exhibit B, both attached to Planning Department's agenda memo of Mars F4, residential single family four units per acre, RMF 24, residential multifamily 24 units per acre, and C one neighborhood commercial to CS community services.

Section two that the city council of City of Fail are here by amends official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect a zoning change provided in section one.

Okay, thank you.

Council member uh Minister Jones.

Okay, sorry.

Thank you.

Um Jonathan, you have this item as well.

I do, thank you, Vice Mayor.

This property is in Southeast Fayetteville, uh, is one lot in from the intersection of Huntsville Road and Ray Avenue, uh immediately east of the uh somewhat recently developed in the last five or so years, uh Maverick gas station uh located south of Happy Hollow in Huntsville.

Uh this property includes uh just over eight tenths of an acre and is uh unusually split zone three ways uh with the majority of the property about 0.6 acres of it zoned RSF4 residential single family four units per acre, about two tenths of an acre as RMF 24 residential multifamily 24 units per acre, and then the final balance of the property uh constituting less than a tenth of an acre zone C1 neighborhood commercial.

Uh the request, as Mayor and Mr.

Williams noted, is to rezone it from that three-way split zoning designation to CS community services, uh which staff is recommending in favor of CS with its mixed use of allowances uh for a multitude of different residential types of housing as well as non-residential uses we feel will be complementary in an area of the city that has uh a similarly mixed variety of uses uh along a major transportation corridor that also is complementary of the future land use map designation of city neighborhood and its close proximity to the transit services and employment opportunities in the city of Fayetteville.

Uh we've not received any public comment on the request.

Uh the tree preservation I noted here is a uh change from 25% to 20%, even though the C1 and and RMF 24 zoning districts uh require 20 percent, but uh on the balance of it, it would be about 25 percent going to 20 percent.

Uh we are again recommending in favor of the request, and it came to the city council by unanimous planning commission vote of seven to zero.

I can take any questions the council has and vice mayor, I believe Damon McDonald and Jonathan Schmidt's are online as the applicants for this item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions for staff on this item?

Okay.

Um, I'm sorry.

That's okay.

Overlooking.

I just look down there and I don't see that light on.

Sorry about that, Minister Jones.

That's okay.

I just had a question.

What was the parking requirement on your RMF 24?

We don't have parking requirements by zoning designations, it's by land use.

So if they were to develop RMF 24 as multifamily, the default requirement is one space per bedroom.

Uh, depending on the scale of the building, they may be eligible for for reductions to that, but the baseline is one per bed.

Thank you.

Do we have any other questions?

Council member more.

I didn't get clarification.

I know the folks are online.

Do they have a presentation or anything?

I was not made aware that they have formal presentation.

And I've got to double check they didn't have okay.

Okay.

I'd encourage them to raise their hands if they would like to speak though.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh so now um if the applicant would they are on Zoom, right?

If they have anything to add, please let me know.

No hands raised.

Okay.

I'll bring it back to the council then.

Do we have any other questions?

Bob.

Public comment?

Oh, sorry, public comment.

Even though there might not be any.

Well, you know, do we have any member of the public here that would like to address that?

Anyone on Zoom, Keith?

There's not.

Okay, thank you.

So Bob, this is in your ward.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Have you heard anything about this issue?

Um, I I have not.

Um, I've not heard anything specific.

Um, but uh I'd love to make some comments.

Okay, I was thinking you might.

Um I I think this is a great uh request.

Um if it's with uh what's happening in that neighborhood, and in my opinion, what needs to happen in that neighborhood.

Uh, you know, I uh I would love if we could, you know, kind of look at this neighborhood as a whole, but I I've been happy with the results.

You know, we're doing it kind of piecemeal, um, but I think so far the requests have been good.

Uh what's been happening down there has been good, and I think this is a completely appropriate and and uh great uh type of rezone.

Uh this is what that neighborhood uh needs to be.

This is basically going to be a node between uh crossover and happy hollow, and uh and it's it's it's becoming that, and I'm very excited about that.

So I'm happy to support this.

I I do have a question, Jonathan.

Is this this seems like a really unusual zoning that this would have three in what is typically a residential area would have three types of zoning on it?

Is that am I wrong in that?

Or is I mean it's not really a question, it's just kind of like a little point of clarification, I guess.

The we do validate uh rezonings or zoning designations when we see them, uh particularly in those instances.

We historically there have not always been consistencies between legal descriptions and zoning designations, and sometimes the zoning designations bleed over property lines in some instances when the city has done uh it city initiated zonings in the 70s and 80s.

Sometimes they're done based on measurements from a highway or from a right-away rather than uh following uh uh like property lines necessarily.

Uh, if the council recall from the 71B rezoning conversation, uh there are large portions of South Fable, in particular along South School, where I believe the historical rezoning pattern was to just zone everything from call or from South School 200 feet to either direction.

Um I I don't know that we've been able to determine if it was if that was if this property zoning was a result of something to that effect or or if the property line subsequently moved while the zoning designations stay stayed the same.

So I don't I don't have a clear answer for you, is the short answer.

So follow-up question that you may or may not have the information on.

Is this is this something that we're going to see again in this area that there's like a property that has three, you know, right on a major street that has three types of zoning on it?

Not that I'm immediately aware of, but I'm I'm reluctant to guarantee that that will not happen again.

Councilmember Stafford.

Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, yeah, and I I think this will yeah, definitely correct.

This will correct that and bring it into all under uh community services for this property certainly.

Um so I'd like to make a motion that we suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

So I guess so we have a motion of second.

Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch, yes, Mr.

Yes.

Minister Jones, yes, Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

And orange to rezone the property described and rezoning petition RZN 2025-68 for approximately 0.83 acres located at 1967 East Huntsville Road in Ward 1 from RSF for residential single family four units per acre.

RMF 24 residential multifamily 24 units per acre and C1 neighborhood commercial to CS community services.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Ms.

Paxton.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Mr.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Our next item is rezoning on North Addington Avenue.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2025 64 for approximately 0.33 acres located at 1417 North Addington Avenue in Ward 2 from RSF 4, residential single family four units per acre to RSF 18, residential single family 18 units per acre, subject to a bill of assurance.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the city council by of the city of Faithville, Arkansas, Section 1.

That the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas, here by change the zone classification of the property shown on the map exhibit A and the legal description exhibit B, both attached to the Planning Department's agenda memo from RSF 4, residential single family four units per acre to RSF 18, residential single family 18 units per acre, subject to the attached bill of assurance.

And section two, that the city council, the city of Fabulous Arkansas here by amends official zoning map of the City of Faithful to the lecture zoning change provided in section one.

Okay, thank you.

Jonathan, this is your item also.

It is Vice Mayor.

Thank you.

This request returns us to the area north and east of uh Wittington Drive and uh uh Garland Avenue.

Uh it is about 1,500 feet uh northeast of that intersection, specifically at the northwest corner of Mount Comfort Road and Addington Avenue.

Uh the property today is currently developed with a single family home closer to Mount Comfort and an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit north of that uh and and uh immediately adjacent to Addington Avenue.

Uh early in 2025, there was a request to rezone this property from RSF-18 residential single family 18 units per acre uh from its current RSF4 residential single family four units per acre designation, uh which the planning commission ultimately denied.

Uh staff was in favor of the request, and the commission expressed concerns about the potential density and the development outcomes that could result from that.

Uh rather than uh wait for the full year that our ordinances require before resubmitting a rezoning request on a property, uh, the applicant has submitted a uh proposal to rezone it to RSF-18, uh similar to uh earlier in 2025, except subject to a bill of assurance that the applicant is offered at this time uh with the intent to only have the property effectively be split into two so that the single family home and the accessory dwelling unit could be uh uh uh put on separate lots uh from each other.

Uh staff is not recommending in favor of the request.

Uh while we do feel that the RSF-18 zoning designation uh remains appropriate.

Uh we do have concerns that the bill of assurance is artificially uh suppressing the uh the amount of development that could happen on the property in the future.

Uh we do recognize that the applicant's current desire is to split the house from the ADU and nothing more at this time.

Uh we feel it is our responsibility to look uh further ahead into what would uh be more consistent with this area's development pattern and its access to uh services, uh the consistency of its uh designation within the future land use map and those attributes that would be associated with uh the appropriateness of infill on the property.

Uh this request would reduce the tree preservation amount from the 25% under RSF four to 20% under RI-18, uh similar to the other item you heard on Garland.

Uh there is a known weather uh sewer capacity issue in this area.

Uh again, with the known intent of the developer or the applicant on this item to keep the property as is and split it.

Our utility department did not express uh uh uh uh outsized concerns about this.

Uh but again, what is uh ultimately at issue from staff's perspective is the offering of the bill of assurance and uh that we do not feel it's consistent with uh how the property could or should be developed in the future.

Uh again, we are recommending denial.

However, the planning commission, they felt that this did address their density concerns uh from when this item was heard earlier in 2025, and so they first voted to reconsider the item, which was necessary because it was within a year of it being denied.

Uh and they did vote to do that, and then ultimately forwarded to the city council by a vote of five to two, recommending that council approve the rezoning subject to the bill of assurance.

So uh the ordinance as it is before you all tonight is RSF-18 subject to the bill of assurance since items come to you all as recommended by the planning commission.

Uh with that, I can take questions on that.

And mayor, I believe that uh Blai Brad, excuse me, Blair Bret Blair Bradbury or Bart Bauer are here as the applicant for the item.

Okay.

Um thank you very much, Jonathan.

Uh Councilmember Stafford.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, Jonathan, um, yeah, I think I asked this at agenda that if basically, if the if we remove the bill of assurance, then staff would be in favor of this.

That's kind of the difference in view between staff and planning commission.

That's correct.

And then um, can I ask what the arguments uh the no vote, the two no votes on planning commission with the just those arguments were if I could be so bold to characterize their comments?

They felt that uh the bill of assurance was unnecessary and would be hindering potential development in the future on the property.

Okay, and then um Kit uh would it be could we amend to remove the bill of assurance?

Uh this is a legislative decision, so you can.

Um however, uh I don't know what uh whether the public was there to be concerned about this, and were believing that it was coming forward to the council with a bill of assurance, and if you take the bill of assurance off, then it'd be potentially much more developable, which is what the planning commission didn't want at first, and I don't know about the neighbor.

So uh if you're going to amend it to remove the bill of assurance, I would certainly not try to pass it tonight because you'd want the public to know uh of the change.

And got you, thank you.

Uh so one last question for Jonathan.

Um, was there public pressure to have the bill of assurance, or was that pressure coming from members of the planning commission?

There was an advance of the planning commission meeting, there was concern from a nearby resident about potential density outcomes.

I don't believe I don't have details on whether that was with consideration for the bill of assurance or not.

Uh I do know the previous requests had concerns explicitly about a straight RSF-18 zoning, if you will.

I can one not adulterated by a bill of assurance and the potential additional density for that.

That was just one neighbor or was there with this request staff only heard from one neighbor.

I don't have the numbers on the previous request though.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Turk.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, I don't know if any of you all have driven around that area.

Um I it is there's ditches, there's not very much, um, there's not very it's very, very tight there.

There's definitely water concerns.

I would have serious water concerns with uh that kind of density.

And kick correct me if I'm wrong, but uh let's just say that um we pass this with the bill of assurance in the future.

Another council could come in and with the applicant remove the bill of assurance to increase the density if that is what is desired.

Yes, that would be just like a rezoning.

Uh say the rezoning would be changing or removing the bill of assurance to give more density to the project, and that would give the citizens plenty of notice that it's uh it's going to be or there's an attempt to make it much more dense.

I I would say that if if there is contemplation to remove that bill of assurance that we hold it at least for two weeks, and we actually go and have a tour over there.

It is a very very tight area.

There's not a whole lot of um infrastructure there, and and uh and I've in Mount Comfort itself, yes, there's a trail on the other side of that, but on this side of the road on the what is it, the north side, um again, very very tight street.

So I'm I'm very concerned about adding much density there.

Okay.

Uh council member Monique jumps.

Thank you.

Jonathan, I guess I have a question going back to staff's denial early 2025.

The issue was because of density.

Is that correct?

The it when this was considered in 2025, staff was recommending in favor of a rezoning to RSF-18, and the planning commission denied it, but due to concerns about density.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have any other questions?

Okay, is the you said the applicant is online?

Is that correct?

I I'm not certain that uh Blake Blair Bradbury and Bart Bauer are the representatives for it.

Okay, Keith, are they?

Yes, they're on line and they have their hand raised.

Okay.

Can we hear from the applicant then?

Hi, this is Blair Bradbury.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, so at the first rezone, planning was in favor, and then we had one neighbor who was concerned about density, which rightly so it is um pretty jam-packed over there.

And so we came back with um an application the second time with the bill of assurance to address that no more than two homes could be built there.

And at the second meeting, they said that the bill of assurance limited future development is how I understood it, which um didn't make a lot of sense to me, but um so I guess that yeah, if you guys were able to take a two, you know, go out there.

Um, it's just physically not possible for anything to be built there.

Um, so I don't think that's gonna be a concern in the future, even if somebody wanted to come back and remove the bill of assurance.

I don't think there's any setback requirements that would allow for anything else to even be built on that piece of property.

It's it's really tight.

Okay, thank you.

Does the council have any other questions at this time?

Okay.

Uh seeing none, I will open the floor to public comment.

Is there any member of the public here that would like to discuss this item?

Okay, seeing none.

Keith, is there anyone on Zoom?

There's not.

Okay, thank you.

So what are the wishes of the council on this item?

Oh, I'm sorry, Minister Jones.

Thank you.

I I um tend to agree with um Councilman Turk to leave this on this to the next reading at the next meeting in two weeks, so that way we can have it tour out there and have a just a full view of what we're approving.

Okay, thank you.

So we don't that doesn't require a vote, we just agree to hold it.

Okay.

Oh, sorry, Councilmember Moore.

Thank you.

Um I appreciate the conversation on this.

Um, I share staff's concerns about, you know, we don't have a crystal law for the future, and this is an uh uh area that's growing in density, and while today it might make might not make sense that these potential owners um want to make this more dense, you know.

This is an area that's um, you know, where we have talked about we want to continue to see more density versus on our edges.

And so I am wondering if we might want to amend tonight to pull the bill of assurance um and uh and and hold it.

I'm totally fine with that.

I do think we should give the public the ability to be able to chat with us, um, but I do have concerns about leaving the bill of assurance on.

Um, and I'm open to hearing others uh feedback from the other council members, but that is something I'd like to uh motion to vote on tonight.

Uh council member Stafford.

Thank you.

Um I think you know, after hearing from Teresa and Kit, uh, you know, I I understand uh staff's concerns and and some of the planning's concerns, but it seems like there is a route in the future to have that removed if that area is able to grow, if that area gets the infrastructure to grow.

Um I think it's a good point that right now you wouldn't necessarily want that development there.

And it sounds like from the client, you know, even that maybe that uh that lot isn't necessarily viable for that kind of uh density.

So I would I would you know kind of I I think there the fix is already there in the future if somebody you know if that area is the infrastructure comes up and it's able to handle the density, then somebody at that point it doesn't sound like that's the intent of the current owner or developer.

So I would be happy to to pass it tonight as is without removing the bill of assurance, but uh but um yeah, also happy uh to follow the guidance of my other council members.

Okay, thank you.

Um Jonathan, could you pull up the map showing where this is located again?

I have a question.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Um this area, you know, I understand all especially along a street as busy as Mount Comfort that we're gonna have there's gonna be changes on on this, and it and it will be developed at a higher density, hopefully at some point in the future.

Uh but back behind there, there's you know, we've had challenges, and I think council member Turk will remember going to visit uh property on the streets back behind here when we were looking at rezoning for higher density, and it's it's it's a um like um a growth spur to you know, there's growing pains there because there's a lot of modest houses that belong to people that have lived there for a long time and and they kind of want it to stay the same.

But um I just wanted to kind of clarify on where this was located.

Thank you very much.

Um Mr.

Wheedyk.

Thank you, Ice Mayor.

I think it's it's natural that we're a bit hesitant and almost confused when you look staff recommended in favor originally and then against the two planning commissioners who voted not to reconsider voted in favor of it once it passed for reconsideration.

I agree with um council member Stafford.

I I would be comfortable if we dealt with this tonight with the Bill of Assurance, given that it's going to be a good season before the infrastructure in that part of town would enable or support comfortably the additional density, widening that road is going to be a major undertaking, and I don't see that happening in the near future.

And given that I do like the idea of the owners who invested in an ADU being able to market that on a separate lot.

And if that's their intent with the bill of assurance, I would be comfortable with that.

Thank you.

Councilmember Berna.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I I would agree with Councilmember Whitaker and Stafford.

I think this is a uh this develop or the developability of this lot is suspect at best for any density.

And I I think what we're what they're asking us to do tonight is reasonable.

Uh and uh as council member Stafford said, there are avenues by which they can uh uh make a request for the uh bill of assurance to be removed.

So I I'm very comfortable with uh with this proposal tonight, and and uh I would uh make a motion to suspend the rules, go third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Um Ms.

Paxson, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Is more no.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

And you're on it to rezone the property described and rezoning petition RZN 2025-64 for approximately a third of an acre, located at 1417 North Addington Avenue in Ward 2 from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to RSF-18, residential single family 18 units per acre, subject to a bill of assurance.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Okay, Mr.

Stafford, you had your and you turned it off.

Okay.

All right.

Oh I was going to get you that time.

I saw your light.

Could if I may ask just a question.

Do we need to do anything to act on the bill of assurance first before we would vote on this?

No, the bill of assurance was already says subject to the bill of assurance that bill of assurance is always presented.

So that that's part of the rezoning right now if it's passed.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Paxton, Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

No.

Mr.

Wheataker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

On to our next item then, uh, which is rezone on North a rezone on North Rupal Road or Ruffle.

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

That's a lot more than three previous lines.

That's a lot there.

That the city council, the city of Fabville, Arkansas, hereby changes the zone classification of properties on the map, exhibit A, and the legal description.

Memo 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, to commute CS community services.

Section 2, that's a city council, city of Favel, Arkansas here by amends officials only map for the city of Faithville's lecture's only change provided in Section One.

Okay, thank you.

Jonathan, you have this item also.

I do, Vice Mayor, thank you.

And this is why I did not promise that you would not see another triple zone property.

I've forgotten that I'd forgotten about this one having some.

That's a lot of acreage too.

I did not mean it, I meant particularly in that area, in that area there, not just in general, because I know it happens.

Understood, thank you.

This request is in West Fayetteville.

Uh it's on the west side of RuPaul Road, uh about 800 feet or so north of Weddington Drive.

Uh, while it was previously the site of a single family zone that was demolished around 2016, 2017 and has since remained undeveloped.

Uh, as Vice Mayor and Mr.

Williams noted, it does currently have a triple zone uh status uh where the majority of the property is zoned uh C1 neighborhood commercial with tiny slivers of land to the along the western boundary zone RMF 12 residential multi-family 12 units per acre and RSF4 residential single family four units per acre.

The request is to bring the entirety of the property under one zoning regimen as CS community services specifically, which staff is recommending in favor of, uh particularly given the surrounding uh land uses.

Uh this portion of Weddington is in close proximity to the uh non-residential services to the south.

Uh there are a multitude of different residential housing types, which the C S zoning district complements by allowing everything from single family homes up through apartment buildings and uh between all those uses CS with its mixed use allowances, uh, we feel uh is extremely compatible.

Uh similarly, from a land use plan standpoint, we feel this complements the city neighborhood uh designation of the property, which is intended to support a mix of uses in appropriate locations, which staff finds this to be at such close proximity to Weddington and along a major transportation corridor.

Uh additionally has a number of info attributes that we feel is supportive of developing this property.

And we also feel that this is acknowledging of the Weddington Corridor plan, uh, which uh is uh as a quarter, as you would suspect from a quarter plan is uh certainly longer than it is wide, but focusing it on this particular piece of property was always contemplated to be developed uh to some extent, uh preferably with mixed use development fronting the street, which is precisely what the CS zoning district would allow.

Uh the tree preservation on the property is uh mostly under the 20% standard of C1, although the RSF4 portion does require 25%.

So uh effectively this is a 20% to 20% uh exchange in that standard.

Uh we've not received any public comment on the request.

Uh as I noted at the top of the presentation, we are recommending an approval.

And when the planning commission saw it previously, they recommended it before to you all uh with a uh with a uh recommendation in favor uh by unanimous vote.

Uh I can take any questions the council has and mayor.

This is uh also represented by West Bates in case the council would like to hear from the applicant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any clarifying questions for Jonathan?

Okay.

Seeing none, um is that with Mr.

Bates.

Do you have anything you'd like to add?

No, okay.

All right.

So I'll go on to public comment now.

Is there any member of the public uh in chambers that would like to address this item?

Seeing none, um, I'll go to Keith.

Do you have anyone on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay.

So I'll bring it back to the council.

What are the wishes of the council?

Council member more.

Um, I just I have a question that I as I'm looking at this more about how it'll be developed in the future.

Um which which road um is this potentially going to be accessing the way it sits there?

I just couldn't quite it is if I assume that question is directed at me.

Oh, sorry, yes, Jonathan.

Thank you.

It has the potential to access both RuPaul on the east side and Sicily, I believe it is on the west side.

It has a street stuff out that contemplates the potential to connect between the subdivisions to the west to RuPaul on the east side.

Okay, and it looks like there's some median that's gonna have to be navigated through development in the future about that access, I guess.

Uh potentially, I believe towards the middle of this property, the median is split.

It's not it doesn't extend the full length of this property.

Um when RuPaul the RuPaul project was done, there was uh definitely consideration to make sure that there was some sort of access preserved to most properties, especially those with the most development potential.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have any other comments?

Okay, I did public and there wasn't there wasn't any public.

Okay.

So do I need a motion then to I'll gladly make a motion.

I think this is uh is well suited for this uh area, so I'll make a motion that we suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Miss Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turk, yes, Minister Jones, yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker, yes.

Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

And orange rezone the property described in a rezoning petition RZN 2025-62 for approximately 4.8 acres located at 1439 North Ruffle 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 to CS community services.

Okay.

Do we have anything else to add to this before we take our final vote?

Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the role?

Oh Mr.

Stafford, did you have something?

Oh sorry.

Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the role?

Thank you.

Miss Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turt?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedeker?

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

So Mr.

Berna.

Uh Mayor, I'd like to uh make a motion just to switch C10 ahead of C9 because I think the uh Will Kelstrom was leaving Rogers and was from the city council meeting up there and he's on Dixon Street and he's he's asking us getting a couple minutes.

So can we uh uh make a motion to move C10 up uh ahead of C9?

Second okay we have a motion a second to change the order of uh C9 and C10.

Uh Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Batch?

Yes, Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones?

Yes, Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um we're going to move to item C 10, which is an ordinance to amend subsection 33460 membership of the Food Commission article article to provide for three-year staggered terms.

And uh Council Member Minister Jones has this item.

Oh, so I'm sorry, Kit, I forgot you.

Sorry.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Mid ordained by the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas, Section 1, and that the City Council of the Favel, Arkansas hereby amends Section 33.460 by enacting a new subsection F as follows.

Quote Subsection F.

All citizen members shall serve three-year terms after the initial terms in which the food retailer and person engaged in agriculture receive three-year terms.

The person included in hunger relief and one citizen at large receive two-year terms, and the other citizens at large receive one year terms.

A council member may receive a term of up to three years, but not beyond their current term of office.

And this was uh brought to my attention uh by the city clerk's office because we neglected uh to put in the actual terms of office.

We said who was going to be there, who are gonna be the food commissioners.

We forgot to put in the terms of office, so I I asked uh uh Minister Jones if we could do that, and uh she approved this, and so I'll let her speak for the rest.

Okay, Minister Jones.

Thank you.

I wanted to make sure this was in there so we can get posted with the current um openings that we had, and so we definitely needed the terms and and understand um how each position on the commission would be staggered terms in this role.

Okay, I have a question.

I can't uh pull this up on my um iPad right now.

Um what are the positions for the food commission right now?

I'm gonna try to think off the top of my head, but I know there um there was a city council member, a city member, um, agriculture, two positions in agriculture, um this the citizens at large were actual positions of citizens that were um addressing food insecurity in their own household and then we wanted someone that was addressing hunger relief um best example the Northwest Arkansas food bank.

Okay, and we had a retail and return that is correct, but we didn't have any positions that were just citizens at large for without that that caveat of the three.

No, I didn't no, we want we wanted um individuals with lived experience to be able to share um solutions from their point of view.

Okay, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

So do we have any uh members of the public that would like to address this item?

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Councilmember Moore, sorry about that.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, I wanted to ask because this is posted currently.

Do we need to do an emergency on this as well to put it into effect immediately?

In this particular case, I don't think we really have to.

I think I think the nominated committee can go forward and uh do the nominations, and by the time they've decided and you've all approved them, this thing will probably be in effect anyway.

So I think that you don't really have to do an emergency clause.

All right, thank you, Kent.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Is there any member of the public that would like to discuss this item?

Okay.

No one in chambers, Keith, anyone on Zoom?

There is not.

Okay.

I'm going to bring it back to the council then.

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

So we have a motion and a second.

Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Mr.

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

And ordered to amend Section 33.460 membership of the Food Commission article to provide for a three-year stacker terms.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else to add?

Councilmember Moore.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I just wanted to take the opportunity to say thank you again to Councilmember Minister Jones and the staff that worked on this to put this in place.

I'm looking forward to this getting filled this quarter.

And you know, now our state continues to struggle with food insecurity, and unfortunately in Fayetteville, it's no different.

So I appreciate the leadership to tackle this issue, knowing that sometimes you know, other aid in other uh parts of our government agencies is not necessarily gonna always be there.

So I like that we're gonna be looking at this locally, and I appreciate your leadership on that.

Thank you.

Uh so we need the final vote.

Ms.

Paxton, would you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Tarrant?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Is Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Our next item.

I believe I announced this last item as C 10, but it should have been C9.

So this is should be C 10, correct?

Okay.

Our next item is because we reverse them.

Our next item is PCD on Crossover and Zion Road.

It's an ordinance to approve a planned zoning district in title P in Title PCD 2025 005 for approximately nine acres located at North Crossover Road and East Zion Road in Ward 3.

Kit.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

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

At the City Council of the State, uh the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves PCD 2025-05 as described in exhibit A, which is a map, exhibit B, legal description, and exhibit C, the PCD booklet attached to the planning division's agenda memo, which allows the development of approximately seven acres of commercial uses and two acres for detention drainage facilities and natural spaces.

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

Okay, thank you.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

It was clear from the discussions at yesterday's tour and from the agenda session conversation that there may be some value in going a little bit back in time before we consider this request in front of the council tonight.

To begin doing that, uh to orient the city council and the public, uh, this request is in Northeast Fayetteville.

Uh it's shown here on the map uh as unincorporated area because that is how it began uh when this was first considered.

Uh back in early 2021, uh, the property in question uh was uh partially outside the city, including about 59 acres that were brought forward as a proposal for annexation in conjunction with an overall almost 82 acres of property proposed as a PCD, a planned zoning district uh that would extend from the current dead end of uh what most people know Zion Road and its intersection or crossover road to the west, eastward uh and then northward towards uh the lesser known uh extent of Zion Road as a contend would use eastward into unincorporated Washington County.

That PCD uh as contemplated was uh meant to include a variety of uses, uh both different types of residential and non-residential uses.

Uh there were a few uh aspects uh of the site that uh drove its design.

Uh first and foremost was Hilton Creek, uh, which you can see running east to west through the northeasternmost extents of the property.

If you're not familiar with Hilton Creek, uh it includes about a fifth of the water that enters Lake Faiva with the remainder of it coming through Clear Creek that mostly passes through Springdale further north.

Uh as far as the various planning areas of the PCD.

This was meant to effectively set aside green spaces for the residents within the subdivision at large, as well as green space along the Hilton Creek reparian corridor, and then possibly some large estate lots on the northern end adjacent to Zion.

There were a number of issues that were discussed with this request.

And rather than go into all of them, I will at my best try to summarize them here.

Some of the most predominant portions of the conversation during the annexation rezoning related to environmental considerations.

Many of those revolved around Hilton Creek and also some concerns about this area being identified as having hydric soils and whether there were identified wetlands in this area.

Additionally, there were concerns about if this property were to remain in the county, if there would be implications for water quality if it were to be developed with septic systems as opposed to being able to hook up to our city's sanitary network from whence the waste would go to our treatment plants.

Another major piece of the conversation was with regards to infrastructure.

This wasn't just infrastructure within the subdivision that we might normally think of, new streets, water, and sewer, but also the there is a one effectively one-lane bridge on Zion Road as you take it eastward from Crossover Road, and there was concern about the ability to have that upgraded as a part of this project.

Ultimately, it was not included.

The project was redesigned to not propose any significant development along Zion Road to the north and not thus not feed any traffic that direction and thus avoid the need to upgrade that bridge or navigate the responsibility where that bridge sits partially within Washington County right away and partially within City of Fayetteville right away.

Segwaying from there, one of the biggest conversations throughout the discussion was the difference between municipal and county regulations.

Prior to the recent legislative session, the city did have our planning area authorities.

However, the extent to which we could apply our municipal regulations were still not in full.

We did not have the ability to apply our troop reservation requirements, for instance.

We're not able to apply our building design requirements, and there were concerns that the city was best served if this property was annexed, which it ultimately was before the PCD was approved.

This actually happened at two subsequent meetings from each other where there was consensus from the council that the city would best be served if the property was in the city, regardless of how it was developed.

And finally, and relating back to the concerns about flooding and drainage, uh, there was much discussion about current versus uh previous regulations where council staff had the opportunity to visit stormwater ponds in the subdivision to the north and actually see how they were designed under our previous drainage criteria manual, which does not contemplate a more slow, steady feeding of stormwater into our creek systems compared to how they used to be, where water could pass more freely into those creeks and systems.

Which brings us to the request before council tonight.

This includes uh nine acres of that overall PZD development immediately adjacent to Crossover Road, just northeast of where uh Zion proper, or Zion, as most people know it, intersects with Crossover Road.

Uh as it relates to that PZD, and they'll hopefully help orient you there.

This includes the area roughly in the blue or scion outline and the northwestern portion of the PCD.

Uh so this proposal uh would be to uh overlap a planned zoning district of approximately nine acres, uh, or replace, if you will, the that portion of the Chandler Crossing Plan Zoning District and what is what's currently or previously uh considered to be developed and subdivided into uh residential housing on simple lots and potential non-residential or mixed-use housing uh adjacent to crossover.

Uh the specific site plan that's been included uh is to propose or is proposed to develop the property with a grocery store and a convenience store on the western seven acres of the property and uh maintain the eastern two acres of the property for detention and open space.

What that looks like in more graphical terms and less color terms, planning area one is that seven acre piece, which includes the potential for a number of uses that are currently allowed today, including multifamily dwellings and gas stations and neighborhood shopping allowances, but also add most prominently use unit 16 shopping goods, which allows larger size non-residential buildings.

So whereas today on that property, you could only build a non-residential building of any sort of business up in a building up to 25,000 square feet, allowing use unit 16 would allow does not put a cap on how large of a building it can be.

Of note, within that planning area one is something that has been incorporated that the council does not always see in planned zoning districts, and that's a proposal to go above and beyond our development regulations in a certain area.

Typically, PCDs use all our regulations as a baseline standard and then change the zoning framework that revolves around that.

What this project is proposing to do of note is to incorporate additional site features to an attempt to offset any concerns about the building being set back from crossover, whereas the existing standards would require the building to be placed near crossover.

The second planning area, as I noted, uh is intended to be used as detention and is only allows a two uses, citywide uses by right and uh use unit six agriculture, which uh imitates the the often use or the use often of uh RA residential agriculture to prevent any development on a property.

In terms of land use compatibility, uh staff does find it to be compatible.

Uh if you look at the proposed site plan uh as it relates to the existing development pattern in the area, uh it is uh hard to dispute that um it is a largely auto-oriented area where along a state highway where most of the existing uses, whether it's the Fay Well Athletic Club, the non-residential uses to the southwest or otherwise are developed, uh contemplating vehicle access uh in mine and uh and incorporating non-vehicle access as a secondary way of getting onto properties.

Uh, where SAS findings were more mixed, uh, we're in terms of our future land use plans.

Uh, this area is intended to be a city neighborhood area, which contemplates mixing of uses and not necessarily uh segregating them into different areas.

Uh, while the PCD's underlying allowance of uses does permit that by allowing multifamily uh within uh this PCD modification or this new PCD, um what the applicant intends uh does not include residential components with it.

Uh, some additional issues uh that staff evaluated when working through this request, uh, tree preservation would not change.

A PCD has the highest tree preservation standards.

Uh, those who are able to go on the tour do know that this portion of the property specifically is largely devoid of trees.

This was mostly pasture land uh over uh the last uh several decades.

Uh another consideration and one that uh caused some consternation among the planning commission is how a PCD change would interact with existing chandler crossing PCD.

And ultimately uh that would be informed by the council's action related to this uh project.

If council were to approve the PCD in front of them tonight, that would have cascading impacts into the channel crossing PCD, which needed would need to be amended, uh, as well as the plat and the grading permit under its working to under which uh it has been approved currently.

So those are subsequent steps that would have to happen, and we've been to discussion with the applicant about those.

It's not unusual for projects to change.

Sometimes it is unusual for their zoning regimens to change, though, but there is a process for them to make the changes to street layouts and detention plans and drainage and such.

Another issue that was identified or asked about uh at the tour yesterday was one of access management.

If you have the opportunity to review the site plan proposed by the applicant, they are proposing uh driveways onto both the future Zion Road to the south, but also crossover road to the northeast, the the far uh northwest, excuse me, northwest, northwestern corner of the property.

Uh, there was a question of if that would be allowed and how it would interact, and is a two-part answer.

Um, our access management codes don't allow that by right, uh, but as as it would be proposed there, since it is a median, it would be a right in, right out access point, which the planning commission alone could approve.

But uh, under uh quite a quite an extensive amount of Arkansas state law, it is likely that we would be in a position we would need to require, or we would we would need to support that access point since most properties have a right of access to adjacent streets.

Um second component of that question is that this property as it approaches crossover road is fairly steep, and there was some concern about visibility.

And in discussing it with the project engineer in the field yesterday, uh it was correctly asserted that because of the trail connection that's proposed along crossover road, there would be a point where the approach to crossover would have to be level so that the vehicle is on the level with crossover road before it approaches the street.

So they're not facing uphill as they're trying to take a right turn on the college or excuse me, on the crossover.

An additional question, excuse me, that came up at the agenda session specifically was concerned about whether that planning area two, which is intended as open space or detention could be developed in the future, especially as parking and evaluating this with our planning director.

They did not see a path that that was possible, with the most prominent protection being that we have parking maximums for non-residential uses.

So if somebody did want to go above it, they would have to go to our planning commission to seek special permission.

But it is of note that that is not the zoning does not control as it's written today, however, that would be controlled by our development regulations.

Finally, uh as with the PCD, uh, when it was considered in 2021, we have uh heard a considerable amount of public comments about this item.

Uh a lot of that has resolved revolved around concerns about flooding and drainage, especially uh along the Hilton Creek corridor to the north and east of this property.

Uh just as the Chandler Crossing project is required to go through our drainage standards.

Uh so with this project as well.

So there's no distinction in that regard, but I want to make sure that the council was aware of those if you did not have a chance to consider those concerns.

Ultimately, and on the balance of considerations, staff is recommending approval.

Uh the planning commission felt similarly and forwarded it to city council recommending approval as well with one dissenting vote.

And with that, I'm can take any questions that the council has.

And mayor, I believe we have uh two members of the applicant's team as well.

Uh, and I do believe they have a presentation if the council would like to hear that before questions.

Okay, thank you.

Um I'll I'll wait till after the applicant uh presents.

Does anyone have any questions?

Um the applicant, Will, would you like do you have anything you'd like to present?

Please state your name.

I already know who you are, but you know.

Hi, Will Kelstrom here on behalf of the applicant.

Um, I do want to start off by saying thank you for uh, if nothing else, at least uh letting me catch my breath once I got here.

Um, and then as a point of clarification, I did have the live stream on on my phone, and I did hear uh council member Berna say something about I believe he's on Dixon.

I probably should have more accurately stated I was crossing over Dixon on the way here.

Um I was not down there hanging out waiting on the waiting on the item to come up.

Um so just point of clarification there.

Um so uh first off, Jonathan, uh thank you for your presentation.

It was thorough as always.

Um couple extra comments.

Um so what we're proposing a 50,000 square foot grocery store as well as fuel sales and a convenience store along with that.

Um first off, I think it's important to distinguish why we're asking for a different zoning than what is there.

Um, first off, as Jonathan noted, the retail that was allowed by right in that PCD was limited to neighborhood shopping goods, which is a uh has a 25,000 square foot square footage limit, which obviously cannot um facilitate a 50,000 square foot store.

Um secondly, the parcel was not was not large enough.

Now that's more of a replat matter, but we did need more land as as a uh that's a byproduct of the use that we're proposing.

And then thirdly, um the build to zones that were a part of that PCD were were not compatible with this development style, which um we're we're happy to speak on later.

So um Jonathan, I sent you two different site plans earlier.

If you could pull up the one that is black and white.

So to start why we were asking for a PZD as opposed to a different zoning.

Um, when we first started looking at this parcel and we drew up a concept plan, this is what came out.

Um this is this is the layout that we needed to to facilitate this use and make it safe and efficient.

Um the only zoning code in you guys' code that will allow for this is C2.

And um, after speaking with Jonathan and from personal experience, I know that C2 is is disfavored and that um the uh urban form zones are more favored nowadays.

And so um at staff's recommendation, we decided to go with the PCD.

And the point of that PCD is so that we are able to show this site layout wall at the same time, incorporate extra elements that we can bake into that plan and make it part of the zoning so that you all have assurances that those features will be there and you don't just have to take our word on it.

Um, and so what that evolved into after uh several meetings with staff over the course of several months is the next plan, which Jonathan also has.

So there are a bunch of elements of this plan that I want to go over and highlight.

Um of these came at at suggestions of staff and with conversations of staff.

Some of these are elements that we are proposing to replace the the fact that we are getting rid of those build to zones.

Um of them that it is notable is all along Zion, we have a masonry wall that is intended to screen the parking and to replace a streetscape or a building otherwise would be.

Um and the idea is that you're not staring at a giant parking lot and it makes for a pleasant place to walk.

Um the idea would be that the residents in Chandler Crossing neighborhood, which um is adjacent to this, when that's eventually built out, those are the people that I suspect will be walking most frequently to this store, and we wanted to ensure that they have a very nice pedestrian path that's that's a pleasant, nice place to walk into this store.

Um that would also go along with their we have enhanced crossings connecting Zion to the store.

Um on the front of the store, we have seating areas and landscaping and planters that's kind of it's intended to activate the front of the store again for pedestrians.

Moving to the west of the site, um you will see a set of fuel pumps and a convenience store.

The convenience store is the one that's labeled four, or on the left, if if that four is too small for you.

Um initially, as you saw in the other plan, that was flipped around the other way.

We figured that if anyone were to come and propose a gas station in Fayetteville, the zone that they would most likely end up with would require them to flip the building closer towards the street and have the gas pumps behind it.

So again, that this is us trying to kind of blend this uh parking in front of the store and and um large setback with some more um urban form type elements.

Next to the convenience store, you will see that there is a uh pedestrian plaza that's intended to have seating and bike racks.

Um, there's some examples of those bike racks on the next couple pages.

They're going to be kind of non-standard premium bike racks.

Um to the north, there is another seating area with some benches, and all of those improvements on the front are intended to tie into that trail connection.

The convenience store in particular, um, we did our best to situate it such that if you are riding by on your bike, that you might actually stop into that convenience store and go buy yourself a Gatorade.

Um again, these are these are all things that are made to connect this site more to the sidewalks and make it more accessible and pleasant to use for walkers and bikers.

So again, this is what we've tried to do with this site is we've tried to blend elements of what we need in order to make a safe and efficient store that satisfies customer expectations and blend that with the goals that I know Fayetteville has of walkability and bikeability and encouraging alternative modes of transportation.

And so a lot of these elements we actually pulled from there is a code section in the Fayetteville development code that uh basically, if you are unable to meet your build-to requirement, or rather, more specifically, it's your your occupation of building within that build to requirement, it prescribes supplemental elements that you can use.

And the idea of these are that you create a streetscape in lieu of a building being there.

That code section is 16406F supplemental elements.

All of the features that you see on this plan are uh features that we pulled directly from that code section.

We really use that as inspiration to try to make sure that we were um baking those elements and baking elements of Fayetteville's design code into this project.

Um then lastly, I do want to point out that there are a number of elements of this project that will be unique to Fayetteville.

These pedestrian improvements, if you go and compare them to to other sites of this grocer in town, um, you will not see a masonry wall, you will not see pedestrian plazas, you will not see the convenience store flip towards the street and towards the corner.

Um everything about this plan is is bespoke to Fayetteville, and that actually goes for the store itself, too.

Um, this is a new prototype design.

This is a a size of store that this grocer has not done before.

And the inside of that store itself will also be a new prototype and will be specifically curated to blend into Fayetteville and to meet the market that is here.

So with that, I'm here for any questions, as well as Jonathan Barry with CEI, who will be able to answer some of the site orientation and engineering questions that you all might have.

And with that, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I'm not sure who had their light on first, but Minister Jones.

Thank you.

I had a question for you.

I know you showed a picture of back bike wrecks near the store area.

And then you said there will be bike wrecks near the convenience store.

Can you go back, Jonathan?

You were on the right one.

I was just trying to figure out where the bike racks are in association to the actual store.

I know the the convenience store, they're going to be out in the in that area to the right of the store, but 12 and 13 is you think that's where the bike recks are.

So my vision is not good enough to see up on that screen, but I do believe that there's a number for the radio bike racks and that it's it's it's uh placed around the site.

And then where did you say the trail led to, or is that a new trail that you're intending to put in on the north side of the property?

So the the north side trail is intended as a as a sidewalk trail connection specifically to Chandler Crossing.

Um and then the other two, I believe are greenway connections as well.

But it's it's um, you know, when we're talking about side path versus greenway specifications that that might be better suited for Jonathan.

Thank you.

Councilmember Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, yeah, stay there, Will.

Um so in the the green space to the east that you have uh noted right there.

Is that going to be used at all for detention pods or any kind of other infrastructure requirements uh by the city?

Uh that will all be detention.

It will all be a detention pond.

Yes.

Um, or well, as as much of it as necessary.

Um, but the so we do plan to detain in that area, and it does have its own separate planning area, which um I believe only calls out agriculture and and conservation uses.

So it's it would it would require rezoned to be anything else.

Okay, thank you.

Uh council member, I don't know who council member more.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um I wanted to ask um, will uh with the fueling station there, there's one right across the street.

We have quite a number of them in Fayetteville.

Um, what with your client, uh, why are they thinking that we need another fueling station in in Fayetteville?

Is there um a number that we go on to base um needing additional fueling pumps in a city um that they base that on?

So um there probably is, it's probably proprietary, um, but it's it's hard for me to say.

I I can say that um the the fueling station is and has always been a um integral part of this plan.

It was part of the reason why the site was selected.

It was it was thought to be a good site for um both grocery sales and fuel sales.

So it's it's in other words, it it was the fuel sales are is it's integral to the plan.

It was part of the site selection, and it's it's it's really um can't be considered separately.

Sorry, my book hit the microphone.

Sorry.

Um, I had questions I had sent in regard to and I I asked during the tour about the orientation, and so this is designated as a city neighborhood.

Um the PZD and the conversations way planning at NX this area was a part to be a compact dense area to kind of have this futuristic um to really be respectful to our 2040 plan and build this node.

And so, you know, part of that too was the way that this was in intent.

You talked about needing to change it.

The reason it was put thoughtfully in the the way that it was for the PCD was because for the scale and the the type of design of the elements that would happen there to interact with the the residents.

So if we're looking at adding this larger retail, I guess my question is trying to stick with some of that ethos and some of that thoughtfulness that was happening with the full PCD with that development.

Uh we like to understand um there are others with this provider, uh, this retailer where they have more front-facing uh buildings, and we'll like to really understand uh why we're not able to have a more urban format there as we try, you know, to think about the development of these tier centers.

So I'm going to answer this question as far as my knowledge base allows me to, and then I'm going to call on Jonathan as my backup.

We did explore a bunch of different site configurations here.

That was very difficult to do.

And I think also it has a lot to do with customer experience and customer expectations.

So as a as a fact, a lot of people, I would say the majority or vast majority of people will be driving to this site.

And that's not to say that we shouldn't incorporate any pedestrian improvements because we we've we've tried to, um, and I think we've we've incorporated a lot.

Um but at the end of the day, there's every building has to have, I don't want to call it an ugly side, but at least a less attractive side.

And that's that's where you have components of building systems.

That's where your loading docks are.

Um there's it's very difficult to orient this site where the building is fronting the street or is pulled closer to the street, or or you know, in particular with parking behind it.

Um there's basically no way to to have it such that the customer is not pulling up to to the rear end of the building where where it's um probably is not meeting their expectations that they've they've grown to know from other stores.

Jonathan, do you have any color to add to that?

John Barry with CEI Engineering.

Uh it ultimately boiled down to safety of the pedestrians and the customers.

So as Will has stated, the majority of customers are going to come by car.

So to eliminate uh stacking problems.

So if you if you flip the store, you end up with the uh deliveries and everything right at the at the corner of Zion and crossover.

So then you end up with truck stacking and conflicts with the with the traffic.

So again, this plan with uh consultation with the city is the best layout for safety and pedestrian and vehicular traffic to serve the store.

Sorry.

So there is another component of your question that I um didn't manage to answer.

Um there are, and everyone has seen them, so um, there are other um locations in the country where prototypes have been tried where it's more of an urban format and maybe maybe it has a parking garage or parking in the rear.

Um this retailer has 5,000 stores.

Um, those make up um probably less than 10, and and I can only think of two off the top of my head.

It's a very, very low percentage of them, and all of those, with the exception of the one to the north that we're all familiar with, are in extremely high density areas that are served by um mainly by transit um or it and have a lot higher density of residential.

Um it's just not it, it's not a concept that that is done very often.

It's those are mostly um done on an ad hoc basis per each location.

And it's a model that that we have uh determined is is just not feasible here.

It it's it can't be done while meeting all the standards that we we need to meet.

I have one other follow-up.

Um so kind of going back to you know, you said this is driven based off, you know, also thinking primarily folks will continue to um come by automobile.

Of course, if we design it for automobiles, they'll definitely come by automobiles.

And so I see there's been some accommodation, you know, that's been made as you kind of showed us through the iterations.

I'd like to understand uh what additional considerations you're making to try for uh this development to drive um folks that are not in automobile, because I just explained all the you know millions of you know dollars that have gone into our planning and our our citizen feedback about desirability, you know.

Everyone, I live in the downtown area, I can walk in 15 minutes, get to groceries work, the trail system without feeling like uh my safety will be impeded.

And so, you know, something has to, you know, change throughout our city close to those tier centers.

And so I'd like to understand this as we're being asked to consider a change to PCD that had this thoughtful development pattern.

Um, what are what are the strategies and what are you guys going to be um implementing with this client to help to drive not just automobile traffic in this area to make it safer?

I hear about at the side, you know, this like the wall, but as far as you know, what are other things too that might encourage folks to feel like they're you know not going to get run over by an 18-wheeler that's trying to deliver uh fuel or deliver goods to the store.

So I think there's a couple elements of this plan that that we can uh really easily highlight here.

Um for one, the convenience store being flipped close to the trail.

Um if you're on a bike and you're riding on the trail, and your options are I can jump out and go 20 feet and walk into a convenience store and buy a drink and then get back on the trail, or I walk through a sea of cars and into a grocery store, walk 50 feet to the power right power rate aisle, and then walk back out.

There's there's gonna be one that's it's an obvious choice.

Um, I think even um with the pumps flipped the other way, you're still having to walk through cars fueling up.

And I think that the convenience store presents a really good opportunity to interact with the trail that that would uh drive people to use this site in a in a way that's not in a car.

I think that you can you can also see up on the north side of the property, we have a trail specifically tying this to Chandler Crossing.

Um there's no reason for that trail if Chandler Crossing isn't there.

Um there's no reason for that trail if if people aren't going to white walk and bike from it from Chandler Crossing.

That gives people an opportunity from the neighborhood to come in on that bike trail, which has no street crossings and go right up to the entrance on the north.

Um, and then again, there's also the masonry wall on the south side, which I I think promotes a more pleasant walking experience.

Um, but it's you know, we've we've kind of gone over that and you mentioned it a second ago.

But so I think that um those components of the plan make it in fact extremely likely that the people that are within walking and biking distance um will in fact do so or will at least be more likely to do so than they would without these improvements.

Thank you.

Councilmember Stafford.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, I think these questions are for Jonathan.

Uh um so uh is there in the what's left of the existing PCD?

Like, is there still room for some street-facing uh neighborhood focused commercial?

Yes, immediately to the south of this property adjacent to crossover as well as towards the interior of the PCD.

There's an area that allowed for multifamily and non-residential.

Zion is intended to extend all the way eastward into this property till it reaches the county line, and it's further into the subdivision where that second piece is proposed.

And then uh my other question is um if we were to go for this, or are we kind of opening a door for the rest of the PCD to be revisited and and torn apart?

And like, is there a fear that that if we redo this part, like because I feel like this was part of an annexation, it was done with great intent.

Um and I'm wondering if we're like by allowing this, do we open a door for the rest of it to be totally, you know, you know, just one thing after another coming to us.

Yeah, I think I understand your question.

I don't know that I can answer that necessarily since ultimately that authority resides with the city council that the any other portion of the PCD that's not included in this, assuming this is approved, would still have to come back to the uh the city council to be amended.

Okay, and I guess uh just from other council members that were here in 2021, I would love to hear when we get to the comment part uh uh this evening.

I would love to hear your your thoughts on um because you all were here during during that original uh PCD.

I wondered, I'd just like to hear what your uh thoughts are in regards to that.

Um and I think that uh is it for my questions right now.

Councilmember Turk.

Thank you, um, Vice Mayor.

Um, this is for Jonathan.

So I guess I was a little confused um about what's currently allowed versus this proposed um PCD.

Um is did I understand it's 25,000 square feet that's currently allowed versus the 50,000 square feet that's being proposed.

That is a component of it.

If you allow me a moment, I think it may be helpful to pull up the the previous the PCD.

Thank you.

I would really appreciate that.

I was there, but my memory is not nearly as good as it used to be.

So this uh circle back to the presentation earlier, and I know I went through it quickly, so I'm happy to stick on this for a moment.

The areas that you see outlined in red, those are the portions of the Chandler Crossing PCD that allow today non-residential and multifamily development.

And uh to the comment uh the applicant made the for non-residential construction there, it's limited to structures of 25,000 square feet.

So that's calibrated into our development code.

There are various uh levels of non-residential use units, like every every zoning district has a use unit associated with it, and we have different calibrations of unit based on that zoning district.

So our neighborhood services zoning districts have non-residential use units that have smaller building footprint allowances, and that is that's one way that we have built into trying to preserve context and compatibility is you you cannot build much larger buildings next to smaller buildings with certain use units.

So this planning area one does not allow it, only allows use unit 15, which is capped at 25,000 square feet.

The PCD before you proposes use unit 25.

I'm sorry, use unit 16, which allows above 25,000 square feet.

And so I think to answer the second piece of your question, however, this proposal doesn't is not limited to that portion you see in red on the image here adjacent to crossover.

It also extends uh somewhat eastward into the planning area too, which currently today does not allow any residential.

That the portion uh roughly to where I'm indicating is is the eastern extent of this PCD uh that was limited to residential uses under the current PCD.

That's very helpful.

I have a couple of follow-up questions.

So with the current PCD, um it's limited to 25,000 square feet.

Is there a requirement for a detention pond?

And I'm I'm trying to figure out um you know the impervious service because it seems like the proposed PCD has a huge amount of impervious surface, but then there's the detention pond that's going to be used in the back.

So how can we can you help me kind of evaluate between those two?

I I think I can to some extent.

If you let me see if I have what are these trying to find an image that may more clearly show where the subdivisions detention is proposed, but it's here we go.

Uh this is this is the grading permit drawing for the subdivision, which is largely similar.

I mean, the lots, the number of lots and where they're located are slightly different in alignment with the the PCD's allowances.

This lot, if you're able to see where my cursor is, towards the north central portion of the property is where uh a significant amount of the detention for the subdivision is currently proposed.

Uh and oftentimes when we see outlaws with projects, their their detention and stormwater requirements are not always incorporated into it because you don't know what's going to go there.

Uh and perhaps the the applicant's engineer can speak to that better.

But one element I believe of why they're incorporating that planning area too, which is that two easternmost acres is detention, is because this project's detention would be handled independently of the subdivisions.

Can you confirm that?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

All stormwater generated by our site will be pain and treated in that two-acre park or two-acre planning area.

Okay, thank you.

And then the area that you noted uh up there in the red or in that area, that would be still be retained and required.

That's correct.

And that is one of the first steps that would happen if the council were to approve this PCD, is that the subdivisions drainage would have to be their drainage proposal would be reevaluated by our engineering group, submitted by the the subdivisions engineer to our engineering group and evaluated to ensure all the assumptions remain the same.

And for those that do not remain the same, there may need to be a requirement to resize lines, relocate their routes, their alignments, and things of that nature.

So that's that's one of those cascading impacts that may happen if this PCD is approved.

Is there are other revisions that would be necessary to the underlying subdivisions plat or that the subdivision that I think if you understand that the the plat and the grading permit under which it is being developed today?

Thank you, Jonathan.

That was very, very helpful.

I appreciate it.

Thank you for the questions.

Uh Jonathan, I have a question that relates to what you just discussed.

So have the um have our drainage standards changed since this was first this was first established.

Are you saying our drainage standards?

Yes, I mean what we require uh for drainage or like a PCD or subdivision.

Since 2021, not that I am aware of uh, Mr.

Bland, if you are you available to confirm that I don't believe there's been any changes since 2021.

I guess what I'm I guess what I'm asking is if we have to, you know, if we have this domino effect and we have to revisit it, are the standards higher than they were when it was first established?

Understood.

Can you speak to that, Mr.

Bland?

Please.

Good evening.

Uh no, the standards have not changed.

They they've been in place since 2014, so so it would still be the same standards.

Um but the the amount of detention and the improvements, they're they're all relative to the amount of impervious areas.

So there will be more detention needed for this this side because there is more impervious area associated with it.

So it will be a higher level of treatment, but it's the same base standard.

Okay, I guess I I guess I was asking about the rest of the uh the the old the original PCD, but you know, yeah, same thing applies there.

That's correct, yes.

Okay, thank you, Justin.

Um I also have another question.

I guess this is for Jonathan, and possibly you will.

What is the on the current proposal?

What is the space uh between the sidewalk on crossover the the green space that that has the trail and the wall through it?

How wide is that?

Yeah, crossover.

It's uh I think it's 50 feet.

There's a utility easements that are in there.

Okay, yeah, there's utility easement in there.

So Jonathan, when the street would come up, is there is enough space to have a gradual incline in a level spot uh before you head out on to crossover?

And forgive me for uh clarification.

Are you is your question about that?

And I pulled the site back up that northwestern access point onto college.

Yes, I mean it the you can see in the drawing there, maybe you can, it's fairly small.

There are multiple vehicles shown stacked up there uh and two contemplated crossings.

One the trail crossing, which if you've seen our trail crossings in Faye well, they're they're level, uh, they're required to, we we require them to meet accessibility standards.

Uh but uh they have a similar condition uh further east where they have another crossing.

Uh so they would be required.

I'm I'm not sure.

Am I uh am I answering your question about whether it need to be level approaching?

I wasn't very uh clear on that.

I guess what I was asking was, you know, we know we've got an incline going up, and we want to have you know, we always have to have a flat crossing for a trail and we want to have visibility.

I was asking, is there enough space there to provide that and give a safe trail crossing for the two pathways that we crossing and still have um but I you know because I can see the two cars little cars there, but uh you know, I just want to make sure there was enough space to do that and do it safely where people would not be going uphill and trying to get out onto crossover.

I I can't confidently say we've evaluated what the grading would look like on the side.

I don't know, even if the applicant's engineer has done so or not and might be able to comment on that.

Okay.

I believe that we should have plenty of room to meet the standards that you need for visibility.

Okay with both trail crossing.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, I'm not spoken.

Gosh, turned it off.

Please come up and state your name.

We're on public comment now for this item, and uh you have three minutes.

All right, well, thank you.

My name is Nick Anthony.

I live in 3301 East Sion Road, so I'm right in line with what's going on with this uh development.

Um I'm just gonna target three items.

I could have almost an infinite list of things that uh upset me with this whole process, but first thing would be procedure, and then I'm a little bit concerned with what future carve routes and you guys had a little bit of a discussion about that, um, which is good that you're thinking that way.

And then of course the flow of water through I the water that comes out of the uh development uh um channel crossing will go through my property.

Okay, so um I'm concerned about you know what happens with the water flow and the detention pond and where that water is going from there.

Um it's very likely that it'll need to go through my property as well after it passes through chance uh chandler's crossing.

Now, when I mentioned the process piece, um it's my understanding that actually the Chandra claw crossing LLC probably should have been the one that initiated this action.

And I think a lot of the questions that came out of this discussion that we've had with this other team surrounds with the uncertainty that's what's going to happen with that property.

And I think it's justified concern because I just don't understand how this fits into their plan.

Now it seems to be logical and makes sense, but I really want to know what's going to happen with this channel or crossing piece.

And if they would have brought this information up first and modified their PD and PCD, then I think we would have a better understanding of how this would fit.

So I think it's a little bit backwards about how this was approached.

Now I challenged the planning committee to take a deep dive into what has happened.

I appreciate Jonathan's overview of this.

But even with his overview, I have to say that some of the maps that were put up were old or weren't weren't consistent with what where we are with the development as I understood it.

And actually, when you got to the detention pond piece.

Yeah, that's that's already been done to some degree.

And uh so that part, you know, is is there, and I assume it's gonna stay, but I just don't know.

So I I guess my thoughts are that there would have been nice to have some clarity about how this is going to influence the Chandler Crossing piece and how you know this fits into it, and you know, how is it going to be totally integrated?

I do have a question about the extension of Zion Road to the county line.

I think that kind of turns it into a dead end road because the county line is at the end of that uh uh channeler crossing.

Um so unless they're gonna uh do eminent domain and go on through to Butterfield Coach, um which I think is part of the plan for 3030 or 2030.

Um, you know, that that's neither here nor there.

It's that's what's gonna happen.

Um bottom line is I would just appreciate to have an understanding of how this is going to fit into the other plan.

If we could get um ESI or or the Chandra Crossing LLC to come and talk to you and you know make it all fit together, it would give me some peace of mind.

And I think it would give you peace of mind because you've been in this uh Dr.

Turk, uh Mr.

Turk, Mrs.

Turk.

Um, you've been at this for a long time, and you know about the history of this, and you you fully understand the concerns of the community and the impact on Lake Fanville.

Um I'm just gonna leave it at that.

I think I'm out of time.

But if you have any questions for me, I could answer a lot of the questions you guys were talking about here.

I think your time may be up, but thank you.

Thank you very much.

Do we have anyone else?

Just go ahead and come on up then.

State your name.

You've got three minutes.

Hi there, Kelly Stewart, 3306 East Zion Road.

And I've been uh at that residence since 2009.

So we've been through this discussion and um through the prior rezoning and and annexation discussion all through COVID and all that.

And our concerns have been multi-pronged.

Um, one of them being, of course, the impact of the existing homes, right?

So the flooding that we have, our homes have flooded multiple times.

Um, you know, there the truss there from this these properties and these homes that have been there for many, many years prior to the development to the North Copper Creek and Stonewood, that was inefficient and inadequate storm drainage, right?

So um the water that causes the flooding doesn't necessarily come from Hilton Creek initially.

It comes from those properties and the poor uh retention and then pairs eventually with Hilton Creek and creates just you know an enormous amount of water that's coming through.

And this has happened five times since I've been at that residence in 2009, and three of three of those times it's come into my house.

Um it's so much so that uh rainy season, we don't go out of town, right?

Because we've got to be there to make sure our home doesn't flood.

Um was our house in a flood zone prior to this recent FEMA change?

No.

Is it now?

Yes.

Um, when you look at the flood plain, uh the FEMA zone, um, it kind of looks like it's coming from from Hilton Creek, but in reality, when you're sitting in my front yard and you're seeing the water coming from all the excessive rain, it it's coming from Stonewood and Copper Creek initially.

Um I know you're very familiar with your business right there, you're very familiar with the area.

So another one of my concerns is the traffic study and this moving to an evolution of where we're going with this with the type of store is really concerning, especially when we're looking at right up the road at uh the woodland, right?

So we've got traffic issues right there.

When are people coming going from schools?

Well, it's three, three to four, right?

So when are people going to the grocery store also that time?

So, how is that traffic gonna work together in an already super condensed high um high volume area?

Uh when you're at the intersection of Zion and crossover today, any time from four to six o'clock, you're backed up all the way to the new traffic circle on Zion, right?

So, how is this going to come into play?

So, traffic is I I definitely recommend a traffic study.

I think that that's really important.

Um, there's a lot of wrecks that happen right outside the Elk Slide, which is just north of where this proposal is.

Um, and so there's there's another concern as you're coming up that hill, people have to do a little U-turn there, and that that is a safety concern with the public.

And then the environment, right?

So you're building um, I'm sorry, Chandler Crossing, the whole project has been a concern the entire time, but when it's evolving from maybe like a little bodega kind of neighborhood vibe to a massive store, you're looking at more environmental impact.

Vice Mayor, I'm sorry, I noticed the time expired, and I just wanted to be fair to each person.

So I was gonna ask the speaker if we gave you one more minute, would that help you to conclude your comment?

Yes, it's that county.

Is that okay?

Yes, it is thank you so much.

I really appreciate it.

Some new things came to light now that we understand it's 50,000 square foot store with um convenience and gas.

And so when you're looking at a basin, right?

Like so you're looking at a drainage basin and you're looking at fuel and it's gonna be under the ground.

Like, where do those environmental factors come in?

And um, another note I had was we've got three gas stations within one mile radius.

We have three grocery stores within a three mile radius, like and people are not gonna be walking and biking to this area.

I mean, the people at Chandler Crossing when the homes are finally built, they're probably still gonna pull their car around.

I mean, let's be realistic.

It's it's a dream world where people are gonna walk and bike to this location in this town.

I don't see it.

There's not a there's not a clear connection to the trail system right there.

You have to go across Zion, I mean across crossover to access it.

So it's just none of it's really making sense.

Like I was just getting comfortable with the the original PCD.

This one is kind of a stretch, and and where's it gonna end?

Where's the evolution gonna end to it?

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Hello, my name is Lisette Robles.

I live at 3281 East Zion Road, and I've lived there for about Ma'am, can you pull the microphone a little bit clear?

Got it.

Thank you.

Uh my name's Lisette.

I've lived at 3281 East Zion Road for the last 22 years.

Um, and I also am a little concerned about the proposed plan today.

I want to say I agree with my neighbors on every point they made.

The problem I have is mainly the flooding, but also the plan for the gas station and the convenience store that they want to build.

I think there's when I was reading through the booklet that CEI provided, it kind of I got the sentiment that they were just doing us a favor by providing these unlimited or these limited resources.

Um providing essential fueling services that are limited in the area.

And that didn't really sit right with me because there's a fueling station across the road that I walk to frequently to get soda or chips to get my steps in.

And then if there's a Walmart or another grocery store I want to go to, they're only five minutes away each way.

I can go to Springville or I can go to Fayetteville.

Um, so my concern is more with you built this beautiful road on East Zion Road with the street lights, the roundabout, beautiful path.

That's all gonna lead to a grocery store where there's plenty of cars and bikes next to a fueling station.

That also doesn't seem like a good idea because I wouldn't want to ride my bike next to a gas station.

Um, so I'm just speaking as someone who frequently walks my dog in these areas.

I just don't see it fitting in with the community that we want to build in 2040.

So that's my main concern.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the chambers tonight that would like to address this item?

Okay.

Keith, is do we have anyone on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay.

I will then bring it back to the council.

Oh, Mr.

Wheatiger.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, this is a question for staff.

Well, we have the two-acre detention proposed.

Do we know yet as we release that water, hopefully more slowly, the path that it's going to take to get to Lake Fayetteville?

I don't believe we've seen a drainage design for it at this point.

Uh I think speaking to the first speaker, I think one reason that the there has not been a lot of drawings shared, or there are not been drawings developed to this point as far as how Chandler Crossing will change or or uh evolve if this is approved, is because there's no certainty whether this will be approved or not.

That I think neither group wants to go through the exercise of designing all that.

But to stay with your question directly, I think if the applicant may be able to speak if they've done any preliminary drainage work about uh whether they imagine that goes to the northeast towards Hilton directly or towards the Westwards crossover.

But I think based on the topography and what they're proposing for whether the tension pond will sit, it'll likely flow eastward uh towards Hilton Creek Councilmember TURP.

I'm sorry.

I was just gonna confirm that that it's preliminary, but yes, the design is intended for the stormwater to drain eastward and on its original path once it leaves our pond and is treated properly.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Turk.

Thank you.

I have um two separate questions.

Um the first one I think is for Mr.

Bland, um, because you know when we heard this back in 2021, we didn't have a stormwater fee, and now we do.

And I know back in 2021 we identified that problem, that old sort of uh detention retention pond up there at Copper Creek, and how that uh should have been or maybe hopefully is an item on our stormwater list to be uh corrected to be reconfigured.

Do we have that list now?

Do we know where the priority uh where our priorities are, especially since the uh resident has been flooded three times, and I thought that once it infiltrated into the home that moved it up to a higher tier.

That is correct.

Um at this time I I would have to talk to Alan Q just to kind of understand where that's out on the list.

I I got I don't have an answer to that directly tonight, but I'm I'm sure that if that has been an issue that it would be on the list there.

So um I can get you more information in a follow-up meeting if possible.

Or Edward.

I think it would be extremely helpful, not just for this project, but for all the other stormwater related issues that we're having across the city.

And I was hoping that that kind of list was going to come out a little bit earlier, but um, I know we've been delayed by all sorts of other things with the snow and cold weather.

So um, but I'm glad we're talking about it tonight.

Thank you.

I can answer part of that.

Uh actually earlier in the conversation we brought up the same thing about a stormwater project.

Excuse me.

Uh and I did reach out and ask when we're going to publish that.

I know I've seen it multiple times.

It's floating around.

Uh, I think we're just making a few final tweaks to it, but we are actively using that stormwater project map today.

So I'll just look to see when we're going to publish that.

That would be very helpful.

Um, my second question really is to is to Kit or Jonathan.

I think it's mostly to Kit.

Uh the procedural question that one of the residents asked in terms of bringing this PCD forward.

Um has has a change of ownership uh occurred, or it's not Chandler Crossing that owns it anymore.

How how does that how does that work procedurally?

I just wanted to uh respond to the citizens' question.

Well, as long as the applicant has the approval of the owner, uh, or the applicant could be the owner, then certainly they're entitled to seek a rezoning on their property.

It doesn't matter if it's a PCD or not.

And so that's I assume what happened here is that they had an approval or they've already purchased a property, whether they did or not, as long as they had approval from the owner, then they would have every right to come to the council and seek a rezoning of the property that is was described in the application.

Okay, thank you so much, Kit.

And if I may add it to the answer, we did receive a consent of order form with the application for this BZ that included Brian Moore as a representative of Chandler Crossing LLC.

Um I have a question also.

Oh, I'll let Mr.

Stafford go first, though.

Oh no, if you want to ask the bulk.

Um it was mentioned the other day uh when we were on our tour that the Chandler Crossing entity would be responsible for building Zion Road.

Is that correct?

I believe that's something the applicant spoke to as part of the real estate transaction.

I need to defer to them on the timing there.

It is, I can say from a city purpose, it is currently tied to the subdivision's construction, though.

Okay.

I will, if you wouldn't mind answering that for me, that is it just are they just how you know are they required to build it?

It's Chandler Crossing that's required to build the street, right?

Yes, the street is part of their development plans.

Um as to specific contract terms, I can't really get into specifics, so we we are comfortable that that uh that street will get built.

Um if it doesn't get built by Chandler Crossing, it almost certainly will be a condition on our large scale, and it's someone's gonna have to build it.

Okay, somebody's gonna have to build it.

And would that be Jonathan?

Is that just gonna be is that gonna be at the time that's built, is it going to go have to go the whole length of the the uh Zion?

Will it need to be the entirety of Zion or will it just be part of it?

I think that depends how this plays out, and it gets, I think, to uh several questions from the council and from the resident, is several of these questions and concerns are predicated on answering the question that's before the council tonight.

Uh again, the PC, the sorry, the plat, the grading permit all contemplate extending Zion to the city limits on our eastern edge, which I know there was some consternation expressed about that from the public.

That that is a standard if the council is not familiar with seeing that around town.

We we we we strive to establish connections to our our city limits or to adjoining properties so that the next development can pick them up and we can establish a stronger grid of connectivity.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you, Will.

Uh Councilmember Stafford.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um first of all, I want to thank Jonathan for uh sharing the drop box with me with all the piles in it from the original PCD, but I I feel like I asked for uh a warm piece with uh annotations.

Uh so I don't think there's any uh real situation on this tonight.

Um I do have questions about uh stormwater issues, uh and and you know, when it comes to the walkability, which I feel like was part of the original uh PCD.

I you know what I hear from everybody over and over again is like, oh, we all drive, nobody nobody's gonna walk.

Um I actually talked to neighbors uh to the west side of uh uh the Fayetteville Athletic Club.

They were kind of for this because they're like, oh great, we can have a grocery store that we can walk to.

So it it you know, showing you that there are people that do do want to walk.

Uh they were formerly from Chicago, so they they like walking places.

Um but you know, I I you know the this pushback, you know, like the PCD was the original PCD, my understanding was it was to create that urban walkable uh neighborhood with services in it, and then now it's like well, nobody walks so we're gonna reconfigure and not do that.

But you know, when we talk about creating a walkable city, someone has to go first.

Someone has to be the first person to build it.

And and nobody's gonna walk if we don't give them the opportunity to do so.

Um everybody loves Block Street.

We you can't build block street in lots lots of our our city, you know.

It's like you got the stores right there on the street, parking out front, plenty of ways to get there, pedestrian and biking, and and uh when I went to college here, a lot of my friends that worked at Hugo's lived right upstairs.

Um those are the kind of neighborhoods I think we need to uh be building.

It I'm not against this because I do when we talk about traffic, you know, that there isn't a you know, people are saying, well, there's a grocery store within two miles, but you know, you're either going across Zion, adding to the traffic on Joyce Street, or you're going down 265, adding to the crossover traffic to get to uh crossover emission.

So I I I do feel that there is uh a need for uh another grocery store up there.

I think that it also can bring tax revenue in from uh South Springdale there, maybe from the from the east of the county, but but again, um there's no uh way I'm ready to there's no way I could vote yes on this and I'll tell you that.

Uh but uh I I still have I feel like a lot of due diligence to do and a lot of questions to ask, a lot of phone calls to make to get people's opinions, and uh so hopefully we can take the time to do that.

And again, like uh anything my my fellow council members were here during that original thing, anything you can add, I'd uh grateful for.

Thank you.

Council member Berna.

Thank you, Boss Murder.

Um yes, I'm in I'm at this area every day of my life uh because it's two to uh two doors down from us.

Um but Jonathan, if and I know it's a variable right now, but if Chandler Crossing residential portion proceeds as uh uh as we hope that it would potentially there would have to be a second entrance uh would it would it come off of Zion Road?

Because I agree completely with residents that that's very narrow and it's not something that we want a lot of traffic to.

So if we build the residential of of Chandler Crossing, we had and we build this Zion Road uh that enters into where this neighborhood market would be that would lead back to the east.

If the residential is built, is it gonna be required some sort of entrance on Zion Road, or you're gonna take it to the to the east?

You you gotta have multiple entrances, right?

For that size of development.

Fire code sometimes requires it, yes.

There's a concept called remoteness, depending on the shape of your property, the number of units.

The fire department reviewed this project, and the entire scope of the subdivision has been approved as meeting Arkansas Fire Code without connecting north to Zion.

Like there's no public street going north to Zion as a part of Chandler Crossing today.

As the land potentially develops further east of this, our Master Street plan, which the Zion extension is based on, envisions this continuing eastward towards uh I can't remember.

I'm sorry, I think it's I don't think it's Butterfield.

I think that's what a resident mentioned.

I think it's Old Wire Road where our master street plan contemplates it, because at that point, Old Wire Road is running somewhat east-northeast or north-east-north uh that area, and that's where we envision that connection being made.

That's not to say that if years and years and years or decades down the road, more land out there does develop, it is possible that Zion could be connected to at some point, but that is not a part of Chandler Crossing's approved drawings today.

Okay.

Um in regards to uh the walkability, um, and I again agree with uh the the young lady that spoke that this is not gonna be walkable uh uh for the most part.

Um it's gonna be uh you know, people are gonna go in their cars.

The only way this is if we're if we're talking about making a walkable community, it's gonna be when we add the residential behind uh behind it, it if that happens.

Then that becomes walkable because then you have the access, the two channeler crossing, then right across Zion Road, you have Copper Creek uh and those subdivisions there that can walk or or uh ride their bike to to the grocery store.

So that's any they can walk like you mentioned the subdivision across co uh across uh crossover.

Yes, they can do that.

Um and I I think um that's really the there's a little bit of residential to the south of this area, uh, but everything else is pretty much commercial uh around there.

So I don't know that we can recreate the wheel um in what's there, uh, but we can you know, if we were if this did pass, I think we need to make sure that we are adding you know features that are what you know attractive to the the walkability of the neighborhood because that's gonna come with the residential development behind it.

So um I I think that given I completely understand the residents' concerns about the the uh the um runoff.

I struggle with okay, where's the runoff issue?

Is it with where this piece of property is going to be developed, or is it further east?

Um and is this property development doing what it's supposed to do to regulate the the stormwater from their development.

So I again I agree with Bob.

I think you know we can hold this and get some more answers.

Uh but I I think they as a as an overall project, um I think it's got some very positive aspects to it.

So council member more.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I want to say uh thank you to staff um for helping us to kind of go back in time those council members who are going back into their memory banks.

I appreciate the comment from the resident that you know talked about procedure and um I know that a former planning commissioner that was a part of this said they would have never annexed this and approved this PCD with a project like this a nine acre Walmart in a sprawl pattern and even with the modifications that have been made and so I feel like we really need to be talking about honoring the thought of when we're looking at county land we've had those tough conversations at our edges is we are trying just to think about you know uh limiting sprawl and trying to think about like these compact neighborhoods and so I have a concern about this whole development you know talking about you know where is Chandler crossing and process you know is this gonna be um the very beginning of you know looking at this becoming much more of a a sprawling uh development pattern that happens over there.

Um additionally I don't want to minimize how important it is for us to um we've adopted vision zero um and you know have a lot of concerns about um when you think about again the thoughtfulness of that design um it was looking at you know this is close it looks like it's not a tier two center um this is a city neighborhood and so um you're thinking about kind of the safety that goes into those with thinking about the scalability of the commercial that was there and the type of traffic counts um and the type types of car and attentiveness that would kind of be in that particular area doesn't necessarily lend itself to a big box retailer who has their sprawl format and I'm incredibly concerned especially that while we've been given um you know cursory you know a little bit of of diligence in regard adding the green space and the trails you know I'm looking at that and going I don't want to cross that with my 10 and my 14 year old I'm I'm scared I'm gonna get hit by a car I'm going at that Zion area.

And so um there are a number of things that give me um pause on this project.

I also too just want to read us back to vision or to the 2040 plan.

You know I again I live in the downtown I get to access things but um we want equity and we want those um areas to exist for other um parts of our city um and the only way we're gonna be able to do that is by very much like council member Stafford stated, you know, someone does have to go first.

And so uh for me I'd like us to really push this uh project team to work with the Chandler's crossing folks and to do something that's more sizable and in line with that initial vision.

Yes let's give a market um but yes let's make it scalable to that area let's that think about the elements that make sense to create safety um to address um the traffic concerns that were brought up and um you know again I have a lot of pause that um if we move forward with something to this uh degree uh that we're kind of opening to the door to really saying we're just gonna be um really focused on automobiles in this portion of town and I don't really think that does justice to the folks that are you know buying and and are investing in that part of town I don't think that they should have any less access to the walkability um and livability that I have that I today don't feel you know worried in most of the area I go 20 minutes of a a walk or a bike ride you know I don't feel in peril and I feel like I can get my groceries that way.

I do think I can get to work that way.

I can get my kids to school that way.

And I think we all should have that ability and choice over a person with the investments our taxpayers have been making to to make our city um work in that way.

Yes I've got a you know Bob had asked about you know what what were the issues and concerns for the council members who were here before um you know that voted on this the first time and I know we went out we did a tour and and my concerns were uh you know that we needed to annex this this land because development was going to happen there at some point and we could we could either get ahead of it and have the standards we would apply um in the city of Fayetteville or we could allow what might be built in the county in that time would would have allowed septic tanks.

So we could have hundreds of houses built right on the edge of our city on septic tanks.

What could go wrong there you know and so that was that was a big issue for me with the re with the uh annexation of the land and the the PCD itself I felt came back we went back and forth several times on on things and I eventually came to the conclusion that they had tried to address as much as possible the concerns that we might have.

But the concerns I have with this still with this new project are the same ones I had with the old PCD, and they involve drainage and traffic issues.

And so I'm still gonna have those.

I I can't vote on this tonight because I still have those concerns, and I don't think they've really been adequately um resolved.

But this area in particular is kind of you know, we've said, well, we've got to build something that is walkable if we want people to walk.

Well, yes, we do, but this is kind of an unusual area that is it may not really be quite walkable right now, but I think it will be at some point in time.

And so I've got to weigh that very carefully.

Um, there are if you go um west on Zion Row, there are quite a few um I guess row houses would be what you there's a couple of subdivisions there that are very much more dense and um you know connect to sidewalks and that sort of thing, and would you know benefit from having walkability because it's a short stretch from those subdivisions and houses that I and um apartments that are on um shoot old Missouri that that comes off, you know, there's an area I'm trying to remember my streets here, thank you.

Um Missouri has quite a few apartments and stuff like that on it.

So it's not that far when you just start branching out in your mind and you think about all the places that are where there's is higher density nearby that might benefit from walkability here.

So this has its merits, this project has its merits, and I'm sure that the client that wants to build this store, if they think they can make money there, they're going to want to build a store there, and they know the logistics of it probably far better than I do.

What I have to consider is how it's going to fit with my community.

And uh, so if they think they can put a grocery store there and a gas station there, and it's going to work because of the distance from other homes and the subdivision that will be going in behind here, then whether it, you know, I I don't see that that's an issue with whether there could be a store there or not, because I think it could benefit from a store there.

But but like I said, what I have to consider are issues of traffic safety and drainage are the main concerns that I have.

And uh I'll turn it over to Councilmember Turk now.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Bunch.

Um, I think you and I are the only two people that were on here when we first the old gals.

Um what I remember is that we were kind of um sold this vision about walkability, and and that was the big thing.

Uh I voted against it because I didn't think that the drainage was adequate uh at the time.

I was very concerned, and I still have those same concerns.

Um there was lots of things, um, lots of concerns about different springs, and would those fall under some EPA guidelines or not.

Um there's definitely stream bank erosion issues.

Um as Jonathan correctly pointed out, Hilton Creek uh contributes about 20% to Lake Fayable.

We have uh lots of harmful algal blooms that have been in the past and and continue to kind of plug us at Lake Fayble.

So there's a lot of legacy phosphorus and phosphorus is the big driver, the big um nutrient that comes in that uh contributes to harmful harmful algal blooms.

Um so I am extremely concerned about any additional um runoff or drainage uh that could occur.

Um so you know, all of that's kind of factored into this, and I I do think we need a whole lot more information than we have tonight, and uh I certainly need to think about this a whole lot more and uh if there was um additional information about the drainage where that would go.

And then my final question is what triggers a new traffic study?

Um, you know, Zion Road has been uh updated, is completed on the other side.

I don't believe it was in that um status uh one when we went through this before.

So I I don't know what that trigger is, but um, and we've also had five years of growth in in that area too.

So thank you.

Councilmember Berna.

Uh thank you.

I just got one question when we're talking about uh Zion Road.

Will, if approved, will this development be required to improve the uh access there at Zion Road and crossover for like crosswalks and and to get for the people on the west side of crossover to gain access.

I think that gets to, I'm sorry, I can't remember which council member asked earlier, but about the interaction there.

The real estate transaction, as I understand it, is that the Chandler Crossing subdivision is still responsible for all those street improvements.

Is that I'm sorry, is that what you're saying?

What I'm saying though is irregardless of who's required to build it, will they have to improve the crosswalk or or access across Zion uh cross crossover and Zion?

Uh like will that be improved for people on the west side of uh crossover to be able to gain access to uh the the proposed grocery store and because right now I I don't think there is uh I was trying to visualize if there was a crosswalk or something there, significant access there, and I don't think that there is.

I'm my my recollection may be incorrect.

I I don't know that I have a clearance for yet, yes, there are crosswalks today, I guess is the the the leading point.

There's it's a three-legged trend intersection uh with con it's kind of designed to contemplate extending eastward.

The Chandler Crossing subdivision would add a fourth leg to that intersection, and it would also add a crosswalk on that side of the street where the street is now.

Um are you asking if the existing crosswalks would be required to be upgraded beyond what they are or yeah, I'm just trying to visualize what's there, and I and I I can't recall what's there.

And if we're talking about giving access to the the neighborhoods on the west side of town to that that development, I would think that we would want improved access across crossover road.

I'm just not recalling what's there to be honest.

We uh just if it helps visualizing it.

This this is what is there today.

There's uh the property in question is up here on the upper right hand side, uh northeast of the intersections though.

It's a there are three pedestrian crosswalks today.

None of them are trail crosswalks, uh which we typically have when the trail crosses a major street like that.

Um I don't know offhand.

I apologize if that is part of the channel, if that specifically is part of the channel crossing project.

If I if I'm reading the room correctly, it sounds like this may a decision may not happen tonight.

I think I can get some additional information on that in addition to uh touching on more details on when traffic studies are triggered and things of that nature as well for the next meeting.

I don't have that handy though.

Sorry.

I just I just think that would be real beneficial, you know, to tie the two sides of the uh of the highway together for safety purposes.

So one of the questions that um I would like to, I'm not sure I know I drive through there.

This is not an area that I walk through frequently though.

And um, I would like to know what parts of the existing um crosswalks are they all signalized?

I think do they all stop traffic or is it is it just on crossover that that happens or does that happen at all, honestly?

I can look into that.

I don't have that information in front of me.

Um all right.

So I guess the appetite for of the council is to hold this on this reading.

Is that correct?

Okay, okay.

That is um our last item for this evening.

Do we have any pub any announcements, Keith?

Yes, Vice Mayor, I have several.

Uh here.

Uh next week uh after the agenda session, the mayor will be holding your state of the city address, and that will be held this year at the town center.

So immediately after our agenda session, we'll be walking over to the town center to have that.

In addition to the state of the city, uh several of our bond uh representatives from our bond questions are going to be there to answer some questions if needed with a couple tables with information.

And then tomorrow uh from between 5 30 and 7 30, we are having a public input session at the animal shelter.

And the animal shelter is located at 1640 South Armstrong.

So it's kind of a coming to go come and go uh type activity.

So anytime between 5:30 and 7:30, you can drop by the animal shelter and uh learn about their uh proposal for uh uh our proposed bond question on a new animal shelter.

That's all I have.

Ms.

Paxton, do you have anything?

Uh when are we having uh the board and commissioners?

Yeah, I was gonna ask when do we have um our uh nominating applications or I'm losing my words tonight?

So that that was announced this past Friday.

So that application runs for roughly a month, and we will send that information to you as we get to the end of that period with those applications.

Okay thank you very much.

So that's all we have and we're adjourned.

Thank you.