Hello and good evening.

And I would like to call the Tuesday, July 7th meeting of the Fayetteville City Council to order.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones.

Present.

Mr.

Stafford.

Here.

Dr.

Jones.

Here.

Ms.

Moore?

Here.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Here.

Mr.

Berna.

Here.

Ms.

Bunch.

Ms.

Turk.

Here.

Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay.

First up on our agenda, we have CFO Steven Dotson with our sales tax and monthly financial report.

Steven.

Thank you, Mayor.

This sales, this is the April sales tax report.

In April, we saw taxable sales in the city totaling approximately 285.9 million, which was a reduction of three tenths of a percent from April of 2025.

Retail trade was up three percent year over year, uh, representing an increase of 4.3 million.

And within retail trade, we saw increases in building materials, which were up 14%.

Electronics and appliance stores were up 29%, and supporting goods stores were up 15%.

Those gains, however, were offset by decreases.

Um and some of those notable decreases were 2.9 million reduction in construction and a 3.9 million uh reduction in wholesale trade.

Um compared to 2025, the tax collection was pretty flat.

Uh the City Penny, uh the city one penny sales tax was down three tenths of a percent or around $8,400.

The county portion of the city was up nearly half a percent, around uh $10,000, resulting in a total combined sales tax collection increase of uh really it was pretty flat, around only around $2,000 for the month.

Um now in comparing the tax revenues to what was actually budgeted, uh the city one penny sales tax was down approximately 3.2 percent compared to budget, around $92,000.

The county portion was down around 2.46%, around $55,000 compared to budget for the month.

Uh for a combined total for the month of March down around 2.8% compared to budget or around $147,000.

And cumulatively, that's gonna put the city on a year to date basis down approximately one percent or $232,000 uh compared to budget through the month of April.

Can I answer any questions for you on the sales tax report?

Minister Jones.

Thank you.

Steve, can you tell me what's all included in the street fund that was down to $37,000?

I'm sorry, the street fund.

Oh, we we haven't we haven't gotten to the the street fund.

Okay, I was looking at that.

Sorry.

Gotcha, no problem.

Uh okay, if it's all right with you, I'll move on to the monthly financial report.

Steve, I might have I apologize.

I'm late to the button.

Oh, apologize, Mayor.

Um I just didn't know if I heard you correctly following.

I'm getting used to all the new formats, so my eyes are going here and my ears are trying to listen.

Did I hear you say though that like building was up but construction was down?

Can you help me walk me through that?

Up building up 14%.

But then I heard something in regard to construction being down.

Did I mishear something?

Sorry.

Uh so increases in building materials was up around 14%.

These are our total taxable sales for the month and on which our taxes based off of.

But yes, uh uh construction was down around 2.9 million, and wholesale trade was down 3.9 million as well.

And oftentimes the building materials doesn't necessarily correlate in the same month as the construction that you would see.

Okay, so perhaps this might mean next month maybe we see a bit more.

Okay, thank you for walking through that.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay, and this is the monthly financial report for the month of May.

Uh compared to budget through the month of May.

Um, our property taxes up one percent or around 17,000 in the general fund.

Our sales tax is down one percent, but our franchise fees, those are up seven percent or around two hundred and nineteen thousand dollars.

Alcoholic beverage fees, those are up around three percent.

Uh our building permit fees continue to hold strong.

Those are up around uh 36% over budget or around 645,000.

Uh our turn back was flat.

Um, and our charges for services, those were down around 2% or around $16,000.

All in all, in the general fund, we're up around 1.2% compared to budget, or around $365,000 through the month of May.

Over in the street fund, um, our fund total, we're down around 1% compared to budget, around $37,000 through the month of May.

In the parking fund, we're down around 4% or around 41,000.

And once again, this is due to something that we have talked about before.

Um, that was our budgeting for the uh bakery building lot that we took over.

Uh, we are still down around uh 31,000 uh in that lot as far as projected revenues were concerned.

But once again, that this is the first time we've budgeted for that, and so we'll make adjustments accordingly uh moving forward.

In the parks development fund, we're up 2% compared to budget uh through the month of May, around 47,000 in water and sewer, uh our fund total is up around 4.6 percent compared to budget, around $993,000.

In stormwater management, we're up six percent or around 77,000.

Um in recycling and trash, we're up around 3%, around 234,000.

And uh in the airport fund uh compared to last year through the month of May, our gasoline sales uh revenues are up around 44 percent.

But one thing uh to note about this is basically we're we're budgeting for the increased cost of of the fuel.

So we took that into consideration when budgeting our revenues that the cost of fuel was gonna be up, therefore our the cost that we charge the customers was gonna be up as well.

So when you look at that high dollar amount that we're up compared to 2025, that isn't necessarily realistically saying that we are up 44 percent.

It's basically taking into consideration the cost of fuel.

Um and our flight operations are up three percent or around 326 more flight operations uh through the month of May.

Um our fund total in the airport fund, we are down around 6.5 percent or around 144,000.

But I will say we've got uh some of our biggest months uh coming up, so I'm not really too concerned about that.

And I wanted to point that out because my slide that I presented last month, I said we were actually up.

I meant to it was a mistake on the slide.

I meant to indicate that we were down, so we are down six point five percent in the airport fund.

Just wanted to make that correction.

Uh any questions I can answer for you all.

I think Minister Jones maybe still has her street fund question, and then we'll go to Ms.

Turkey.

Thank you, Mayor.

You're welcome.

I was just asking what was included in that street fund that was down.

So our I would say um a couple of things are are going on right there.

So our the projected interest revenue hasn't been coming in according to plan based on the invested fund balance.

So that's one one item that I can point to.

Another thing I would point to is our our state turn back has been a bit weak in the street fund.

Uh we're pretty well flat in generally speaking.

Um, you know, we're up a bit this time of the year.

Thank you.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

I've got kind of an oddball um question.

Um problem.

So you know, we're gonna have seven razor back football games this year.

We have another big event that I would say is the equivalent to a football game uh coming this weekend with a big concert in a Razorback Stadium.

And so when we go back and we look at the year's revenue in terms of um, you know, uh all of our sales tax.

I would think our airport would get a bump up for something like this.

Do we ever calculate or figure that in or do you anticipate or are do you just say it's part of the noise of the city?

I think more the latter than the former.

I think it's difficult to tell what the impact is gonna be to some of these events that we have come in.

For one thing, it's difficult to predict what kind of traffic we're gonna be getting in here.

Um, you know, generally speaking, you know, we'll have I guess good football seasons where we'll see an uptick in traffic, and we generally do for the first couple months of the football season, but depending on how the season goes, we might see that tail off towards the end of the season.

So it's very difficult for us to budget accordingly to to basically count on those revenues when we really can't forecast what that's gonna look like.

I have a follow-up sort of other academic type question.

So we had we had Garth Brooks here a couple of years ago, and I would think that that would be kind of a bump right there at that time.

And again, uh just you know, kind of looking to see how that um reflects the city.

Sure.

And I'd be happy to look into that further to see.

I mean, if you can point to a couple of those things.

I think you mentioned the Garth Brooks concert.

I'll see if I can do some historical digging and see what kind of trends uh bore out from that that visit.

Okay, thanks, Stephen.

Sure.

Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you, Stephen, um, for your presentation.

Um, I wanted to look at on building permits.

Um, you had uh reported that those are at 36 percent, those have been pretty strong, and I was trying to remember.

Um, that's against budget.

How did we uh forecast the budget for this year?

What percent change was that over previously?

Over the previous year.

Uh-huh.

Uh I can get that information for you.

Okay.

I'm seeming to recall that potentially we are somewhat flat or maybe very slightly increased.

And over the last past couple of years, I think the building permits have been planned kind of flat towards like what how we'd ended the year.

And so I just knowing that we're about to get back into budget season.

I just hope to make a note that we look at that um to really consider what headroom that potentially has.

Part of what we had done though was we have increased fees.

We increased fees this year, and we increased fees last year as well.

Um, and so you know, we were we're taking a look at that.

Difficult to necessarily forecast what the budget would be.

Sure.

Uh obviously we've we fit some of that in, but we were pretty conservative just to kind of see how it would play out.

Okay, thank you, Stephen.

Sure.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Steven.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we will move on to the consent agenda.

Mr.

Berna.

Second agenda session.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

And now will you please call the roll to approve them?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

And just for clarification, well, does anyone know if Councilmember Bunch will be here this evening?

Thank you.

That brings us to our public thank you, Mr.

Whitaker, to our public hearing.

The public hearing is now in session, and our first item up is B1, raise and removal of a dilapidated structure located at 320 West Isla Street.

A resolution to order the raising and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure on the property owned by Stephen and Cynthia Parette, located at 320 West Isla in Ward 2 in the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Billy.

Thank you, Mayor.

City Council.

Billy Bryant, Code Compliance Supervisor.

The subject property is located at 320 West Isler Street on the corner of North Vandeventure Avenue and West Isler Street south of Wilson Park.

This address consists of a two-story 1,976 square foot residential building.

Staff were notified of the property through an anonymous complaint in 2022.

The complaint at that time was about a property in need of repair.

A property nuisance code case was opened, and owners Stephen and Cynthia Parrett were instructed on what repairs were necessary.

In December of 2022, the property nuisance case was forwarded to the prosecutor's office once communication from the property owners ceased and without being without work being completed.

In response to city prosecutors' work on the case, a building permit was applied for in February of 2025 to renovate the house.

During the permit review process, staff were consistently provided with inadequate information and a lack of communication.

Slowing down the approval process significantly.

Ultimately, the building permit was approved and issued on November 3rd, 2025.

Approximately seven months is a remarkably lengthy period between building permit application and issuance.

After the building permit was issued, staff delayed further action to afford the property owners time to make repairs.

To note, building permits may remain open for up to six months without any activity.

After six months, the permit expires, but can be extended with the building officials' determination that an extenuating circumstance exists due to a lack of activity or repair work on the subject property and no verifiable hardship justifying extension.

The permit was not extended and expired on May 2nd, 2026, with the increased dilapidation of the structure and unsafe conditions representing a public nuisance.

With the increased dilapidation of the structure and unsafe conditions representing a public nuisance, staff opened a raise and removal case on May 4th, 2026.

As you will see in these photos, this building is in a severe state of disrepair.

Notice that most of the siding was removed, exposing crucial structural components to the elements, including wall studs, wiring, wall panels, and plumbing.

Some areas of the structure were wrapped with house wrap, but that wrap has become weathered and tattered, not providing the necessary cover to protect structural integrity.

Notice the decay in the soffits, the fascia, and window frames.

Unfortunately, this is no longer a usable space.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the raise and removal of the structure.

And I can answer any questions council may have.

I have to first of all, before I have a question for you, Mr.

Bryant, I have procedurally a question for you, Kit.

Um, given that it is a public hearing and a raise and removal immediately following um Mr.

Bryant's presentation.

Do we is there time for then a app not an applicant?

I suppose that's not the right word, but the property owner.

I want to make sure that I'm following correctly the procedures for a public hearing since it is.

I think once the presentation is over, I think then it's open for a public hearing, and the property owner certainly will have an opportunity to address the city council.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

Um Mr.

Bryan, I apologize for not asking you beforehand, but um on your first slide you mentioned 2022.

I think I'm a bit I I also have heard or seen different emails that reference like 2018.

So this initiated and began to be an issue in 2022, or was it prior to that?

It was 2022.

Okay, that was when our first uh complaint came in against the property involving the structure itself.

Okay, I believe there were some cases before that, but they mainly were um uh accessibility issues with the sidewalk as being blocked.

Great, thank you, Mr.

Berna.

Thank you.

Uh you mentioned that in uh 2022 it went to the prosecutor for for no work, and then uh nothing until February of 2025 when a permit was provided or obtained.

What happened in that span of time?

It seems like a long period of time that they could have done something with pro with the property and didn't.

Was there communication back and forth?

I believe there was some communication back and forth between the prosecutors off and the uh prosecutor's office and the property owners.

Uh, I know once the building permit was issued, it was at behest of the prosecutor's office.

It was trying to move things along.

Oh, so it wasn't wasn't asked, it wasn't obtained by the property owner, it was obtained by the prosecutor.

It well, it was obtained by the property owner, but I believe is that it was at the behest of the prosecutor's office of telling them we've got to move this thing along.

We've it's just trying to show that we've been trying to work with the property owners for a very long time.

Um, I don't probably have a good answer for what happened in that period of time, just because once our cases get to the prosecutor's office, we kind of just step back and let them handle things.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I'm not seeing any more questions for Mr.

Bryant, so we will open it up to public comment at this time, and we'll we can start with giving the property owner an opportunity to come up.

Yes.

Oh, thank you for hearing me out.

Uh council members.

And I'm so sorry to interrupt you.

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

And I believe um uh Mr.

Masito, if you can have them adjust the time because I believe the property owner gives the you're already on it, so it gets equal amount.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Um again, thank you, Mayor Ron and Council members.

Um, my name is Cynthia Parratt.

This is my husband Stephen Parat.

Um we are the property owners at 320 West Isla Street.

And I am here as the owner and respectfully asking the council not to order demolition tonight, but to give us a defined period of time to finish the renovation.

We have planning.

Um I do want to be very clear up front.

That I understand sorry that I understand why this property is on the agenda, and I do want to acknowledge that the city has worked with us and it is very much appreciated.

Um there I the issue is, and I know hopefully this will answer some questions.

Is that we started with replacing the roof?

Um, and then it just kind of went on from there to put it in a full renovation, which we did include the plans in that renovation, and within that renovation, um, since we were gonna go all out, renovated, uh, the decision that we made was to go all out and to put some additions on the house, and the finished product that we envision uh should be a very beautiful house and be an asset to the neighborhood.

So I do apologize to our neighbors for having to live by that.

Um I know it's not a pretty sight and it's not pleasant, um, but I do take the city's concerns very seriously, and I want the same thing that the city wants, which is a safe and finished home.

Um, and I just want to go on the record that we are not owners who walked away.

This is not an abandonment.

There's just been a lot of issues.

I don't think I've got the time to go into those issues since they are significant.

Um I think we should have waited to get a permit until spring because we bumped into the winter time, and we did not want a big hole in the ground with not a prime opportune time for renovations due to cold weather.

Um so I just I'm so sorry, Keith, it's still counting down, and they were supposed to have 10 minutes, so can you please add seven to the clock?

Thank you.

I'm so sorry, Miss Parrett.

Go ahead.

Thank you so much.

Um again, we did submit the renovation plans that are in your packet.

Um again, we are just an we are owners trying to bring the home back to its former glory, or even better than what that former glory is.

Um so and we literally had to stop mid renovation because to get our permit, and we were not permitted to do any more work on the house.

Um of the reasons why um there were some timelines is unfortunately we were scammed by a contractor.

Um the original contractor who reached out, um represented himself as someone out of Fort Smith and a very reputable contractor.

I do not think he is.

In fact, we do have our attorney here tonight, and we'll be taking legal action against this contractor to get a significant amount of our money back.

Um we have taken out overall just over a hundred thousand dollars.

Part of that, again, a lot of that we are gonna try to get back.

Um so I guess just with the money we have in that, and I think that is just our ask to allow us to go through with these renovations.

We have now found or in the process of working with some builders that we trust, and we are to a point we trusted nobody after what we went through with that um contractor.

Um so again, I am just a couple of things, and I apologize.

Um that again we're respectfully requesting that you table this resolution.

Um, and I do understand in kind of reading reading the agendas and reading the other um items at the property on North Jackson Drive has been tabled a couple of times, and I do want to ask for the same courtesy.

Um, I don't know the reasons, um, but I am just asking really for a chance to finish what we started or what we wanted to start, but we wanted to do it the right way.

Um, and I think we're maybe just a little too picky um in wanting to get it done the right way and to bring it to how we want this.

Um so that is there anything else that we need to cover.

Well, we we did try to renew the permit.

And they they wouldn't even talk to us about it.

We did try to rem renew the permit, and they wouldn't even talk to us about it.

I just told us no, it had to come up before the council.

So I mean, we're we've been working around a finance, financing our way around the money that's that's disappeared, and we've got that ready.

We were ready to go in the first of May, but they've told us we couldn't even go over and work on anything, so and we would uh like to ask because we are trying to at least recover the house, and the part on the east side still needs to be recovered, which we were trying to do that last Tuesday, and we're halted.

Um because I know it's kind of in fringes right now and it is blowing into some neighbors' yards, and we do want to stop that from happening.

I mean, they they won't even let us haul off the patio we need to widen the garage and get ready to put in new footings and won't let us do anything to it.

So it's not we're not trying to work on it.

We are, but they are bending over backwards to stop us.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

We are now gonna have public comment on this item if you're able if I'm so sorry.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Berna.

We do have an opera uh opportunity to ask questions of the parettes.

So if any members of council um have questions uh for either the homeowners or for Mr.

Bryant, and we'll start with you, Miss Moore.

Oh thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you for being here tonight and and sharing so that we have some of the background of what's occurred.

Um, you know, as this has been a lengthy kind of timeline that things have happened, and I'm very sorry to hear you.

Unfortunately, you do hear those stories, and I'm sorry that you were you know a part of something that didn't work out with a contractor, and I hope all that does work out.

Can you give us a better idea of what it would look like for the timeline of the action that you would take?

Because you know, you heard the concerns from the city or that this structure is unsafe the way it sits today.

And so I hear you too saying you weren't able to get a building permit to start in May.

So if you can maybe kind of enlighten us a little bit too, though, about if you know we were to delay this, you know, when could you potentially what would you be doing?

When could you come back and touch base with us so that we could try to come to an end with us?

We we'll come back anytime we need to.

That's not an issue, but um, we did try to renew the permit in the first of May, because we had excavators ready, and I had a footing guy and a foundation guy ready to put in the new footing, but they wouldn't hear of it.

They said, No, you can't do that, you have to stop.

So if you can get a building permit, can you lay out for me what the timeline looks like for starting to make the to shore up the house to keep things from being infringing on neighbors to start the building process to it being a safe structure that exists on that lot today?

Within two weeks, we'll recover the house and seal it up.

We tried to do that already, and they came and shut us down.

Uh and I'm sorry, I'm gonna ask you to pause, and I'm gonna ask everybody in the audience to please be respectful and hold your comments regardless of which what they are until it's public comment period.

Please go ahead.

I I didn't think about that, I'm sorry.

No, no, no, not yet.

I wasn't I wasn't speaking to you, I was speaking to people that were seated, and when it's not their turn to talk.

Please go ahead.

Yeah.

But uh I started to do a flow chart, and it looks like it'll take 240 days to get it done.

If we can get it started, we'd really need to get it in the dry you know the first of the year.

So working inside won't be that bad.

One follow-up on that timeline then.

So if we were to set to come back and meet with you in two months potentially, is that would you have made substantial progress at that point?

Uh yes.

Yeah, it's just getting the permit and getting getting a chance to start.

We've worked around the finances so we can get over the missing huge amount of money.

Okay.

Thank thank you for walking me through on that.

Like I said, uh yeah, in two months, we should we should have the footing in and be started on the house.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Barna, and then Dr.

Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, struggle is uh number one, do you have a you said you have a new contractor?

Yes.

Do you have a contract that you can show us where that you have JR is out of the state till the 12th, and so by by the 15th, we should have a contract.

Okay, but you and I'm not trying to be combative with you, I'm just trying to ask some questions, and I know they're they're hard questions, but you've known this was coming, and uh it's kind of been the situation that we've been encountering is delay, delayed, delay, and you've known this was coming.

I I would have thought you would have had a a contract that you could show us in good faith that there is that you are moving forward to get the permit.

I had to get myself put on as the contractor because the guy that was there before I don't know what all lost license or whatever, but he we got rid of him and to renew the construction loan, they want a contractor on the deal.

So that's started.

I don't know, it's due pretty quick.

But uh JR is helping me find the contractors to do because that's what he does, but he's going to go ahead and sign on this contractor, so the bank will refinance the finance loan.

Okay, and so you got a uh a permit in February of 2025.

And we're sitting here in July of 2026.

Yeah, no, no, yeah, we we got the permit in November.

Oh, excuse me, sorry, looked at it, looked at it wrong.

We were cleaning up the parts from the previous contractor, and I had to take and go to the city and get the plans drawn, the plans drawn and all that done, and get them approved.

Okay, and that was in November.

So I'm correct, uh stand corrected.

You got a you got a permit in November of 2025, and we're in July of 2026, and now the permit's expired.

So what's you know, why haven't we made any progress at all?

I mean, I I drove by the property on my way here, and uh I I don't see how you can I think you said two weeks.

Uh I don't see that that you could get it wrapped.

I I just I just don't see that.

It's the rep's gonna have to come off.

It's just a covering because we're gonna have to redo the whole house.

We're gonna have to.

We got to the point where we are doing enough in the building that everything has to be brought up to code.

I mean, there's still knob and tube wiring in that house.

There's steel water lines.

That all that stuff's got to come out.

So we're gonna have to open up every wall in the house and replace everything, and then reside and and do it all back.

So and then when we got the permit in November, winter came on, and we're dealing with the the financing and everything else.

I didn't have a pile of money to start spending on it.

We worked around all that and got that taken care of.

And the first of May, or early in May, the end of June or end of April and first of May, we were ready to get started and going.

I've got my had my footing contractor ready.

My excavator was ready to come in and tear out that patio, which is the first thing we've got to do, so we can dig the new footing.

I mean, we're moving the garage wall out and making that a little larger and going two stories on it.

So I mean we were worked through all the hurdles and obstacles to get the money available and ready to go, and we're ready to go, and they wouldn't even talk to us about renewing the permit.

Okay.

Is that Mr.

Bernard?

You came over okay, Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Um you referenced um when you went to the property, they wouldn't let you get some things or do some things who might they be.

Uh the code compliance, I believe.

Okay, okay, okay, okay.

Okay.

So you've gone there and uh city code compliance wouldn't let you weekend.

We can't go over there and do anything because we don't have a building permit and they won't even talk about giving us a building permit.

Okay.

And I thought I heard you say that your attorney was present with you tonight.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Are you are they able to come up and speak?

I don't I don't know.

Do you have a question?

Do you have a question for them?

Uh yes, I do.

Okay.

I I think you can certainly ask them a question if they want to speak, it needs to be during public comment.

Is that right, Mr.

Williams?

Yes.

Okay.

Great.

If you'd like to ask a question of their attorney, I assume that's fine.

If they would like.

If yes.

So uh Mr.

Attorney or Ms.

Attorney, if you are, I don't know your name.

If you are if you are in the audience center willing to entertain a question, please go ahead and come up.

Sorry, I didn't know your I didn't know your name, sir.

I apologize.

Okay.

Hi.

I have more of a passive role today here.

Okay.

Uh I represent Parettes regarding the Fayetteville case.

I was given over to the prosecuting attorney.

Okay.

Uh my representation does not inherently extend to the city council meeting or the ongoing issues tonight.

Got it.

Okay.

Um so that's why I've sat back silent allow them to speak.

So it sounds like Dr.

Jones that maybe that he's not able to address questions this evening.

So thank you.

Okay.

I apologize.

I can't provide more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank y'all.

Thank you for her support.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we um do you have further questions, Dr.

Jones, or I'm gonna move on?

Okay, Miss Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, I uh received the first complaint about your house in 2023.

And so I know this has been going on at least since 2022.

And I guess my question is um since this has been going on sort for quite a while, and sounds like you've had some very bad experiences with the previous contractor, but when is the last time any work has been performed on the house?

I've driven by that house probably for the last two years, kind of in frustration because it is a historical property and has a whole lot of potential, but I have seen it had it appears that no work has been done at all.

It was originally a roof issue.

We were just gonna replace the roof on it and go on from there and do the inside later on.

When we first took the roof off, there was seven or nine layers of sheetrock on top of that house.

And they'd throw a roof on top of it and go on.

And it she's been gone since 94.

Correct.

So when was the roof replaced?

23?

It was replaced in 23.

It was replaced in December of 23.

Okay.

And not totally replaced, but we got in there and tore all that off, and there was too much damage for us to deal with or even tolerate on the side porch, and the contractor replaced that.

Snuck in there one morning and threw up a new section on that house.

And then on the back side over the garage, there was too much damage for it.

And he ended up tearing that down, and that's why it's open right now.

Okay, but it seems like um, you know, if I were a homeowner, especially historic property like that, I would have definitely secured the outside uh areas.

And so those are still very open and accessible to rodents, and you had quite a uh you had quite a lot of time with the building permit that existed uh to actually go in there and secure that area.

And uh again, the money was issue then.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Did that answer your question, Mr.

Okay, Mr.

Stafford and then Minister Jones?

Thank you.

Um so you you said you weren't able to renew the permit.

Is that because it had expired?

Correct.

But but was there a reason you didn't start the process to renew it before it expired?

Knowing that you want to be able to complete it by the time it expired.

We we started right at the end of April and did a little stuff too.

I mean when did the permit expire?

Uh 1st of May and second, third early in May.

Okay.

But but you weren't able to Jonathan, is there a process like would the process be for renewing a permit?

Certainly, I I I'm happy to speak to that.

The just to go over a little bit more what what Mr.

Bryant touched on in case you it was not heard within the the larger presentation.

Uh the building permit was applied for in February of 2025 and was not issued until November of 2025.

So that's a seven-month period, which is exceptionally long for rehabilitation permit for staff to get what we need in order to be able to issue a permit.

Uh, we have documentation from I believe it's September or October of 2025, where uh Mr.

Paret came and spoke with our building safety staff, outlined that they had the financing at that time and went through the items necessary to get their permit item by item with our plans reviewer at that time.

Uh going from there, building permits have a six-month lifespan if no work is being completed on them.

Uh that's typically measured by inspections being requested between November when the permit was issued and May uh when it expired, no inspections were requested, and a demonstrable amount of work was was completed uh according to the building inspector for the property.

At that time, it is within the authority of the building official to extend a building permit to allow that six-month period to extend if they can establish a hardship.

Given the length of time that this case has been ongoing, the concerns with the increasing dilapidation of the home, our building official ultimately decided not to extend that permit and to advance this to city council uh for you all to have the opportunity to hear the concerns.

And in the extent of time it took between when they applied, you said February to November.

That was because uh it wasn't city staff dragging their feet, it would it was that they needed stuff from the applicant that that hadn't been uh delivered or that's a fair characterization.

We typically turn around single family home permits on a weekly basis at the slowest.

So from the time we get information, it typically takes us no more than a week to get back with an applicant.

Okay.

And and so that that amount of time that it took to get the permit in that where you had to, you know, they gave you a list of the here's what we need.

What was the uh holdup uh at that point to get the city what they needed to get you that permit in a in a timely manner instead of you know the the contractor misrepresented himself to us?

So he is the one who applied, and when we kept following up with him, he said, yes, we're on it, I've got someone on it, we're on it.

Follow up again, yes, we're on it.

Um until finally we're like forget it.

We took it over, we took that process over, I believe, in October.

And okay, took the process over and it went relatively quick.

It was in April, I think.

When we finally got rid of that contractor and simply did it ourselves.

Is this do you do you live in Fayeville?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um is this like ideally your primary residence once it's fixed up?

Well, we don't live there, obviously.

Um but I do have it listed as my primary residence.

Yes.

Oh, right now, yeah.

Well, I mean, yeah, we we don't live there, but no, it's not our prior.

We don't live there.

I'm just gonna say that.

Okay, you shouldn't have it listed as your primary residence, but um, but you hope to make it that.

I hope to do that.

My primary residence with these plans.

You you have financing is in the bag now.

You have your finances that through with to rehab with our best bank.

You have a new contractor that you trust now.

Yes.

You how how quick do you think you could get a permit at this point?

Knowing what you know from your past experience and what you need to have in order.

Yes.

Okay.

And then how does your contractor give you an estimate on what would it take to get the outside of that house sealed and secured uh from the elements from uh vagrancy from pest and and rat?

Like how what are we looking at there?

I would I'm hoping for by the first of the year to have it in the dry.

Well, but I mean to get it.

I'm talking about getting it to where you understand not not only your neighbors, but your the city can't have you know a dilapidated unsafe property like this.

With and and this has been a years long process.

Yeah.

So I'm talking about getting that outside of that building, safe, sealed, secure, uh, structurally sound, weatherproof, what it will to get it wrapped and and that.

I mean, it shouldn't take two weeks.

Okay, but I mean that's ambitious, but okay.

Well, um, but okay.

Mr.

Stout, are you okay with that?

Move on to Minister Jones, or do you have further questions?

I I think that's the the pretty much the the extent of my question.

Okay, Minister Jones, before we open it up to public comment.

Sure.

I think um councilmember staff would ask a lot of the questions that I had.

Um, and I think I want to close by asking this.

Um, what is your goal?

Is your goal to make this a rental property with the understanding is wants to be her home?

She wants to live there.

I want to live there.

I want to renovate it.

I want to expand it.

I want to get it to this future state that is in the plan, and we plan to live there.

What changes, what has changed from 2025 to 2026 to make you want to reside there that would encourage you to want to move this process along further?

Because obviously you're comfortable where you are right now, just trying to figure out what is moving, what is encouraging you to move and want this process to be expedient now.

It's it's been her home for 60 years.

Your great grandfather built it in 1912.

Yes.

So it has been in our family since 1912.

So you understand that it is in a historic area.

Yes, I do.

That's why I want to get it back to its former self and better.

And then I want to close by asking similar questions.

So if you said twice, I think councilman Murberna asked, What will it take you to recover the house and seal it up?

Your initial answer was two weeks.

My next question is he then asked about a contractor, and then you stated that you have a friend, JR will help find a contractor.

But you said you put yourself down as a contract.

I just need to know are you a contractor?

Yes or no?

No.

Okay.

To get me listed as the general contractor on it after we lost Zach.

Uh it I had to be it had to be my primary residence so I could do that.

And that's not the only reason we did it.

I mean, we plan on living there.

That's where she wants to go.

Is JR licensed contractors?

Are you contracting JR to subcontract it out to somebody else?

The plan is to put him on as the contractor.

Okay.

And then my last question.

Um, you talked about tearing off the patio, rental pro well, you didn't talk about rental property, but you did say um when Mr.

Stafford asked you that it could possibly take you to the first of the year.

So I'm torn between two weeks and a year, and my biggest goal is to secure it and safety for our community.

What happens if a child gets in there and gets injured?

You on the liability, both of you are saying this is your primary residence.

Then the city is saying, how can we make this a safe environment for our city and the community surrounding?

We're just trying to get you to commit.

When will that happen?

The additions, once we get started to do the add-ons and all that, and and replace everything in the original house and all that.

Okay.

To get it wrapped and sealed up, except for the new addition, it shouldn't take that much.

So the last thing that I heard you say was you took over the process of applying for the permit in April of 2025.

I think I'm not 100% sure.

Okay.

April to November of 2025 is still a long time.

Once again, you have to go and reapply for this permit.

There's gonna be some lag time again.

I'm just asking you, all honesty, what do you think it's gonna take you to get the documents together again to go back and apply for the permit before you even start moving on?

It should be able to resubmit the exact thing we got this permit last permit on.

Okay, nothing's changed.

Okay, thank you.

So I mean it shouldn't go that easy.

Thank you.

We're gonna open it up to public comment now.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yes, okay.

So we're gonna open it up to public comment.

Most of you know how this works.

You have three minutes on the clock.

Please approach, state your name and address, and uh keep your comments to the topic at hand.

Thank you.

Hi, Mayor Ron, and members of the city council.

My name is Rolf Wilkin, and I've live I live at 318 West Isla Street, directly next door to this property for 25 years.

My daughter's bedroom has been about 20 feet from this structure for her entire life.

They are long gone, and we're still here.

They don't live there, they've abandoned the property, and we're stuck with it.

This is not easy for me.

I believe in property rights, and I've known Steve and Cindy Paret from the day I moved in.

On June 11th, I wrote them a personal letter explaining that I intended to res support the raising removal.

I wanted them to hear it from me and not at a public meeting.

For years, I've hoped this home would be repaired.

No one has lived there for years, and what stands there today is a severely deteriorated and dangerous structure.

It's close to other homes, mine and a lot of my neighbors, two sorority houses, two schools, and a block from the park.

During the school year, children walk by on their way to the park.

I worry about my family.

I worry about the Parette family.

I worry about the surrounding neighbors, first responders, and anyone who's asked to go into that structure in the condition that it's in.

I want this to be clear what this vote's about.

No one is being forced out of a home.

The pretzels were still own a valuable lot in a great neighborhood.

This is about removing a dangerous structure, not taking anybody's property.

I requested city records going back to 2015, the earliest year of my request.

The response covered 11 years.

The prosecutor's file was so big they had to give it to me on a flash drive.

This is not something from last year or two years ago.

The records tell a story.

Police called out year after year.

Abandoned and dilapidated vehicles left on the property and on the street.

Code violations cited again and again.

Unsafe conditions documented by code inspectors.

Complaints from neighbors going back over a decade.

Legal action prepared by the city prosecutor's office, five separate city departments, police, fire, building safety, code compliance, and the prosecutor's office.

They've all spent taxpayer time on this address.

And not one of those interventions fixed this problem.

Through it all, the city staff has been patient and fair.

It's ridiculous how nice they've been.

They patient and fair and restrained.

And the owners have been given repeated opportunities.

This is not a thing in the past year.

To fix this.

Trust them.

They have worked for a decade on this problem and vote yes on this razor removal.

It is time for it to be resolved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name's Alan Wooten.

I live at 279 West Island, which is one block from this piece of property.

We moved here in 2012 when we finished constructing a house at that address.

At the time we moved here, that property had lawnmowers out in the front yard.

The grass was overgrown.

There was an air conditioning unit, window air conditioning unit sitting in the front porch, so you could not enter the front door of the house.

There was a hole in the roof, a big hole in the roof on the right hand side of the building.

We watched squirrels go in and out of it.

The neighbors, particularly Rolf, were awfully patient with what was going on there.

This is not a situation where we're saying, oh, these people aren't keeping the yard up in the neighborhood.

It doesn't make the neighborhood look good.

I mean, this thing has gone from bad to worse.

Now uninhabitable.

It's not going to be fixed by some sort of contractor coming in that we don't even know who it is, and there's no contract with at this point for any reasonable period of time.

I mean, it I think any one of you could go out and walk on that property and you could say, hey, this really can't happen.

This cannot be redone.

The city has concluded it's uninhabitable.

They moved out at least two years ago, according to the city's water department records, which show no water has been used anywhere in that house.

At one time, the house had vines growing up all over it.

You almost couldn't see parts of it.

Now there's a washing machine in the backyard.

Um the lawnmowers disappeared at some point.

Uh, and and this has been a continuum of it getting worse and worse and worse.

And I think the neighbors have been extremely patient.

I think the city's been extremely patient, and I think the problem needs to be remedied.

I think that's the simple solution.

I'm sorry for the Paret, that there may be a problem with them getting financing on this property.

If she wants to live on this property, let her rebuild a new structure on that property that looks like the old one, and everything would be great.

Don't just say you're going to do something impossible to what's there.

You haven't heard anybody come in here and say, Oh, I can redo this property, and I can have it closed in two months, three months, whatever.

Um there's no there's no proof of that.

There's nothing.

So I it seems to me that it's fairly simple.

That this the city is it staff is correct.

There's there's no option with regard to this property.

And if they want to live there, come back and run.

Thank you, Mr.

Wooten.

That's time.

Thank you.

Hi.

Uh my name's Frank Head.

My wife fellas and I live at 402 Isla, which is directly across Van Deventer Street from the Pratt house.

Um, it's a great neighborhood.

We've lived there since 1983.

Live by the Pratz for all those years they were there.

It's a great neighborhood because people tend to get along and look out for each other.

And I was pretty impressed that over all these years, not many people, nobody I knew directly complain to the Parett's condition of their house.

But at some point, like a family with a family member that just can't get it together, you have to have a hard talk.

And I hate to say it, but the parett's testimony today should be all you need to know about their ability to get this done.

Split our lot and build a house behind it, which you approved.

In that time, that house has been built and we're living in it.

And you know, permits aren't easy, and none of the process is easy.

And I've been through a lot of that and at times frustrated, but it can be done, and there are contractors can do it like ours at a reasonable price.

And back when the Parette still lived there, I would notice walking down the street that part of the roof had caved in, and they put a tarp over it.

And over time the tarp fell in, and they put a piece of plywood over it, and that rotted, and then kind of noticed that the door that they went in on that side of the house was boarded up, and they used a different door.

And it just seems to be a process.

I don't doubt that Ms.

Pratt values that house and her family tradition and would like to live there, and I'd love to see them have no ill will.

But the house is not only an eyesore, it's dangerous and there's never any progress.

So I unfortunately have to support that it should come down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If there's anybody else in the audience, if you will just if you're able to, if you will just line up, because we'll go to um online comments after everybody in the in the chambers had a chance to speak.

Good evening.

My name is Al Baker.

Hi.

We live at 632 band event or the neighbors on the other side.

Uh I think all the neighbors have said pretty much wrapped this up and said what needs to be said.

But I'd like to ask the neighbors that have come in support of your resolution to raise your hands.

And if you would please moving forward, I appreciate that.

Um, but if you would can continue the rest of your comments with just addressing your comments to me.

Yeah.

I have spoken to many of the people at the city over the last four years.

And one of the things that was always a case.

Say we there's nothing that the city can do.

We have an active permit, it's good for six months.

You could count on it.

The last week before that permit would expire, they would come and do a little something and then leave.

A week ago, they came and worked for four hours.

Things out left, haven't been back for a week.

I just want you to realize that this is a lot of smoke and mirrors, and we as neighbors have had enough.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Is there anybody?

I'm not seeing anybody else in council chambers that would like to speak.

Keith, do we have anyone that has called in?

Uh we do not.

Okay.

All right.

Just making sure last chance for public comments.

Seeing none, I will bring it back to the council.

Um, we'll start with you, Mr.

Wiediger.

Thank you.

Um 32 municipal year career.

I spent 13 in building in safety.

It is highly unusual for a building department to not renew a permit.

This is an exceptional act which says the development services office has been persuaded that it is in no one's best interest to renew that permit.

The lot I speculate is worth more than the structure to remodel a historic structure that has had a hole in the roof would be more expensive and take longer than to scrape and rebuild the structure as it looks today.

And as regrettable as it is, the neighbors have been more than benevolent.

We too would be benevolent to demolish and allow the owners to rebuild new.

It would save them money, it would save them time, and it would show development progress.

And if they're unable to do so, they have an exceptional neighborhood with an exceptional value in that site.

And um, and if they're unable to secure financing, then they can certainly use the resources from that sale to to do something fabulous elsewhere.

But this has gone on exceptionally long.

Um mayor, the only two times I was threatened to be killed as a city employee were red tagging structures that were no longer habitable, and it is wholly unpleasant.

And I know that our staff have not decreed this structure uninhabitable lightly.

It's a serious thing to do.

There are property interest rights, but the neighbors too have rights, and the community has safety rights.

And I I just want to close by saying we would be doing these people a favor to raise this structure and allow them to start fresh if they choose to do so.

Thank you.

Mr.

Jones and then Mr.

Burn.

Thank you.

Mr.

Whittaker, once again, you stole a lot of my questions, but I have um several for Jonathan.

My first one was a raising removal.

Um, does that cost that the city uses to remove it?

Is it passed on to the owners?

Yes.

This is the short answer.

We file a lien against the property for the price of raising and removing the structure.

Um do we have a cost right now of what it's um estimated to cost to raise and remove?

Yes, $17,200.

And then the second one is being in a historic area.

You touched on that for a minute.

Um I'm just not sure what the laws are with rebuilding a new structure in a historic area.

Is that allowed?

Do they go through a historic committee when they are be rebuilding?

Do they have to show the plans to the committee before they can rebuild?

What does that look like?

That's a great question.

And historic districts tend to fall into to two different forms.

Uh one is you as a single property owner or at several blocks making a district can be uh registered on the national registry, like the Wilson uh Wilson Park neighborhood is that does not have any regulations associated with it necessarily.

So this property specifically does not have any uh doesn't have to go to the historic district commission to rebuild the property, wouldn't have to go to the historic district commission to demolish the property or or repair the building.

Uh that's distinct from the a local historic district, which council recently saw in the Oak Grove area, a few blocks to the east of this property, where if we adopt local standards, those can be applied to typically the design of a structure.

So it's the difference in a national register district and a local historic district, if that makes sense.

Thank you.

Mr.

Berna.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I don't take pleasure in this at all, but uh I I'm gonna have to support the staff recommendation for a raise and removal.

Um just looking at the timeline, it just seems like it's as been described.

It's been a we're going to do this, we're going to do that, but nothing ever happens.

Um if this was sent to the prosecutor in December of 22.

Um, that's more than enough time if you were going to do something that you could have got something vastly improved on that building.

Um listened to the the property owners tonight.

They said they had a contractor and they had financing, and then they backed up a little later and said, well, you know, JR uh is gonna be said he'll help us.

Uh I asked if they had a contract, uh, they don't have a contract.

But then they said uh that they had to have a contract with a contractor to get financing.

So that tells me there's absolutely no way that they're going to be able to get this done or at least wrapped, as they said, in two weeks.

There's just no way to look at that property just driving by today.

Uh and just my you know, uneducated eyes, uh, having dealt with you know a few building projects.

There's trusses that are completely rotted out of that.

Uh that their structural damage that there's no coming back from, in my opinion, and uh I have to do what I think in this case is best for the neighborhoods, and as Mr.

Whitaker uh said, I think ultimately is best for the property owner in the long run.

So I will be supporting this request.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I I agree with uh what Scott said at the beginning of his comments.

I don't think anybody takes pleasure in this kind of decision.

It's a it's a very tough and heartbreaking decision.

Uh I don't think the neighbors take pleasure in being here in and having to speak in favor of this decision.

I understand the emotional attachment to a structure.

My family recently had to let go of a structure that we've owned in our family historical structure.

It's been in our family since uh 1980 and and beyond uh when we first got in there.

And it's heartbreaking, but but we knew that we didn't have the resources to give that building the love it needed uh for it to live another 50 years.

And and to Mr.

Wheedaker's point, he's absolutely right.

There comes a point with a structure where it's cheaper and makes more sense to start anew.

And it's just unfortunate, but it seems like this is going back beyond like that damage doesn't happen in two or three years.

This is uh, as many of the neighbors said, this goes back a decade or longer.

And again, it's an unfortunate decision, but I think in the long run, this is the right decision for the city for the neighborhoods, and as Scott said, for the property owner too.

Um so I'll be voting in favor.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, well, this is in word two, and that's Councilmember Whitaker and I, you know, that's our our words, and so um whenever we look at um the possibility of a raise and removal, I always have a lot of hesitation.

Um, that you know, we know much of our population, um, more recently, COVID and beyond, um, have really struggled, right?

Um, with incomes and health and and all kinds of things that come up.

And so um, I'm very thankful as much as I understand and I want to um acknowledge the frustration that neighbors have expressed, and that this is a lengthy process.

I always want us to be a city that does welcome everyone and recognize that you know we each move through the world differently, and so I'm very appreciative for the lengthy due process that we do try to do through our um whenever we have a code compliance issue, and so you know, I want to apply staff and um uh the development services and code compliance um for trying you know to work through um with the property owners.

Um I've lived in board two for over 20 years.

Um I've this is an area I heavily frequent with my children.

My children have friends and they go past this area.

Um this house is not new to being um kind of a state of disrepair.

It's been for quite some time.

And um uh the mayor has pointed out that I oftentimes am the person that wants to be quite soft and and does want to um try to give the benefit of the doubt.

Um I think that the concern that really has come through tonight is that there has been those um you know kind of hurdles that have come up kind of time and time again.

Um and it sounds like the structure at this time um is potentially not salvageable, and so for me, um, you know, my concern and hesitations are overcome tonight um for you know typically giving some delay and trying to work with their property owners just because I have been familiar with that particular structure over the years.

Um I'm hearing that frustration, you know, from those that are next door, and those are very valid concerns about you know, kids, I mean teenagers, etc.

Looking for places to hang out, um, especially you know, as they continue to have challenges about where they might be able to be around with one another.

And so um typically, again, I would probably say let's delay this, but I'm I'm very sorry tonight to also be in support of moving forward with this, and I'm very very hopeful and I hope that you'll continue to be a part um of that neighborhood.

It sounds like you know, your neighbors do um you know value that you're you're there um in that part of our community, and you have uh quite a connection to that, and so I'm sure that the city staff will continue to try to be very supportive with future plans and the things that you do going forward, but um tonight I I definitely will be you know supportive of us moving forward.

Okay, thank you.

And I will remind the oh I was gonna just remind our council it's a resolution, so in order to move it forward, a motion is required.

I I'll go ahead and make a motion to pass.

Second, thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to pass the um resolution to order the raise and removal.

Uh Clerk Paxson, we please call the roll.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

So that passes.

Thank you all.

I know this is an emotionally charged issue for all involved, and I'm I'm sorry it came to this, and I wish everyone involved the very best.

And we are going to move on to item B2, which is raise and removal of a dilapidated structure located at 3582 North Highway 112.

Um property owned by GRL 112 LLC located at 3582 North Highway 112 in Ward 2 in the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas.

I'm sorry I butchered that a little bit, Mr.

Bryant, but I think everybody got it.

I think I got all the words in there.

Um if you would go ahead and tell us about this one, please.

Thank you.

The subject property is located at 3582 North Highway 112, which is located one lot east of the intersection of North Highway 112 and West Van Ash Drive.

This address includes a single story 6,894 square foot burned out commercial building along with several outbuildings and accessory structures.

A citizen complaint prompted an inspection of the property on April 9th of 2026.

Staff opened a raise and removal code case and mailed the owners a notice of violation.

A signed certified mail receipt card was received on April 24th, 2026.

Staff inspections show no actions were taken to correct the property.

A demo permit was approved for the structure today.

As we go through the photos, you will see along with the burned out building, you will notice in the photos that are multiple vehicles, trailers, and large amounts of materials and debris.

As you can see, the main building is unsalvageable.

Some walls and roof bracing remain intact, but have been compromised by the fire.

Leaving the building structurally unsound and unable to secure.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the raise and removal of the structure, and I can answer any questions council may have.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions for for Mr.

Bryant?

Bob, Mr.

Stafford.

Yeah, just a quick one.

You know, when there's this a a huge structural fire like this, it basically did raises the building on its own and destroys it.

Is there not a process in place to have something like this taken down sooner or immediately?

Is that not within not currently, and then I'm not exactly sure how long the structure was under investigation by the Fire Marshal as well.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Burner.

Uh two questions.

Do we know if there's a insurance claim that's held up uh the actual demolition of the uh of the property?

Uh anything legal that would impede the owners from being being able to move forward.

Nothing that I know of.

I have not had any contact with the owners other than the signed receipt cards.

Okay.

And then the you said that there was a demolition permit issued today.

Yes.

Describe to us what that means.

I mean, I know what it in real time what it means, but tell us exactly you know what that means.

Uh sure.

So the permit was paid for and issued today to red line construction.

They're the ones who are will be doing the demo.

Um for speaking with that gentleman today.

I guess the property is in the process of potentially being sold.

I'm not exactly sure.

I don't want to speak on that too much.

Um after speaking with him, he did say demo would start uh likely as July 29th, and then the whole process will be complete by mid-August.

Uh, due to it being a commercial building, he does have to go through some ADEQ requirements.

Um they did do an asbestos uh not treatment, but um that that's what the gentleman told me on the phone today, it shouldn't hinder anything that happens tonight.

Uh I believe both tracks can move forward.

Well, and I think that's my question, is because it you know you were recommending raise and removal, but now we're saying that they're moving forward with their own raise.

Jonathan, can Mr.

Kurth, can you kind of those seem to be at odds with each other?

Certainly, yeah.

I'm happy to try to circle the square there.

Uh I don't know if the council had the opportunity to consider the memo that uh Mr.

Williams from the legal department issued last week.

There is a clause at the end of our raise and removal chapter of our ordinance that very specifically says that there's a period of 30 days after the council issues an order of raise and removal where the property owner has the opportunity to do that work.

So that's not a you all don't sign this order of raise and removal, and then we go out tomorrow with our contractor and see the building removed.

They still have 30 days for the opportunity to remove it.

So if council to your question, I think uh councilmember Brennan, if council were to take action on this uh this resolution as we are recommending red line construction with the demolition permit that they were issued today, could go start work tomorrow and up to as 30 days uh from tomorrow, and we have the ability to uh extend that period or allow them to continue work once they've started that work.

We were able to confirm that with Mr.

Williams this afternoon.

So as long as the project uh has started within that 30 days, we're able to extend them additional time as long as they're making quality progress moving forward.

Yes, I mean the the preference of course is to have the work completed by that timeline, but uh having substantial or substantiatable uh progress, yes, is important.

Thank you.

Okay, uh Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

I guess um Mr.

Bernard, you brought up a good question, and since the fire chief is here, I guess my question is when there is a fire and there's an inspection.

Is does the fire marshal have to issue something specifically to the owner to state um what what state the building is in and whether or not they can go ahead and remove it because to me they're giving some type of report to an insurance company on whether or not this structure is um feasible to restore or it's uh total loss.

Mayor, I can begin and if if uh Chief Hardin would like to add to that I'll be able to do that.

I think that'd be to do so.

But initially that'd be okay, Chief, if you'd let Jonathan answer.

We we as a department meet weekly, if not daily, with our fire marshal's office.

Coming up here anyway.

I'm sorry, I don't know.

He he nodded at me and then proceeded to just do the opposite.

Keep on going, Jonathan.

We weak we meet weekly, if not daily, with the fire marshal's office, which is usually the division of our fire department that interacts with property owners when there is a fire and when there is an insurance claim that needs to be validated.

Uh there's a series of forms that are often requested by our fire marshal to evaluate the uh the the conditions with which a fire occurred to ensure there's not some sort of uh concern that there's arson or something else involved.

Uh we do not pursue raise and removals while it is under that investigation.

We understand that that is something that we don't push on property owners that is a sometimes can have legal implications involved in it.

So we pursue raise and removal actions sequential to those uh those actions.

We typically interact with the property owner.

If not our fire marshal, they let us know that those are under investigation, and we hold back on uh taking any sort of raise and removal forward until after that is resolved.

Okay.

Okay.

I don't see any other comments from the council.

So I'm gonna oh my goodness.

You did that on purpose.

You did that on purpose.

It was not on.

Ms.

Moore, please go ahead.

Well, I thought that I heard Billy say that they confirmed that July 29th is the current date.

And I heard then Jonathan say within 30 days of us and said that they would start.

I guess my concern is just us moving forward.

I'm trying to think about what our other options are because we also know what timelines things you know happen, and you just said they had to do some things through ADQ, and what happens if they're delayed by you know, whether whatever that happens, that's unpreventable.

Then I don't yeah, and it's like a bunch of back and forth, it sounds like administratively potentially to try to kind of continue forward, or does the ordinance then say we're overtaking them and we're gonna get our contractor out.

I'm just trying to kind of think through that.

And what would be a secondary option if we're concerned the timeline is kind of tight, the way that you've gotten feedback?

You know, would it be tabling it and revisiting it?

Another meeting, like what options potentially exist.

Uh well, in speaking with the with the contractor from red line, the July 29th start date kind of had some of those setbacks in it.

Okay.

That's his worst case scenario.

Right.

That's his latest date.

Um with the 30-day notice.

Uh if you guys approve the raise and removal, it would basically just in case anything does happen and red line gets fired and the property owner says, I'm backing out.

If you all approve the raise and removal, that would then ensure that regardless of what happens with red line, the building will or the structure will come down.

Okay.

Um, the two things can happen at the same time, basically.

Do you have any indication of the cost that the current red line contractor is doing it for?

Because I see our cost with the two contractors.

I I do um I guess I I guess uh can I share that Jonathan?

If it was list if it was listed on the building permit, yes, I believe that's public information.

I just wanted to make sure.

Uh yes, red line will be taking it down for 84,000.

Oh wow.

Geez, okay.

Okay.

Are they doing additional maybe remediation that's outside of what we've defined with ours?

I'm not entirely sure.

So I mean they might be better off.

Okay.

All right.

Well, thank thank you.

I appreciate that information.

That helps a lot with that decision.

Sure.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Kurth, you wanted to add more to that?

I just likes on.

That's why.

Yes, thank you.

Just uh to give be very direct with Councilmember Moore's question.

I think council tend to have you have three options with this resolution as you do any other one.

You can approve it tonight, you can turn it down, or it could be tabled as as you all have seen uh periodically under uh other raise and removals when circumstances change and it's not specific to how long that needs to be tabled.

That's sometimes been done in response to additional information.

Great.

Okay.

Seeing no more comments from the council, I'm going to open it up for public comment.

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

If so, please go ahead and come forward.

Well, the property owner should probably go first.

I'm so sorry.

Yes.

If the property owner is here and would like to speak on this item, please come.

We invite you to come on up and we will put 10 minutes on the clock.

Okay.

Back to any members of the public that would like to speak on this item.

And I'm not seeing any.

Keith, do we have any that have called in?

We do not.

Okay.

I'll bring it back to the council beginning with Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I guess I have a question, Jonathan.

You spoke to it, the both and but what happens 30 days?

Oh, we approve a raise and removal.

Redline does it, they still can redevelop without any interference from the city.

Is that correct?

Um I'm not sure.

I understand the question.

Uh are you asking what happens after the building is demolished?

So the the main oversight is we approve a raise and removal.

They do the demolition demolition.

What's the um caveat with that raise and removal still over approved as a resolution?

I think I think I understand.

Thank you for clarifying.

The if the resolution is approved, they have 30 days uh for red line to complete the work.

In fact, the resolution dictates that they use the 30 days to do that.

If they do not, because council has presumedly taken that action to approve the resolution, we would move forward with our contractor to complete the the demolition work after which point we would file a lien against the property that we would recover when it changes hands.

But if they do, if they do use their own demolition company, our raise and removal is um obsolete.

Uh or moot, or I'm not honest.

I don't know what the technical term for it would be.

Yeah, we we would not pursue it at that point.

We would we would not move forward with our contractor to do the work at that point.

It would be considered solely as a demolition permit, which is typically we do two inspections, one at the beginning of the process to make sure utilities are unhooked, and one at the end of the process to make sure the site has been returned to a developable state.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh thank you, Jonathan.

And um council member Jones, you uh you asked all the questions um that I was seeking.

So at this time I'd like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve the resolution.

Second.

Second.

Okay, great.

We have a motion and a second to approve the resolution as presented.

Clerk Paxon, will you please call the row?

Roll.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

Thank you all so much.

And we will now move on to item or section C of the agenda, new business, beginning with another raise and removal.

Item C one.

A resolution to order the raising and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure on property owned by Born in a Barn, Incorporated, located at 848 North Jackson Drive in the city of Fayetteville.

This item was first heard in April, and then on June 2nd, it was tabled until this evening.

Mr.

Bryant.

Thank you once again.

Staff continues to have very positive communication with the owner and representation.

The property owner has completed repairs to the structure that were outlined by staff.

Staff is very confident that the owner of the property will address these issues.

And staff's recommendation is to table the item indefinitely.

Great.

Okay.

So that's the staff recommendation.

Do any members of the okay?

Great, Ms.

Turk.

Uh thank you.

Um I'm just wondering.

I mean, they have made that significant a process of progress that you're very confident that's going to be done.

Uh and so instead of maybe tabling it for two or three months, just to make sure that is complete completed, you're saying you're very, very, very confident.

Yes, it's it's looking really, really good.

They've uncovered the windows, they're no longer boarded up.

The north side of the house is being resided.

Um they've fixed the water issues.

They have water now, they have electricity inside the building.

Um, it is it is going trending up very quickly, which is very satisfying.

Okay, thank you so much.

And actually, a table indefinitely doesn't end until December 31st of this year.

Great.

Okay.

Um, I believe we still, even if we are voting to table, um keith or I'm sorry, Mr.

Williams.

Are we allowed to do that before public comment?

Kit, Mr.

Williams, are we allowed to do that before public comment or what's the other thing?

I don't think so.

In this particular case, I think just tabling indefinitely, we're not gonna do if it takes off the table if something happens and they come back say before the end of the year and say we need it back, then we'd have a public hearing at that point.

Got it.

I guess what I was asking is if this evening we still have to open it up for public comment and you're saying no.

Okay, okay, got it.

Um, Mr.

Berna.

Mayor make a motion to table this indefinitely.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones, yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones, yes, Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Great.

Thank you so much.

We um I am no, we'll keep going.

I was gonna ask for a recess, but we will we will keep going.

That brings us to section D.

Item D1 is an ordinance to approve vacation 26-5 for property located at 4307 West Cactus Place and Ward 1 to vacate 239 square feet of general utility easement.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas the city council has the authority under Arkansas Code annotated 1454-104 to vacate public grounds or portions thereof, which are not required for corporate purposes, and whereas the city council has determined the following described portion of general utility easement is not required for corporate purposes.

Now, therefore it'd be ordained by the city council of the city of Favel, Arkansas, Section One.

Is that the City Council of City of Fail, Arkansas hereby vacates the portion of a general 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 County Circuit Clerk.

And section three, this vacation approval is subject to the condition that any damage to or relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner developer's expense.

Great.

Thank you all so much.

Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to West Favel, about a quarter mile west of the John L.

Colbert Middle School in the town west subdivision, uh phase eight of that subdivision specifically.

Uh staff received a request to vacate an approximately two point five foot by about 90 foot uh linear foot uh portion of a general utility easement along the east side of one of the lots in that subdivision to accommodate the construction of a home.

Uh we've identified no issues with this request.

The applicant approached all franchise utilities and received no concerns and no requested conditions of approval.

Uh accordingly, the only condition we're uh staff is proposing is what Mr.

Williams read that any damage or relocation be at the developer's expense.

Accordingly, we are recommending approval and I can take any questions.

And Mayor, I believe.

Sorry, don't have my notes, Andy.

Uh Gary Edwards is here uh in case I uh city council has questions.

Okay, great.

Um questions for either Mr.

Kirth or the applicant.

Uh we'll start with you, Mr.

Stafford.

Your lights on?

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

We will start with anyone who would like to have questions.

If not, we will go right to public comment.

And it sounds like that's what we're gonna do.

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

Okay, Keith, do we have anyone that's called in on Zoom?

I don't think so.

We do not.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the council beginning with Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you.

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

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and several seconds.

Uh Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

And your orange approved VAC 26-05 for property located at 4307, West Cactus Place in Ward 1 to vacate 239 square feet of general utility easement.

Okay.

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

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to item D2.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-15 for approximately 36.2 acres northwest of North Dean Solomon Road and West Van Act Drive and Ward 4 from RSF 4, residential single family four units per acre, and CPZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District, rezoning to RMF 12, residential multifamily 12 units per acre, and RSF-8, residential single family eight units per acre.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

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

That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map, exhibit A, and a legal description, exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF four, residential single family four units per acre, and CPZD, commercial planning, plan zoning district to RMF-12 residential multifamily 12 units per acre and RSF-8 residential single family eight units per acre.

And section two, that the city council, the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby managed official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1.

Okay, Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending in favor of this request.

The property in question is in North Faye or Northwest Fail, excuse me, in Ward 4, a little ways northwest of the intersection of Dean Solomon Road and Van Eyck Drive.

To orient council a little bit more closely, we're about 7-800 feet north of Claber Creek, which runs south of this property, roughly parallel with Van Eyck, all but to a uh somewhat more southwesterly course.

Uh otherwise, the property is characterized by roughly open field on the west side of a multi-use trail that uh bisects the property or a portion of the property uh with trees, uh more mature trees on the edges and along some fence rows, uh which is distinct from the portion east of the property or east of the trail uh that was field previously but has been allowed to grow up with trees uh more over the last 20 to 25 years.

Uh as to the request before council, uh if it was not clear from the the description, uh the proposal is to rezone the property, uh which the portion in blue is currently RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to RSF eight, residential single family eight units per acre, uh totaling about twenty-six, twenty-six and a half acres.

And the portion again east of that uh multi-use trail, uh which is currently zoned, uh CPZD uh commercial plan zoning district associated with Wilson Springs PZD uh to RMF 12, residential multifamily 12 units per acre.

Uh and evaluating this request from a uh land use compatibility standpoint.

Uh staff does find this request to be so.

Uh this area is largely residential in nature, uh, with predominantly single family uses immediately adjacent to it, although uh a wider variety of uh residential uses, either existing or potential, exist in near proximity.

Uh there are single family homes and neighborhoods immediately to the east, south, and west.

Further south along Dean Solomon, uh you can find uh four family units uh within the spring, uh one of the Springwoods developments uh and uh as well as the potential for future mixed use development immediately south of Underwood Park and multifamily development uh uh south of that.

From a long-range planning standpoint, uh staff finds this request to be consistent with our long-range goals.

Uh this property is uh designated in our future land use map, uh partly as civic institutional, reflecting a previous property owner and also residential neighborhood uh against uh the Dean Solomon uh or excuse me, Dean Solomon Road.

Uh staff finds that the potential to develop it with single family uh uses uh is consistent in that regard.

Uh the number of infill attributes uh being as close as we are to the northern city limits of Fayeville is perhaps unsurprisingly not numerous.

Uh it does have uh what can be considered adequate fire response uh as well as uh proximity to water sewer city park being underwood uh underwood park and paved trail, which again runs through the property itself.

Uh where staff did find our staff's findings were a little bit more uh conflicted is in terms of our city plan goals.

Uh again, given the location of the property, uh it could be argued that this is either a sprawl or an infill location.

We are again towards the northern portion of the city limits.

However, we are near several amenities as well as uh uh infrastructure like water and sewer.

Uh more favoring this request is again that city trail that bisects the property.

Uh staff finds out that will readily accommodate uh the city plan 2040's uh aspiration to create a more active transportation network in the city, allowing use or future residents of this area a wider access to our larger trail network.

Similarly, uh the potential to develop smaller houses and a wider diversity of houses uh complements City Plan 2040's uh uh uh aspiration for more housing opportunities for our residents.

On the uh other side of it, a portion of this property, that portion closest to Dean Solomon Road is within the enduring green network.

And while that does not preclude development of the property, uh that is an area that the city needs to consider more closely when we are uh looking at tree preservation and similar aspirations and goals.

Taking a little bit of a step back in a deeper dive into the two zoning changes.

Uh first, the larger piece of the property being proposed to go from RSF4 to RSF 8.

Uh it is a single-family uh only zoning district.

It will be, it is today, and it would be under this new uh zoning designation uh fairly consistently with uh the properties adjacent to it.

Uh the biggest differences are that it allows a somewhat smaller lot uh width and area uh compared to RSF4, and as the name suggests, uh somewhat greater increase in density.

Uh while slightly more complicated is the other portion of the property against Dean Solomon.

Uh its approval as a CPZD several years ago allows it to be developed with multifamily but only at a density of four units per acre.

And what the applicant is proposing is greater density uh, but still with a uh a building height that is comparable to the surrounding zoning districts uh uh at three stories.

Uh staff feels that is appropriate, uh particularly along that uh major corridor for northwest Fayetteville.

Again, this is uh simply a screenshot of uh that portion of that PZD since most people don't typically associate uh areas west of Dean Solomon Road as part of that project when it came through many years ago.

Uh other issues that staff considered uh as a part of the this item and have come up since then is the tree preservation standards would change, going from RSF4 and the PZD from 25% to 20% under RSF-8 and their under RMF-12.

Uh of note, when staff went back and reviewed the aerial imagery for these properties.

Uh the it can be, as I noted at the top of the presentation, this area has been largely agricultural.

Uh the strip of property that is east of the trail and west of Dean Solomon Road, as you can see, the majority of that tree canopy is comparatively young.

Uh most of it was not there about 25 years ago and has grown up in that time.

Uh an additional item of consideration is that our Master Street Plan proposes a planned street connection that goes from Dean Solomon Road to the east to the neighborhoods to the west.

And staff finds that the rezoning proposal will complement this and improve connectivity in an area that uh generally does not have a lot of east-west connectivity in Northwest Fayetteville.

Uh another item is the bill of assurance that was offered by the applicant.

Uh, this was not uh proposed to the planning commission, so this is somewhat distinct to the city council's uh consideration.

Uh what that bill of assurance proposes is to prohibit or or um not include use unit 26 in the area proposed for RMF 24.

So, what that in effect does is it limits any structures in the portion near Dean Solomon Road, proposes RMF-12 to four structure, four attached structure or four units attached altogether.

Uh if the council's interested in uh in that aspect or that offering, the request would need to be amended tonight to accept that bill of assurance.

Uh finally, there has been a significant amount of public comment on this request.

Uh, while it has been somewhat mixed, it has been predominantly in opposition to this request.

Uh, there are a number of concerns that I know have been sent directly to the council uh that largely revolve around drainage, tree canopy, uh, traffic and similar issues.

Uh I can go into those in more detail if it's helpful to the council, but again, I believe those were sent directly for your consumption.

Uh finally, I wanted to touch on the items uh that were considered at the tour yesterday.

It was very well attended.

I appreciate everybody both residents and council members that were able to make it.

Uh among the main questions that I was not able to answer on the tier, one was from Councilmember Berna about uh tree canopy renew tree canopy removal where proposed streets are located.

Uh, the question specifically is when a developer proposes to build a street, do they have to mitigate for the trees that are removed under that future streets alignment?

And the answer is yes.

Uh, the only instance where trees do not have to be mitigated and in situations of streets is when they're already existing or when the right-of-way is already existing.

We do not require that to be mitigated because uh in many instances we have no control of the trees in those areas for uh or for franchise utilities in particular.

Uh there's also questions posed, uh particularly by residents about Dean Solomon as a whole.

Uh, if you've had an opportunity to visit it either during the two or afterwards, you'll notice that there is an inconsistent streetscape along Dean Solomon.

There are portions that are open ditch, there are portions that have curb and gutter, there are portions with sidewalk and there are portions without.

Uh, this is an area that is on our uh public works uh department's radar for making improvements uh in our list of prioritization.

It is about midway through that.

Uh and the reality is that when developments do occur and they absorb some of that, those improvements as a part of the development, it makes it more feasible for the city to take on the remaining costs and fill in those gaps between those.

Another item that was discussed was a concern about uh potential wetlands in the area.

Uh, I shared that uh we have identified that it is an area of hydric soils, uh, which is a uh an indicator of potential wetlands.

Uh, we do not typically see wetland wetland studies or wetland delineation studies done at the time of rezoning.

Uh, those are required with a development application when we typically see them.

Uh, I can say that when the city's trail work was done through there, uh, there was some evaluation of wetlands, and it was found that we did not need to do any wetland mitigation as a part of that trail construction north of Van Eyck.

Uh, and I do know that the applicant, I think, mentioned that there was potentially wetland work that had been done, but I'll let them speak to that during their opportunity.

Uh, there was also a question about access management.

Briefly as possible, uh, access would not be allowed onto Dean Solomon directly if they have an opportunity to connect to an interior street as this area is developed.

Um as you all often hear me discuss access management standards, the preferences to to connect driveways and and other connections onto lower volume streets so that people can enter those and then uh turn left and right onto a higher volume street at more logical intersections.

Uh finally, there was a comment that was heard about uh flooding in the area, particularly that the newly constructed pickleball courts at Underwood Park regularly flood uh and conferring with our staff that designed that that was deliberate.

It was designed that way to be able to be flooded.

Uh, the alternative would have been filling in that area, raising it, which could have had more negative consequences to the wider area when you add fill to a flood plan.

I think uh that's a fair summary.

There were a lot of topics discussed.

Hopefully, that captures the majority of them.

I encourage the council members to share any others.

Uh ultimately, again, staff is recommending in favor of this request.

When the planning commission heard it, uh they forwarded it to city council by unanimous seven to zero vote with one commissioner recusing.

And I'm happy to take any questions.

Um, but if the council would like to hear from them first, uh Mayor Will Kelstrom is the applicant on this item.

Okay, Mr.

Kelstrom, do you have a presentation?

Good evening, council.

Will Kelstrom on behalf of the applicant DRP Holdings?

Um again, as Jonathan said, we are requesting for a mixture of RSF 8 and RMF 12.

The RSF 8 portion is give or take 26 acres, and the RMF 12 portion is 9.6 acres.

We came to this mix of zones after meeting with staff and conferring about what would be an appropriate mix of zones here.

As we came to these two, when it was submitted, it was recommended for approval by staff, and then as Jonathan just said, it was approved unanimously by the planning commission.

We have submitted a bill of assurance with this request.

The bill of assurance prohibits use unit 26 on the property.

Use unit 26 is multifamily.

Multifamily in Fayetteville is defined as apartments as we would generally think of them as well as town homes when there are five or more attached.

So this is a significant restriction for us.

Um while we didn't necessarily have any plans to build multi-family in the event that we ever wanted to sell this property, it is one less entitlement we don't have.

However, as to the town home portion of it, there was probably a reality or a world in which it would have made sense for us on that portion to attach more than four town homes, and we've given that up.

So I think that in conversations with neighbors and hearing comments from neighbors, I think this is being glazed over, and and perhaps that is our fault for not putting a lot of emphasis on it.

But I do want to remind everyone that this is a significant thing that we have given up, and it's something that we offered up without being asked to after just seeing the comments from the neighbors and seeing they might have concerns about multifamily.

So the current zoning of the 26-acre portion is RSF 8.

Um that zoning is present in the neighborhood just to the west.

So we are asking for a zoning that's already present in the neighborhood in the area, and I think for that reason it's compatible without a whole lot more argument.

The other portion is zone C P Z D.

As of now, this CPZD portion, which is 9.6 acres, allows for multifamily to be developed at a density of four units per acre.

At 9.6 acres, that's give or take 40 units.

So we would have the ability to put 40 apartments on that property as it stands today without a rezoning.

So, in effect, what we're doing by asking for RMF 12 with the Bill of Assurance is we are getting rid of that multifamily and replacing it with the ability to do town homes at a little bit a little bit greater density.

However, I think it's worth noting that for both of these zones, RSF 8 and RMF 12.

We requested them not strictly for the density that's permitted for the RSF 8.

It's specifically for the lot widths.

It allows a little bit tighter lots than RSF 4 does.

And for RMF 12, of course, we we wanted the ability to do town homes or three and four families or one at one and two families.

As we all know, the zoning districts in Fayetteville do not entitle you to max out that density.

It is a restriction on how many you can put in there.

So again, by asking for RM RSF 8 and RMF 12, we do not plan, and it most likely will not be the case that these properties end up developed at eight units and 12 units an acre.

Again, it's for it's for the lot widths and the uses allowed.

The RMF 12 component of this rezoning is an important part of the rezoning for a couple different reasons.

Um for one, it allows a mix of housing types, it allows for different housing types to be present in the same neighborhood for different values, different families, different types of people living there.

If this were submitted as a PCD, the town home comp the town home component of this is something that we would likely would have been asked to include by staff.

It's it's a very common thing that you're seeing in neighborhoods nowadays, and I think it's a good thing again for that mix of housing types.

Um the RMF 12 also allows us to concentrate density along that trail corridor, which makes for a good efficient use of that city investment.

With the RMF 12 removed from this request, this becomes really just kind of your run-of-the-mill boring subdivision with with all the same lots and your same housing typologies.

So as Jonathan also discussed, and as we all saw yesterday, there are some low-lying um wet areas within that area between the trail and Dean Solomon.

We are still in the process of doing our environmental analysis and figuring out exactly what that is.

Um we do not have uh as of today, we're not going to have a great answer for what that is because we're still in the process of figuring that all out.

Um that being said, our engineer um Conley Hale with Crafton and Toll is here and can answer any questions about what what he has found on the property and and what might be done in the event that that wetlands are found, and we have to mitigate those things.

So, with that, I'm here if you have any questions as well as craft and toll.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, do we have any questions for the applicant or for Mr.

Kurth at this time?

Mr.

Stafford and then Miss Moore.

Thank you.

Um Thank you, Mayor.

Um, well, uh so have the neighbors reached out to to have a meeting at this point.

They have uh well, I spoke with their attorney on the phone just before this meeting, and and we had discussed meeting and um about this project, yes.

Okay, but that hasn't happened yet.

That has not happened yet.

That was the first time a meeting was requested, which we are willing to do.

Cool.

And then um Jonathan, what does the the PZD, what does that allow right now?

What kind of uh density does that currently allow?

It is limited to only multi-family up to four units per acre.

Only multi-family, correct.

So if they were to have to get that rezoning, they could just by right build or they would have to build multi-family there if they were develop it.

Correct.

And that's on that that north-south.

Correct, east of the trail, yes.

Um you mentioned that was in the enduring green network or part of the enduring green network.

Is that correct?

Well, what does that actually mean?

And then that doesn't like is that just kind of a suggestion or or you know what I mean?

Like if we're looking at rezoning it, then does it is just kind of an ideal or it's a good question.

And as it was conceptualized originally, the intent was to create a hub and spoke network of natural areas throughout the city, uh, whether it was long repairing corridors and well-known um uh uh corridors for for creatures to travel, deer, fox, whatever.

Um, it is not necessarily meant to capture every square foot of the enduring green network on the map as an undevelopable piece of property.

Uh it was meant to call out areas based on a series of factors, uh things like floodplain, hydric soils, uh, proximity or areas of canopy.

Uh it was done in conjunction with work uh started by the uh Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association, I believe, at the time.

Okay.

And then uh as far as Dean Solomon goes, how would is that a collector or what how's that street designated uh right now in our master street plan?

That is the equivalent of a collector, yes.

We call it a uh a neighborhood link in Fayetteville.

Did you give me a definition of a neighborhood link?

A neighborhood link, it's comparable to a collector.

Uh during our last uh Master Street plan, we sought to create naming typologies that more accurately reflected how the streets interacted with their context, and that resulted in some atypical names that don't align with federal highway standards for native streets.

Gotcha.

And and so you know what I heard a lot of is that a lot of people use that as a cut through, but is that kind of cut through slash like is that kind of the intent that it is a a link with a link and cut through or those thank you for asking the clarifying question.

The collector or neighborhood link is intended to, as his name suggests, collect the traffic from local neighborhoods and convey those to arterial streets and interstates.

Uh so I mean most probably that would be Mount Comfort Road to the South.

Okay.

And then um I guess to that question.

So when they uh if they were to get the rezone, or even if not, if they're but if they were to develop that that north south strip, um they would have to bring their side of Dean Solomon up to our current standards.

And would that include or account for uh like our future like our master street plan as far as where we want that curb to be when you know, in the eventuality that we go through and and do upgrades to Dean Solomon?

Yes, that's correct.

We require from the middle point of the asphalt over to their side of the property, uh any street widening, curb, gutter, green space, street trees, and sidewalks or or potentially trail depending.

Well, in this instance wouldn't be trail since there's an existing one.

Uh and if the project is not of a size that justifies those, at a bare minimum, we get the right-of-way so that the that that work can be completed in the future.

But given the scale of this property, I anticipate seeing that full street section built out along there, frontage of Dean Solomon.

Okay.

And then final question.

Um when we walk that area, it it and I know I guess there's a study before that this wasn't designated a wetland, but when we walked that area, it seemed like it was uh a little bit lower than you know, the trail and the and the road, and seemed to be kind of you know a place where water collects uh naturally, a lot of willow trees, a lot of uh uh seems like a place that that just stays kind of that mucky, you know, uh Fayetteville bottom of the hill type landscape with the hydric soils and everything.

Um is that it does that make how do I phrase this?

Does that create challenges?

Like it, you know, obviously they would have to build that up uh a little bit, and does that create challenges?

I know there's a floodplain to the south.

And is that potentially I know our stormwater uh um I guess my question do our do our storm does our stormwater ordinance um account for what'll happen when they when they bring the foundation up, you know, probably have to add soil and stuff.

Does our stormwater ordinance account for the extra runoff that'll cause?

The shorter answer is yes.

Our our drainage criteria manual is meant to account for the difference between how a property is today versus how it'd be after being developed.

And earlier in your comments, I heard the the concern about wetlands.

I think it is important to distinguish in case people saw it or have experienced the property.

What a layperson understands is a wetland may not be what our Army Corps of Engineer defines as a wetland.

There's one standard where it ties into a larger network of waterways that can that can dictate whether it's a wetland and have to be treated in a certain way, versus what may be a low-lying area that holds water and may have uh plants and trees that that uh prefer walk uh damp or whatever.

And do we use the Army Corps of Engineers standard uh when we designate you know what's a wetland or not?

We I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

We we require when there are certain factors like hydric soils on a property, they the a civil engineer, whoever is on the project design team has to submit a a wetland delineation study uh that typically is done in conjunction between engineers, potentially professional biologists, and that often when it indicates that there are wetlands, that sometimes has to be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers if it looks like they're part of that that waterway network.

Got it.

Okay, I think that that answers my question.

Thank you.

And thank you, Mr.

Stafford.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you.

Um I think I've got two for staff and one for the applicant.

Um first, if I miss this in the packet and the information, I'm sorry, Jonathan, but the PCD that exists today on the one portion of the project.

Um can you give me like give us the rundown in history, like when was that approved and kind of what is a really been approved to be able to be built there?

Because I I heard multifamily could be built there.

I didn't really see like a configuration or when that one had been approved.

And I think those expire at one point, is that right?

It I I heard multiple questions there, and I'll try and I'll try to take it.

I'll try to take them in order.

Uh I don't have the exact year of the Wilson Springs uh PCD on hand.

It's been a minute since I've looked at that.

Uh it is fairly it has been around for uh a significant amount of time.

I think predating is one of our earliest PZDs in Fayetteville and is associated with when the area near Sam's Club was being developed, and a lot of concerns arose about Wilson Springs and making sure it was protected.

Okay.

And the developer at the time sought a PCD as a way to incorporate development of the area while also preserving as much green space as possible.

So the PCD is very varied in that you will find like car dealerships along Shiloh on the east side, you'll find uh single family housing on the south side.

Uh that's more in like a conventional quarter acre lot layout.

There's a uh I think an age-restricted community uh with attached housing on the southwest side, and then there's larger estate lots, which you see immediately adjacent to this street.

So there were it has a variety of different uh planning areas that allow different uses.

Uh the portion specifically being considered tonight allows only multifamily, has never been developed, but it only allows multifamily up to four units per acre.

But at the time, it sounds like what I heard from you at the time this was looked at in that totality of that area, it was taken into account all these kind of competing needs in that area, and this was designated and approved by bodies that this should be multifamily in that area.

Would that be a correct that's that's a correct characterization?

Okay, all right.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Um my other question was around stormwater, and I'm not sure who from the team that would be best for.

Um, but we did the tour and we do know, you know, there is a lot of you know, water that's occurring naturally in that area.

Um and I just didn't know if on as we've looked at and done assessments and done project lists.

I just didn't know if this area is on a current list to be looked at um for anything stormwater um related with some of the questions and concerns that came up from residents.

I didn't think feel like I heard that said if I've missed that.

I don't know who from the team would be able to do.

And if I may ask a clarifying question while he walks up, is that is are you asking specifically about some of the stormwater concerns we heard from neighboring property owners about water pooling in their backyards or concerns about uh stormwater that has maybe resulted from uh a joining development or wh wh which stormwater items was it?

Yeah, well there were multiple, yes, you're right, conversations.

And I think the thing that I was hearing was um also too about concerns about uh improvements or things that are happening in the area too that are along Dean Solomon, you know, with it not being a continually improved area too, that is able to help with some of that water.

So it's kind of multifode, probably, you know, around the trail in Android Park, and then also looking at Dean Solomon.

Um and not sure where the team looking at everything that's been been entered in.

I know there's a huge wish list of projects, but just not sure, you know, if it is anything teed up that we just didn't hadn't talked about.

And just if I could just add, I just I did just look at our stormwater project map, and I do not see one of those listed on our stormwater map, but Justin may be able to add more.

Yeah, I I'm not aware of any projects or any um you know, Alan may have went out there and looked at things, but I'm not aware of any projects in the queue for that in that area.

Okay.

Then kind of as a follow-up, in the event there where it was additional development in that area, um, with them being able to make infrastructure improvements.

Does that sometimes does your team start to look at the available dollars we have from the utility and kind of assess if there's something that's popped up that might need to be addressed?

That's definitely a a possibility.

Um, when if there's a possibility to cost share and do a drainage improvement with other constructions going on, that that's definitely on the table.

And uh one other follow-up on this, I've seen some projects try to do over detention, would there potentially be something in conversation if we you know thought maybe there was a way to mitigate that we could um be problem solving with the applicant team potentially cost sharing or looking at doing some level of over detention at all?

That is that's certainly something we can look at.

That that would be above the the minimum requirements for up the drainage manual.

So it would not be typical from that perspective.

Um in addition with the being so close to the floodplain, um we would just want to look at that.

Sometimes uh if you delay it too much, you you can actually c possibly cause more issues by doing that.

So it would be something we would look at at the development uh phase of this when we had like uh engineered drainage report basically.

All right, thank you, Justin.

I appreciate that.

And then my last question was for um the applicate name for you all.

Um so you brought for it, this bill of assurance to no longer do the multifamily.

Um, you know, I've heard um questions around sounds like more impervious surface coming in, um, potentially with this added density that's coming in uh with the proposed development.

Does multifamily being removed, does it change the impervious surface in any way?

I mean, are you gonna be taking up less ground space in some way?

Just trying to think, does it mitigate any of those conditions by pulling multifamily away?

I think it's hard to speculate.

I think that you know, three stories of apartments it you know, stacked up in one spot with all the parking that involved that's involved with that versus townhomes spread over a little bit larger area.

It's I it's hard to say.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so Jonathan, what in your presentation, you kind of talked about Dean Solomon as being in the mid-range of projects.

How many years does that mean?

Um, because we've got a lot of development going on out there, not just this project, but obviously the park and some other things that have gone on recently.

That is that's difficult for me to speculate at because there are a lot of extenuating circumstances, such as projects coming in.

Uh, we don't the city does not necessarily control when people are interested in developing land, especially if they don't need to come before uh a body like council to rezone it.

Um so I don't have a specific time period.

There's also another factor that we can't estimate, which is uh our success in in being awarded grants.

Uh a lot of those are competitive.

A lot of those come through our regional planning commission, uh, where we're competing with all the other municipalities in the area.

Uh so I I know that's probably a dissatisfying answer, but I don't have a hard date or an estimated number of years for you.

So right now there's no funding.

I just want to be clear.

There's absolutely no funding allocated or projected for this for Dean Solomon's uh widening or improvement.

Correct.

And then you have no idea it could be five years, 10 years, 15 years when it actually is improved.

Correct.

Or or sooner potentially.

I mean, if if the the council recalls the underwood PZD to the south of this property, that extends from the majority of the majority of the west side of Dean Solomon between Van Eyck and uh I'm sorry, I believe it's Shiloh down on the south, and if that were to be developed, that would take a significant portion out of it that the city would not have a responsibility to improve as a part of that.

That could potentially reduce the amount of time before uh we're able to perform that work.

But there would still be no kind of comprehensive improvement of Dean Solomon, it would just be section by section by section.

That's possible, correct.

Okay.

Um couple more questions.

Um I was just a little bit confused about the access management portion.

So if I understand with the RMF 12, um, that uh street that's on the Master Street plan would actually be um constructed through there.

And then would there not be in the access management would be that you would not be able on the RMF 20 uh RMF 12 portion to have driveways directly on Dean Solomon?

Is that correct?

That's correct.

There may be without having a survey in front of me or a site layout, there may be the potential to have one or two driveways potentially, but you're correct the way our access management standards are set up is to minimize the number of connections onto major streets like that just to for traffic safety purposes.

I mean, because that RMF 12 is kind of a weird skinny spot there, and you've got the bike trail on the on the on the west side, and you've got Dean Solomon on the east.

And so I'm just wondering how that would happen, maybe an alley.

I think that was discussed a little bit yesterday.

That's what I heard described is roughly halfway into that property.

There's the potential to lay out a either an alley or a private drive that would extend north and south from that planned street uh that the townhouses could be accessed from.

But again, I understand that that was just a conceptual uh uh premise or or development idea from the applicant.

And I've I've got another kind of weird wonky one.

That enduring green network, I mean, gosh, I mean, it's just like a painted green area on the map with nothing behind it whatsoever at all.

Um so that's I I think that's kind of um real uh misguided in in some ways that there's no additional protection there.

Um and then it and then if this is rezoned, it will go from 25% to 20 percent of tree canopy.

Um and then it and then if this is rezoned, it will go from 25 percent to 20 percent of tree canopy, uh, even though it's designated as the enduring green network.

Do you have any idea when it was designated as the enduring green network?

I don't have that information on hand.

I apologize.

It was with I believe it is with City, I think it was City Plan 2020.

Maybe in the end term of this conversation, I can see if I can track that down for you.

It it's just it just strikes me as being um yeah, some kind of misinformation there.

Um I do have one question for you, Will.

Um, you know, you kind of talked about you're trying to figure out the wetlands, and I know you have your expert here, so it would be uh interesting to hear how long that will take, what the status is on that, what the process is.

Certainly.

And um, so one thing I will note one of the reasons why we're we're kind of standing here going, we don't know is generally speaking, you wouldn't submit for that wetlands delineation study until you're actually preparing your plan or large scale.

So we're we're kind of in the process of figuring out what that looks like.

So when what you're saying if I understood what you're saying is that you wouldn't even go forward unless you got the rezoning approved.

Is that what you're saying?

That's generally the course of actions.

I mean, there there are generally speaking, you want to do enough um study and investigation to make sure it's a feasible piece of property, but um you know that actual study and and the engineering involved with it is typically something that would come after rezoning.

Okay.

Sure.

Yeah, I would say there's a couple of points that kind of work in the favor that there may not be wetlands on the site.

Um there are publicly available databases that preliminary will map uh known streams, they call them blue lines and um areas that are likely wetlands, and on those publicly available sites, this area isn't noted as a wetland.

Um also when this site was rezoned to the CPCD, which I think was about 25 years ago, so it's been some time.

Um they did some studies with that CPCD on wetlands in the area, and this site wasn't denoted as a wetland on that study.

Um so there are some factors that show that this may not be wetlands, but um as stated, when we actually go through development process, we'll have to submit some studies with our plans.

Um and if there are any determinations that there could be wetlands on site, uh the city or the city staff will require us to go through uh Corps of um Army Corps of Engineer permitting with determining um whether there actually are wetlands and if there are what our uh next steps are.

So basically no additional um investigation will be done until the rezoning is uh approved or denied or are modified.

That's likely true.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh the studies don't necessarily take a while, but they can be a little bit pricey.

So um it's kind of a development risk at that point.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Burno.

Thank you, Mayor.

I've got uh one question for Will and one for uh uh Kit.

Uh Will, you mentioned uh that you had communication with uh uh the neighborhood council uh uh the council that the neighbors had uh uh obtained and y'all had mentioned about meeting.

Uh so I assume with that conversation you've got some built-in time that if we were to hold this on the first reading that that would not be detrimental to the the project you're you're comfortable with us holding it and get allowing you to have conversation with with the neighbors.

We can I mean we could run out and do it in the hall right now.

I think it'd be a little bit a little more efficient if we got it.

Just wanted to verify that.

Yes, certainly.

And then Kit, we've got a bill of assurance in front of us that I don't recall us voting uh to amend yet.

Is it advisable to hold that bill of assurance until after they have had their conversation to make sure that doesn't change, or should we vote up or down on the bill of assurance and then modify it if they have additional ones, uh additional items uh after they meet.

I think it makes more sense to hold it at this point in time.

Uh I I guess it was delivered very late.

I haven't even seen it myself.

Um I'm sure it's fine, but I'd like to take a look at it.

The ordinance itself will have to be amended, make it subject to the bill of assurance.

So uh probably ought to make sense to meet with the neighbors and see if that's exactly what you want to do, and then get it to our office so I can take a look at it too.

Okay.

So I think we should open it up to public comment.

Thank you so much.

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

Good evening.

My name is Robert Rhodes.

I'm with the law firm of Hall Estel, and I represent the neighbors.

Um I've kind of advised um my group of neighbors that um that uh we don't necessarily have to have everyone come up and speak tonight.

And um, but a few of them felt like uh they they did want to because there was things that were brought up during the tour and things like that that they felt that council members were curious about and they felt like they could talk to those and they wanted to do that tonight.

But um we we definitely are looking forward to um to meeting with uh not just Will and not just an engineer, but a decision maker for the owner developer, and our hopes is that uh we've already submitted uh this morning um a number of things that we would ask that they would include on a bill of assurance.

And of course, you all can ask for that, but the neighbors certainly can, and that's what we're doing.

And um, and so um in a minute, and I think you'll probably hear from uh a few neighbors, but uh know that for uh every everyone that speaks, there's about four that are gonna hold their comments till two weeks from now.

And with that, I thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Rhodes.

Okay, if you can just come on up and approach, state your name and address, and please be mindful that we have a three minute time limit.

Um before I begin, may I clarify something?

Um it's your time.

The clock is ticking, but I would ask that you move the mic down to closer.

Um the gentleman behind me and I put together a kind of a technical presentation.

Uh I have a video that can act as a backdrop that shows the numbers that I'm going to mention.

Um, I don't know how to put that in, um, but I'll launch it.

Yeah, you still have um there we can pause the clock in order for you to if you would like to give that to Mr.

Masito to put that in.

It will still you will still have the same amount of time.

So if you could reset the clock to three minutes, that would be great.

And then we'll start that taking when his presentation is cued up.

It may take me a couple minutes.

I'm not sure if we want to come back to this person.

Yep, that would be great.

If we could have, we will if you want to just go to the back of the line so that we have time to cue that up, and then if you would like to go ahead and come up and please state your name and address and good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Um my name is John Felker.

I live at 2722 West Van Eyck Drive.

And uh many of the residents on Van Ack Drive purchased their homes because it was a low density neighborhood, and the undeveloped land was RSF4.

RSF4 has more yards and green space than higher density development.

We need these permeable surfaces in this low-lying area.

The area is a wet prairie with subterranean prairie crawfish.

This means there is permanent groundwater, so retention ponds for any proposed developments will remain full and will not capture stormwater.

Increased impermeable surfaces without retention will only stress the new underwood park drainage and potentially raise the flood zone of Clabber Creek.

This cannot be built like the townhomes on Justin Drive up by the uh car dealerships, which is on a hill and the retention ponds dry out.

It will require commercial underground retention, such as ADS storm tech tunnels.

As one of our city officials mentioned, the development is not responsible for making stormwater runoff better.

They're only responsible to not make it worse.

How do we know it will not be worse if the next flood event is passed the statute of limitations?

In 2011 and 2017, Clabber Creek caused flooding to the local neighborhoods, especially Salem Village.

Salem Village is further down the creek, so the developer won't be on the hook for any extra stormwater flowing down Cra Clapper Creek in their direction.

Underwood Park is already experiencing flood problems with the pickleball court and playground.

So the developer can't be held responsible if it keeps happening.

Many houses on the north side of Van Eyck have already paid for French drains and forged such projects when as far as adding curb cutouts to remove standing water from their yards.

The development will be grading and increasing the elevation of an area that is already uphill from Van Eyck Drive.

No matter what stormwater collection is proposed, heavy storm events send water downhill and potentially flood the paved trail and street.

This is the wrong time to develop this land.

Improvements in drainage need to be made before impermeable surfaces are built.

One inch of rain equals 27, 154 gallons per acre.

Multiply that by 36 acres, and that's almost a hundred thousand gallons.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, do we have the presentation ready?

No, not yet.

Okay.

So if someone else would like to comment on the hi, thank you so much for um having our neighbors here today.

Hi, thank you so much for um having our neighbors here today.

Um, my name is Jennifer A.C.F.

I'm a microbiologist at the University of Arkansas and I live in the neighborhood.

So I'm very interested in following up on things related to the wetland and preservation in the area.

Um, just downhill from Dean Solomon tract is Wilson Springs Preserve.

It's 121 acres protected in perpetuity, the largest wetland remnant left in Fayeville and one of the last tall grass prairies in the region.

Its entrance opens right onto Dean Solomon Road, the same corridor we're discussing tonight with Underwood Park and Clapper Creek alongside it.

So in the rezoning conversation, we want to also talk about what is already there and what has been declared as being preserved in the surrounding areas.

So this isn't empty land waiting for a purpose.

It's already doing the quiet work that the city values.

Um state critically imperiled Arkansas darters, which is a fish species.

Oh, I apologize.

I meant to hand these out.

I em I emailed this.

Um, but you send them directly to the clerk.

Yep.

I think everyone probably has access to it in email if they would like to.

Um the uh this these darters live in the spring-fed waters, and only 18 were counted in the last survey.

So that's a very endangered species already.

Henslow sparrows nest in that prairie, bobcats, deer owls move through it, and the wetland naturally filters stormwater and buffers flooding through flooding for everyone downstream for free.

Recall from your junior high biology classes how delicate a food uh a food web can get whenever you change one small part of it.

So this brings me to my first concern about the water.

Wilson Springs sits at Clever Creek's headwaters on some of the lowest ground in the city.

A hydraulic hydraulic study already found that the creek over overtops the road at Dean Solomon and Salem with undersized culverts, and there are also issues related to Salem Village, homes on Topaz and Van Eyck for runoff risks, which I believe are being discussed by some of my other neighbors.

But when you add pavement at a higher density, whether it's for parking lot or for driveways or for street access, the water has to go somewhere.

And we know what gravity is going to do with that.

Then there's the tree canopy.

Today's zoning project protects a quarter of the site's tree cover, but the proposed district is going to drop that to 20%, and the canopy below that line can simply be bought out of a tree escrow account instead of staying in the ground, which is obviously a concern for those of us who will physically live there.

And that's the heart of why we're here tonight.

I know the instinct will be that this is a development question, not a zoning one.

Let the site plan process work it out, but that 20% floor isn't a promise from the applicant.

It's what the new zoning district allows permanently for whoever owns the land in the future.

A rezoning doesn't just open the door for one project, it resets the baseline for the parcel itself.

So the moment this line on the map changes, we can expect uh um uh irrevocable irrevocable damage to the the canopy.

Um the parcel doesn't sit in isolation, it joins the 49-acre next chapter of the city.

Thank you, and that's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keith, are we ready for the gentleman with the presentation?

Yes.

Okay, go ahead and you'll have and please make sure to state your name and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, my name is Zachary Hewlett and I live at 2570 West Van Eyck Drive.

Uh I'm here today to talk about um the road conditions on Dean Solomon, which is the primary north-south corridor for this development.

Um, most of the traffic will end up on Dean Solomon.

Um the staff report that you received asserts that that this request won't measurably overburden our infrastructure.

And I'm so sorry, I'm gonna ask you to pause.

We're having some technical difficulty tonight.

Can we please start the clock, Keith?

Okay, all right.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna ask you to pause.

I apologize.

Thank you for being patient with us.

Of course.

Uh I appreciate everybody for coming out that was able to yesterday, so ahead.

The staff report asserts that this request won't measurably overburden our infrastructure.

The engineering data tells a drastically different story.

I created a presentation breaking down these numbers and sent via email to each council member.

Uh, in case you've not reviewed it, it has been provided via thumb drive this evening as well as being played via video.

Uh we can calculate the true safe vehicle capacity, we'll call it V-Safe of Dean Solomon Road.

While a fully improved neighborhood link carries a base assumption of 6,000 vehicles per day, which is on the Master Street plan, we must deduct for real-world conditions on the ground because there is no continuous middle turn lane.

We apply a standard of 0.8 deduction factor.

For roadside hazards like narrow two-lane bridge and deep exposed ditches, we deduct 0.85.

For an incomplete sidewalk system that forces pedestrian conflicts, we deduct 0.90.

The resulting math is clear.

The actual safe operating threshold for Dean Solomon is 3,672 vehicles per day.

Now let's look at what has occurred since 2016.

Between the next chapter, Rouse Coleman and Moor Lane developments, 435 units have been added, generating 3,184 daily trips.

Math is shown in the presentation.

At a highly conservative 25% occupancy turnover for the 102 parking spaces at the new Underwood Park, that adds another 561 daily trips.

Combined the approved and built traffic since 2016 alone stands at 3,745 daily trips.

We are already at 102% of the road safety capacity.

When you add the 1,654 daily trips from the legacy neighborhoods who depend on Dean Solomon as their primary aggress, the road is currently being pushed to 147% of its safe capacity.

If you approve this rezoning, the addition of up to 261 units will inject an estimated 1,910 daily trips into a failing corridor.

That explodes the total volume of to 7,309 vehicles per day, 199% of the road safe capacity, and 122% of its theoretical maximum.

According to the master plan regarding neighborhood link streets, larger green spaces are provided for pedestrian comfort.

Cyclists are intended to be outside the roadway in a separated facility due to vehicular speeds and volumes.

Dean Solomon does not have this, and each unit that you add will create either one an unsafe biker pedestrian walking long distances down the Dean Solomon to the gas station, or two between seven and nine vehicle trips per day that could collide with number one, as I mentioned.

I personally suffered a bike crash due to unsafe conditions on Dean Solomon, and I'm lucky to be speaking to you today.

We are operating entirely in the red with zero dollars budgeted by the city to improve Dean Solomon Road.

My neighbor will now detail the immediate safety and pedestrian risk that this creates on the ground.

I urge you to burn all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so we will reset the clock for the next speaker, and please state your name and address.

I'm uh Jean Bennett.

I live at uh 2652 West Van Act Drive.

Great, thank you.

And I'm sorry, we lost our we lost our presentation.

I apologize I apologize.

If you will wait just one moment, ready?

Go ahead.

Is this where you left?

Is this where it left off?

Okay, yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, good evening, members of the council.

Following up on the capacity crisis just outlined, I want to take you on a brief real-world audit of Dean Solomon Road in the local street network to show why adding more density is a direct hazard.

The part two video will show many of the safety issues.

If you drive this corridor during peak hours, traffic already backs up heavily from Mount Comfort Road down Shiloh Drive in Dean Solomon.

Turning movements are highly hazardous due to completely obstructed visibility.

Furthermore, because there are zero neighborhood retail services or restaurants built in the area.

Every single unit edit added is forced to become a vehicle trip just to buy groceries at Sam's or fast food on Mount Comfort.

This is compounded by the local street network crisis on Van Act Drive.

Van Ack is the only east-west corridor for a massive pocket of 280 single-family homes.

It already generates over 1,500 total daily trips.

160 of the closest homes at nine trips per day, which violates the standard safety threshold of 1,500 vehicle trips per day required for bicycles and cars to safely intermix.

But the most glaring issue is pedestrian safety.

Moving north on Dean Solomon, sidewalks randomly start and abruptly terminate into thickets.

At Moore Lane and Lorry Drive, the pass ends, forcing pedestrians and runners onto a narrow road edged with steep, uncurved ditches, and near the church of Christ, overgrown pass forced people directly into active lanes around blind corners into oncoming traffic, all with absolutely zero street lighting.

Further north, the infrastructure hits a critical bottleneck at the entrance of the underwood park.

The narrow two-lane bridge causes an immediate vehicle shy away effort, right where families and children frequently stand roadside to fish in the creek with highly limited visibility.

Finally, as you head toward the highway 112 termination, you encounter steep hills, blind S-curves with no shoulders, and severe icing and and uh slickness hazards during winter weather.

These infrastructure deficiencies have real world consequences.

On June 1st of this year, a cyclist suffered a severe crash on Dean Solomon due directly to these hazards and road conditions, resulting in widespread road rash, emergency medical imaging, a helmet likely saved his life.

A helmet likely saved his life.

The City Plan 2040's infield matrix gives this area a falling score, failing score of 2.5 for a reason.

Our infrastructure Thank you so much.

That's time.

I'd like to extend his time so we can finish.

Okay, how much would you like to add, Minister?

Two minutes.

Okay, please add two minutes to the clock.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Okay.

The City Plan's 2040 in field matrix gives this area a fighting score of 2.5 for a reason.

Our infrastructure cannot safely accommodate high density.

Do not increase the density of any local zoning without a comprehensive independent traffic study conducted after current construction is occupied.

Please vote no on the RZ in 2016 0015 measure.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you so much.

All right.

And we are done with the presentation now.

So come on up and please state your name.

My name's Justin Fleer, and I live at uh 2913 West Topaz Drive downstream on Cliber Creek.

Um my wife was up here, Dr.

Jennifer Acuff earlier, and I'm gonna finish her presentation.

Um a rezoning doesn't just open the door for one project, it resets the baseline for the parcel itself for this developer or the next.

The vulnerability isn't something a good developer could design around later.

It's created tonight the moment this line on the map changes.

And this parcel doesn't sit in isolation.

It joins the 49-acre next chapter rezoning next door.

Hundreds more homes feeding the same small watershed.

The pressure on this habitat isn't coming from one project, it's cumulative.

So this is an opposition to housing.

It's a re request that protections be attached to the zoning decision itself.

And if they can't be, the zoning should be reconsidered.

That means a site-specific hydrology study before approval, a real protected buffer along the creek and preserve, an independent assessment of the darter's habitat, and canopy preserved on site, not paid away.

The question I ask you to sit with tonight isn't whether some future builder could act responsibly.

It's simply does the zoning you're being asked to prove on its own match the land stewardship this council and citizens of Fayetteville have said they value.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Stephanie Hewlett.

I live at 2570 Van Eyck.

Uh, I would first like to say that I do support the growth of this city.

My family chose to live here because it's a wonderful place to live.

Of course, people want to move here because we do.

We did too.

Um, but as we create homes for the people who want to live here, we have to be careful that we don't make it a place where the people who already live here no longer want to be.

And I have concerns about this proposal's incompatibility with the 2040 plan and whether this is the right place for this kind of growth.

The city plan describes in fill as creating complete connected walkable neighborhoods, but this proposal simply doesn't do that.

It creates a dense residential development with no nearby commercial services, no mixed-use component, and no realistic way for future residents to meet their daily needs without getting in a car.

That's not the type of infill our plan envisions.

What struck me most while reading the city's survey wasn't just the planning language.

It was that residents overwhelmingly agreed on what they value.

They want affordability, connectivity, green space, and neighborhoods that remain places where people want to live.

Those priorities should continue to guide our decisions today.

The city plan isn't opposed to growth.

It simply asks us to direct it where it fits.

Many families move to this area with the understanding that this land was planned for civic and institutional uses, such as a school.

More importantly, the surrounding transportation network was never designed to support this level of residential density.

Compatibility matters not just for neighborhoods, but also for infrastructure.

One of the strongest messages in the plan is that growth should reduce dependence on vehicles.

But as I mentioned, this proposal does the opposite, and it impacts our energy action plan.

Without nearby services, schools, grocery stores, or commercial destinations.

Every additional household becomes another household that must drive for nearly every daily need.

That isn't the kind of growth that our city's plan says belongs here.

This proposal also affects, as mentioned, an environmentally sensitive area identified in the city's own planning documents.

Protecting these natural systems isn't separate from planning, but rather a part of responsible planning.

Throughout Fayetteville's history, saying no to the wrong project has been just as important as saying yes to the right one.

Planning only works if we're willing to follow the standards that we've already adopted.

Finally, I'd like to leave you with a concern that you won't find on those slides, which is safety.

My family walks white runs bikes and drives this area every day.

As I mentioned in a previous email, I per personally witnessed a cyclist suffer a head injury after trying to avoid a speeding vehicle at the trail crossing.

My husband was recently injured riding his bike on Dean Solomon after leaving the roadway because it was no longer safe.

His recovery was slow and his helmet likely prevented a much more serious outcome.

I personally have been forced off the road myself while riding with my my bike with my children in a trailer behind me.

These aren't isolated incidents.

They tell us our infrastructure is already under strain.

Children already cross back and forth, and even more families will cross this corridor once the new park is completed.

Growth is important and I support it, but it should occur where our infrastructure can support it as well, not where existing residents are already experiencing dangerous conditions.

City Plan 2040 was created to encourage the right development in the right places for the right reasons.

I respectfully ask you uphold that vision and vote no on this rezoning.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you so much.

And I'm gonna pause now and ask if there is anyone else that is planning to speak in that has a handout or has a presentation.

If so, I want to take the time now to give them to the to the clerk since we didn't have the ability to see them before.

That would be very, very helpful.

That way she's not up and down all night.

And then if anybody else has a presentation, it is very helpful when we get those before.

But if we have any more tonight, please let me know now.

Okay, it does not look like we have any more.

Okay, go ahead, please.

Awesome.

Uh good evening, Council members.

My name is Greg Thomas.

I live at 3037 North Knight Heron Drive.

Uh today I'd like to discuss uh drainage and stormwater issues of the proposed rezoning site site, as noted by my neighbors via email uh at the site visit.

Um Clabber Creek currently expense experiences flooding issues multiple times per year.

Um impacts of these events include overtopping of the road at Dean Solomon, flooding homes, backyards, flooding parks, uh, and community resources.

This flooding not only impacts the homes directly adjacent to Underwood Park, but dozens of homes along Crabber Clapper Creek all the way west to the city's limits.

Uh the flooding was first noticed uh by city engineering staff back in 2016 during a pre previous rezoning discussion of the underwood park property.

At that time, the city council at that time, the city council decided to reject the rezoning application due to stormwater and traffic concerns.

Since 2016, we've seen hundreds of new homes and four car car dealerships developed within this same Clapper Creek watershed.

It was brought up at the site visit that the city of Fayetteville has the most stringent stormwater regulations in the state.

While I agree that Fayetteville's drainage criteria manual is extremely robust, it is intended to apply for the standard development project.

Unfortunately, this project, this rezoning is far from standard.

As mentioned previously, the stormwater from this site directly impacts the floodplain of Clapper Creek.

Additionally, this project is part of a much larger watershed that encompasses the area from Mount Comfort to the south, highway 112 to the north, um, and then the interstate to the east.

If you are familiar with this area of town, you also know that the city is spending millions of dollars priming this area for more development and ultimately more flooding concerns of for me and my neighbors.

Currently, the site features an urban forest and pasture area.

These areas allow the highest amount of infiltration of stormwater back into the soil.

This infiltration prevents stormwater from flowing downstream into Clapper Creek.

Once developed, the site will feature almost no infiltral infiltration, which means all of the stormwater will be flowing to Clapper Creek.

Most developments utilize the tension ponds to limit the peak flow of stormwater to downstream areas.

While this does produce definable results that meets the city standards, it fails two major areas.

While the peak uh the air uh area number one, while the peak flow to downstream areas, my neighbors' homes is limited, the total volume of stormwater that leaves the site is increased.

That means while this development could improve the stormwater concerns in some conditions, it will send more water over a longer period to the floodplain.

This will increase the amount of time that my neighbors are experiencing devastating issues to their homes.

On top of all of that, the city is planning to allow hundreds of more acres of similar development within Clover Creek watershed, further worsening the issue to my neighbors.

The second item not considered within the drainage criteria manual is that it does not account for back-to-back storms.

Uh, while this may seem like an unlikely scenario, after researching the largest flooding events of the last decade, each of them occurred not by one large 10 or 100-year storm, but from back to back days of smaller storms, which is fairly frequent in the spring of Fayeville.

This is a major flaw in the design criteria.

Um, and just to wrap up really quick, I just want to ask for this uh the council to consider low impact development for this project.

That's time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Hi, please come on up.

Hello.

Hi.

My name is Tiana Earl.

I live at 32 West Jewel Road, and I am not a neighbor.

Um I found out about this um because I walk the trail nearly every day.

I drive about 10 minutes to visit this beautiful um uh trail, and I love that it has so much wildlife and um I I'm not a Fayetteville native either.

I am originally from Montana, and when I moved to Fayetteville about two years ago, um I fell in love with the trees.

I fell in love with the Ozarks, and it's been very heartbreaking seeing all of the native wildlife being um turned up and having apartment buildings just stacked upon each other like that.

Um I feel that if this area was developed, I would not return.

I would not use the path.

I would find a different area um to visit and walk my dog.

And if your goal is to have people come in, people um want to come in and have their families there.

Um, I don't believe that developing um in opposition to the neighborhoods is actually going to be beneficial for many people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Clark Baxton.

Hi.

Hello.

Can I wait or if you could go ahead, that will be.

It makes a little more sense.

So almost there.

So good evening.

Uh my name is Jay McAllister.

I live at 2686 West Van Eyck Drive.

Uh, the first map that you see in uh on the slide there labeled infrastructure is from Fayetteville's GIS webpage showing the reported waterline repairs or waterline issues is how it's titled.

This is since January of 2025.

So it's being that's what's available.

It's being pretty conservative.

Of course, the blue lines represent repairs that have been completed, while the red lines indicate active waterline issues as of July 1st.

Before I go any further, I do want to acknowledge that the water department has done an excellent job responding to and repairing these issues, including my own home when we had a leak earlier this year.

My question's not about the quality of the work, but about the future demand that this rezoning can cause.

As additional homes and residential units are added to this area, how will that affect the surrounding infrastructure?

Will increased density place additional strain on a system that has already experienced numerous repairs?

If you want to take your attention to the second slide now that shows the satellite map there, the yellow arrows indicate streets connecting to Dean Solomon Road, including the existing Van Eyck and the proposed ICA Lane connection.

The blue arrows show the Claber Creek Trail, which runs through this area for about a third of a mile.

The red circles identify trail crossings at Van Eyck, the proposed Ica Lane and Dean Solomon Road.

With the addition of Ica Lane, there would now be three roadway crossings along this short stretch of trail.

As residential density and traffic increase, so does the potential for conflicts between vehicles and trail users.

More homes mean more vehicles, increasing the potential for conflicts or accidents between drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and even children who use the trail.

The proposal of the RMF 12 and RMF 8 developments would add approximately on a conservative end.

It's been said 261 residential units.

Assuming each vehicle or each unit has one vehicle that's more than 260 additional vehicles using Van Eyck, Ica Lane and the two-lane Dean Solomon Road.

Public transit options are already limited in this area with the nearest bus stops located near the fairgrounds and the links at Fayetteville off of Weddington and Chan Chili, that area.

Finally, the highway 112 expansion will likely change traffic patterns yet.

The planning commission has indicated, even in this meeting that improvements to Dean Salman Road or at least uh mid through this midway prioritization that raises an important question.

If this development moves forward before the necessary infrastructure improvements are made, will the existing roads, utilities, and trail crossings be able to safely and effectively accommodate the additional demand.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

I think I'm last, hopefully.

Uh hi, my name is Mike Thompson.

I live at 2522 West Drive.

So good evening, Mayor Mayor Molly and Council members.

First, I'd like to sincerely thank everyone who took the time to come out to the property seeing a site uh in person provides a perspective maps, maps, renderings, and staff reports simply just can't capture.

I truly appreciate the time and effort you guys took to do that.

Thank you very much.

Also like to thank the city staff.

You guys did a great job.

Thanks for throughout the process.

So thank you.

Um as you consider the residential class, I respectfully ask that you view these as two actually distinct properties rather than a simple uh rezoning request.

While they're adjacent, they present very different opportunities that you evaluate it independently.

But hopefully we can all work to find a positive solution together, especially with uh being able to meet with the lawyer and the developing company.

Um the 10 acre track along Dean Solomon presents a unique opportunity that I believe deserves additional discussion before final decisions made.

Rather than rezoning it today under the current request, I respectfully request the council to table the action on that portion of the property.

This running area of Underwood Park is rapidly changing with more than 200 homes approved just south of the park.

Uh this neighborhood will see a significant increase in residence traffic and daily activity as the community grows.

I believe that we should also think about the amenities that help create a vibrant and connected neighborhood.

Instead of limiting this track to a single use today, I asked the council to consider whether a mixed use zoning designation would better serve the terms area's long-term goals.

That type of development um aligns with many of the goals the city has discussed regarding walkability, housing diversity, and creating designations where people can live, walk, and access uh services without relying solely on their vehicles.

This isn't a request to delay progress.

It's actually a request to make sure that we actually get this piece right.

Uh, once the zoning decision is made, it shapes the future of everything for decades.

Taking a little more time now to uh to create a significantly critic value.

Taking a little more time now could create significantly greater value, not only for the property owner, but also for the surrounding neighborhoods and the city of Fayel.

It allows the opportunity to uh and time to have a conversation with the developers and talk about a potential for commercial space.

So tonight I respectfully ask for two things.

The first is to separate the two tracks into individual agenda items so each property can be evaluated on its own merits, allowing the city council to make a independent decisions rather than the treating this as a request as an all or nothing request or an all or nothing proposal.

Uh second, I respectfully ask that the council take uh table the action on Dean Silen to evaluate the potential for mixed use zoning and uh for the neighborhood and developer to discuss a vision that better service community before the sessions made.

Thank you.

Thanks for your time.

That's true.

Thank you.

And I think we have looks like one more person that's waiting to speak.

Um hi, my name's Ann Braun.

I live next door to Mike at 2508 Van Eyck.

And I'm probably the only house involved in this um whole process that is gonna have development on two sides.

Most people have it only behind them.

I'm concerned because they're talking three stories.

I moved to this neighborhood because most of the homes are all single family, single story.

It's a quiet neighborhood, yards, it's all well kept.

I've been here two years.

Um I really don't want a three-story building next to me or right behind me.

I just think it's totally incompatible and kind of an invasive.

Um, I also had a surveyor I hired to survey my lot because I wanted to know absolutely for sure where my corners were and my boundaries.

And on Van Eyck, there's a lot of mature trees that are all healthy that grow the entire street length and border the um like the 35-acre parcel behind these homes.

Those trees are not on their property, and I want it marked in the record because I want them preserved.

I don't want them to bulldoze the root structure on their side so that they die.

Um, I think they the trees add a lot of um atmosphere to the development.

And um, like I said, they're healthy.

Um, all the comments that everybody's made about Dean Solomon are pretty much true.

My concern is I'm sorry, I was my microphone.

I'm sorry.

Okay, that's all right.

Um my concern is in the planning meeting, they said be two to five years before the anything would be done on Dean Solomon, and that's just totally impractical.

They should have done something before they started the park.

People can't even, there's no left turn lane or anything there.

There's no stop signs on our street.

On Sundays, people speed from the church.

It's almost like they can't wait to go home.

Um then the underworld underwood development of the rental units.

They've uh apparently that's been um like passed to move forward.

Um, but we were told in the meeting yesterday that there will be no street improvements for that as well.

And I think that's just uh it's kind of a sad fact, but it the truth is they should fix the road before they uh they approve any more development.

Um I oppose the RSF eight.

I prefer it where RSF4, partly because it'll give you more um 25% for trees.

Um have yards for drainage and things like that.

And I just I don't know.

I guess we'll see where this goes.

But anyway, thanks for listening and thanks to those who came out yesterday for the site visit.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Seeing no other comments in the room, Keith, do we have any comments on Zoom?

We do.

We have a Steve Barthel.

Okay, Mr.

Barthel, if you'll go ahead whenever you're ready.

Uh, I guess we can go to the next speaker, Clark Eccles.

Can you hear me okay?

Oh.

Mr.

Is that Mr.

Barthel now?

Yeah, yeah, sorry.

Please go ahead.

I was trying to unmute, but you unmute me automatically.

Uh I don't have a lot because, like uh the attorney has said.

Um we don't need to just repeat everything that's already been said.

I think everyone's made a pretty good point.

I did want to, I think it was council uh person Turk who asked about the enduring green network.

One thing I did see on that in the uh master plan was just to give a little colour on that, is that it does recommend for something that has that designation that it have a lower density of development and uh make you know uh be mindful of impervious service surfaces to uh because it says a lot of times those are in wetter areas and forest areas, and just like I know I know this point has been made over and over again.

That'll probably tire if hearing it, but it would um it's just to mitigate storm runoff as well by having that enduring green network.

But basically, I'm I'm gonna go ahead and just wrap it up because everyone's pretty much spoken.

But I just wanted to, I think what what our goal is tonight is to show the number of neighbors that are in opposition.

So I'll just state that and um I appreciate your time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr.

Eccles.

Um hi, my name's Clark Eccles.

I uh I uh grew up at um on Howard Nichols Street.

I now live at 95 East Madrid Street.

I also live for four years along uh Highway 112.

And uh, and so I'm actually in favor of this this rezone.

Um it I think it aligns with the city's long-term goals.

It's located next to uh in close proximity to major public investments like all the water infrastructure being put in, all the stuff happening on Highway 112, the Clapper Creek Trail, Holcomb Elementary, Holt Middle School, which both I'm uh I attended, and uh the new underwood park.

I uh I think some modest density would serve this area very well and kind of double down on those public investments.

Um with our public investments in the trail and water infrastructure, it seems like a no-brainer.

Uh as the city's recent housing assessment shows, Fayetteville's growth is outpacing projections, and we need to allow for more housing everywhere in Fayetteville.

You know, of course, according to City Plan 2040, we should be focusing the highest density in alignment with the growth concept map.

However, we should still support modest infill density throughout the city.

Here in Fayeville, I know there have been some neighborhood concerns, but um, you know, I don't really consider um RSF8 and uh RSF-12 particularly high density, and uh, you know, I think they're compatible with the existing communities.

There were several who uh voiced, you know, how they wish uh this development had mixed use, and and I would love to see that as well.

You know, but I think this increase in density helps make that a possibility in the future to help create more destinations for the neighborhood um and and more people to uh patronize those businesses.

I think opposing modest density just serves to make housing more expensive for everyone for our long-term residents, for our children as they grow up in uh in our new neighbors that are um uh moving to Fayville.

So I urge you to support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Keith, do we have anyone else?

We have Katie.

Katie.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm Katie Garmin.

I live at 2621 Brush Creek Drive.

I live in the Clapper Creek area, and I'm directly affected by the flooding that occurs after every small storm and the big storms as well.

I'd start by saying that I agree and would like to reiterate what everyone else has previously said, all the neighbors that are in opposition, um, so I can shorten my speech accordingly.

Um while I do support growth and infill in our city, I don't support it being done irresponsibly and in specifically the lot that is closest to Dean Solomon.

Excuse me.

I'd ask the council to consider tabling this proposal or to split the decision into two parts as there are two separate parcels on this on this proposal.

I believe that they should be voted independently and not made as like a blanket decision, as the two parcels are vastly different in terms of the environmental impact.

My opposition lies most strongly with parcel six, seven or seven six five yada yada yada, the 9.59 acres um directly connected to Dean Solomon.

Um I sent an email further detailing my opposition, so I'll save the time here and just advocate that we have we shoot for the reper excuse me that we try to work for the preservation of the natural riparian and wetland area that is on that lot.

And I think we should consider rezoning it, but potentially rezoning it to somewhere that preserves more green space and more wetlands to help with the already horrible flooding issues that we've got accordingly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Keith.

We do not have any more on Zoom.

Okay.

I'm gonna bring it back to the council.

And I know there has been a request, I believe, from the applicant to table.

So I will bring it back to the council to ask what you would like to do.

Ms.

Turk.

Um may we hold this on the first reading.

Um can yes, yes, uh Mr.

Whitaker, then Ms.

Moore.

Having sat through many emails and and all this, I I want to get my turn in.

Yes, of course, and we want that.

Yes.

I know you want to hear from me.

Um I am very interested in splitting this request into two separate rezoning requests.

If we have legal descriptions for those two separate parcels, because I two view them differently.

I have uh, well, I should thank all the people that also came out on the tour.

We met some really nice people, and there's only one or two mean ones.

I'm telling you, the vast majority of these people are really nice folks.

Um to rezone, we know they're already zoned for development, but to rezone from RSF four to eight, going from 70 foot to 50 foot lot with difference is not as big as people fear.

And and I actually may or believe that that should probably be our single family standard, to be perfectly honest with you.

So that one, you heard it here this evening.

That one that one does not give me uh any any heartburn.

It's uh an open farm field for the most part, and it's going to be developed, and the neighbors already know it's zone for development.

And uh and God help me, I wish we had a contractor that knew how to properly fill and raise foundations when they actually construct homes so that they're six inches higher than the standard that we're building them at currently.

And uh I don't know how to even do that legislatively, but it would just save a fortune on people's uh floors being flooded.

The nine acres to go to RMF 12 does cause me significant concern because I didn't ask any questions because none of the questions I would ask are legal for me to ask.

I can't ask you're gonna remove 90% of the trees and you're gonna come in and want to plant new because the only way to bring in sufficient fill is literally to remove 90% of the trees and haul in and compact a massive amount of soil, which I'm not opposed to, and the city engineer would require them to capture that water uh in some other fashion.

But that's going to be very different than what appears to me to be four units of multifamily per acre.

I'm not even sure how we approved that.

It had to have been 25 years ago.

So we're talking five units or more connected, and maybe only two or three buildings.

I mean, in that entire area to a hundred plus units.

So that's a radically different rezoning.

And for those two reasons, I thank you, Mayor, for allowing me to get that off my chest to say if it's legally possible to break this into two requests, I would be wholeheartedly in favor of that.

And I'm very pleased that people are meeting afterwards between the parties to discuss.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Whitaker.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you.

Um, you know, I'd be agreeable to what council member uh Whitaker brought forward.

The one thing that I struggle with and I've heartburn on is that I think about when we look at a PCD we look at it holistically and there's a lot of thought and process that goes into that.

I think I looked at it it's 2003 is when it was so it was you know some 20 odd um years ago.

But there was obviously some reasoning behind that that was multifamily and so you know I'm less inclined to really look at that bill of assurance I want to put that forward that you know if that's I'm thinking that there's still going to be impervious surface and I think that there is reasoning about you know all types of housing you know having a place especially for gent gentle um infill but I really appreciated a comment that came at the very end um that really did speak about and it's very true that there's not easy access to um needed services in that area and so I as you are having conversations um with the neighbors and you're kind of looking at at what you're doing I really would hope that you might consider um some mixed use in that area and so you're talking about additional things for a bill of assurance or kind of looking at the project in different um ways and it sounds like the neighbors have a lot of experience about the types of things they they desire to be there in that area I'm sure that they love to limit their car trips.

I'm sure they love to go to amenities on foot and by bike and I think we saw some pictures that people are are definitely going on foot and going to the convenience store you know that's up the road um as perilous as that is but um I just knowing that you're gonna meet and come forward to something to council too as we're looking at you know trying to make sure that we're welcoming all the neighbors that are going to call Fable home you know I I've said this before and I stole it from Kelly Crowd is like if everyone does a little you know no neighborhoods have to do a lot and so we do have sensitive areas too that we have to you know approach in a very sensitive way but I think that can be thoughtful and so I I look forward to the fruitful endeavor of the conversations that'll happen with the neighbors and the developers and looking forward to see what this project can look like when it comes back to us.

Yeah thank you Mr Stefan thank you mayor um uh Jonathan first of all you know I I agree with a lot of what Mr Whitaker said that with the 50 with uh 50 with uh 50 foot width uh lot width standard and also maybe higher foundation standards I don't know if that's something we can we can accomplish um uh but I had a question for you about um could we get accident data for Dean Solomon is that something we could put together yes certainly great and then Keith I have a a question for you and and this is more of a technical question about emails I noticed you know we got such a flood of emails with this uh uh subject and the a lot of them and a lot of the good ones that had a lot of this information and in the slideshow went to the um either the dark trace folder the junk folder or the uh quarantine uh inbox and I'm wondering and and I I I yeah I would like my uh make sure my council members fellow council members know to to check those because a lot of the ones with the good information uh went to those folders and I I don't know if there's something we could do to I mean it seems to be a common thing and I think we all know to check those folders but it this one's specifically it just seemed like almost half of them went in there.

Let's offline that conversation Keith since it's operational and figure out tomorrow what we need to do and then we can send out an email to council maybe with some some tips or maybe look at putting in place some different filters.

Yeah cool we can do that thank you.

Ms Turkish Thank you mayor.

First of all um Jonathan could we get a topography map of this area and then secondly I hope we agree that we're gonna hold this on the first reading.

Yes.

We still have a lot of um work to do and I think the neighbors have a lot of uh meetings that are gonna take place and I think it's always great if the neighborhood and the developer can come to a happy medium that makes our life so much easier.

So I really hope that that transpires and do we want to uh is two weeks enough time or should we wait uh two more weeks should we wait a month since we're not holding it and it's just held it doesn't make it yeah thank you and then you can choose the table later if you need to so uh Minister Jones.

Thank you Mayor I've kind of been making a lot of notes I didn't have the opportunity to go to the tour yesterday so I read as many emails as possible took notes but I want to go back initially to some things Jonathan that you said that kind of confuse me.

One staff says that this area is largely residential and neighbor and it fits the assessment of our infill score with a 2.5 is that correct are you asking if if staffs part of staff's recommendation is founded on those those infill elements is that yes I I I think that's an accurate assessment.

Is that yes?

I I think that's an accurate assessment.

I think given there are not a lot of attributes associated with appropriate info.

We don't think that additional density would be appropriate here, like you might find in other places in the city, going from RSF4 to RSF 8 is in staff's estimation a very small increment of change.

And then I think you made the comment even that staff agreed and planning was 7 to 0.

But my question is is this in direct alignment with our 2040 plan?

Because I made a note of that too.

Staff finds it to be.

Okay.

That the reason I brought up these issues because the emails as well as majority of the comments tonight touch on some very sensitive topics to me.

Number one is transportation issues, um, safe bike trails, safe walking trails, safe transportation.

One of the last comments was um update roads before development.

You know, that's my T right there is why do we wait till it's horrible and unsafe before we start undeveloping roads?

So I want to ask to you, as our planning department, at what point do we determine that it's no longer safe for us to continue to develop in areas without correcting the issues around transportation and our roads?

I think it's a very short question with a very complicated longer answer.

Uh there are many factors that our city uses when we make street improvement recommendations to council or that we propose to the mayor uh when we look at our our bond or our annual street budget.

Uh some of those relate to equity, some of those relate to the concentration or pace of development, some of them relate to safety.

There's not one single element that rises to the top.

Safety is amongst those top ones, and it is uh one of the main reasons that we were successful in in winning a sizable grant from the federal government recently, the Safe Streets for All grant uh that allowed us to target some of our high injury network streets, uh like like College Avenue, South School, Greg, Dean Solomon is not in that high injury network.

That's what that's what brought it to the top because I'm on the transportation and these streets are on this safe streets for all.

That concerns me because I live in that neighborhood.

I balk in I bike in that neighborhood, I walk in that same neighborhood, and to hear that it's unsafe for my neighbors concerns me.

So this is why I say I asked the question at what point do we say that we need to update our roads for safety reasons?

Because as we were talking about earlier, um there's a desire to do it, but we don't know when it can happen.

Midway on public in 2027, 28, possibly 29.

So I I just kind of we're we've been sitting here talking about dilapidated houses causing some unsafety issues, but now we have transportation and roadways causing unsafety issues, and there's no heightened awareness around how do we start saying, well, we maybe need to revisit these rules that if there's are some heightened safety issues that we make some changes to how we communicate that to our transportation department to move that up on the safer streets for all.

Certainly, I I I appreciate that feedback.

I think providing the accident data as I think it was Councilmember Stafford requested may help the council make their evaluation of their perception of safety.

I'm not saying residents are wrong and staff is right necessarily, uh, but it does fit into a network of street systems in our city where what is an unsafe situation is uh could mean there are frequent deaths and fatalities can mean something completely different in a different area, and those lead to different outcomes or prioritization of our our our transportation funds.

Okay.

Second one that I have is um this is in an area that we are creating food deserts, and we say we want it to be walkable, we want it to be bikeable, um, in alignment with our 2040, but we continue to push our development further away with undervelopment under development of commercial access to food and um very important issues that people need to access in order to live properly.

And so I I say that because I want to make a note that any time the census data does not say Fayetteville is an um rural area so urban is anything over one mile.

And I think the Walmart on Black Forest is 3.3 miles from this development.

So we continue to push our neighbors out with I'm gonna go back to less access to transportation.

Razorback transit does not go that far.

So we continue to move our neighbors forward for further and further away from access to food.

And number um Arkansas is number one in food insecurity.

Want to bring that up.

I appreciate you highlighting that.

I think that very much brings forward the con the concern with building at lower densities as we sprawl further and further away.

And the fact of the retail markets is it requires a certain number of households to support businesses such as grocery stores, and we build at low densities and spread further and further away.

We're gonna have fewer and fewer grocery stores dispersed at fewer and fewer intervals.

Right.

Similarly, it gets harder and harder for people to have access for access to transit where it has to be subsidized when we build at such a low level, such as four units per acre and cannot justify spending money on transit.

Thank you for saying that.

You just rolled right into my next issue is how planning when we know we're building further and further away.

Do we work with our transportation and our developers to say how do we um without saying asking for more funding towards transportation when we know we're developing further and further away?

Because what ends up happening is individuals further away from um larger retailer and grocery stores end up eating at a um uh just a regular convenience store at a local gas station because they can't get to the grocery store.

So I'm just at just a food for thought visionary.

How do we think about development and alignment with taxes towards transportation to make sure we extend that out into those areas?

Thank you for going there.

My next one is um I bought this up last meeting was canopy for tree preservation, and I bought this up because I said off of Ruppel and Mount Comfort, there was supposed to be a 20% tree preservation, and of course, they cleared that entire lot.

And I think one of the neighbors bought it up earlier.

Um, the tree canopy um percentage will go down.

Um, water has to go somewhere, um, and it cannot be bought out of a tree escrow account.

How much do we continue to allow to be put into a tree escrow account without securing canopy for these areas?

Is there a limit as a planner that we need to say in this area we've cleared every tree we can and we're not keeping any tree preservation?

Do we have limits around that?

There are there are aspirational goals.

We do have a tree preservation plan for the city or an urban forestry plan that has a 40%, roughly 40% citywide gold.

And we also have programmed in our zoning districts, the minimum canopy requirements.

And I think seeing that 40% as juxtaposed with the percentages associated with zoning districts, which is between 10 and 25%, does make that inconsistency more clear.

And I think that is where the opportunity fits in on a larger scale for tree plantings, whether it's in parks, acquiring land for conservation, uh things of that nature.

But uh you are right, it is it is a reality of development that developers or development is not always able to hit that tree preservation uh percentage, and it can be any number of factors, and it's on a property by property basis.

It can be the result of existing easements where uh our tree preservation, as I mentioned earlier in the meeting, our tree preservation requirements may not be able to be upheld because a franchise utility has a right to work in there.

Uh, it could be because the trees are invasive.

Um, I know it's a running joke that people come in and fail and develop, say my property is just honeysuckle and privet.

We know that's not the fact, but there is a not insignificant amount of honeysuckle and privet, uh, especially on these rural areas where that and Bradford Paris have spread where they've gone from being open fields to uh that kind of canopy.

So I don't have a simple answer to that one.

It is very much property by property, and our foresters have to evaluate those on a case-by-case basis.

But you said zoning districts.

Do you think um are you looking at zoning districts by ward?

I want to pause for just a second and feel and just make sure because I I did you are out of time, but I also want to be respectful and give you as much time as you need, but I want to make sure that we still are talking about this like if we need to have like maybe a separate meeting or something to get I want to make sure we're still in the street.

Like if we need to have like maybe a separate meeting or something to get I want to make sure we're still going to be able to do that.

No, I'm still talking about the same property.

I'm talking about all of this is zone 2.5 on our scale, and we are saying it meets our 2040 plan with all of these issues, and this has been addressed from this audience, and I just want to be clear from this side.

How do we start solving for it?

Yeah.

Talking about it and not solving for it is just putting us in the same situation.

I started on this council a year ago.

A year ago, my first question was how do we start developing streets before it gets so bad that it causes safety issues?

And here I am a year and a half later asking the same exact question.

My question is how do we start being a visionary to solve for these hard issues?

Yeah.

I'm talking about real issues.

That's why I wrote them down.

Transportation, food deserts, walkability, tree preservation.

What are our goals, true goals as a city?

And if we say they are, then why are we solving for it?

Why are we just doing an umbrella to say 2040 goals are being met?

This is not true.

If you just if you tell me that, then everything I talked about should not be even discussed tonight.

Mr.

Kurt, do you have anything that you want to add?

Okay.

Thank you.

Um so we will move on to D3, which is an ordinance to rezone the property described in 2026-16 for approximately 2.5 acres located at 1905 East Mission Boulevard and Ward 3 from C1 neighborhood commercial and RSF for residential single family four units per acre to CS Community Services.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

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

At the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas here by changes to zone classification of the property shown on the map, exhibit A, and the legal description exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from C1 neighborhood commercial and RSF four, residential single family four units per acre to CS community services.

Section two, that's a city council of the city of Favel, Arkansas here by amends the official zoning map of the City of Favoral to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Great.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to the other end of the city.

This is in East Fayetteville at the southeast corner of Mission Boulevard or Highway 45, if you prefer, and uh Greenview Drive.

Uh it is a two and a half acre piece of property developed with a commercial building that records indicate uh was built uh approximately in the 1960s.

Uh in considering the request, uh, which as uh Mr.

Williams and Mayor noted is to rezone the property from C1 to uh uh neighborhood commercial to CS community services.

Uh staff does find it to be compatible, and are we our recommending in favor today?

In our uh evaluation of the request, the CS zoning district with its allowance of both non-residential and residential uses and with the elimination of uh activities that could be inappropriate at this location, such as gas stations and drive-through restaurants, feel it is a much more appropriate fit with this area that uh includes a mix of uh uh CS, the community services zoning district immediately to the east, and a mix of single family densities to the south, west, and north of the site.

Uh similarly, uh we feel it complements the residential neighborhood zoning designation.

Uh, this is a corner lot that has again historically been used for uh 40 to 60 years as a commercial use, uh ranging from grocery stores to I believe it's an outpatient surgery facility today.

And we've sorry, let myself get distracted by the phone.

Um, and uh and we feel that it aligns with the city's goals of uh providing additional housing opportunities at an appropriate location and uh the potential for uh allowing services to continue being offered to this neighborhood.

Uh as far as some of the changes that would be associated with this, uh as the council may have noted, the property is split zoned today between C1 and RSF4, despite it being almost entirely developed with the commercial building and its associated parking lot.

Uh we feel going from C1 to CS uh is an appropriate change.

Again, it moves some of the uses that could be noxious to the neighborhood, such as gas stations to a conditional use while allowing more housing on the property.

Uh similarly, the RSF4 property is not uh buildable today in its uh in its remnant strip of land uh along the southern end of the site.

Uh and as far as other issues go, uh we'll change the split zoning tree preservation on the property to 20% under community services.

Uh and uh we feel that this will also provide some cleanup where the two split zone statuses on the property are uh uh creating uh zoning uh confusions or inconsistencies today.

Uh we are recommending approval of the request, and the planning commission forwarded it to city council unanimously.

And to date we've not seen or heard any public comment, but I'm happy to take questions and mayor uh believe Lawrence Finn is available online if the council has any questions.

Okay, great.

Do members of the council have any questions for Jonathan or for the applicant who's available online?

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, uh quick notes.

You mentioned that that the current um tree minimum on the commercial is 20%.

That's correct.

Same as CS.

And I remember this slide.

I mean, I've been going there since it was Dylan's back in the long, long ago.

Uh but I know that there's not a single tree on that and is that because it's kind of grandfathered in uh because it was always a grocery store and commercial space.

Is the there is some canopy on the property?

It's in the southeastern and eastern corner where it begins to slope uphill slightly.

Okay, I see.

But it doesn't look like 20 percent.

Is that just because it's a good idea?

I've not I've not seen a tree survey.

If they were to redevelop the piece of property, uh at that point they would be 70 but we did not have tree preservation requirements of the when this property originally.

That's what I figured.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, not seeing any more questions from council.

We're gonna open it up to public comment.

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

Keith, do we have anyone that is called in?

Uh, just Lawrence Finn.

Okay, but he then he's there to answer questions or or uh do you have a um comment, sir?

Are you just available for questions?

I think we're ready to bring it back to council.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um I'm um uh Lawrence Fenn, uh resident of Fairville.

Um I am um really just want to uh thank staff for their guidance and support through the uh uh rezoning application and really um here to answer any questions that might arise from council.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Members of the council, beginning with Mr.

Wheedaker.

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

Second, we have a motion.

The second clerk Paxon, can you please call the roll?

Minister Jones.

Yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones, yes, Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker, yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes, Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

In order to rezone the property described in a rezoning petition, RZN 2026-16 for approximately two and a half acres, located at 1905 East Mission Boulevard in Ward 3, from C1 neighborhood commercial and RSF four residential single family four units per acre to CS community services.

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

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

Item D4, an ordinance to rezone the property described in 2026-17 for approximately 3.53 acres located at 3105 North Old Wire Road in Ward 3 from RSF 4 to P1.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

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

That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, 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 RSF4 residential single family, four units per acre to P1 institutional.

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

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you.

This request is also in East Fayetteville, albeit moving somewhat to the northeast.

It is a three-frontage property that has uh street frontage uh on crossover road uh to the west and old wire road to both the south and east as it turns from an east-west road to a north-south road uh before entering into the county a little bit further to the east.

Uh the property is currently undeveloped, includes about 3.5 three acres.

And its most prominent natural feature is likely the portion of Flynn Creek that runs just outside its western property line, but which has some associated uh 500 year floodplain that bleeds over onto the property itself.

Uh a request on this property originally became came before staff in the planning commission earlier this year for the full 8.7 acres of land uh that includes the property the council is considering tonight in addition to land to the north to redevelop it for a child care facility.

Uh that request was ultimately turned down by the planning commission uh with a preference on their part to see it come through as a rezoning and perhaps uh rezoning and only for the portion of the property uh on which the applicant intends to build a child care facility.

Accordingly, uh the request uh to rezone the property from its current RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to P1 institutional uh came before staff in the planning commission uh with staff recommending in favor of it and the planning commission forwarding it to City Council uh by vote is seven to one at their June uh eighth meeting.

Uh when considering the request from a compatibility standpoint, we do find that the P1 zoning at this location uh is compatible with surrounding land uses.

Uh P1 allows a number of activities that can be complementary to residential uses, uh most prominently schools and educational facilities, like the applicant is intending.

Uh on a long range standpoint, uh this area is designated as a mix of residential neighborhood area and natural area.

Uh the natural area is an indicator of that portion of the Flint Creek floodplain that I mentioned at the top of the presentation.

Otherwise, uh you can see you may be able to see the yellow and black dotted line uh which represents the city's eastern boundary.

Uh and accordingly, it may not be surprising to see that there are uh fewer infill attributes here than you may see closer to the center of the city, uh, with the fire response, of course, being excellent given uh the fire station immediately caddy corner to the property to the southwest.

Um other items that the staff considered with this request, uh the tree preservation standard will remain the same.

Uh both RSF4 and P1 have the exact same standard for the property.

Um another item that came up at the planning commission that was uh a question was access to water and sewer.

Uh there are uh opportunities to connect this site with water and sewer both.

Um they are potentially complicated given where they interact with the property and where the uh the gravity sewer lines flow.

Uh but in looking at it there, our engineering group feels that it is viable for them to be able to use our existing system uh to connect to.

Uh there was a question uh I understand about topography when this item was uh described at the agenda session.

Uh so I was able to put together this exhibit here.

Uh the property is uh it's at its steepest is uh adjacent to Old Wire Road where it turns north-south, uh, where it ranges between about 12 to 13 percent in the northeast corner uh down to about a 7% slope as you move towards Old Wire's east-west orientation.

Uh if you take a overall grade of the site, it is closer to six to seven percent, however, if as it flattens out uh getting closer to crossover road in Flint Creek to the west.

Uh finally, we did receive some public comment on this request.

Uh the most prominent concerns uh and opposition about it were with regards to the interaction of Oldwire Road at this location and its intersection with 265 crossover.

Uh, there's uh particular concern about the amount of backup that can occur there and uh what is a uh uh not conventional intersection uh where it interacts with um I'm sorry, Skillern Road uh as it goes east from there.

Again, ultimately staff is recommending in favor of the request, and the planning commission forwarded it to City Council unanimously recommending in favor of it and uh can take any questions the council has, and mayor, I believe Ben Sherman is here as the applicant for the item.

Great.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Sherman, I'll call on you if we have questions, unless you have a presentation you'd like to make.

If so, you're welcome to come on up.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I have nothing.

Uh my name is Ben Sherman, and I have nothing further to add.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Do we have questions for Ben for Mr.

Sherman or for Mr.

Kurth?

Okay, I'm gonna oh yes, Mr.

Stafford.

No, it's okay.

Please go ahead.

Um Jonathan, uh so right now, three and a half acres, potentially 14 single-family homes.

Um with a P1 industrial, do you think that would be is it hard to say whether it'd be less intensive or more intensive than like a small neighborhood like that?

That that is difficult to say.

And depending what institutional use is proposed here, uh, residential and non-residential uses don't always have the same traffic impacts at the same times of day.

So sometimes having a non-residential use adjacent to residential uses can actually reduce some of those peaks in in traffic times.

Additionally, an element of staff's consideration is that this is a almost uniformly single-family residential area, and having an institutional use here, whether it's as the the child care facility that the applicant intends or otherwise can have the inherent benefit of reducing traffic issues by uh allowing people to use these facilities and not have to drive longer distances to other child care.

And and based on our our rules, like we well, it's hard to say which road is more highly traffic, but they would have to have their entrance off the lower traffic correct side of the street.

Correct.

This one is interesting in that old wire road, whether you're considering its east-west uh orientation along the south property line or it's north-south alignment along the eastern property line, it has the same classification street.

Okay.

And so in those instances, you're correct.

The lower the lower volume street is where the preferences to connect to that.

Um I don't have those numbers, but my suspicion is that uh old wire on the south side would have the higher traffic as SkillEarn feeds into it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Oh, Ms.

Turk.

Oh, Mr.

Burnout.

So quick question, Jonathan.

I think I know the answer to this, but um P1 versus the existing zoning district type right now.

It's gonna have the same criteria, the same set of rules over there to address the um on the western side, um, sort of the floodplain area that's it that's right there.

That's correct.

And then in your map earlier, the white area, that's right of way.

Is that correct?

I mean, there's a huge you know, ditch there.

And uh is it this map you're referencing, Councilmember?

Uh the the one with the yellow on it, uh the previous one with the zoning.

Yes, that one right there.

Yes, that white is public right-of-way.

Uh we do periodically see older property legal descriptions that extend to the middle of rights of way.

That is a very common way to survey properties at one point, so that there are many older properties in town where the right-of-way where the deed captures the right-of-way, but it's written in such a way that it it describes the property they own and then says less and accept right away and easements and things of that nature.

Um, it it does.

So I just wanted to make sure because I drove by there today and I saw those huge culverts and and ditches area there, and I wanted to make sure that this property did not include that that area.

So thank you for clarifying.

Mr.

Barna?

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, I understand that uh at this level we can't really talk about traffic, but at what point, because I drive by this road every day, uh, during school hours, uh school uh time, the traffic is backed up on Oire Road past the uh what is it, a Cadiana court, uh past the Cadiana and turned to the north on Owire.

So I don't necessarily, you know, disagree with the P1, but I'm I'm tremendously concerned about uh anything going in that area that's until that road is is improved because you've also added uh uh several houses in that subdivision that's directly across crossover on Owire.

Uh so there's added traffic on the west side of crossover uh on Owire.

Now we're gonna add uh additional traffic on the east side, and we've said with the new junior high that one of the uh that's going in there at Joyce that the back entrance is gonna funnel these people right to this spot.

So uh I have real concerns about what we're doing here for this for traffic.

Is that is it a question or is it a comment?

It is a question, but uh but at what point can we clarify that?

Uh because again, I don't know that I necessarily disagree with P1, but I I think I disagree with any development right there until we figure out what we're gonna do to that corner because it's a it's a mess.

Uh understood, I think uh yes, you can consider traffic as a part of a rezoning request.

I mean that is through the case law, Mr.

Williams can speak to this better than I can through the case law in the state of Arkansas, traffic safety is something that councils can consider as a part of rezoning request.

Uh if the council were to take action and rezone this property to P1, uh there are standards and our minimum street standard requirements that delineate when a traffic study can be required, and it's based on the anticipated number of trips.

Uh, but then I believe if Mr.

Bland is still here, I believe there's also a carve out where the city engineer understands that there's a traffic issue today that they can ask for it as well.

And I know that we've done that with some of our more high automotive intensity users like gas stations in particular, we have the ability to require that or request that.

And I think uh with some of the data we have that that may be an opportunity, but uh we at this point we don't know the scale of what's being proposed.

And again, if that would be to I can't I'm sorry, I can't remember which council member asked the question earlier how that would relate uh to the existing zoning entitlement and whether one would actually cause more impact than the other.

Does that answer a question?

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

Thank you, Mr.

Sherman.

If we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this item, please come up, state your name and address, and you will have three minutes.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Jordan Smith.

I reside at 3105 North Oldwire Road.

So I live, I live at the house that's on the property.

So this is an after-school program that is only going to be after school.

So from 3 to 6:30 in the evening.

All of the children are bust in.

So they're only going to service Happy Hollow, uh McNair or Vandergriff, route, and Butterfield.

So there's not going to be any more traffic or any less traffic.

And the school does not open during the summer until 10 a.m.

So essentially it will pass everybody all the traffic and everything.

So that's all I've got.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

That's helpful information.

Okay.

Do we have any other members of the public that would like to comment?

Okay, Keith, do we have anyone that called in?

We do not.

Okay.

I'll bring it back to the council.

Beginning with Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh that was a very helpful comment, by the way.

Um, and with that, I'd like to uh a motion that we suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones.

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedeker?

Yes.

Mr.

Barna?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

No.

Uh Mayor, we have five votes for and two votes against.

Do you care to vote?

And can you just explain for clarification while five votes for would require this is to suspend the rules, and so it requires six votes to pass that motion.

So simply to suspend the rules, but not to the um I mean you got I mean, I I think we should move this on.

I think it's very clear.

I think we should get this done tonight.

But you guys, I don't like I don't like doing this when it's a matter of simply people wanting to hold it for more information.

Is that what I mean it it's one thing to vote against it?

I understand, but are we holding it because there's information we feel like we don't have?

I guess that's the question I would ask the council members.

Is there information you feel like hasn't been provided that keeps you or are you just against the issue?

I would I would like more information.

We had somebody from the audience provide some information, but it would be helpful to have even more guidance on that.

Okay.

Um we can we can I mean I I don't know.

This seems pretty straightforward.

I've got a staff recommendation telling me they want to Mr.

Sherman, we'll call you up if we need you at the end.

Wait, can I ask the applicant a question about the may we open about okay?

Not no, not now.

I have to either um vote or not vote.

Yes, I'm going to I am I would like to have it move forward to the um to suspend the rules to have it to move forward to the third and final reading.

It can still be left at that point, doesn't have to be voted on tonight, but we could at least get the rule suspension and get it on the third.

Mr.

Sherman, if you'll sit down and they'll call you back up if if we have a question.

Um mayor, does that mean you're voting yes?

Correct.

Okay, well, the motion passes, and I'll read the ordinance title.

And it's rezone the property described and rezoning petition RCN 2026-17 for approximately 3.53 acres located at 3105 North Oldwire Road in Ward 3 from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to P1 institutional.

Okay.

Sounds like we have some further questions.

Um Ms.

Moore, you have a question for uh Mr.

Sherman for the applicant.

Just um if if there was more information wanted and potentially holding this, but wanted to understand how it impacts the timeline for this facility.

I mean, I'm definitely a huge proponent of additional after school.

I know how direly it's needed in our community.

So just want to understand if we're delayed by a couple of weeks to get it get some more information.

Does that um cause any issues with the project that you're having?

Is I don't think it would cause any issues.

Okay.