Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-03 - Minutes - City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 1 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Meeting February 3, 2026 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on February 3, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Vice Mayor Sarah Bunch called the meeting to order. Present: Council Members Robert B. Stafford, Sarah Moore, Mike Wiederkehr, Scott Berna, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, Minister Monique Jones, City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton, Chief of Staff Keith Macedo, Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson, Staff, Press and Audience. Absent: Mayor Molly Rawn and Council Member D’Andre Jones DHA. Due to Mayor Rawn’s absence, Council Member Bunch acted as Vice Mayor for the duration of the meeting. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor’s Announcements, Proclamations and Recognitions: Vice Mayor Sarah Bunch asked attendees in the audience to either turn their phones to silent or turn them off completely. City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports, and Discussion Items: Sales Tax & Monthly Financial Report - Chief Financial Officer Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson provided the November Sales Tax Report. The November sales tax report showed that taxable sales in the city totaled about $288,000,000.00, a Ward 3 Position 1 Council Member Sarah Bunch Ward 3 Position 2 Council Member Teresa Turk Ward 4 Position 1 Council Member Min. Monique Jones Ward 4 Position 2 Mayor Molly Rawn City Attorney Kit Williams City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton Ward 1 Position 1 Council Member Dr. D’Andre Jones Ward 1 Position 2 Council Member Sarah Moore Ward 2 Position 1 Council Member Mike Wiederkehr Ward 2 Position 2 City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 2 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov decrease of roughly 1.3% or $3,700,000.00 compared to November 2024. Retail trade posted a year‑over‑year increase of about 2% or $3,100,000.00 but that gain was offset by several sectors that were down. Accommodation and food services were down about 11% or nearly $5,000,000.00, and both the construction and education services sectors were reduced by tax rebates, down $1,200,000.00 and $8,300,000.00 respectively. Overall rebates in November 2025 increased by over 60% compared to November of 2024, totaling about $10,300,000.00, due to construction related rebates associated with University of Arkansas projects. In terms of actual tax collections, the city’s one penny tax in November 2025 was down 1.32% from 2024, and the county portion to the city was down 1.88%, creating a combined decline of 1.57% or about $80,000.00. Year to date the combined city and county sales taxes remained up approximately 4.9% or $2,800,000.00 compared to November of 2024. Compared to budget, the city’s one penny tax for November 2025 was down about 0.28% or $8,000.00, and the county portion was down 2%, resulting in a combined monthly decrease of 1.1% or about $56,000.00. Even with the negative numbers for November, year to date collections was still up by about 2.6% or $1,500,000.00. Overall, it had been a good year for the city, November had just been a rough month. He was available for questions. Council Member Min. Jones and Steven discussed the 30 day period for the decline of accommodation and food services. Council Member Moore then questioned how the rebates might hit in the next 12 months. Steven explained there wasn’t any good data the city could access from the state that gave information on when the rebates would hit. Council Member Moore then followed up the total potential liability of rebates that were available. Steven stated the information was not accessible. The city was dependent on the information received for the sales tax collection when they were remitted. If something became available he would report on it then. Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson provided the Monthly Financial Report. Property tax revenue had fallen about 9%, roughly $500,000.00, below the annual budget. Sales tax revenue had risen about 3%, or $1,200,000.00. Franchise fees had declined about 5%, while alcoholic beverage fees had increased 5%. Building permits had remained strong, rising 65% or about $1,800,000.00. State turnback revenue had increased 3%. Charges for services had continued trending downward, ending about 1% or $11,000.00 below budget, while court fees had risen 9% or about $98,000.00. Overall, the General Fund had finished 2.9% above budget, or about $2,100,000.00, through December. The Street Fund total had ended about 4% below budget, or roughly $470,000.00, due to lower than budgeted state turnback revenue. The Parking Fund total had finished 1% above budget, or about $20,000.00. Parks Development had ended the year up 4.3%, or about $240,000.00, driven by a 2% increase in Hotel Motel Restaurant taxes totaling about $87,000.00. The Water And Sewer Fund had remained up about 3.2% for the year, or roughly $1,900,000.00, supported by higher charges for services. The Stormwater Management Fund had not yet had full budget comparisons because it was implemented late in the year, but charges for services had totaled about $1,100,000.00, consistent with expectations. The Recycling and Trash Fund had ended up about 0.6%, or roughly $108,000.00, led by franchise fees that were about $62,000.00 above budget. In the Airport Fund, gasoline sales had risen about 6.2%, or roughly $191,000.00, and flight operations had increased about 6.3%, or approximately 16,135 more operations than in 2024. City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 3 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Min. Jones and Steven discussed the loans the city had issued to other departments and when the City Council would receive an update on them, focusing on the Storm Water Management Fund. Steven explained the city had anticipated a need of up to half a million dollars. He was still reviewing as they closed out the year but the amount might actually be approximately $30,000.00 as far as the loan went. The loan would be paid back from stormwater management fees as quickly as possible. The transaction would occur in 2026 to refund the General Fund and the payback would occur in the front half of 2026. Council Member Moore and Steven discussed the decline of property taxes for 2025. She questioned what the city was expecting for 2026. Steven explained the city took the decline into consideration when preparing the 2026 budget. There were forecasts completed over the course of the year so the city was not caught off guard by changes at the end of the year. Agenda Additions: None Consent: Council Member Berna moved to suspend the rules to read the Consent Agenda. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones voted no. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Approval of the January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Approved. NeoGov HR Software Maintenance Renewal: A resolution to approve the purchase of annual software maintenance from NeoGov for 2026 in the amount of $65,419.19. Resolution 43-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Hawkins-Weir Engineers, Inc. (Amendment No. 6): A resolution to approve Amendment No. 6 to the Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Hawkins-Weir Engineers, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $97,130.00 for additional services associated with the Goshen Water Storage Tank Improvements Project. Resolution 44-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Bid 25-54 OPW Commercial Services of Arkansas LLC (Fire Hydrant Painting): A resolution to award Bid #25-54 and authorize a contract with OPW Commercial Services of Arkansas LLC in the amount of $47,000.00 for the painting of approximately 1,000 fire hydrants in Fayetteville’s water service area, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $9,400.00. Resolution 45-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 4 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Berna moved to accept the Consent Agenda as read. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Unfinished Business: RZN 2025-0050 West Michael Cole Drive: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2025-0050 for approximately 7.67 acres located at 5901 West Michael Cole Drive in Ward 4 from R-A, Residential-Agricultural to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, 12 Units Per Acre and CCR, Conservation, Cultural, and Recreation subject to a conservation easement. At the January 6, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading. At the January 20, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was amended and left on the second reading. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth stated the applicant requested the item be tabled to the next scheduled meeting, February 17, 2026. Council Member Stafford moved to table the ordinance to the February 17, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. This ordinance was left on the Second Reading and tabled to the February 17, 2026 City Council meeting New Business: VAC 2025-0028 SW of West Cato Springs Road & South Emma Avenue: An ordinance to approve VAC-25-28 for property located Southwest of West Cato Springs Road and South Emma Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate 0.01 acres of right-of-way. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth did have a prepared presentation but explained the City Council had seen the item approximately a month prior. The item was before City Council again due to a staff error where they failed to include two pieces of right of way that were included in the original request. He was content to not present the same information as the item was previously considered and approved by the City Council on January 6, 2026. He was available for questions. City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 5 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Vice Mayor Bunch asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Ordinance 6966 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk VAC 2025-0032 South School Avenue: An ordinance to approve VAC-25-32 for property located at 902 South School Avenue and 1020 South School Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate 0.36 acres of utility easement. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The request was to vacate two portions of easement totaling about one third of an acre. During the Agenda Session, someone asked how this related to the south School Avenue improvements and design work underway. He explained that the project covered the full stretch of south School Avenue from Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to 15th Street. He explained visually why the easements existed. He acknowledged that the question likely arose because the property directly bordered the approved street improvements. He said that after reconfirming with staff who reviewed the development previously considered by the Planning Commission, they assured him that the south School improvements were at the forefront of their minds. The development would dedicate between 3 and 17 feet of right of way along the property’s frontage. The dedication addressed the concern and would prevent the city from needing to spend funds later to acquire right of way for the project. All franchise utilities had provided consent and that staff recommended approving the vacation request with the two conditions previously read by City Attorney Kit Williams. Council Member Min. Jones questioned parking requirements if the property was vacated. Jonathan stated that when staff reviewed the large scale development proposal, they had already considered that issue. He explained two parts of the review that addressed the south School improvements. Staff felt confident that all elements of the project, including on street parking, street trees, green space, and sidewalks, could fit within the existing right of way or the additional right of way being dedicated through the development. Representative Jay Young explained that the large scale development had already been processed, reviewed, and approved, and that they had been coordinating with the northern neighbor, city staff, and the water and sewer departments. One of the easements was a north/south sewer easement, which they planned to vacate while rerouting the sewer line to the City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 6 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov east. The remaining easements came from old, outdated surveys that created disconnected or unusual shaped pieces of easement that no longer aligned with existing utilities or extended far beyond what was needed. Along with dedicating additional right of way on south School Avenue, he said they were also dedicating a uniform easement along the east side of that right of way to accommodate the existing utilities. Council Member Berna 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 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Vice Mayor Bunch asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Ordinance 6967 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Council Member Min. Jones asked Jonathan if the staff review form associated with the item mentioned staff’s approval. Jonathan explained the staff review form normally did not contain the staff recommendation. He clarified that staff recommended approval. RZN 2025-0066 North Double Springs Road: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2025-66 for approximately 1.18 acres located at 1171 and 1173 North Double Springs Road in Ward 4 from R-A, Residential-Agricultural to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, 12 Units Per Acre. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The property was developed with a two family dwelling and zoned Residential Agricultural, even though it did not meet the Residential Agricultural district’s minimum lot area or lot width requirements. Because of that nonconformity, he explained that the applicant was requesting a rezoning to Residential Intermediate-12. Staff recommended approval, and the Planning Commission did as well. From a land use standpoint, he said the proposal was compatible with existing development. The zoning map showed large areas of Residential Agricultural property, he noted that many attached residential units were located immediately adjacent to the site and throughout the surrounding area. The nearby services at the southeast corner of Wedington and Double Springs made this an unusual but appropriate location for additional housing in west Fayetteville, given its access to services and a readily accessible transportation corridor. The request was also consistent with the land use plan, which designated the area as a residential neighborhood intended to support residential uses depending on context. He noted that rezoning to Residential Intermediate-12 would reduce the tree preservation requirement from 25% to 20%. No public comments had been received. Staff and the Planning Commission both recommended approval, with one dissenting City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 7 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov vote based on concerns about increased density in west Fayetteville. He was available for questions. Council Member Turk and Jonathan discussed bus services in the area. Jonathan was not aware of any. Council Member Min. Jones then questioned how the city stays aligned with the goal of staying away from sprawl when developing in this area. Jonathan explained that rationalizing whether a development was sprawl or not was an ongoing question in the city. Since adopting a goal of prioritizing infill and discouraging sprawl, the city tried to establish several parameters and metrics for the City Council staff and Planning Commission by using infill scores. There were various attributes that suggested infill or density was appropriate at a given location. It was a case by case basis and stated it did get more difficult the further west a development went in Fayetteville as it was away from what was most commonly considered the urban center. Council Member Bunch questioned if Ward 4 City Council Members if they had heard any public feedback and then questioned the range of the infill scores. Jonathan stated the highest infill score a site could have was 14. Representative Jeff Bates stated it was a small project that had rentals around it already, with a 300 unit apartment complex that was recently approved close by. He did not think the project was reaching. He expected there to be a commercial store on the corner. Council Member Turk and Jonathan discussed a through street on the project, which ran south into Farmington and north into the county. Council Member Wiederkehr stated that if the water and sewer connection did not already exist, he would feel differently about the project being a sprawl, but with the infrastructure already existing he was more comfortable with the request. Council Member Moore appreciated Council Member Min. Jones’ questions around sprawl. She felt the conversation around sprawl continued to evolve. She explained the established infrastructure of the area was paid by taxpayers. She felt it was worth continuing to think about improving the edges of Fayetteville and to fill the density needed. She encouraged the City Council to think about the strategy going forward to drive development where they wanted to see it, which was close to transit and investments. She was supportive of the project and moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Moore moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Vice Mayor Bunch asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 5-2. Council Member Bunch, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Turk and Min. Jones voted no. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 8 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Ordinance 6968 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2025-0063 South Washington Avenue: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2025-63 for approximately 0.40 acres located at 1090 South Washington Avenue in Ward 1 from NC, Neighborhood Conservation to RI-U, Residential Intermediate- Urban. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The request was to rezone the property from Neighborhood Conservation to Residential Intermediate - Urban. Both staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval, finding the change compatible with surrounding land uses. He commented on the variety of housing types in the Walker Park area, including cluster housing to the south, Morgan Manor to the southeast, and a mix of single family homes throughout the neighborhood. The Residential Intermediate - Urban zoning aligned with long range plans for residential neighborhoods closer to the city center and supported infill development. The location was appropriate for smaller and more numerous housing units. He also listed seven infill attributes associated with the property, including fire response, sewer and water access, proximity to parks, trails, and transit, and its placement within the Walker Park Neighborhood Plan. There had been a drawing from 2007 that envisioned additional housing on these properties. Tree preservation requirements would decrease from 20% to 15%, and an adjoining property owner to the north had raised concerns about the property line. The City Attorney’s office issued a memo indicating the property line concern was not relevant to the rezoning decision and staff did not factor it into their recommendation. No public comment had been received on the item and the Planning Commission had unanimously supported the item with a 7-0 vote. Council Member Min. Jones and Jonathan discussed the maximum height on the Residential Intermediate-Urban zoning, which was 3 stories. Jonathan noted the zoning was designed to try to fit in with short, lower building neighborhoods. When up against a street, it was only allowed to have a 2 story heigh limit. Council Member Bunch and Jonathan then discussed the location of an alley that connected behind the homes. Council Member Moore and Jonathan spoke on the standards that applied with an allowance to subdivide property that faced an alley. If that was proposed, the alley would have to be improved as it could not be based on a paper alley. Council Member Moore moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Min. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Vice Mayor Bunch asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 9 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Ordinance 6869 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2025-0065 North Garland Avenue: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2025-65 for approximately 0.40 acres located at 1807 North Garland Avenue in Ward 2 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre to RI-U, Residential Intermediate-Urban. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The rezoning request was located in north/central Fayetteville on the west side of Garland Avenue, between Janice Avenue and Deane Street. He reminded the City Council that it was just north of a similar rezoning approved in early 2025, where the property to the south had been changed from Residential Single Family-4 to Residential Intermediate-Urban. This request sought the same rezoning. Staff and the Planning Commission both recommended approval. From a land use perspective, he said the property’s position along a major transportation corridor and its proximity to a range of housing types supported the change. While the immediate surroundings were single family homes, the broader area included more diverse residential options, making the proposed zoning compatible in scale and character. The request aligned with long range planning goals for residential neighborhoods and met several infill criteria, including access to transit. He noted that tree preservation requirements would decrease with the rezoning from 25% to 15%. He also addressed infrastructure considerations, explaining that there was a known wet weather sewer capacity issue northwest of the site, the utilities department did not believe development on the relatively small parcel would meaningfully worsen it. He responded to concerns about access, acknowledging that Garland Avenue’s median limited the site to right in and right out movements. Staff was not concerned because Janice Avenue provided an alternate route around the block, and upcoming Highway 112 improvements would include U-turn bump outs designed to offset restricted access created by medians. One nearby resident had submitted comments expressing worries about increased density and potential stormwater impacts. Staff recommended approval based on the overall balance of factors, and the Planning Commission had unanimously forwarded the request in favor. Council Member Moore questioned if the area was included in the stormwater improvement list. Jonathan explained that the stormwater concerns heard previously had more to do with standing water. The stormwater concerns that cause damage to properties were the ones added to the improvement list. When the previously mentioned zoning in the area came before the City Council in 2025, he did not recall there being any documented structure damage issues due to stormwater. Council Member Berna moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 10 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Turk then asked if there would be a requirement to include a circle drive, or some way to not back out onto Garland Ave. Jonathan explained the applicant expressed desire to not have traffic back out, but that was not something that could be guaranteed as part of a zoning request. Vice Mayor Bunch asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1. Council Member Bunch, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Turk voted no. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Ordinance 6970 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2025-0068 East Huntsville Road: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2025-68 for approximately 0.83 acres located at 1967 East Huntsville Road in Ward 1 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre; RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family, 24 Units Per Acre; and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial to CS, Community Services. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The request was to rezone the entire property to Community Services. Staff recommended approval, noting that Community Services allowed a mix of residential and nonresidential uses that would complement the surrounding area, which already featured a diverse mix of uses along a major transportation corridor. The request aligned with the future land use designation of City Neighborhood and benefited from proximity to transit and employment opportunities. He reported that no public comments had been received and noted tree preservation requirements would shift from approximately 25% to 20%. Staff supported the change, and the Planning Commission had unanimously forwarded the request with a 7–0 vote. He was available for questions. Council Member Min. Jones and Jonathan spoke on the parking requirement for Residential Multi-Family-24. Jonathan explained there weren’t parking requirements by zoning designations, it was by land use. The default requirement was one space per bedroom, depending on the scale of the building they may be eligible for reductions. Council Member Bunch asked Council Member Stafford if he had received feedback from Ward 1 on the project, he stated he had not but did have comments. Council Member Stafford stated the item was a great request. In his opinion it was what needed to happen in the neighborhood and felt it was an appropriate rezone. He was happy about the item and supporting it. City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 11 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Bunch then asked for clarification as the residential area had three types of zonings on it. Jonathan explained that staff did validate zoning designations when they encountered unusual situations. He explained that historically there had not always been consistency between legal property descriptions and zoning boundaries, and in some cases zoning lines had crossed over property lines. She then asked if it was something the City Council would see again, to which Jonathan stated not that he was immediately aware of. Council Member Stafford thought zoning the area as Community Services would correct the issue and bring the area together. He then made a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Vice Mayor Bunch asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Ordinance 6971 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2025-0064 North Addington Avenue: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2025-64 for approximately 0.33 acres located at 1417 North Addington Avenue in Ward 2 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre to RSF-18, Residential Single-Family, 18 Units Per Acre, subject to a Bill of Assurance. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The request was for a property located north and east of Wedington Drive and Garland Avenue. The site was developed with a single family home near Mount Comfort and an accessory dwelling unit to the north, adjacent to Wedington Avenue. In 2025 the applicant had requested a rezoning from Residential Single Family-4 to Residential Single Family-18, which staff supported but the Planning Commission denied due to concerns about potential density and development outcomes. Rather than wait the required full year before resubmitting, the applicant returned with a similar Residential Single Family-18 request, with a bill of assurance limiting the intent to simply splitting the property so the house and accessory dwelling unit could be placed on separate lots. Staff was not recommending approval. Staff believed Residential Single Family-18 was an appropriate zoning district for the area, they were concerned that the bill of assurance artificially restricted future development potential in a way that did not align with long term planning goals, the area’s development pattern, or the property’s infill attributes. He acknowledged that the applicant’s current goal was modest but stated staff had to consider the broader future of the site. He noted that tree preservation would decrease from 25% to 20%. He City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 12 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov also mentioned a known wet weather sewer capacity issue in the area, though utilities staff did not expect the applicant’s limited intentions to significantly worsen it. The bill of assurance remained the central issue for staff, who felt it was inconsistent with how the property could or should develop over time. For that reason, staff recommended denial. However, the Planning Commission believed the bill of assurance adequately addressed their earlier density concerns. They voted to reconsider the item and then voted 5-2 to forward it to the council with a recommendation to approve the rezoning subject to the bill of assurance. Council Member Stafford affirmed that if the bill of assurance was removed staff would be in favor of the item. He then asked what arguments were made by the Planning Commissioners who voted no. Jonathan summarize the comments received stating the Commissioners were in line with staff’s concerns and felt the bill of assurance was unnecessary and would be hindering potential development in the future on the property. City Attorney Kit Williams was asked if it was possible to remove the bill of assurance. City Attorney Kit Williams explained that the decision was legislative and added that if the City Council chose to amend the item or remove the bill of assurance, he would advise them not to pass it that night so the public would have notice of the change. Council Member Stafford then questioned if there was public or Planning Commission pressure to have the bill of assurance. Jonathan explained there was concern by a nearby resident about potential density outcomes but he did not have details on whether the comment was with consideration for the bill of assurance or not. Council Member Turk expressed water concern for the kind of density in the area. She then asked if a bill of assurance could be removed by a future City Council, which City Attorney Kit Williams confirmed. He stated it would be like a rezoning, which could be changing or removing the bill of assurance to give more density to the project. Council Member Turk suggested if there was contemplation to remove the bill of assurance that the City Council hold the item for two week and have a tour of the area. She felt there was not a lot of infrastructure in the area and was concerned about the added density. Jonathan then clarified for Council Member Min. Jones that in 2025 the item had staff’s favor for approval but was denied by the Planning Commission due to density concerns. Representative Blair Bradbury presented on the item. She explained that during the first rezoning request, planning staff had supported the proposal, but one neighbor raised concerns about density, which she acknowledged was understandable given the density. They returned with a second application that included a bill of assurance limiting the property to no more than two homes. At the second meeting, however, the concern shifted, and the Planning Commission suggested the bill of assurance might restrict future development, which didn’t make sense to her. She added that anyone who visited the site would see that additional development was physically impossible. Council Member Min. Jones agreed with Council Member Turk to leave the item on the first reading and discuss it again in two weeks. She felt this would allow for a tour to allow a full view of what the City Council would be approving. Council Member Moore appreciated the conversation on the item. She shared staff’s concerns about the future as the area had been growing in density. The city wanted to continue to see more City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 13 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov density on the edges. She wondering if the City Council might remove the bill of assurance and then hold the item. She did think the public should be given the opportunity to share their opinions with the City Council. She expressed concern for leaving the bill of assurance on the item and was open to feedback from other City Council Members. Council Member Stafford understood staff and the Planning Commission concern but felt there was a route in the future to have the bill of assurance removed if the area were to grow. He would be happy to pass the item as it was, without removing the bill of assurance, and was happy to follow the guidance from other City Council Members. Council Member Bunch understood the area would eventually see change, especially along a busy street like Mount Comfort, and that higher density development would likely come in the future. But she noted that the neighborhood behind the corridor had faced challenges. She recalled visiting properties on the nearby streets during earlier rezoning discussions, where residents were worried about the impacts of increased density. There was a lot of growth in the area and growing pains were to be expected as there were a lot of modest houses that belonged to long term residents that want the area to stay the same. Council Member Wiederkehr felt it was natural to be hesitant and almost confused when seeing staff originally recommended in favor of the item and then didn’t. He agreed with Council Member Stafford that he would be comfortable to vote for the item at the meeting and was comfortable with the bill of assurance. Council Member Berna agreed with Council Member Stafford and Wiederkehr. He felt the project was reasonable and acknowledged the avenues by which one could take for the bill of assurance to be removed. He was very comfortable with the item and made a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Berna moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Moore voted no. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Wiederkehr and City Attorney Kit Williams discussed if a motion was needed for the bill of assurance. City Attorney Kit Williams explained the bill of assurance was presented in the rezoning. Vice Mayor Bunch asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Moore voted no. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Ordinance 6972 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 14 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov RZN 2025-0062 North Rupple Road: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2025-62 for approximately 4.8 acres located at 1439 North Rupple Road in Ward 4 from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial; RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre; RMF-12, Residential Multi-Family, 12 Units Per Acre; and RSF-8, Residential Single-Family, 8 Units Per Acre to CS, Community Services. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Servies Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The request was to rezone the entire parcel to Community Services, which staff supported. Community Services was appropriate given the surrounding land uses, the proximity to nonresidential services to the south, and the variety of housing types in the area. Community Services, with its mixed use allowances, would complement the neighborhood by permitting everything from single family homes to apartment buildings. The request aligned with the City Neighborhood land use designation and supported infill development along a major transportation corridor. He also referenced the Wedington Corridor Plan, noting that this property had long been envisioned for mixed use development fronting the street, which was something the CS district would allow. Tree preservation requirements would effectively remain the same, shifting from a mix of 20% and 25% standards to a consistent 20% under Community Services. No public comments had been received and that staff recommended approval. The Planning Commission had also unanimously forwarded the request with a favorable recommendation. He was available for questions, as was the applicant Wes Bates. Council Member Moore and Jonathan discussed which road would allow access to the property. Jonathan stated it had potential to access both Rupple on the east side and Sicily. Council Member Stafford gladly motioned to go to third and final reading as he felt the project was well suited for the area. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-.0 Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Vice Mayor Bunch asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-.0 Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Ordinance 6973 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Council Member Berna made a motion to switch item C. 10 ahead of item C. 9 as the applicant was on their way and wasn’t in attendance of the meeting just yet. City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 15 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Berna moved to switch order of New Business item C. 9 and C. 10 to C. 10 then C. 9. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-.0 Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Amendment to Food Commission Board Term Lengths: An ordinance to amend § 33.460 Membership of the Food Commission Article to provide for three year staggered terms. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Min. Jones presented on the item. She stated she wanted to ensure the term length was included with the current openings the commission had. The commission needed terms and to understand how each position on the commission would stagger their terms. Council Member Bunch and Council Member Min. Jones then discussed the positions on the board. There were no positions that were citizens at large as the commission wanted individuals with lived experience to be able to share solutions from their point of view. Council Member Moore then questioned if an emergency clause needed to be passed. City Attorney Kit Williams thought it wasn’t needed as the Nominating Committee could go forward with their nomination process and by the time positions were decided, the item would be in effect. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-.0 Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Moore thanked Council Member Min. Jones and staff for the work on the item. She was looking forward to having the positions filled on the commission this quarter. She acknowledged that the state of Arkansas was struggling with food insecurity and Fayetteville was no different. She appreciated leadership tackling the issue and she liked that the city would be looking at the issue locally. Vice Mayor Bunch asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-.0 Council Member Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Ordinance 6974 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 16 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov PZD-2025-0005 North Crossover Road & East Zion Road: An ordinance to approve a Planned Zoning District entitled PZD-2025-005 for approximately 9 acres located at North Crossover Road and East Zion Road in Ward 3. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The request was for a property in northeast Fayetteville. When it was first considered in early 2021, part of the land lay outside the city limits, including about 59 acres proposed for annexation. Nearly 82 acres were included in a proposed Planned Zoning District stretching from the dead end of Zion Road eastward and then north toward the portion of Zion Road that continued into unincorporated Washington County. The Planned Zoning District was intended to allow a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. A feature of the site was Hilton Creek, which ran east to west through the northeastern part of the property and contributed roughly one fifth of the water flowing into Lake Fayetteville. He outlined three planning areas within the Planned Zoning District. The first allowed nonresidential and multifamily uses near the Zion/Crossover intersection, with potential for small services or multifamily housing farther east along Zion. The second, nearly 40 acres, was intended for a range of residential types from single family to three and four family homes. The third was planned as open space and large lots, preserving green areas for residents and protecting the Hilton Creek riparian corridor. Environmental concerns were prominent, especially regarding Hilton Creek, hydric soils, and potential wetlands. There were also questions about water quality if the land remained in the county and relied on septic systems rather than connecting to the city’s sanitary sewer system. Beyond internal subdivision infrastructure, the one lane bridge on Zion Road east of Crossover was a sticking point. Because the project was redesigned to avoid directing traffic north along Zion, it no longer required upgrading the bridge, which sat partly in county right of way and partly in city right of way. He stated that much of the debate centered on differences between municipal and county regulations. Before recent legislative changes, the city had planning area authority but could not fully apply municipal standards, such as tree preservation or building design requirements, outside city limits. The City Council ultimately agreed that annexation served the city’s interests regardless of the development details, and the annexation was approved before the Planned Zoning District. Staff compared older stormwater ponds in a nearby subdivision, designed under previous drainage criteria that allowed faster discharge into creeks, with newer standards that required slower, more controlled release of stormwater. He explained that the request before the City Council involved about nine acres within the larger Chandler Crossing Planned Zoning District, located just northeast of the Zion/Crossover intersection. This portion sat in the northwestern corner of the original Planned Zoning District. The proposal sought to replace that segment of the existing Planned Zoning District with a new Planned Zoning District focused on commercial development. The site plan proposed a grocery store and a convenience store on roughly seven western acres, while the remaining two eastern acres would remain dedicated to detention and open space. Planning Area One covered the seven acre commercial portion and allowed a broader range of uses than the current zoning, including larger nonresidential buildings through the addition of Use Unit 16. He noted that this use unit removed the 25,000 square foot cap that currently applied to nonresidential buildings on the site. The applicant proposed enhanced site features to offset concerns about the building being set back from Crossover Road, which differed from the city’s usual build to street standards. Planning Area Two was restricted to City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 17 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov detention and open space, allowing only citywide uses by right and agricultural use, preventing future development there. Staff found the proposal compatible with surrounding land uses, noting that the area was already heavily auto oriented along a state highway. He acknowledged that the proposal did not fully align with the city’s future land use plan, which envisioned a mixed use city neighborhood including residential components which was something the applicant did not include. He addressed several additional considerations. Tree preservation requirements would remain unchanged, though the site had few trees due to its long history as pastureland. He also noted that approving the new Planned Zoning District would require subsequent amendments to the existing Chandler Crossing Planned Zoning District, as well as updates to the plat and grading permit already in place. Access management was another issue. The applicant proposed driveways onto both the future extension of Zion Road and onto Crossover Road. While city code did not allow the Crossover access by right, he explained that state law generally supported a property owner’s right to access adjacent streets, making approval likely. The steep grade near Crossover raised visibility concerns, but the planned trail connection would require a level approach, addressing that issue. He responded to questions about whether the detention/open space area could be converted to parking in the future. Parking maximums and other regulations made the change highly unlikely, though zoning alone did not explicitly prohibit it. In 2021, the proposal had generated significant public comment, particularly regarding flooding and drainage along the Hilton Creek corridor to the north and east. Despite these concerns, staff recommended approval. The applicants had a presentation prepared and he was available for questions. Representative Will Kelstrom thanked Jonathan for his presentation. He explained they were proposing a 50,000 square foot grocery store with fuel sales and a convenience store. He explained why a different zoning classification was necessary, stating the existing Planned Zoning District only allowed neighborhood retail capped at 25,000 square feet, the parcel itself was too small without a replat, and the build to zones in the Planned Zoning District were incompatible with the development style. When they first evaluated the site and created a concept plan, the layout required for a safe and efficient store could only fit within the Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. Because Thoroughfare Commercial was not favored and urban form zones were preferred, they followed staff’s recommendation to pursue a Planned Zoning District. The Planned Zoning District allowed them to present the needed site layout while incorporating additional design elements that would be guaranteed through zoning rather than taken on trust. Along Zion Road, they added a masonry wall to screen parking and create a more pleasant pedestrian environment, especially for future residents of the adjacent Chandler Crossing neighborhood. They incorporated enhanced pedestrian crossings, seating areas, landscaping, and planters to activate the store frontage. On the west side, he pointed out the fuel pumps and convenience store, noting that they oriented the convenience store toward the street to blend traditional suburban layout needs with more urban form expectations. He described a pedestrian plaza with seating and premium bike racks, as well as additional seating areas to the north, all intended to connect seamlessly with the trail system. The convenience store was positioned so cyclists could easily stop in. They tried to balance operational needs with Fayetteville’s goals for walkability, bikeability, and alternative transportation. He explained that many of the design features were drawn directly from Fayetteville’s supplemental elements code section, which provides alternatives when build to requirements cannot be met. They intentionally incorporated these elements to reflect Fayetteville’s design standards. He was City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 18 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov available for questions and noted that Jonathan Berry from CI was available to address engineering and site orientation details. Council Member Min. Jones and Will discussed the location of bike racks in the proposed area. Will explained the bike racks would be placed around the site and that the north side trail was intended as a sidewalk trail connection, specifically to Chandler Crossing. The other two trails were Greenway connections. Council Member Turk then discussed the mentioned green space. Will stated there would be a detention pond that had its own separate planning area, which only called for agriculture and conservation uses and would require rezoning to be anything else. Council Member Moore discussed the need for another fueling station when there were many established in Fayetteville already. Will stated the fueling station was, and always had been, an integral part of the plan and was why the site was chosen. Council Member Moore stated the area was designated as a city neighborhood that the Planning Zoning District and Planning Department had conversations about annexing, allowing the area to be a more compact dense area that was respectful to the 2040 Plan. She addressed Will stating a need for change in the plan and added the reason that detail was thoughtfully added was for the Planned Zoning District due to the scale and the type of design of the elements that would happen to interact with the residents. She would like to understand why the project wasn’t able to have a more urban format. Will explained they had explored different site configurations and there was no way to safely and efficiently separate the pharmacy and delivery truck traffic from the pedestrian traffic crossing from the parking to the store entrance. It was difficult to do and he thought it had a lot to do with the customer experience and expectations. The vast majority of people would be driving to the site, which wasn’t to say they should incorporate any pedestrian improvements as they had incorporated a lot, but every building had a least attractive side that included components of building systems. It was very difficult to orient the site where the building was facing the street with parking behind it and there was no way to have it such that the customer was not pulling up to the rear end of the building, causing the site to not meet expectations they knew from other stores. John Berry, with CI Engineering, stated it ultimately boiled down to safety of the pedestrians and customers. As Will had stated, the majority of customers were going to arrive by car, eliminating stacking problems. If they flipped the store, there would be deliveries right at the corner of Zion and Crossover. The plan was the best layout for safety with pedestrian and vehicular traffic to serve the store. Will added there were other locations in the country where prototypes had been tried where it was more of an urban format that maybe had a parking garage in the rear. A low percentage of them were in an extremely high density area that were served by mainly transit and had a higher density of residential. Council Member Moore and Will then discussed accommodations made for citizens that would not be using an automobile. Council Member Stafford and Jonathan discussed the potential for street facing neighborhood focused commercial areas. Jonathan stated immediately south of the property, adjacent to crossover and towards the interior of the Planned Zoning District allowed for multi-family and nonresidential. Council Member Stafford then asked if the item was approved would it allow for the rest of the Planned Zoning District to be revisited and ‘torn apart’. He felt the original annexation was done with great intent. Jonathan stated that was ultimately decided by the City Council and that any other portion of the Planned Zoning District that was not included in the item would have to come back before the City Council for approval. City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 19 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Turk and Jonathan discussed what was currently allowed on the property versus what the proposed Planned Zoning District allowed. He noted that portions of the Chandler Crossing Planned Zoning District currently allowed nonresidential and multifamily development. He explained that nonresidential construction there was limited to structures of 25,000 square feet, a limit built that was built into the development code. He described how different zoning districts had different nonresidential use units, each designed to maintain context and compatibility so that large buildings could not be placed next to much smaller ones. Planning Area 1 only allowed Use Unit 15, which capped buildings at 25,000 square feet. The Planned Zoning District proposal requested Use Unit 16, which allowed buildings above 25,000 square feet. The proposal was not limited to the red outlined area near Crossover Road. It extended eastward into Planning Area 2, which currently did not allow any residential development. Under the existing Planned Zoning District, that eastern portion had been limited to residential uses, but the new proposal wanted to change that. Council Member Turk and Jonathan discussed requirements for a detention pond and large amount of impervious surface on the area. Will confirmed that all stormwater generated by the site would be treated in the two acre plant area. Jonathan also explained to Council Member Turk that the subdivision drainage proposal would have to be reevaluated by the city’s engineering group and evaluated to ensure all the assumptions remained the same. There were other revisions that may be necessary to underlying subdivisions or plats. Council Member Bunch questioned whether the draining standards had changed since the area was first established. Fayetteville City Engineer Justin Bland explained the standards had been in place since 2014 and would remain the same. The amount of detention and improvements were all relative to the amount of impervious area. Council Member Bunch and Jonathan then discussed whether there was enough space to provide a safe trail crossing. Jonathan could not confidently state the city evaluated what the grading would like on that specific area. Will clarified he believed there would be plenty of room to meet the standards for trail crossing visibility. The City Council received 3 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Wiederkehr and Jonathan spoke on the design of the two acre detention pond. Jonathan stated he had not seen the drainage design yet. He felt the reason there had not been many drawings shared on how the Chandler Crossing area would evolve was due to uncertainty that the Planned Zoning District would be approved. Based on the topography he thought what the applicant was proposing would cause the detention pond to likely flow eastward towards Hilton Creek. Will stated the design was preliminary but was intended to allow the stormwater to drain eastward and once it leaves the pond it would be treated properly. Council Member Turk asked Fayetteville City Engineer Justin if the list of stormwater improvements was available. Justin stated it was not available and would have to speak to city staff. But he was sure if there was an issue, it would be on the list and he would provide Council Member Turk with more information in a follow up meeting. Council Member Turk felt is would be extremely helpful to have for all stormwater related issues across the city. Chief of Staff Keith Macedo clarified that he spoke with city staff on when it would be published and was told it was City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 20 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov in final edits but the city was actively using the stormwater project map. Council Member Turk and City Attorney Kit Williams discussed if a change of ownership had occurred with Chandler Crossing and how that could effect the Planned Zoning District. City Attorney Kit Williams explained that as long as the applicant had the approval of the owner, or the applicant was the owner, they were entitled to seek rezoning on the property. Jonathan added the city did receive a consent of owner form that included Brian Moore as a representative of Chandler Crossing LLC. Council Member Bunch and Jonathan discussed who would be responsible for building Zion Rd. Will explained the street was part of the development plans but he could not go into specifics. They were comfortable that the street would get built and if it wasn’t built by Chandler Crossing it would be a condition of the large scale development and someone would have to build it. Jonathan explained that many of the questions raised by the City Council and residents were tied to the decision before the City Council that night. The plat and grading permit both anticipated extending the street network to the city limits on the eastern edge. Some members of the public had expressed concern, but he clarified that it was a standard practice. The city consistently aimed to create connections to its boundaries so future developments could continue those links and establish a stronger grid of connectivity. Council Member Stafford thanked Jonathan for sharing files from the original Planned Zoning District. He did not think there was a scenario where he would be ready to vote on the item that night. He still had questions about stormwater and walkability. He spoke with the neighbors to the west side of the Fayetteville Athletic Club who commented they were glad they could have a grocery store to walk to, highlighting there were people who did want to walk. His understanding was to create an urban walkable neighborhood but felt the commentary that nobody walked is what caused the project to be reconfigured and not add walkable features. To create a walkable city, someone would have to go first to build it and nobody was going to walk if they aren’t given the opportunity to do so. He felt there was a need for another grocery store in the area and could bring tax revenue from south Springdale as well. He stated again that he was not ready to vote yes on the project and felt he had a lot of due diligence to do. Council Member Berna questioned if there would be a second entrance to Chandler Crossing’s residential portion. He agreed with residents that the area was narrow and not an area that needed increased traffic. He felt there needed to be multiple entrances for the size of the development. He explained that the fire code sometimes required a secondary access point, known as ‘remoteness’, which depended on the property’s shape and the number of units. He said the Fayetteville Fire Department had reviewed the project and approved the entire subdivision as compliant with Arkansas Fire Code without requiring a connection north to Zion. Chandler Crossing did not include a public street extending north to Zion in its current plans. As land to the east potentially developed, the city’s Master Street Plan envisioned the road continuing eastward toward Old Wire Road. Council Member Berna agreed with a public comment that stated the project was not going to be walkable and for the most part would be citizens using their vehicles. To make a more walkable community, a residential area needed to be added behind the project because it added access. Features that were attractive to the walkability of the neighborhood needed to be City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 21 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov considered. He understood residents’ concerns about the runoff and agreed with Council Member Stafford on holding the item to receive more information. He felt the overall project had very positive aspects to it. Council Member Moore thanked staff for reviewing the history of the project. She felt the City Council needed to honor the original intent from when the city first considered annexing county land, especially the commitment to limiting sprawl and creating compact neighborhoods. She expressed concern about the entire development, particularly whether Chandler Crossing was at to become the start of more sprawl on the city’s edge. The area functioned like a tier two center so the scale of commercial development, traffic volumes, and driver behavior needed to match that context. She believed a big box retailer with a sprawl oriented format did not align with those goals. She was concerned about safety. Even with added green space and trails, she did not feel comfortable crossing the Zion area with her children. Several aspects of the proposal gave her significant pause, pointing out the 2040 Plan. She lived downtown and enjoyed walkability, but she wanted equity to exist for other parts of the city. She agreed with another Council Member Stafford that someone had to go first when building walkable neighborhoods. She wanted the project team to work with Chandler Crossing residents to create something more sizable and in line with the original vision. She encouraged thought on the elements that create a sense of safety addresses traffic concerns. She worried that approving a project of this scale would signal a shift toward car dominant development in that part of town. She believed residents investing in that area deserved the same walkability and livability she enjoyed and that the city’s investments should support that choice for everyone. Council Member Bunch recounted her original concern when the area was voted on the first time. Her concerns at that time was that the land needed be annexed because development was going to happen at some point. The city could either get ahead it and have the standards in place or allow what might be built. She explained the City Council and the applicant had gone back and forth many times, and she eventually felt they had addressed as many concerns as possible. Her concerns with the new project were the same ones she had with the old Planned Zoning District, drainage and traffic issues. The area was not walkable today but was likely to become walkable in the future and that she would be weighing that carefully. She pointed out that west along Zion Road there were several dense subdivisions and row house developments connected to sidewalks. She felt the area could benefit from walkability. What she had to consider was how the project would fit with her community, while acknowledging the project did have merit. Council Member Turk recounted her original concerns on this property years ago when it came before the City Council. She voted against the project because she was concerned about the drainage and did not think it was adequate. She shared these same concerns. She stated the springs might fall under Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and mentioned stream bank erosion issues. Hilton Creek contributed around 20% to Lake Fayetteville, which had a history of harmful algal blooms that continue to effect Lake Fayetteville. She was extremely concerned about any additional runoff or drainage that could occur. She thought more information was needed than what they currently had and she needed to think more on the item. She questioned when a traffic study would be triggered and noted there had been 5 years of growth in the area. City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 22 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Berna question if the development would be required to improve the access at Zion Road, specifically crosswalks. Jonathan stated Chandler Crossing Subdivision was still responsible for all street improvements. They continued to discuss possible access points and if existing crosswalks would be required to be upgraded. Jonathan stated he could find additional information on that, as well as touching on more details on when traffic studies were triggered for their next meeting. Council Member Bunch requested information on if the existing crosswalks were all signalized and if they stopped traffic. Jonathan did not know but would look into it. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. Announcements: Chief of Staff Keith Macedo announced Mayor Rawn would be holding the State of the City address at the Fayetteville Town Center immediately following the February 10, 2026 Agenda Session. Several bond representatives would be attending and would be available to answer questions. He added that on February 4, 2026 there would be a public input session at the Fayetteville Animal Shelter from 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. to learn more about the bond question on the new animal shelter. City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton announced that on January 30, 2026 applications for the Nominating Committee opened and would remain open for approximately a month. City Council Agenda Session Presentations: None City Council Tour: Agenda Item C.9: PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT 2025-0005 North Crossover Road & East Zion Road: Date & Time: February 2, 2026 at 3:30 PM Address: Unaddressed; meet at the Elks Club parking lot at 4444 N. Crossover Rd. Parking: Elks Club surface parking lot Adjournment: 8:40 p.m. City Council Meeting Minutes February 3, 2026 Page 23 of 23 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov _____________________________ __________________________________ Molly Rawn, Mayor Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer