Okay, good evening, everyone, and I would like to call the Tuesday, July 21st meeting of the Fayetteville, Arkansas City Council to order.

Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Here.

Dr.

Jones?

Here.

Miss Moore?

Here.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Here.

Mr.

Berna?

Here.

Miss Bunch.

Ms.

Turk?

Here.

Minister Jones?

President.

Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay.

Ms.

Mayor Holland.

Thank you very much, Mayor.

My apologies for this late request.

We're actually kind of under a time constraint.

It was an administrative decision.

And there are several residents that would like to appeal this.

And during the appeal process, we figured out that they were going to be charged with our new appeal fees.

They were going to be charged $667.

And that seemed a little excessive.

And so before you is a uh resolution to waive those fees and allow Ms.

Hollander to uh go forward in asking for a um a public meeting and review by the planning commission.

And that is for the proposed McDonald's.

It's over there on on Mount Comfort.

So I'm happy to take any any questions.

Okay.

Um or Jonathan, can you also provide a little bit of staff insight into the process and what happened and where we are now before we and then we'll take questions from the count council?

Certainly.

Uh well, I don't have the dates immediately in front of me.

Over the course of the last year, a McDonald's was proposed on Mount Comfort Road.

It's in a zoning district that requires a conditional use permit.

So the item did go before the planning commission for conditional use consideration where it was approved.

So that was the first public hearing that the item had.

Uh it subsequently went to the planning commission for consideration of some development variances uh where uh those were also heard as a second public hearing, and then subsequently uh the project was eligible for administrative approval, which uh staff completed and put on the planning commission's agenda for this last Monday, uh which represents the starting point where a resident can file an appeal uh if they have concerns or feel it meets one of our six standards for denial.

Uh we do have an adopted appeals fee.

Uh if the council were a call, we excuse me, have uh in the last few years we went through a fee study uh in an effort to evaluate what the costs are that are associated with various requests of city staff.

Uh the appeals fee amount was set accordingly uh based on how much it costs staff to process those requests, how much it uh requires to to create public notification signs, process those, uh file the staff reports to the appropriate body, uh and that I think brings us up to date on this particular item.

I can answer any project specific or uh fee-specific questions if the council has them.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Stafford, then Dr.

Jones.

Um two questions.

Uh, I think the first maybe is for Kit.

Kit uh if we waive this fee for this applicant for this appeal applicant, does that set a precedent where you know everybody uh is gonna come to us and say you know, why do I have to pay for it?

They didn't.

Well, it only sets a president if you think it is a president.

Uh you know, we haven't uh had that before, but before we get into much discussion of the actual resolution, in order to walk a resolution or an ordinance on to the city council, it requires suspension of the rules.

So the first motion should be to suspend the rules so that you can even talk about it.

That that was on me.

I've we've had walk ons at agenda, but rarely at council before.

That was my miss.

So I will open it up for um motions to add it to the agenda.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to add the item to the agenda.

Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

No.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Okay, that did pass.

Okay.

So now that it is on the agenda, I can't.

I can't remember if it was Dr.

Jones or Mr.

Stafford that was in the middle of their question.

Go ahead, Mr.

Stafford.

So Kit uh again to my first question, then I have a second question, I think, for Jonathan.

Um will the set a a you know, if we're not going to charge these folks, does everybody from now on get to come and say, hey, those you waive the this charge uh for this group, why not us?

Well, it is a precedent if you think it is, because you are the decision makers.

And so you can either decide this is a one-off, but the next time it's asked for, you won't give it, but that doesn't mean that you won't.

So it's really how you view it yourself.

Okay.

And then uh a second question, then I have a question from Ms.

Turk also when she gets back.

But Jonathan, I think the sw second question is for you.

Um this is a CUP that they're applying for.

It will need to come before the council, won't it?

Or is this an administrative CUP?

I've never heard it.

I'm not familiar with that.

There are two answers I need to offer to that.

The conditional use permit was heard some time ago by the planning commission.

It was approved, it is not up for appeal.

It went beyond its 10-day period in which this conditional use permit can appeal.

What is it on consideration or what's being considered with this appeal is the project's approval?

So the the equivalent of a large scale development for the McDonald's.

Does that answer?

Um and sorry, the second part of your question is would it go to council?

Conditional use permits do not go to council unless they're appealed to council.

Okay.

This is not a conditional use permit.

This is for the development that the detailed site plan and and building design.

Okay, so the CUP had already been issued and correct.

Okay, heard by the planning commission approved.

And then my last question is for Ms.

Turk.

Uh is there a hardship that could be defined uh for this particular applicant?

Um, I think you know, six hundred dollars, six hundred and sixty-seven dollars is a pretty steep uh fee that I guess when I voted to uh adopt the um additional uh appeal fees, I I did not realize it was that high.

Um so I think it you know, for our citizens, that's a real tall barrier for most people.

Okay, thank you.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes, I have a quick question.

Uh I was reading, I think in the favor of flyer about a McDonald's coming to Weddington.

Is that the one?

Um yes, and I believe and and I think what happened here, um, I guess I was not aware that the CUP had been approved beforehand.

Um so I think that um when that um when that article came out that raised the awareness.

People suddenly said, oh my gosh, there's a McDonald's coming.

And uh, and even though the process had gone a little bit further downstream than I even I knew, um, that was when the uh concern arised.

And it was by several people, not just one person.

Thank you.

Ms.

Moore.

Um can you help to educate me?

Um, I don't know, this is probably Jonathan or someone on staff about are we tiered on these fees for appeal depending on what the entity is?

So, like if it was like a developer team, that potentially was more resourced versus just an everyday taxpaying resident.

Is our um fee structure tiered in any way or is it just one set fee?

It is one set fee based on the amount of staff time and and public resources that go into staff's time uh with it.

Okay, all right.

Thank you, Jonathan.

And can you remind me too what what what the fee was before we had the changes?

Do you recall what the amount was previously?

I don't remember it off the top of my head.

If you give me time, I can try to find that though.

Okay.

It was $333 before you changed it.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Minister Jones.

I I think that answered my question because it referenced that the administrative decision was recently more than doubled to 667.

So that answered my question that the regional free fee was $333.

That was my question.

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to oh, I'm sorry, Mr.

Berna.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan, this fee was remind us a little bit about uh even though it doubled.

It was raised because we identified staff time.

Tell us again what all is involved in how you came to this fee and why it doubled.

Certainly.

Going into a little bit more detail into the fee study itself.

Uh the first step of that study was to identify all the processes and services that the city officer offers.

From there, it was necessary to identify all the staff, all the time involved by those staff to offer those services to residents.

And ultimately what was brought forward was a proposal for a set of fees that reflected those costs, so that we were no longer subsidizing uh those applications and those fees necessarily so that people who were making requests of the city who were submitting applications uh were absorbing that cost, and then it was not being uh placed on the the that wasn't being subsidized by the general taxpayer.

And this wasn't the only fee that increased.

That's correct.

It increased basically all the city fees.

Correct.

It was those are related to uh development applications, so uh the things you see that go before the planning commission, uh connections to to water and sewer lines, uh fire marshal uh building and uh sprinkler systems, uh business licenses, uh some fees went down, the majority did go up, uh, but it did cover a wide swath of fees and services that the city offers.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Bunch.

Thank you.

Uh Jonathan, when we when we adjust our fees, how do you know how long it had been since we had adjusted our fee on this?

Did you did you answer that?

And I missed it maybe.

Uh peals, there was not a fee previously at all.

And so that was something that was fully subsidized by the general taxpayer.

Um there many of the fees had not been touched since I believe it was 2008.

Some had been uh addressed on a case-by-case basis, but the vast majority it had been 20 years or more approximately since they had been adjusted.

That's a generally to all the fees I was describing to Councilmember Berna.

Okay.

And and so when we when we do look at adjusting fees, is it fair to say that we try to be um pretty equitable in our and and and tempered in our judgment and what we charge?

Or I mean, because if we hadn't had a fee or the fee hadn't been changed in 20 years, it seems like we would be due for a change.

I know my my bills don't stay the same for 20 years, usually.

Certainly, it was it was very much at front of staff's mind when we brought forward the proposal to change the fees.

Uh if if the council were a call, that was the main reason it was being done in three different phases.

We were acknowledged that it had not been done in many, many, many years, and it would be a shock to many of our applicants to go from where we were approximately 20 years ago to where we are today.

And so the first phase of that uh fee study was implemented last year, the second phase uh was implemented about a month or two ago, and then the third phase of that is uh will be implemented uh next year.

That was adopted in the ordinance that council considered a few months ago.

Did that answer your full question or did I miss a part?

Okay.

Okay.

I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

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

I would like to see the yes, please come on up to the microphone and you'll have three minutes, and if you would state your name and address, please.

And thank you all so much.

We appreciate all of you everything you're doing.

My name is Sean Hollander.

I'm actually Blair's husband.

She's in the audience.

Um, want to thank you, uh, Councilmember Turk for uh hearing this.

Um certainly we were not aware anyone in our neighborhood um about the McDonald's company until we read about it in the Fayetteville flyer.

Um I know that it was based on administration administrative decision.

Um as a citizen of this city of Fayetteville, we just asked that we, you know, we would like to have a feasibility study done based on the traffic that is going on in that area.

They've already put in two very large multifamily complexes on the Mount Comfort and RuPaul area.

Both the uh the uh it's like a farmer's market kind of development as well as another apartment complex in their building.

And we just don't know what the impact is for those of us who commute to Bentonville trying to get to the interstate.

We don't know what that impact is.

And uh we just asked that it'd be appealed, and we when we reached out to the to the uh planning commission, they promptly just sent us a bill for 670, 660 667 to possibly hear that you know what you know what could be done about it.

Uh I think that this is a great imposition upon a regular citizen to shell out six hundred and sixty-seven dollars.

I'm not a developer.

I am just a private citizen concerned about traffic and the community that we live in.

And so that's the uh reason that I bring into question this fee and not having any input on how I live in the city of Fayetteville.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

And I'm not seeing any more public comment.

So I will turn it back over to the council and remind you that it is a resolution.

So to move forward, we have to have a motion one way or another.

Miss uh Mr.

Wiedaker and then Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

I think um part of why we adopt fees for this kind of thing is because we're representing 107,000 people.

And if just one person wants to appeal, they really should bear that burden.

If they have six neighbors that join with them, they need to get out their checkbooks and support the individual that wants to appeal.

Otherwise, you're left with the rest of the community that may not have a dog in that fight being asked to subsidize that.

You don't just have the cost of a public hearing, but you have the cost of minutes being taken.

You have to keep those records in perpetuity, you've got to broadcast that.

So there are costs that are incurred, and it doesn't seem fair for someone to not have to have uh a financial dog in the fight when they wish to appeal.

So my recommendation to people is to find those neighbors that agree with you and join and band together, because that literally is part of the purpose of fees is to keep the other residents whole.

Um and it incentivizes people to say, well, you know what, it doesn't cost me anything, you know, let me go ahead and appeal.

So I have concerns about that.

It doesn't mean the people aren't nice.

It doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an appeal.

It just means that the rest of the taxpayers should not pay for that appeal.

Thank you.

Okay, Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

I understand the points made by council member Whitaker, but then you know, also I think you know, the flip side of that too is that um a person making a hundred thousand dollars a year versus a person making you know ten thousand or twenty thousand a year, it's a disproportionate burden on them.

And I hear about banding together with households.

Um, but we know there's a large part of our population that is struggling to make ends meet, that's very time-stared and doesn't actually get to be in community quite often, barely seeing their children, et cetera.

And so um I when I um did an appeal for a resident, I will say I was very surprised and have tried to really I've been stewing on and was surprised that I bore the cost before we even doubled it of over $300 that came out of my pocket um to go and represent a Ward II constituent who had an appeal.

Um and I was very surprised by it as a council person.

Um and so that was burdensome for my family.

Um, but I also wanted to be helpful, and there was a time constraint whenever the resident had brought it forward with me.

Um and so I think our rules are the way they are today, and we have to decide whether or not this is an exception, but I also think that we do need to think about considerations about um there is an all-in cost, but whether or not we need to revisit and think through if there needs to be a tier or does there need to be a certain burden on the appeal um if we are wanting to try to look at the waiver, um, much to what council member Whitaker was talking about about maybe it's a mul multiple set um of citizens coming forward and and maybe we have some waiver, but um I I think that we have to cover costs in the city, and so I feel like I'm I'm you know uh struggling on this, right?

That um I don't want to create the barrier that just uh you know regular citizen that you know flags something and wants to move forward and it's very time sensitive, has that ability, and so many folks don't have that ability to pull that out of their pocketbook.

So um I'm that's where I'm at, and I'm I'm I'm open to to hearing what others' feedback is.

Dr.

Jones.

Uh yes, thank you, Mayor.

Uh to council member Tark, I really appreciate you bringing this forward because when I see the words alleviate an unfair burden, I would have probably done the same thing.

And times are hard, and I do believe that this is worthy of an exception.

And when we have these uh opportunities in front of us, I like to look if at the opportunity that's in front of us and not necessarily think about what if in the future.

I think that we have a right now.

Um I don't see that there's going to be any harm in supporting this, and I really appreciate you uh advocating for them because as a council member I always say, you know, what of my job is of course is to do what I can to alleviate any burdens.

So I will be supporting this.

Mr.

Berna, and then and then Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I think uh Jonathan, what was it?

Uh how long ago did we pass these?

Uh uh yeah, not very long ago that we passed this change.

And now all of a sudden uh now we're going to um you know vote whether we're going to waive the fee.

If we're gonna waive the fee, why did we start why did we change the rule in the first place?

Um I I think we at that time we voted overwhelmingly to pass the rule change to uh not have the city as a whole subsidized for an individual.

Um and so here we are being asked to do that.

Um I don't relish voting no on this, but I think it is the right thing to do because I do think we are in what we're if we do this tonight, we are setting a precedence uh that every resident that wants to appeal something is gonna come to us and expect us to do exactly what we're doing tonight, and they should be justified in doing that.

And um so are we if a developer comes and and request for the an appeal fee to be denied, are we gonna are we gonna do that?

Uh because that potentially could happen.

So I I think we have to look uh again, I don't relish voting no, but I think we have to look as a city as a whole.

And um I I'm not gonna be able to support this tonight.

Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan.

I just have two questions.

Um what timeline are they restricted to to filing this appeal?

Mr.

Williams is the official interpreter of our appeals chapter, but generally it's 10 calendar days from any final decision, whether it's the planning commission decision, a city or a uh staff approval or otherwise.

So they have 10 calendar days to file the appeal, and do they have that same amount of time to pay that administrative fee?

You say I'm sorry, it's the question whether they have 10 days to pay the fee.

We have not applied it in that way historically.

We when we receive appeal requests, the the main items to consider are does it meet the time, the form, and the place, time being that 10-day period, does the appeal actually state clearly what the appeal is or why?

And did they file it with the correct person within the city?

Sometimes it's the city clerk's office, sometimes uh in this case it was our planning director.

Umce those are made, those uh those are determined, we we work with the applicants to get uh any fees or submittal documents so that we can get it on the next agenda.

I don't know that we've been in a situation where we have to contemplate uh where we've not required them to pay with it in those 10 days.

We start working towards getting on an agenda after that time form place standard is met.

I'm sorry, it's kind of all over the place in that answer.

The short answer is no.

We've not required people to pay it within those 10 days.

The appeal has to be submitted and meet those standards within those 10 days, and then we work with uh the applicant, whether it's a developer or a resident or a council member on behalf of a resident to submit the necessary information or fee.

And I go back to ask that question only because if we're recommending that the applicant um tried to share information with community members that want to contribute to the fee.

I just wanted to know if there was a time frame that if they wanted time to raise that money to still pay the fee, long as they find it on time, they filed it with the correct person, and they followed all of those rules.

We don't have anything written to say I need two more days to raise the $600 between me and other applicants that are not in agreement with this to help pay that appeal fee.

There is not anything codified that I'm aware of.

At that point, it becomes a concern of reasonableness.

Uh in the instance of a resident appeal of a development project, uh, once the appeal meets is determined to meet the proper time form in place, it in many instances effectively places a stay on that project advancing.

And so there's immediately a concern whether we are inadvertently delaying a project without having a rationale for it.

And basically, so you but then again I'd have to refer to Mr.

Williams if you have more to add to that or not.

If there's a concern about uh ensuring the fee is paid within a certain time after the time form in place of the appeal being filed or not.

Well, I think as as you know, I've never been in favor of charging for appeals.

My position has been that uh we should collect enough from the developer and their original development fee for them to apply for something, and then all the appeals should not be charged to them or anybody else.

They should just be appeals to consider whether or not the right decision was made.

And I just did not want to see an additional fee, but but an additional fee was passed by the council.

And so that's where we're looking at right now.

Now I've normally when you uh file an appeal or would do whatever uh try to get an application for development.

Uh my understanding was it wasn't a very uh effective appeal or or application unless you paid for it.

I didn't realize that um you could pay later.

I'm not sure, you know, I've not seen that before.

Um I've not handled any of that payment stuff, so I'm just not sure how that works.

I was surprised to hear that maybe you don't have to pay the fee.

So uh that's just news to me.

Um okay, Miss Turk, and then Miss Moore.

I thank you, Mayor.

I thought I thought um Councilmember Stafford was ahead of me.

I mean, it so part of the mayor's job is to look for the lights and call on people.

If you would like to be vice mayor, you can arm wrestle and Ms.

Bunch for it.

I wouldn't I get yeah, apologize, Mayor.

It's okay.

I do my very best.

Bob, I'm sorry if I offended you or skipping.

Okay, yes.

Please go ahead, Ms.

Turk.

Okay, thank you, Mayor.

Um, so when we passed the um the fee adjustment, there were a lot of fees in there.

A whole lot of different fees.

I did not realize that we were going from zero um expenditures, zero cost to six hundred and sixty-seven dollars.

I had no idea.

And Jonathan, you may have mentioned that and brought that up, and it just went right over my head.

So um in this, so I was kind of shocked when I when I saw this.

I thought there was some legitimacy to it.

And um, you know, and and because we're on this timeline of 10 days, that's why it's a walk-on.

I wish we had more time to sit down and maybe approach this in a different way if council were supportive to think about some kind of tiered system because going from zero to six hundred and sixty-seven, I mean, that is a really steep climb.

And that seems to me, again, I voted to support the fee adjustment, but I didn't quite realize that um that's how much would be charged.

So uh that is on me for not um researching that, but we had a tremendous number of fee adjustments.

It wasn't just appeal fees.

So I if there was if there was a way to delay this or to come back for some kind of um reevaluation and consideration uh to make this, in my opinion, a little more reasonable.

I certainly would uh would like to do that.

Okay.

All right.

Um Mr.

Stafford and then Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so, you know, uh whether the council wants to revisit this and and possibly overturn it, uh I think that I mean that's gonna have to be for future discussion, but the fees are in place right now, and I believe you know what the fees are doing is is recouping actual physical cost.

It's not turning uh a profit or anything, it's actually uh covering the cost of of what this costs our taxpayers in the city.

Uh I tend to agree with uh Mr.

Wiedaker's words, and I do think that if there's an appeal, I would hope that there's enough support for that appeal that it's not just one person or or one family, that there is a group, a neighborhood group or something that can split that cost.

I I I imagine if there's more people that support this appeal, it wouldn't be too hard to say, can you pony up $50 or $20 um to help reduce that burden?

And that would show support of the of the actual appeal.

Um so you know, as far as Ms.

Moore's point to some sort of uh uh system where I I think it's a slippery slope when you start looking at like well, you have to submit your tax returns to get a different rate than the other person that we're gonna treat people that make different amounts like that's just a really hard hill to climb.

Um so uh unfortunately uh you know I share uh council member burner's uh commiseration that that you know unfortunately I just can't uh support that this this evening.

Okay, thank you, Bob.

Um Ms.

Moore.

Um and then I'll take a motion one way or another.

I I just wanted to get clarification.

I thought that my direction when I filed for a resident for the appeal, it was like 330 something dollars, and that was in recent months before the increase.

And I thought I was communicated and told that it had to be paid within that appeal time period to move forward.

And so I just want to get clarification because oftentimes residents only catch wind of something.

They're busy in their lives and they barely catch the window of appeal.

And so I do think potentially that the direction being given by who's administering the fee schedule and doing the process is directing that the payment has to be made for full completion.

And so I just want to get some clarity around that because I appreciate that we're talking about trying to get a collectiveness in the appeals.

Um I'm concerned potentially that we're not necessarily recognizing the tremendous struggle amongst our community where I know many people who don't have 10 or 20 dollars to pay for gas money to get to work or groceries.

And so if that's a community of 10 or 20 or 30 households together who don't have any extra money, I don't know how they come up with over $600.

And I feel like our city still thinks equity is important, even though it's been dismantled across our state.

Um, and so I recognize there has to be a legal method to go forward, but I think we also do have to recognize that we've potentially created a bigger barrier or hurdle to parts of our population.

And so I just hope I can get greater clarification around that because I feel like that was the direction I was told, and that that was why I didn't want to burden a fateable public school teacher um with having to pay that out of pocket and went forward and did it myself instead.

Okay, we will get and um Jonathan, you and I can talk tomorrow and we'll work to get clarification on how that billing communication is handled.

Thank you.

Because my understanding was the same as Mr.

Kurth.

So we'll look into how that is done.

And maybe I misunderstood too.

Well we'll either way, I think we can probably proceed with some more clarity on that in the future.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we have a motion?

Go ahead.

Can I finish finish just with my time though?

Is that okay?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Um I think so for these purposes.

I think that the residents are here and have stated that this is burdensome to them.

And you know, I understand that sometimes we think you know, one instance of something, you know, creates precedent, but I think the reason that we said as a city council body is that we are supposed to make those considerations for the exceptions.

That's why we sit on this horseshoe.

Um, and so for those reasons, I feel like you know they're shaking their head that it looks like it would be burdensome, and so I'd like to be supportive of moving forward and and uh so I will make a motion then uh to approve the resolution.

Second.

Okay, we have a we have a motion and a second for Ms.

Turk's um uh resolution to waive the appeal fee.

Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

No.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes, Ms.

Moore?

Yes, Mr.

Weedaker?

No, Mr.

Berna?

No.

Ms.

Bunch?

No.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mayor, we have four votes on each side.

Do you care to vote?

I do not care to vote.

Okay, so the resolution fails.

Okay.

Thank you all very much.

And we will now move on to the consent agenda.

Um item eight, unless somebody has a motion to suspend and approve as presented, we will move forward to the consent.

Mr.

Burner.

Oh, I'm sorry, Ms.

I will for once be Mr.

Burna and move that we suspend with reading each of the second items.

Great.

Okay, Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Okay.

And then now vote to approve the consent agenda.

Hopefully, for the last time we're bringing forward a thing to change that rule.

Courtney, if you'll please call the roll.

I have a question, Mayor, before you move forward.

Oh, sure.

Because I know we're moving forward on some things that's coming.

Um, I have a problem with lack of transparency that if we're gonna move forward and we're never gonna read the consent agenda, that we need to make the the community aware that they need to then start attending our agenda meetings because they won't be read at our city council meetings.

I just want to be very clear that there's been some comments from our community that there's a lack of transparency, and if we do this, we're moving towards a lack of transparency.

So I did not would you like to change your vote to I mean you voted yes to suspend the rules, but it's up to you all how you want to handle that.

I just wanted to make that statement so they can understand what was going on publicly.

Okay, understood.

So um Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

And to Minister Jones' point, the consent agenda historically, um, like a lot of um governing bodies and a lot of um legislative arms throughout the state and other city councils, the consent agenda are items that we agree or that the council rather agrees to be placed on the agenda to proceed forward without discussion.

Um ordinances by law are not allowed to be on the consent agenda, so any ordinance is always going to be heard and always gonna be read.

Consent agenda items are resolutions only.

They're typically about um spending.

There's a lot of fleet purchases.

Um each and every council member has the ability at any time to pull an item off of consent so that it may be may be heard if they want to have a deeper discussion about it, or if they've been contacted by a constituent who would like to have a discussion.

So that's a good reminder to share some of that.

We now are on to unfinished business.

Item B1, RZN 2026-15, northwest of North Dean Solomon Road and West Van Eyck Drive.

An ordinance to rezone the property in 2026-15 for approximately 36.2 acres northwest of Dean Solomon Road and West Van Act Drive and Ward 4 from RSF 4, residential single family and CPZD, commercial planned zoning district, to RMF 12 residential multifamily and RSF-8, residential single family.

Mr.

Williams, Kit.

Uh be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas, Section 1, that the City Council, the City of Fayeville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classifications property shown on the map exhibit A and a legal description, exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre and CPZD, commercial plan zoning district, to RMF twelve residential multifamily 12 units per acre and RSF-8 residential single family eight units per acre.

Section two that the city council, city of Favel, Arkansas here by men's official zoning map of the city of Faville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

I don't have a full presentation uh for tonight, but I do have a summary of what was considered last time, as well as uh I'm gonna touch on two pieces of supplemental information that the council uh requested in the event that you did not have the opportunity to consider that, uh, and then include a reminder of uh uh staff and planning commission's recommendation on this.

Uh this property is in northwest Fayetteville, a little ways north of Underwood Park on the west side of Dean Solomon Road.

Uh the most prominent uh element of it is that it is a two-part request.

Uh the first is a uh larger area totaling about 26 and a half acres being proposed to be rezoned from RSF4 to RSF eight.

That's what you see in the blue hatch towards the left-hand side of this exhibit.

And the remainder of the property, which is uh about 10 acres of land along Dean Solomon itself being proposed uh to rezone from a planned zoning district that is limited to uh multifamily at four units per acre to the residential multifamily zoning district uh uh 12 units per acre designation.

Uh the two items that staff uh the the planning excuse me that the city council requested at the last meeting uh included accident data uh and for those purposes uh we requested the information from our police department that encompassed the full extent of Dean Solomon Road from uh highway 112 to the north to Charlotte to the south and requested that go back for five years.

Uh over the course of that time, uh 18 accidents were identified uh over that period, uh, with the most being approximately seven or seven in 2023, of which two were injury accidents and uh the low years being uh this year, which is obviously not a full year yet in 2022, which had one accident uh so far with uh no injuries associated with them.

Uh the second piece of information that was requested at the last council meeting was uh topography.

Uh if the the council had the opportunity to go on the tour, or even if you didn't have the opportunity to visit the tour, you know that this is a very uh level site.

Uh no part of it that we could identify exceeds uh one more than a one percent slope, and generally that does go southward uh towards uh Cliber Creek and the Underwood Park area.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of this request.

We find that the uh proposal to go from RSF four to RSF eight is fully compatible.

Uh there are both RSF4 and RSF eight zoning districts in the area.

There are also zoning districts that allow uh diversity of different housing types, and we feel like that small increment of change is appropriate.

Additionally, there are multiple properties along Dean Solomon Road that are already developed with attached to residential or are entitled to develop uh to be attacked developed with attached residential.

And we feel this is appropriate.

Uh when the planning commission considered this, uh they supported it as well, forwarding it to city council unanimously seven to zero.

And as far as what the applicant may touch on tonight, when the council last saw this, there was a bill of assurance offered to prohibit the development of uh multifamily, which in Favel means five units or more attached to prohibit multifamily on the portion zoned RMF 12.

That would effectively mean it could be developed with single, two, three, and four family structures.

Uh and they also uh have two additions to that that they have proposed that they sent uh by email to the council separately, and that is to increase the tree preservation requirement on that portion from 20% to 25 and the cap the density at eight as opposed to the 12 that RMF 12 typically allows.

Uh with that, I'm happy to take any questions that the council has, and Mayor Will Kelstrom is here as the applicant, and I believe he would like to speak.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Kalstrom.

Good evening, Will Kelstrom here on behalf of the applicant for this proposal.

So, as Jonathan just said, we are again looking at two different zoning classifications here.

One is RSF 8 on the parcel to the west, and one is RMF 12 on the parcel to the east, which is the longer skinny parcel.

Um it that parcel is currently zoned CPZD and already allows for multifamily at a density of four units an acre.

So since the last time we were here a couple weeks ago, we have had a meeting with the neighbors.

Um we worked to schedule that meeting with them beginning after that last meeting ended and ended up meeting with them last Monday.

Um at that meeting, we discussed a variety of topics, um, and then ultimately Tuesday we we came back and presented some things we were willing to offer to them in a bill of assurance.

So at that meeting, there were a bunch of topics that we went over.

That the neighborhood presented us with, I believe it was around 13 different requests or ideas for what we might do to improve this project.

Some of those they ranged from topics um relating to road design, off-site improvements, tree preservation, um, buffering, um limiting the the story cap of the development.

And ultimately, a lot of these things were things that we either had no control of or didn't have a clear benefit that I that I could tell.

Um, for example, one of the requests was for road design to to um discourage speeding on the road.

Um, we have to design the roads according to the way City of Fables code says they have to be designed.

Another one was for off-site improvements.

If we come and present off-site improvements to you all now at the rezoning stage, we rob the city of their ability to assess those and decide what's best later on.

Um preserving trees that are located within right-of-way.

Again, this is something that we don't have control over.

Um, specifically the development to the west and our development.

Our RMF-12 portion is the only portion that doesn't allow or that allows for more than single family, and that only touches one lot in the adjacent subdivision.

It's it's hard for me to understand the benefit of buffering single family from single family.

Another one was limiting our development to one to two stories.

All of the zones around us already allow for three stories.

So it's it's it's difficult for us to limit us in that way that the surrounding neighbors are not limited.

So when you pick through those 12 or 13 requests and you look at the ones that that actually provide a benefit that we have control over that are that are prudent to actually offer, we came up with two of them that were directly requested.

One of those is increasing the tree preservation on the RMF 12 portion to 25% instead of 20, and making a density cap of eight units per acre on that same portion.

Those are the two that you see added in the bill of assurance today.

So as Jonathan just discussed, we have three restrictions in there.

One of them you have seen before, which is a prohibition on multifamily, but still allowing for the construction of up to quadplexes.

Um of the new ones is limiting it to eight units an acre.

I think eight units an acre is a logical cap on the density.

That's what we're asking for on the single family site.

So when you limit the whole thing to eight units an acre, practically, what that means is that we have two different properties for two different types of housing is allowed, all at the same density.

And the other one is tree preservation.

Um, and we've offered that tree preservation increase on the part where it matters the most where the most trees are.

I think that this does a good job of covering a lot of the concerns that have been voiced to us.

Um, of course, it doesn't offer all of it, it doesn't cover all of them, and I do want to discuss some of the other issues that have been brought up.

Um the issues that we keep hearing about a lot are traffic issues and environmental issues.

Um this stretch of road Dean Solomon.

Dean Solomon is a fully paved and striped two-lane road with sidewalks in many areas.

This is not a single-lane dirt road like we have seen before.

I don't want to bring up bad memories with Dot Tipton, but this is not dot Tipton that we're dealing with here.

This is a real fully built-out road.

Um as for the environmental issues, there are a lot of trees on this 9.6 acre parcel.

I I can acknowledge that.

However, if you go look back at the aerial maps, you'll see that around 2006, that was basically a clear-cut field.

So that is not to say that those trees aren't worth preserving, but I do want to point out that most or all of them are around 20 to 25 years old.

This is not a situation where we have an untouched forest full of hundred-year-old trees.

Um the low-lying areas on this property.

Um, I think a lot of us saw those when we went out on a tour.

Neither we nor staff nor anyone else knows exactly what those are besides low-lying wet areas.

We are going to be required by law to go get a study done and make sure or make sure determine whether those are jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional wetlands.

If we find out that they are wetlands, it does not make the property undevelopable.

Um developers work around wetlands all the time.

At the end of the day, we are going to have to figure out whether they're there, and if they are there, we have to obey some higher, more stringent standards, um, or just not touch them.

But we have to figure out where they are first.

When I submit a rezoning proposal, and there is an established stream or a creek or documented or a hill or a cliffside that makes it really easy for us as the developer to pick out that section and say, you know what, this is the bad section.

We don't want to deal with this anyways, and we zone at RA or CCR.

Um, when that is an option, I think you guys have seen enough proposals from from me and my clients that when we have that option, we like to take it.

I think because I think everyone likes it.

We don't have that option here, unfortunately.

This is not in a floodplain according to the city's GIS maps.

It is does not have documented wetlands from any publicly available resource that we can see.

Um, and the grade is less than one percent.

So is there work to be done before a grading permit can be issued?

Certainly, but there is on every site.

Is there evidence that the whole thing should be cardoned off and not touched for eternity?

I can't see it.

Last point I want to make is that the current zoning on the 9.6 acre property allows for apartments as is.

It's currently zoned multifamily or currently zoned for apartments that to allow apartments to be built on it.

We don't want to build apartments.

I think we've we've said a lot of times we want to build quadplexes because we're not a multifamily developer.

Um if that ends up the zoning that we're stuck with, we're gonna have to figure out something to do with it, and we might have to find someone that does want to build apartments.

Um we're we're not gonna have any option at that point other than to use the zoning that we've got.

So in closing, uh I am often have the task with these projects of making planning staff, planning commission, city council, the neighbors, and my client happy.

Um, and and doing that while still getting a viable development approved that can they can bring housing to the city.

If I can have if I could have it my way, I could promise you that I would prefer to walk in here with everyone happy, get a unanimous vote and no protest.

I can't do that here.

Um my job is to thread the needle, and what I'm presenting to you all today is is my best attempt at doing that, and and I hope that I've made enough people happy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll start with any clarifying questions from the council for either Mr.

Kirth or Mr.

Kelstrom.

If I may, yes, Mr.

Wheedaker.

For Mr.

Kurth.

Uh Jonathan, could you help us understand the the current PZD zoning that we'll referred to on the nine acres?

Please.

Certainly the we're regarding the zoning entitlement.

Is that what's weing to yes?

The the 10 piece, the 10-acre piece of property adjacent to Dean Solomon Road as part of the uh Springwoods, the Wilson Springs PCD is the northwesternmost property that that uh was platted and approved for that that that planned zoning district, and it's entitled to be developed with multifamily and ultimate only multifamily and at a density of four units per acre.

Okay, I don't see oh, I'm sorry, Mr.

Barna.

Go ahead.

And uh Jonathan, along that line, if it's four units per acre, is that four buildings per acre?

And if so, is there a maximum density per building?

To answer your first question first, it is based on four units per or sorry, is four units per acre, and by units it means independent housekeeping units.

So one unit that has at least one bedroom, somewhere to cook and somewhere to bathe.

So think uh of an apartment.

So basically a quadplex effectively.

At the time the PCD was adopted, quadplexes were a part of our definition of a multifamily uh of multifamily.

So it would basically mean a four-plex, is it's what's what's allowed there.

Was that that answers the first part of your question?

I'm sorry, what was the second piece?

And then was uh my second question is was Mr.

Kelstrom's uh statement correct that as we sit here today, that property zoning would allow three stories.

That is an interesting nuance of that PCD.

So the RSF4 piece absolutely allows three stories by right.

That PZD was adopted only permitting density and use units, and from there is allowed, it was written such to allow the planning commission the authority to assign uh the other standards based on compatibility.

Uh so that piece is not codified.

Uh it would be consistent for the planning commission to uh require three stories, given that's what's allowed on every other property in the area.

Uh, but that is not a part of that PCD, and it is one of the oldest PCDs in the city, and that's not a standard we find anywhere else.

Okay.

And is the property that's uh across the the uh bike path, the residential development that's there now.

Uh could anyone that developed on uh a vacant lot in that subdivision, could they develop up to three stories?

Do you mean the portion being proposed to go from no the portion that's already existing now?

If there were a uh a vacant lot in that subdivision uh that someone wanted to construct on, would they be allowed to go up to three stories?

Yes, three story is the allowance for the the surrounding properties.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

And this is just kind of going off of Scott's last question.

Um, because I think it's worth noting, pretty much everywhere in the city our single family zoning allows three stories.

It's yes, I'm pretty sure every single family zoning district allows a minimum of three stories.

So anybody in this neighborhood would be able if they saw fit or had a big family could do a third-story addition?

Based on our zoning standards, yes.

So if we limited the development to two stories, would we be saying that anybody that bought a house there would it would never be able to, you know, that they that that neighborhood would somehow be singled out to only allow two stories and they wouldn't be able to add a third story addition?

Correct.

If do if two stories was imposed on this either as a bill of assurance or otherwise, that would be a city standard to enforce and it would be a story lower than the surrounding neighborhood.

Then the surrounding area.

Okay, thank you.

Miss Moy.

Thank you, um Mayor.

Um my line of questioning is similar to Councilmember Stafford.

I think currently in front of us, the bill of assurance.

I was trying to look in the packet.

I know we got emailed to us, but I don't know if the public has seen the full bill of assurance being offered.

Um I wanted to get had two clarifying questions.

One, is it being proposed across um both like parcels, the entirety of the project with that bill of assurance?

Can we get clarification?

I think that's probably a question for Mr.

Kelstrom or for you, Kit.

Yeah, I I'd look go ahead and defer to Will.

It's it's his bill of assurance.

The bill of assurance applies only to the 9.6 acre portion course for the multifamily and eight unit cap.

It's it's irrelevant, but the tree preservation does only apply to the 9.6 acre portion.

Okay, thank you, Will.

And then uh my question to it probably is to you, Ket, as far as if we were to adopt that, no matter uh going for it, it's attached to the land.

So in the event this project went away today, like for instance, you know, we do have the ability, that's in a PZD for multi-family.

Um so this would say all of those requirements would then be tied to the land to the next person who would own that land.

Is that that correct for the television?

Just like the rezoning itself, it goes with rezoning as part of the rezoning, and the only way it can be changed would be by the city council rezoning it.

Okay, thank you, Kit.

Okay.

I'm gonna open it up for public comment.

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

I know that we do.

If you could come on up, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes on the clock.

And if you are able to and you would like to, you are welcome to go ahead and line up and come one right after another.

You don't have to wait on me to call you.

Okay, please go ahead.

Thank you.

My name is Zach Hewlett, and I live at 2570 West Van Eyck Drive.

Last meeting, my neighbor Jean Bennett and I presented video and data showing that Dean Solomon will soon operate at 147% of its safe vehicle capacity from already improved developments alone.

Approving this request pushes it to 199% of current safe capacity and years from now, if it is ever fully improved, it will already be overutilized at 122% of its full design capacity as stated in the Master Street plan.

Also, the Master Street plan specifically warns that neighborhood links without separated facilities for bikers and pedestrians are unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians.

I have scars across my body that prove this.

Adding hundreds more trips to this failing corridor without infrastructure improvements is irresponsible and dangerous.

It's a false choice.

Current zoning caps density at four multifamily units per acre, doubling it to eight units per acre under this request, even with the BOA doesn't protect us.

It doubles the baseline density and locks in incompatible three-story townhome structures.

Reducing the number of incompatible structures doesn't make them compatible, it just creates an incompatible development that is slightly less profitable for the developer while permanently burdening our neighborhood.

This bill of assurance is not the safety net it appears to be.

Canopy protection.

25% preservation is indeed above the zoning requirement.

The city states clearly that its preference is to maintain existing mature canopy.

However, during construction, the entire parcel could be legally clear-cut of all critical mature trees.

The preservation percent is a false sense of security and an infrastructure.

The document offers zero mitigation for the documented traffic capacity and drainage issues on Dean Solomon.

Lastly, the developer still refuses to bifurcate this application.

A solution requested by our coalition for council members and the city attorney.

The 9.6 acre parcel and the 26 acre parcel represent two completely different environmental and structural realities.

The developer is forcing both into a single blanket application to serve their own timeline, rushing a fundamentally flawed design onto Dean Solomon will create permanent traffic, safety, and environmental liabilities for the city long after the developer has moved on.

We want to be reasonable.

RSF8 is not a bad zoning type for this 26-acre plot in the future, but given its size, extremely low infill score, and the massive amount of active construction along Dean Solomon, approving it right now is premature.

Prudence demands we wait to study and address the real world impacts of ongoing construction before adding more density to the plot.

Meanwhile, the request zoning on the 9.6 acre parcel is incompatible.

If the developer insists on an all or nothing approach, don't fall for a false compromise.

Stand by faithful compatibility standards and deny this blanket application in its entirety.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Can you hear me?

If you could pull it to a little bit closer, thank you.

All right.

I'm Margaret Ann Gilmore, and I live at 3029 West Feather Rock Way.

And I have several concerns, but for three minutes, I'm going to address two of them.

One of them is that greenway corridor where bikes and walkers go down, and it has Dean Solomon on one side and Van Eyck and some of that other meadow area on the other.

Now there's a swamp area that I think some of you all saw that is there most of the time.

And I don't know how builders deal with that, but we have a lot of water problems in this area.

And the trees, what I've seen when they're talking about 20, 25 percent, they cut all the trees and vegetation and then plant new trees there.

Well, those trees trees are at least 20 years old.

They provide a lot of coolness to that area.

And they can hold up to a hundred gallons of water from the ground and release that vapor to cool that area.

And the mature tree canopy makes things five to ten percent cooler in the summer.

And this trail is hard to use in the summer if you don't have a canopy.

So to cut those down and plant young trees is not the same.

And I've seen some of the young trees that were planted in the park, and a large group of them die because they need to be watered regularly.

So we also have water problems.

A lot of people in my area have French drains to deal with the water.

There's uh sip pumps to pump the water out of their yards.

And I saw a time a few years ago, after a lot of rain, when Hokam Elementary was covered in water standing water for a while, and Claver Creek ran over Salem Street into the homes on the other side.

So we need vegetation to help absorb some of this water that comes through.

And that's your time.

Thank you.

Oh.

Thank you.

I didn't even get to another part.

Anyway, thank you.

Hi, my name is Christina Falker, and I live at 2722 West Van Eyck Drive.

I don't have much prepared because I've been chasing my 10-month-old all day who just learned how to crawl.

Um, but I do believe it is important to have a say.

I am in opposition of this rezoning because I do not believe that it is compatible with our neighborhood and ultimately the goals of Fayetteville.

Growing our city is important, but equally important is maintaining the charm, beauty, uniqueness, and cohesiveness of Fayetteville.

I believe there is a way to find this balance, and this particular rezoning is not the way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Jennifer A.

Cuff, and I live at 2913 West Topaz Drive.

Um, I'm also in opposition of this rezoning.

I'd like to point out some of the incompatibilities with this rezoning request and the city's 2026 housing assessment.

The assessment's very first key finding is that Fayetteville's greatest housing need is smaller format housing, not more of what's already dominant in our in our area.

Uh it reminds us that sustainable planning must allow development to occur sustainably in places where infrastructure can support new housing.

High density developments lacking commercial or mixed-use components are often proposed simply because they are easy to permit and build, not because they fulfill our vision of complete walkable neighborhoods.

Approving more dense residential units here without full without nearby daily services, transit or street or safe street conditions actually does nothing to solve Fayetteville's structural housing mismatch.

Instead, it merely compounds traffic and strains our existing infrastructure at the direct expense of neighborhood safety.

The rezoning request doesn't move us toward that goal.

It adds another high density rental product to a market where the city's own data says it's already oversupplied with that type of housing, while the actual shortage, smaller attainable homes for people trying to put down roots goes unaddressed.

There's a second incompatibility incompatibility worth noting.

Successful infill usually takes place near existing employment and transit corridors, and the needs assessment notes that affordable housing should take those things into account as well.

If we're going to add high eye occupancy housing that's meant to be affordable, shouldn't it go where residents actually have transit available or have walkable destinations?

Otherwise, we're just adding more trips for people's cars who maybe are struggled to own a car in the first place.

This means every added unit becomes an additional burden to our roads.

I know that it's very difficult to straddle the needs, especially when a developer wants to potentially add commerce and housing to a city whenever we say that we need more housing, we need more affordable housing.

Someone who offers that is offering us, you know, a really good opportunity.

Someone who offers that is offering us, you know, a really good opportunity, but um the way that this is done needs to be done delicately, and this is being done in conjunction with a lot of other projects in the area.

And we can't look at them piecemeal.

We have to look at them holistically and what it's going to do to the surrounding environment.

I'm the one who talked about the darter last time, the fish that's endangered.

So I care about that, but I also care about our roads and what it's going to do, even if there's not a direct wetland that we're addressing in this rezoning, there's a wetland right next door, and it matters.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Molly, Council members.

My name's Dustin Connell.

I live at 3165, North Knight Heron Drive in Fayetteville, Arkansas, uh, in the Creek Meadows subdivision, my backyard faces the proposed PCD 12 across Dean Solomon.

When considering major land use change, we cannot look at a project parcel in isolation.

We have to look at the immediate environment it impacts.

The city's housing need assessment explicitly notes that staff analysis should also provide local decision makers with a stronger sense of existing housing conditions within the surrounding area of a proposed development or rezoning.

When you evaluate the surrounding context of these parcels and infrastructure, you see a street network that was never engineered for this level of residential density, lacking the basic commercial services, transit connections, or safety features required to support it.

Pushing high density onto a corridor that cannot safely absorb it ignores the real world conditions of our neighborhood.

At its core, local government exists to manage growth responsibly and protect the community's shared resources.

As the city's housing report highlights, the housing market is among the most complex systems a local government navigates as it guides investment of taxpayer dollars into critical infrastructure, essential services, and public goods.

Approving increased density without the prerequisite transportation infrastructure and neighborhood services isn't sound planning.

It strains essential public goods and puts an unfair safety burden on existing residents.

Protecting our local street safety and infrastructure is a vital part of the responsibility to steward our city's resources effectively.

Beyond infrastructure, this proposal simply fails to deliver what our city needs.

The city's assessment cautions that what the market will build and what the community needs, namely housing diversity and housing choice are not always the same thing.

Simply approving standard dense residential units doesn't create entry-level homeownership or the diverse missing middle options that our city lacks.

Consuming land with generic density without addressing true affordability or choice isn't solving our housing problem.

It's just filling a parcel, consuming valuable land with an ill-fitting product.

Saying no tonight would not be a vote against growth, but rather a vital tool for managing growth strategically.

Responsible planning preserves room for future development that actually fulfills Fayetteville's comprehensive plan for our 2040 vision.

Fayetteville is worth building right, not just building quickly.

We only get one chance to grow this corridor the right way.

So we can say yes to a safer, more vibrant Fayetteville tomorrow, protecting the safety character and the future of the community well-coal.

Thank you very much.

Hello.

My name is Stephanie, and I live on Van Eyck Drive, a neighborhood directly affected by this proposal.

Firstly, I wanted to thank you all.

Thank you for listening for walking the property with us and for asking the difficult questions.

Thank you for giving the neighborhood and the developer the opportunity to meet, even though we ultimately weren't able to find meaningful common ground.

Throughout this process, I've wondered if the city would think these neighbors are simply opposed to development.

And the answer is no.

Growth is not the enemy here.

Poorly planned growth is.

One thing I've realized through this process is that we're looking at this property through two completely different lenses.

To the developer, this land may look like a blank canvas, a place to create something new.

To those of us who live here, it isn't a blank canvas at all.

It's already a masterpiece.

It's a part of something beautiful where families have built their lives, believing this area would develop in a way that respected the vision our city adopted.

When we ask you to protect this neighborhood, we're not just asking you to preserve an empty field or a strip of trees.

We're asking you to protect something more, an entire ecosystem and a community that already exists.

I've spoken before about what I called the illusion of infill.

This proposal asks you to take an ecologically sensitive property within the enduring green network, one with a low infill score, limited access to everyday services, existing pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns, and inadequate infrastructure, and simply add hundreds of new homes.

None of those underlying conditions improve because the zoning changes.

They remain exactly the same, only with more people depending on them.

That's not thoughtful infill.

It's just asking existing deficiencies to carry an even greater burden.

City Plan 2040 recognizes that not every parcel is appropriate for every type of development.

Responsible planning means directing growth where infrastructure, transportation network, and surrounding land uses can support it.

That isn't saying no to growth.

It's saying yes to the right growth in the right places for the right reasons.

We've talked through many of these issues with you.

Adding hundreds of additional homes before these issues are addressed doesn't solve any of our problems.

It magnifies them.

The decision before you isn't simply whether more homes should be built.

It's really whether this location is the right place for this level of density.

I believe your planning documents, your site visit, and the conversations over the past several weeks all point to the same answer.

I respectfully ask you to uphold the vision of City Plan 2040 and vote no on this rezoning.

Thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration throughout this process.

Thank you.

Breath of fresh air.

Yeah, yeah.

Sorry, that's a lot tonight.

So good evening, Mayor.

Good evening, Council members.

Appreciate it.

Uh, since I've already shared about detailed comments at last meetings, I'll keep my remarks kind of brief.

Um, I want to respectfully reiterate the my opposition to the proposed resonating as it's currently presented.

Um, I continue to believe that the two uh land parcels should be uh considered independently because they present uh different uh planning opportunities and should be treated uh as a single rather than being treated as a single all-or-nothing uh proposal.

Since the last meeting, we've made a great deal of effort to engage the developer regarding the 10-acre lot.

Unfortunately, there's been we've been in it unable to make any meaningful progress towards a solution that addresses the neighborhood's concerns or explores the uh the potential for mixed-use development that could serve the the committee uh and its future residents.

Um, for that reason, I continue to ask the council to consider parcels independently and postpone action on the Dean Solomon uh track to allow time for productive explorer to uh allow additional time for productive discussions to explore a mixed use designation uh that could provide a better long-term um outcome for the growing area.

So, with that, I say thank you.

I appreciate your time.

Have a good night.

I didn't get his name.

Thank you.

And do you mind to come back up and share your name, please?

Oh, I'm so sorry.

My name is Mike Thompson.

I live at 2522 West Van Ike.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh, my name's Justin Fleer.

I live at 2913 West Topaz Drive, along the creek adjacent to Underwood Park, and I'm here to ask you to reject this rezoning request.

At the last meeting, my wife and I raised concerns about the wildlife and natural resources at stake, including the potential loss of 75 to 80% of the tree canopy on this site.

Tonight I'd like to speak on a different concern.

This request and a recently approved development requests compatibility of the existing community and infrastructure and the urgent need for holistic planning across this corridor.

Nearly 10 acres of this request fall within the endurance green network, which borders a paved trail connecting our neighborhoods to shared green space.

This request should replace that with high density housing.

Consider this alongside the recently approved next chapter development, a third of the mile away on Dean Solomon, which will add an additional 274 rental units in the same corridor on the same road, draining into the same Clapper Creek watershed.

Dean Solomon is a partially improved neighborhood linked street without a continuous sidewalk.

With what's already approved, adding another high-density zoning will push this street well past what even a fully improved street should carry given its daily load.

And this street isn't in the funded improvement plan, so we'd be adding traffic to a road that already puts bikers and pedestrians at risk.

City Plan 2040 asks that the infill complement the character of the neighborhood it enters to avoid suburban sprawl.

This request scores a 4.5 out of a possible 20.

The reason is simple: there's nothing here to walk to, no grocery store, no restaurant, no transit within a walkable half mile.

The nearest food is at a gas station over a mile away, unreachable by continuous sidewalk.

Town homes without walkable destinations aren't attainable, walkable infill.

They're a dense subdivision that generates car trips.

These two major projects are being evaluated independently with no shared accounting of their downstream impact on traffic, safety, and wildlife.

And that's been before factoring in the city's own underwood park development, a great asset to the area, but one that will add traffic that has already and has already faced drainage challenges of its own.

My property sits down the creek from all of these projects, and I'm very concerned about the potential flooding risks to my home and our neighborhood.

I'm asking the city to take the necessary time to consider them together with the existing neighborhood, not piecemeal.

Please reject this request and require a corridor-wide review of the traffic and drainage that accounts for all of these developments together and plans their development as a cohesive solution to complement the existing neighborhood and green space before we risk flooding and further compromise safety in this area.

Thank you for your time tonight and for your service to this community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is John Felker.

I live at 2722 West Van Act Drive.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

The 9.6 acre lot under parcel number 765-23602-000 is a unique sliver of land.

The property contains a pond and wetlands that lets stormwater slowly infiltrate into the ground, even if it's not defined as wetlands.

Next to the pond is an extraordinarily large single-trunked black willow tree.

I mentioned this single trunk because this indicates that the tree grew when there was already a canopy in place.

Other large willows in the Wilson Springs and Underwood Park area have multiple trunks because they had space to spread out to capture sunlight.

This specific willow on the 9.6 acres is very old and would have grown much slower than the willows in nearby areas.

This willow, along with all the other willows in this parcel, are responsible for consuming hundreds of gallons of water from the soil every day.

And this soil is wet.

Other water-loving plants, such as cottonwood, green ash, and buttonbush also have taken root in this strip of land.

This land is providing a service as habitat for fauna, a water retention basin for nearby communities, and a shaded refuge for those enjoying the trail.

What this land is not well suited for is dense development.

The property is only 260 feet wide.

Subtract the 15 feet of trail easement, and the necessary easements on the other side for a sidewalk and turn lane on Dean Solomon.

And the buildable space is close to 200 feet.

That's not enough space for equipment to move around.

So construction will be forced to cut down all of the trees, from street to trail.

Then it would be filled with compacted clay dirt, becoming an impervious surface in a matter of days.

Currently, this property does not drain off onto other properties.

It's self-contained.

Where will all that water go during construction?

Where will it go after construction?

I hope you take these questions into consideration.

Unfortunately, that's not true.

There is an open ditch on the west shoulder from West Lori Drive north to 112.

That ditch probably did not show up in your police report because people fall off that ditch regularly.

We see it all the time.

And they're not gonna be calling the police when they didn't hit anyone.

They called the tow truck company.

I would like to see those resp those reports before you as well.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, uh, my name's Clark Eccles.

I live at 95 East Madrid Street.

Um I'm actually here in support of the rezoning.

Uh I grew up nearby uh on Howard Nickel Road, and I live for more than four years just off of highway 112 down the street.

Uh so I know that the area really well.

Uh I went to Holcombe Elementary and the Holt Middle School.

I've you know walked the trail.

I I've you know spent a significant period of my life uh in the area.

Um I I actually think that some modest density would serve this area well.

I I do believe that the rezoning alliance with our city's long-term goals, it builds on many multiple major public investments in close proximity, like all the water infrastructure going in, the Clobber Creek Trail, Holcomb Elementary, Hole Middle School, the new underwood park, all the stuff happening on Highway 112.

Um, it at the last meeting there was also talk about how you know this development and the other development going on can help um, you know, could help encourage some of these street improvements that people wish that we had there.

Um, you know, and I understand that change is scary, and you know, I I understand where where all the neighbors are coming from, and and I, you know, I don't want to, you know, say that they're they're bad people because they're not, they're they're just concerned.

Um, but but I I do believe that RSF aid and RMF 12 are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

You know, I I don't consider these to be high density zonings.

Uh, you know, in fact, I think they're the natural next increment in development.

Um I bought my first home last year, and I live right across the street from a quadplex.

I haven't experienced any negative impacts.

Uh, and I'm grateful to live in a neighborhood uh with both homeowners and renters from all walks of life.

Um here in Fayeville, we like to believe that we're welcoming, you know, but then time and time again we see people fight uh, you know, even modest density um in every neighborhood, and as when we continue to do this in a rapidly growing city in a housing crisis, uh, you know, it's it harms housing affordability for long-term residents uh for our children as they grow up and uh for our new neighbors joining us as well.

So please support.

Thank you.

Um, my name's Ann Braun.

I live at 2508 Van Eyck, right next to Clapper Creek Trail.

I oppose the resign rezoning as it's proposed right now, where it's a combined two lots.

I believe very strongly it should be two separate issues.

The key reasons are the two lots have never the two lots have never should have never been put on the same application.

It was mentioned in the planning stage, and then it's it moved forward because they said one application, one vote.

When lot is flat, it's farmland, it would probably do just fine for RSF4 or RSF 8, depending on how the development is laid out.

Lot 4 is a whole different animal.

It's a green corridor that connects to the Northwest Land Trust and then flows into the park.

There's animals, squirrels, skunks, lots of visitors only because I live next door.

Um the school district was aware of the environmental green space.

It was specifically called out in the purchase agreement and allowed for a buyback clause for the lot four.

The buyback allow allows Ica Street to still connect with Dean Solomon, so they would still have access to the larger parcel.

The rezoning lither pitching is not compatible with our neighborhood.

I mean, we have no three-story around us.

Um if they would stay with one and two stories, people would probably be happy.

But um, three stories just doesn't cut it.

Um the developer is proposing high density, which I know the city wants, and if it's done right, it probably would look nice.

Um the biggest problem is the same thing everybody's talking about, and you probably hear it over and over.

It's the street is it's underdeveloped for the area.

We don't want to lose the large tree canopy, which is and if they if they take unre ruined the the green canopy, um they will just put um inexpensive trees in place of it, and that's that's just not a substitute.

Um when they say tree preservation, they're not guaranteeing that they're gonna keep the trees.

It's just another word for replace with a non-mature tree.

The bill of assurances offers no assurance whatsoever for the larger lot.

The developer can and probably will.

I work for a developer.

Clear-cut everything, and then they will put money in the city tree preservation fund.

And that fund is a way to basically make promises and not be held accountable.

They do it because it's faster and cheaper.

The neighborhood is not against um development consideration.

Consideration needs to be given to the existing homeowners and taxpayers.

It's our home where we live, where we you know raise our families.

We were all fully aware that there is no store.

I'm so sorry, that's your time.

I've okay I should have followed that more closely.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yeah, appreciate your time.

Yeah, you can come on it.

Okay.

And just to remind you to please state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes on the clock.

Hi.

Thank you.

My name is Jamie Gardner, and I live at 2872 West Ica Lane.

Um I first want to say that I do agree with Ann.

I think it should be split into two separate lots and two separate decisions.

Um I will keep this short and sweet.

I recently moved here from Portland, Oregon, where I witnessed how rapid overcrowding and high density development can affect community safety and quality of life.

I chose Fayetteville as my home specifically for its unique character and peace.

And it saddens me to see how quickly that is going away.

Converting the property next to me into townhouses and opening up my street as a thoroughfare will destroy the safety and quiet of our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello.

My name is Jay McAllister.

I live at 2686 West Van Eyck Drive.

I first want to acknowledge the incredible support and unity shown by the neighbors in this community throughout the process.

Since this rezoning proposal was introduced, it's weighed heavily on us and has created ongoing stress for those who call this neighborhood home.

At the last meeting, I asked whether the proposed increase in residential density would place additional strain on the existing water and drainage infrastructure.

I continue to believe that adding more homes behind Van Eyck Drive will significantly impact the neighborhood's drainage.

Because the proposed homes would sit at a higher elevation, as is indicated.

Stormwater runoff and other area barriers of erosion would naturally flow northeast to southwest, concentrating along the backyards of residents on the north side of Van Eyck Drive.

What specific measures will the city or the developer implement to ensure that this increased flooding or runoff, whatever you want to call it, does not result in the flooding erosion or damage to the properties along the north side of Van Eyck Drive.

In addition to the drainage concerns, increased residential density will inevitably generate more vehicle traffic.

Dean Solomon Road already experiences congestion during peak travel times.

And I do not believe the current roadway infrastructure, as mentioned by previous colleagues, is capable of safely accommodating additional traffic without negatively affecting residents, trailgoers, bikers, and other commuters.

The approximately nine-acre parcel off Dean Solomon Road is a prime example of land that should remain part of the city's enduring green network.

It provides valuable wildlife habitat and supports a diverse range of flora and fauna.

Just as importantly, the green space enhances the experience of those who use the nearby trail.

Residents walk, run, bike, hike these trails to enjoy the natural environment and find a sense of peace.

That experience would fundamentally change if homes were built immediately adjacent to the trail, replacing the sounds of nature with constant traffic and random neighborhood activity.

Finally, this rezoning request combines two separate parcels into a single proposal, even though they're fundamentally different properties with different characteristics and impacts.

They should be evaluated independently, not as one unified zoning request.

Treating them as one overlooks the unique concerns associated with each parcel, and it is not compatible with the character and long-term interest of this community.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the city council to deny this rezoning request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello.

Good evening, Council members and mayor.

My name is Greg Thomas.

I live at 3037 North Knight Heron Drive.

Today I I've got some notes here.

I might go offhand a little bit too, but um I respectfully ask that the council separate this request into two items and consider denying the RMF 12 portion.

First thing I'd like to note is that the planning commission did come to that conclusion as well.

Um, however, they do not have the power, the authority to recommend a split of these items, but they did acknowledge that these are two separate items that should be considered separately.

Um I consider myself fortunate to live in Fayetteville community is not built solely by people, uh by people houses, apartments, parks, or businesses.

It's created through the combination of all those elements together.

This property occupies a very unique location with the Razorback Greenway.

We've got two schools, Gary Hampton Field.

Um, a lot of a lot of great potential underwood park, a lot of great potential in this area.

Because of that, this site deserves uh a very unique, a very um incredible development that could take advantage of this potential.

Unfortunately, this proposal falls short of that opportunity.

It appears to be a standard multifamily development with a little effort to create gathering spaces, community identity, or meaningful connections to the surrounding neighborhood.

Fayetteville should expect more.

I'm also concerned about the compatibility generally.

The proposed RMF 12 zoning does not align with the established single family neighborhoods throughout the site.

After reviewing development patterns throughout West Fayetteville, I found that nearly every RMF development in West Fayetteville, so west of I-49 is located along a regional link roadway or a state highway.

This development is not, it's actually one mile away from the nearest regional link highway, regional link or state highway.

Simply put, there is little precedent for introducing RMF zoning this deep into an established neighborhood.

The proposal is inconsistent with development patterns throughout West Fayetteville and cannot reasonably be considered compatible with the surrounding area.

I've got one minute here and kind of want to respond to some of the uh some of the other items that were brought up.

The accident data that was provided.

Um, thank you for for gathering that, uh Jonathan.

I I do think I don't have any issues with the data.

I just think that we should probably throw it out because we are adding 500 units to Dean Solomon.

Um, and then additionally, as you widen a road and make it make it wider, make it easier for people to drive faster.

That's a that's a common um theory within civil engineering.

Um, lastly, the or not lastly, the the wetland that we talked about in the 2003 Spring Woods rezoning.

Uh, there was a 0.5.5 acre area that was identified as a wetland during that time.

Um additionally, the tree preservation.

Um, the developer did offer to go up from 20 to 25% of the tree tree preservation.

However, the tree preservation goal for the city that was adopted in 2020 is 40%.

So we are still failing this this goal.

At its core, this request feels more pro-developer than pro community.

I ask you to deny the request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

My name is Lita Darling, and I live on Tiger Eye in between the proposed development and underwood park.

I understand the council's limitations with regard to use restrictions on a landowner's property and the council's obligations to protect the best interests of this, your community.

Thank you for undertaking this difficult challenge and dedicating your time and energy to fairly evaluate this cause.

There's been much talk among the residents of separating the parcels to protect and preserve the natural forested area of the small smaller parcel with almost an acquiescence to defeat regarding the larger larger parcel.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the need to protect the green space, I do not accept that approving 6.6 to 8 units per acre on the larger lot is compatible or responsible development.

I propose the best way to protect and responsibly develop this open field and forest while recognizing both the council's limitations and obligations is to keep the request intact as requested by the petitioner.

I asked the council to acknowledge the incompatibility of the proposed development as a whole and reject the request in its entirety, thus allowing DRS to exercise its buyout option if they so choose.

This protection was included in the land swap for good reason to protect the landowner from potential financial loss.

But in this case, it could also protect the Fayetteville community and its vision for long-term development.

It would not only allow the city to revisit the 25-year-old zoning of the smaller tract on its own accord, but could also provide an opportunity for proper infrastructure to be put in place prior to the sell of the land.

As even the current four units per acre zoning on the larger tract would be unsustainable without drainage studies and improvements to the infrastructure happening first.

If in the future the city determines it determines that it's in the community's best interest to more densely develop this open field, allow the development to be well thought out, and in accordance with the city's long-term 2040 plan.

You have the legal authority and a legal basis to do so.

At a minimum, public opposition reflecting logical and reasonable concerns, increased traffic on limited roads, and strain on sewage service.

Provide the rational basis you need for denial of this rezone request.

The council does not have the power to deny landowner use of its property.

But you can 100% say no to this rezone request.

I know that today is the proper way to balance these competing interests without harm to the landowner or the community.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Thank you.

Keith, do we have anyone that is called in on this?

Oh, we have more from the audience.

Sorry, please come on up.

Hello, my name's Grayson Barber.

I live at 2740 West Van Eyck Drive.

Um I'm thankful to live in a city, in a state, in a country that we get to participate in this way and have this discourse.

I appreciate all of you that came out to the site visit.

It meant a lot that uh we felt heard.

We felt like you were able to see the property, see what we saw on it.

Um so thank you for coming out.

Uh I want to talk briefly about stewardship and the idea of um everywhere around us, there are large trees getting torn down 112, down Van Ash, um, Mount Comfort, this is now on the table.

Mr.

Kelstrom said that this area doesn't have any trees older than 20 or 25 years old, but that black willow that Mr.

Felker talked about is not just 20 or 25 years old.

Some of the 18 to 20 inch pine trees that border the property are much older than that.

And so I you know, I I acknowledge that growth is imminent.

I mainly take issue with the RMF 12 rezoning, but the idea that we're gonna tear down you know, decades old trees and replace them with quadplexes that may or may not be there in the same amount of time is hard to swallow.

It's a hard field to swallow that um these organisms that have been living for so long are gonna be just torn down and something that maybe they are not in eight decades will be in its place.

So um yeah, I I feel like it's a little bit short-sighted to go ahead and approve this rezoning quest and pack more density and such a uh beautiful natural area.

I'm not against developing it.

It is already zoned for developing, but I think it needs to be done in a way that respects the natural beauty.

Um, in a in a way that something that will be there in 80 years that when we're all long gone, our you know, generations uh beyond us are gonna be thankful that it stayed in a certain way.

There was a beauty around it, and um I feel like the everything is heightened because of Underwood Park.

You know, this is an area that is gonna be desirable to be in and to live in, and uh we want to treat it with utmost respect because of that because it is a beacon for West Fayetteville.

We don't have anything like that currently.

Um so you know, being very selective with what we put around it, I think is very important.

So uh thank you for allowing me to come up here and speak.

I hope that you would consider opposing the rezone.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone else in the audience?

Oh, yes, please come on up and state your name.

Hello, my name is Ryan Grace, and I live at 3069 North Knight Heron in Creek Meadow, right across from Dean Solomon.

And uh I would like to request that you guys oppose this, um, specifically the nine-acre uh lot that's had so much conversation around.

Um I am a huge uh trail user, active transportation um person in favor.

I have four young kids, and I encourage them to do the same.

Um, there's a lot of great points that have been brought up today, but I haven't heard much talked about this.

I help organize a bike train to Holcomb Elementary multiple um times each year.

I also have kids that bike to school, and one of the things that um doing much trail riding myself that I'm concerned about with this proposal is that it would add a crossing in the trail section um to add this nine acres in there where another uh road crossing crosses in addition to the Van Eyck crossing and the Dean Solomon crossing that are very close together.

Um, and those are some of the most dangerous spots in our trail system around the city is where there's multiple crossings really close together.

It's frustrating frustrating for drivers, it's frustrating for um bikers and walkers.

And I feel like, especially for this nine nine-acre lot, it's just not enough to really um increase that safety risk and that hazard to be able to do that.

That's one reason I think it's a really good idea to separate those into two different considerations, these lots.

Um, the other thing that um I I want to echo that's been said a lot is that um when we moved into Creek Meadow as a um uh parcel that was developed and there were no trees put along the side of Dean Solomon like they were supposed to by the developer initially.

And so when we moved in, we helped organize our neighborhood to uh work with the city to plant trees along Dean Solomon there, and it's been about five years since we've done that, and those trees are still quite small.

And um the impact that clear-cutting that section um of land there will have is something that cannot be undone.

Um, it will have a long and lasting impact, and I think that that thought or that part of land deserves really well thought out usage, and I think that this usage is not the right usage for that.

There's a lot of different opportunities of ways to make it where it's actually providing services that are walkable to all the residents that live there currently or having it be part of something that just kind of uh adds to what Underwood Plaza is or Underwood Park is going to be.

So thank you for your consideration.

I hope you reject the proposal for rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lex Royals.

I live at 3070 North Harrier Drive in Creek Meadows.

I fully support the developer's right to develop the land it is currently zoned, which is four units per acre.

That is their right.

I will say that having done some development in the past, buying land and then doubling, or in this case, tripling the density is simply lazy development work.

This is an idea that fits closer to the center of town with supporting neighborhood commercial, but you have to examine the idea where the site is located.

The site is three minutes or less from the city limits, both to the west and the north.

We have absolutely no supporting commercial.

Unless you want to buy a car or put gas in one, you are out of luck until you get to Johnson or Weddington.

I'm not aware of any new urbanism recommendations to increase density at the edge of a city with no commercial services to support it.

Simply put, increasing density on the fringe of town is not compatible with the neighbors, and it's not in line with any of the city's uh stated publicly stated future plans.

This is probably one of the worst places in the city to increase the density because of all the things that have mentioned tonight.

This should not pass on the council's judgment.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm not seeing anyone else in the room that would like to comment.

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

Yes, Katie G.

Okay.

Katie, if you can hear us, go ahead.

I didn't catch the last name.

I'm sorry.

Katie, are you with us?

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Okay, go ahead.

Um, my name is excuse me, Katie Garmin.

I'm at 2621 North Brush Creek Drive.

And I would I've spoken twice now and at the two separate meetings before, and my main my main issue is with the 9.6 acre lot and um really in the preservation of nature and the wetlands that may not technically be labeled as let wetlands, but they do have a lot of um they do have a lot of wildlife that is holding on to a lot of water that is helping areas downstream from turning into a flood zone.

I would agree with the comments that all the other neighbors who are opposing this rezoning have made already, so I'll reiterate that for them.

But in the sake of time, I'll just kind of brush over it.

Um also specifically with I think his name was Zach's comment earlier about this being a premature decision that's made under a blanket proposal.

Um I appreciate all the effort and work that the city has done to understand this issue.

Um and I would just ask that we move to split this into two separate parcels and be voted on as two separate parcels because the two different plots of land are vastly different.

So I am not against growth and development.

I strongly agree that Fayetteville needs it, and it's an undeniable fact that's going to happen for us.

But I do believe that this 9.6 acre plot of land needs to be readdressed.

And if we're gonna vote for the bigger lot to be bumped up, I'm fine with that.

That's cool.

But the if we're gonna rezone the other spot, I think it needs to be a different vote.

And honestly, let's let's put the right parties in um in working order to potentially rezone it into something that requires more preservation rather than just mowing it all down.

So if it's currently zoned for, I think it was CPD four.

So, like if they're if they truly wanted to put quadplexes on this, it sounds like it's already meeting the requirements where quadplexes could go.

So tripling the density, I think would just be very detrimental.

And um I just I just would hope that you would vote separately on it.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a Deborah Steindele.

Miss Steindele.

Whenever you're able to hear us, go ahead.

EJ I do.

Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Deborah.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay, please go ahead.

Miss Steindell, are you there?

Are you there?

Can you hear me?

We can, yes.

Please go ahead.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Um my name is Deborah Stendel, and I live at 2600 Van Eyck Drive.

Good evening to mayor and city council members.

I wish that I could be attending in person, but I am out of town.

However, I still feel compelled to add information to this discussion.

And before I start with my prepared speech, I feel compelled to address one of the comments, a comment made by the developer.

And that is that both the current zoning and the proposed rezoning would all allow two and three-story structures.

However, there are almost no homes in the field in the lot that backs up to that field that are second two-story homes.

There are no three-story homes.

The houses across Dean Solomon are single family on large lots that are two-story, but that's it.

And so I think that it's it's wrong to think that he said that there's already existing homes that of that size, and there is not.

But so anyway, before you vote tonight, I want to thank you.

I want to thank you for taking the time to visit our neighborhood to listen to us and to wrestle with a decision that I know is not an easy one.

Throughout this process, you have made many of us feel heard, and that deserves to be recognized.

You heard countless facts over the past several weeks about traffic, flooding, infrastructure, transportation, tree preservation, compatibility in the city plan.

All of those things matter.

But when I think about this decision, I keep coming back to one simple thing.

Every neighborhood in Fayetteville was at one time just a piece of land waiting for someone to decide what it would become.

The neighborhoods that we treasure today exist because at critical moments, people chose to build thoughtfully.

They considered not only what could be built, but what should be built.

Tonight you are making one of those decisions.

Years from now, no one will remember the case number for this rezoning.

But people will live with the results every single day.

Children will cross the streets, families will walk the trails, and neighbors will experience the consequences of whatever you decide tonight.

Neither the perspective of the developer or the neighbors is wrong.

But tonight, only one of those perspectives needs someone to speak for it.

Our neighborhood only has you.

A community, a forest, a trail, a habitat, and a way of life that cannot simply be rebuilt somewhere else.

Growth and preservation are not opposites.

The best cities find a way to do both.

If you believe that too, I hope you will have the courage to vote no.

Not because you're against growth, but because you believe that Fayofil deserves growth that honors the vision.

Thank you.

Keith, thank you.

Keith, do we have anyone else on Zoom?

Yes.

Jennifer Haas.

Okay.

Jennifer, go ahead.

I think maybe they're not able to unmute themselves.

We have a Steve Barthel.

I do want to go back to Jennifer if we can.

I think it takes them, I think that there's a lag when they're not able to unmute themselves.

So Mr.

Barthel.

Or Miss Ross.

Can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

There is some issues with unmuting.

Um I'm not going to talk for long because I know you guys are probably uh I've had enough of the uh issues we've raised, but our neighbors have done a great job of bringing these all to your attention.

The only thing I'm gonna even mention, I'll try to keep this under a minute actually is the point.

Lex brought up that we're not against development, and that the current density of four heat per acre.

That that's that's sufficient in our opinion.

Yeah, and even that's gonna put a spray on resources.

A lot of the issues that have already been brought up with strains on resources, roads, flooding, etc.

So uh that's all I'm gonna say is that I'm in opposition to this, and I hope you all vote against.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Barthel.

Jennifer, we'll come back to you if you're ready.

I am, thank you.

Yes, it took a minute for the unmute to um to show up.

So can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

My name is Jennifer Haas, and I live at 1505 North Genoa.

So I don't live immediately in the community that's um being discussed tonight, but I have been a Fayetteville resident for over 20 years, and I care about responsible development.

One of the only speaker other than the developer who spoke tonight in favor of this proposal said change can be scary, but I want to counter that and say that you know unplanned or um responsible change is not so scary.

And what I'm not seeing here from this proposal and from the planning commission in general is a full plan.

It's been spin spoken about a couple different times tonight.

But I'm gonna ask that you reject the proposals for this for tonight.

And that until we can get a full plan that deals with environmental infrastructure needs.

Like I said, like many of you, I've lived here most of my adult life in Fayetteville.

But what I have seen is development that happens, density that increases without the infrastructure being in place, without the environmental concerns being addressed, and we're always playing catch up.

This is not a time to play catch up.

This is not a time for those things to come after the fact.

These are them to at minimum go hand in hand at the same time.

And for those development and for the infrastructure for the environmental, for all of those factors to be considered and a plan to be in place, not a plan in a couple of years when it fits within the city um's time frame.

I understand that not everything can be done, but again, creating that extra density without those pieces in place creates a really undesirable and unlivable city.

And so I'm gonna ask the city council that let us, like somebody just said, let us be the picture of what to do.

Other cities around us are looking at the same kinds of factors.

And to be honest, they're talking in whispers about let's not do what Fayetteville has done.

Let's not um put those plans after the fact.

I want to be responsible.

I want to develop responsibly to allow people to love the city like I have for 20 years.

And so I'm gonna ask that the city does the right thing and provides responsible development, um, not just because it's timely for the developer.

And so that's what um that's what I would like to see.

And I would ask again that you reject the rezoning for tonight until those factors can be in place.

Thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

We don't have any other public comment.

So before we bring it um back to the council, um, Mr.

Kurtz, I have a question for you because something that came up again and again and again was that um the people urging us to vote on this and separate this out into two votes.

We can't just do that.

So can you explain why this was brought as one um item and if that's normal for this type of request?

And what we would have to do if we wanted to consider it or if the staff wanted to consider it is to what does that look like?

Certainly, the council sees requests that include dual zoning district requests.

They see requests that include single zoning requests.

So I would not say it's either common or uncommon.

Okay, uh, as far as options for the council to consider one piece of this request or the other.

Uh the only formal manner that I'm aware of that council could do that would be to amend the request that's before you to remove or modify some aspect of it, either change the proposed zoning district, uh accept the bill of assurance, remove a portion of it, and then based on the action you take, they could effectively deny half of it or a third of it, and then that piece could be brought forward by the uh the applicant separately.

Does that help clarify?

It does.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Okay, Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, a lot of people were bringing up uh the housing report, our long-term uh housing goals.

Uh I I think it might behoove us to, if she's willing to have our uh Marley Stark, our chief housing officer, come up and kind of uh give her take, uh, you know, probably specific to this project and the the density that's being requested and and maybe comparing that to RSF4 and what's being requested.

That's fine with me, Marley, if you want to go ahead.

Happy to.

Um first and foremost, I want to thank a lot of the residents that that mentioned reading the housing assessment.

Um, I know it's a dense read.

Um, so kudos to you for for taking the time to look at that.

Um, one thing I do want to respectfully clarify um, you know, when I'm thinking about the housing potential associated with this project in particular, I do think it falls um in alignment with what we're suggesting with the housing assessment and and talking about our housing needs, not just in terms of aggregate housing production goals, but really thinking about the size and scale of housing that we need to see throughout the city.

So one clarification I did want to make when we're talking about sort of that what I mean by smaller format housing.

We do know that we have an undersupply of studio and one bedroom housing units in Fayetteville.

So that's not just rental housing.

We can also think about that in the owner-occupied housing market as well.

I think you can think about the solution for that in kind of two different buckets.

So you have certain places that it might make more sense to achieve that through larger multifamily development.

Really, I think that comes in uh into play when we think about increasing studio uh production in Fayetteville, which is certainly a need.

Um driving through the area this morning and really trying to get a feel for um the surrounding neighborhood.

Um, you know, I don't think that that's sort of the the bucket that makes sense for this particular area.

Uh I think it's really sort of a second bucket when we think about um everything in between single family homes, which is certainly um something in the surrounding area, up to larger multifamily developments.

Um, we're really thinking about smaller format housing being that sort of in-between part.

So things like duplexes, townhomes.

Um, that's really sort of the um smaller format housing that we're talking about.

And I think um one other thing that might be helpful to consider um from the housing assessment itself to sort of frame that need, um, you know, knowing that 70% of households um in Vateville today are one person or two people.

Um that's true for both non-family households and family households.

Um we're thinking about responsible growth and making sure future housing production that's coming online.

Um, we do have to think about smaller formats.

And I I think um, you know, as proposed when I think about the housing potential for this project, it aligns with the plan.

So can I ask a couple follow-up questions?

So when you talk about small formats, so that you you believe that the RSF 8 will uh kind of almost dictate the the smaller format housing.

Is that a fair Yeah?

I I think it would set it up for those types of uh those kinds of housing types.

Yeah, and then um uh infrastructure was brought up a lot.

We've had lots of discussions about infrastructure here and the actual cost of RSF4.

I think we've done comparisons and seen uh spreadsheets about the different, you know, the cost of sparse development, RSF4 as compared to dense development.

And can you can you touch on that for a second?

Maybe that's a better question for Jonathan.

I uh not sure.

Yeah, I'm happy to start and then Jonathan, if you want to pick up.

Um, you know, I know in the sort of longer um memo in your packets, um, it'll talk a little bit about this neighborhood being a good fit for housing in terms of existing infrastructure.

So that's that access to infrastructure is certainly something that's highlighted in the packet materials that I just wanted to echo.

Um I also think about some of the investments that the city has made in the surrounding neighborhood.

Um, so specifically the trail.

Um, I think uh that uh sort of proximity thinking about um, you know, not only uh that being kind of a leader, um, you know, housing, I think additional housing density, especially, you know, sort of smart, modest housing density increases in this area can certainly be a justification for prioritizing you know future infrastructure develop investments.

Um Jonathan, I don't know if there's anything else you want to add from your perspective.

One final thing.

Um Do you want do you want Jonathan to go ahead?

He had his let to tag it.

Yeah, I think Ms.

Stark covered it comprehensively.

The only item I'd like to add there that I'd mentioned at the last meeting is by many academic determinations, an eight unit per density threshold is the minimum necessary to support transit.

So when you hear about alternatives to driving, the reality is that we need to bring our density potentials to a higher level so that we can support transit moving forward, uh, whether it's there today or not, it is will it is not a sustainable fiscally responsible prospect when you are very low densities, like we see much of this area of Fayetteville.

Thank you, Jonathan.

And and Marley, this this project is near the well, it's right on the trail uh close to our a new signature park that we hope people have access to and not too far from Holcomb School.

Would those be factors that add in to that uh calculation of the the I'm losing my words, uh kind of that general density, that the additional density.

Yes, I think all of those um would certainly factor um into kind of our assessment of that.

I'd also add um when we're thinking about, I know several of the comments talked about the need for um additional services, um things like stores, restaurants, things like that.

Um, I think a similar pattern um to transit, you know, sort of following additional housing density.

Um we also see that I think kind of in our uh commercial real estate market.

We know that uh that kind of proximity to housing is certainly something that they look up.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um Minister Jones.

Thank you, um, Mayor.

I'm gonna go through some um top subjects that have we've talked about, but I know we spoke before with attorney Kit Williams about some things that we can use in order to not agree with planning or um develop approved development, and so I want to stay on top subject is safety.

My top subject is gonna always be safety.

Number one, I want to talk about traffic safety, the increased traffic, entering and exiting into the already busy roadway cannot be measured by past accidents.

So thank you for the traffic study.

I appreciate that we are not talking about um long-term traffic studies we're talking about right now today.

There's limited site distance for drivers due to the properties, locations and the topography.

More vehicles increase the risk of accidents for residents, pedestrians, and cyclists with a cyclist that was here last meeting that talked about having an accident and almost losing their life in that area.

Then we talk about children, adding cyclists, children, and walkers in that area.

Emergency access as we build out in this area, there's concern for narrow 260-foot wide parcel, which may limit safe emergency vehicles coming in and out to that area.

There's questions whether or not fire trucks, ambulances, and police vehicles can effectively serve the development as we're growing in that area.

We ask whether or not emergency responses times and turning um radio have been fully evad evaluated with them to be able to come in and come out of there safely without having accidents with any other vehicles.

There's road and infrastructure concerns, existing roads may be there, but they may not have been designed for the additional traffic volume that is going to be anticipated with 500 additional homes in that area.

There's potential potential conflicts between residents, delivery vehicles, school buses, and construction equipment.

Let's take all these variables around safety.

If we say as a um City Council member, I cannot deny something that has been approved.

I'm gonna tell you, I've identified a list of safety reasons why we should not approve this.

I want to take um, I think Jonathan's word was responsible growth.

I challenge whether or not that's responsible.

If you have all of these lists of safety issues, that is not responsible growth.

I want to talk about two.

And I think um Marley said responsible growth, but Jonathan, you said to support transit after higher density.

There is no guarantee that transit will ever go out there.

There are some areas of Fayetteville that I have identified that are rural areas that we will never touch.

We cannot build it and say they will come unless we're talking about right now, as we're building with developers alongside with with transit.

You can't do it after the fact and say, oh, maybe they'll come because what you do is you continue to move people further and further away from community services.

You create food deserts, you create elderly that cannot get to their medication, and you create communities that are really not thriving, they're barely surviving.

They have a roof over their head, but they cannot get to their local grocery store.

They cannot get their child to school safely because there are safety issues that are tied to this development.

I'm gonna tell you the last thing I'm gonna talk about is we're talking about responsible growth, and I'm gonna stay there because responsible growth is not just thinking about today, it's being visionary thinking about tomorrow.

There are houses around that area.

I live in that area, and that's flooding.

There's developers that come in and build every single day, and they care nothing about the flooding and the houses around those areas, but we can't come back as citizens to this um city council or the mayor or the city and say, hey, my house should just flood it because you approve approved development up on this hill.

I've paid two flood claims.

One was $25,000, another was another $15,000.

And then we're gonna develop on the hill, and they develop and they walk away.

Nobody's held accountable for responsible development.

It's not just looking at today, it's looking at the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I had a couple of questions on the PCD.

Did it does it state, or are you able to cover what the tree preservation requirement is on the PCD portion?

I don't know if I saw that.

PCDs require 20 per 25% tree preservation.

Okay, okay.

So with the current way that that has multifamily, it would um under the PZD, that would be 25%.

And then they're proposing potentially 25%.

Correct.

If the uh council amends the request to accept the current bill of assurance, it would include a 25% tree preservation canopy on that portion.

All right.

And then can you tell me the that property?

Is it it's currently zoned?

Um civic institutional or it's certain currently zoned.

What was the current zoning?

I apologize.

On the bigger track.

If you're referencing the future land use map, yeah.

There's a civic institutional zone or not zoning designation based on a previous property owner.

Okay.

And so with with that type of designation, could that have quite a large density of a type of development that could go into that area that could cover a similar amount of the land and might have to um go through these similar questions and hurdles?

It could.

Um so there are many different things that could be uh considered as a part of a civic institutional land use.

So would I be correct in saying even if this entire project was rejected tonight, there still is a high likelihood that the areas that are being talked about for both portions that they are zoned today in a way that could have a similar level of density and development or even higher possibly.

I think it's important to make sure it's it's apparent that the civic institutional designation that's a future land use map.

Okay, that doesn't matter.

Correct.

That does not include any sort of entitlement, whether it's land use or otherwise.

The zoning on the property portion of the property you're referencing is zoned RSF or today, so it would allow single family four units per acre, single family.

So it it potentially again though, can be can be developed.

And then what's the tree preservation on RSF4?

It's also 25%.

25%.

Okay.

All right, thank you, Jonathan.

Um I also I mean, I appreciate all of the um back and forth and the very thoughtfulness that's happened with the neighbors.

Um it is very hard um to navigate and see our communities changing.

And I think that those um areas that we have pinch points on the roadways and the stormwater, we definitely have been talking about for a number of years.

Um and they're definitely um going to take things like the bond bonds that you think thank you um approved, the stormwater utility, thank you that you're you're paying for, you know, to continue to invest in.

Um I don't think that the city or the developer in anything uh that are was to potentially move forward um is one we currently have regulations in place, I guess.

Uh there were some comments about um tree preservation that's spelling our goals and about the responsible development and things like our enduring green uh network.

Uh we've talked a lot about redoing our UDC and about the need to rezone the entire um city because so much of our city is still um uh you know uh zoning from 50 plus years ago and it's not meeting the needs of today.

We have to we only can use what the rules that are written and are approved today um have in place for what we hold them to.

And so as much as you know, I know we're talking about and we need to continue to push for additional, you know, tree preservation, you know, it has so many trade-offs too of the cost and the types of housing you get or you don't get right.

Um we all recognize and want to see um our protection of our nature and our environment, we think that's part of our identity, um, but we can't hold um the property owners to a higher standard than what's codified today.

And so I think really this conversation really um laid bare that we really have an opportunity to really try to expedite our unified development code process um and revisit in some of these areas around um our uh stormwater management of detention of you know looking at um how we're actually executing on the enduring green network.

Um and I'm gonna run out of time, so I'm gonna hold my comments, let my colleagues speak.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes, um first I want to say uh I appreciate the public for uh once again coming in for your opinion.

My question is Jonathan, Jonathan, um what was the vote with the uh the planning commission?

It was unanimous seven to zero.

Okay.

And I may have missed this, but uh this is in ward four uh council member Turk and Minister Jones.

Uh are you aware of anybody that's supporting this tonight?

I didn't hear of anyone that's in support of this.

From a I understood.

Okay.

May I respond?

Um please.

Absolutely.

Um I've only heard people against it, and for very good reasons.

Now we did have one gentleman that came up here and supported it, but I don't think he currently lived in that area right now.

Okay.

And I've only heard of one person as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Um Mr.

Witeker.

Thank you, Mayor.

This thank you guys for your graciousness during the tour.

Thank you for tonight, your graciousness to us.

Um it's what an articulate group of people.

No wonder Mrs.

Wheedaker and I chose to live in a in a city like Fayetteville.

It's scary sometimes how articulate people are.

Thank you for your your thoughtfulness.

And I want to compliment Mr.

Uh Kelstrom as well.

Uh he's 20 years old.

Look what the job is done to him trying to please people, everyone in the room.

Um you've done a uh a noble job.

I um I made a comment last time about uh RSF eight uh zoning and lot widths, which the mayor jumped on, and I've been having nightmares about ever since when she said you heard it here first, and I thought, oh boy, it's gonna come and bite me in the ass.

It surely will.

So I'm gonna explain that uh RSF4 lot widths are 70 feet, RSF eight is fifty feet.

So in every 350 feet, you can get five lot widths for RSF4 zoning, and only seven RSF-8 zoning.

It doesn't double to 10, you get seven.

And so for that reason, having lived in other places where traditional single family lot widths are 50 feet, I am comfortable with that zoning.

It's not the end of the world, no one's gonna die.

It's almost the same as RSF4.

Currently, yes, uh, they mentioned to us that they wanted 60 foot lot widths.

I don't have a problem with that either.

It's simply um I think a better utilization of the land and will obligate them to deal with more manageable storm water on that particular portion of the rezoning.

The concerns that I have haven't now said that I'm leaning towards support for that portion.

I do have concerns about the smaller nine-acre portion, and I want to make sure uh Jonathan that I understand this correctly, PZD-wise.

So at four units per acre multifamily means 36 total units, and since they have nine acres, they could theoretically build two 18-unit apartment buildings, but it would only be those two apartment buildings to get the 36 units in essence on that acreage.

And I'll give you a moment to do the math and correct me.

I I think your math is correct.

I think the only qualification of that is it is closer to 10 acres than nine, as I understand it.

And and I appreciate that.

They might get 19 and 19, they might get 20 and 20.

So I I just want us to all acknowledge that there is already zoning that allows that to be dealt developed, and and I don't really have a problem with that zoning as it exists.

My dilemma is the single vote, and I completely understand our our legal obligation to have just a single vote.

And so I would turn to my colleagues and let you know that while I'm supportive of the larger parcel, I'm not supportive of the smaller parcel.

And if I'm left with only one vote, I would be very hesitant versus if someone were to make a motion and we were to pass a motion to only rezone a portion of it.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

But that was not you making a motion.

You were just saying you'd be supportive of someone else's.

Okay.

I need to hear from some more people.

Okay, you know I had to ask.

One more thing, I forgot.

Dad Gummit, and thank you for allowing me to continue.

Yes, just it starts again each start the clock over again.

No, this will be very short.

Part of the delay part of the dilemma we have is also that cities grow organically.

And the real challenge is the development to the west of this should have sequentially come after this parcel was developed.

So I want to honor that in out of sequence development process.

And it's because no one did anything wrong, it's just simply we end up with islands undeveloped while we develop further east, further north, further south.

And so that creates this kind of awkward night for us.

If everything was sequential, the roads and the infrastructure would all grow as development grows.

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest, Mayor.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Ooh, I looked at the same time.

We'll start with uh with Ms.

Turk.

Or we we'll start with Miss Bunch since last time I skipped over you.

Then we'll talk then we'll go to Ms.

Turk.

It's fine.

It's fine.

I mean the hot seat.

You know, I want to I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight.

Um lots of uh, you know, lots of thought, I know from the citizens has gone into this.

And um, you know, I I respect all my council fellow council members and their comments, but there's a few things that there are two things really that I have to consider, and I go back to council member uh Monique Jones here uh about safety and runoff.

That might have been Teresa Turk, I'm not sure, but you know it was both.

But yeah, but there's two things, there's two things there that we really need to consider.

And I do I do consider that, and then on the other side of that, I also have a hard time saying no to housing next to housing.

That's a problem.

I mean, that's a problem for me to say, oh well, this is not compatible to this, because as as Mr.

Wheedaker said, that the um development to the west happened a little bit before this did, and it should have been more, you know, if it was all uh uh sequential, it would have been much neater.

Well, years ago, I helped fund a lot of the houses that some of you live in now.

And um that happened on that westward edge of the development.

And I remember going out there, and there were there was cow manure on the ground where we were building.

So you know that that's how things get built sometimes, and it's what someone brings forward.

It's not like well, this is in the center of town, we have to develop all of this first before somebody comes forward with something else.

It's when someone sells their land and what they want to, you know, whoever they sell it to, what they decide to do with it.

And and there was a school out there, and so houses need to be near a school, don't they?

You know, so that's that's why that's why a lot of that development happened there.

But we have not gotten a lot of the things that we would hope to get, uh, which would be the the uh walkability, the trails are there, but we don't have a lot of the things that you would hope to that would have developed that you could walk to.

And so that's something I can I consider also on this, and I'm not really sure where I'm going with all of this, but I I just kind of um you know, I I feel like the small format, these are smaller lots, um, you know, but the small format that we're talking about, I have a feeling if somebody came in and wanted to build you know all this as tiny homes, you wouldn't like that either, probably.

So I've got a few things to think about, and that's what I'm gonna focus on is safety and water.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you all for coming out tonight and doing such great research.

I mean, you've really um had some really thoughtful uh and and I would almost uh say academic research that's gone into this, and so we appreciate all of those comments.

Um, I have some I think I have some really serious issues with this proposed development, and the biggest one is the lack of infrastructure.

Dean Solomon is already, you know, it's already too small.

It needs to be upgraded.

We're gonna have 500 more houses like we just talked about.

That's probably a thousand more cars or close to that, 750 more cars.

Um, that is a real problem.

The safety issues.

I mean, frankly, I would rather um spend our money, our taxpayer money widening or addressing the issues on Dean Solomon than on Greg Avenue.

So that I think that's where um the um the focus should be, and that the West has really been West Fayetteville has been kind of ignored from time to time due to its newness and and recent rapid growth.

Uh we've had accidents with bikes on there, uh, and probably some people walking.

Um cars in the ditch.

Uh I could easily see how that would happen.

And um, and there is no transit out there, and the likelihood of transit out there, I think is unless we pass a transit tax or somebody proposes that in the near future, I think it's at least 15 or 20 years.

So in the meantime, it's all auto-oriented.

That's just that's just the reality of our growth and development and our tax base.

So there's no transit, there's no um, there are no commercial uh infrastructure, uh, no restaurants, no none of that.

It's all auto-oriented, and we have a low infill score.

Uh despite there being just a very slight slope, it's very, very small, but those are wet prairies, and all that water is gonna go right back down into Van Eyck.

It just is.

That's the way it is.

I still believe that our um that our drainage um manual is not really up to snuff from what we're experiencing, even with new development, I get calls about flooding, so I still think that is an issue.

So I am not gonna be supportive of this development tonight.

And I am also like Council Meener uh member Weedaker and others, I'm very concerned about the 9.6 acres.

That and and to lump these two together when they're very different, uh poses a real challenge for the council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Berner.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um my fear on this is if on the on the smaller portion.

Is the old saying be careful what you wish for, because at this point um it could be developed.

And uh it could be developed to standards that you've already expressed you don't like.

Um and I I get your concerns.

And I'm trying to weigh I I I believe I've heard the vast majority of people that spoke against the the rezoning supported the larger portion.

It was the smaller portion that that they disagreed with.

So if we split that out and we do just the larger portion and we leave the nine acres the way it is, I think you're gonna fall into category, be careful what you wish for, because it's gonna be developed.

And and they're going to um, if they're not willing to develop it, they're gonna be selling it to a per person that is willing to develop it.

And they're going to develop it to the standards it is right now, and there's not anything we as city council can do.

We can't take away their buy right use.

Um so that's my concern.

Um I've just got to weigh out if I think the overall project, the give and take in the long run is a better alternative than the unknown that we could have if we don't if we leave that parcel uh separate.

So um that that's my concern, and I'll kind of see you know, kind of where this goes.

Uh Bob and then Miss Bunch again.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh when I took the seat on council, one of the first votes I took, and I was very proud of is we declared a housing crisis in this city.

That that crisis has not been solved.

Um and when I look to the future, what I see is 60,000 new people in 20 to 25 years.

And I do not believe that RSF 4 is responsible growth.

Um at its hurt, we have a neighborhood that's uh uh on the trails next to a new uh landmark park and near one of our main schools.

My family moved here in 1971.

Uh we moved into the uh south side of uh Rolling Hills Drive.

The north side of Rolling Hills Drive, uh and all around Butterfield Elementary was cow pasture, active cow pasture with cows and electric fence and all that fun stuff.

And when they built out the north side of Rolling Hills Drive, there was not a tree in sight when they built that.

And now it is a beautiful forested neighborhood.

And now there is infrastructure around it.

The only infrastructure was a 71 drive-in and a 7 Eleven at the corner of college and uh uh rolling hills.

Um growth is hard.

But when I look at the you know, RSF8 is not high density, it's general density.

And and and to uh Mr.

Berners point, you have to be careful what you wish for, because the way that smaller lot is designed now, man.

Uh they could as he said they could build that by right, and there's not a dang thing we could do about it.

Um traditional density in Fayetteville, if you look at the historic district.

I think the historic district pencils out it like roughly uh 10 units an acre.

It's not zone that, but like if you did the math, would that be roughly correct, Jonathan?

I don't have that at the top of my mind, sorry.

I'm gonna I'll die on the hill.

I think that's correct.

Um I don't know what else to add.

I I I have to vote for this.

Uh this is not high density, it's close to schools, it's close, it's on the trails, close to a a great new park.

Um, you when we talk about traffic, I live off Huntsville Road, uh, about the same size road as Dean Solomon.

Two lanes with driveways here, there, everywhere, side streets.

Um, and yeah, in the morning and in the evening, the traffic is a bear.

Uh but we keep adding density there.

Uh I supported that density all around my house.

I supported apartments across the street before I got on council.

We came down and spoke in favor of the density around us because we know that this city is growing at a rate, and if we want affordable housing, people are right.

We do have to build the right type of housing.

But it's also a numbers game.

And and and more housing is the only way to level the market is more housing.

And people are coming, whether you like it or not.

And if we don't build the housing, the only people are getting forced out is ourselves and our kids.

So I'm in support of this.

Okay.

We'll go back.

I think Miss Bunch.

Uh yes.

Um, one of the things that's come up on the council frequently comes up is that, and it comes up with the with our citizens as well, is the infrastructure's not there now to handle what what will be built.

Well, when this was built, there wasn't much infrastructure there now, and we do have some improvements in that.

But to say that Councilmember Turk mentioned the preference of taking funds away from Greg Street to put on Dean Solomon, that she would prefer that.

Well, Greg Street is closer to the center of town.

That everyone talks about where we should have more things and we should have improvements and that sort of thing.

Greg Street's closer to the center than Dean Solomon is, and there's probably higher density around there than there is on Dean Solomon.

So when we talk about improvements on streets, they are usually driven by rooftops that go in.

And that's that's just an unfortunate fact.

And it's also the fact with transportation, we don't have transportation where there are there is not high density.

It has to be it's a numbers game there too.

So I I don't I feel like this is going to be developed, and my my heartburn though is with the smaller lot, the same as many of my fellow council members, but I agree with Mr.

Berna that if we hold it up, it it's it's gonna something's gonna go in there, and it's probably not gonna be anything that you're gonna like.

It's gonna be the maximum that they can put in, and it's not it's not gonna be what you're gonna feel is compatible with your neighborhood.

So thank you.

Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I want to address uh Mr.

Stafford's comments is I agree we need housing.

That's never a question.

There's transportation in your area, there's parks in your area.

If you look at the infield score in your area, it's probably a 9.5.

This is a 4.5.

We're talking about walkability, access, transit, and making creating a neighborhood where someone will be required to have a car.

Required.

Let me remind you that we're in the state of Arkansas and there are asset limits.

We are one of the only states in this in the country that requires if you have food stamps or SNAP benefits, you cannot have any assets that are over $2,500.

So if a family can afford to move out there, they can't afford to have a car.

We have to be aware that there's a domino effect when we make these decisions to put people in areas, and that's why I'm not gonna stop talking about food deserts because we're not we're also number one in the United States in food insecurity.

If we're gonna build out in those areas, we should be building out farms.

We should also be building out community gardens, we should be building out transit.

We cannot say, let's just put a house out there and they'll figure it out later.

I serve individuals every single day who do not know how they're gonna get their last meal.

Half of you don't know that I do DoorDash delivery to individuals because they're in areas that they cannot get back to food.

How do we stop this?

I just don't understand.

Just to do it just to just because I agree with you, Bob, we need housing.

That's never an issue.

That's never a question.

Understand.

I worked for Dallas Area Rapid Transit for 10 years.

I know what mass transit looked like.

We're not even close to it.

I was part of the light right light rail build out.

We're not even close to mass bus transit.

But we keep building out.

I saw Dallas grow over the years, but when it grew, they also added transit when they grew it.

We're not looking at transit and like he said, it could be 10 to 13 years later.

What do we do as we create a space where families struggle to meet their needs?

Um we're talking about putting McDonald's out there.

You don't want to get me started on fat food fast and processed food.

I got a whole speech about eating healthier and chronic health diseases and social determinants of health.

I can start talking about how if we want to do better with our health care system, it starts with better food, it starts with better access, it starts with supporting our families differently.

It does not start just when we build a house.

We have to make sure that we have accessibility around all of these houses.

And I want us to think that way as we approve it.

I I would love planning to talk about it.

I would love transportation to talk about it.

That's my biggest issue is the right hand is not like talking to the left hand as we're building this out.

And then when we have issues, we go, oh well, we'll check, we'll look at that later.

We'll put that in a bond issue later.

But what happens to the people in the meantime?

What happens to our community in the meantime?

I don't understand how we can work together as a community, as a city, and not address these issues as they come up.

And this is why I have an issue with us building out, not talking about development when we build out.

And I'm talking about develop around transit, development around um making sure we have access to city services, to community services as we push people out there.

I can say the one thing I'm I love that when Cobblestone forms built that housing down on Whittington, they also build a farm out there.

Do you do you understand what I'm talking about?

We we can't do one without the other.

We keep saying we'll talk about it later, we'll address it later.

What happens to the people in the meantime?

Thank you.

Miss Moore.

Um one is a procedural question.

I wanted to see where because we've talked about this now for two meetings.

I know the bill of assurance looked like one thing previously.

I don't think we adopted it.

And now we have a secondary bill of assurance that unfortunately the public has I don't know if they've seen it, they've heard it talked to, but I don't think our language is anywhere that they can see it right now.

I'm not sure.

I would have to ask Courtney if that second bill of assurance went out, but we don't have a motion to move forward with the bill of assurance, the new one or the previous one, we would have to have a motion.

Courtney.

Um, as of right now, the only bill of assurance our office has received is attached to the item within civic clerk.

Okay, okay.

So it doesn't sound like we've received the updated bill of assurance.

I just wanted to see procedurally where we were since we've talked for a little bit.

Um, and so I'd like to speak a little bit on the bill of assurance.

I mean, I I would I I understand that it was arrived at because of conversations and that the development team feels like potentially that answers some of the concerns.

Um for me, my hesitation and why I'd like to say let's not um adopt the bill of assurance tonight is um that I do have concerns about in the event that this project changed at some point or there was a need for flexibility for this to turn over to someone else in the future.

You know, all of those requirements get tied there.

Um, and so um, you know, I have incredible concerns.

We talked about like what does that project end up looking like?

And so I I'm open to hearing feedback, but tonight I I would prefer to to leave it without the the bill of assurance, or I'd love to take the additional tree preservation and get rid of the rest, but I think Kit would tell us we can't do that probably.

Correct?

We can't we can't pick and choose parts of a bill of assurance, is that correct?

Well, eventually you all need to decide on whether you want to accept the bill of assurance that was offered.

I think we've had two offered, but I guess the second one uh is supposed to be the one that the uh uh developers actually offering.

Is that right, Will?

And um does that only refer to the nine-acre lot?

That's also correct.

Okay.

So before you would want to actually move to pass anything, you would want to decide whether or not you want to accept the offered bill of assurance on that.

And yes, we can't really ask for changes to the bill of assurance.

That's something that must be offered and not requested by us.

Okay, thank you, Ket.

And then I did want to talk to um one other area, you know, that um I I um appreciated that came up in the conversation, and I want to acknowledge the the residents about bringing up and council member minister jones and others about um the lack of you know services in that area.

Um, you know, we have tier centers, um uh mid and larger tier centers that are meant to be um an area that provides services, and I I believe maybe over towards one twelve, um we probably have more of a tier center and one further.

I'm trying to think of where the closest tier centers are, but maybe have not seen um additional development.

Is that correct?

I mean, they're probably Jonathan.

Are they there is a tier two center identified in the area of Garland and I-49, and then the next closest one is a tier three center uh further south at Mount Comfort Road and Shiloh.

Okay.

So I mean those are definitely a challenge, and so I was hopeful that maybe there would be um some some mixed use.

And so um I I guess I want to recognize that there are um definitely challenges to to this, and you see that we've gone back and um forth this evening.

Um, but I do think that this area will be developed, and um for those reasons um tonight I'm you know hopeful that we won't accept the bill of assurance, but we would go forward with what was proposed um with these two parcels to be rezoned, um, especially because the underlying uh PZD on the nine uh almost ten acres, you know, is gonna allow for multi-family, and so I agree that I think that this could potentially be a much more thoughtful development.

Um but I really do hope we'll take under advisement.

I mean the concerns are you know very valid across our whole city about the stormwater management, you know, the safety concerns.

Um and we have challenges all over our city, and this pocket of area is no different than many other pockets that we could probably have very similar conversations, and I wish we had a magic wand and hundreds of millions of dollars, you know, to fix it.

Um I think that there is a commitment across this body and across this administration to begin to address those things.

Um, and they are gonna take additional rooftops in the area for us to both invest in those things and to maintain them over time.

Every stretch of trail, every stretch of uh stormwater management has to be touched again.

You know, stormwater we're now commit stormwater uh our storm uh our uh infrastructure we're trying to touch once every five years, and so it's gonna take additional residents to be able to afford those projects going forward.

So I'm supportive tonight of the project.

Great.

Thank you.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Out of uh an abundance of appreciation for the time we've all spent on this.

Let me um make a motion to amend just a trial balloon.

If it passes, great.

If it fails, we know where we are to leave the nine point six acres zoned as currently zoned in the PZD and to rezone the larger portion to RSF eight as is requested.

Is that a legal motion to amend the zoning, Mr.

Attorney?

I think it is what you're doing basically is denying the rezoning of the nine acres, but granting the zoning requested for the 25 acres.

Allow me to see if I can even get a second.

Thank you.

Well, it shows the power of persuasion I brought tonight, Mayor.

Okay, yes.

Okay.

It looks like that motion dies without a second.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'd like to make a motion to accept the revised second um bill of assurance um before us tonight.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to accept the revised bill of assurance for clarification for my own clarity.

The council did receive the second bill of assurance or did not receive the second.

You all did receive the second bill of assurance.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second uh to uh accept the provide most recently provided bill of assurance.

Uh Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

No.

Mr.

Weedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Okay, so both the title and the body will say subject to the bill of assurance.

Great.

Okay.

So that has been amended.

And I think it sounds like it's going to be left on the second.

So would or correct is that what I'm oh, yes, I'm sorry, Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

I was gonna make a motion to suspend the roles and go to the third reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion, a second to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Miss Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

And orange to rezone the property described and rezoning partition RZN 2026-15 for approximately 36.2 acres.

Uh northwest of uh well, no, I actually at this point it's an ordinance to rezone the property described and read zoning petition RZN 2026 15 for approximately.

No, they didn't they didn't split it.

That failed.

Oh, that's right.

Yes.

So not to rub it in, sorry, but it just didn't write.

Let me try this third time.

It's just subject to a bill of assurance at the end.

So reason the property described and reasoning petition RZN 2026 15 for approximately 36.2 acres northwest of North Dean Solomon Road and West Van Nyck Drive in Ward 4 from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre and CPZD commercial plan zoning district to RMF 12 residential multifamily 12 units per acre and RSF 8 residential single family eight units per acre, subject to the bill of assurance.

Okay, great.

Um Courtney, will you please call the roll for the final vote?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

No.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

No.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

No.

Minister Jones.

No.

Um.

Mayor, I believe that is a four-four vote.

Do you care to vote?

Um, I would like to make a statement.

Um this is one that I'd hoped I would not have to break a tie on because it was so um complex.

And I did, like Mr.

Wheedaker and like several of our of the residents here expressed, hoped that we could consider it as two parcels.

I think that that would have been better in a lot of ways.

Um and so I was initially prepared to, if it came to a tie, um, decline to the decline the vote and and let it fail.

However, I think it is compelling to state that based on the current zoning, um, I'm afraid what would happen.

And I think in the words of council member Berna, it could end up being something that the neighbors were even less happy with than this.

And so um, and I can sir, I'm sorry if you are holding that up for me to read.

I can't see that far.

My eyes are not that good.

Um I also want to express that I really appreciate what Minister Jones said, and I think she's right in a lot of ways that we don't do um we don't always do an adequate job of working cross-departmentally of having transit talk to water and sewer to long-range planning to engineering to development services to where we're all working together, and I think that's fair criticism and a fair area that that we need to do better on.

Um trust that the experts that the city hires to make these determinations.

Um, and namely in Mr.

Kirth, um, they do so with a great deal of thought and a great deal of consideration, and they have a tremendous amount of expertise that I do not have.

So when I think about um uh you know, what would I want if it were in my neighborhood and my kids were growing up there?

I can absolutely understand and and empathize with the neighbors of you know, maybe not wanting additional housing.

Um I also know, like you said, Bob, we have 60,000 people moving in, and I think the only way that we get the infrastructure that we desperately need out there on Dean Solomon, um, is if the rooftops are there, if the rooftops are not there, we will never be able to justify the infrastructure.

So with that being said, I am going to vote, and I'm going to vote yes.

Yeah.

Okay, so it passed.

Um, right now, before we move forward, um, I would like to um just sort of take, but we're gonna take a brief break, not very long, just a brief break before we get to the next item of old business.

Um the administration had brought forward several items, C1, C2, and C3.

Um, they're all part of uh housing uh package and related to the unified development code.

There's the through lot, the lot width minimums, and the residential parking requirements.

I would like to see I I want to uh the we would like as a staff to hold those and bring those back in two weeks just because of the time that we are already at at the meeting and the disc robust discussion we know that those deserve.

If we have a big group of people who have been waiting in the audience to hear that, I would like to know that because I do want to be respectful if you showed up to talk about those things.

Yes, we have one.

Oh, okay.

No, I'm sorry.

Oh, yes, no, feel free.

Okay, go ahead.

The gentleman behind you, I think showed up, Mr.

Eccles.

Yes.

But you were here anyway to speak about items, right?

Okay.

Um if it if it would be appropriate, Kit, I think at the time we get to see one, I would be asking motions from the council on those three items.

Um I've also heard from the council that they would like more time and more discussion and more presentation.

So just gonna float that out there now.

Okay, um, we will come back at Mike.

What do you mean back at 22?

Oh, okay.

Let's say well, I'm gonna be more generous than Mr.

Weedaker.

825.

We're gonna be back at 825.

Okay, everyone.

I hate to be the timekeeper here, but unfortunately that does come with the job, and it is 826 and and counting.

So we will come back to the agenda and resume at item two B2 of old business, an ordinance prohibiting the city of Fayetteville from entering into non-disclosure agreements that restrict disclosure of public records or public business beyond that authorized by law, and to declare an emergency.

This was tabled at the last meeting with a motion on the floor, I believe.

Mr.

Williams, if you could catch us up.

Yes, Mayor, the uh city council has several options right now.

We are back at uh immediately before the vote was taken on the uh on the amendment of uh uh off uh council member stafford.

And so that was brought back, and so we're right there.

So we've already had discussion on it, but it doesn't mean you can't have further council discussion.

And there could also be other motions made at this point in time.

Uh not too many.

One, you know, like the motion to table took precedence and it could be made, and there could be a motion to amend uh councilman staffer's motion.

Okay, so that's where you are.

You whatever you want to do.

Okay, Miss Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I apologize for not getting this out sooner.

I tried my best.

Uh I really did, but uh I believe today around noon you received an updated um amendment to council member stafford's um um uh um proposal two weeks ago.

And so I would um I would like to open it up for discussion or actually make a motion to amend council member stafford's um okay.

We have a motion to amend or to offer a friendly amendment to offer a friendly amendment.

There you go.

Yeah, I I I was thinking and and I appreciate your work and your due diligence on that.

I think you made it better and and stronger.

So I would totally be willing to accept a friendly amendment.

Uh the seconder would also have to agree to accept that as a friendly amendment.

That would be Mr.

Berna, because Mr.

Berna offered the original second on Bob's amendment.

I'll accept I'll accept it.

Okay.

Okay.

Point of information.

Um, is it possible since the public has not seen this that we're able to go through what those changes are?

And then my other uh point of information is we have the ability to wait to vote on the amendment until after public comment.

Is that correct, Kit?

Normally there's not public comment on amendments.

But we can take public comment, is that correct?

The city council can vote to take public comments, a majority will allow that.

Okay.

Just just because it is new, that would be my only question, is that we could maybe listen to the public before we make that decision.

And so we took public comment on on it initially, and we will be taking public comment again on the item before the item passes.

We have never, at least since I've been here taking public comment also on the amendment, and then again on the item.

But whatever procedurally Kit says is allowed is allowed.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yeah, um, I I believe we did uh have public comment.

Um and uh and also uh um uh Ms.

Moore uh voted for an immediate vote.

So I think I think we're in because we didn't end up doing the without discussion.

Right.

And um coming back to where we are now, we have a motion and a second on a new amendment on the table.

I would like to ask if Ms.

Turk would be willing to sort of summarize your amendment and then call for the vote on the amendment.

We will vote on the amendment then goes.

It's not too long, but I think probably it helps.

Okay, Kit, please.

It's also entitled an ordinance providing transparency for non-disclosure agreements and declare emergency.

Uh whereas the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act uh declares that public business should be conducted in an open and public manner, and whereas the CIFAL City of Council finds that transparency and public confidence are best served when city officials, employees, contractors, and representatives understand that no agreement may supersede the requirements of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, and whereas approvals of non-disclosure agreements should be rare, and every disclosure agreement should automatically terminate upon the non-disclosure agreements requester's application for any city permit, license, or other city document or upon the requester's public disclosure of the project.

Now therefore it be ordained by the city council, the city of Faville, Arkansas Section One, that the City Council of the City of Faville, Arkansas hereby determines that the city of Fayetteville may only enter into non-disclosure agreements after receiving written approval from both the mayor and the city count attorney, which may be granted electronically.

Section two.

The city council of the city of Favel, Arkansas hereby determines that upon receipt of a request to enter into a non-disclosure agreement.

Staff will schedule a meeting with the mayor and city attorney to review the agreement.

The city attorney will review the pros uh proposed NDA to ensure it is in proper form and that it does not violate local or state laws.

Pursuant to city policy ADO2, the mayor will review the proposed non-disclosure agreement and ensure the related project is consistent with the goals of the city and in the best interest of the public.

The mayor and the city attorney will provide written documentation stating whether the NDA may be signed and which employee may sign it.

The documentation will be provided in hard or electronic copy.

City Council, the City of Favorville, Arkansas, Section Three, hereby determines that nothing in this ordinance shall prohibit the city from protecting records that are exempt from disclosure under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, any state or federal statute requiring confidentiality, court order, or any other protection recognized by Arkansas law.

Section four that the City Council of the City of Favor, Arkansas hereby determines that the city attorney shall provide guidance to city departments regarding compliance with this ordinance and the Freedom Arkansas Freedom of Information Act and shall review proposed confidentiality provisions in all city contracts for legal compliance prior to signing by any staff or elected person.

Section five, that the city council, the city of Favorville, Arkansas hereby determines that if any section, subsection, sec sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions.

And here are the new portions, new sections, section six, that the city council of the city of Fayetteville Arkansas hereby requires that all non-disclosure agreements must include an automatic termination provision, which activates when the uh when the project it pertains to enters into the public process as indicated by any application for any city permit or license, the creation of a council agenda item, other means of seeking city approval, or of the requester's public disclosure.

Upon notice to the mayor, the mayor or designated representative shall on the same day if feasible notify the city council of the project and disclose that the NDA was previously in place.

Section 7 that the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas hereby determines that any non-disclosure agreement executed by both parties shall be retained by the city staff signee until the agreement terminates.

Once the non-disclosure agreement is no longer in effect, the city staff signee will shall provide an original or copy of the NDA to the city's clerk's office for retention pursuant to state law.

And then Section 8 emergency clause that the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas, hereby determines that an emergency exists so that this ordinance shall become effective immediately after its passage and approval.

Okay.

So we have an amendment and a second.

Courtney, will you please call the roll on the amendment?

Mayor.

Mayor, could I oh yes, Ms.

Turk.

So your policy was amended, but um that amendment was not read.

Your pa the addition that was in your policy.

And so it I just think in terms of full um full disclosure of that that should be read.

It's just references your policy.

Okay, would you like me to read my policy?

Okay.

I can um I do not have it printed, but if the council would allow me, kit read it in its entirety, it just was rid it written in section two, section three is the part about talking about how the mayor shall notify the council immediately, it'll be retained.

That was the full body of the amended policy.

Okay, okay.

Yes, okay, Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes, Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Okay.

So that amendment passes.

And so now we can and should open it up to public comment.

We're at the amended ordinance, and it's been read, I guess, twice.

Great.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Bunch.

Okay.

No.

Ms.

Moore.

Well, this would be an appropriate time for questions in regard to what this amended ordinance would do.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

Just procedurally.

That was kind of.

I did want to ask Kit.

We had this conversation at the last council meeting.

Um there was language that stated that we want to make sure that signing an NDA is quote unquote rare.

Um but rare is not really a legal term unless something's codified.

Um my question to you is the language in this amended version.

Does this fully define out in legal terms making an NDA rare in the city of Fayetteville?

Well, as you'll notice, the rare was in the whereas clauses and not in the actual ordinance itself, the operative part of the ordinance.

So the operative part of the ordinance controls, and it just shows the whole procedure that any non-disclosure agreement must go through, and the fact that any non-disclosure agreement must include a provision that I bet none of them do now, which says that upon any uh obtaining any license, any kind of uh uh other thing like going to the city council for approval or any other thing that would get into the public area, the non-disclosure agreement terminates automatically.

And so I think that that's gonna probably make non-disclosure agreements pretty rare.

We still might have some uh, but they're sure not gonna last very long uh because they'll be automatically terminated if uh basically any time that the uh they enter the public process as a follow-up to that kit.

Thank you for that explanation.

Does the original language um of the NDA ordinance does that more so define rare as as was requested from the body when we had that discussion talking about the the ordinance that you originally drafted?

Correct.

Does that help to get further towards defining rare?

Uh certainly I think that the original one that was drafted would make a non-disclosure agreements very rare also because they would be uh having to go to the council.

Okay, and even though if you try to do something to protect uh undisclosed things there, I think that most uh companies would be very concerned about that, and so I doubt if uh very many companies at all would want to enter into a non-disclosure agreement that basically is going to the city council.

Okay, thank you, Kit.

Okay, and so I just want to because we've had a couple of procedural questions.

The reason we are going back to public comment is because we now have a new amended ordinance being proposed.

Is that your assertion, Kit?

I yeah, this uh before uh you know we can go to the third and final reading if you want to.

Are we on the second reading?

Yes, okay.

Do we have and and then have public comment for the vote?

But I think there needs to be public comment at some point.

I'll make a motion to suspend it and go to the third and final reading.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, no.

Mr.

Weedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Miss Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

No.

And ordinance providing transparency for non-disclosure agreements and to declare an emergency.

Okay.

Now we are going to open it up for public comment.

And um members of the public that would like to speak on this issue, you're welcome to come to the mic.

You have three minutes.

Please state your name and address.

And you may, if you are able to, if you want to line up, you don't have to wait on me to call you each time.

Good evening.

Mayor Ron, Council members.

I'm Anita Schnee.

I'm a lawyer practicing in Fayetteville, excuse me.

I'm also very, very grieving, so please bear with me.

Unrelated to the matter at hand.

Okay.

So my letter that I submitted to you offers the legal case for Member Moore's ordinance in its original form.

The basic question, as we all know, is who gets to know what our government is doing before it gets done.

That some businesses will not negotiate without an NDA.

But confidentiality during negotiations doesn't have to mean silence forever.

Your choice there could be to exercise discretion for a time, and then let in some daylight before it's too late, as I believe the ordinance in its current form does.

And public matters have been public business for a generation.

Thank you.

Almost 60 years ago, our legislature unanimously enacted one of the nation's strongest Freedom of Information Acts.

A few weeks after that, North Little Rock Council tried to close out the public and they failed.

The governor tried to carve up FOIA in 2023 because it quote hampers government, end quote.

And bipartisan resistance mostly defeated that effort.

The Arkansas Supreme Court has said FOIA exists wholly in the public interest.

That's a quote from the decision, and must be read to achieve that purpose.

But we don't.

And I understand it's just not practical to chase an outcome that doesn't comport with the realities.

That there is secrecy until notice to the council whenever city action is required if I've understood the new rule.

But this does move us toward daylight and away from absolute silence.

And confidentiality no longer needs to mean invisibility.

So I urge you to accept all the hard work that's been done on this really important issue.

And I'm especially gratified that the version will include both the executive and legislative branches of our representatives who will get to weigh in before action is taken.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Council members.

Hello, Mayor.

My name is Mary Kurbatova.

I live down on 204 South School Avenue.

Um and I support Sarah Moore's original NDA ordinance.

Um the council should vote on NDAs before they take effect, and um they should be published by the city clerk immediately and not in uh five years.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we have anyone else that's in the room that would like to weigh in on this?

Keith, do we have anyone that is called in?

I do not see anybody throw their hand raised on Zoom.

Okay.

I'm just gonna make sure.

Um okay, I'm gonna bring it back to the council for comments.

We'll start with you, Ms.

Moore, because your lights on.

Oh thank you, Mayor.

Um so, you know, I much like um many people in the community, um, you know, in February was the first time I really considered uh the role and purpose of non-disclosure agreements, right?

And so I'm really thankful uh for the evolution of conversations that have um occurred and happened um with city staff, with um the mayor's office, and I really appreciate um that they took the that information to heart and they created policies.

Um I did as I stated um when I brought forward the legislation, it was from those months of conversations and being concerned to make sure uh that we fully codified something.

Um I do um ultimately think um, you know, I originally started with an absolute ban and did know that there need to be some potential exceptions and exemptions.

Um I stand by that original ordinance um that um I don't uh I don't see that the presence of a dedicated economic development person um justifies the fact that the non-disclosure you know agreements would take place where you know there are public employees responsible you know to serving the public interest and not shielding um the governmental actions from public scrutiny.

Um but I think that in these conversations that's been incredibly taken to heart, and I think that um the feedback from the public and our robust conversations will be taken to heart whenever these considerations are being made.

Our FOIA laws are incredibly robust.

Um they actually do have carve outs for economic development, and so even with the full ban uh of an NDA in the city of Fayetteville, um we should still welcome business day in and day out to Fayetteville.

And so this is definitely not anti-business, it's uh pro-sunshine, um, it's pro-transparency, um, it's pro-building public trust.

Um, and so that's what we have to have in community right to move forward, especially in challenging times that we face and have so many difficult decisions ahead of us.

Um, and um additionally, you know, I I wanted um uh to talk about um it's incredibly you know important that um we stay rooted on on these um types of conversations on um as much as we possibly can doing you know the public's business um out in the open.

And so I do appreciate and thank you to council member you know Turk, especially, who continued to try uh to look at additional ways that we could uh look at further amendments and thank you, Mayor Ron, for the changes um to the policy going forward.

Um tonight I am supportive that we're gonna have something in place, but I do want to explain that my vote tonight of no is just because I do feel like the original ordinance still stays fully um intact to be able to support the fact that we can welcome businesses, that staff can continue to do their work and feel like you know the tightest ability to be able to put in place you know a public gearing that doesn't necessarily even disclose uh the business that talks about the industry, what they're asking for us to um uh to put in the NDA as what what will not be you know talked about are very minimum requirements to come before this body and to um at least blankly at a top line level allow for us to consider that and to just at least put that into the public realm.

Um and so you know, with the amended version, you know, we will not you know get um get that version or get that ability, um and I didn't see that as too high a hurdle given that um you know that meant means that uh you know certain companies you know are potentially you know gonna get um uh certain privileges that others will not, and so that extra scrutiny would be warranted.

Um so I just wanted to explain tonight, you know.

I'm supportive that we've been able again to make progress, but um when I do vote um no tonight, it's just because I think that we should have as tight a legislation as possible.

And also um in talking with legislators, um it was mentioned about the um challenges that have happened to FOIA since 2023.

Um it has um opened up conversation channels across all parties and walks of life um around transparency in government, and there are legislators that are concerned about the carve out of FOIA with economic development and conversations about revisiting that in the next legislative session.

So definitely there's a lot of sensitivity around this topic, and I think this will be an ever-evolving conversation about how these the public's business and private public partnerships really have to be in the public light as much as possible.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I just want to thank the mayor and her staff for um being open to amending your policy and and uh providing additional provisions in there.

Um I really appreciate that.

I think the issue with Swarm Arrow and the NDAs, it's something that I don't believe that I ever really thought about much of, and I don't think many many of the public did either until this happened.

So uh I think just the more transparency that we've been able to create here, I think is good for Fayetteville, and I think it gives us some more thought as we go forward.

I was very concerned about excluding any really potential um employers or potential issues that Fayetteville really needed to weigh in on if we had had more rigid or or strict uh standards.

So I felt that um this was as close to the line as I could um offer or suggest, and so I hope these will work out well in the future, and I appreciate you, Councilmember Moore, for bringing your proposed ordinance forward as well.

Thanks.

Okay, um we are I believe on the second reading now.

Because we didn't suspend so we uh suspended we did suspend, so we you're right, we did suspend and go to the third and final reading.

So Courtney, will you please call the roll?

And this is the final vote to pass the amended ordinance.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes, Dr.

Jones?

Yes, Miss Moore, no, Mr.

Weedaker, yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes, Miss Bunch, yes, Miss Turk, yes, Minister Jones, no.

And now I will need a motion um and a second on the to pass the emergency clause.

We'll make a motion to pass the emergency clause.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to pass the emergency clause.

Uh Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore, yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burno?

Yes.

Miss Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes and is now an ordinance.

Thank you.

And that thank you all for your work on that.

There are so many things that I think as we evolve as a city and grow, we're gonna realize we don't have policies on, and it's good to get those in place.

And so I was um proud to to create the first and second iterations of an NDA policy, and I'm sure they may not be the final.

Um, but I'm I'm proud of where we are, and I want to thank my team also for working so hard on that.

Thank you.

Um, guys, over the last several days.

Um moving on to new business, I would entertain a motion to table item C1.

Can I do a motion to table C1, C2, and C3 at the same time?

Kit, can we table three at the same time?

Sure, why not?

Sure, why not?

Is our legal answer?

Yes.

We have a motion to table three at the same time.

Do we have a and we have a second and we have multiple seconds?

Okay, Courtney, if you could please call the roll on tabling C1, C2, and C3.

And this is tabling it to the next city council meeting.

That would be my request.

Does that work with you, Ms.

Moore?

Yes, please.

Okay.

Yes, to the next city council meeting.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker.

Yes, yes, yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Miss Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

We will now jump ahead to C4.

An ordinance to amend ordinance 6957 regarding the conditional removal of 279 linear feet of Tanglewood branch from the streamside protection zone and allow the developer to submit a revised plan for the property located at located south of 576 West Center Street.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas on January 20th, 2026, the City Council passed ordinance 6957 and approved a developer's request to remove 279 linear foot portion of Tanglewood branch from the streamside protection zone, which would allow the developer to place the stream underground with the culvert system and build a parking structure building on top of the stream.

And whereas ordinance number 6957 was conditioned on the issuance of a permit to construct a building substantially similar to what was presented to the city council by the developer, and whereas the developer has submitted a revised site plan that will require an amendment to ordinance 6957 because it has determined by staff to be substantially different than the original request.

And whereas while acknowledging the potential benefits of the new development near downtown, staff feels the proposal is inconsistent with the streamside protection ordinance passed in 2011 and recommends denying the request.

And whereas the Planning Commission ultimately found that the applicants requested project aligns with the city's broader land use goals and recommends approval of the request.

Now, therefore, it be ordained by the city council, the city of Favilla Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section One.

That the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby amends ordinance 6957 by affirming the amendment to the streamside protection zone conditioned upon the issuance of a building permit for a mixed use structure that is substantially similar to the new site plan submitted by the developer, which is attached to the planning division's agenda memo.

All other conditions in the ordinance shall remain in effect.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

As the council may be familiar with this property, since you just saw it recently, I'll uh give a fairly brief background, and I'm happy to go into any more of it as it is helpful for the council.

Uh, this particular property is in downtown Fayeville at the southwest corner of Center Street and Greg Avenue.

It is previously uh developed with multifamily building uh in the 1960s and 1970s, uh, before a fire damaged it and saw it demolished demolished in the early 2020s.

Uh a parking area remains, which now is being used as the lay down yard for the Trinitas Student Housing Project that's immediately north of this property on the other side of center.

Uh, while it may seem initially unrelated, another reminder to council is a uh plan zone district was approved in 2024 for a hotel on the south end of the upper ramble.

A element of that was to uh use uh uh or to identify a location for off-site parking, uh, which uh ultimately was codified as this piece of property uh at the southwest corner of Greg and Center.

Uh an associated conditional use permit was approved in 2025, and council uh considered and ultimately approved a request to amend the streamside protection map uh to remove this portion of the Tanglewood or the Tangle Briar, excuse me, Tangle, I'm sorry, Tanglewood branch that goes to this property, entering it from the northwest corner and exiting it on the southeast corner.

Uh to put that in reference, perhaps for the council, uh the property we're looking at today is in the lower portion of this map, uh outlined in red.

And our streamside protection map identifies the point at which 100 acres of watershed drained to a single point, which is the upper end of this map that you see that begins with the blue line.

Like that is the point uh where our streamside protection standards uh begin to take effect.

Uh, those who visited this area are fairly likely familiar that that is not a pristine stream uh from that point forward, a portion of it is uh memorialized as a part of the upper ramble before it ultimately goes subterranean, coming out under Center Street on this property and proceeding southward to the lower ramble uh to the south and southeast of here.

Uh as Mr.

Williams read, and similar to what the council previously considered.

This request is also to amend the streamside protection map to remove this section of the Tanglewood branch.

Uh, if the council will recall, and as I think our member councilmember Berna asking me at the very end of the discussion on the last item, what constitutes substantially similar as a condition of approval about whether this project would be approved.

Uh, we were approached earlier this year with a proposed change to the project, which staff ultimately determined was not substantially similar, is not substantially similar.

Uh the project proposes to add an additional floor to the building, uh, includes additional housing units and uh varies somewhat in how it interacts with the stream.

Uh, we made that determination, and the item was ultimately taken to the planning commission uh in an effort to give you a brief overview, which I believe the applicant will be going to in greater detail.

Uh this is a uh rendering of the previous approval on the top, the proposed item or the proposed design on the bottom, uh looking southwest from the corner of Greg and Center, uh, and then going around the clock starting from the 12 o'clock position looking onto the property.

This would be the view of the building from center.

Going clockwise, this will be the view of the building from Greg to the east, and then to the south.

And then to the west.

Um you go back to just a little slower.

Absolutely.

Uh, again, this is the rendering and to orient you, this is looking southwest from center and Greg.

Uh, to the right-hand side of the picture is the Trinitas Student Housing Building that's being uh built currently.

And then the view from that project would be this, or from or from the the sidewalk or street on center.

This is the view of the north side of the building.

Uh, the top again is what was approved previously.

Uh, the bottom is uh what is currently proposed.

This is again going clockwise.

So if you proceeded down, Greg, looking at the east side of the building, so looking west, this is the proposed uh elevation.

And then continuing around the clock.

This is looking at the building from the south.

So this will be from the adjacent property.

And ultimately, this is the view from the east, which is the railroad right away.

If you're not immediately familiar with the property, this stream is effectively the western side of the property before it goes up an embankment to the railroad right away.

Again, uh the the applicant, I believe, will be touching on more on how the new proposal uh plans to interact with the stream.

Uh that has been uh varied somewhat as well.

Uh but ultimately what the council is considering is the proposal to amend our streamside protection map and remove this portion of the stream and to effectively tie it to the proposal that is before council here uh in these images.

Uh staff's main concerns with this request is the intent under which our streamside protection ordinance was adopted.

Uh it was meant to protect these waterways.

Uh we feel that is a particularly high bar to pass in this instance in particular because we've invested a significant amount of public money in the lower ramble.

Uh and additionally, we're concerned about the potential for precedent that this could set by uh approaching council to remove sections of the steamside protection ordinance.

Um and we have no precedent to offer uh for for such a request.

Uh when we took this to the planning commission, staff was or is recommending denial.

Uh the planning commission, however, forwarded it to city council unanimously.

Uh if council recall when you last saw this item, it was also it was approved uh almost unanimously.

I believe it was a seven to one vote.

Uh conditions were included that the building be substantially similar to that previous design, which is similar to a condition we're proposing now.

Uh also that low impact development strategies be incorporated.

Uh, and if you may have noticed the language that Mr.

Williams read, he also noted that all conditions as a part of that previous uh ordinance would be included, and Councilmember Turk had included an additional condition at that meeting uh that the developer incorporate litter capturing uh strategies because there were concerns about the amount of trash that was that was uh uh coming into the stream in that area.

Um with that, I can take any questions that the council has, and mayor, I believe Rob Sharp is here as the lead applicant and representative or lead representative for this item and he has a presentation.

Okay, Mr.

Sharp, if you have a presentation, why don't you go ahead and come up and you'll have time on the clock.

Oh thank you.

And if Jonathan, if you can bring up the slides that we provided.

And so um we're remain very excited about this project.

There are two major differences between what we showed you on January 20th and what we're showing you today.

Uh, one is as Jonathan mentioned, this project is joined at the hip with the hotel.

This is the parking for the hotel.

Um, as they were going through the uh banking and investment work on the hotel, they're identified an opportunity to expand the room count.

It's now to 133 rooms.

That expansion has already been approved by the city.

Um, and so we were coming up with ways how do we add more parking.

We've come up with a solution of parking stackers, which are uh which allow us to put a car bring a car in and move it up and park another car underneath it.

We're gonna do this at one level of the parking to garage.

And so what that meant is we needed to increase the height of the second floor of our parking deck.

It also meant that we had extra cars, extra parking spaces, which allowed us to add 10 extra dwelling units, which we needed to help pay for the parking structure and the parking stackers.

And so putting all the financial package together, we needed to increase the height of the building slightly, one floor.

And as you can see, now the Trinitas building is finished.

We feel that our building, even with that additional floor, is going to be very much in scale with what's going on.

In fact, will be much smaller in every way than the then its neighbor to the to the north.

Um, I want to emphasize that the footprint of the building is exactly the same as what you saw before.

All the design details, all the materials are exactly the same as what you saw before.

The other major change was if you'll go through the next uh slide, and we we can in we can go back over the architecture if you're interested interested in that, but I just mainly wanted to have it to refer to.

If you'll go to the last side that shows the streamside appreciation zones.

So as we um before when we came to you, we had uh concepts, we had design drawings, we had some initial meetings with Olson Engineers and Jenny Burbage of Prism, and we they they gave us the volume of the water and some of the strategies.

Some of the I some of the details had to change.

Um we we um anyway, we we handed it over from an architectural concept to landscape architects and civil engineers, and they they basically as we know there are two streamside appreciation zones, one in the northwest, one in the southeast.

These are areas where there are pedestrian walkways where people can come down and experience the water.

We also have a walk to the south and west of the building so that a member of the public can come up Gregg Street on that sidewalk.

If they choose, they can take a sort of a wooded path around the building and hit both those streamside appreciation zones.

So it's another alternate way to access the site.

We also consider it an expansion of the ramble, you know, that there's uh Jonathan Kirth mentioned that the substantial investment of the ramble, which we all appreciate, and that we think that whatever we're doing here is actually going to uh going to um make that experience better.

But um, if you'll go to the next slide.

Yes.

So those are the details.

These are done by Jenny Burbage and her team and talked about the opportunities for education, the uh stream bank armoring, native plantings, again, make making our initial concept more detailed.

And we have Matt Loes, who's available from Olson Engineering to talk about this in more detail.

He can either talk about it now or he may just be available for questions if you have them.

But um the other thing that I want to emphasize is that when we were talking to Jesse and Jonathan about this project, we did not lobby them to say this is not a substantial change.

We said this is different.

We want to get back before planning commission and city council.

We don't want there to be any any sense at all that there's a bait and switch of any of this.

So these are sort of the we we went from the beginning of this year with a concept now to a ready to apply for a building permit, and we hope this is one of the last steps in that process.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

We'll start with Minister Jones.

I had questions for him.

Rob, if you or Mr.

Sharp, if you could come back up.

Are you able to answer questions?

Is that okay?

I will do my best.

Okay, great.

Minister Jones has a question.

And so you said that you um are changing some of the parking and will it accommodate all 133 rooms?

No, what what we worked on on the hotel, there was a the parking math of the hotel is that for each guest room, about 70% of the people will show up with a car.

33 30 percent will show up in other ways.

Of those 70% that show up with a car, 70% of those will actually use the ballet program.

And so that nets out to we needed to provide about 55 parking stalls in our deck for that.

Let me make sure check that number.

Um, 66 parking stalls in our deck will be dedicated to the hotel use.

What will you do with overflow?

If more than 55% show up.

So the um Yeah, if I mean the the whole the whole downtown parking issue is something that we have worked with the city, we've worked with you know, we're we've we've looked for every opportunity to provide parking.

We we feel that this is the correct amount of parking to provide.

If someone shows up and they um don't want to use the valet system, or you uh if you're at capacity, if somebody shows up in your capacity, what is your go-to?

What our what our analysis is is that with 133 rooms, we're going to need um 66 parking stalls.

That's that's 66 of axiom capacity.

Now 133 people can show up all with cars.

Right.

And then they'll they will have to go elsewhere.

To park, they can still stay there, they just have to find somewhere else to park.

Okay, yes.

Thank you.

Um I believe I saw Ms.

Moore next.

Thank you, Mayor.

Excuse me.

Um thank you for kind of going over some of the history.

I'm gonna revisit it as part of my question.

Um the slot currently is basically you know a parking lot or it's got building materials, and I know we approved, I was a no vote um on putting uh the valet parking as part of the hotel, and my stated concern at the time was all the investment we've done to that being a stream right there and being concerned.

And so when the original project came, and so that's where I want to ask my questions, um, it really was and presented in a way to honor the stream, uh, to make it a feature, uh, to allow for a lingering of the public and interaction um and to enhance versus what is currently there.

So can you help me in more detail with what looks like it's proposed?

It looks like we're covering up more of the stream and we're getting less of that public interaction and that experience.

But can you help me kind of guide me through that?

So, for instance, when I'm looking at the previous east elevation, I'm seeing the bridge with those people enjoying themselves with that water feature where that was like a big feature.

Can we pull that back up?

Oh, sorry, and I'm looking at mine.

I've okay.

You can't see my screen, I guess.

Sorry.

Apologize.

Um Rob, I really appreciate your work.

I think you do very thoughtful design and development.

But I and I understand that the projects had to evolve.

I'm just really struggling with where we started and where where we're at.

And so I I I want to give you the benefit of the doubt on this.

I just I'm really struggling, especially with how how we're um protecting the water, honoring it, and honoring the sense of place in that area with everything that we're planning for the future there.

So one thing to be clear we we are not covering up any more of the stream than what we showed you on January 20th.

The footprint of the building is the same, the daylight area of the stream is the same.

Okay, I thought we were too, so maybe you could explain it because it looks like it's it looks a lot different.

It looks like you're staring at a culvert versus this beautiful fountain y pond and lingering spot.

So can you help me on that?

Yes, I am.

Okay.

The the but anyway, the first answer is the amount of daylight stream is the exact same in each proposal.

The second feature is, and this is something we were aware of, and we mentioned at January 20th, is that this weir that I designed that had all this these apertures and all that.

We just took the cross-sectional area and said we're gonna let as much water come through.

And then the engineers told us no, you can't constrict the stream.

And we mentioned that at the at that January 20th meeting.

We didn't know it in terms in time for the planning commission, but we knew it by city council, and we mentioned that this with this will not be able to be constricted like this, and then we can't that's we were going to try to catch trash in that area, but we can't, so we have to do it on the northwest corner, and that's going to be the area that's more um, I mean both areas you can see the stream, there'll be natural boulders, there'll be you know places to sit, there'll be educational opportunities, there will be there will be the public will be invited, there will be it will look be park-like, and we've done everything we can do that doesn't can contradict city requirements.

And but I I can't claim to design it because it was a design by Jenny and Caleb at Prism with the help of Olsen.

And I don't know if I mean they they um I mean they're they're great at their job, they they've done everything they can do to make it um you know um attractive and and uh create that interaction and to honor the stream.

Does does with the drawings again?

Because I mean, perceiving looking at e each of the sections, I get to kind of like linger around the water structure and where we talked about it having allowance for the public.

Is that with the new concept?

Is that still giving the same amount of um available space for people to linger and interact with the water hear you that the open water is the same, but is the way that folks can interact with it?

Yes.

And if we look at the uh Jonathan had an exhibit of the floor plan view, the overall site, and that shows really well what the I think it might have thrown us that the bridge was gone, you know.

In that first picture, there's a there's a bridge.

Yes, the bridge, the bridge did not make it.

The bridge is instead we're just gonna build a standard city sidewalk.

There's a there's an existing piece of Sabok on Greg, and we're gonna extend that sidewalk.

Um and so if you look at the I don't know if we can even zoom in a little bit, but and these look like they're not quite at the same scale, but generally, I mean you can see both um northwest and southeast um areas are intact, the terraces around them are intact.

The um and then in terms of the details, the the major differences that we don't have that constricting weir structure.

Um that answers the question that it just it does, as the staff just said, it seems very like substantially different than what we looked at previously, and and so I'm kind of I'm struggling on it.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna pause and let other folks ask questions.

Can I ask Matt Lois to chime in?

He may know things that I don't know about this.

He's the civil engineer for Olson.

I think he's available remotely.

Got it.

Um in order to answer questions, or do we know it as part of the presentation time?

Can we do that?

Can we go back and I think he could be a B answering?

He could be available to answer questions.

He just may have the answer.

He may have the supplemental answer to your question that you already asked that I tried to answer.

He may have something that I don't know.

Okay.

All right, great.

Do you have further?

Well, we'll move on.

Well, okay.

All right.

And then next we will go to um Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mr.

Sharp.

Thank you for your renderings.

They're they're beautiful as always.

Um this man's doodlings are better than my artwork.

I just want to make sure I understand if we doubled the height for the parking and we added a floor.

Is the new proposed building 20 feet taller than the previous building?

Well, we we added eight feet to the second floor of the parking structure.

Okay.

And we added one floor which is 10 feet, 10 to 12 feet with structure.

So yes, 20.

There's 20 feet more of height than what you saw originally.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, my first question I think is for Jonathan.

Uh Jonathan, uh planning's opposition to this.

Is this just a continuation of the original opposition?

Or were like if you compare you know apples to apples of of what we have previously uh approved, like is there something new that you're like extra pose, or or you know there is not a new element that is prompting new opposition.

This is about the fundamental streamside preservation the map requests so this is just a continuation of the original opposition to the project.

Okay, and then Rob, I think uh to Miss Moore's point, I think there were a couple different um renderings.

There was one the the site plan, the two site plans next to each other, and then I thought I saw another one that showed kind of rocks and seating areas, like the the maybe a more of a artistic rendering uh that was if it would have rocks and seating areas, it was done by Prism, the landscape architect.

I mean you just I think it was just in your your presentation that you can do.

That would be very helpful.

It keeps going away.

Thank you so much.

And I okay, and again, the the stream side details are best shown in those blow-ups that that Prism Design worked on.

So there we go.

That close up.

So that is the current design, that is what we're gonna base our building permit application on.

And so on the northwest uh enlargement, those kind of bigger stones that I imagine step down to the creek.

Are those kind of seating areas or they're not there to dissipate dissipate the flow?

There's an L-shaped bench there.

Okay, so you would still be above you're over, you're looking down at it.

Gotcha.

As you do currently, you know, uh if if you're standing on the street, you look down and see the stream, it'll be the same situation except now you can get on all sides of it.

But that's those steps in that walkway go around the whole the steps in the walkway take you around the building along this.

So you could see the water on both sides by taking that path.

You you don't get to see the water until you get to the other streamside appreciation zone.

Gotcha.

But you do get to see trees and you get to see other natural features but it's it's uh it's also something that the city requested to do for fire access.

They wanted to be able to pull a hose there and and can so it serves multiple purposes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and thank you, Rob, for bringing this back to us.

Um I've got a couple of questions.

Um, now that you're raising it 18 to 20 feet, what is the perspective?

And I don't see this in any of the drawings with uh Trinitas project.

How is you know, is it gonna be just a dark tunnel through there, or how's it gonna look?

It's gonna be there.

If one of our prospective renderings, you can see if you'll go back to that, John, that you can still see up, yeah.

No, no, I'm sorry, go to the uh go to the next perspective.

So you can see that line to the right of you.

That is the Trinitas roof, so you can still see that we're below our highest tallest steeple is lower than their parapet.

So we're still lower than them.

The other thing is our building, we have a one-story resid uh retail spot, and then we step back 15 feet and then we go up.

So that also helps with that tunnel feeling.

And so we that I have no reservation that our building will be much more uh humane, scaled and highly detailed and more attractive than the existing building across the street.

Um and then I think I know the answer to this question, but I'd like to pose it to you all.

So you know, you gave some drawings here that Jenny Burbitch had had created.

All of that's gonna be native stone, native plants as required, I believe, by the city.

Correct.

Okay.

Just wanted to make sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

If we don't have any more questions, I'm gonna open it up for public comment before we bring it back to the council.

Thank you, Rob.

That was helpful.

I appreciate it.

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

Do we have anybody that has called in?

We do.

We have a Zach Slade.

Okay.

We can probably turn the presentation down now.

Thank you for that.

Sorry.

Mr.

Slade.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Zach Slade.

I live at 42 South University, just around the corner from this development.

Um the original development uh as presented seemed fantastic.

Um access to this creek and this waterway and the beautification that has already been done to the lower ramble is something that I enjoy every day.

I'm able to take my dog around and enjoy all of the the waterways.

I also enjoy the idea that maybe the intersection of center and Greg will no longer be 90 degrees from some sort of development like this.

The scale of this development does not scare me as uh a neighbor.

Um even adding an extra foot or an extra level seems okay.

But covering up this stream, taking it away from public view at the corner in this intersection, burying it under a culvert, seems like a little bit too far.

There could be a design that could be a little bit more accommodating to the nature of this area, and I'd love to see that pursued.

And I would like to echo the staff's uh sentiment that this is not in accordance with the variance and the reason for needing the variance for this extravagant thing.

They need parking for this other development.

Great, but economic development doesn't just come because you need something, Peter to PayPal.

Right.

And we need to keep that in consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keith, do we have anyone else on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay.

What is that we're looking at?

Oh, very good.

Okay, all right, great.

Okay, um going to bring I'm gonna bring it back to the council um for any final comments before um we either leave it or someone makes a motion to suspend and move it.