Okay, good evening everyone, and I'm calling to order the Thursday, March 5th meeting of the Fayetteville City Council.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones.

Mr.

Stafford?

Here.

Dr.

Jones?

Here.

Ms.

Moore?

Here.

Mr.

Wheatekirk?

Here.

Mr.

Berna?

Here.

Ms.

Bunch.

Ms.

Turk.

Here.

And Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay.

Uh first up on our agenda.

Members of the council may notice that we have new microphones.

So hopefully everyone in the very back row is able to hear and they are working well.

If you are not, Chief Harden, I would like to designate you as to stand up and raise your hand and let us know if we're not being loud enough.

First up on our agenda is a presentation from our chief financial officer Steven Dawson.

Oh, I don't think yours is on.

Thank you.

Y'all hear me?

No.

Oh.

Can you maybe speak into it louder?

Uh sure.

Okay.

Okay.

I'll do my.

Can you all hear him behind you, maybe?

Okay, so maybe it's just that we can't hear him up here.

Okay.

Okay.

Gotcha.

Um okay.

This is the December sales tax report for taxes received in January of 2025.

In December, we saw taxable sales in the city totaling approximately 325 million, which was an increase of 1% or roughly $3.28 million compared to December of 24.

In December, uh retail trade was relatively flat, showing a gain of less than one percent.

Our manufacturing was up 24%.

Wholesale trade was up 17%, and professional scientific and technical services were up 19%.

We did also have tax rebates affecting both the construction sector at 5.3 million and the education services sector at 4.1 million during the month.

In total, uh that left us with an increase of roughly 1% uh increase in taxable sales compared to last year.

And moving on to the actual tax collection information uh results in the December of 2025 compared to 24.

The city one penny was up one percent or approximately $30,000 compared to last year.

The county portion to the city was up 1.77% or roughly 43,000, resulting in a total combined uh sales tax collection increase of 1.32 percent compared to December of 24.

If we take a look uh compared to the tax revenues, um comparing the tax revenues to what was actually budgeted, the city one penny was down around 1.98% compared to budget.

The county portion was down 1.19% for a combined total for the month of December, down 1.6% compared to budget, around $94,000.

And that's our tax report uh for the month of December.

Can I answer any questions on that?

Um Dr.

Jones, yeah, go ahead.

Yes.

Uh what about the education services?

What does that consist of?

Uh see.

Good question.

Okay.

While he's looking for that, just an announcement for the good of the whole.

Um these new mics also, if you look next to the mic, you should have a little speaker with a power button.

And I have just been told that if you turn that on, it really does help you hear the speaker.

So Dr.

Jones, I've got that answer for you.

So the educational services sector, that's uh colleges, universities, and professional schools.

That's technical and trade schools, that's other schools and instruction, um, educational support services, and business schools and computer and management training.

And uh that's uh those are classification codes basically designated by the government, and they report the information to us accordingly.

So that's what's underneath that sector.

Okay, and so that would what that would be what fees are those.

Uh basically anything related to those sectors, and when we're talking about the rebates here specifically, I think we're we're talking about construction.

Okay.

And so I I think that's what what we're seeing here is uh rebates related to that.

There's a lot of construction projects going on, both in the the Fayetteville School District as well as the university right now.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Sure.

Ms.

Moore, thank you, Mayor.

And Steven, thank you.

Saying on that continuation on the rebates, I know you don't have a total crystal wall, and we unfortunately don't have you know uh great insight to the tax rebates.

But I am just wondering, um, given kind of the trend we've seen so far in the last couple of months, if you have any kind of indications or anything that's coming forward given those two segments that you're reporting on.

That's a that's a very difficult thing to report on, unfortunately.

Like I said last time, we're kind of in the same boat as the other cities up here where unfortunately we don't get enough data to really get at the bottom of those numbers.

But we do have a few ideas.

Um so after the last um tax support when we had these significant rebates, I talked to our deputy CFO and our director of economic vitality, and you know, we're kind of putting together a plan to maybe get some more information here as much as we can.

We can reach out to the school and we district and we can reach out to the university and ask them if they can provide us with some more information on the magnitude of those rebates and when they might be hitting.

Now that's not information that they would necessarily have to provide to us, but we can certainly reach out and try.

And we're not entirely sure what what kind of information we get back and whether or not that would help us in terms of budget planning and reporting, but uh that's something that's you know we can we can certainly try that.

I appreciate that, Stephen.

Just at least trying to open that line of communication because it did have a huge impact on our our number when that came.

It did.

I think uh if if we didn't have those rebates, uh our tax numbers would have been up roughly four percent or so compared to last year.

That's substantial, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, and moving on to the monthly financial report, and this report is for January of 2026.

Starting off in the general fund, our property tax was flat.

Our sales tax was down roughly two percent uh compared to budget through the month of January.

Our franchise fees were flat, um, so that met our budgetary expectations.

Our alcoholic beverage fees were down around seven percent or roughly seventy-three hundred dollars.

Building permits were up one percent or around thirty-five hundred dollars.

Our state turn back, that was uh flat.

Charges for services were up around five percent.

Um, and all in all, that left us with a fund total, we were up two percent, or I'm sorry, down two percent in the general fund uh compared to what was budgeted through the month of January.

In the street fund, uh that's primarily led by state turnback.

That was up uh one percent or roughly eighty, eight hundred dollars, and that left us with a fund total in the street fund.

Uh we were pretty much flat, or we met our budgetary expectations there.

The parking fund, that kind of mirrors uh what we talked about a little while ago uh with the sales tax and what you're gonna be hearing from me shortly in terms of the HMR tax results.

The parking fund was down uh roughly 14 percent um for the month of January.

Now January is one of our slower months parking-wise, and we have seen variability over the course of the last several years.

Some years it's down, some years it's up.

So this isn't necessarily out of the norm out of uh what we would normally uh trends that we would normally see.

It's just something that we'll be keeping our eye on.

But uh, you know, when you see those sales tax numbers down, you can expect that the parking would be down as well.

People necessarily weren't out there um parking and and spending the same money that that you might have seen in in past months throughout the year.

In the parks development fund, our HMR tax uh was down around 4%, around 14,000 through the month of January.

Um our charges for services were up around 28% or $3,900, leaving us with a fund total, we were down roughly three percent in the parks development fund or around 12,000.

In the water and sewer fund, that is primarily uh led by charges for services, which were up around 2% through the month of January or around $74,000.

Um that left us with a uh fund total compared to budget up around 2%.

Stormwater management as a reminder, that's our new fund.

And now that we're into uh January, we have a full budget uh laid out for that.

We are up four percent compared to budget in the stormwater management fund or around 11,000 in recycling and trash.

Um we are up our fund total is up around three percent compared to budget through the month of January or around 37,000 dollars, and that was uh led by increases in charges for services at around 2% or roughly 25,000.

And finally, in our airport fund, um our gasoline sales for the year through the month of January are down approximately 1.5 percent or around 2900, but our number of flight operations are up around 1.9 percent or roughly 37 more flight operations uh than the previous year.

And that's our monthly report for the month of January.

Can I answer any questions on that?

Doesn't look like it.

Thank you, Stephen.

Thank you.

Okay, that brings us to the consent agenda.

Which uh yes, go ahead, Mr.

Stafford.

Yes, I'd like to move that we uh vote on the consent agenda is read to us at agenda session.

Second okay, we have a motion and a second.

Uh Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes, Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

So that means that we will um take a vote on the consent consent agenda as presented at agenda session.

Clerk Paxton, please call the roll.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedekert.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Um that passes.

So we will move um straight into unfinished business.

And uh before we move into this item, I want to go ahead and make an announcement that I discussed uh earlier today with the city attorney regarding item B1, the PCD on North Crossover.

So I was unfortunately out.

Um I have not yet been at a council meeting where this has been heard.

When it was heard at the previous meeting earlier in March, I was um unfortunately out for a medical event, and then it was tabled.

So this is the first time I will have been hearing it.

And it is since it was initially introduced come to my attention that there could be a perceived conflict if I were to take a position on it.

I feel very comfortable and my ability to be fair and only weigh in on things if I were to have the opportunity to that are in the best interest of the city.

But because there is a relationship there uh related to my husband's employer, I never want anyone to feel as if that is what is motivating my decisions one way or another.

So I want to go ahead on the front end and just let everyone know that in the event um that I will not that I will not be taking a vote or a position in the event it were to go to me, um, nor will I be offering any commentary throughout the discussion.

Um, but because I Mr.

Williams did agree that I could still sit and preside over the meeting, um, but I won't be weighing in.

So I wanted you all to know that um because I believe that is fair and appropriate.

So now we will move on to item B1, PZD 2025-5, North Crossover Road and East Zion Road.

It's an ordinance to approve a planned zoning district, PCD 2025-5 for approximately nine acres, located at North Crossover Road and East Zion Road in Ward 3.

This ordinance was left on the first meeting at the um this says February 3rd, but I think that it I earlier said early in March, and forgive me, I meant early in February.

At the February 3rd meeting, it was left on the first reading, and it was tabled at the February 17th reading.

Kit.

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

That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves PCD 2025-05 as described in exhibits A map, B, legal description, and C, 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 features, and natural spaces.

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

So that's now on the second reading.

Well, the second reading has been done.

Great.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kurt.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan Kurt, Development Services Director.

Uh, as a brief reminder to the council, this property is at the northeast corner of Zion Road and Crossover Road in Northeast Fayetteville.

Uh as it was left at the last meeting, there were several outstanding items that the council requested of staff as far as information as well as from the applicant and in the nature or in the interest of addressing those.

Uh I have the four of them laid out here.

Uh those include the potential changes to the existing Chandler Crossing PCD, uh, the what potential entitlement updates or entitlement changes may need to be done to the existing Chandler Crossing plat that has been previously approved where work and construction is underway.

Uh what has been approved as the design for the crossover and Zion intersection with a focus specifically on pedestrian access in that area, uh and finally the the potential for a traffic study or analysis.

Uh taking these one by one, uh, beginning with the uh potential future changes to the PCD.

Uh it was cons expressed as a concern by by multiple council members during our previous hearings that this request that's before council tonight, which is amending the Chandler Crossing PCD, uh, could ultimately uh negatively impact or adversely impact the intent of that PCD uh and with concerns also that what how how can the council make sure that the the remainder of the PCD stays intact or stays whole.

Uh ultimately that is a council decision.

The only item that the council is considering tonight is this portion of the Chandler Crossing PCD to amend it with the market at uh Chandler PCD uh and any other changes either to either PCD would have to go through council and are ultimately subject to your decision.

Uh second, uh in regards to entitlement updating.

Uh if the council can recall the history of this property, it has previously gone through uh the overall property has previously gone through PCD entitlement.

Uh that was for uh a uh residential subdivision with several mixed use or non-residential outlots along Zion Road.

Uh and those who went on the tour or have visited the property since then know that it is under construction today.

Um as a result, if the council were to take the action of approving this PZD, uh that would have uh three cascading impacts.

Uh the first of which is that the existing PZD would have to be amended to acknowledge this change to a portion of the property.

That in itself would need to result in a revision or a modification to the plat to address the interactions of the streets that were uh approved with that project, the state stormwater design, the water design, the uh sewer design, and finally, because it's under construction under a grading permit, uh, the applicant would have to go through our engineering division to make sure that those drawings are revised prior to uh uh continuing substantial work.

Moving on to the third item that was uh left unanswered at the previous meeting, uh a question of the crossover and Zion design.

Uh as of today, the intersection is proposed to add a fourth leg to it.

If you're familiar with it, uh the only portions that exist today are crossover road running north and south and Zion Road running to the west.

Uh what the Chandler Crossing uh plat or subdivision was approved to do is uh extend Zion Road eastward, add trail uh sidewalk or our multi-use trail section to the east side of crossover road running north-south with a typical uh uh striped uh pedestrian crossing located at location.

Uh this is an image of what's on the the west side of crossover today.

Uh it's a pretty typical section that you see throughout the city.

Uh and evaluating this internally uh with our engineering group and and our city engineer, uh, we feel that it is uh appropriate uh to have the opportunity to work with RDOT.

Uh we've had projects since then where we've been able to use our trail street crossing section along and near state highways, and so we're in uh the process of uh reevaluating that with RDOT to see if if uh that there's an opportunity to incorporate that in the project since it uh gives more prominence to the pedestrian crossing there.

Finally, with regards to traffic study and analysis uh and evaluating the scope of what's proposed before council, uh which is ultimately a grocery and a uh convenience store and a gas station uh project.

Uh, this would exceed our typical requirements for a traffic analysis.

Uh so when this project does get submitted, uh that is something that would be expected uh as a requirement with that.

Uh that would be expected to take uh the typical uh uh considerations of a traffic analysis, which is existing traffic, anticipated growth in the region or in this area and what that those traffic impacts are, and then overlay the existing project on that as well.

And in this case, we would need to cross-reference that with the Chandler Crossing uh traffic study that has been done to date.

Uh with that said, uh as a reminder, staff is recommending in favor of this request.

It came to City Council with a recommendation of approval of six to one.

Uh, and we have heard public comment on this uh at the planning commission at the council meeting and in the intervening times uh with concerns uh much of what you've already heard, uh particularly with an eye towards uh drainage and flooding uh to the north along Hilton Creek, uh, which runs to the north and east of this property.

Uh I can take questions, uh, but mayor, I do know that Will Kelstrom is present and has some information as well to share with council if they'd like to hear that first.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Kelstrom, would you like to present?

Thanks.

Good evening, council members.

Will Kelstrom here on behalf of the applicant?

Um, we don't have a whole lot more to add from last time.

Um, and in terms of uh the site plan, we did upon further research see that our northern access is gonna require a trail crossing by city code, so we've added that into the site plan to um show that, and we've added some more trees at the um at some of these uh pedestrian and a public gathering areas across the site.

Um since the last meeting, um at the last meeting there were several questions asked.

A lot of those are I think are are better left addressed by Jonathan.

I think he just addressed a lot of those.

Um the other ones that were asked were mainly had to do with drainage.

Since the time of the last meeting, we have done a lot of our drainage design um well in advance of what we normally would have done it to to try the best we can to make sure that we are able to explain and answer any questions regarding drainage that you all might have.

Um we've been working and coordinating with the developer of Chandler Crossing, sharing numbers, sharing drainage designs so that we can make sure that we've coordinated on a regional strategy for both developments and that they both work hand in hand and meet code and work well.

Um Jonathan Barry from CEI is gonna be a lot better at answering engineering questions than I am, so I will leave it to y'all to ask whatever questions of him that you you would like to know.

Um and then the last point um being that I see that we are short to council members.

So we are currently on the second reading.

We certainly have no problem with this being left on the the second reading and being brought up on the third reading when we get back on the 17th, so that all councils can be here and ask questions and get information that they need.

Um, and in fact, we we'd prefer it that way.

So um, with that, I'm available for any questions, and so is Jonathan Barry with CEI, the engineer on the project.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um okay.

Do we have any questions from council?

Miss Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, I looked at I didn't see any updates to our packet, so I would really prefer to be able to see any um revisions that you've made to the drainage plan or anything like that.

And I it maybe I overlooked it, but I I didn't see any Jonathan.

Were there intended to be changes that were distributed, or can you maybe the applicant shared some exhibits as visuals that I have tonight?

Uh if the council does, I can pull those up if the applicant would like to describe those.

Um, if the council does leave this on the reading tonight, those can also be more I could work with the clerk's office to make sure those are included uh in the agenda.

Um, even if we decide to table it tonight, I'd really like to see the plans if that's okay with everybody else.

So we we have two exhibits, and I blew right past those.

I apologize.

The first one is is the site plan that shows that trail crossing and some of the additional trees.

It's it's gonna look about the same as the last one.

So I I would not say that there's any substantial changes, really just additional information on what we're planning to build there.

There is a second uh exhibit that Jonathan Barry has prepared to aid in answering any drainage questions that you all might have.

And that is just a um well, I'll let him explain it.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Barry.

Thank you, Will.

So this is the proposed grading plan based on uh we we've done a drainage analysis over the last month.

Uh the table on the lower left-hand corner uh indicates the difference between the current Chandler crossing development and what the impervious area would be, which is I think it's uh 75% impervious, as it could be designed or built out today.

The new design reduces it by about an acre.

So the overall impervious area is now at 64%.

Um we've incorporated many of your uh of the uh water quality features in the in the pond.

You can see uh four bays to help settlement water settle uh the contaminants out of the water.

Uh there's a micro pool as well.

Um other questions?

I mean, I can keep keep giving you more information, but is there any other questions on the on the reague plan that we have here?

And I think Dr.

Jones has his slide on Dr.

Jones ending up.

And then I'll yes, but it's not about that, it's about um my question is for Will.

Uh when you as it relates to other communities, how long is this process compared to what y'all are doing here in other cities?

Well, I you mean the the process of rezoning.

Have you had to go through any extra loops or anything like that here?

Well, we're asking for a PZD, so yes, but I also think that's that is partially on us because we we chose to submit that way.

Um that was a specific strategy we took.

So I don't it wouldn't it wouldn't be fair for me to pin that on.

All right, thank you, Will.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so I see that you've got the reduction of uh water flow or impervious surface.

How are you able to achieve that when you've got a huge parking um lot on the front end of that?

Part of it is the fact that there's a large pond um that wasn't it's not there currently in the Chandler Crossing design.

Uh where that pond sits now is in the proposed changel crossing is mainly homes.

So that area that was gonna be uh I think by code you can be 65% impervious where the homes sit plus all the roads, that's one of the biggest changes.

Okay, thank you.

Because we're detaining the water on site, it's it's allowing more green space.

And is there any detention underneath the parking lot or underneath the building?

Is that part of your design at all?

No, it's it's the entire two-acre parcel or part of the parcel.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Berna.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I was reached out to uh, I don't know if any of the other council members got uh the email from the Elks Lodge, and one of their concerns was um the their a pond on their existing property, and it looks like the way the building is laid out, the pond is directly north of uh the building.

So are you comfortable in saying that the their their pond would not be affected by your runoff?

Yes.

Our our our runoff is to the to the east.

Okay.

Uh it looked like visually that's what it was gonna do, but I okay.

Thank you.

Okay, do we have any more questions before we go to public comment?

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to any members of the public that thank you both uh that may have a comment on this item.

Please come up to the mic.

You have three minutes, and please state your name and address.

Um, yes.

Okay.

Also, do we have people on Zoom ready to comment on this item?

Just no okay, all right, great.

Okay.

So Kelly Stewart, 3306 East Zion Road.

Kelly Stewart, 3306 East Zion Road.

And I just want to go on record of just expressing concern again.

Um thank you for uh talking about the traffic.

I think a traffic study is very important, especially with the new school at Joyce and Crossover.

I think that that's gonna impact this area.

And um, you know, rezoning it to a larger grocery store than was originally intended.

I believe that that trip purpose changes, right?

So you've got the volume of the cars and at certain times of the day.

So I I would like to say that that traffic study is gonna be very important and it has to be forward looking, considering um what's going on, uh especially at Joyce.

And then the second being water stormwater management.

Um when you look at the map that you pulled up earlier, and you see the pond that's now proposed, and you know it's it's lovely.

Um, but when you look at like the homes that are also gonna be eventually built, some of those in that drawing are in a flood zone today.

So I wonder how that's going to be addressed.

And I know that's separate, a separate issue, but they they're kind of gonna go together, right?

So this pond and then the homes in the flood zone.

I don't know how those are gonna interact.

Um, it just doesn't add up to me.

Like it kind of raises some red flags for the entire project um that we've had concerns about since the beginning.

So I just wanted to go on record for both of those concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Stewart.

Yeah, my name is Nick Anthony.

I live in 3301 East Zion Road, and I've been here several times.

Um I guess I'm a little bit uh uncomfortable with what what I just heard actually is that this hasn't appeared to have progressed as much as I had hoped it would have, in that we would have been able to see the marriage between Chandler Park and this nine-acre parcel that's being requested.

I I really think that that's important to understand how they're gonna fit together because my understanding is that the water runoff from the nine acres will actually go just mentioned going east into the detention pond.

And I may be wrong here, but into the detention pond that then will access my property.

So I'm a little bit concerned that we haven't fully developed that concept of how this water is gonna flow off the property.

You know, this project, as you know, has a lot of history to it.

And um, and a lot of it goes around with the nature of the soil and the path that the groundwater takes to get to Hilton Creek, which actually ends up it's the final destination.

Well, maybe not final destination, but it does uh meet up with Lake Fayetteville, and there's been these issues over the past since like 99 um about or not 99, but uh 19 about uh water quality issues in Lake Fayetteville and algal blooms.

And that was one of the things that we talked about um early on in this project.

So over the course of this documentation, we talked about the algorithm problems, we talked about the science-based information of the hills and swale area that's there.

And again, that has some um say unnatural water movements that are um that are well documented in in uh previous meetings.

Um I just really you know, I'm just really concerned about this water thing, and as mentioned by the previous speaker, um, there's a situation there where part of the housing development that will end up there at Chandler Crossing is going to be in floodplain.

And um, one of the city engineers went out and looked at the property with me, and I really appreciate him coming and joining me out there and uh um visiting with Mr.

Lang as well, who is a hydrologist.

And there was some concerns about what was going on out at the property as it exists right now.

Um I actually at 3 30 this morning got out of bed, went out and took some pictures of flooding because of two inches of rain, which is minor in the big picture.

But I had a full-on flood across uh my property from the Chandler crossing piece.

Water was coming out of the detention pond, water was coming from the back side of the detention pond because the creek accessing that has been blocked off.

So again, this this water flow thing is really front and center for me.

I'm concerned about it.

The nine acres, how it's gonna flow into that.

I really want to see the marriage of that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have others who want to go ahead and come line up.

Or Keith, if you want to um go ahead and take someone on Zoom.

Yeah, David Joseph, you're allowed to speak.

Hi there.

I'm David Joseph, I'm at 4859 Pasco Drive, which is just a little ways north of the proposed area.

Um I just wanted to reiterate there are uh three other Walmarts neighborhood markets within an eight-minute drive of this spot.

And there's three more grocery stores next to those.

So there's seven grocery stores within an eight-minute drive of this spot.

So I uh you know, I'm I'm all in favor of of uh developing this area, but I think maybe uh something out something in keeping with the original plan or maybe a school makes more sense in this spot.

Thank you.

We do not have any others on Zoom.

Okay, did I miss anybody in the audience?

Okay, I will bring it back to the council for uh Ms.

Moore.

Thank you.

It sounds like the applicant is asking for us to leave it on this reading, and I'm fine with that, but I do want to hopefully give them some notes to take back.

Um not unlike um what was stated by um one of the residents, you know.

I think there have been a lot of discussions, and I too would have liked to seen a little more developed and come before us tonight.

Um so I'll hope for that in the next time.

Um whenever this property was um taken into the city and annexed, it was an as a complete PCD, and a lot of those intentions when I think about rooted back to why we did that were to protect this waterway going into Lake Fayetteville, recognizing um that this was a certain type of uh topography and soil that was what was in that area.

Addition, I think we talked about this in our previous um council session, is that um we've invested millions of dollars in plans to you know create walkability and livability across our city.

You shouldn't just have to live in downtown Fayetteville uh to easily and safely be able to access um all of your needs.

And if we continue to, you know, this this PCD in its current form the way it sits today, um has retail space available that could be grocery.

We're being asked to um really magnify um what's gonna happen there with the car traffic, with adding a gas station, and it really goes counter to the plans that we've talked about to create walkability and safe um access to come through there.

And so I'd really like to ask this project to be uh thoughtful and mindful of that original PCD.

Uh, I really like us to reconsider on the gas station.

I'd really like us to consider um about those pedestrian pathways, because I'm very concerned about that.

I want the same livability for residents that are out in this part of our city that are not my constituents to get the same experience I get in downtown Fayetteville with my 10 and 14 year old to be able to access 30 minutes easily without their mom and dad around.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, and I just have a simple request uh before next meeting, Jonathan.

Would it be possible to get like uh a map of those uh seven?

I I didn't realize there were they're saying seven grocery stores within eight minutes.

Is it is it possible to get kind of like an area map to show where those grocery stores are?

Certainly in a clarifying question is it I I think the drive the the speaker was referencing an eight minute drive.

I think the conversation has been about walkability.

Is the interest in understanding what eight-minute walk for a grocery store is or an eight-minute drive for a grocery store is?

Well it sounded like they were talking about an eight-minute drive, but I think that's important.

I don't think there is one within an eight-minute walk.

Uh I think that's we know that.

So we'll take a broad view and and put an exhibit together for you.

Yeah.

Uh and and just a quick point before we move on, is that you know, when people were talking about traffic, uh having this grocery store here, I think would actually cut traffic down south uh to Michigan crossover or over down and over Joyce or over Zion and down college and up Joyce to get to the closest grocery store.

So I see this as a a traffic uh coming and and and creating some walkability, maybe not the type of walkability uh that we'd like to see, but walkability nonetheless.

Great.

Okay, oh Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um ESPN had suggested that I send a couple of images over to the IT staff.

So if you would pull up the map in response to where grocery stores are located out of out of morbid curiosity, um this image is just uh an overlay with uh assistance of city staff of the heat map of population density uh overlaid with grocery stores.

And so I'm not saying that grocery stores cause housing or housing causes grocery stores.

I'm just saying visually, this is the relationship and it doesn't explain everything.

If you go to the next image, it's almost more meaningful for me because you know, I'm trying to understand and explain where grocery stores appear and why they're viable financially and where they service people.

And then when I look at this image, and that's just you know, a Google map with the grocery stores depicted, you can see that they really are a long thoroughfares, and it just makes sense for people getting to and from those stores.

So I I wanted to offer this just for um our own edification to be able to have more meaningful conversation about where they're located, where they might be desirable, and um and it does appear to me that it's not irrational for um the the company to say, gee, this would be a uh a logical, rational location for us to want to place a store.

So uh it's not necessarily pro or con, it just is hey, I thought it would be helpful for me to do this, and as long as I did the work, I thought I should share it and get some credit, homework credit for it from the mayor.

Thank you.

Okay, Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um what I would appreciate seeing next time around is really um pretty much in response to Mether Mr.

Anthony's question is how does this drainage flow?

So in and if we could see that the proximity to Hilton Creek and to Lake Fayetteville, and to also where the um proposed houses are to be built at Chandler Crossing, just so we have a better understanding of the flow dynamics um under the current PCD and also versus the proposed one.

Um I don't know if we can if it's necessary or not, but uh Topo map in the background might be helpful too to uh instruct on the drainage flow.

Um, but I'd like to get a much bigger picture about that in a lot more detail uh if possible the next time this appears.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Stafford.

Uh I just want to say, Jonathan, I think my point is moot.

Uh my request is moot at this point.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Wheedaker.

And Clerk Paxton, if you'll please put um homework points in the in your roster for Mr.

Wheedaker per his request.

So yes, Gold Star.

Okay, it seems like we are leaving.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr.

Burner, go ahead.

I was just gonna say uh Councilmember Stafford had a really good point about the uh uh traffic at for example mission and crossover.

Joyce and and college, uh, where the two closest in the city uh Walmarts are.

So I may ask, I don't see Chief back there.

I uh I'd like to uh request about traffic uh study or accident uh at Joyce and uh uh college and also mission and crossover because I would guess mission crossover and Joyce and College are one of the more uh higher accident scenes, and that's where two Walmarts are.

So if we can if we can show that and we show this is pulling some traffic from that, that's a positive.

We can I'm happy to ask Chief to pull that for you for next meeting if that works.

Okay, all right, great.

Um I think we are gonna leave this one and move on.

Before we move to B2, we need to do some procedural housekeeping.

Earlier in the meeting, when we we had a first and a second to a um sorry to suspend the rules and vote on the consent agenda as presented, and then we rolled right into a second vote about approving the agenda, but we did not have a first nor a second to actually approve.

So I will be calling for a motion to approve the agenda as presented and then a second.

So move.

And seconded.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to approve again the uh consent agenda as presented.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones, yes, Ms.

Moore.

Yes, Mr.

Wiedaker.

Yes, Mr.

Berna.

Yes, Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

All right, great.

Thank you, and thank you, Clerk Paxton, for keeping us on track with that.

Moving along to B2, 516 North Fallon Avenue.

It's a resolution pursuant to section 39.10 C4 of the Fayetteville City Code to authorize a payment of 100,000 dollars.

And I apologize in advance to Mr.

Chris Skyrocky, I believe that's the correct correct pronunciation for a sewer damage claim arising at 516 North Fallon Avenue.

This uh resolution was tabled at the February 17th meeting.

Um, and I believe we have uh Tim Nyander here from uh City Staff to talk about this item.

Thank you, Mayor.

Before we get started on the item, I will say that uh we do consider this to be an extraordinary situation, and uh staff is supportive of recommending to the mayor uh the award of the maximum amount allowed by the ordinance of 100,000.

Uh on December the 8th, uh directional boring company bored through a sewer main that had been incorrectly located by city staff, which was located behind 516 North Fallon Avenue.

This caused uh a build-up of the of the boring mud and the water that the borers used to keep their uh drill bit lubricated to go directly into the sewer, therefore going down the sewer and backing up into the service line of this address.

Um, and resulted in in overflowing into the home.

If you look up on the screen, uh this first graph, the uh the diagonal, the dotted line that goes north and south that's red, is what the contractor marked to be located where they plan to do their work.

Uh the sewer line, as you can see, runs east and west.

Uh what the locator did is he located the line up to there's a shed in the middle of that, what looks like an intersection of an old shed, located up to that shed and stopped to not go around the shed to see that there was the line continued on.

So about half of the line got marked.

Consequently, the uh the boring company chose to bore on the other side of the shed, and it did hit the sewer line.

Of course, they were not aware that it happened, so the uh the diatomaceous earth, which is the the boring mud in the water, continued to fill the sewer line until it impacted this home.

Uh Keith did show that second slide.

This is you can see the green marks.

This is where the locator marked the sewer line properly, but only on one half of the of the location.

Um the customer called the mitigate a mitigation company NWA restore it.

They came in and removed the flooring, the trim, the sheetrock, and other items.

It was the next day that the uh the resident or the representative contacted the city to tell us that there was a problem.

The crew uh came out promptly and went out and uh looked and repaired the sewer main, cleaned it out.

Uh the claimant is seeking compensation uh from the city, which includes the cost of the mitigation, cleaning of personal effects and construction costs to replace materials removed by the mitigation company.

Uh the repair estimate was done by the city's third party adjuster.

Uh that estimate for the repair is 46,496 and 83 cents.

Uh also the adjuster agreed with the personal property loss that the customer had uh of 24,505.

Uh NWA Restore It has given a cleaning estimate of uh cleaning of personal property at $32,745 and 19 cents and a mitigation estimate of $36,241.11, and then three days of temporary lodging for $495.

Uh that is a total of 140,483 and 13 cents.

The claimant did get uh an insurance payment of $10,000, which changes the requested amount to $130,483 and 13 cents.

Uh there was some question asked by the council to take a look at the five-year history of sewer claims that we've had.

Uh so right here, what you've got is uh the bar graph shows the consecutive years.

You can see that there were some uh hired claims in 2023.

Uh I do believe that the red bar indicates this current claim.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Uh next slide, please.

What you've got here is you've got the individual claims that got paid through the five-year period.

Uh several claims are are in the lower level that uh get paid to the claimant without any council action.

Uh the uh utilities department is authorized to go up to $35,000 on their own.

Um you do have three ones that were uh higher up with the with the highest one being around $50,000.

You can see from the pie chart that are two leading causes of sewer overflows, are either roots in the line or grease in the line.

Um and then one is uh is turn point repairs, but basically the uh bad tap in the sewer main that causes a problem.

Um you've got some figures down below that show uh the averages and uh what has been paid through the years.

Um the funds are available in the uh self-insurance non-vehicular damage account within the water and sewer fund, and I'll certainly be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, great.

Do we have any questions for Mr.

Niander?

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you.

Um and Tim, sorry, but I just didn't hear some of those final numbers uh as far as uh the cost of like the full costs.

You don't need to break it down again, but uh what were the the total costs that the city sees as damages?

The total cost of the city by ordinance is 100,000, and then the total cost of this uh request minus the insurance is 130,483 and 13 cents.

Um I think that differs.

I think the question is because the memo says 129,988 13.

Yeah, is I reading that wrong?

I see that too.

I think that doesn't include the $495 of temporary lodging.

Oh, lodging, and so then that went over.

That makes sense.

Yeah, and you're you're saying that the total requests from the claimant is 130 because that's not my understanding.

That's that's what I've got according to the figures that were given to us of all the estimates.

Okay.

Um, and then um I I was sent something that uh an executive overview of the claim and the last sentence says uh the city has assumed full responsibility for the resulting damages.

Is that a would you say that's a correct statement?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Do we have other questions for Mr.

Niander?

Okay.

I'm gonna open it up to public comp.

Oh, yes, I'm sorry.

Mayor, I believe uh I I would like to give the claimant uh 10 minutes to I didn't I just didn't know, and that hadn't been done.

So, yes, if the claimant is here, Mr.

Skaraki, if you could please come forward.

All right.

And I apologize.

Would you pronounce your name for me, sir?

Scrocky.

Scrocki.

I apologize, Mr.

You were pretty close.

Yeah, it's it's kind of a tough one.

So no worries.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

Um, so would just like to initially say uh thank you uh for the time.

Uh Mr.

Stafford, thank you for the representation and uh advocacy uh on this.

This is obviously a life-altering event uh which has happened.

Um I'm pleased to meet everyone else.

I would much rather have met everyone over beers at Kingfish to help with the alcohol uh collection there.

Um but uh talking about fall turbulence, turning that into a two-day event.

But um we're talking about my house today.

So um also want to say thank you to my uh friends, family, and neighbors for supporting me throughout this ordeal uh as well.

Um and take you to the slide guy.

Uh next slide, please.

All right.

So you know, I um had a pretty busy today day today reviewing um some of the um uh documents that I received per FOIA request.

So I wasn't quite able to update this presentation, but um I have sent emails to city council.

I've got a drop box folder where I'll be uh including some additional documentation for consideration.

So sounds like we just heard that there's a stronger sort of admission of responsibility than uh what I had there.

So I don't think we need to cover that.

Uh next slide, please.

All right.

So here's what we're looking at.

Um usually looks a lot better than that.

Uh that happened.

That was the result uh that I um uh my parents actually took those photos.

I was out of town on business uh doing similar things to uh the event that I had uh last time when I couldn't join uh city council for the last meeting.

Um couple of the uh paw prints from my dog highlighted there in yellow uh whenever she was there and uh exposed uh to this mess.

Um I got back at midnight from being on the road after starting my day at 3 30 in the morning.

Um mitigation guys were still there till about 2 30 in the morning, uh mopping the stuff up.

Um so I think next slide.

Post mitigation.

Um, you know, I think that there were some comments that were that I saw in some of the emails uh that were not sent directly to me that I received via FOIA request that suggests that I might uh live in the house while it was undergoing uh restoration.

So you can see that's been the state of it most of the time with all the floors ripped out.

Uh you can see where my appliances normally were.

And uh again, the suggestion was that I um occupy the house uh while this is going on.

I'll just kind of let people make their own assessment there.

Um next slide.

Um so yeah, just did uh receive a lot of information via FOIA requests uh today that previously uh did not have.

Um I have found uh references within FOIA where the city has paid out uh in excess of the cap per 39.10, which is the relevant ordinance that we're discussing here.

Um glad to submit some of that additional what I found, but of course the city has access to all these documents as well, these are city documents.

Um I will likely submit some more FOIA requests as we continue on.

Uh next slide, please.

I've submitted a lot of reference materials already.

So really I kind of here today to ask a few additional questions.

Um ask of the city council, which again, thank you for hearing me out on this.

Um I think any reasonable person would say, what would you do uh in this situation?

Um I didn't ask for this.

No one would ask for this.

Um would you be willing to accept a substance substantially lower amount than the damages uh which I've occurred, uh right?

I don't think that a reasonable person uh would.

Um do you think that that I should be out a dime?

Should anybody be out a dime uh if something like this happens?

Um next slide.

We've got a hundred thousand dollars reference there.

That amounts clearly not reflective of the damages, missed markings uh can result in, uh, as we're seeing here.

My damages are close to twice that.

Um I've got that reference documentation to you all, and again, I've got that drop box folder.

I will continue to put materials up there as needed and uh per request as well.

Um getting a little facetious here.

I get a little bit hot about this at times, so I'm trying to dial it in.

Next one, please.

So um, yeah, Tim referenced that uh claims repair estimate.

So the water department uh got these guys lined up.

Um this was requested by the same department, which initially offered me four thousand dollars and three nights in a hotel, uh, even after I had someone from the water department come out and see the scope of the damages.

I was deliberately um requesting that someone from the water department could actually see what had happened, and that was the offer that I had received.

Um I will make the point that neither Northwest Arkansas claims uh nor the water department uh is in the residential construction business, they're not doing the actual work.

I did receive uh multiple bids for construction.

I received uh two firm bids.

I had a third contractor lined up to provide a bid.

They dropped out.

It can be kind of tough to nail those guys down sometimes, as I'm sure people have had some of those experiences.

Those two bids I received from the actual contractors who do work, uh, were largely in line with one another, and the outlier there was that uh Northwest Arkansas claims uh estimate, and there were some uh discrepancies, mismatches there, some some oversights.

Uh we've got notes on that, so we can provide some of that, and I think that we've submitted I've submitted some submitted some of that as well.

Uh next slide.

Again, a couple of you know, don't need to go over the first couple there, but you know, um, this is deeply personal to me.

The last two, but we can answer those.

Was an act of God coverable by coverable by any insurance product?

The answer is no.

Um, you know, there's a difference if you were to have like flood insurance from my understanding, and then if you had like a backflow, uh right, that's where like flood insurance would potentially cover it.

Not an expert on insurance.

I've just kind of done a little bit of digging into this, but if it's um through the fault of someone else, then insurance is not gonna cover that.

Um I think it could have happened to anyone.

I I think that my friends, family, and neighbors recognize this as well.

Uh next slide.

Wait, did you back up one?

I'm sorry.

Yeah, okay.

Sorry, next slide.

Um, you know, I did saw that see this quote from the uh city attorney um where it was referenced that we're not an insurance money insurance company, this money's not free money.

I agree it's not free money.

Um I've worked hard uh my life to acquire enough funds to purchase a home.

Uh that is obviously getting increasingly difficult with what we've seen with with prices with insurance uh interest rates.

Um it is not free money.

Um this is the money that I have earned that I have saved.

Uh and I am not going to let it leave me.

Next slide.

Um, hey, another question.

Should I be expected to potentially lose my home and personal belongings when this occurs?

Next slide.

Got a couple minutes.

I want to be made whole.

Um, I think there's some sort of reference in documentation of basically having um properties in light condition prior to this.

This is the standard for which I've asked uh my construction uh guys to work um against those charges.

Um of course with mitigation, you know, there was no option to wait around and get that house um mitigated, right?

You got a duty as a homeowner as a uh mortgage holder to do that.

Um here another question.

You know, what do you do whenever a kid accidentally your kid breaks uh neighbor's uh window, right?

You know, you probably walk them over, you apologize, and you say, Hey, we're gonna pay for this and make this right, right?

I don't think you say, here's half a window.

I want to know that city's got my back to make things right when I've been wrong.

Um got a duty to defend what I've worked to achieve.

Looking for accountability, ownership, restoration of trust in my house.

Um I haven't really seen accountability and ownership, one of which come to some of these disingenuous offers that I've received from the water department.

I'm a favoure high school guy, university of Arkansas guy, go hogs.

We're gonna go far this year in the attorney, but this isn't consistent with what I learned in terms of taking ownership and accountability and basically providing an environment for trust consistent with those institutions I attended.

And I'll leave it with will the city help me out.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions either for Tim or the claimant before we open it up or uh for the city attorney before we open it up to public comment?

Mr.

Stafford and then Dr.

Jones.

Yeah, um, just a couple uh or just one of them, maybe.

I thought I had two.

Uh kid, it was mentioned that uh the claimant is mentioning that they found info that the city has paid out in excess of the cap in the past.

Is that not to my knowledge?

The uh there have been a raising of a cap at one point, and they went back and then paid that amount that was uh then allowed by the uh code.

We've never gone beyond the code to pay out a larger amount to my knowledge.

Thank you.

Okay, okay.

And we would that be possible, but like it's really based on the cap, is that not uh I think we have to follow the code.

I'm so sorry, it's not public comment right now.

Oh yeah, sorry, sorry.

It's okay, it's okay, but let I want to be able to allow counsel to to go ahead and ask the questions of the city attorney.

Please, Bob, go ahead.

Okay.

So Kate, you what you're saying is that it's it's the in your view it the as far as your knowledge goes, it has been tied to the cap on the ordinance, and that we can't there's not cases when it is I I don't think we can legally pay more than what the cap says that that has been established by the city council.

It can be raised by the council, and they have done that in the past, but we've never to my knowledge paid more than what the city council limited us to, and it would be a mistake if we had done that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Chris, do you yeah, I so it you know, if I understand, I think you're saying that um there have been incidents in the past where you know there's been an ordinance uh or cap, you know, cap ceiling on that, right?

And then the city recognizes that hey, this is well in excess of the current cap, so based on this, we need to then raise the cap um and then pay out, and then now we're at that point where we have a higher cap, even though this incident had occurred whenever there was a cap at that lower amount at that point.

Are you and I think your question, Mr.

Stafford asked you the question, so if you can answer him, it's okay.

Sorry, Bob, you should oh well, I mean I think yeah, so it it sounds like the stuff you found is it showing is it in agreement with what Kid's saying that what we've done actually is raised the cap?

What what I was looking at again, I'm kind of you know, I just got received some of these documents today, so we're kind of uh laying track and and driving at the same time, and we've got these, but uh what it uh appeared uh to be is that there were um multiple instances in the past where there was a cap, there were damages uh in excess of the cap at that time, and then um the ordinance was either uh raised and then it was paid because then I guess a bit of procedural stuff that's kind of beyond me a little bit.

No, yeah, but thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

And have you forwarded those uh documents?

I I will, so I'll put those in the box.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh Dr.

Jones, do you have a question for Mr.

Scaraki?

Yes.

Um you mentioned that someone offered you, I think it was four thousand dollars.

Who was that?

Uh it was a member of the water department.

Okay.

Um, you know, I think uh I'm I'm glad to share the name, although I will say it's probably a bit of a uh procedural sort of thing that is completely ridiculous, but uh I'm not necessarily trying to say that that's exactly the guy that is a uh someone who's may not have been following uh procedure that was ridiculous.

So I don't necessarily if it's okay with you, I don't necessarily want to vilify the guy at this thing.

That's fine.

And they were offering you that for all the damages or yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

So it was like, yeah, we'll match your insurance deductible.

Uh good news.

We'll match an insurance deductible of four thousand dollars, and and we'll give you three nights and then yeah.

And before we uh before you got up, Tim mentioned that uh this was a special circumstance, and um Kid, what a what how does that look?

What did this is put something new?

Uh this is a a special circumstance.

Did he mean is that that the city is responsible?

And how would we how would that look?

I'm I'm I'm I'm just trying to put the pieces together.

Uh well uh uh uh Tim said the city uh was responsible.

We're not liable for that, but we are potentially responsible, and that's uh if if we didn't have any responsibility, we couldn't pay anything.

So we certainly have some responsibility.

There's also other players involved in here, including the gas company and their uh drilling company, uh, who actually the most of the stuff in the house, I guess, turned out to be their mud, which is not a very good thing to have in your house, but there is the drilling company that did drill through our main and break it, and uh whether or not they have any legal responsibilities, I don't know, but they're another party.

And Tim mentioned that this would be paid out of what fund would this if we were to pay this, what would it what would it be paid out of?

It has to be paid out of the water sewer fund, a sewer fund.

Okay.

Okay.

And I have one last question.

How long have you been in you may have covered this, but how long have you been out of your I guess maybe even displaced?

Yes, sir.

Uh since December 8th.

Uh I think I had I think it's like 87 days or something like that in the county.

Okay, that's that was on the okay, okay.

Okay.

So it's uh it it's been a while uh since I've been home.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So you're still not home.

Uh no, ma'am.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Berna, and then Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Councilmember Stafford, uh, in regards to your question is I believe it was about two years ago that we had that uh uh claim that had the major water leak, the I forget the diameter of the water line that broke.

And uh at that time the ordinance was fifty thousand dollars and it would not we focused on structural integrity of the house, getting it back to where it was.

So that's when we upped it to a hundred thousand dollars uh uh at that time.

So I I believe that was about two years ago.

Um I think it right before you came on council uh potentially, but uh I think at that time we focused on uh getting uh the home back to structurally sound um uh as as close as we could.

Ms.

Moore.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

And I agree with councilmember Burno, that's how I recalled it too.

Um unfortunately we revisited.

Um I have one question for you, and then we'll let you sit down because I've got city staff questions, won't make you stand up there.

Um do you have an anticipated date that your um folks that are working on the house have provided to you for when they think you'll be back?

Probably sometime next month.

Yeah.

Say maybe 30 more days or I don't know for sure.

But I can uh you know, actually um let me talk to the guy tomorrow and say, hey, can I get so like one of the we've got a lead time on uh some of the flooring uh is kind of one of the deals right now.

So uh originally we're thinking like, well, hey, the flooring match the whole house.

Do we have to like do some sort of you know replacement of the other unaffected surfaces?

But fortunately we're able to find some stuff that does match, but then there's a bit of a lead time.

So typical construction stuff for anybody who's ever done uh remodel, but call it times five or whatever in this deal.

Um so it yeah, somewhat fluid, but yeah, I'll try and nail that down.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Um and then my questions are for city staff, so you don't have to hang unless I don't know if council.

Does anyone else have a question for Mr.

Skaroki?

I have one more question for Mr.

Stroke.

Uh we we had heard that 130 uh and and change number.

Uh the number you told me, I believe was much different than that.

Yes, sir.

And so and and I I this is based on estimates and uh that you've received and I imagine like your lodging.

Um what is the uh number the you that that you have?

It's approximately last last tab is about 198,700, I think.

And that was um one ninety-eight one ninety-eight seven hundred.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna ask city staff some questions if you don't mind.

Sure.

Um okay, uh, go ahead, Miss Moore.

Thank you.

And I don't know if this is Tim or if it'd be the CFO or but one of the things I wanted to check into is I believe we talked about this would be the self-insurance damage account.

And I wanted to understand what the balance is on that.

And Tim let Steve know if you want him to also weigh in on that as well.

So did you hear me, Tim?

Sorry.

I don't know what the balance is.

Uh Steve might be able to look it up.

I can I can look into that and provide that information.

I don't have it at hand though.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um that's all I had for you, Tim.

Thank you.

Thanks for walking all the way up here.

Um the thing I wanted to ask uh the city attorney, because I you know, was here when we made the changes before, and we had a lengthy conversation about because we are self-insured and really our rate payers pay for this.

You know, obviously we're all residents too, and we'd want to be made whole.

It's trying to do this balancing act.

And so um, I'm just curious as we're looking at this.

It seems like the numbers are in flux, and so there's more details we might need to get.

We may need to sit with this.

And I'm curious about um in the past we really have had to raise the ceiling to be able to cover if we decided we were moving forward, but I'm almost wondering if we need to have kind of an everyday cap for just you know little incidental things, and do we need to have something that's separate that's catastrophic that's more like tiered or ranged?

Um I don't know enough about what other cities are doing, but that way I wonder if this doesn't need to be discretionary, you know, working with a homeowner back and forth with staff instead of having to have you know a big public hearing.

We're hoping that these would be not very often, they would be very rare, but in the instance, there's a lot going on and there are a lot of moving parts, and so I agree that I don't think it's adequate several days in a hotel if somebody's gonna be out for a month, but like it's a middle ground too, right?

Like we're not gonna put you up at the best suites in the best hotel, you know, for six months or whatever, you know.

What is an average amount that we should be thinking about?

And so I I just am trying to understand how we maybe look at this going forward.

I don't feel like we're gonna get finale tonight.

I feel like we're gonna get a lot of good information and feedback from residents, which I appreciate, but it feels like I've heard a lot of different numbers floating around.

There's a lot of variables, and it feels like there needs to be an everyday, this is what it's capped at, and something catastrophic is kind of where I'm landing right now, and really would appreciate some maybe some thoughts on that and sign up, maybe some do we need to go back and kind of think about it and come back to a meeting in the future on this.

I can tell you that the code right now is exactly what how you described it.

For smaller problems, Tim has the authority to go up to a certain amount.

For a more serious one, the mayor has to agree.

Well, I think it's about fifty thousand, I think, is a limit for the mayor.

I think it's four.

To go to go up to a hundred thousand for a very extraordinary situation, then it has to be a two-thirds vote of the city council.

So we already have that in place.

We had that in place even when it was fifty thousand, but we kept that same uh table where the small ones could be handled administratively, larger ones, the mayor could do it.

But if it was very, very serious and very costly for our ratepayers, it had to be the city council on a two-thirds vote to be able to pay a hundred thousand dollars.

One follow-up, just so I'm so sorry, Mayor.

Um, is is it be similar in nature then for people that are getting up to speed and haven't gotten to sit at this dais for many years and get to hear this conversation in the event that we were talking about we want to make this person whole, we can't do that legally with our current ordinance.

Is that correct?

Or can we do some kind of suspending of current ordinance rules to be able to cover this?

We'd have to make a change to ordinance, is that correct?

Uh under the code as it is, we you can only authorize a payment of 100,000.

Mr.

Witiger.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um this would be for staff, just for consideration and piggybacking on what um council member more had to say, and that is the potential of distinguishing in the future between uh root intrusion that causes the backup or a pipe just through age failing and causing the backup being different than an actual error on the city's part triggering the issue.

And I see those as potentially two different types of incidences which could have two different thresholds, to be perfectly honest with you.

We know that 95% of all backups are root intrusion.

No one knows the roots are there, no one knows whose yard they're on until it happens, and then we send a camera down the pipe to determine where it is.

But when there's an error on our part, I think that I like the idea of the no fault uh max being what it is, but when there is in fact error, and I would relay to completely different example, which would be if an employee lost control of their vehicle and drove into someone's home and caused a significant amount of damage or even a fire, that would be a very different situation than the normal sewer backup we deal with.

So that would be for staff discussion if this doesn't get resolved tonight.

And if I understand if this takes six votes uh to deal with tonight, it may be in the applicant or the requester's best interest that we not decide on this and that we wait until we have all eight members here.

Those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

Mr.

Berna, and then Dr.

Jones.

Kit, in regards to what Mike was just saying about uh the example of of city employee errors and drives a vehicle, city vehicle into a person's house and catches fire and uh and uh neglect how how is that viewed within our responsibility?

Well, that would be covered under our automobile policy, and that's handled by the municipal league, and the monetary limits for that are stated in state law, and they're about $30,000.

Yeah.

So you're saying in that situation, it's a state law that mandates what's paid out in this situation, city code.

Well, the state law, which is the law that gives us sovereign immunity.

It gives us sovereign immunity from everything except for automobile accidents.

And then it says that we must pay up to the state minimums for that.

And so we handle that to the municipal league, but the state minimums for damage and stuff are pretty low.

They haven't raised those in a long time.

And so it'd be much lower than what we have voluntarily agreed to pay, even though we have sovereign immunity and don't need to pay anything.

Um thank you, Mayor.

Um, so Kit, along those lines, do any other cities uh or does the municipal league have um a water and sewer damage claim process or fund.

Well, there's no damage claim fund that I'm aware of, but other cities might have a loss uh claim that we're allowed to do by statute, allowed to instead of having sovereign instead of relying solely on sovereign immunity, we are allowed uh to have a lost claim situation like we have here.

Now, whether other cities do that or not, I do not know.

Uh but we chose to do that.

Okay, thank you.

Dr.

Jones, I'm sorry, I should have called on you before Miss Turk.

I apologize.

Uh I have a question for the uh applicant.

Um let's say we waited to I guess perhaps table this.

Are you is that a real concern of yours?

Let's punt.

That's fine.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, I mean it it sounds like there you know there's some additional documentation that I can get you to to you that again per some of what I was seeing today, uh news to me.

So I think it'd be a good opportunity for folks to kind of digest um some of what has happened um and totally good with the city council being able to make a better informed decision uh at the next one.

Um I've got um some some good folks that are that are working with me.

So okay.

We still need to open it up for public comment.

Are there any members of the oh go ahead?

Oh could I just say uh that specific question we're talking about in terms of like lodging or whatever, and like how trying to figure that out.

Um I would just say like if we look at the per diem rates for like the city of Favel, right?

That's kind of where I'd start.

Uh so you know, federal government, that's typically what they do for like TDY, you know, lodging and meals, right?

So it's like, hey, here's your hotel plus food, however many days are gonna be there.

That's kind of like a good basis.

That's all I got.

Thank you.

Um I also want to, just because a lot has been talked about, I want to make sure that we understand what is before us tonight, and it is that the city is recommending that we pay out 100,000.

And so A, I know we're not voting yet, I know we're about to do public comment, but Kit, I want you to correct me just so everybody is on the same page.

If that were to pass, the city would proceed to pay out immediately 100,000.

If that were to fail, the applicant would get net.

Tell me about what would happen then.

Well, if that would fail, then uh the city couldn't pay out a hundred thousand, it might be able to pay out the um authority that you would have.

Okay, but it couldn't pay out the hundred thousand unless it is passed by two-thirds of the city council.

Got it.

Okay.

Um public comment.

If we have any members of the public that would like to speak about this item, please come up to the microphone.

You have three minutes, state your name, and if you want to just line up, uh, you are welcome to.

You don't have to wait on me each time.

Thank you.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

Um Candy Spacey, Chris's mom.

I live in uh two, two, three, one revere place in in Fayetteville.

We love Fayetteville.

I'm gonna say that first of all.

When my husband got transferred here in 2000, we chose Fayetteville because of the schools, because of the welcoming climate.

I'm a year a retired teacher of 40 plus years.

I have volunteered for CASA, the OSARC Literacy Council, faith in action for 17 years, CEO most recently in Canopy.

I love Fayetteville.

And I want, I'm hoping that you will restore our faith in Fayetteville.

This was an accident.

Nobody meant for this to happen.

But if you could have seen the utter devastation of my son's house that night, it was horrifying.

Raw sewage on the floor, a biohazard, nothing that you can just sweep under the rug.

A terrible biohazard.

I'm asking you to restore it, not to make it better, but to bring it back to the state that his house was in.

He worked so hard for it.

And yes, he stays with us quite a bit, off and on.

But you know, he's a grown man, and most grown people would not want to be with their mom and dad, you know, for add, you know, for a very, very long time.

And we get that.

So I'm asking you, please to do the right thing.

I have faith in this Fayetteville faith in the city council.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Okay, I'm not seeing any other members of the public here.

Oh, yes, go ahead.

My name is Lindsay Irvey.

I'm at 6300 West Grays Gap.

Um, I am his immediate family member, Brandy, his dog.

I am her veterinarian.

Um, the status of this house when he arrived back to have his dog in was absolutely disgusting.

Um two things that I have is that it's all about responsibility, it's about doing what's right.

Um, I understand there was another company that hit the line, etc.

If my child knocks a ball into a uh window, that's of course on me.

If my child's friend knocks a ball into a window and I supplied the bat, it's my fault, and I would take responsibility for that.

And that's the important thing here is about doing what's right.

And the fact that Mr.

Scrocky, I don't know what he's worth per hour for his expertise, but the amount of hours and time and energy that he has spent on this project that he didn't account for, that also has to go into what you're considering for him to be awarded because I think that this is um it's amazing that the city of Fayetteville hasn't already figured this out for him, in my opinion.

Um, and and I think that he's had a lot of patience um to go through this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll turn the microphone down to you a little bit, okay?

Okay.

Yes, you could.

Where's the mic?

Okay.

Uh, my name's Jeannie Romine.

Um, oh, there it is.

I'm totally blind.

So um I live at 11 West Trenton Boulevard here in Fayetteville.

I've been here in Fayetteville since 72.

Uh I moved into a house on uh Trenton Boulevard in uh 1982.

Uh I was married at the time, and we started noticing raw sewage in the backyard, which I'm not here to tell my story, but I'm gonna say how this was handled.

Was uh we reported it three times and came out and threw some lime and left, and then the sewage got worse and worse until it was a constant stream.

Um I begged the city to fix it.

I went to code compliance, I went to uh the city attorney, I went to uh I don't know who all uh but nothing was done, and raw sewage was constantly running down my road.

Uh finally I had to file a lawsuit, which took four years out of my life.

I wish I had back.

It took that long to get it through from 04 to 08.

I won that lawsuit.

I won a hundred 176,011 at that lawsuit to remediate my home.

Um to remediate some dirt to replace the 66 foot, four-foot uh retaining wall.

Anyway, it was a lot of money to fix my house up, a lot of money, and that house was the only thing I had.

Um I also had a C9 dog who died in 2009 at a young age he shouldn't have died at, that had been walking around in that sewage unbeknownst to me.

That was a terrible loss for me.

I have not been able to get a new C9 dog because I have now had five different kinds of cancer that have happened since that sewage was on my property.

Now I think it's awfully rare that I don't know anybody that I know has had five different kinds of cancer.

Last week, I had a scan, they found two more spots.

So now I'm gonna address that in new places.

So uh this is not all about money.

This is about this man's home.

I don't know, Mr.

Sprocky.

I just met him tonight.

I just had to come and talk about this.

This is not right, you know, and to say 100,000 is all we can do if you're lucky.

Uh Mr.

Williams talks about um, you know, this is all gonna be on the taxpayers.

Um my lawsuit was on the taxpayers, I believe.

I don't exactly know how that goes.

I believe he also hired an outside attorney that was a lot of money to help him for some reason.

Uh so I don't think this is about counting the money, and that the city does not have this.

This is uh gross negligence to this man, and I feel very bad for him.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Miss Roman.

Uh Beth Hall, I have uh multiple properties in Fayetteville.

I live at 1620 North Star Drive, rental property in Gully Park.

I have a small business at storefront on township.

I just wanted to say to Ms.

Moore, I like your idea of, you know, you you were gonna have these outlier things.

And as a citizen in Fayetteville, I moved here 30 years ago.

I love it here.

I I agree with you, like not every situation is gonna fit in a box, and I think we have to protect our citizens and protect their investments to keep people coming here.

I mean, we're growing, and everything that I've heard makes me not want to live here, and I can't insure myself against the city.

There's no policy available for that.

So I think your idea to like maybe take into consideration when it's outside of you know this hundred thousand dollar cap, we look at it a different way.

Thank you, Ms.

Hall.

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to people on Zoom.

Uh we have one person, Aaron Caldwell.

Okay.

Uh hello, uh Aaron Caldwell, 4261 Northeast uh Meadow Creek Circle.

Um, you know, I just want to say I know Chris.

Um he's a really good guy, and I would say usually a very laid back and relaxed person.

Um, you know, seeing his reaction to this process, we really telling him me that you know, I think there's been a you know kind of violation of trust um for a citizen here, and this process has been pretty horrific for him.

Uh and I, you know, I want to also say Chris is an outstanding person in this community as well.

Um, he is not someone who complains or asks for a handout.

So if he's coming to you and you know, saying that things need to be made right, it has to be a pretty severe issue.

You know, I I I also want to say, like, I appreciate that, you know, city staff and the legal department are trying to protect the city.

Um, I get that perspective.

But in this case, again, this is a violation of trust in the public.

I think you hear this from multiple members, myself included, that you know, hearing this process makes me very uncertain about being a homeowner here, and that I don't know if I can trust the city to fully take responsibility and um you know make us whole uh if the city were to be responsible for damage to my home in an extraordinary circumstance like this.

So I just want to end on that you know, this is an extraordinary circumstance that requires what I believe to be an extraordinary measure, and uh everything should be done to make Chris whole here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Caldwell.

Okay, if we don't have any more public comment, I'm oh okay.

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

Um, and just so I I just want to make everyone clear that we don't have the ability tonight to award more than a hundred thousand, even if everybody up here, I just want to make sure that we're clear procedurally on that that the item that we are required to vote on is whether or not to give a hundred thousand dollars or to not.

So wait, Ms.

Moore.

Um, I had one more follow-up for the city attorney too.

Um the way I understand it, I want to make sure I'm correct is if we, you know, this isn't like a payment plan, I don't think, with our ordinance where we give them a hundred thousand tonight and then we can come back again.

I think we have to clear the claim and do it one time.

Is that correct?

So if we gave a hundred thousand tonight, it kind of closes the claim and we can't go forward.

That is correct.

And in fact, I guess we do need to ask uh the applicant or his attorney whether uh they were gonna be willing to pay, I mean, to sign the release, which is required if compensation is paid.

Your code says if the city offers to pay any compensation pursuant to this section, the claimant must sign a full release to receive the compensation offered by the city.

Uh his attorney indicated he might not want to sign a release.

That only releases the city, nobody else, but we could not, even if you pass this with a hundred thousand, if he would not sign that release, we could not pay him.

Okay, thank you, Kit.

And then my next question is you know, I do think we maybe need to take the time to look into this kind of other bucket, maybe a combination between what Councilmember Whitaker said and I did, uh potentially this ordinate change.

And it sounds like we need to get more information from the homeowner because it does kind of this evolving looking at the timeline of displacement and the the items.

Would it um I'm wondering if we potentially want to try to table this for four weeks so that we can have the time to work through the potential for a language of an ordinance change?

I just I want to get you to weigh in in the event we're wanting to look at making a change, getting more information from the homeowner because we've gotten to this point.

It sounds like he's not going to be back into his home for a bit longer, and so that might coincide uh with you know us to be able to vote if we want to make a change uh to potentially an ordinance change and then to have uh all of the information about all the all-in costs that he's associated.

Well, in order to follow the normal system of how ordinances go through and get in front of the city council, you would certainly need you couldn't do it by next meeting.

Uh so it'd have to be the meeting after that would be the earliest, I think any ordinance change really could come through.

Okay.

So would your recommendation be tonight?

Should we just leave this or should we you know table it to a meeting in the future so that potentially could be amended if there were to be an ordinance change?

Uh tonight, uh you're gonna either have to vote on it or table it.

Okay.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you.

And in looking at tabling it, uh, Councilmember Moore, you mentioned uh a month or or two meetings from now.

I think we're not having a meeting on the 31st.

Uh we have agenda session on the 31st.

We don't have one on the 24th.

Oh, yeah.

Then it's agenda session, and then the next it's the first week of April when the next meeting is okay.

So I guess the the well, two meeting two city council meetings from now, I think would be April 7th.

Okay.

Yes.

Um do we feel that's enough time to maybe get some receipts in, get everything answered that we need to get answered and Mr.

Burna.

I don't see that it's enough time to get any type of ordinance change.

Uh uh, if we're talking about this particular claim, I mean, yeah, I think it does give us, but if we're if we're wanting to make any type of ordinance change, I don't think that really gives you enough time to really decide how you want to go forward.

But that's just me.

And uh Kit, if we were to like we could make an amendment to raise the cap at any meeting, is it correct?

We could certainly do what you all well, most of you all did a couple years ago, which is you go back and you look at the ordinance and you increase the caps, not just the final cap, but the other caps.

And I don't think we should go into a situation where you're just gonna decide on the fly and not really have a cap because that will give us problems with equal protection of the law, where maybe we like him, we give him money, the next person comes up not very likable, we don't give them the money.

That's not a good situation to be in.

So that's why we have a firm and hard cap so that we don't start playing favors with people that we like or people that we don't like.

So, but to change the ordinance is the city council's in agreement, then it's easy to do.

I can do that.

The only question would be will you become an in an agreement?

Do you want to make another massive increase in the cap or not?

And I should say that myself and the staff are not trying to protect the city, we're trying to protect our ratepayers.

Um understood.

Uh that said, I haven't seen many instances where we ever hit the cap.

Um, and uh I think we should table this at least to the seventh.

If another council member thinks we should go further, I'd be open to that.

So I'd like to make a recommendation, if I may.

I'd like to make two recommendations.

I'd like for Mr.

Masito for you to address because many people have said this is extraordinary.

If you could kind of go over how frequently we have had something this substantial come before us in the past, and then I would like to recommend that you all take this to ordinance review committee to work on there.

Keith.

Yeah, we looked at the last five years of claims and we had 37 claims and those totaled 161,000 over those five years.

Can you speak into your mic a little bit more?

It helps if it's on.

Yeah, it does.

Uh okay.

Over the last five years, we've had 37 claims, and those totaled 161,000 over that over the last five years.

And if you look at the large claims, they're very they're they're very infrequent.

So this is not something if we do when we go to ordinance review, staff can definitely be there and kind of go over this and kind of maybe tweak some of those tiers that we have.

Because if you look at we've only had three claims that were over $30,000 in five years, and we've only had two claims uh that were over $10,000 in five years.

So the majority of these claims are very small claims.

So this I would say that I agree the data shows that this is a very extraordinary case uh where this could actually be a similar amount to what we've had in our total claims over the last five years.

So I'm not saying that in a way of I'm just saying the data shows that this is this will help us uh when we go to ordinance review on how to draft the ordinance in a proper way.

Okay, Miss Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Keith, also I would ask that we include uh water data, not just sewer information, but we've also had some large water claims, and they're kind of similar in terms of um uh accidents and and things like that.

Yes, we can do that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, it is a I will just remind you it is a resolution, so therefore I have to have a motion one way or another.

And uh well, uh Teresa, I was gonna defer to you since you're on ordinance review committee.

Uh you and Scott, like how long uh you think we might want to uh table this for.

I'm gonna get pull my calendar up again and Kit, I believe you answered this earlier, Miss Moore's question of if the council were to vote on this this evening, and if the council were to vote to award the 100,000, and then a month from now a new ordinance is passed, they can't then go back and award more retroactively.

Is that what you were saying?

I I would be very reluctant for that to be that that should not be the way it goes.

You can postpone it and change the ordinance and then go forward.

But uh I I do think because we're gonna require a total release when we give the money out, so that means that claim is over.

So no, you you probably don't want to try to do it that way.

Mr.

Burno.

Okay, uh I'm I'm very willing to move this quickly as we can.

However, in looking at the calendar, my concern is if we have the off week on the 24th, and correct me if I'm wrong, 24th is the uh weekend.

Then do we have trouble getting enough people together?

And when does spring break fall there for people that's traveling?

That week?

Okay.

So I might suggest that we um do uh table it to the 21st of April to give us a little bit of uh opportunity to study it and and try to come up with a uh a good plan.

Is that I'm gonna take that as a motion.

I'll take I'll make a motion.

All right, do we have a second?

So could yeah.

Okay, we have a motion and second to table to the 21st of April.

Clerk is that correct?

The 21st.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll on the motion to table?

Uh the second was oh uh Ms.

Dr.

Jones Mr.

Stafford.

Oh, yes couldn't Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker, yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay, great.

So that is tabled um until the 21st.

Uh Mr.

Skaraki, do you and your family?

I'm sorry for your predicament.

And uh thank you for being here and and presenting us with this this evening.

I know this has been uh deeply unpleasant, and I'm sorry.

We recommend it.

Thank you.

Okay, we are moving on in our agenda.

Give me just a moment to reorient myself here.

Um we are moving on to item B3 of old business.

It's an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-71 for approximately 1.8 acres located at 416 South Willow Avenue in Ward 1 from NC neighborhood conservation to UN Urban Neighborhood and RIU residential intermediate urban.

Uh at the February 17th council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading.

If I don't hear a motion to suspend the rules, I'm gonna go ahead and read the ordinance.

Do we have a motion to suspend the rules and take it to the third and final reading?

It looks like we do oh Miss Moore.

I think we are waiting on a we're gonna see some new information tonight, so I think we should just take it.

Okay, let me go ahead and just read it then.

Be it ordained by the city council of the city of Faithville, Arkansas Section One that the city council of the city of Favel, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the properties on the map, exhibit A and the legal description to it B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from NC neighborhood conservation to UN Urban Neighborhood and RIU residential intermediate urban.

Section two, that City Council, City of Favel or Arkansas here by amends official zoning map of the city of Faya bill to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Okay.

Um Jonathan, before you go further, we have a point of order question for Mr.

Williams or a clarification from a council member asking if now that you have read it a second time if we can still vote to suspend the rules and make take it to the third.

Yes.

Okay.

I was speaking after getting after getting the new information that that Bob spoke of.

Can we suspend the rules after that?

Okay.

Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

You're welcome.

As a brief reminder where this property is, uh it's located just southeast of downtown Fayetteville.

Uh we are east of the intersection of Forth and Willow.

The property today is rezoned uh wholly neighborhood conservation uh NC.

Uh the request that came before the planning commission was to rezone the entirety of the property to UN urban neighborhood.

Uh staff had concerns about the extent to which this would extend the entitlements of the urban neighborhood zoning district into what is an unusual shaped lot uh uh allowing residential and non-residential uses in the interior of a block.

Uh and ultimately what we recommended giving the available legal descriptions that were submitted with the application is a alternate request, which you see here on the screen, uh, which is for a portion of the property at the intersection of Forth and Willow to be rezoned to UN urban neighborhood and with the balance of the property rezoned to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Staff and the planning commission uh are in support of this request, as I uh foreshadowed uh previously the applicant is evaluating what uh what the implications of this alternate uh rezoning would be uh have for them, and they've come forward with an alternative or a second alternative uh proposal and provided legal descriptions to staff today.

Uh effectively, what that would do is the portion of the property that is immediately adjacent to Willow would be zoned to UN urban neighborhood with the remainder of the property interior to the block uh staying as RIU residential intermediate urban.

Uh staff uh was approached with this proposal previously, uh and we are uh able to say that we are supportive of the proposal.

I do understand that this is new information.

Uh the applicant acknowledges that and they are uh fully amenable if the council prefers to keep this on the second reading tonight.

Uh otherwise I can take any questions that the council has.

And Mayor Z Neederman is online as the applicant's representative for this item.

Thank you.

Great.

Uh Mr.

Neederman, do you have um uh presentation or comments you'd like to give before we go to council questions?

Uh no, I'm I'm available for questions, but uh that's it.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you, Z.

Okay, do we have any questions from council for either Mr.

Neederman or Jonathan?

Ms.

Turk.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, like we requested a couple of weeks ago, we would have liked to have seen this information earlier.

So when were you presented the information?

And uh it just you know, it it just seems discourteous to do it at the last minute.

I it was I don't believe the applicant was doing this intentionally.

The two main components of a rezoning request are a valid legal description and a request letter.

They've been working to get a valid legal description since the last meeting.

They were their surveyor provided that to them this morning, and we were only able to get that to our Jazz Department for validation this afternoon.

So again, the applicant is fully acknowledging of that and is not pressing the council to advance this if you're not comfortable with the request.

Thank you for clarifying the process.

I I really appreciate that.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you.

And then um once we have the requests in the legal description, then we would need to amend uh the request.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

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

Do we have any members of the public uh that are here in council chambers that would like to speak about this item?

Okay, Keith, is anyone called in?

There's not.

Okay.

I'm gonna bring it back to council, but it sounds as if you all want to leave it on the second reading.

Is that correct?

No, that is not correct.

I'm getting mixed.

I'm getting I'm hearing mixed.

Uh so Ms.

Moore.

Miss Moore than Ms.

Stafford.

Oh, okay.

Uh I mean not Miss Mr.

Stafford.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

I'm not with it tonight.

I'm sorry.

I I was gonna move that we amend to this um new configuration that was shown to us tonight.

Um, but do we have a do we have the legal I think we did, didn't we?

We do, yes.

Okay, the the proper amendment you would be amending exhibit A and exhibit B, which there's a legal description and a map.

Yes, Ken.

Um and if the council prefers to have physical copies of those in front of them before that, we can provide that before the next meeting by agenda session specifically.

I'd like to uh defer for a second to uh council member Turk uh if that's okay.

Okay.

Ms.

Turk.

Um I I guess I'm okay.

Um I just wanted to make sure that staff had enough time to evaluate it and um and also I mean I'm kind of concerned that the public, even though we don't have anybody here um speaking to it or on um on Zoom that they would have an opportunity to understand urban neighborhood is quite much more quite denser than R.I.U.

is, and that would be a a change.

So uh that's my concern is the public knowing that this um amendment may be coming forward.

Ms.

Moore, if we if the council were to amend it tonight, uh would you still be willing to leave it on the second so that it didn't get voted on?

You just wanted to go ahead and get the amendment done.

All right, I was just trying to amend to the new configuration right now.

And so I'm uh I mean obviously when I hear from the applicant, how that impacts them as well.

Um I mean, I I agree with Councilmember Turk that you know, obviously we always want to make sure there's good public notification of these things.

Um and I also I know this one's kind of going back and forth too, so just trying to understand too how that minutiae impacts the applicant as well.

Uh sorry, Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you.

Uh I think my concern with with even amending tonight is that we have two council members absent.

Uh we need uh five votes to amend.

Uh and a again, I I I do agree with uh councilmember Turk that um this is all new, and it might be good to uh to just leave it on this reading as is until uh the next meeting.

So we have a motion from Miss Moore.

Um if we don't have a second, I'm gonna move on.

Mr.

Whedaker.

I would prefer that we go ahead and wait simply because uh you know you could ask me well, what is it that you're voting on, and I don't have the documents in front of me, and I think that it would behoove me to do that in case I did have questions.

Thank you.

Mr.

Berner.

And Jonathan made it clear that the applicant was uh uh aware that it could was comfortable with it remaining on the second reading as well, correct?

That's correct, and and the applicant is also uh available if you'd like to direct that question to them as well.

Okay.

Then um we we have no second, and we're going to leave that um on this reading and move on to our new business.

First item C one, an ordinance to approve vacation 25-33 for property located at 18 East Center Street and Ward 2 to vacate approximately 250 square feet of utility easement.

Mr.

Williams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas the City Council has the authority under ACA 1454 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 utility easement is not required for corporate purposes.

Now therefore it be ordained by the city council of the city of Fayville, Arkansas Section One, that the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas 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 a map attached as exhibit A to the planning department's memo shall be filed in the office of the Washington Circuit Clerk.

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 installed fence shall be removable.

Number three, no bike racks may be installed within the retained easement on the parcel.

Number four, no disturbance to the ATT facilities, which exists to the north and west of the vacated easement shall be permitted.

And number five, existing gas meters shall be relocated to a location agreeable to all parties.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

This property is in downtown Fayeville.

As you can see in the aerial image here, it is very much near the downtown square, just northeast of it, uh more specifically east of the University of Arkansas's global campus building on the east side of the alley there.

Uh the request, as Mayor and Mr.

Williams noted, is to vacate a portion of an easement uh just north of the building, uh totaling about 250 square feet, uh perhaps one of the smallest easement vacations the city has seen.

Uh as I described uh to the council at uh at your agenda session.

Uh when reviewing the request, staff has identified no issues.

Uh all the associated franchise utilities have consented to the request.

Again, perhaps as a symptom of this being the downtown area, there are several conditions that you may not normally see with a utility easement request uh given the uh franchise utilities uh need to ensure that they can still access immediately adjacent portions of the property being proposed to be vacated.

Uh Mr.

Williams outlined those for you, and I'm happy to answer any questions on those if there are specific concerns.

Uh otherwise uh I can take any general questions, and Mayor uh Blake Jorgensen is here as the applicant of the item.

Um though I don't believe he has a prepared presentation.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, great.

Do we have any questions for Mr.

Kurth or for Mr.

Jorgensen?

Okay.

I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

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

And I don't believe we have anybody that have called in.

Is that correct, Keith?

We do not.

Okay.

So bringing it back to the council.

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

Second.

Okay.

Um Clerk Paxton is momentarily out for just a moment.

So I make a motion we pause.

I think okay, again, it we have a I'll let you, I'll fill you in when you get when you get back.

I would like to give a thanks to uh Brad Fulmer and Doug Bankston and everyone at the city that worked on these new microphones.

I think they are tremendous.

Such an improvement.

Clerk Paxton, we have a motion from Councilmember Berna and a second, I believe, from Councilmember Stafford to suspend the rules on C1 and go to the third and final reading.

Please call the roll.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

And thank you, Mayor Ron.

And in order to approve VAC 25-33 for property located at 18 East Center Street in Ward 2 to vacate approximately 250 square feet of utility easement.

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

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

And thank you for being here, Mr.

Jorgensen.

Uh moving on to item C2, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-69 for approximately 42.31 acres of a 157.05 acre parcel located on South Dead Horse Mountain Road and East Gough Farm Road in Ward 1 from RA Residential Agricultural to UN Urban Neighborhood and NC, Neighborhood Conservation.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

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

There's a city council of the City of Fayville, Arkansas hereby changes to zone classification of 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 UN urban neighborhood and NC neighborhood conservation.

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

Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to Southeast Fayetteville.

It is before the council with both staff and the planning commission's recommendation of approval.

We are about a mile southeast of Huntsville Road and Crossover Road, focusing in a little bit more tightly.

This area includes about 150 acres of land that is southeast of Gough Farm Road to the north and Dead Horse Mountain Road to the west.

It is east of the Stone Bridge or Meadows at Stonebridge subdivision, which uh if you have been to this area recently, it's the subdivision under construction just off of Dead Horse Mountain Road.

And it is within a portion of the Stonebridge uh golf course.

Uh some on the council may recall it's the most recent history on this property.

Uh there was a rezoning request that came before council in 2023.

That was for a area of about a hundred and thirteen acres total uh to be rezoned.

Uh this included uh about 95 acres proposed to be rezoned to NC neighborhood conservation and almost 18 acres to CS community services on the northern end of the site uh near Gough Farm Road.

The request before council tonight is substantially smaller.

Uh it proposes to rezone uh just under 40 acres, totaling about 37.7 acres of land to NC neighborhood conservation with an area of about 4.7 acres towards the northern end of the property.

You see here on blue proposed to rezone to UN urban neighborhood, totaling about 42 acres overall.

One reason you see the subject line of the request having a 157 acres that includes the area intended to remain as RA as it is today.

Staff finds it to be so.

The NC neighborhood zoning district in particular allows for single family uses, which is very consistent with the development pattern in the area, which is almost uniformly single family in nature.

We are also supportive of the smaller portion of UN urban neighborhood as being compatible, given it allows a small and moderate amount of housing diversity options.

The UN zoning district does allow attached residential, so townhouses potentially up through small apartments.

From a land use plan standpoint, uh staff's findings were a bit more mixed, as you may not be surprised to see given uh where we are in Fayetteville.

Uh the number of uh attributes we typically see associated with appropriate infill are fairly low.

Uh it is near sewer.

Uh there is uh park to the west uh as well as paved trail going through the riverwalk subdivision to the west as well.

Where it is more consistent is with our future land use map designation, uh noting this area as a residential neighborhood area, which uh is intended to be developed with a wider variety of housing types than uh may otherwise be seen.

Uh regarding some additional issues, uh, those on the council in in 2023 uh may recall that much of those conversations revolved around existing infrastructure in the area.

Uh before jumping into that, I did want to touch on our tree preservation standards.

Uh RA has the highest percentage in the city at 25%, and rezoning the portions of this property proposed to be changed would reduce it to 15% for the area of UN and 20% to the area of neighborhood conservation.

Uh moving on to water and sewer infrastructure.

Uh I'll take those one at a time, uh, beginning with water.

Uh the property today and its overall boundaries does have access to existing live water lines to the north and east along Gough Farm Road and the subdivision to the northeast.

What is less apparent in the map here is that there is also the meadows at Stonebridge subdivision, which is under construction right now.

Those fire hydrants are an indicator of where live water lines will be in the future, uh, bringing water connections uh even more closer to the site and addressing uh what would otherwise be perhaps a larger water extension.

Uh this would create the grid of water connections that we typically want to see as a part of subdivision develop where uh houses are being served by more than one water line.

Moving on to sewer, uh the primary concerns in uh 2023 when this is evaluated were the that a line, uh a sewer line specifically was outside of an easement.

There were some concerns about the ownership.

Uh that has since been resolved.

Uh the second concerns were ones of capacity.

Uh specifically, uh, there's a lift station in the middle of the golf course, which is one of many lift stations in this area.

And our utility department had initial indications that this uh lift station was operating at full capacity.

Um those who are familiar with lift stations, you don't want the pumps running all the time, and and our our water and sewer department had uh had seen indications that uh one pump was running all the time and possibly two pumps very often, and uh that was a major cause for concern.

Uh the second uh uh item of sewer infrastructure that was staff recommendation for denial previously was an eight-inch sewer line that was leaving the area uh under consideration, which you can see in the red circle here, which had been identified as an eight-inch line.

Uh since that rezoning request, uh the uh applicant and our water and sewer department have worked with RJN, which is the city's consultant who handles our our sewer master plan and evaluated that lift station and found that the pumps are running at a reasonable level.

Uh they're not the our the main pump and the backup pump are not running at all the time.

Uh so currently it is within uh all uh capacity norms, and in evaluating it with our utility department, they feel that any upgrades that may be needed, which is not currently the indication, could be handled with a project of this size.

So from that standpoint, the lift station is not a concern of our our water and sewer department.

The second item that eight-inch sewer line, uh, in conjunction with the applicant, they performed several field inspections of this line and ultimately ended up being a GIS error, uh, which seems overly simple, uh, but it was validated by uh both the applicant and our utility department that it is in fact a 12-inch line and has capacity to uh accommodate the development as it is currently proposed.

Ultimately, in addition to that, the it is worth noting going back to the beginning of the conversation, the size of the rezoning area did decrease significantly.

Uh the initial request included a significant amount of additional neighborhood conservation zoning area uh which would have taken what is the meadows at Stonebridge subdivision today being developed under the RSF4 zoning standard for four units per acre and allowed that additional area to potentially be allowed to be developed at 10 units per acre.

So the underlying assumptions of these water and sewer concerns have also reduced as far as the number of units that could be uh placed onto our system.

Moving from there, the other major consideration and concern that staff had uh with the previous request uh related to connectivity and traffic.

Uh as a result, the applicant responded to this by proactively providing a traffic study with this request.

Uh that was I I believe I noted that at agenda session in case you were curious at looking at the findings in that document.

Uh, as a part of it, they evaluated the existing traffic, uh, anticipated growth in traffic and overlaid that with the impacts of this development.

Uh this is was and is a main concern of staff because today most traffic goes north on Dead Horse Mountain Road to the intersection of Huntsville and Dead Horse.

Um, although not frequently, the Dead Horse Mountain Road has been documented as being underwater and in some flooding events.

Um as a result, the the potential to have additional housing and significant amounts of additional housing was cause for concern with the two alternatives being going south uh along Dead Horse Mountain Road to Black Oak Road to Armstrong and back to 15th Street to the west, or heading eastward through the existing subdivisions to Stone Meadows and Huntsville to the east.

And reviewing the findings of that traffic study, uh they are engineered indicated that there will not be any level of service compromises uh with this development happening, uh, and there aren't any specific recommended traffic control or street improvements directly or off-site as associated with the subdivision.

Nonetheless, uh staff recognizes that this remains a concern because whether it's this subdivision or not, and we are actively coordinating with the Arkansas Department of Transportation on signalization of the Stone Meadows and Huntsville intersection to provide a more uh controlled access on the Huntsville Road in those events that that horse mountain road is not accessible or it is a means of dispersing traffic uh off of that road.

Um additionally, another item uh we heard public comment with this request uh as the council did with the 2023 uh proposal uh that came before you.

Uh many of those concerns revolved around that traffic access and the ability to get in and out of this area of Fayville.

Uh there were also concerns expressed about infrastructure, uh stormwater as well, and there were concerns expressed uh about the size of the potential houses, uh, given that the neighborhood conservation zoning district does allow smaller lots and likely inherently smaller houses than the existing subdivisions uh in the area.

All told and uh on the balance of considerations, again, staff is recommending in favor.

When the planning commission heard this, they forwarded it to city council uh recommending approval by a vote of eight to one.

Uh I can take questions that the council may have, and Mayor uh Blake Jorgensen or Mark Marquis, I believe, are the applicants for this item.

Okay, great.

Would the applicants like to make comments?

Mr.

Jorgensen.

Yeah.

Good evening, Mayor and uh council Blair Jorgensen, Jorgensen Associates.

Um happy to be back in front of you all uh presenting this project again.

We've unveiled a few things that help we believe um our case and to get this rezoning once is much smaller rezoning request, and we actually discovered in the course of construction that that sewer main that gravity feeds to the west um is a 12-inch line.

Um that happened to be a um discovery during um excavation.

We just were simply down there and uh we ran into the line and said, Wow, that we don't have enough clearance to get over it under it.

And we said, why is that?

Well, it's a 12-inch line, not an eight-inch.

So we ran down the line all the way to the next lift station and um updated our JAN's model, so that helped increase the uh report for capacity study for the sewer.

Um, as you've heard Jonathan speaking, we have water capacity.

Um we've included the traffic study, and um, I don't want to be too long-winded tonight, but we do have Mark and Taylor Marquis with Riverwood Homes tonight.

So if you all have questions for me or the or Mark or Taylor, we're happy to answer them.

And we appreciate your time tonight.

So thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Uh members of the council, do you have questions for Mr.

Kirth or for Mr.

Jorgensen or Mr.

Marquez?

Marquest, am I saying that the right way?

Yes, sir.

Ms.

Turk.

I have a question.

So um, so it wasn't a miscalculation by RJM previously, it was the fact that the pipe diameter was incorrect in their models.

Um previously, it was the fact that the pipe diameter was incorrect in their models.

Isn't that what made the difference between the how how the capacity of the list station and how much work it was doing?

And if I understand your question correctly, I may have done a poor job distinguishing between the two issues.

What Mr.

Jorgensen was referencing in his moment at the microphone was the line to the west, the gravity line to the west was documented in our GIS incorrectly as an eight-inch line when actually it was a 12-inch line.

The lift station concern was that it was operating at full capacity, whether in terms of the motors running or volume, uh, when a RJN model and a utilities site visit to it, inspection of it or monitoring of it, excuse me.

That's the word I'm looking for, monitoring of it identified or confirmed that it's not running at full capacity, even in wet weather events.

Thank you.

I I guess um I'm concerned that you know we've had this um this uh property up for reconsideration several times, and I think that's probably a a large error because in the past we thought that the lift station was at capacity or overcapacity, and so it's um kind of surprising to me that now we're here that no, it's at okay capacity.

So to me, that's that's um that's a little concerning, and I'm just trying to understand why that error was made in the past.

I I can comment on that, Mayor.

Yes, please go ahead.

I I think the the third item that I mentioned leading up to the lift station and the gravity line was a major piece of the concern that was shared during the most recent second most recent proposal was that one of those lines was not identified to be within an easement, and it was unclear if the golf course property owner was willing to allow a developer to make the upgrades to that line necessary to accommodate what was ultimately a larger project at that time.

Uh towards the end of my my my presentation, I was discussing the previous zoning requests and the projected unit counts associated with that, which were much higher with that project than they are with what's currently before the council as well.

I don't know, Mayor, if if the applicant would like to add to that or not.

Yeah, if you don't uh to clarify the three points real quick, the easement that leads from the preserved uh Stone Bridge, which is the development under concern to the list station, was uh a legal description that was written and errant to the previous golf owner, Bill Motos.

And when we platted it, it did not follow the trajectory of where the actual sewer main, the gravity main that lifted that went down to the lift station.

So the easement was written written in error.

We have since corrected that.

The report from the previous rezoning for the lift station on the golf course back then still concluded that the lip station had capacity.

The only thing left in question was once the lift station went back up to the gravity main that led into riverwalk subdivision.

Uh under normal circumstances, uh if you're lucky in the in the old parts of town, we had a six-inch sewer main.

It was assumed that it was an eight-inch main.

There was no as built records that would have thought that it would have been a 12-inch main.

And when we got under construction, when Mark had paid for the previous study on the last rezoning, uh RJN, which is the hired subconsultant for the city, they did the study assuming it was an eight-inch based on normal public records.

Well, once we actually got down into excavation, we found that to be a public main that was 12-inch, and we went kept going down the line all the way.

So they updated the report.

So the three things was we have the easement now to be of record that's consistent with where the main goes.

The public main that gravity feeds to the west is actually a 12-inch, and the lift station does have capacity.

So all those things come together now, not you know by magic to support this rezoning.

That's just the facts of the report.

So I get why it would seem somewhat fabricated.

It's just that's just the facts of the matter.

So I understand where normally wouldn't we see a six-inch main downtown Fayetteville, it needs to be an eight-inch, needs to be a 12-inch.

Previously, Mark was willing to upgrade it from an eight to a 12-inch, which would have been about 1400 feet.

He was willing to concede that for the previous rezoning.

We just found that it was a 12-inch and RG and confirmed that that has ample capacity, so we do not have surcharging in that line.

Thank you.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

I appreciate you going through the history of that too.

Um, one of the things that I've always felt found interesting out at Stone Bridge is it's a public golf course, which is quite rare.

One of the things that I've always felt found interesting out at Stone Bridge is it's a public golf course, which is quite rare, and I think I've heard it explained to me by staff and the folks out there that it's really important to continue to have like accessibility to make sure that everybody is welcome.

There's a place for everyone out there, which is very faithful thing.

So I just wanted to ask, and it we didn't touch on it very much, but um I'm under the impression with the two different zoning types.

Uh currently out there, we have mostly single family housing, but I believe the and this this might be for our builder back here.

Um, but if can we talk more about that inclusion with like the different types of housing that are going to happen that are going to kind of change that area to try to welcome our neighbors then good evening.

I'm Mark Marquis with Riverwood Homes.

We've been here a few times on this, yes, and I wanted to clarify just a some of the things that from the past and today as well.

When we were here before, it was uh brought in for that whole hundred and fifty acres.

That's not the intention or the desire today, and I don't really think it was then, and it was probably a mistake on my part.

So, what we're looking at today, and listening to Fayetteville and their concerns, we all know workforce housing is a problem.

We build a lot of workforce housing in Fayetteville over the years, uh, primarily all on the west side of town.

We haven't built any workforce housing, and you can define that how you want, but there really we haven't built Riverwood any uh or myself on the east side of town.

So when we had this opportunity to come back into it, we purchased the first 50 acres that is the preserve of Stonebridge.

It's 134 lots presently, but it had a restriction that uh we could only do two and a half lots per acre.

So those lots now are over 70 foot wide, some of the lots are 300 foot deep.

So we've got uh a problem with the cost of that development to be able to bring that type of product in.

That subdivision is going to reflect homes that start around 1,700 square feet and go up to over 3,000 square feet.

So when you're looking at homes over 400,000, up to 700 and 800,000, that's not that type of product that we're trying to make available in Fayetteville.

Visit with a lot of people on this project, um, we decided to change it up and and bring it uh under contract for this 43 acres.

Primarily, it's gonna be about 180 homes single family that we hope to bring in in that 14, 15, 1600 square foot, and then approximately 40 townhouses that we can bring in and and bring that variety.

And if y'all are familiar with our company at all, we developed Sloan Brook, which is on the west side of town that had about 600 homes, and it was one of the only subdivisions that I know that we blended a community with homes starting at 1,300 square feet, going up to 3,000.

So you have a full mix and it's a very vibrant community.

We're trying to do that at Stonebridge, but the neat thing about Stonebridge, or the unique thing about it, is the golf course.

It's the only public golf course in Washington County, and one of only two in Washington and Benton County.

On a given weekend, and uh we have Taylor Johnson who is here to speak on that, and I don't want to uh uh mess it up too bad.

But you've got over 200 people that come and play that on weekends, and when people come up for ball games or other events, it's the only place they can play unless they know somebody that has a bright private golf course.

Well, with the spirit of what we're doing, the ownership wants to expand the clubhouse, they want to build a pool, they want to make it even more accessible for more people.

So the synergies that go on this are pretty neat and pretty unique to Fayetteville.

We're only three miles from downtown.

So we can call sprawl one thing, but three miles from downtown isn't very bad.

One of the other things that we're gonna do by adding this is it's going to have over a mile of 12-foot walkway trails that connect to Riverwalk, and also connect down to the driving range and and all that.

The uh there's a lot of neat things that are you know coming together if we bring this all.

Um I think the biggest thing is talking about neighborhoods and people saying, well, we only want homes over 2,500 square foot because we've got those in our that's what there is now.

This is a public golf course, it's not a private golf course.

And that's what we're trying to do with this.

So with that, I'm gonna try and close up unless you have any other questions for me.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, just a quick question.

And uh when I'm looking at the project, I see the uh connection to uh golf road, but it looks like there's also can I confirm that there will also be a connection to uh Dead Horse Mountain?

Absolutely.

So with the preserve, we stubbed out to the golf course.

And Jonathan, I don't know if you could bring that back up on the plat, but it will go and tie in this, whether you want to call it phase three or phase two of what we're doing, but it's all going to be um tied in, and once you come into the preserve, you'll actually have two exits onto Dead Horse Mountain to the north and the south.

So that's going to give you three exits out of the properties.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Ms.

Turk.

Um, I have one question for staff.

So um would uh, you know, we always have this um uh compensatory or whatever um extra requirement for roads because I've heard you know a lot of um a lot of concerns about the traffic, the width of the road, and it doesn't look like with this development that they would be required to um do any kind of road improvements.

Is that could you comment on that?

I I'm I didn't mean to give that impression if I did during my presentation.

That's typically evaluated with the development per if if are you referencing the traffic study specifically?

I'm refer um really referencing the the location of the development, that it doesn't seem to be along the major road where uh where I've heard a lot of complaints along Dead Horse Mountain.

Gotcha, thank you.

I appreciate the clarification.

The a subdivision's standard requirements are to develop their internal street systems and any adjacent streets.

So to that end, the you're right.

This property that you see here on the interior of the golf course does not abut any existing streets, the proposals that tie into existing streets that are off-site effectively.

Um element of evaluating those traffic studies is determining if there are off-site uh improvements necessary, and as a component of that, when we see the final street designs, that's when our planning and engineering staff evaluate the proposed development, the lock counts, unit counts.

I know Mr.

Marquis said what he intends to build, and I'd have no reason to doubt him, but ultimately what development comes forward is what staff has to evaluate for those street improvements.

So it is possible that off-site improvements of some way, shape, or form would be required based on what Mr.

Marcus provided his traffic engineer, their recommendation, the traffic engineer's recommendation is that there aren't any off-site improvements uh that they recommend be needed to maintain the level of service today, but that'd ultimately be a decision of our planning commission when they submit a plat.

Thank you for clarifying that, Jonathan.

May I make one more statement too?

Yes.

You know, when we look at this, one of the unique things about this is the golf course, and we're purchasing this land and developing it with the expectation that this will be a public golf course for many years and hopefully generations to come.

We're not looking at it ourselves for any future development to take away from the golf course.

Um that's over a hundred acres of green space and RA that is pretty unique to have in this part of Fayaville.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

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

It doesn't look like we've had anybody that's called in.

Okay, so I will bring it back to the council and ask what you all would like to do.

Um go ahead.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Uh I think you know, this is a uh a big project.

It it's been be not before me, but before the council here a number of times, and again uh the scale of this project with two members missing.

I I would think it might be good to leave it on the uh leave it for the next meeting.

But that's just my opinion.

So is um okay, all right.

And unless and that will happen automatically unless we have a motion to suspend and it doesn't look like we do, Ms.

Moore.

Well, I could yeah, I can respect that.

I think we could probably move forward tonight, but if you think that there might be some feedback that could come from the other council members, that would be of help.

Um I haven't heard um like any public comment that's been concerned, it seems like there's been diligence done on it.

And so I guess my question would just be with the applicant team just to understand, you know, if we continue to sit with it, if if there's any any impacts to the project at all.

Did you hear that okay?

I didn't know if you heard me, sorry.

I didn't know if that so is that a question.

Well, I uh you know, I was just I was saying I could be agreeable to that.

However, you know, I'm comfortable to move forward, but if we think that we need to have the other council members present for us to move forward.

I just have not heard um, you know, in the past projects that came before council, they were quite it was quite considerable.

Um we did hear a lot from the community.

Um and so we haven't heard that with this one.

Yeah.

Uh and so that that's why just for me, I don't have the hesitation tonight on this project um to move forward.

But yeah, I don't either personally.

I I do think that uh, you know, with the the multiple access points, the scaling down of the project, the great news on the the sewer main and the pump station.

Um I think this could really work, and I do think that eventually we're gonna get those roads upsize, but I think that's not gonna happen until we have more uh housing out there.

I I do really love that uh this is gonna bring accessibility uh to people with multiple incomes to the uh golf course as well.

So I am in support.

I'm just wondering um yeah, again, I I just want to hear from the other council members if they were ready to move forward.

Ms.

Moore, that was did I that was not a motion to suspend and go to the second reading.

You were just commenting.

I'm happy to listen to what my colleagues have to say.

Mr.

Wheedaker and then Dr.

Jones.

Thank thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, um if we don't take action on this tonight, I would be curious to hear about the negotiations with RDOT for the traffic signal on Huntsville Road, because I think everything I heard tonight is absolutely good news on the capacity of the community and existing infrastructure to absorb the project.

And to me, that uh traffic signal is just the icing on the cake.

So um it's it's not the game changer, but boy, it sure would alleviate some concerns people would have about the low water bridge or people being uh captured.

And um, but I'm I like the project.

I like the changes from two years ago.

I think the messages from the community that lives there and the messages from council and the concerns we had were heard, and it's just a fortuitous opportunity to discover the infrastructure that we didn't know was there last time.

Yeah, I completely understand how record keeping happens in the real world.

Uh you discover these kinds of things when you start digging, and um that's why engineers are half archite archaeologists sometimes.

Thank you.

Dr.

Jones.

Uh I've heard from one resident, and so I am inclined for us to I guess just hold it because they wanted to know uh what I guess developments have been made.

So I think it would be holding it.

Okay, okay.

Mr.

Berna.

I'm I'm fine with holding it, but uh in regards to your comments about R Dot, Jonathan, are is there any realistic expectation that we would hear anything about R dot within the next two weeks?

It is not likely, no, and the more involved answer is that it it's not necessarily a negotiation with R Dot.

The way these processes typically work is we identify an intersection that we believe ought to be signalized, and we submit a warrant request to our the Arkansas Department of Transportation, and what that means is they go out and evaluate whether the traffic at that intersection warrants a traffic signal.

Uh sometimes those are pretty straightforward.

The day we connected RuPa to MLK, we had our warrant within two hours or something to that effect.

Uh I don't know if this one is be would be as simple or not, but uh it's a matter of our dot responding to that request more than a negotiation.

I'm sorry if I put it in those terms.

Okay.

Ms.

uh Keith, do you have something to add?

Okay.

Okay.

Uh oh, yes, Mr.

Bernard and then Ms.

Turk.

I was just gonna say if if if it's the desire of the council to to table it or not table it but hold it on second reading, I'm fine.

But uh I'm also very much in support of this project, and I would be more than willing to vote for it tonight as well.

But that's not a motion to suspend and move forward.

I'm I'm trying to be trying to be respectful of what the sure Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so Jonathan, is it possible that this does that this intersection do is not warranted by the state?

Um what what do you I mean uh I know the time uh it could be a long time before they do that uh or short time, but what do you think in terms of the capacity or the probability that it'll be placed in there?

I I don't have the the information to answer that uh coherently.

If the council doesn't advance us or otherwise, we can follow up with if you if you're previous tonight, we can follow up separately by an email.

Our our public works director, Chris Brown uh has been heading that up to this point.

Uh if the council leaves us on the first reading, I can uh provide that update at the meeting instead.

Um because what I've heard um is that there are concerns about traffic out there, about the the poor quality of the road, and also when it floods about access.

And so having that light there would definitely be an improvement for sure on traffic management.

So I guess my preference would be to hold it uh to just leave it right where it is, and then we pick it back up uh in two weeks.

Okay.

Okay.

I don't see any more lights on.

So thank you both so much for being here.

This is a great project.

Um and now we are moving to our final item, which is item C3, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-75 for approximately 0.34 acres, located at 900 East Ash Street in Ward 3, from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to NC neighborhood conservation kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

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

Section one, the City Council, City of Faithville, Arkansas hereby changes 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 NC neighborhood conservation.

In section two, that the city council of the city of Fayville, Arkansas, hereby amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This property is in sorry.

There we are.

This property is in East Fayetteville.

Uh it is about uh midway between College Avenue to the west and old wire to the east, uh certainly closer to Old Wire than College.

Uh it is at the northwest corner of Ash Street and June Way Terrace and is currently developed with a single family home on about a third of an acre of land.

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

Uh we are in evaluating it from a land use compatibility standpoint.

We find that the proposal to rezone it from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to NC neighborhood conservation is compatible.

Uh there are both single family zoning districts uh with single family homes being the only permitted use by right uh with a largely similar suite of uh of uh zoning standards, uh with the exception of one that I will touch on uh shortly in the presentation.

From a land use plan standpoint, uh we similarly find this to be an appropriate request.

Uh the neighborhood conservation zoning district uh again is limited to single family uh dwellings.

It would allow a density increase from uh four to ten units per acre potentially.

Uh we feel that the infill attributes associated with the property uh make that a uh appropriate change ultimately.

Uh in terms of tree preservation, uh this would reduce on this property from 25 percent to 20 percent if rezoned to NC.

Uh the zoning uh standard that I uh alluded to a moment ago uh that I wanted to speak to more that became a major topic of conversation with this request has to do with setbacks.

Our RSF4 residential single families uh zoning district has what we would consider a standard zoning setback, uh meaning you there is a distance from a property line uh that the building has to be set back from.

The building cannot be within that distance.

In the RSF4 zoning district, that distance from streets is 15 feet.

The NC the NC neighborhood conservation zoning district has a build-to zone, which I most readily think about that as the inverse of a setback.

Instead of requiring buildings to be set away from a street, it requires the building to be built within a certain distance of the street.

In the case of the NC zoning district, that's 25 feet.

As it relates to this particular property, and uh this is just a a zoomed-in shot, but I believe I'm trying to catch the general character of the neighborhood uh as it is.

The current pattern includes properties uh that vary uh from anywhere from about 25 to 60 foot setbacks, but generally beyond that 25 foot setback that you uh see in the NC neighborhood zoning district uh, which uh again that was a uh one of the major conversation points at the planning commission is uh a rezoning to NC would allow dwellings to be built closer to the street.

Of note, uh I think it is important for the council to acknowledge that uh seeing this distance that these houses are from the street today overlaid with the existing setbacks, almost any of these houses could be built closer to the street today.

They could be built within 15 street uh feet of the street today.

Uh it is indisputable that they are not there, uh, but redevelopment of these properties could allow a house today to be built much closer to the street, similar to what's allowed in the NC neighborhood conservation zone district, albeit not up to that front property line.

Um otherwise, the main item I wanted to highlight for the council is that there has been a significant amount of public comment about this uh item.

Uh a lot of it has had has revolved around those concerns about uh how development could occur under the neighborhood conservation zoning district specifically with uh a dwelling being closer to the street than away from it.

Uh otherwise the public comments are captured in staff's report.

Uh again, staff is recommending in favor of this request.

It did come to the planning or the city council with the planning commission's recommendation of approval, but it was by a five to four vote.

So very narrow, uh, very narrowly was forwarded to the city council.

Uh with that, I'm happy to take any questions the council has.

And Mayor Conrad Sheemick is here as the applicant for the item, and he does have a presentation.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Come on in.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, wait for the presentation here.

All right.

So I'll just kind of start with uh a brief overview, talk about land use compatibility, um, and we'll kind of dive into some small case studies, and then I'll kind of close it up.

Uh so this house was built in 1959.

It's a mid-century modern house with a bunch of systems kind of at the end of their life.

Uh galvanized pipes, uh, cast iron uh sewer pipes, uh roof needer repairs, uh, all new electrical, all that sort of thing.

Um so we've pulled all permits and we're currently renovating.

We have drywall already up, so it's been a pretty fast project, but we're doing a really thorough job on the house to give it another 50 years worth of life.

Um so going on to to ADUs, you know, you all know this.

We we want to build ADUs, uh, but of course there are a barriers to that.

Uh next slide, please.

So you guys have seen this before, um, so I won't kind of uh kind of go over it all again.

But I wanted to kind of point out that home equity is the primary driver for ADU construction.

I think that's why we may see more ADUs in other states or other regions.

Um in you know, just uh talking to AI um and and running some like real basic numbers.

Uh and on the very conservative level, if you bought a house in 2010 for 100,000, it might be worth about 157 in Fayetteville on the low end nowadays, whereas in LA it might be worth 255,000.

So that gives a lot of people a lot of room to pull equity out and build an ADU on their lot.

Um so going down to the bottom here, um, you know, a reminder that a house built on its own lot requires two parking spaces, right?

Whereas if you build an ADU, a no parking additional parking is allowed.

Next slide, please.

So as a reminder, you know, ADUs, you guys already know this can be anywhere on the lot, right?

Um next slide, please.

So we found out this week that the city that the city actually plans to build a trail uh right in front on ash.

So in the setback concerns, I think this also plays into uh what Jonathan uh went over so thoroughly is that uh that will prevent a little bit of uh building right to the uh to the trail or to the street by pushing everything a little bit back.

Um I also want to note uh that I also did kind of a uh a setback study um from right-of-way to two house, and there is a lot of variance on ash.

Um there's a house that's 120 feet from the right-of-way.

Uh, there's also a house that's 28 feet, um, but largely exactly what Jonathan said, there is some variety, even though it is there is some uniformity to the street as well.

Um, there's also a tandem lot uh on the street with a house behind a house, um, which we're big fans of.

Um, and then there's also a lot with two houses on the same lot.

Uh additionally, there's a pump station right off the right-of-way, uh, maybe 10-15 feet, uh, just east of here.

Um, just something to note as far as the street all looking the same.

Uh, next slide, please.

Uh, here I just want to kind of go over the the last point here is that ADUs are great, they do add supply, um, but home ownership also or fee simple lots with homes also add supply, um, but they also add something more uh a chance for uh you know generational wealth and stability.

Uh next slide.

Here's some examples of some small homes that you guys have probably seen around town.

Uh just just a couple examples, three examples.

Ninth Street, next slide, please.

Uh this is in Washington Willow.

Uh, next slide, please.

Uh this is a small house on Mount Sequoia.

Uh next slide, please.

Okay, so this is a quick case study on uh a firefighter, right?

Probably making a little bit more than most firefighters actually make, but it comes out to about 230 to 240,000 house.

Um next slide, please.

So this is just kind of a uh a Zillow map looking at anything that's on the market at that price range.

So there's one that's like an auction, and then there's one to the west on Valley Drive.

The one on Valley Drive looks kind of hopeful, but it's at the bottom of Valley Drive, and it's actually in the flood zone, and it uh floods pretty regularly there.

Uh next slide, please.

Um this is we just kind of zoomed in more micro to neighborhood around route elementary.

Um may I just ask a clarifying question?

Is the are we we're still talking about the rezone on ash, correct?

Yes.

Okay, got it.

Because this didn't this didn't seem to be about that.

And so I just wanted to make sure that that we were that's what we were talking about and being in considering tonight.

Yes, well, so the yeah, okay.

That's yeah, that's fair.

Um next yeah, I'll skip this in the next slide.

Um so Jonathan went over this permitted uses are the same.

Um, next slide, please.

Um rezoning is about land use compatibility.

Um so we asked the questions of single family zone um compatible with another single family zone.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh so this is just showing other other NCs surrounding this uh the street.

If you were to go for a drive, go for a walk, you probably wouldn't be able to tell that these other homes and that are zoned in C look any different or feel any different than the ones that are RSF4.

Uh next slide, please.

Um next slide, please.

All right.

Uh that's it.

We um you know I know the two council members are out, so if you guys would like to leave this on the second reading, we're okay with that.

Um, and uh I just want to end that you know we can build an ADU by ride, but we'd love to build an additional small home that is ADU-like on this lot.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have questions for the applicant or for Mr.

Kirth?

Uh Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so Jonathan, uh right now, like I think was brought up if it remains as is, they could ADU could be built uh with no parking requirement, no additional stormwater requirement, and no setback, uh additional setback requirement.

The an ADU on the property would have to be built to the existing setback.

There would be a setback, it would be the RSF4 setback requirements.

Is that what you're asking?

And you and you're correct.

The state law does not allow parking associated with ADUs.

And then uh Conrad, uh I think I saw it somewhere uh that what you're proposing is like with an ADU could build up to 1200 square feet.

I think what you're proposing here is it more of a tiny house.

Yeah, maybe it doesn't meet the definition of tiny house, but much smaller than 1200.

Yeah, we're looking at like 500 square feet.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

It doesn't look like we have other questions.

Oh, I'm sorry, Ms.

Turk.

Sorry, I just thought about it at the last minute.

Yeah, you're good.

So um, Jonathan, um, under the current RSF4, could this lot be split?

Um I guess would that east-west?

I I've not seen a survey of the property, but I believe it's about just over 15,000 square feet in the RSF4 zoning district requires 8,000 square foot per lot.

So a lot that's a long way of saying it does not look like it could be split today.

And then under the proposed rezoning, could the lot be split?

Yes, I'm taking purely zoning considerations, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Great.

Doesn't look like we have any more questions.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I'm sorry, I don't know what it is.

Mr.

Wiedaker, please go ahead.

I'm so excited because I can hear tonight.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, a question for you is uh would the fire code require 10 foot separation between the two houses?

That's a good question.

And if you are putting a property line between houses, absolutely fire code typically it's a nuanced question.

If you are putting a property line there and you want to have windows or openings or not fire rating that portion of the property, you would have to have five foot of separation.

You'd have to imagine a property line between those structures if that makes sense.

No, that doesn't that makes perfect sense.

You can put you can put structures on the same piece of property closer together, but they have to be designed and fire rated for it.

Okay.

And so I think where I'm leading with this is with the now we know a trail coming in.

And so I think where I'm leading with this is with the now we know a trail coming in, at some point the developer would be asking the question, what's the rear setback requirement?

And I'm curious about at some point they're going to want windows, they're going to probably want separation and not build on the property line.

When does it become more viable for them to build in the backyard rather than the front yard?

I think I asked that only because the concerns that I had heard were not people anti-well, I interpret it as not anti-development, not anti-ADU, but concerns about the front yard and the front yard setback deviating from the neighborhood.

And so I'm kind of looking at the math on a lot of coverage and the size that they're talking about and asking the question out loud.

At some point, if they lose capacity in the front yard, does the backyard become viable?

It's a question that you can't answer, but if we don't act on this tonight, you can see where I'm going to plant the seed in the developer's own imagination to say because the trail was news to me.

I didn't realize it was going to be there.

I think it was news to a few of us.

It's good news.

I mean, it's it's a wonderful uh amenity for it to be there.

Um I'm just trying to think before I give up the microphone and the mayor ignores me.

Is there anything else that I wanted to cover?

Uh that's that's all I can think of at the moment.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you again, Mayor.

Uh there's just one other thing when I I that I was reminded by looking at the map I've pulled up.

That that driveway, I've never seen a driveway like this.

That the current driveway goes right into the intersection.

And it looks like a gravel driveway that actually ends up in the intersection.

I don't know how that happened, or if we have many cases like this.

Um if this was rezoned, would that have to be uh corrected or or or moved or the zoning would not dictate that the driver has to move redevelopment or development of the site may dictate that.

You're that that you're correct.

That is non-conforming, you cannot build driveways into the radius of a curve today.

That is not a uh generally safe condition to free rezone, they wouldn't have to bring that into compliance.

Rezoning alone would not require that.

Rezoning does not create the impact, it creates the potential for an impact.

Okay, but if they were to do what they want to do, then they would have to like develop or redevelop, then they would have to come into compliance.

That's possible.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Um I believe we have a comment from Ms.

Stark, our uh Marley, our chief housing officer.

Um yeah, I just I know uh, you know, tonight we're thinking about the res uh rezoning request specifically, but also wanted to talk about this in terms of potential housing outcomes that could come along with that request.

Um, you know, I agree with my colleagues in development services in terms of its uh you know, NCE being appropriate for this, um, both in the ability to potentially provide additional housing choices.

Um sorry, I'll lean in a little bit more, it's a little bit awkward.

Um balancing, you know, potential housing choice um with sort of the need to maintain neighborhood character.

Um I'm also just happened to be a former resident of Ash Street, and I think I um you know I'm quite cognizant of the fact of uh you know investments that have been made around this neighborhood, um, particularly in relation to the trail have really gone a long way in terms of um you know increasing mobility and connectivity to the neighborhood and other amenities.

Um really see this as a potential opportunity to deliver um you know greater gentle density um within the neighborhood and sort of increase um access for another family in that area.

Okay, thank you so much, Marley.

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

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

If so, please go ahead and come up to the mic.

Please remember to state your name and where you live and be mindful that we have a three-minute time frame uh time limit.

Thank you.

My name is Kenneth Ruege.

I live at 1908 North Wheeler Avenue.

It's about one block west of the proposed site.

And I oppose the rezoning of 900 East Ash for the proposed RZ 2025.

When I moved into the neighborhood, I purchased an empty lot.

And we had requirements for the construction of our house.

Rules like setbacks and property lines and other requirements.

We are not allowed to block the view of existing neighbors or the flow for traffic.

If the city is changing zoning requirements, what is to stop putting two or three tiny houses in the front yard of existing houses?

Are we next going to allow manufactured homes and travel trailers in the front yard of existing houses?

If Fayetteville is trying to end our housing shortage, we should build neighborhoods of tiny homes, not just stick them wherever there's room.

If we want to build tiny homes for a family member or property speculation, it can go in the backyard.

The property value of the existing home, I think will be marked down because it's turning into a low-rent neighborhood.

Do you want your neighbors to put tiny houses next door to your house?

Is there no control?

There is no control who will be in the tiny house in the future.

It could be rented to a rock band that's loud, or because it is located near the street, someone could be selling drugs to children passing by or used for prostitution.

I realize that all of this can happen in a larger house with setbacks, but it still wouldn't be as convenient to walk through traffic.

The question of parking also comes up.

Any house may have two to four cars nowadays.

A tiny house, you have the potential of adding six to eight cars on a single lot.

We don't want our neighborhood looking like a used car lot.

There is no street parking on Ash Street.

Also, the question comes up if this is a separate house.

Who owns the land?

The one original lot, or are they going to section that off?

It seemed like I heard someone saying you couldn't section it off.

So I would like that to be answered.

And that's all I have.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Elizabeth Bainbridge, and I have lived at 1735 North Wheeler Avenue in Fayetteville for the last 18 years.

My property is 0.3 miles from 900 East Ash Street.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

I will do my best to be brief.

I'm opposed to the zoning request for 900 East Ash.

It's my understanding the owner has requested the change in order to build a 450 now 500 square foot home in the front yard of the existing house.

I do not believe there is enough space to do this appropriately.

Although I understand the need and agree with the need for affordable housing and for infill, I respectfully disagree with the plan at 900 East Ash meeting those needs.

The only needs this project will meet are the needs of the builder.

Further, it recognizes that existing conventional subdivision developments may have large blocks with conventional setbacks and development patterns.

In order to preserve the integrity of the street view and compatibility with the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Bainbridge.

Hi, my name's Lark Hodzek.

I live at 820 East Ash Street.

Um, I am just northwest of the proposed tiny house.

Um, I think it'll be a detriment to the aesthetics of our neighborhood.

I when I looked at the plan, it's like you're looking out of the existing house right into the other house.

And I don't think that that's the vibe I've ever seen in Fayetteville.

I don't think people move to Fayetteville going, oh, it's going to just be like a city, I can stare in my neighbor's window, and that's fine.

I can't imagine what the parking situation would be like with them both not having a designated parking space.

And I don't really know anyone would consider that like this is my forever home.

I want to live in a 500 square foot home that and if you're in the bigger home, why would you want to stare into like have somebody in your front yard?

That doesn't make sense.

When I've considered putting up a small home, my uncle has Alzheimer's, and I would put it in my backyard.

I think that makes sense.

I think in film does make sense, but it has to be done in a way where you're preserving the character and the vibe, and you're not decreasing property value by making it look like these stuffed homes in a neighborhood.

So thank you for your time and you guys have good evening.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Kathy Loone.

I live in 1840 North Jimway Terrace.

I live kind of cornered from Ash Street, so I'm looking at that property all the time.

When I'm sitting in my living room, I see that property.

And put a house right in front of the house.

Those people in the main house are gonna look at a wall right outside their windows.

But the windows are high, but still that.

And then you talk about no parking for the that small structure that they plopped in front of a house.

What are they gonna do with that?

I mean, it's like if they have cars, are they gonna park on the street?

They can't park on ash, so be on GMW Terrace.

That is a place that I live, and so they'll be parking right in front of my driveway all the time.

So parking's gonna be an issue.

Also, when you do that, we have a lot of animals in our neighborhood.

I see deer running through the neighborhood all the time.

So what's gonna happen with traffic?

Deer are gonna run out in front of the traffic, and people aren't gonna see it because that house is right there, locking the view.

I can't imagine a small house in front of a house.

It just doesn't make sense.

And like they said, what are they gonna do with it?

If they do it to that house, are they gonna do it to this house?

And and so far.

This neighborhood, we bought in there.

I've been there 47 years.

We bought that neighborhood because it was a nice yard.

We had yard, we had neighbors.

It's friendly and calm neighborhood.

It's gonna turn into traffic.

We used to be able to go out anywhere.

We used to go to Ash Street and go down it.

Well, that's gonna be really impatted with traffic now.

Township, we used to go out township, can't go out township.

So traffic's gonna be an issue in that area.

So I'm glad that they're gonna put a trail in front of Ash Street.

That's great.

And that's all I can say.

I'm just opposed to this.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi.

My name is Barbara Cowan.

I live at 1751 North Wheeler.

Thank you for hearing us tonight, and for the work you're doing daily on our behalf.

I'm uh complimenting your stamina just from tonight.

I uh first lived in Fayetteville during college in the early 70s, and managed to make my way around the world and finally 50 years later, I got back here, and I am thrilled to be here, and I I'm thankful for what this city is doing to preserve this gym of a little mountain hometown that we have here.

I am totally supportive of the creative agenda this council has taken to create affordable accessible housing so that many more people can come and enjoy Fayetteville.

I'm always thrilled when people come here and discover it, and then I'm also a little bit nervous about that.

To shamelessly quote our mayor from our 2026 state of the city address.

It's important our city grow with intention while retaining its sense of self.

Choices about values reset reflect something deeper than the individual decisions.

My little neighborhood is made up of small houses built in the 60s and 70s with lots of trees and relatively ample lots.

The setbacks on Ash Street set the style of the area.

That's the ribbon that cuts through the neighborhood.

A substantial part of our property value is due to these large, relatively large properties we have.

NC zoning is designed to protect existing setbacks, streetscapes, and lot sizes, and subdivision patterns, not to ruin them.

The question here is not is a single family zone the same as a single family zone.

Is it the front yard the same as the backyard?

This request to rezone to NC is solely for the purpose of allowing the builder to build a tiny house in the front yard.

This is an individual decision tonight.

But we'll set up potentially an unstoppable president for 20 precedent for 29 other properties along Ash Street.

Bring on the infill plans, the ADUs, and properly situated tiny houses.

Matter of fact, after all this learning, I'm it's I've gone through with this.

I'm thinking about building an ADU in my backyard.

Please do not vote yes tonight to put tiny houses in our front yards.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I've been there.

I bought that house in 1984.

It's got a big lot.

All the houses around me have big lots.

Never even heard of this until one of my neighbors says, hey, this guy's gonna build a tiny house in front of his house.

We have a wonderful neighborhood.

Drive through it, look.

It's it's made for family.

It's not rental.

It's not.

Everybody that lives there since 1984, there's tons of kids that go to root school there.

It's just not right for our neighborhood.

I just want you to know I'm opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Keith, we have some people on Zoom.

Yes, we have four people with their hands right.

Rainy Ruez.

Hello, can y'all hear me?

Yes.

Okay, great.

My name is Rainey Ruis.

I live at 1717 North Wheeler Avenue, where I've lived for the last 20 years.

Rainey, I think we I think you may have accidentally muted.

We lost you.

Um hear me now.

We can, yes.

Okay.

Um I was saying I've been at 1717 North Wheeler Avenue for the last um 20 years, 23 years actually, and I just don't think that NC is an appropriate designation because it does not conserve um our neighborhood at all.

We all as a community have talked about being in support of NFL and of meeting affordable housing needs, and I just don't think that that is what this project is doing, and it's not doing it in a thoughtful way.

And furthermore, with the upcoming large school project happening about a block and a half away from this property.

I think that um traffic and the changing neighborhood is a very real worry that needs to be ironed out before additional rezoning is thought of.

So I'm I'm against this rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have an Aaron Caldwell.

Mr.

Caldwell, go ahead.

Uh thank you.

Uh talking again.

Uh Aaron Caldwell, uh, 4261 Northeast Meadow Creek Circle.

Um, you know, I just want to say, you know, I just want council to consider just one thought, which is if not here, then where?

Um NC zoning is a really restrictive uh zoning code.

I I'm I'm not exactly sure why this was the one pursued, other than you know, it was the one that was probably the best to conserve the neighborhood, hence neighborhood conservation zoning.

Um so you know, I I hear the neighbors' concerns, you know.

I I think change is extremely hard, right?

And I I don't think concerns about growth are uh illegitimate.

And I I hear what everyone's saying, and you know, I agree a lot of those concerns are things the city is going to have to consider, you know, moving forward as a whole.

However, I think in this particular project that you know, for this project to work from what I've heard from the developer tonight, this is what needs to happen to add a very small infill unit that will be affordable for people to the community to live in.

So I I would just say to council again, uh you know, I would pose the question, if not here, then where?

Right?

So if we want to support in fill housing, if this is one that the council does not support, I I just struggle to think of what infill housing the council would support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a Michelle Meese.

Ms.

Mees.

Hi, my name's Michelle Misi, and I live at 1907 North Wheeler Avenue.

And I do also oppose the rezoning of uh this at the time.

Um I'm concerned about a couple of factors.

So uh I am concerned that the 500 square foot home won't be a viable living space for many people who are looking for a home in this neighborhood, um, especially considering the additional parking not being added.

Um I'm also concerned that the ADU will be placed too close to the road, uh, especially again because of the eventual trail and with the potential building of Remy.

I just wonder if this rezoning um will align with future plans in this area.

And I wonder if it should if it should be reconsidered until at least the decision about RAIMY is made.

Um I'm definitely open to ADUs, small house neighborhoods, affordable housing in this area and across the city, but the placement of the ADU seems pretty unideal to me.

And I don't feel it's viable to place it in the backyard, but I would be open to that option if discussed.

So I request that the city member council members vote against this rezoning or table it for further for further review.

Um, and I thank you guys very much for your time.

Thank you.

Nathan McCloskey.

Mr.

McClifsky.

Yes, Nathan McCloskey, 2653 North Aurora Avenue.

Um, I just wanted to say that I like the look of this request.

Um it's create a solution that provides housing to someone who might not be otherwise be able to afford it and brings more of the gentle density that they needs.

Great.

Was that it, Nathan?

Okay.

Yes.

All right, great.

Thank you so much for weighing in.

I know we don't have any more on Zoom, so let's uh I will take it back to the council and start with you, Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh first off, uh Jonathan, quick question.

If it stays it is and they build an ADU, there's no parking requirement.

But but if they re if we rezone it, they they will have to provide off street parking.

Is that zoning does not dictate parking?

If they build an ADU on the property, it does not require parking.

If they build a house, split the property, they have to provide parking.

So houses, like detached single family houses require two parking spaces, ADU required no sense.

Yeah, and I believe that the idea of this is that it would be a house and they would therefore, you know, they want to split the lot, and therefore they would have to uh provide parking.

So that argument of it seems to be kind of backwards from what I heard from the the citizens.

Uh another thing um that I have to address uh because I found it greatly insulting, uh is when I moved back here in 2015 with my wife, uh we lived in a 600 square foot cottage.

I love that.

It was awesome.

Uh cute as heck.

And uh I but you know what?

Living there didn't turn me into a drug dealer.

It didn't make me have parties, it didn't make me buy six cars and park them everywhere.

I don't know, you you know, when you come here and you talk to us and you say those things, you you're not gonna get me on your side talking like that.

Uh I'll say that right here.

It just rouse me up.

And so uh keep those thoughts, uh Fayetteville, please keep those thoughts to yourself.

Uh I'm gonna leave it.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I think change is hard.

I think it's hard to be in our city for a really long time and to see things change.

Um, I've been here for almost 30 years and I've seen the city change a lot.

And I've lived in areas and it's been hard in a neighborhood I'm a stone star away from you across across college.

Um, I think this area um of Ash actually is quite eclectic, actually, with the type of houses that are through it.

So it's very faint little funky.

They might be single family, but there's a lot of variation in there.

A lot of you talked about, you know, how long you've lived there.

And I want you to kind of think about what your home values are today and wonder whether or not today you could come to town and purchase your property.

Because I'll tell you, I couldn't be a neighbor in this area if I tried to come back in on my current income.

And I'm raising a kid um with autism.

And I have all of my property in the front uh yard because that's how my neighborhood, very similar to yours.

And I'm hearing neighbors tell me that you wouldn't want me to build a small home so that my child with autism could be close by to me.

And it's disheartening, I have to tell you.

Um, because the truth of the matter is that is what you're saying.

Because if everyone does a little, no neighborhood has to do a lot.

We all are doing our parts across our neighborhoods in the city.

I understand that this area hasn't had that occur at this time.

And the first time feels really scary and fear fearful because you haven't seen it executed.

But I have to tell you, if we are open to this this um missing middle housing, it has to come and envelop into all of our our parts of our community.

Um it might feel unusual that there's a house in front of a house, but those are demonstrated across the city and they execute really well and people live in them.

I think people are happy to have housing.

Um my kids ask me, Mom, can you sell your your house to me?

I mean, this is a reality that our people who've grown up here that my kids were born here that they're concerned about.

And so again, I want to under I want to um empathize and I want to hear you because I think I felt very similarly probably in the years past about as things were changing, and I think it's hard.

Um but for me, I feel like we have to take on gentle density into our neighborhoods.

And uh I agree that as we talked about the ADU.

Um an ADU can be built, which is another home in your neighborhood with no parking requirement.

And so this is really actually creating additional requirements for them to have to be a much better neighbor.

Um I also tell you this developer um has a proven track record of being a good neighbor.

They're here locally in our community, they're accountable in the community, um, they live here.

They don't want to uh create a product um that's not desirable.

And so again, I want to empathize that when something is new and it changes in your neighborhood, I know it's incredibly disruptive.

The school coming in, we know that when amenities in schools happen, redevelopment occurs, and with adding uh things like the trail system in uh when we want amenities, we need more neighbors to be in that area to be able to pay for those amenities over time or we can't afford them.

We have to come back to you and ask you for more money, which we don't want to do.

Um and so just the very nature that we're gonna have the additional trail that we're gonna have the school and that you can easily access getting over to Old Wire and get down to Goalie Park.

Um, your neighborhood is gonna continue to develop and change over time and welcome new neighbors.

And um I'm very supportive of this project because I think that we need every single unit like this to put somebody with Alzheimer's, my child with autism, um, so they can have a part of Fayetteville.

I hope you will understand that I'd be happy to chat with you afterwards if you have any questions.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Burner.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I have supported uh this developer's projects in uh multiple kind of times uh in the past.

Um however I drove this area this morning uh just to look around uh for knowing that this was coming before us tonight.

Um I just don't see this.

Uh and and maybe I'm not looking at it with uh you know broad enough look, but I think the neighbors have said, look, if they wanted to put it behind the house, they're very welcome, you know, that they're open to that.

But especially considering we've just found out that there's gonna be a uh trail right in front of it that's gonna cut down even more.

Uh I I just I just can't support this particular project.

Um I just don't think it's compatible to the neighborhood.

Um I I just don't considering the the where the lot where the house sits on the lot, where we're gonna have the trail coming through there at some point.

I just I just don't see it on this particular project.

So uh for that reason I I won't be able to support it unless someone can provide me with additional information that I haven't seen so far.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, I want to clarify just a little bit.

Um so the NC is billed to 25 feet.

So could they build closer to the trail than 25 feet?

Yes, but we do have a specification in our uh trail design for a shy distance, meaning how close a structure can be to it.

That's typically three feet.

Three feet.

Okay.

So they could build up to three feet.

If the yes, if it this all depends where the property line is, and also if the trail is built in easement or right-away if the if the city acquires right-of-way in the trails within that that new right-of-s the new property line, and then that would ideally set that the shy distance of the three feet, yes.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Um, you know, I'm very concerned about that.

I use the trails all the time, and they are a wonderful thing about our city.

But this neighborhood is a long established neighborhood, and I would argue that there's great uniformity within that neighborhood.

Um a few feet there, back and forth um with their setback, but I I'm definitely not in support of this neighborhood.

I think it's uh of this uh rezoning rather.

I am in support of the current neighborhood the way it is.

Um, and I agree with um Councilmember Berna here, they're not against an ADU being in the back or a tiny home being in the back, but the front yard and with this trail coming in gives me great deal of concern.

So I will not be supporting this request.

Okay.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I share concerns as well.

I and I appreciate Councilman Stafford's comments a great deal.

Uh it doesn't benefit anyone to overstate or exaggerate uh the likely conditions or impacts of a project.

And part of what we heard was unrealistic uh and unfair, which I I appreciate you calling out.

I think for me uh the thing I haven't heard mentioned that gives me pause is a 5-4 vote from the planning commission.

That's pretty rare that we get that.

And when I look at who the planning commissioners were, so I have the same concerns Councilman Stafford has about people that would say if we don't support this, then we don't support ADUs, we don't support.

I mean, we have a ADU policy that's beyond what the state allows or requires.

So I think that's unfair to cast aspersions on us if someone were to express concerns about this particular site.

Um, like council member Berna, we've supported this developer.

We like and appreciate this developer's work, but it doesn't mean every single proposal is one that we rubber stamp either.

We do take them case by case.

We do consider the the environment that it's in.

So I I have concerns about this.

I mean, there's not the it would benefit the developer for us to pause tonight and to not vote on it because there's not the votes to pass it, and that would be unfair to the developer.

Just because I have concerns doesn't mean they don't deserve the fair shot.

But uh at some point 500 square feet, given trails and setbacks and build twos and everything, I'm thinking that the the backyard may be can potentially become viable for them.

So I I have not watched that section of the planning commission, and uh I owe it to the developer for me to watch that to see who was in favor of it and what were the concerns that were expressed about it.

But I I too share some concerns about this.

Thank you.

Dr.

Jones.

Uh real quickly, um Mayor Ron, I would like to hear from the housing officer.

Um what's your opinion as it relates to the housing crisis and how does this apply?

Or does it uh I I think if I'm understanding your question correctly, specifically thinking about um additional housing density that could come with the rezoning.

Okay.

Um I mean, I think when I think about this property in particular, and um, you know, I think Councilmember Moore's comments around um, you know, potentially thinking about um I think neighborhood change over time is another factor that I feel like we don't talk about um enough.

And you know, I really think about uh I think in order to meet the needs of sort of our our evolving housing needs as a community as a whole, uh a big part of that is gonna be um you know, if we want Favil to be a welcoming place, we do I think all have to take on um you know the mantle and knowing that some of that change is going to affect all of us at a neighborhood level, and I think um one of the sort of mantras I I look to a lot is that um all neighborhoods will have to change to some some extent, but no neighborhood should take on the full burden of change within a community.

Um and I certainly don't think uh sort of this rezoning request reflects that latter scenario.

I think it reflects that former scenario.

Thank you.

I like the the idea of evolving.

I think that that's what that's where we're headed.

So thank you.

Okay.

Um I am not sensing that we're going to have a uh motion to suspend the rules, and so it seems that we will be leaving this um on the um on the first reading.

So thank you everybody that came out and spoke.

This will be heard again on March 17th.

Yes, forgive me.

March 17th, uh where you're green, and we will see you back here then.

Thank you all so much.

Uh before we adjourn, um do we have any announcements, Mr.

Masito?

Oh, okay.

I guess the announcement I have is just uh reiterating the the uh drawing blank.

The summary of our bond election that we had on Tuesday, which uh that was the largest bond municipal bond that's ever been approved in the state of Arkansas, I believe.

So uh that's definitely we were excited excited for about 30 minutes, and then we realized that the work needs to get started.

So just letting you know that staff is working on uh plans immediately on how the different tranches of money that will be laying out and trying to get some prioritization and will be coming to you in the very near future uh with some more details.

So just very excited to get to work.

We didn't have a lot of time to celebrate.

It was more of going from excitement to stress on how we're gonna get this done.

So but we're excited.

Not stress, eagerness, urgency, and excitement.

Yes, yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Keith, and thank you to the voters.

Uh Dr.

Jones, you also have an uh an announcement.

Yes, on Saturday, the University of Arkansas for medical sciences will be launching the Barbara Sub Talks Initiative here in Fayetteville to engage the community in open dialogue about means health and wellness, bringing research uh resources and real conversations directly to Fayetteville.

And uh our special guest will be none other than Darren McFadden.

He's going to share his story, and it will be at Theater Squared.

Uh lunch is free, and um it's going this is the first time that this uh research project will be launched here in Fayetteville, and the community is really excited to hear from Darren McFadden, his story of uh sobriety and mental health, and we're excited to begin the conversation as it relates to men's health here in Fayetteville.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Dr.

Jones.

All right, we are adjourned.