Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-15 - Minutes -Council Member Robert B. Stafford Ward 1 Position I Council Member D'Andre,lones Ward I Position 2 Council Member Sarah Moore Ward 2 Position I Council Member Mike Wiederkehr Ward 2 Position 2 Mayor Lioneld Jordan City Attorney Kit Williams City Clerk Treas urer Kara Paxton City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Meeting October 15, 2024 City Council Meeting Minutes October 15. 2024 Page 1 of 41 Council Member Scott Berna Ward 3 Position I Council Member Sarah Bunch Ward 3 Position 2 Council Member Teresa Turk Ward 4 Position 1 Council Member Holly Hertzberg Ward 4 Position 2 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on October 15, 2024 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Mayor Jordan called the meeting to order. PRESENT: Council Members Robert B. Stafford, D'Andre Jones, Sarah Moore, Mike Wiederkehr, Scott Berna, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, Holly Hertzberg, Mayor Lioneld Jordan, City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton, Chief of Staff Susan Norton, Chief Financial Officer Paul Becker, Staff, Press and Audience. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor's Announcements, Proclamations and Recognitions: None City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports, and Discussion Items: None Agenda Additions: Sale of Land to Lewis Brothers Leasing Company, Inc. (Resolution of Intent): A resolution to provide public notice that the City Council is considering the sale of approximately 0.057 acres of land on West Moore Lane in Ward 4 to Lewis Brothers Leasing Company, Inc. for the sum of $100.00. Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director gave a brief description of the resolution. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 2of41 Council Member Bunch moved to suspend the rules and place the item Sale of Land to Lewis Brothers Leasing Company, Inc. (Resolution of Intent) onto the agenda. Council Member Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Jonathan Curth stated Suzanne Clark was present to represent the property owner for the item. Suzanne Clark, Attorney with Clark Law Firm PLLC gave a brief description of the request and stated she was grateful that the City Council had added the item to their agenda. She then spoke of how the City of Fayetteville had no purpose for the land and that their development was on hold due to the request. Council Member Moore questioned if $100 took care of the fees associated with the request. Jonathan Curth stated the typical costs associated with the land sale would include creating a public notice sign and posting in the local newspaper, which was estimated to be less than $100. There was a brief discussion between Council Member Hertzberg and Jonathan Curth regarding why a market rate hadn't been used to determine the cost of the property. Jonathan Curth went on to explain how the site was surrounded by Lewis Ford's property and that staff had found no public purpose that could be served by it. Council Member Bunch moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Moore seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed 7-1. Council Member Turk, Stafford, Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Bunch voted yes. Council Member Hertzberg voted no. Resolution 250-24 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Consent: Approval of the October 1, 2024 City Council Meeting Minutes. APPROVED Verizon Wireless (Amendment No. 6): A resolution to approve the sixth amendment to the Water Tower Attachment Communications Site Agreement with Alltel Corporation d/b/a Verizon Wireless to allow Verizon to add new cellular communications equipment and replace old equipment on the Gulley Road elevated water storage tank. Resolution 251-24 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Shred -It Shredding (Service Contract): A resolution to authorize the destruction of certain documents listed on the attached affidavit pursuant to relevant sections of the Arkansas Code related to maintenance and destruction of accounting and other city records. Resolution 252-24 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 3 of 41 Toole Design Group (Service Contract): A resolution to award RFQ #24-03 and approve a contract with Toole Design Group in the amount of $124,932.00 for development of a safe routes to school plan in coordination with Fayetteville Public Schools. Resolution 253-24 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Washington Regional Medical Center (Amendment No.1): A resolution to approve amendment no. I to the cost share agreement with Washington Regional Medical Center in the amount of $50,000.00 for the Futrall Railroad Crossing Signalization Project, and to approve a budget adjustment — 2019 Economic Development Bond Project. Resolution 254-24 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk 2024 Boston Mountain Recycling Grant (Grant Acceptance): A resolution to authorize acceptance of a 2024 Boston Mountain Recycling Grant in the amount of $10,000.00 for the purchase of compost collection containers for residential food waste collection, and to approve a budget adjustment. Resolution 255-24 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Olsson, Inc. (Railroad Crossing Elimination Study Agreement): A resolution to approve an engineering services agreement in the amount of $720,000.00 with Olsson, Inc. pursuant to RFQ 24-10 for the Railroad Crossing Elimination Study, and to approve a budget adjustment. Resolution 256-24 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Arkansas Department of Aeronautics (Grant Application): A resolution to authorize an application foran Arkansas Department of Aeronautics (ADA) Grant application in the amount of $50,812.00 to fund 90% of the costs for the design and construction of the FYV Wildlife Fence Rehabilitation Project at Drake Field Airport, to accept the grant, and to approve a budget adjustment. Resolution 257-24 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Special Event Fee (Budget Adjustment): A resolution to approve a budget adjustment recognizing revenue from the special event fee collected by the Airport during high traffic sporting events, a portion of which will be used to offset increased operational costs and expenses. Resolution 258-24 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Arkansas Municipal League Municipal Defense Program (Enrollment): A resolution to authorize payment to the Arkansas Municipal League Municipal Defense Program in the amount of $95,123.36 for prior loss coverage, to authorize enrollment into the defense program, and to approve a budget adjustment. Resolution 259-24 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIIe-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 4of41 Council Member Bunch moved to accept the Consent Agenda as read. Council Member Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Unfinished Business: Rezoning-2024-0038: (71B Corridor Rezoning Request): An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2024-38 for approximately 586 acres for various properties within the city limits along the 71 B Corridor located primarily on North College Avenue and School Avenue in Wards 1, 2, and 3 from various zoning districts to Urban Corridor and RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, Four Units Per Acre. At the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting this ordinance was left on the First Reading. Council Member Bunch moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Berna, "Mayor, I'd like to consider kind of like what we did last time considering how complicated that this issue is. I'd like to go ahead and on the front end offer20 minutes for her instead of 10." Mayor Jordan, "Everybody good with that? All right, if you need more time, I'm sure they'll give you more time. Britin, go ahead." Britin Bostick, Long Range Planning/Special Projects Manager, "Thank you sir, and thank you very much, Council, I appreciate that. I'm Britin Bostick with the Long Range Planning Department of the City of Fayetteville, and I'm happy to bring this forward to you all again for your consideration. I d id give a lengthy presentation at your October 1 st meeting, so I won't repeat the whole presentation, but I do want to give a bit of a recap of it just to kind of recover what we talked about with the project. I do have an updated set of requests for inclusion and exclusion for you. This is a little bit different than what I shared with you all last week at your agenda session, so I want to make sure that what I have currently is also what you have currently. I'm glad that Mr. Curth is joining this presentation, you'll get both of us this evening and he'll cover aspects of the Arkansas Private Property Protection Act. So, we came to this after I stood up here about a year ago and delivered probably not the greatest news on housing in Fayetteville to the City Council. And so that housing assessment was a great tool, not only for your planning staff but also for your community to understand that we were short on housing supply compared to our demand, as we have been growing very rapidly as a community. As of 2023 we have about 6500 more residents than we were projected to in 2020, so in just a three year time period we have a few 1000 more people than we were projected to and obviously our residents are feeling that pressure in housing prices. So, as part of the two part recommendation from that assessment, we offered to continue implementation of the 71 B Corridor Master Plan, specifically therezoning piece, and that rezoning being necessary because forover 50 years the College Avenue Corridor and South School Avenue Corridor have really not allowed for housing in very many parcels of land due to the C2 zoning that has not allowed housing. And so, a lot of planning work was done, a lot of things were adopted 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteviIle-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 5 of 41 and approved to get us here. So, we started with a timeline that began with the Downtown Master Plan in 2004, as well as recent project work and also approvals including the very important handoff of the 71B right of way from AR Dot. And so, putting that in the city's hands and ownership was a game changer for our ability to make the improvements we need to take that highway corridor to a city street. We did a lot of engagement in that 71 B Corridor Plan, a lot of conversations with our community about what the needs were and that produced a really sound document, a document that we've been primarily to this point implementing through transportation improvement projects. But we were looking at the zoning next, and so we went back to the community to ask if we're going to rezone what should we rezone it to? And it was really fun to have conversations with folks that they would say, well, of course we're going to rezone it, that makes a lot of sense. And I said, but what would we rezone it to? And so, we wanted to make sure we did a really thorough assessment of all of our options. Given public feedback, given the needs that your planning staff and other development services staff and other departments in the city identified, we brought a proposal forward to the Planning Commission that looked at rezoning to a new zoning district: Urban Corridor. Urban Corridor would allow for a mix of housing and commercial uses, it would allow both of those to exist together while putting some better review opportunities on vehicle oriented uses; the things that we're spending millions of dollars of public funds to address today. And so, as part of that, though, I do want to highlight just so that it's clear, there are a few parcels that are not proposed to be rezoned to Urban Corridor. There are about six parcels that are proposed to be rezoned all to RSF-4, our Residential Single Family, Four Units Per Acre zoning district, and those are parcels that are currently split zoned or that share a zoning that in all of these properties doesn't make a lot of sense. For instance, we have three parcels along East Sycamore and North Walnut Avenue. Those are primarily zoned RSF-4, but also include a western strip of C2 zoning. Those zoning districts don't go together very well because one allows only commercial and one allows only housing, only single family housing, in fact, and there's not effective use of that strip of property zoned C2. Other properties that are also kind of in the north College Avenue section, one is along East Poplar Street that has a narrow strip of our O zoning, that property is used as a single family home and the property owner was amenable to it being rezoned all to RSF-4. And then we've got two very large parcels just north of East Ash Street and between there and Marks Mill that we could not understand why it was R-A zoning to begin with, although that has been on the map for a long time. So, staff is proposing to rezone it to RSF-4 consistent with the surrounding zoning to the east. I went into extensive detail about public comment and public notice, so I'll be a little bit more brief about that. We received to this point from my count, at least what I've heard, I I comments in favor, one comment opposed that had specific concerns in opposition to rezoning close to the Elm Street neighborhood, but generally in support of the project otherwise and in support of the Urban Corridor zoning district. We've had three requests to be included in Urban Corridor rezoning and six to be excluded. And I want to go through those again for you all, because I know there's a lot of detail there. So just as a reminder to the council, we've had seven parcels that have requested to be rather than some of those rezoned all to RSF-4, all of them rezoned to the Urban Corridor zoning district. And then we have one parcel, this is new from the October I St meeting, but I mentioned this at agenda session, one parcel along West Montgomery Street that is requesting to be included in the Urban Corridor zoning, and then a property on West Township Street, addressed at both eight and 10, it's currently zoned Industrial that's proposed to or requesting to be included in Urban Corridor. And so, you all heard from Scott Hill at your last meeting during public comment and Mr. Hill had pointed out, and what I'm trying to illustrate here is that his neighborhood along Elm Street had not initially been included 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 6of41 in the 71 B Corridor Plan and in the study area. And so, he made a very rational and logical request to be excluded because his neighbors and he had never understood them to be part of the consideration. They expressed support for the project overall and support for the zoning district but requested specifically these properties that are zoned Residential Office or RO to be left out. Those do not allow vehicle oriented uses, I think it's important to note they do allow five stories to be constructed, and then one of those properties was proposed to be RSF-4. And so, I think that one is still kind of under consideration for being RSF-4, they didn't have any opposition to that. It was only the Urban Corridors that they have looked at. And so, the council has an updated version of the map that would meet Mr. Hill's request and that I had the opportunity to work with him on. So that is item A.2, or Exhibit A.2 rather, with the amended map in your packet if the council would like to consider looking at that. Other requests for exclusion tended to be from specific parcels zoned C2, and so here we have one kind of on College Avenue at the intersection with North Drake Street. Here we have one at the old Lewis Ford site. We just talked about the new Lewis Ford, but this is old Lewis Ford on College Avenue, just northeast along View Street. This is a larger parcel with both C2 and UT zoning, they're only requesting to retain their existing zoning for the C2 portion. And then we have 19 parcels that are grouped in a couple of different ways, so I'll kind of break those apart and look at properties in Colt Square currently zoned C2 that are at the end of Colt Drive on that cul-de-sac. And then three more groups of parcels, one that's well known as Fiesta Square shopping center, one that I refer to as the Hobby Lobby shopping center, and I know that's not the correct name, but that's the best that I can do. And then also parcel that's currently the TJs Sandwich Shop. And then a couple more requests to be excluded have come in, one here on College Avenue, just south of Poplar, you can see that property has a lot offloodplains across it and so the owner has C2 zoning is requesting to keep that C2 zoning. And then also an owner on South School Avenue who owns five properties in total, the properties fronting South School Avenue are zoned C2 and the properties behind are actually zoned RMF-24 and they were requesting for all of those to be excluded. I was not able to confirm with the property owner on this property if they would like me to share that email with the council, but thecouncil should have hopefully received an email on this property through the agenda item comment this afternoon. So that concludes my portion of the presentation, and happy to hand it over to Mr. Curth for the third part.'. Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director, "I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you all about the legal considerations that staff makes when we evaluate projects of this scale. I very much appreciate this opportunity, it's not often that planners get to delve into our land use backgrounds. Most planners get exposed to land use law regularly in school and then every single day while we're on the job, whether it's evaluating singular questions about property values, or questions about what kind of improvements might be necessary in association with a given project. In that regard, I appreciate Mr. Williams affording us this opportunity that he highlighted with his memo for 71B in particular. The Private Property Protection Act is what I'm going to be discussing in terms of state statute. With that, we did recognize as we were evaluating the memo and the letter from one of the property owners' legal counsels, that council was not provided with the language of that statute and thought it may be beneficial for you to consider that as a part of this discussion, so you each have a copy of that in front of you in case you'd like to look at it as I talk through the statute today. There are four elements of that that I would like to discuss and share with you how we considered the 71 B rezoning and then I'll end with a final proposal, which is the inclusion of an amendment to the 71 B proposal as it's written today. Starting out, I'd like to d iscuss at the very 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 7of41 top of the state statute, as with any good piece of legislation, it begins with definitions and with the Private Property Protection Act. One of the most important pieces to recognize there is that we are not necessarily discussing property value, I thinkthat was referenced repeatedly by a property owners legal counsel. What this statute specifically references is fair market value. I think that's a very important distinction to make, because when you're diminishing fair market value, that's the value that somebody is willing to pay for a piece of property. That's not what you're being assessed for by the county, and that is typically determined at the time that somebody is willing to purchase your property. So, the allegation that by passing this zoning we are diminishing property value, staff does not find that to necessarily have a lot of legal stand ing in order to be able to file any sort of litigation under. With that in mind, and in the same context, is a question of due process. Under Section A.I in the Private Property Protection Act, there is language describing that an owner of real property asserting a taking under this chapter shall bring a cause of action in Circuit Court claiming that the implementation of a regulatory program by governmental unit is permanently reduced by at least 20% the fair market value of a property. Well, what does this look like? What is it that makes a case ripe for going to court? And by ripe, I mean the number of procedural remedies have been exhausted. I think a good example to go through is what we've been talking about most frequently in the case of 71 B, which is the placement of certain permitted uses under conditional uses, specifically several of those associated with auto oriented businesses. Taking that as an example and assuming a path towards litigation, that request would have at least two stops with the city. It would have to go to go to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission would have to deny it and then it'd have to be appealed onto the City Council, it'd have to be denied there again and then and only then would it proceed in litigation. I think it's important for the council members to acknowledge that both the Planning Commission and you all as the City Council have legal support from our legal department at every single one of your meetings and are afforded the opportunity to have that input on a case by case basis so that you can make that evaluation as it comes forward to you, and not necessarily have to do it on the scale of the 7 1 B rezoning that's before you tonight. And although miss Bostick touched on this before, I hope it's also some reassurance when it comes to the assertion that conditional use permits are a death sentence for a land sale if you will. We have considered five conditional use permits since the beginning of 2023 for auto oriented uses, and all of them have been approved. A conditional use permit does not mean something's going to be disapproved, necessarily. It means that there are certain situations where it may be fully appropriate, in which the Planning Commission can evaluate those on case by case basis to make sure that they are safe, that they're compatible and that they can be complimentary of the adjoining property owners in the community at large. So, I don't want the council going into this d iscussion assuming that our commission is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to deny cond itional use permits for auto oriented or other uses. Third of all, I'd like to discuss outcomes. What does it look like if the city does lose the litigation? Getting into further down into the state statute, it reads upon finding that real property has been taken for the use of the public, the governmental unit may either pay compensation for the reduction in fair market value caused by the regulatory program. In other words, if it's determined that we have diminished the fair market value, again, not the property value, but the fair market value, we can pay the property owner for that difference, or we can invalidate all or part of the regulatory program. In this case, the regulatory program is the 71 B rezoning to the properties included in that, or many of the properties included in that, to UC Urban Corridor. So, there will be an opportunity, more often than not, that the city may undo this legislation if it turns out that there's unfavorable litigation. Fourth, I think it's important when evaluating any litigation, what's the purpose of it? The Private 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 8of41 Property Protection Act includes specific instances where the statute does not apply. Most prominent in staffs review as it relates to 71 B and its rezoning is a municipalities obligation for the safety of residents and property as well. Although it is very easy to forget, a major component of the 71 B rezoning is to address the dangers posed to drivers, pedestrians and all other residents moving in and out of these areas from injury. If you look at our city's accident maps, it is consistently seen that 71 B generally, and certain portions of it specifically, are one of the most dangerous areas of our city in terms of vehicular accidents. Accidents between vehicles and pedestrians, vehicles and bicycles and so this is a significant reason why not just this rezoning is being undertaken, but that we're spending almost $30 million in completing upcoming street modifications. So, this rezoning is not a standalone effort to address that community concern that a general welfare of our city, but it is coupled with a significant capital outlay to try to improve the safety situation along South School. With all that said, I do find perhaps most helpfully among the items that we heard from our City Attorney's Office the concerns that they expressed about what would happen if we were, for lack of a better word, victim to unfavorable litigation. And so, as a result, staff thinks it's very important that we include as much of our legislative, or your legislative intent, in the ordinance as possible and establish a strong legal foundation for anything that may come forward in the future. With that in mind, the second document that I handed out before the meeting is a proposed ordinance amendment to update the whereas clauses of the 7 1 B rezoning to read:" (Jonathan Curth then went into detail on how the ordinance would read once amended with the new whereas clauses). "And with that, I'm happy to take any questions along with Miss Bostick that the council may have." Mayor Jordan, "Just under your 20 minutes, that was really quite well done. What questions would the council have?" Council Member Stafford, "Jonathan, Rogers recently rezoned pretty much their whole city, did they not?" Jonathan Curth, "That's correct." Council Member Stafford, "And I assume they d id n't go door by door and get a signature of their full population?" Jonathan Curth, "That's correct. Council Member Stafford, "Okay, thank you." Council Member Berna, "My question is for Kit. Obviously, when we got your letter and your email last week it gave a lot of us some pause, but I want to try to make sure that I understand what Jonathan said and present it to you so that you can confirm, yes, that I am hearing exactly what the procedure would be. If I'm understand ing this correct, if we rezone this and 'Property Owner A' decides that his value has been hampered, he really doesn't have a case until he or she decides to sell that property and can prove that said rezoning reduced the value of his property. Is that right?" City Attorney Kit Williams, "Only if that was true, that would be so nice. Fair market value is used throughout the law. Every time we do a condemnation, it's on fair market value. We got to 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 9of41 pay for the difference in the fair market value before and after the condemnation, that's what the requirement is. So how do you get fair market value? The real test supposedly is what a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree to. So how do you determine what that's going to be if there's not a sale? It's called appraisers. These condemnations that you all have approved for us to do, lots of them, all of them require an appraisal by our appraiser, and then the property owner gets their own appraiser, and usually what we see from those appraisals is that the property owner's appraisal is twice or three times the market value that our appraiser says the land is. Appraisers disagree, and typically it's an extreme amount. It's not they miss it by 10%, they work for their client and so that's what has me concerned about fair market value, whether it's going to be a condemnation, or whether we might get sued on this. Now, you know I will make an argument if somebody sues us before they have sought to go through the conditional use permit process. I'd try to say, oh, you shouldn't be able to do that. However, I think a property owner could hire an appraiser that would say just the passage of this that would require a conditional use permit has devalued my property, and have the appraiser say, well that's right, you've cut the property down to 60% of what it was before, it's going to be too difficultto sell that property. Obviously, we argue against that, say that's not right, they failed the administrative remedies like going to the Planning Commission and then going tothe City Council, and that argument might work. I would certainly try it but I'm not putting that in the bank, because I have seen how these things go when you have appraisers, and you can have a significant difference in valuation depending on if they're representing the city or are they representing the property owner. So unfortunately, they can't do anything till they sell property. That does not work. I'm not even sure it works that we can force them to go through the cond itional use process. That would certainly be a much more compelling case if they went through a conditional use process and was denied, that would be a much stronger case for them. But I think they might even be able to file suit, they could file suit before that, and whether or not they could get an appraiser that would win out over our appraiser, saying that really, the damage hasn't been done, it's speculative, we would make all those arguments, but it's up to a jury and I can tell you in jury trials the landowner is probably going to knock off anybody that's from Fayetteville. Those jurors almost always at the final thing, when you finally get them selected, they come from Springdale or the county and don't necessarily have a love for Fayetteville, so we have a little bit of a disadvantage sometimes when we're going up against a property owner who's claiming that our regulations have reduced the value of the property, they've got an appraiser that says the same thing, our appraiser says no and it's up to the jury to decide and often juries in condemnation cases where there's just an argument the appraisers will split the difference. You know, they don't know, they're not experts. Who knows, these two experts can't agree, how can they agree? And so oftentimes you see a jury that will split the difference, and if that difference is above 20%, then we have some issues. Now, as I pointed out in my memo to you, I pointed out the two options that you had if we got hit by a jury trial, and one is we pay it, whatever it is, maybe it was 21 %, we probably still have to pay 21 % not 1 %, but still, we might feel like it's worth it, so you all can decide that would be a City Council decision. And the other option is that we could withdraw this regulatory program or a part of it and so what we would probably try to do is just say, well, this particular rezoning, or this particular case involves just one parcel of land and so the case ought to be restricted to that and not any other, and that might work, but this law, I've not seen any annotation on it like it's gone to a court yet. So, we're kind of plowing new ground here. We don't know exactly how this is going to work, but we possibly could be saved by that. I do like our argument, also our public policy and safety, health and safety of the citizens, we would certainly argue that, that we're doing this for that, but remember, there's going to be another attorney in that 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 10 of 41 courtroom arguing that it's not, this is a rezoning, you know, if you want to make traffic safe rebuild the road, make the road safe. A build ing doesn't do traffic safety. We can make arguments and say, well that, you know, the amount of people d riving in and out, that makes a d ifference and that kind of stuff, but in reality, that's not a failsafe either. So that is why when I analyzed this, I saw that there is potential dangerforthe city forthis almost 600 acre rezoning. We have some very valuable land; all of this I think is pretty valuable land. And so, if in fact we do get hit, then there's certainly enough money to justify a property owner who wants to do something else, to file suit in order to try to recover the damages they believe they've suffered. And so, with this kind of size of rezoning of almost 600 acres, I think that litigation is reasonably likely, not necessary, doesn't have to happen. Rogers I understand did a massive rezoning. Well, you know, years ago before some of you were on the council, I had to say that we could no longer stop panhandling, that the Supreme Court had said panhandling was protected by the First Amendment, so I had redrafted our regulations on that to comply with the new Supreme Court rule and there's a lot of griping going on and then six months later people say well Rogers is still banning them, how come you had to do it? Obviously, it's okay. And then Rogers got sued in Federal Court and lost. So, sometimes it takes a while for litigation to begin but just because somebody else has done something doesn't necessarily mean that no one is going to take umbrage of it, and maybe they didn't down zone anything. I mean, I don't know what Roger's rezoning was, I haven't studied that, so I have no idea. And it's only the down zoning really that you have to worry about. So, in this particular case, this is down zoning to the extent that you're taking uses away or you're making it more difficult to get them and less sure that they're going to get them. So that is some down zoning right there and so that's why I suggested that rather than down zone, we really up zone, and just zone it to Urban Thoroughfare which is something that was developed by planning, you know, many years ago and it has the same basic rights to build a big residential tower, if that's what you want, you could do it with that. What it doesn't have is the removal as of right for fast food restaurants and gas stations and car washes and mini golf courses and car rental agencies. So, these things which are now in existence right now on North College or School Street would all be rendered non -conforming uses, and some people might feel like that has devalued their property, because with non -conforming uses you have certain restrictions where you can't rebuild if too much of your property has been destroyed, you lose that non -conforming status. You sometimes have problems getting insurance because you can't rebuild in certain cases, and so people might even complain about that. But all of this would be gone, all those dangers would be gone if we simply chose Urban Thoroughfare rather than this new zoning which lose those. It's a risk and of course, you all the policymakers, you get to decide what kind of risk you want to make, but it's my responsibility as a city attorney to caution you about the risk that this would entail, and I'll be happy to answer any questions if have been unclear." Council Member Bunch, "This is a question for staff. Remind me again when we first started talking about the potential to rezone this property and remind me again when we came up with the UC zoning type we're trying to use." Jonathan Curth, "Thank you for the question. I think where this process began could arguably be a couple different places. I think in 2019 when the work program was adopted by council that included within it contemplating changing the land use regime for this portion of 71 B including rezoning some of the property. More specifically, late in 2023 that work plan the council expressed reaffirmation for that work plan, which is the more recent date that I'd say that kicked off this 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 1 1 of 41 rezoning effort specifically. At that time the Urban Corridor zoning district did not exist, as Miss Bostick has alluded to, that Urban Corridor zoning district is the result of an extensive public outreach process to evaluate where our community is now as it relates to 2019 when the work plan was originally adopted, and what our community needs are now. And that resulted in the d istrict that was adopted by council I think it was about a month ago." Council Member Bunch, "So I guess my question and my concern is Kit brings up some very good issues and really outlined some potential dangers that we might have. But I guess my concern is, why were these never mentioned before now? I mean, is it, you know, because we've got this, we've been working on this for quite some time now, and I don't recall ever hearing that we were going to be sued if we d idn't acquiesce to a property owner within this area. And one of the things that also concerns me is one of the properties in particular is at one of our busiest intersections. It's kind of the heart of what is in my ward, in particular around Rolling Hills and I'm kind of concerned how this, if we change this particular zoning for this particular property, what it opens us up to for the project as a whole? Because, you know, if we can't look, you know, we know this means a better, safer corridor there. I really believe that, and if we can't get something passed for the safety and the betterment of our community, then, you know, I'm kind of at a loss on that, so I don't know what else to say." City Attorney Kit Williams, "Well as to timing, as you're aware, I sit with you all the City Council. I do not sit with the Planning Commission and so, and unfortunately, too, there was one meeting I missed because I was on vacation and so that's when it came through, the original one, but then when it showed back up here, especially the zoning itself, that's when I was really informed about what the Urban Corridor did and did not do, and how big this was going to be. And so, you know, I did caution you at the last meeting that I had concerns about this, and that was the earliest time I really had to do that, and so those concerns have not gone away. It's not that we're not going to defend the city if we get sued, and it's not that we're guaranteed to lose, we're not, but I think one of the most important things an attorney can do for their client is not to get them sued. If we go into court and get sued, and you get in front of a jury, you're never really sure exactly how that's going to come out. You could think that, well we've got good arguments here, and we should win, and if the jury doesn't agree with you, you don't win. And so, that's why I'm concerned about this and why I think that Urban Thoroughfare will give you the benefit of having that increased amount of large residential towers that you would get with this, but without the other danger. It's up to you all as policy makers to decide what you want to do, and you know, you're certainly able to roll the d ice, and sometimes they've come out good. Now, back when I was on the council, before that, actually, in the 80s, they came up bad a couple times, and we ended up paying millions of dollars forattorney's fees. I'm not looking at something like that here, I think it would be much less than that, but it could be substantial." Council Member Stafford, "I actually disagree with our attorney on a few things. First and not least of which is, Kit, everybody loves Fayetteville." City Attorney Kit Williams, "We all do Bob, I agree with you on that." Council Member Stafford, -I'm not a lawyer, but afterread ings Kit's memo, I showed it to a few other civic lawyers, municipal and county, and the reaction I got back was the memo was being 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 12 of 41 overly cautious and that it wasn't how they interpreted the property protection act. I kind of go with what staff is saying, I mean when I read this, and I'm going to put togethera couple of things, there needs to be a preponderance of the evidence, and the property has to be shown that it to be permanently reduced, the fair market value needs to be permanently reduced by at least 20% of the fair market value of the real property. You know, I think we're safe. I'm willing to take a risk. This issue is one of the reasons that I ran for office, our city staff and our planning staff has worked tooth and nail on this, and I think they've done a darn good job. Look, one of the biggest things the City Council does is zoning and to say, well, we can't do our job is just, you know, it's like these things where you get in the situation where you're asked to vote, but you can only vote one way, garbage. And I appreciate the legal advice, but I do think it is overly cautious, I think that I'm going to vote for this zoning as it stands. I know there's a few bumps we need to work out a few amendments and such, but Urban Thoroughfare is not the adequate zoning, and you know, I've had in my head for a long time before I got on council that I'd like to see auto centric uses, drive throughs, car washes, gas stations as conditional use permits all over the city, and I'm willing to take that risk personally. But you know, I just don't think, you know, as we grow into a city those things have to be put where they fit, they can't be allowed everywhere like we do now, and so 1'd like to see them removed from all our zones and made conditional use permits. And the thing is, we're not taking away folks right to do this, we're just making it a conditional use and again, I think you'd be hard pressed, and you'd have to have the most evil jury and the most, you know, just, don't know. I don't see it happening. I don't see any way that saying that this is a conditional use permit now that's reduced the property value by 20%. 1 just don't buy it." Council Member Wiederkehr, "What's the zoning on MLK at Razorback Road?" Jonathan Curth, "At the intersection of Razorback Road and MLK it is a mix of zonings. On the southwest and southeast corners, I believe it's C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. On the... No, actually, I think it is all four corners. I'm sorry, I was thinking university property might be zoned Institutional, but no, all four corners of that intersection are zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial." Council Member Wiederkehr, "Part of the rationale for wanting cond itional use permits ford rive through features is when you have a national chain restaurant that's so successful that their customers back up onto a major thoroughfare obstructing traffic creating a hazard, some communities have deemed it a public nuisance and so the last thing we need is a wildly successful national chain restaurant backing up onto College Avenue, undoing all of the millions that we're spending to try to enhance the safety of people who need to get to and from work and shopping. That's a major, major artery and so I think when a property owner is simply looking for appropriate triple net ground leases, there's no risk on their part financially, I'm just going to lease a piece of dirt to a franchisee, the least risk they could possibly incur, I get that, and the market supports that, but I think we owe it to the residents of Fayetteville to condition those uses to ensure that we don't end up with another MLK Boulevard at a major intersection stopping traffic." Council Member Jones, "Britin and Jonathan, thank you for the presentation and we talked today and there are a lot of people who, they have questions about this, and they don't quite understand a lot of the planning language. And so, as it relates to the housing crisis, can you explain how this process, how this project, rather, how this will help alleviate that?" 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 13 of 41 Britin Bostick, "Thank you for the question. So, one of the things that 1 shared with council at this time last year was we have a lot more people coming in than we have housing being built, in very simple terms. And the Mayor is great about quoting this, we need about 1000 houses a year built new to keep up with our projected population growth. We're exceeding our projected population growth, so we would actually have to build more, and when we don't build the amount of housing that our population growth needs, and we do get quite a bit of that growth in one single week every August as the university increases its enrollment, when we don't build to keep up it creates low vacancy rates. There's not a lot of homes available whetherthat's an apartment or traditional house or townhouse or something else, and so when there are very few homes available, it gets very expensive because there's a lot of competition. So, if we can build more housing, and we can begin to balance that demand and supply out we can get on top of the price increases, and then hopefully, and what's happened in other cities, is they finally built enough housing they're no longer seeing rents increase or cost increase, things are beginning to stabilize. That would be a great goal for us to achieve by constructing more housing. We do have a lot of fiscal obligations in Long Range Planning not to send the City Council on a direction that would bankrupt the city in the future and what we also identified for the council last year was the incredible cost of building all of that housing on the edges of the city, both now and in the future, and so we can make use of the infrastructure investments we already have, already have planned, and on a per person or per house basis are very efficient and we can build in the middle of the city. That is the double benefit of giving us true opportunities to explore real transit, to give people the opportunity to not own a car and be able to still get places they need to go in the city. If we increasingly put all of our new residents on the edges of the city, they only have a choice to drive, they only have a choice to create congestion, and they only have a choice to put that additional water and sewer burden on our system, and those miles of pipes become very expensive over time. So hopefully that was better language, because planners often do use our own language and a lot of acronyms. Thank you, sir." Council Member Jones, "That helps immensely. Thank you so much, because it sounds like that this will, that this is answering the needs of our citizens, and 1 really appreciate the way you laid that out, because a lot of people, they were asking me, and so I told him that I would ask you publicly so you can explain, and you did a great job. Thank you." The City Council received 16 public comments regarding this ordinance. Scott Hill, 61 East Elm Street Ward 2, "1'm not speaking to the illegal discussion that just took place, but in general just the zoning overall. First, 1 would like to say that 1 agree with a lot of what you guys say, that's a really good zoning ordinance. It's well designed to achieve what you guys want to achieve, which is infill of commercial lots along College Avenue and 71 B Corridor. In order to achieve that, they've left a lot of things out, like the step downs that are in the other form based zones. They've reduced setbacks. They've created a lot of scenarios that make it really attractive to developers to come in and say, hey, we can take this old gas station, and we can turn it into something bigger, and we can invest here, and it's got a lot of bells and whistles to make it attractive to developers. The things that make it really great and positive for College Avenue, I agree with putting it along 7113, I think it'll yield great results, are the same things that make it a negative if they're applied to our neighborhood, which is the intersection of Elm Street and Green Acres Road. The condition we have there is single family housing that backs up to Residential 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayefteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 14 of 41 Office. Much of the Residential Office used to be housing that was converted to Residential Office over the years. The map, as originally presented, I think Britin said originally our neighborhood wasn't included in the study area. So, we're kind of responding to some new information. We also didn't know the specifics of the zoning category. The map, as it's drawn, would put up to eight stories of that intensive development and in some conditions on three sides of existing single family homes. And so, I'm just up here to ask that you consider the proposed amended map that would remove that RO at Green Acres and Elm from the plan. I support the rest of it, they can yield great results, but I think in our neighborhood has a chance to do some damage and start a domino effect of people selling out to developers and you know, hey, we're building eight stories behind you, we'll give you half a million dollars for your house, and then it goes from there. And so, my house is as far from College Avenue as the castle at Wilson Park is, and yet the map currently would put something like these 15 feet off across my property line. So, we're not right on College Avenue, we're pretty far removed from it. I think most of us support the plan in general, just we think it's misapplied in our neighborhood." Jen Cole, Ward 2, "Just want to say, as somebody who's been coming to the town halls and I want to thank you all the city and all the city planners for working so hard on this rezoning. And I want to say also thank you Bob. Yes, if they just did it in Rogers, it can't, I mean, it's probably a little scary to look at the legal stuff, but it's been done locally and recently. So, I hope you will just bravely move forward and do this, because we have so many people that are not able to be housed, and even a couple 1000 more than we thought, we're going to need housing this year that are looking for housing, we've just got to move forward and do more and I love this, I love this work that you're doing. So, thank you." Joanne Osheski, 102 East Elm, "I really want to thank Scott H ill for pointing out that my property was not in the original plan. So, I would really like you to just do the new map, which would put R-O around me. When I talked to the city planner, I think, I don't know where she went, she said, you can either be R-O or you can be RF-4. I chose RF-4 even though someone told me I would make more money if I was R-O. But we have a wonderful neighborhood. We have really great people. There are people that would help me if I needed help, and believe me, sometimes I need help as I age, so I would appreciate it if you would just take us out of there, because our neighborhood is great, and we'd like to keep it that way. Thank you so very much." Peggy alias Margaret Connor, 102 East Elm, "I want to thank Scott H ill also for doing such great research as we try to figure out what to do here. And I want to reiterate what Scott Hill said, and what many of you have said, is that the idea of an U rban Corridor and making it walkable, bikeable, friendly, having more housing in a denser etc., it all makes sense, even though we all grew up thinking we lived on a farm here, it's just not that way anymore. But our property is right, we have the same line as the Urban Corridor, which means that an eight story apartment building, or any kind of building, could be for any purpose, would be right there overlooking our house and our yard, which is absolutely beautiful. We are master gardeners, we have done wild scaping using native plants, etc., as many of our neighbors have. So, we have a beautiful neighborhood. We probably get five, six letters a week, people wanting to buy it, people are always calling us. I mean, it's a very desirable piece of property, as many of us have anywhere from one to four acres there, very unusual anymore, but it's very important to me that we, in addition to doing the Urban Corridor, that we honor and respect the single family residential neighborhoods. So, I want you as 113 West Mountain Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 15 of 41 my City Council to figure out how to do this beautiful Urban Corridor, to manage the population, manage the traffic, etc., and still have single family residential homes in that area be just as important. 1 don't want to be put at the bottom of your list as not a priority or not as important, and that's what I'm asking each of you to do while you figure out how to do an Urban Corridor that fits the needs that this city has. Thank you very much." Nicole Lim, 4222 North Stone Creek Heights, "I'm not here to say yes or no, do this or that, because there was a lot that was talked about that was confusing, but I do just want to comment on development. This comes from a lot of people I talk to, I'm a longtime Fayetteville resident, this north to south that we have going on with the Urban Corridor we're really concerned about. If you have been on College from lam to 7pm, it's a disaster already. We've not heard any plans about what we're going to do about the roads, the sewers, all the things with that, and I don't have faith that that's going to happen, because I have friends that live right off Hillcrest, right above North and they have had water problems ongoing for years and years, and the city will come out, and they'll do a little like patch, but the pipes need to be replaced. There needs to be more infrastructure built. Um, there's been a lot of talk that we cannot go east west, I do not understand that, and I'm sorry there's also we can't go out, so we have to go up, and I don't believe that. I think we can go out and up, we can go out Wed ington, we can go out Crossover, we can come north, over by me, by the mall, but we have to be able to do both. We need to be able to have people who can buy apartments. This is what goes on in a big city, is you don't buy single family homes, you buy apartments. There needs to be, you know, the apartments need to be where there can be green space. Everybody can share it, also enough where sunlight comes in, so everybody gets a balcony. There is a way that we can do all of this, but we really have to look at what other cities have done and how they have done it in a good way. Not to name names, but I'm going to, we don't want to do what San Francisco d id. They've got a lot of good things, but they did it really bad, and because of how quickly they boomed, they have a lot of bad things going on. Sorry, I've got a shaky voice. And also, there's other places in Minnesota who has just done something with their housing, and so they are getting ahead of the housing like, I can't remember her name, was talking about, which is amazing. So, I really encourage you all to do your research, look at what bigger cities are doing, look how they are happy, and then we do that, because right now we have this fear, sorry, but we have this fear that College is going to look like MLK, no shade to MLK, but it's not very pretty, and it looks like it was done as an afterthought, and we noticed that that's the poorer part of town. But as we get north, it gets prettier and the zoning takes more precedence, and we notice all of that, so we need to make sure that all of it looks pretty and that we move all out. But I don't want to drive down college when you all put seven story buildings there, and then you say, Yeah, drive on these five lanes. You're making a huge problem, so please just consider that as you're going forward. Yeah, and that's it. Thank you." Robert Rhoads, Attorney with Hall Estill Attorneys at Law, "I represent Sam Mathias. I suspect you probably have seen the letter that I've written as well as Kit's memo, it was just discussed. Today I sent a follow up letter that was sent to you as well. So, I'm not going to go through all of the arguments and all of the words and the paragraphs of those letters. Instead, I'd rather just kind of give you a little bit of a scenario of kind of how this kind of came up as far as Mr. Mathias is concerned. I don't know exactly, I think I sent a schedule, and I did a quick math on the number of properties, and it's almost 20, and I think it's almost about 50 acres. So, this is a big, it's a big deal foranybody, and it's a big deal for Mr. Mathias. He didn'thire me and tell me to immediately write 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 16 of 41 a letter. He hired me and said, can you explain this to me? Can you help me set up a meeting? So that's what 1 d id, and well before the Planning Commission meeting, and again, I'm telling you this because 1 don't want you to think that I just flew off a letter just immed iately, because I d id not do that. Well before the Planning Commission 1 asked to meet with Britin and Jonathan Curth was at that meeting, Sam Matthias was at that meeting, others of his people were at the meeting, and Tom Henley of Crafton and Tull, and I thought it was a very good meeting. And we explained, they explained, Britin explained, did a very good job explaining what they were trying to do. And we explained why we d idn't think that was best for us as property owners. We then discussed UT, and the discussion sort of culminated in, okay Robert, you and Tom Henley, the engineer, go back and look at what UT has versus what C2 has and tell me if that's something that would work. We left that meeting, again I do not, I am not going to stand here and say that promises were made, they were not made, it was go back and look at it. But I can tell you that Mr. Henley, Mr. Mathias, Mr. Rhoads, so forth, we left the meeting thinking, okay, we got a great solution here, and so we quickly got back with the staff, indicated that, yes, we were definitely in favor of UT, and we got an email back saying, well, okay, we're just going to stick with what we got. So that's where we are, and that's why I wrote a letter. And again, I do not plan..." Mayor Jordan, "Okay Rob, time." Robert Coffin, 45 Elm Street, "1 want to applaud your prowess in your urban development along the corridor of 71 Business. 1 want to reiterate with Mr. Hill that I've been on Elm Street for almost 30 years, and it's just been a wonderful neighborhood to watch everything grow around you, and we understand, you know, the cancer of society is growth, but it is, it is a real reality of life. We accept it but we would like to maintain that neighborhood as best we could, and amend and keep RO on Green Acres, not to mention y'all declared it a floodplain years ago. So, you'd have to build up three or four feet before you manage an eight story building, you know. So, 1 think that's an important feature of what kind of impact that would have on Joanne and Peggy's property, or Robert and Susan Ginsburg's property, and not to mention Colt Square, the runoff. But we appreciate all you're doing for Fayetteville, the great city, Just found out you're a Loyola grad. 1 went to Loyola as well. Thank you." Gladys Tiffany, Ward 1, "1 really am grateful to get to hear this discussion tonight, because I've learned a lot about kind of the nuances of what's going on with this, with this plan that we're talking about. 1 really just want to add the very deep importance of increasing the kind of housing, low income housing, that's really going to relieve some of the problems at the very bottom of our local food chain, and seeing how, as many complications as there are, as many balls as there are in the air about this, now what it's going to take 1 know is going to be very difficult, but 1 just want to request that everybody keep remembering how very important it is that we don't want people sleeping on our streets. None of us do, and this is one of the tools we can use to do that." Nick Thorne, 629 North Prairie Avenue, "As an architect, I'm charged with protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public through the designs of my buildings and so, after hearing comments tonight it seems that we are also aligned on the need and the importance for rezoning and rebuilding this corridor to also protect the health, safety and welfare of public residents through crafting a better urban environment. This impressive and transformational project is more than just a result of grand visions laid out by councils past or many years of hard work by City planning 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 17 of 41 staff. It doesn't happen in a vacuum within City Hall, but it is the product of many years of hard work from passionate citizens who want to see noticeable changes in the built environment in our beloved city and honestly, it's been encouraging hearing and watching and participating in the public outreach to craft this Urban Corridor district. Honestly, the future is hard, but the city has established a clear vision for this corridor and for the city, and that aligns, and this rezoning aligns with the goals outlined in City Plan 2040, we're creating a city that promotes sufficient use of land and resources, reduces urban sprawl and encourages the use of public transportation. If approved, this would be a noticeable action to begin chipping away at the housing shortage that the city is currently experiencing in our housing crisis. Zoning reform such as this proposal is a necessary first step to alleviating that crisis, creating housing units along a major corridor such as College Avenue and South School will create a vibrant, resilient, diverse and sustainable community for future or current and future residents alike, bringing the grand visions of a future Fayetteville to the present day. Thank you to all City Council, city staff, for your service to our current city, for your vision for an even better city, and for your commitment to serve all citizens alike. I ask that you please vote in favor of this proposal. Thank you." Nick Caston, 1372 East Century Drive, "I'm here in my personal capacity and on behalf of the Planning Commission. I fully support this rezoning and I'm excited to see the results that it will bring to the city. A walkable mixed use corridor will be a welcome addition to our community and help addressour housing shortage and reduce sprawl. I wantto addressthe Mathias properties such as Fiesta Square and the shopping center that contains Hobby Lobby. I encourage you to rezone these parcels to UC as recommended by staff, as they're a prime example of the type of development that we don't want to see on the corridor going forward, this change of zoning will still allow them to operate as is for the time being but allow for future growth to be in line with city plans. Additionally, I think it'd be quite hard forthem to prove that it causes a 20% reduction in fair market value, if anything, this rezoning will spur more investment in the area, increase economic vitality and increase the fair market value of their properties. So, on balance, I really think this is a great thing for the city, and I encourage you to vote in favor of this rezoning tonight with no further delays. Thank you for your time." Robert Sharpe, 712 South College Avenue, "It's exciting to see this corridor plan take another step towards its fruition. Probably what I'm most excited about is this is going to create many opportunities for high quality housing. It's also going to be a place where we can add more landscaping and more street trees and really soften College Avenue and make it attractive. It's a bit of a black eye currently, and it can be much better. I'm also really excited about the potential pedestrian improvements. We've got a great example at Nelson Hackett Boulevard, where that, I live on the non -square side of that, and then I walk to work often and so having those improvements in place makes a huge difference in my quality of life and my feeling of safety, whether I'm driving or walking, it's so much better. And it was almost like magic when that happened, I was a bit skeptical, and then to see it actually work was great. One of my neighbors says, I feel like that the library is now three blocks closer to my house. It's like the city magically just put it on wheels and towed it closer to my house. So those pedestrian improvements, it's great to see them actually work and go from paper to reality. The other thing that we often have to remind ourselves is as we do plans like this, not for the current residents, we certainly take everyone's ideas into consideration, but really planning for our grandchildren and great grandchildren. And so, a lot of these visions are bold, ambitious visions, but they're not going to happen tomorrow. And I work in the 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Cite Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 18 of 41 construction industry, and I can tell you, it's very, very, very difficult to pay for anything over three story construction. Once you get over three stories, you get into steel and concrete and elevators and so it is, unless you're doing a really expensive high end student housing development, it's very hard to do, so if you pass the zoning by magic tomorrow you're not going to see eight story towers come up, you're going to see at best, maybe three stories and so I don't, I don't anticipate having a lot of citizen backlash because of shadowscast by eight story buildings, but our grandchildren may want eight story buildings so let's be bold with that. But the other thing I'll say is that this is not the final step. If we pass the zoning, it's not going to happen, the economics have to be there, the infrastructure has to be there. And as a city we need to think about, you know, we have a lot of sticks, but we need to think about carrots for getting the kind of development that we want. We want high quality development in a walkable area with great landscaping, we're all going to have to have to come together and find creative ways to do that. So, this is, this is not the last step, but it's certainly a very, very important step. Thank you." Natalie Nokia, 1784 West Cascade Drive Ward 1, "I don't need three minutes to voice my unconditional support for the rezoning of 7113. I do think it is what is best for Fayetteville. Thank you. Meredith Caston, 1372 East Century Drive, "First of all, I want to thank all of you, including Britin Bostick, the city staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council, and you, Mr. Mayor, for all the time and energy that you've put into this trying to make this the best possible plan for 71 B. I fully support the 71 B rezone for several reasons. First of all, it permits additional housing, which we all know is desperately needed in Fayetteville, but it puts this housing in an area that already has the infrastructure to support it. Secondly, it reduces the sprawl in the chance of additional tree removal, because we are a Tree City, and we don't want to take out any additional trees. As one of the previous commenters noted, this is an opportunity to add more trees and beautify this corridor. The renderings I've seen are breathtaking, and I think they really bring the city into the modem era, instead of the current look, which, even though it has its charms, sometimes feels a little bit dated and some of the buildings are a little dilapidated. I think this is going to really spurn additional development and a lot of people are going to really want to put their businesses and housing, a lot of the developers will want to put their places on 71 B. Lastly, it's going to make the area more walkable and bikeable, and this, in and of itself, will drive economic vitality and ultimately, I truly do believe it's going to increase the property values all along that corridor and selfishly speaking, 1 am willing to traverse that Township Hill to go to and from 71 B from near Gulley Park, just so I don't have to get into my car and stress out about traffic and parking. So, thank you very much for your consideration. I really appreciate all the work you've done on this." Jesse Buchannon, Ward 2, "1 want to say thank you to the City Council and to the city staff and planners that have put so much time and effort into this. I think it sounds like a broken record in here, a lot of us are very thankful forthe work that's going on, specifically about this issue, because we know that this is one of the most important decisions that our city is facing right now, is how to move forward withthis particular stretch ofthecity. When I first moved to Fayetteville, 1 moved to Dickson Street specifically because I wanted walkable community. I wanted to be able to live where things happened in the city and not have to commute into and out of or around the city in order to get to where things are, be around people and be part of the community. I also work at Fayetteville Public Schools, at the high school specifically, and living near that school was an 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 19 of 41 important thing for me because I needed to be able to have access to my classroom. I need to have access to my students because, as you probably know, public school teachers take work home with us a lot. I believe that I should not be privileged as one of the only people who can afford to live in areas that are walkable. I believe that we should be investing in the ability for more residents to live in walkable, bikeable areas in our city, and the way to do that is by increasing population density, by investing in places like the 71 B Corridor to increase housing in that area so that we can have more people who live there, and we can focus our infrastructure, our public transportation and community services in such a way that promote that population density and drive business to our local small businesses. We have a lot of small businesses along 71 B and 71 B is connected to our downtown and I believe that investing in this way and promoting the movement of residents to this area, and allowing people to live affordably in this part of our town is going to greatly increase the economic benefit for our city and help the people who live here have a higher quality of life, which is something that we say we care about a lot, but it's something that we struggle to figure out concrete steps toward, and I think this is a great step towards building a future that increases the quality of life for Fayetteville citizens. I look at my students constantly, and I wonder if they have hope for the future of Fayetteville and while I don't think that any plan is perfect, and we always have to hold ourselves accountable to the lofty goals we set for ourselves, I do think this plan and the goals within it set us on a path that will give the people of Fayetteville more hope for their future, and specifically for the future generations of young people who are going to be living here and dealing with what we build for them. Thank you." Kevin Farmer, 2872 Lubbock Lane, "I came to speak today regarding the rezoning particularly, not that my intention is to represent those that have requested to be excluded from the rezoning, but I can certainly speak for myself. It has struck me thatthere's been a number of views expressed today, and I'm grateful to have the opportunity to hear them. Mine is one that I would choose to be excluded from this rezoning for a number of reasons, and among those is it is not crystal clear that it is in the best interest of this property in particular, nor is it necessarily in the best interest of the property owner. I think given the scale, the scope of this rezoning and the relatively small number of people requesting to be excluded, it would seem to me that an opportunity to stave off what is certainly potential litigation, and perhaps a great fix all for everyone is to in fact, if a vote is taken tonight, that part of the action that these properties in fact be excluded. I think we all have more or less the same motivations in improving our city and improving 71 Corridor overall, but it seems like a great opportunity to satisfy many needsand go back and again given the small number of people asking to be excluded, it seems like that's such an easy task to address each of these property owners' needs on more individualized basis. And one last thing, it strikes me as unusual that on one hand, we recognize that this is some of the most valuable property in Northwest Arkansas, all across Northwest Arkansas, but yet it seems as though we're under the misunderstanding that by building housing on 71B that it will be affordable, because those two things don't align nicely; very expensive land and inexpensive housing. Those are my thoughts, and I thank you for the opportunity, and I'd like to thank the staff as well. They've clearly done a great deal of work on this and for the other community members for voicing their opinions and thank you all." Clark Eckels, 4011 North Highway 112, "I'm here to speak in support of the Business 71 Corridor rezoning. This project has been years in the making, and planning staff has done incredible work to make this a reality. This body has also been supportive in guiding the city to this point, and I 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 20 of 41 commend it for doing so. Approving this rezoning tonight would be a major step in making City Plan 2040 a reality, getting our houses crisis under control and making it safer for all residents and visitors. There are some property owners along this corridor who are asking to be exempt from this rezoning, and I urge the council to apply the zoning district to all parcels along the corridor without exemptions or delays, but especially including those large commercial lots such as Fiesta Square. This rezoning will only increase the value of properties along this corridor and expands the list of allowable uses, moving only autocentric uses to conditional use. This is financially good for the property owners, whetherthey choose to develop on their lands or choose to sell them at a later date, this rezoning has the opportunity to transform Business 71 into a place to live, the place where we can prioritize infill development instead of more suburban sprawl, a place for affordable housing, transit oriented development, a safer place for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, a place for people. From an economic standpoint, this project is also an opportunity to address the rapid growth that we are experiencing while still limiting our liabilities and increasing tax value per acre along the corridor. Will you help usher Fayetteville into a safer and more sustainable future, or will you let the failures of the past stand for yet another generation? As a more recent parent, you know, I want Fayetteville to be a place where my daughter could live and thrive and, you know, stay if she wants to stay as she becomes an' adult, and also be a safe place for her to grow up. Our downtown is one of our city's greatest gems, and that's because it is so walkable and has so many different mixes of uses, and I think we should have more places like it. Thank you." End of Public Comment. Council Member Stafford, "The first thing I need to do is actually issue a public apology. I don't know if the folks are still here, but a couple weeks ago, I made a pithy comment, and so I want to apologize to Scott Hill, to his neighbors on Elm and Green Acres, and to people of Fayetteville in general. It's not a comment I should have made, but when you hear the argument of I support this, but not next to me, a lot of times, you know, it just becomes this moniker you hear of nimbyism, and I don't believe that's where their heart was at, you know, in retrospect, and I have talked to staff, and we do have an amended map, the A.2 Map, and I would like to have us adopt that map. I don't know if that needs to be brought forward as an amendment, but if so, I would like to offer the A.2 amended map." Council Member Moore, "Second." Council Member Stafford, "Is that how I need to do that, Jonathan?" Jonathan Curth, "I think that's clear, and for staffs perspective, my understanding is that Miss Bostick crafted an Exhibit A.2 that you referenced that removes several parcels on the west side of Green Acres that were part of the staff proposal but that fell outside the 71 B study area that was initially put forward. And so, amending this ordinance to Exhibit A.2 would remove those properties, that's correct." Council Member Stafford, "Yeah, and I think it was a very reasonable request. I think it makes sense in that context in that section, so I would like to forward the amendment that we adopt the A.2 map." 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIIe-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page.21 of 41 Mayor Jordan, "So are you talking about the Elm Street area?" Council Member Stafford, "The Elm and Green Acres." Council Member Moore, "I appreciate the conversation that Scott and now the neighbors came out, and Elm is a very engaged neighborhood, and I really appreciate that. I think that they recognize today that R-O does allow for multi -story and so I think that this being pulled off of the corridor is more in good faith of saying it wasn't in the original pathway that was being looked at, but I think the discussion has been that we recognize that there's a lot of investment that's being made by taxpayers across all of the city, for this area, for enjoyability, and so revisiting these at a later date is what I understand we're going to be looking at, and so that's why I'm supportive tonight to pull that off. I think it's incredibly important with the resourcing that we've had and all of the strategic goals that we've spent really across all of our strategic plans accounts for, you know, millions of dollars between staff time and the actual time on these money on the plans, that we keep the corridor plan as cohesive, that we keep it as intact and whole so that it has the ability to fully fulfill kind of the obligation of what it's going forward to do. And I really am hesitant to think about creating spot zoning or pulling different properties for different reasons because of that cohesive nature and the need to be able to have this operate based on, you know, especially something I was going to say, and I appreciate Council Member Wiederkehr speaking to when we talked about the property protection act, but the entire, you know, undertaking of this really was what was pointed out under E.10, that we are being reasonably in good faith believing that our actions necessary to prevent immediate threat to life or property. We know that, as we've heard anecdotally from individuals and then the data that it supports that, and so I think it's incredibly important that this is a very cohesive plan going forward." Council Member Berna, "I just want to say that, you know, a couple weeks ago when we met and we tabled this, I got some fairly nasty emails because I was asking for it to be tabled so that we could take a step back and look at this and make sure we're doing it right. And this is an example of you can look at something and on paper it looks great, but then when you start really dissecting it and looking at the situation, it's a lot more complicated than what it just appears on paper. So, when we took these two weeks, one of the first emails I got was from mister Hill, and he said, you know, this is a scenario that I'm looking at, and I had to put myself in his position, and I would not want that for my own personal piece of property. So, I say that to say waiting two weeks on something this significant that has so much bearing on the whole City of Fayetteville is well worth it. It takes, you got to take your time to do this right. The same situation with the property owners that are being excluded, we look at this and some people say, well, you know, they're property owners, they're developers, they're this or they're that. They're still citizens of Fayetteville, or still property owners of Fayetteville, and it is their property, so they have to defend what they think is right or wrong. So just because they're developers or they're owners of big pieces of property, they don't lose their rights, and they have a right to defend what they think is good for their property. Now I think it needs to be probably cohesive, but I understand their point, and it gives me a little bit of concern with what the city attorney is saying, but I just wanted to point out that what looks to be simple in this situation is not simple. It's very, very complicated. And I'm glad to see that we were able to get the Elm Street and Green Acres area identified and corrected. So, thank you." 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 22 of 41 Council Member Stafford, "I just saw Scott walk back in the room, so I want to say it to your face, I apologize for my comment two weeks ago, and it was pithy, and it was out of frustration of kind of hearing those arguments. But I believe in your case it was a genuine observation, and I do believe that you support what we're doing here, and so thank you." Council Member Stafford moved to amend the ordinance to match the map in Exhibit A.2. Council Member Moore seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams, "Mr. Mayor there was another proposed amendment that Jonathan made about placing the whereas clauses, that needs to be made as an amendment by the City Council." Council Member Stafford moved to amend the ordinance to adopt the new whereas clauses as presented. Council Member Hertzberg seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Moore seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-1. Council Member Hertzberg, Stafford, Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Bunch voted yes. Council Member Turk voted no. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Stafford, "I've been here for not quite a year yet, and this is probably the most consequential vote that I've had so far, and I'm excited to make it." Council Member Turk, "The reason why I voted no for advancing this to our final vote is because I still think there is quite a bit of review that needs to be done. I, you know, there's property owners that want to be included, there's some that want to be excluded, and I just think more consideration needs to be given to those requests. You know, we slowed down the process for two weeks, and appreciate everybody's vote in excluding Elm from this, 1 think that was, there was very good arguments for excluding it, and I'm glad we did that, but there may be other properties that we need to look at more closely. So, I just wanted to explain why I didn't want it to go to the third and final reading. Thank you." Council Member Jones, "Again, thank you to Britin and Jonathan for your, and your staff, for your hard work. I wasn't on council when this first came about, but I do know that it is answering a lot of the, it is addressing a lot of the challenges that the citizens have... A lot of the questions that they've had, and so I've been receiving, a lot of people have, are really supportive of this, and Britin, thank you so much for outlining it tonight and your ability to outline this and put it in a way that our citizens are more able to understand it, and so I'm looking forward to supporting this. And again, this is going to definitely speak to the housing crisis. It's not a perfect solution, but I do believe that it's equitable and it is what our citizens need. So again, thank you guys so much for doing what you always do. You do a great job. So, Mayor Jordan, I'm going to definitely be supporting this." 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIIe-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 23 of 41 Council Member Wiederkehr, "I want to express respect for our city attorney and for Mr. Rhoads representing clients, l think that it's important that we value what we hear from them. It's important that they receive our respect. It's important that they keep us out of jail. It's important that they do all of those things that are necessary for the efficient operation of government, and we would be lost without them, and so 1 don't want to be dismissive of their concerns and their admonitions, and so 1 appreciate the attempts to protect us. So, 1 too want to thank staff for their work. 1 think that a phenomenal amount of analysis and goodwill has gone into this measure and a whole lot of public meetings. l mean, we've got well over 700 people providing input, and that is no small feat to track that and keep tabs on it. And so, 1 commend the organization for pursuing that kind of civil d iscourse and also want to thank the residents of the Elm Street neighborhood, they approached us in the same rational calm manner explaining the circumstance, having been excluded from the earlier original meetings, not knowing that they were included, and they did that beautifully, as we would hope everyone would. And 1 appreciate staffs response to that, saying, oh my goodness, they are absolutely right, and staff not burying that, but telling us and informing us, yes, they were excluded, and that's transparent government, and so 1 commend staff for that as well. Thank you." Council Member Hertzberg, "1 know we've talked a lot about exclusions, but l did want to talk about inclusions. So, my question for staff is if we did have a property owner who wanted to be included, could they go through traditional rezone process for this zoning?" Jonathan Curth, "Yes, that is an option." Council Member Hertzberg, "1 think that that would be preferable for me, because this is going to enable Planning Commission to review everything, we can review everything on a case by case basis, and we don't have to do that tonight, which 1 think would take a lot of time and effort, and maybe we wouldn't have a full enough picture to make the best decision. So, 1 am in favor of moving forward without any other inclusions or exclusions. Thank you." Council Member Bunch, "I have a quick question for staff and this kind of addresses what Holly brought up. What would be the cost to someone who wanted to apply and go through the proper channels for rezoning, just a basic small business owner?" Jonathan Curth, "A typical rezoning application, l believe, is $325. There's a $5 fee to make the public notification sign, so about $330." Council Member Bunch, "And then they have to notify, they have to send out letters, right? To people within..." Jonathan Curth, "That's correct. There may be some incidental costs if they don't have a valid legal description that's necessary if they can't use their deed, they may need to employ somebody to survey a property or craft that deed. And to your point, they also would need to mail letters to adjoining property owners." Mayor Jordan, "Well, I have just a few comments. This has been going on for about seven years, I remember Garner Stowe, I assigned him to that when he first, and then Jonathan carried everything on. I certainly want to thank Jonathan Curth and I want to thank Britin Bostick for all 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIIe-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 24 of 41 their hard work on this thing. I want to thank my Chief of Staff, Susan Norton. I want to thank the Planning Commission for all their work on this. I want to thank the task force, there was four of them here tonight, thank you for showing up and putting your input into this. The letter that you sent I thought was just fabulous in support of this. In my closing remarks, we all know the importance of long range planning and community input for scalable, responsible growth across our city. My staff and I have been working on the transformation of 71 B for the last seven years. We have been steadily acting on developing housing solutions, exploring changes to code and soliciting feedback from the community on this project. Yes, we are working to increase housing stock of every kind, and yes, we are meeting the national challenge with local solutions. The new 71 B Urban Corridor zoning designation gives property owners the added benefit of prioritizing mixed use and residential units where they have not been allowed to be built in the past. It will create housing density along the corridor that is being updated with the infrastructure needed to handle increased traffic and utility demands. This includes public transit options. More housing will also bring increased revenues to small businesses along this corridor, and as Mayor I continue to dedicate resources to projects that benefit all members of our community. These housing solutions will help to meet the city's projected population growth, improve affordable housing options for our workforce, and set an example for the rest of the state to follow for turning inner city highways into urban corridors for build ing our future together. Staff has worked diligently on this plan, and I sincerely appreciate their thoughtfulness and determination and seeing it through." Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 6798 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Ordinance to Amend § 161.36 Urban Corridor: An ordinance to amend § 161.36 Urban Corridor by enacting a new (H) Protections for Single -Family Zoned Districts to provide the same protections for adjoining single family residential districts as currently required for Urban Thoroughfare and all multi -family districts. At the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting this ordinance was left on the First Reading. Council Member Turk moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council Member Hertzberg seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Turk requested that members of the Fire Department come forward to address some concerns she had. Fire Marshal Jeremy Ashley and Assistant Fire Chief Russell Hulse were present to answer questions. Council Member Turk thanked members of the Fire Department for being present. She requested clarification on what kind of access buildings over three stories were required to have. Jeremy Ashley, "Okay, so if it's above three stories, so over 30 feet, it is going to be required to be an aerial apparatus access, which requires a setback of 15 to 30 feet away from the structure of 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 25 of 41 the building and then our apparatus road, the access, has to be 26 feet wide to accommodate for the outriggers on our ladder trucks. The aerial apparatus access can be in the back of a building. The aerial apparatus access can be on either side of the building, or it can be in the front of the building, and that depends on the project, the size of the property, whether or not there are power lines running down the front of the building. There's a lot of different things that could affect the placement of the aerial apparatus access, and we do have the authority as the AHJ to decide which side of that building will be the aerial apparatus access. Does that answer your question?" Council Member Turk questioned if only one side of the building was required to have arial apparatus access. Jeremy Ashley stated that was correct. There was then a brief discussion between Council Member Turk and Jeremy Ashley regarding if there was the potential for the Fire Code language regarding access requirements to change, or if there was the potential for new technology that would eliminate the apparatus access. Council Member Turk thanked the Fire Department for being present to answer her questions. She would like to either pass the ordinance or move on to the third reading due to the Fire Department verifying that only one side of the building was required to have access. She believed it would pose a shading and a privacy issue for adjacent residential neighborhoods. Council Member Moore understood Council Member Turk's concerns; however, she struggled with the way developments and projects in certain areas had not been able to move forward with something like what was being requested in place. She would like to table the request indefinitely. Council Member Stafford stated he was not yet prepared to vote and that he would like to d iscuss some additional questions with the Fire and Planning Department. Mayor Jordan asked if Council Member Turk wanted to hold the item for a few weeks. Council Member Turk stated she wanted to hold the item for a couple of weeks to gather additional information. The City Council received l public comment regarding this ordinance. This ordinance was left on the Second Reading. New Business: Ordinance to Amend § 161.36 Urban Corridor (Enacting Use Unit 38 Mini -Storage Units as a Conditional Use): An ordinance to amend § 161.36 Urban Corridor by enacting Use Unit 38 mini -storage units as a conditional use for Urban Corridor in Section (B) (2). City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 26 of 41 Council Member Berna stated he had brought the ordinance forward due to comments he had received from a property owner in the Cityof Fayetteville. He believed thatthe increase of housing would warrant the need for storage space. Council Member Stafford believed Council Member Bema had a point. He briefly spoke of seeing storage lockers inside of a structure that appeared to be a City building and how projects like that used a smaller footprint. He would be in support of the request. The City Council received 1 public comment regarding this ordinance. Council Member Hertzberg stated she saw the need for transitional storage unit space and would be in support of the request. Council Member Moore spoke of how the area could become out of balance with additional automobile traffic and would not be supportive of the request at this time. Council Member Stafford questioned if Council Member Bema would be amenable to holding the item on its current reading. Council Member Berna stated that was fine. He then went on to speak of the potential of down zoning a property within the zoning district by taking away the use of storage units. He questioned how that would affect the City since there was a property owner that had expressed an interest in building a storage unit. City Attorney Kit Williams stated that would be considered down zoning since the property owner would no longer be able to do that. He then went on to speak of how there would be a limited amount of money the property owner could claim they had lost because of the new zoning district, so it would not be a giant financial threat to the City. Council Member Berna stated his only concern currently was that the City had a property owner that was already in the process of redoing his property, and then the new zoning district occurred which would take the use of storage units away. He believed by making the storage units a conditional use, the City would still have all the checks and balances required to make sure they would be compatible in areas of town. He would like to move forward with his request. There was a brief discussion between Council Member Turk and City Attorney Kit Williams regarding when the Urban Corridor zoning district would take effect. City Attorney Kit Williams stated that the new zoning district would become effective 31 days after it's passage by the City Council. He then went on to explain that if the property owner had obtained a building permit or something similar for a mini storage, it would still be effective, and they could still develop it. However, if the property owner had not gone through the process yet at all, and did not have any kind of development permit, then he would have to comply with the ordinance. Jonathan Curth clarified that the Urban Corridor zoning district had already been approved, and what had been approved tonight was the application of said zoning district. He then went on to explain how if the current ordinance was adopted tonight, it would be modifying the zoning district that had already 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 27 of 41 been approved by the City Council. He went on to state that he did not see any permits issued for the property in question or any conditional use permits requested either. Council Member Stafford questioned if what the City Council would be amending wasn't what was passed tonight, but the original code that had been approved previously. Jonathan Curth stated that was correct and that what the City Council was currently considering was amending the definition of the conditional uses in the zoning district. Council Member Stafford questioned what kind of leeway the Planning Commission had in approving or denying conditional use permits. Jonathan Curth stated conditional use permits could be considered broadly and that the Planning Commission took into account it's compatibility and if the request would create a nuisance or dangerous condition. Council Member Stafford questioned if staff had a position on the amendment. Jonathan Curth believed that staff ultimately did not recommend in favorof the amendment due to a mini storage not significantly contributing to the City's tax base, streetscape or public life. He then gave a brief history of storages in the City of Fayetteville and went on to speak of how staff was not for or against the amendment. Council Member Berna stated he would like to hold the item on its current reading. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. T-Hangar (Revised Lease & Rate Increase): A resolution to approve a revised T-Hangar lease format updating terms and conditions, increasing rent for2025 by 15%, and adopting a yearly 3% inflation adjustment beginning in 2026, and to authorize Mayor Jordan to sign the T-Hangar leases. Council Member Stafford stated the Airport Board had requested the item be tabled. Chris Brown, Public Works Director gave a brief description of the resolution and of the T- Hangars currently at Drake Field. He stated staff would have a meeting with the Airport Board later in the week to go over additional details regarding the lease and then come back to the City Council with a finalized version of the lease agreement. Council Member Stafford questioned if Chris Brown was amenable to the item being tabled so he could meet with the Airport Board. Chris Brown answered yes. Council Member Stafford then went on to speak of how he believed it was important to let the City's advisory boards have their chance to weigh in on things. The City Council received 1 public comment regarding this resolution. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIIe-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 28 of 41 Council Member Stafford moved to table the resolution to the November 7, 2024 City Council Meeting. Council Member Hertzberg seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. This resolution was tabled to the 11/0712024 City Council meeting. Economic Vitality Master Plan (Adoption): A resolution to approve and adopt the 2024 Economic Vitality Master Plan. Council Member Berna stated that the presentation would last longer than 10 minutes, so he recommended giving 20 minutes ahead of time to the presenters. Devin Howland, Director of Economic Vitality, and Marlee Stark, Economic Equity & Mobility Project Manager, both gave a brief description of the Economic Vitality Master Plan. They then went on to speak of the specifics regarding the plan and of the community engagement that had taken place. Council Member Stafford thanked staff for their work on the plan. He was excited to see it move forward and was fully in support. Council Member Moore thanked staff and everyone else that had worked on the plan. There was then a brief discussion between Council Member Moore, Devin Howland and Jonathan Curth regarding a potential update of the City's Unified Development Code. Jonathan Curth went on to explain how the Downtown Plan thatthe City would be initiating nextyear would potentially be used as a springboard towards a more comprehensive planning effort city wide, which could segue into a rewrite of the City's Unified Development Code. Devin Howland briefly spoke of how there was a section within the Economic Vitality Master Plan that staff had worked on that talked about the possible code rewrite. The City Council received 3 public comments regarding this resolution. Council Member Hertzberg spoke of how housing had been an ongoing challenge, and that issues people faced when trying to find housing was its affordability and individual income levels. Therefore, she was a huge fan of the plan and its job skills training portion, which she believed would increase access to housing for individuals within the City. She would be in support. Council Member Wiederkehr commended those who had worked on the plan and had been pleasantly surprised to see an attempt to address how the economy suffered when people were lost to the workforce due to childcare or elder care obligations. He thanked the Economic Vitality Department for their work. Council Member Bunch stated the detail and amount of work that had went into the plan had been incredible. She noted how much involvement had taken place with the plan and thanked everyone who had been involved. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviiie-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 29 ol'41 Council Member Turk commended Devin Howland and his team for their efforts and believed the plan was very thorough and well documented. Council Member Stafford echoed the City Council's comments. He liked that the plan acknowledged the arts economy and the creative economy. He thanked staff for their hard work. Mayor Jordan thanked Devin Howland, Marlee Stark and Chung Tan for their work. He briefly spoke of how Fayetteville had seen remarkable growth and of how the City needed to do more to make sure the entire community benefited from said growth. He then went on to explain the values that the Economic Vitality Plan had been built around and thanked everyone for their insights and was confident that the work in implementing the plan in the coming years would lead to a more economically inclusive and resilient Fayetteville. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Bunch seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed unanimously. Resolution 260-24 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Rezoning-2024-0040: (2400 E. Township St. /Township Baptist Church, 292): An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2024-40 for approximately 1.17 acres located at 2400 East Township Street in Ward 3 from RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, Four Units Per Acre, to NS-G, Neighborhood Services -General. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director gave a brief description of the ordinance. He noted that the sewer main by the property was currently at capacity in wet weather events, and that the developer might be responsible for some manner of upgrades. He stated the rezoning would reduce the tree preservation on the property from 25% to 20%. He then spoke of how there had been public comment received on the request, many in support and some in opposition. He stated staff recommended in favor of the request and the Planning Commission forwarded it to the City Council unanimously. He noted Katie Wallace was present as the applicant for the item. Matt Powe, Architect stated he was excited for the project and spoke of how he believed the request would be a great fit for the area. He was available for questions. There was a brief discussion between Council Member Stafford and Jonathan Curth regarding the current tree canopy onsite. Jonathan Curth stated staff had not yet evaluated the sites tree canopy. Council Member Stafford stated he was excited about the project and mentioned that most of the calls and emails he had received regarding the request had been positive. He believed that integrating new uses into old buildings was what made city's special. He would be in support. Council Member Berna questioned sewer capacity in the City and how it had been calculated that it was at capacity. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 30 of 41 Jonathan Curth stated those calculations had come from the City's Utility Department and from the 2030 Sewer Master Plan, where evaluations had been taken on the sewer lines and manholes throughout the City. He then went on to speak of how the sewer line that the current church onsite dumped into was at capacity and that when the project comes in for development staff will determine whether the developer could potentially be responsible for bearing the cost of upgrad ing that line. Council Member Stafford questioned if the applicant was prepared for those possible costs. Matt Powe answered yes. The City Council received 7 public comments regarding this ordinance. There was a brief discussion between Council Member Bunch and Jonathan Curth regarding if a church could operate under the new zoning that had been requested. Jonathan Curth went on to explain nonconforming uses within zoning districts and stated that if the property had ceased to be used as a church for six or more months, the opportunities for them to reinitiate that would be to rezone the property to a district that allowed churches or religious institutes, or a conditional use permit could be requested. He then stated he was unsure if the church onsite had not been in use for six months. Council Member Bunch spoke of how she had not seen very many cars onsite and felt as though the church hadn't been utilized very much. She questioned what the highest density of development could be allowed on the property under the proposed zoning. Jonathan Curth stated that the theoretical density under the Neighborhood Services zoning district would allow up to 20 units. Council Member Stafford spoke of where the property was located and how a little extra traffic added nearby would not be noticeable. He felt as though this was an opportunity to add a neighborhood gathering space to the area that would allow people to walk and bike in. He would be in support of the request and stated that the majority of emails he had received on the topic had been from neighbors in the area that were supportive as well. Council Member Moore recognized the comments that had been received from neighbors in the area who had concerns with the request. She spoke of how the request could foster community gatherings that were accessible on foot or by biking and create a third space for the community to engage in. She could see an added benefittothe wellbeing and safety of the community by creating spaces such as what was proposed. She believed it would add value to the area. There was a brief discussion between Council Member Bunch and Jonathan Curth regarding what parameters were needed to create a situation that the City would want to put a crosswalk or stoplight into an area. Jonathan Curth then went on to explain how the project was too early to make an evaluation on whether that would be needed. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIIe-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 31 of 41 Council Member Bunch spoke of the traffic that was currently on Township Street and that the area could probably merit a stop sign or a stop light later on. She then went on to explain how a lot of the trips to local businesses would be within the neighborhood, so they would be on foot or by bicycle. She saw the request as a great possibility to provide services to the neighborhood that would be utilized and become a gathering spot for children and families from the area. Council Member Turk stated she had concerns with the request and its high density allowance being next to a neighborhood. She then questioned if there was another zoning district that would allow coffee shops in the neighborhood area with density limits. Jonathan Curth stated Neighborhood Services Limited would be the next zoning step down that would allow those opportunities and limit density to ten per acre. Council Member Turk believed that sounded like more of an approach that needed to be taken. Council Member Berna briefly spoke of the amount of traffic in the area. He believed the request would be a good use for the area and was leaning towards supporting it. Council Member Wiederkehr spoke of how he lived next to a church that had been successfully turned into a condo and did not see an automatic conflict between a residential use to have a commercial use. He believed the request was rational and would be supportive. Council Member Stafford stated Council Member Wiederkehr had brought up a good point. He then went on to speak of how he believed City parks were for everyone and that there was a need for more accessibility in multifamily housing next to parks. He noted how the Planning Commission had unanimously supported the request as well as staff and then spoke of how he believed it would be a great opportunity. He would be in support. There was then a brief discussion between Council Member Stafford and Mayor Jordan regarding the concerts at Gulley Park. Council Member Moore moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Moore moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-1. Council Member Turk, Hertzberg, Stafford, Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Bunch voted yes. Council Member Berna voted no. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-1. Council Member Hertzberg, Stafford, Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Bunch voted yes. Council Member Turk voted no. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 32 of 41 Ordinance 6799 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk First Repair, Inc. (Service Contract): Resolution approving a contract with First Repair, Inc. of Evanston, Illinois to train Fayetteville leaders to repair harm done to African Americans in Fayetteville. Council Member Jones questioned when he should bring forth amendments to the item he had. City Attorney Kit Williams stated starting with the amendments would be appropriate. Council Member Jones stated his amendment included the words `intention to appropriate up to six thousand dollars for travel expenses for Fayetteville officials or employees to attend training in Evanston, Illinois.' City Attorney Kit Williams read the title and section one of the amended resolution. He then explained how the City Council would need to vote on the amended resolution and then they could begin discussion. Council Member Hertzberg questioned what the rationale behind the six thousand dollars was. Council Member Jones stated that would be talked about further later. Council Member Hertzberg believed those details were relevant before voting on the amended resolution. Council Member Jones explained how a representative from First Repair was present to answer any questions and provide a presentation outlining the details of the request. Council Member Hertzberg asked the Mayor if it was a good idea to have the representative present before the City Council took a vote on the item. Mayor Jordan stated that was okay, but typically the amendment took precedent. City Attorney Kit Williams stated it would be better form to vote on the amended version. Council Member Hertzberg had concerned that the amendment would change the resolution from a non -budgeted item to a budgeted item and felt it was important to do things differently. Mayor Jordan suggested that Council Member Jones withdraw his amendment, and the City Council listen to the representative's presentation. Council Member Stafford briefly discussed his understand of the amendment and that it was not a contract but an expressed intention. He then asked the Chief Financial Officerwhat the maximum amount of money could be spent without `jumping through the hoops.' 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIle-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15. 2024 Page33 of41 Paul Becker, Chief Financial Officer explained that the typical amount that could be spent was five thousand dollars and that typically amounts above that required three quotes. He then explained that a sole source for training could be considered an exemption, and this justification could be looked at more closely. He then described what sole source was and what the process looked like to contract with a sole source. Council Member Stafford asked that if the amount was under five thousand dollars, there would be no reason to question the amount. Paul Becker stated that a division head had discretion over any amount under five thousand dollars, and anything over that amount that was sole sourced required a good justification. City Attorney Kit Williams pointed out to Council Member Stafford that the six thousand dollars was not for a contract with First Repair, but for travel expenses. Paul Becker reminded the City Council that this amendment did not have any language for the payment of travel expenses for First Repair to come to Fayetteville. City Attorney Kit Williams agreed with the Chief Financial Officer and explained that the six thousand dollars would only be used for City of Fayetteville travel expenses to Evanston, Illinois. Council Member Berna asked Council Member Jones why the training would be justified as a sole source project and mentioned that the staff underwent DEI training with the University of Arkansas approximately one year ago. Council Member Jones stated that the presentation made by the First Repair representative would answer his questions. Mayor Jordan asked if Council Member Jones withdrew his amendment, then the representative from First Repair could present. City Attorney Kit Wiliams agreed. Council Member Jones withdrew his motion to amend the resolution. Lowell, First Repair Representative stated that he would speak for five minutes and then would relinquish his time to Robin Simmons. He presented a slide show that provided information on the context of the resolution and referenced that racism was a public health emergency and that the City Council made a commitment to create a Racial Equity Action Plan. He then explained the content of the training and provided specifics regarding the travel and training aspects, including timelines and costs. Robin Simmons, Founder of First Repair thanked everyone for their consideration of the item. She provided a brief explanation of what First Repair's mission was and identified that First Repair was a non-profit organization. She provided examples of First Repair's work in different locations 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 34 of 41 and what those 'roads to repair' looked like. She also provided examples of what the learning sessions could look like in Fayetteville and Evanston. Council Member Jones asked the Council Members to direct the questions they had for him to Robin Simmons. Council Member Hertzberg expressed she had initial concerns regarding the six thousand dollars. She asked to table the item to get more information on the scope of work, inclusion of other entities and other areas surrounding the item and amendment. Lowell stated that his hope regarding the other entities was that there would be a collective collaboration. He explained that in his view the inclusion of others would bean invitation and not a mandate. He also explained that if the six thousand dollars was an issue that there were other options that could looked at to continue forward with the process. Council Member Hertzberg explained that the money was not particularly the main issue and that her concerns primarily focused around the language of the resolution. Lowell stated that First Repair would work with the City of Fayetteville regarding traveling requirements. Council Member Berna asked Council Member Jones what due diligence was doneto select First Repair as a sole source vendor. Council Member Jones stated that the University of Arkansas DEI program no longer existed and stated that the City of Fayetteville spent twenty thousand dollars and received nothing. Susan Norton, Chief of Staff stated that the City of Fayetteville had received over one years' worth of monthly sessions for senior staff. Council Member Jones apologized and explained that even though there was training what had happened since that training was completed. He explained that First Repair `came along' at a cheaper rate and that the City of Fayetteville would only pay for transportation. He expressed that the organization was providing their service for free and that he had not pursued research on other organizations because of this. City Attorney Kit Williams stated that he understood the six thousand dollars would only be used for staff and officials and he did not realize that three thousand dollars would be paying for First Repair's travels. He stated that if this was the case then the resolution would be a contract. Council Member Jones explained he understood the six thousand dollars to be before the traveling and accommodations and was therefore not a contract. City Attorney Kit Willaims explained that if the City of Fayetteville was paying anything to First Repair, that was considered a contract. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville.. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 35 of 41 Lowell clarified and stated that no check would be paid to First Repair and that First Repair would receive zero dollars from the City of Fayetteville. City Attorney Kit Williams stated that if the City was paying money to First Repair to provide services than that would be a contract. Lowell repeated the purpose of the expense would be exclusively for travel. He explained that the larger point is the City Council identified a health crisis and First Repair could continue the process and the road to healing. Council Member Berna asked if reparations were the ultimate goal of First Repair. Lowell stated the goal of First Repair was to do what the City Council said they were going to do in 2020. He then argued that reparations could be used as a synonym to repair. Council Member Berna asked City Attorney Kit Williams if the Stateof Arkansas allowed a City to pay reparations. City Attorney Kit Williams explained that repayments to individuals because of past wrongs done to their predecessors was not allowed under the Arkansas Constitution. He stated the City could buy services but could not give money away nor could it be based on race as that could be a breach of federal law. Council Member Jones explained that there were numerous ways in which harm could be repaired that were not always financial. He then explained that the assumption reparations were financial was justification of why the training was needed. Council Member Moore asked if Robin Simmons could speak to what the repair process looked like and what potential outcomes could be. Robin Simmons explained that there were five different forms of reparations. She also stated that First Repair did not accept contracts for services. Council Member Hertzberg asked what the five forms of reparations were. Robin Simmons reiterated the five different forms of reparations. She stated that those standards were developed by the United Nations. Council Member Hertzberg asked which forms of reparations were implemented in Evanston, I Ilinois. Robin Simmons provided a brief breakdown of the pathway First Repair used for racial healing in Evanston, Illinois and provided specific examples of the forms of reparations used. Council Member Hertzberg asked if there was pending litigation against the City of Evanston, Illinois. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteviIIe-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 36 of 41 Robin Simmons stated there was active litigation against Evanston, Illinois. She also provided a brief explanation of the adversity the racial healing movement had experienced. Council Member Stafford expressed his support for the resolution and stated he did not understand the resistance to the resolution and stated that the City of Fayetteville should not be afraid to learn. Council Member Berna explained that he was not on the City Council when the health crisis resolution was passed and stated that although he was questioning the resolution it did not mean the City should not do everything it could to make everyone feel included. He stated Fayetteville was one of the most inclusive cities in Arkansas. He believed the resolution could potentially have legal ramifications and that it needed to be looked at further. He stated he still had issues with First Repair being a sole source for the proposed services being provided. Council Member Hertzberg briefly described her hesitations to the resolution and provided a list of information that she would like to better understand. She then asked the City Council if they would be open to tabling for two weeks to November 7, 2024. Council Member Stafford apologized if his words had offended anyone and offered the City Council demographic statistic for the black population in the City of Fayetteville. He asked Chief of Staff, Susan Norton for the demographics of city employees. Susan Norton said she would ask the Human Resources Director. Council Member Bunch stated she appreciated everyone's efforts and asked for more information regarding the initial action plan. She agreed that tabling would be a good idea and was open to getting more information to decide. The City Council received 8 public comments regarding this resolution. Council Member Jones offered an apology and provided a personal anecdote on racism that he experienced and stated that he needed to stick to his principles and explained how contentious and important this resolution was to him and the City of Fayetteville. Council Member Turk explained how she felt there was not enough information available to be able to make an educated decision at their meeting. She was concerned about the City of Fayetteville following state, local and federal law. Council Member Berna explained that because he had asked questions, it did not mean anything other than he was asking questions and that if certain questions were clarified that he may have expressed a different opinion. Council Member Jones believed the training would make the City Council and Fayetteville better. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15.2024 Page 37 of 41 Council Member Stafford moved to amend the resolution. Council Member Moore seconded the motion. No vote was taken as another motion was made to table the item. Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer, explained to the City Council that there was already a motion on the floor from Council Member Hertzberg to table the item. City Attorney Kit Williams stated that the initial motion to table failed due to lack of a second and the City Council should continue forward with the amendment. City Attorney Kit Williams read the proposed amendment to the resolution and then explained that when he had drafted the amendment, he had not realized that money could potentially be paid to First Repair. With this information in mind, he advised the City Council that the amendment may be illegal and that the current unamended resolution stated only an intention to potentially spend funds for traveling. Council Member Bunch stated that she had not realized Council Member Hertzberg's motion to table the resolution and seconded her motion to table. City Attorney Kit Williams stated that a motion to table took precedence. Council Member Bunch felt there were enough people with questions that the resolution warranted tabling for more information to be gathered. Council Member Jones expressed his appreciation for Council Member Bunch and that he would be willing to table the item. Council Member Stafford asked a procedural question regarding whether he could call for an immediate vote on an amendment. City Attorney Kit Williams explained that Council Member Stafford could motion for an immediate vote, but it would not take precedence over a motion to table. Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer, "In orderfor the minutes of this meeting to read accurately, I would like to go through a few things just for the moment. Council Member Hertzberg made a motion to table and unfortunately a second was not made in time and this motion died from lack of a second. During this time period, Council Member Stafford made a motion to amend, and Council Member Moore seconded the motion, then Council Member Bunch explained she did not hear Council Member Hertzberg's motion to table and seconded the motion." She then asked Kit if he agreed with the summation and asked what he thought the proper procedure moving forward was. City Attorney Kit Williams suggested that Council Member Hertzberg make a motion to table. Council Member Stafford was confused about what had just happened regarding the precedence of motions and asked the City Attorney different questions. Kara Paxton stated her office was responsible for creating the minutes for the meeting and noted that the office was trained in parliamentary procedures but, the City Attorney was the official parliamentarian for the City Council meeting. City Attorney Kit Williams provided a brief explanation of precedence. Council Member Berna described a past item in which he had concerns that was worked on and he ultimately supported once more information had been provided to him. He stated he was committed to the same idea for the item before him. Council Member Jones clarified that he was never confused and provided a brief summation on his amendment. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 38 ot'41 Council Member Wiederkehr provided his perspective on the amendment and asked City Attorney Kit Williams if what he thought being proposed was correct. City Attorney Kit Williams explained that the resolution expressed the intent to enter a contract and that it appeared the three thousand dollars would be used to pay for First Repair to travel to Fayetteville and that he was not aware of this when he had drafted the amendment. Council Member Jones asked if Lowell from First Repair could come back up to the podium and answer some questions. Lowell stated that there did not need to be any contract, and First Repair would be paid zero dollars and that First Repair asked for intent from them to train City of Fayetteville personnel to repair harm. Council Member Jones asked about the money for traveling and how that was split. Lowell provided a brief breakdown on the cost of how many, where and how much it would take to move people from Fayetteville to Evanston and from Evanston to Fayetteville. Council Member Moore explained what she felt was the hang up was the payment of travel expense for First Repair. Mayor Jordan asked the Chief Financial Officer if the City Council could use their travel budgets and asked if all Council Members had a travel budget. Paul Becker answered yes, they could if they wished but could not buy plane tickets for people without a contractual obligation. Mayor Jordan asked if he could use his travel budget to go to Evanston, Illinois without a contract. Paul Becker, "Correct". Council Member Jones asked if that was something that needed to be voted on. City Attorney Kit Williams reiterated the title of the item and expressed this resolution was one of intention. Mayor Jordan stated his interest in First Repair. Council Member Hertzberg moved to table the resolution to the November 7, 2024 City Council Meeting. Council Member Bunch seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-2. Council Member Turk, Hertzberg, Stafford, Jones, Berna and Bunch voted yes. Council Member Moore and Wiederkehr voted no. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 39 of 41 This resolution was tabled to the 1110712024 City Council meeting. Enact Chapter 120.03 (Ordinance): An ordinance to enact § 120.03 Limitations on Rental Application and Background Check Fees. City Attorney Kit Williams stated Council Member Moore had a suggested amendment and recommended the City Council amend the ordinance before he went through its first reading. Council Member Moore moved to amend the ordinance to match the ordinance read by the City Attorney Kit Williams. Council Member Bunch seconded the motion. City Attorney Kit Williams was requested to read the ordinance before it went for vote. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Hertzberg, Stafford, Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Bunch voted yes. Council Member Turk was absent for the vote. Council Member Moore gave a brief presentation of the request and spoke of how it aligned with City Plan 2040. She then went on to speak of the research she had done on d ifferent states within the United States and their legislation efforts in limiting rental application fees. City Attorney Kit Williams, "I need to note for the record that there is a state statute titled rent control preemption, quote, 'A local government shall not enact, maintain or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would have the affect of controlling the amount of rent charged for leasing private, residential or commercial property.' It's possible that an argument could be made by a land lord's attorney that in fact controlling the cost of these applications costs them so much money they're going to have to raise the rent, so that would have some effect on the rent. 1 think that's a losing argument, in fact as 1 told Sarah when she first brought me this and I tell you that too, it's not totally risk free but to me, there's big difference between an application fee and rent. So, 1 think that we would probably survive litigation if somebody brought that against us. I want to thank Sarah for giving me her initial ordinance so I could look at it because I did find some other problems that we were able to work through and now we have it down to something I think is probably legal, so from my point of view I have no reluctance in you all considering this." Council Member Moore stated the only concerns she had received from property owners were in regard to the reuse of background checks and that she had been told by one of the larger rental companies in the City that they had no issues with a cap being set. Council Member Berna had concerns about the potential negative affect the request could have on renters due to the potential for property mangers to offset the costs of application/background check fees into the rent cost. Council Member Moore spoke of research she had done on the request and how there was availability to use apps like Zillow to sign up and not be charged additional fees to apply to rentals. Council Member Stafford thanked Council Member Moore and Kit Williams for their work. He understood Council Member Berna's concerns but believed in the grand scheme of things, issues 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 40 of 41 like that could be worked out, and spreading the add itionalcosts throughout lease term could end up being a small amount. He would be supportive of the ordinance. The City Council received 13 public comments regarding this Ordinance. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Council Member Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1. Council Member Stafford, Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Bunch voted yes. Council Member Hertzberg voted no. Council Member Turk was absent for the vote. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. There was a brief discussion between Council Member Wiederkehr and Council Member Moore on how applicants and property owners could use Zillow to apply to rentals and that there was the potential for the prospective renters to not have to pay anything when applying to a rental through those apps. Council Member Bunch stated that was her understand ing as well. It was then clarified that there was nothing that dictated in the language of the ord inance that landlords had to use the services of the online apps like Zillow, they could use whatever services they wanted. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1. Council Member Stafford, Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Bunch voted yes. Council Member Hertzberg voted no. Council Member Turk was absent for the vote. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Berna stated he would be unsupportive of the ordinance due to it's potential to hurt renters and increase rent costs. He was unsure the ordinance accomplished what everyone hoped it would. He also had concerns with the ordinance putting a `bulls' eye' on the City of Fayetteville from the State of Arkansas. Council Member Jones thanked Council Member Moore for her hard work and diligence on the item. He stated that after hearing everyone's stories during public comment, he believed the City Council needed to do something and that this would align with his values and that as a public servant he believed it was his responsibility. Council Member Moore thanked the members of the public who had stayed late for the meeting and recognized the University of Arkansas students who had been present earlier. She understood the concerns expressed and had weighed those concerns heavily. She spoke of how this ordinance would help create more certainty for the community and felt this would be the best path forward. Council Member Stafford understood and respected Council Member Berna's concerns but believed the benefits of the ordinance outweighed those concerns. He believed this would be a great step forward and starting ground for the City. 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2024 Page 41 of 41 Mayor Jordan asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 5-7. Council Member Stafford, Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Bunch voted yes. Council Member Hertzberg and Berna voted no. Council Member Turk was absent for the vote. Ordinance 6800 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Announcements: None City Council Agenda Session Presentations: None City Council Tour: None Adjournment: 12:46 a.m. on October 16, 2024 EVILLE : S CC�``�� III%%\ JACKSOn svLc0-0YA, Senior D-quAj Clt� O-UK 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov