The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-07-21 - Minutes - City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 1 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Meeting July 21, 2026 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on July 21, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Mayor Rawn called the meeting to order. Present: Council Members Robert B. Stafford, D’Andre Jones DHA, Sarah Moore, Mike Wiederkehr, Scott Berna, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, Minister Monique Jones, Mayor Molly Rawn, City Attorney Kit Williams, Senior Deputy City Clerk Treasurer Courtney Spohn, Chief of Staff Keith Macedo, Deputy Chief Financial Officer Jennifer Walker, 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: Waive the Appeal Fee for Blair Hollender: A resolution to waive the appeal fee in § 159.01 (b)(7) for city resident Blair Hollender’s appeal of an administrative approval of Large Site Improvement Plan 2026–02 to serve the public interest, alleviate an unfair burden upon this citizen or be beneficial to the City as a whole. Council Member Scott Berna 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 Council Member Robert B. Stafford 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 Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 2 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov Council Member Turk apologized for the late request, adding there was a time constraint. The decision had been heard the previous Monday at the Planning Commission as an administrative item and several residents wanted to appeal it. As the residents continued with the appeal process, they learned they would be charged a $660 appeal fee, which seemed excessive. The resolution was to waive the fees to allow Ms. Hollender to go forward in asking for a public meeting and review by the Planning Commission over the proposed McDonald’s on Mount Comfort Road. She was available for questions. Mayor Rawn requested Development Services Director Jonathan Curth to provide staff insight into the appeal process before answering questions from the City Council. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth explained that over the course of the last year, a McDonald’s was proposed on Mount Comfort Road that was located in a zoning district that required a conditional use permit. The item did go before the Planning Commission for conditional use consideration, where it was approved. It returned to the Planning Commission for development variances, which were heard at the second public hearing. The project then became eligible for administrative approval, which staff completed and placed on the Planning Commission’s agenda this past Monday. At that point, a resident could file an appeal if they had concerns that the project met one of the six standards for denial. The adopted appeals fee was established through a recent fee study in effort to evaluate what the costs were associated with various requests of city staff. The appeals fee amount was set accordingly based on how much it cost staff to process requests; how much it required to create public notification signs and process and file staff reports to the appropriate body. He was available for questions. Council Member Stafford questioned if waiving the fee for the applicant set a precedent where others would come wanting their fees waived. City Attorney Kit Williams explained it set a precedent if the City Council thought it set a precedent. Before further discussion, City Attorney Kit Williams reminded the City Council the resolution required a suspension of the rules to add the item to the agenda before they could discuss it further. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules to add resolution ‘Waive the Appeal Fee for Blair Hollender’ to the agenda. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6–1–0. Council Member Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Berna, Turk and Min. Jones voted yes. Council Member Wiederkehr voted no. Council Member Bunch was absent. Council Member Stafford and City Attorney Kit Williams discussed circumstances that could create a precedent. Council Member Stafford asked Jonathan if a conditional use permit would be heard before the City Council. Jonathan stated the conditional use permit was not up for appeal. What was being considered with the appeal was the projects approval; the equivalent of a large scale development for the McDonalds. Council Member Stafford asked Council Member Turk if a particular hardship had been identified for the applicant. Council Member Turk stated that the appeal fee of $667 was steep. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 3 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov When she had voted to adopt the additional fees, she hadn’t realized it was that high, adding that the fee was a tall barrier for most citizens. Council Member Dr. Jones and Council Member Turk discussed a news article that had come out, raising awareness of the project. Council Member Moore asked if the fees were tiered on what the entity the appellant was, using the comparison of a developer team with potentially more resources versus an everyday taxpaying resident. Jonathan explained it was a set fee based on the amount of public resources that went into staff’s time and staff time itself. Council Member Berna confirmed that the fees increase was due to incorporating staff time into the fee. Council Member Bunch then asked how long it had been since the fee was adjusted. Jonathan stated appeals did not have a fee previously; it was fully subsidized by the general taxpayer. Many fees had not been updated since 2008. She asked if it was fair to say the city tries to be equitable and tempered in their judgement of fees. Jonathan elaborated that it was at the front of staff’s mind when the proposal to change fees was brought forward. Staff acknowledged it hadn’t been updated in many years and it would be a shock to applicants. Because of that they implemented the fee schedule; phase I was implemented in 2025, phase II was implemented two months ago and phase III would be implemented in 2027. The City Council received 1 public comment regarding this resolution. Council Member Wiederkehr felt that part of the new fees implementation was due to staff representing 107,000 citizens and if only one person wanted to appeal, they should bear the burden. If there were more residents in support, they could band together to support the appellant financially with the fee. He gave examples of costs associated with the appeal and he disagreed with all of the costs going to the general taxpayers. Council Member Moore understood the points made by Council Member Wiederkehr but added the perspective of those with a lower income having a disproportionate burden placed on them. She understood the gathering of neighbors to pitch in for the fee, but there was a large portion of Fayetteville that was struggling to make ends meet. She shared her experience of when she had done an appeal for a resident and was surprised at the $300 fee. She added there needed to be considerations about an all–in cost and whether or not there needed to be a tier. She didn’t want a barrier to be created so that a regular citizen couldn’t afford an appeal. Council Member Dr. Jones appreciated Council Member Turk for bringing the item forward. Times were hard and believed it was worthy of an exception. He didn’t see any potential harm in supporting the item. Council Member Berna acknowledged this was the first time something like the item had come before the City Council. He questioned why the City Council would be waiving the fee if they voted to increase the fees. He did not relish in voting no on the item but he felt it was the right thing to do as if it was approved, it would set a precedence. He brought the hypothetical question of whether a developer asked for an appeal fee to be denied, if the City Council would grant it. He would not be in support of the item. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 4 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov Council Member Min. Jones and Jonathan discussed the timeline to file an appeal and to pay the administrative fee. Jonathan explained the appeal could be filed 10 calendar days from any final decision, whether it was a Planning Commission or city staff approval. In regard to the when the fee was to be paid, staff had not required people to pay the fee within the 10 business day period. Jonathan stated nothing had been codified. Once the appeal met the proper time, form and place requirements, it often effectively placed a stay on the project’s progress, which created a concern about inadvertently delaying a project without having a rationale for it. He defaulted to City Attorney Kit Williams for further explanation. City Attorney Kit Williams shared he had never been in favor of charging for appeals. His position had been that enough money should be collected from the developer in their original development fee for them to apply for something, and then all appeals should not be charged to them or anybody else. Appeals should be used to consider whether or not the correct decision was made. His understanding was that the appeal wasn’t a very effective appeal or application unless it was paid for. That being said, he did not realize it could be paid later. Council Member Turk stated she hadn’t realized that with the fee adjustment, the city was increasing to $660. If the City Council was supportive, she would like to think about a tiered system as the fee adjustment was high. Council Member Stafford felt that the discussion on the fee adjustment would have to be in the future. The fees were currently in place and they were actively recouping physical costs. He agreed with Council Member Wiederkehr’s comments and felt if there was enough support for the appeal that a group of residents could split the cost. He felt a tiered system might be a slippery slope and that treating people who make different amounts of money different was a hard hill to climb. He would not be in support of the item. Council Member Moore requested clarification as when she filed for an appeal for a resident, she was told the fee had to be paid within the appeal time period to move forward. She expressed concern that the City Council was not recognizing the tremendous struggle amongst the community, where many people she knew did not have money to pay for gas or groceries. If communities don’t have the extra money for necessities, she didn’t know how they could come up with $600. She recognized there had to be legal method going forward but felt they had to recognize that a large barrier had been potentially created for parts of the population. Mayor Rawn stated her and Jonathan would work on clarification on how the billing for appeals was handled. Council Member Moore understood that sometimes it was thought that one instance of something would create a precedent but she felt that the City Council was supposed to make considerations for the exceptions. She would be supportive on moving forward with the item and motioned to approve the resolution. Council Member Moore moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution failed 4–4. Council Member Dr. Jones, Moore, Turk and Min. Jones voted yes. Council Member Stafford, Wiederkehr, Berna and Bunch voted no. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 5 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov During the vote, there was a tie. City Attorney Kit Williams asked Mayor Rawn if she would be casting a vote to which she declined. This resolution failed. Consent: Council Member Wiederkehr moved to suspend the rules that require the Mayor to read the Consent Agenda. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Council Member Min. Jones expressed a problem with lack of transparency. She felt if the City Council was going to move forward and not read the consent agenda, then they needed to make the community aware to start attending agenda session meetings. She wanted to be very clear that there had been comments made by the community that there was a lack of transparency and by not reading the consent agenda, it was moving towards a lack of transparency. Mayor Rawn asked Council Member Min. Jones if she wanted to change her vote as she had voted yes to suspend the rules. Council Member Min. Jones stated she just wanted to make a statement so all understood what was happening publicly. Mayor Rawn asked shall the consent agenda pass. Upon roll call the consent agenda passed unanimously. Mayor Rawn addressed the point Council Member Min. Jones had made. The consent agenda was compiled of items that the City Council all agreed on, consisting of resolutions only. Each City Council Member had the ability to pull an item off of the consent agenda if they wanted or were contacted by a constituent. Approve 2027 Employee Benefits Renewal: A resolution to approve the 2027 Employee Benefits Package. Resolution 168–26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Telecommunications Franchise Agreement with OzarksGo, LLC: A resolution to approve a non– exclusive telecommunications franchise agreement with OzarksGo, LLC for the placement and maintenance of buried and aerial fiber optic cables and other broadband system equipment within the city’s public rights–of–way. Resolution 169–26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Plainview Ave. Construction Manager Contract: A resolution to award RFQ #26–03 and authorize a general contractor construction management contract with Emery Sapp & Sons in the initial amount of $50,500.00 for the Plainview Avenue Project. Resolution 170–26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 6 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov Walker Park Improvements Phase 1 – Increase to Project Contingency: A resolution to increase the project contingency for the Walker Park Improvements Phase 1 Project in the amount of $100,000.00. Resolution 171–26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Post Oak Preservation Solutions LLC: A resolution to award RFP 26–04 and authorize a contract with Post Oak Preservation Solutions, LLC in the amount of $79,280.00 for Phase 2 of a Citywide Windshield Survey of Historic Properties using a combination of grant funds and pre–approved, budgeted funds. Resolution 172–26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Easement Condemnations for South School Waterline Bottleneck Project: A resolution to authorize the City Attorney to seek condemnation and possession of certain lands owned by individuals needed for the South School Water Line Bottleneck Project. Resolution 173–26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Unfinished Business: RZN 2026–0015 NW of N. Deane Solomon Rd. & W. Vanike Dr.: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-15 for approximately 36.2 acres northwest of North Deane Solomon Road and West Vanike Drive in Ward 4 from RSF-4, Residential Single- Family, Four (4) Units Per Acre and CPZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District, to RMF-12, Residential-Multi Family, 12 Units Per Acre and RSF-8, Residential Single-Family, Eight (8) Units Per Acre. At the July 7, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The request had two working parts; 26.5 acres proposed to be rezoned from Residential Single Family – 4 to Residential Single Family – 8 and then about 10 acres along Deane Solomon Road proposed to be rezoned from a Planned Zoning District limited to multifamily at four units per acre to Residential Multifamily – 12. The City Council had asked for accident data previously, so staff requested information from the Fayetteville Police Department covering the length of Deane Solomon Road from Highway 112 to the north to Shiloh Drive to the south, going back 5 years. 18 accidents had been reported during that time, with a high of 7 in 2023, including 2 injury accidents, and low years of 2022 and currently, each with only one accident and no injuries. In regard to topography information, the site was very level, with no area exceeding a 1% slope, and generally sloping south toward Clabber Creek and Underwood Park. Staff recommended approval of the request and the Planning Commission unanimously supported the request. When the City Council had last heard the item, the applicant had offered a bill of assurance prohibiting Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 7 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov multifamily development on the Residential Multifamily – 12 portion, allowing only single family, duplex, triplex or four plex structures. The applicant had proposed two additional conditions; increasing tree preservation from 20% to 25% and capping density at eight units per acre instead of the 12 allowed Residential Multifamily – 12. Representative Will Kelstrom presented on the item. Since the previous City Council meeting, he had arranged and held a meeting with nearby residents. The neighbors presented roughly 13 requests on topics such as road design, off–site improvements, tree preservation, buffering, building height limits, and other issues. Many of the requests were either beyond his control or offered no clear benefit. For example, road design changes had to follow city code; off–site improvements made at the rezoning stage could interfere with later city review; trees in the right–of–way were outside his authority; and buffering single–family from single–family did not seem meaningful. He explained that limiting his development to one or two stories was not feasible because surrounding zonings already allowed up to three stories. After evaluating the requests, only two were both feasible and beneficial: increasing tree preservation on the Residential Multifamily – 12 portion from 20% to 25%, and capping density there at eight units per acre. Those two conditions were added to the bill of assurance, along with the previously offered prohibition on multifamily development. He would still allow single–family, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. He stated that capping both parcels at eight units per acre created consistent density across the project, even though the housing types differed. He then addressed recurring concerns about traffic and environmental impacts. Since 2018, very few accidents had occurred along this paved, striped, two lane section of Deane Solomon Road, which already included sidewalks. Regarding environmental concerns, he acknowledged the large number of trees on the 9.6 acre parcel but pointed out that aerial imagery showed the area had been mostly cleared around 2006, meaning the trees were generally 20 – 25 years old rather than part of an untouched centuries old forest. The low lying wet areas observed during the site tour and said that a formal study would be required to determine whether any were jurisdictional wetlands. Even if wetlands existed, he explained, developers routinely worked around them. The site was not shown in the city’s GIS floodplain and had a slope of less than 1%, so there was no clear evidence that the entire area should remain undeveloped. He did not want to build apartments and preferred quadplexes, but if the zoning remained as is, he might have no choice but to sell to someone willing to develop apartments. His role was to satisfy planning staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council, neighbors, and his client while still producing a viable project that provided housing. He would have preferred to present a proposal that pleased everyone, but that was not possible in this case. The proposal and bill of assurance represented his best attempt at finding a balance and hoped it satisfied enough concerns. Council Member Wiederkehr and Jonathan discussed the current Planned Zoning District zoning district. Council Member Berna verified with Jonathan that the current zoning allowed three stories on the property. Jonathan explained the Planned Zoning District was written to allow the Planning Commission the authority to assign the other standards based on compatibility. It would be consistent for the Planning Commission to require three stories, given that was allowed on every other property in the area. Council Member Stafford verified that if two stories was imposed on the project, as a bill of assurance or otherwise, that would be a standard the city would enforce. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 8 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov Council Member Moore and Will discussed the bill of assurance; clarifying the bill of assurance applied only to the 9.6 acre portion. Council Member Moore then asked City Attorney Kit Williams if the bill of assurance would always be tied to the land. City Attorney Kit Williams confirmed, stating it went with the rezoning and could only be changed by the City Council rezoning it. The City Council received 22 public comments regarding this ordinance. Mayor Rawn requested clarification on why the rezonings were brought together on one item versus two separate requests. Jonathan explained it was not either common or uncommon as far as options for the City Council to consider one piece of the request or the other. The only formal manner he was aware of was that the City Council could comment the request to remove or modify an aspect of it. Council Member Stafford addressed public comments made regarding the housing report and Fayetteville’s long term housing goals, requesting Chief Housing Officer Marlee Stark to come and give her opinion on the project and the density that was being requested. Chief Housing Officer Marlee Stark thanked residents that mentioned reading the housing assessment. She wanted to respectfully clarify that the housing potential of the project aligned with the assessment’s recommendations, not only in terms of total housing production but in size and scale of units needed across the city. Fayetteville had an undersupply of studio and one bedroom units, both rental and owner occupied. Larger multifamily developments could help increase studio production but after she drove through the area to understand the neighborhood, she did not believe that approach fit the particular location. She felt the project supported the in- between category of smaller format housing such as duplexes and townhomes. 70% of Fayetteville households consisted of one or two people, across both family and non–family households. Responsible growth required including smaller housing formats. She thought the housing potential for the project aligned with the city’s housing plan. Council Member Stafford asked if Marlee thought that Residential Single Family – 8 would dictate smaller format housing. Marlee agreed that it would set up for those kinds of housing types. In addressing infrastructure, Marlee echoed that access to infrastructure was an important factor. She pointed to recent city investments in the surrounding area, especially the trail, and said that proximity to that amenity supported additional housing. Modest, well planned increases in housing density could help justify prioritizing future infrastructure improvements in the area. Jonathan added that many academic determinations showed that a density of 8 units per acre was the minimum required to support transit. The reality was that the city needed to bring density potentials to a higher level to support transit moving forward. Low density development was not as sustainable or fiscally responsibly pattern for supporting future transit. Council Member Min. Jones wanted to address several topics raised in discussion. She explained that City Attorney Kit Williams had previously outlined situations where the City Council could disagree with planning or development recommendations, adding that safety was always going to be her top concern. She started with traffic safety. The increased traffic entering Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 9 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov and exiting in the already busy roadway cannot be measured by past accidents. She appreciated the traffic study but stressed that the current conditions already posed risk for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. She called back to a cyclist who had nearly lost their life in the area and stressed her concern that children, walkers and cyclist would all face danger. She raised concern about emergency access. The narrow 260 foot wide parcel might restrict safe movement for fire trucks, ambulances and police vehicles. She questioned whether response times and turning radiuses had been fully evaluated to ensure emergency vehicles could enter and exit safely. She addressed the roadway and infrastructure issues. Existing roads might not be able to handle the additional volume from up to 500 new homes, which would create conflicts among residents, delivery trucks, school buses and construction equipment. She had identified multiple safety reasons why the proposal should not be approved and asked whether the project represented responsible growth, given the number of safety concerns. Higher density did not guarantee transit service and pointed out the rural parts of Fayetteville might never receive transit. The building first and hoping transit would follow method only pushed residents farther from vital services; creating food deserts and isolating people who needed access to groceries and medication. She then addressed flooding and responsible development. Responsible growth required thinking about future conditions. She shared her experience living in an area that experienced frequent flooding, noting that developers often built on higher ground without regard to nearby homes, adding that no one was held accountable for responsible development. Council Member Moore and Jonathan reviewed the tree preservation requirements. They then discussed the zoning for the property based on the future land use map, which was Civic Institutional. With that type of designation, a large density development could be built into the area instead, such as a school, portion of a university or museum. The current zoning of the property was Residential Single Family – 4, which allowed four single family units per acre. Council Member Moore appreciated the conversation and the thoughtfulness that happened between the neighbors. She acknowledged it was difficult to navigate and see the community change. She felt the conversation at the meeting laid bare that the city had an opportunity to try to expedite the Unified Development Code process and to revisit some areas around the stormwater management. Council Member Dr. Jones reviewed the Planning Commissions’ recommendation and then asked if the Ward 4 City Council Member’s had heard from their constituents in support. Both Council Member Turk and Min. Jones stated they heard from one person I support. Council Member Wiederkehr thanked the public for their thoughtfulness. He compliment Will for trying to please the neighbors as well. His concern in the item laid in the smaller 9 acre portion. He was supportive of the larger parcel but not the smaller. He would be supportive if someone were to make a motion to rezone only the larger portion. Mayor Rawn clarified with Council Member Wiederkehr that he was not making a motion. Council Member Wiederkehr mentioned that part of the dilemma was that cities grow organically and the real challenge was the development to the west should have sequentially Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 10 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov come after the parcel was developed. If everything was sequential, the roads and the infrastructure would all grow as development grows. Council Member Bunch thanked all for coming to the meeting. She respected the comments made by her fellow City Council Members but stated she would be focusing on safety and runoff. She explained that while she took those concerns seriously, she also struggled with the idea of rejecting housing next to existing housing, because that felt incompatible with how development typically occurred. The neighborhood to the west had developed before this property and she had helped fund many of the homes that were now there. The area had been farmland at that time, noting that sometimes that was how things were built. A school existed nearby and housing naturally followed demand for proximity to schools. The area still lacked walkable destinations that should have developed alongside housing, despite the presence of trails. She had a few things to think about but what she would be focusing on would be safety and water. Council Member Turk thanked all in attendance and thanked them for their academic research. She had serious issues with the proposed development, the biggest one being the lack of infrastructure. She would rather spend taxpayer money widening or addressing the issues on Deane Solomon than on Gregg Avenue, so that’s where she felt the focus should be. She recalled accidents with bicycles in the area and people wrecking cards in the ditch. The area was all auto oriented and would be for the next 15 – 20 years. She still believed that the drainage manual was not up to standards and that was an issue in itself. She would not be supportive of the development. Council Member Berna understood the concerns by the public but he noted that leaving the property zoned as is could result in it being developed to standards the residents already disliked. He felt the project was a better alternative than the unknown. Council Member Stafford recounted how voting for a housing crisis when his term first started had been a moment of pride for him, adding that the crisis still had not been solved. He did not believe that Residential Single Family – 4 was responsible growth. He would be voting for the project as it was not high density and close to both schools and trails. The city was growing and if the goal was affordable housing, then they would have to build the right type of housing, noting that it was a numbers game. More housing was the only way to level the market and if more housing wasn’t built it would lead to citizens being forced out of Fayetteville. Council Member Bunch responded to Council Member Turk’s comments on shifting funds from Gregg Street to Deane Solomon, stating that Gregg Street was closer to the center of town, where people often argued improvements should be concentrated. Gregg Street also had a higher density than Deane Solomon, which influenced funding decisions. Street improvements were driven by the number of rooftops being added, which was an unfortunate reality. She agreed with Council Member Berna that if the zoning was left alone, the residents would not like what could hypothetically be built. Council Member Min. Jones addressed Council Member Stafford’s comments. She agreed that Fayetteville needed housing. But the project was going to be creating a neighborhood where Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 11 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov someone would be required to have a car due to walkability, access and transit concerns. She reminded the City Council that Arkansas had asset limits; one of the only states that required if someone was on SNAP benefits, they could not have an asset over $2500. If a family could afford to move to the neighborhood, they could not afford to have a car. She expressed a need of awareness that there was a domino effect when residents were put into these neighborhoods. Arkansas was #1 in food insecurity. If homes were going to be built so far away from amenities, there needed to be an investment in community gardens and building out transit. She shared her community service experience, stating she serves those who do not know where their next meal will come from. She went on to comment on how a McDonald’s was being built in the area, adding concerns of eating healthier and chronic health disease. A better healthcare system started with better food, with better access. There needed to be accessibility around all houses. There needed to be an effort in working together to help address these issues and to work together as a community. Council Member Moore questioned where the item was procedurally as there had been mention of two versions of the bill of assurance. Mayor Rawn asked Senior Deputy City Clerk Treasurer Courtney Spohn if the second version of the bill of assurance was distributed. Courtney stated the City Clerk Treasurer’s office did not receive the revised version of the bill of assurance. Council Member Moore expressed hesitation in adopting the bill of assurance as she had concerns regarding a need for flexibility to turn it over in the future. She preferred to leave out the bill of assurance or only adopt the additional tree preservation and leave out the rest. City Attorney Kit Williams explained the City Council would eventually need to decide on whether they wanted to accept the bill of assurance that was offered. The City Council could not ask for changes to the bill of assurance, that was something that must be offered and not request by the City Council. Council Member Moore noted that the city had designated tier centers, including mid–tier and larger–tier centers, which were intended to provide nearby services for neighborhoods. She believed there was a tier center somewhere near Highway 112 and possibly another farther out, but she was unsure whether those centers had seen much additional development. Jonathan stated there was a tier-two center identified in the area of Garland and I-49, and the next closest one was tier-three further south at Mount Comfort Road in Shiloh. Council Member Moore felt the area would be developed and was hopeful City Council would not accept the bill of assurance. The underlying Planned Zoning District on the nearly 10 acre portion already allowed multifamily, and she agreed that the proposed plan could result in a more thoughtful development than what might occur otherwise. She added that stormwater, safety and infrastructure concerns were valid and widespread throughout the city, not unique to this specific neighborhood. She believed the administration and City Council were committed to addressing these issues over time. Additional rooftops were needed to generate revenue for future improvements and ongoing maintenance, including trails and stormwater systems that had to be revisited regularly. She was in support of the project. Council Member Wiederkehr motioned to leave the 9.6 acres zoned as currently zoned in the Planned Zoning District, and to rezone the larger portion to Residential Single Family – 8 as Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 12 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov requested. He then asked City Attorney Kit Williams if his motion was legal. City Attorney Kit Williams stated it was. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to leave the 9.6 acres zoned as currently zoned in the Planned Zoning District, and to rezone the larger portion to Residential Single Family – 8 as requested. The motion died due to lack of a second. Council Member Turk moved to accept the second bill of assurance provided by the applicant. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7–1. Council Member Stafford, Dr. Jones, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk and Min. Jones voted yes. Council Member Moore voted no. Council Member Moore 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 unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 5–4. Council Member Stafford, Moore, Berna, Bunch and Mayor Rawn voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones, Wiederkehr, Turk and Min. Jones voted no. During roll call, the item came to a tie of 4 – 4 and Mayor Rawn was asked if she would like to vote. She shared her feelings on the item, stating she had hoped it would be considered as two parcels. She had anticipated declining to vote and letting the item fail but thought it was compelling to state that based on the current zoning, she was worried about what could be built instead. She appreciated Council Member Min. Jones comments; she was right in a lot of ways. The city did not always do an adequate job of working across departments, to have all departments work together and she felt that was a crisis and a fair area of improvement for staff. She had to trust in the experts the city hired to make these determinations, mentioning that Jonathan had done so with great deal of thought and consideration; alongside a tremendous amount of expertise she did not have. She empathized with the neighbors but stated that the only to get the infrastructure that was desperately needed on Deane Solomon was to add housing. Without housing, the city could never justify the infrastructure. She decided to vote for the project. Ordinance 7015 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Mayor Rawn stated that the administration brought forward several items, C.1 – C. 3. She would like staff to hold the items and bring them back in two weeks to allow for the robust discussion that it deserved. An Ordinance to Promote Transparency: An ordinance prohibiting the City of Fayetteville from entering into nondisclosure agreements that restrict disclosure of public records or public Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 13 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov business beyond that authorized by law, and to declare an emergency. At the July 7, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading and tabled to the July 21, 2026 City Council meeting. City Attorney Kit Williams stated, “The City Council has several options right now. We are back at immediately before the vote was taken on the on the amendment of Council Member Stafford, and so that was brought back. We've already had discussion on it, but it doesn't mean you can't have further council discussion. There could also be other motions made at this point in time. Not too many. One, you know, like the motion to table took precedence, and it could be made. And there could be a motion to amend Councilman Stafford's motion.” Council Member Turk apologized for not sending her amendment out sooner. She then made a friendly amendment to Council Member Stafford’s original amendment. Council Member Stafford appreciated Council Member Turk’s work on her amendment and felt it made it better and stronger. He would be willing to accept the friendly amendment; as was Council Member Berna. Council Member Moore asked if it was possible to review what changes were made Council Member Turk’s amendment would make. She then had a point of information; questioning if there was the ability to wait to vote on the amendment until after public comment. City Attorney Kit Williams stated there were no public comments on amendments. There would need to be a majority vote from the City Council to take public comments. Council Member Moore wondered if the City Council could listen to the public before voting on the amendment. Mayor Rawn stated public comment was taken on the item initially and would be heard again before the item was voted upon. The City Council had never, since she had been Mayor, taken public comment also on an amendment and then again on the item. Mayor Rawn asked Council Member Turk to summarize her amendment and then she would call the vote for the amendment. City Attorney Kit Williams stated he would read the amendment. Council Member Turk asked Mayor Rawn about her NDA policy changes. Mayor Rawn stated that City Attorney Kit Williams read it in its entirety, in section 2. Section 3 discussed how the Mayor would notify the City Council and that the NDA would be retained. Council Member Turk motioned a friendly amendment to Council Member Stafford’s original amendment. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Council Member Moore stated, “Just procedurally, I did want to ask Kit. We had this conversation at the last council meeting. There was language that stated that we want to make sure that signing an NDA is “rare”, but rare is not really a legal term unless something's codified. My question to you is: the language in this amended version does this fully define out in legal terms making an NDA rare in the city of Fayetteville? “ City Attorney Kit Williams stated, “Well, as you'll notice, the rare was in the whereas clauses, and not in the actual ordinance itself, the operative part of the ordinance. The operative part of the ordinance controls, and it just shows the whole procedure that any non–disclosure agreement Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 14 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov must go through. The fact that any non–disclosure agreement must include a provision that I bet none of them do now. Which says that upon any obtaining any license, any kind of other thing like going to the city council for approval, any other thing that would get into the public area, the non–disclosure agreement terminates automatically. And so, I think that that's going to probably make non–disclosure agreements pretty rare. We still might have some, but they're sure not going to last very long because they'll be automatically terminated if basically any time that the they enter the public process.” Council Member Moore stated, “As a follow–up to that, Kit, thank you for that explanation. Does the original language of the NDA ordinance more so define rare, as was requested from the body when we had that discussion?” City Attorney Kit Williams stated, “Talking about the ordinance that you originally drafted?” Council Member Moore stated, “Correct. Does that help to get further towards defining rare?” City Attorney Kit Williams stated, “Certainly, I think that the original one that was drafted would make nondisclosure agreements very rare, also, because they would be having to go to the council. Even if you try to do something to protect undisclosed things, there I think that most companies would be very concerned about that. So, I doubt if very many companies at all would want to enter into a non–disclosure agreement that basically is going to the city council.” Mayor Rawn stated, “Okay, and so I just want to because we've had a couple of procedural questions. The reason we are going back to public comment is because we now have a new amended ordinance being proposed is that your assertion, Kit?” City Attorney Kit Williams stated, “Yeah. This before you know we can go to the third and final reading if you want to. Then have public comment before the vote. But I think there needs to be public comment at some point.” 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 6–2. Council Member Stafford, Dr. Jones, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch and Turk voted yes. Council Member Moore and Min. Jones voted no. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. The City Council received 2 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Moore stated, “Thank you, Mayor. I, much like many people in the community, in February was the first time I really considered the role and purpose of non– disclosure agreements. I'm really thankful for the evolution of conversations that have occurred and happened with city staff, with the Mayor's office, and I really appreciate that they took that information to heart and they created policies. I did, as I stated when I brought forward the legislation, it was from those months of conversations and being concerned to make sure that we fully codified something. I do ultimately think, you know, I originally started with an absolute Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 15 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov ban and did know that there needed to be some potential exceptions and exemptions. I stand by that original ordinance. I don't see that the presence of a dedicated economic development person justifies the fact that the non-disclosure agreements would take place where there are public employees responsible, you know, to serving the public interest and not shielding the governmental actions from public scrutiny. But I think that in these conversations, that's been incredibly taken to heart. And I think that the feedback from the public and our robust conversations will be taken to heart whenever these considerations are being made. Our FOIA laws are incredibly robust. They actually do have carveouts for Economic Development. Even with a full ban of an NDA in the City of Fayetteville, we could still welcome business day in and day out to Fayetteville. This is definitely not anti–business. It's pro-sunshine. It's pro- transparency. It's pro-building public trust. That's what we have to have in community right to move forward, especially in challenging times that we face, and have so many difficult decisions ahead of us. And additionally, I wanted to talk about it's incredibly important that we stay rooted on these types of conversations on as much as we possibly can doing, you know, the public's business out in the open. I do appreciate and thank you to Council Member Turk, especially, who continued to try to look at additional ways that we could look at further amendments. And thank you, Mayor Rawn, for the changes to the policy going forward tonight. I am supportive that we're going to have something in place, but I do want to explain that my vote tonight of no is just because I do feel like the original ordinance still stays fully intact to be able to support the fact that we can welcome businesses; that staff can continue to do their work, and feel like you know the tightest ability to be able to put in place you know a public hearing that doesn't necessarily even disclose the business that talks about the industry. What they're asking for us to put in the NDA is what will not be talked about are very minimum requirements to come before this body. To at least at a top line level allow for us to consider that and to just at least put that into the public realm, and with the amended version, we will not you know get that version or get that ability. I didn't see that as too high a hurdle, given that you know that means that you know certain companies potentially going to get certain privileges that others will not, and so that extra scrutiny would be warranted. So, I just wanted to explain tonight. I'm supportive that we've been able again to make progress, but when I do vote no tonight, it's just because I think that we should have as tight a legislation as possible, and also in talking with legislators, it was mentioned about the challenges that have happened to FOIA since 2023. It has opened up conversation channels across all parties and walks of life around transparency in government. There are legislators that are concerned about the carve out of FOIA with Economic Development and conversations about revisiting that in the next legislative session, so definitely there's a lot of sensitivity around this topic. I think this will be an ever evolving conversation about how these, the public's business and private-public partnerships, really have to be in the public light as much as possible.” Council Member Turk stated, “I just want to thank the Mayor and her staff for being open to amending your policy and providing additional provisions in there. I really appreciate that. I think the issue with Swarm Aero and the NDAs - it's something that I don't believe that I ever thought about much of. I don't think many of the public did either until this happened. I think just the more transparency that we've been able to create here, I think, is good for Fayetteville, and I think it gives us some more thought as we go forward. I was very concerned about excluding any really potential employers or potential issues that Fable really needed to weigh in on if we had had more rigid or strict standards. I felt that this was as close to the line as I could offer or Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 16 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov suggest, and so I hope these will work out well in the future. I appreciate you, Councilmember Moore, for bringing your proposed ordinance forward as well.” Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 6–2. Council Member Stafford, Dr. Jones, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch and Turk voted yes. Council Member Moore and Min. Jones voted no. Ordinance 7016 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk New Business: Council Member Moore asked if she could motion to table C. 1 – C. 3 at the same time. City Attorney Kit confirmed she could. Council Member Moore moved to table items C. 1 – C. 3 to the August 4, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Ordinance to Amend the Definition of "Through Lot" Unified Development Code §155.01: An ordinance to amend the definition of a “through lot” in § 151.01 Definitions of the Unified Development Code. This ordinance was tabled to the August 4, 2026 City Council meeting. An Ordinance to Modify Lot Width Minimums in Some Zoning Districts from 18-foot to 12- foot: An ordinance to reduce the minimum lot width for residential dwellings from 18 feet to 12 feet in the Residential Intermediate-Urban (RI-U), Community Services (CS), Urban Thoroughfare (UT), Main Street/Center (MSC), and Downtown General (DG) Zoning Districts by amending §§ 161.12, 161.22, 161.24, 161.27, and 161.28 of the Unified Development Code. This ordinance was tabled to the August 4, 2026 City Council meeting. An Ordinance to Amend Residential Parking Requirements: An ordinance to allow the Planning Commission to grant additional parking reductions for residential uses by amending § 172.05 Standards for the Number of Spaces by use of the Unified Development Code. This ordinance was tabled to the August 4, 2026 City Council meeting. ADM 2026–0024 West Center St & South Gregg Ave: An ordinance to amend Ordinance 6957 regarding the conditional removal of 279 linear feet of Tanglewood Branch from the Streamside Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 17 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov Protection Zone and allow the developer to submit a revised site plan for the property located South of 576 West Center Street. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item and reviewed the history of the property. He reminded the City Council that a Planned Zoning District for a hotel on the south end of the Upper Ramble was approved in 2024, and that approval required identifying an off-site parking location, ultimately designated on this property. A conditional use permit was approved in 2025, along with an amendment to the Streamside Protection Map that removed this section of the Tanglewood Branch from regulated protection. The stream entered the site at the northwest corner and exited at the southeast corner. The Streamside Protection Map and how it identified points where at least 100 acres drained to a single location. The site in question was downstream of that threshold, in an area where the stream was already degraded and later became part of the Upper Ramble before flowing underground and reemerging under Center Street. The current request was another amendment to remove the same portion of the Tanglewood Branch from the Streamside Protection Map, tied specifically to the revised project design now before the City Council. He reminded the City Council of the substantially similar condition attached to the previous approval and said staff had determined earlier in the year that the applicant’s new design was not substantially similar because it added a floor, increased housing units, and altered how the project interacted with the stream. Staff’s main concern was that the Streamside Protection Ordinance was created to preserve waterways, and removing sections of protected streams required a very high justification. Staff worried about setting precedent for future removals, especially considering the significant public investment in the Lower Ramble. Staff was recommending denial, adding that the Planning Commission forwarded the request unanimously. He reminded the City Council that the previous approval included conditions requiring substantial similarity to the original design, incorporation of low impact development strategies, and a condition added by Council Member Turk requiring litter capture measures to address trash in the stream. Representative Rob Sharp explained that there were two major differences between the version of the project shown in January and the version presented now. First, because the parking structure for this project was directly tied to the hotel’s approved expansion to 133 rooms, the development team needed additional parking. They planned to use parking stackers on one level of the garage, which required increasing the height of the second floor. The added parking capacity also allowed them to include ten additional dwelling units, which helped make the parking structure financially feasible. The building footprint and all exterior materials and design details remained exactly the same, even with the added floor, and that the building would still be smaller in scale than the newly completed Trinitas building to the north. The second major change involved the streamside appreciation zones. Earlier designs were conceptual, based on initial guidance from Olsson Engineers and Jenny Burbidge at PRISM. As the team transitioned into detailed construction documents and worked through Fayetteville’s technical requirements, some elements needed adjustment. The landscape architects and civil engineers refined the designs for the two streamside appreciation zones, one in the northwest and one in the southeast corner, where pedestrian walkways would allow the public to access and experience the water. He described how visitors could walk from Gregg Street along a wooded path to reach both Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 18 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov zones, which he viewed as an extension of the Ramble. He showed updated drawings developed by Jenny Burbidge’s team, including stream bank armoring, native plantings, and educational opportunities. Matt Loos from Olsson Engineering was available to answer detailed questions about the stream work. He stressed that they had been transparent with staff: they did not claim the redesign was substantially similar. They explicitly stated it was different and wanted to return to the Planning Commission and City Council for proper review. The project had evolved from a concept at the beginning of the year into a near final design ready for a building permit submittal, and that this approval was one of the last remaining steps. Council Member Min. Jones asked Rob if the parking changes would accommodate all 133 rooms. Rob explained the parking calculations used for the hotel project. Based on their analysis, about 70% of hotel guests were expected to arrive by car, while 30% would arrive by other means. Of the guests arriving by car, roughly 70% were expected to use the valet service. After accounting for those proportions, they determined that the hotel needed 66 dedicated parking stalls within the shared parking deck. Council Member Min. Jones asked what would be done with overflow if more than 55% showed up. Rob stated that the downtown parking issue was something they had worked on with the city. They felt it was the correct amount of parking to provide if someone showed up and did not want to use the valet system. Council Member Min. Jones followed up asking what would be done if a guest showed up but parking was at capacity. Rob explained they would have to park elsewhere. Council Member Moore stated she was a ‘no’ vote on adding the valet parking as part of the hotel previously, adding her concern at the time was all the investment that was done to the nearby stream. When the original project was presented, it highlighted celebrating the stream; making it a public feature, creating spaces for people to linger, and enhancing the waterway rather than covering it. She asked him to explain in more detail how the new proposal compared to that original vision. The updated design appeared to cover more of the stream and to reduce opportunities for public interaction with the water. She pointed to the earlier east side elevation, which showed a bridge and people enjoying the restored water feature, and asked how that element had changed. She valued his thoughtful design work and understood that projects evolve, but she struggled with how much the design seemed to have shifted away from protecting the water and preserving the sense of place planned for the Ramble. Rob stated they were not covering up any more of the stream that was presented on January 20th, the footprint of the building was the same. The amount of daylighted stream was the same as it was originally. The biggest change involved the weir he had originally designed, a feature with apertures intended to allow water to pass while also capturing trash. Because the design could not legally restrict the stream, he said the trash capture feature had to be relocated to the northwest corner. Both streamside appreciation zones would still allow people to see and experience the water, with natural boulders, seating areas, and educational features, creating a park like environment. The public would be invited into these spaces, and the design would honor the stream while meeting all city requirements. The detailed streamside design came from Jenny and Caleb at PRISM, with support from Olsson Engineering, and he complimented their work in making the interaction with the stream as attractive as possible. The bridge in the designs did not make the cut in final design. Instead of a bridge they would be extending the sidewalk. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 19 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov Council Member Stafford and Rob discussed design concepts and the streamside appreciation zone. Council Member Turk and Rob discussed the perspectives of the property. The City Council received 1 public comment regarding this ordinance. Council Member Wiederkehr asked how many additional rooms would result from the increased building size and how that number would align with the required parking spaces. Rob explained the parking calculations, adding that 133 guest rooms require 66 parking stalls. With the current plan including 88 bedrooms, the total parking requirement increases to 153 spaces, and the project would provide 155. The additional parking will accommodate both the guest rooms and the extra residential bedrooms on the site. Council Member Moore wondered whether there was any flexibility to work with the engineers or the fire department to make the design look more natural and softer, rather than the stark appearance shown in the current drawing. Rob stated that the fire department requested access around the building, that requirement did not cause the appearance in question. The look was due to the way the culvert and sidewalk were constructed, resulting in concrete walkways that are flat and accessible. People would still see natural elements in the stream bed, along with masonry at the building’s base and planned landscaping. The design already incorporated both man made and natural features, and he did not believe additional natural elements could be added. Council Member stated she felt that the large concrete culvert looked harsh and unnatural. It was a major point of interaction along the street, especially given its connection to the Lower Ramble, which she expected to become a lively corridor over time. She felt that it was a missed opportunity and hoped the design would consider it was a missed opportunity. Council Member Turk questioned if there were ever any design that left the stream open. Rob explained that the original design followed city ordinances exactly, but it resulted in a poorly shaped surface parking lot set in a hole; something that met the requirements but would have created a bad outcome. The revised approach covered the stream within the middle of the block while exposing it at both ends. Although the stream had ecological value, it was currently overgrown and largely unnoticed, falling short of the standards seen throughout the rest of the Ramble. The situation was a paradox, explaining the stream would be placed in a culvert, yet the overall public experience would be significantly improved. From an ecological standpoint, having housing in this location was preferable to pushing development to the outer edges of the city. Council Member Turk then asked if there had been any biological sampling in the area. Representative Matt Loos stated that additional design work was required to meet the city’s regulations related to disturbance within the creek. The initial plans were conceptual, but as the team advanced the design and evaluated the creek’s hydraulics, particularly the requirement to avoid adverse downstream impacts, they found that changes were necessary. He noted that adjustments to how the project interacted with downstream culverts affected the appreciation zone in the southeast corner because slowing the flow increased the 100 year elevation downstream. Since city ordinances prohibit increases in velocity, depth, and flow rate, those constraints drove the further refinement of the design. All creek disturbance must be reviewed by Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 20 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The permitting process had begun, and the required ecological studies were submitted for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review last week. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. VAC 2026–0008 North Deane Solomon Road: An ordinance to approve VAC-26-08 for property located at 2434 North Deane Solomon Road in Ward 2 to vacate 3,320 square feet of tree preservation area contingent on the dedication of a new 12,915 square foot tree preservation easement, the planting of 46 mitigation trees, and other conditions. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Urban Forester Willa Thomason presented on the item. The request was to vacate a portion of an existing tree preservation easement on the southwestern portion of the Lewis Auto Park campus. Staff recommended conditional approval of the request. The conditions included dedicating a new tree preservation easement totaling 12,915 square feet on the same campus and planting 46 mitigation trees. The easement was dedicated in 2022 as part of the large scale development requirements for the car dealership. The portion proposed for vacation totaled 4,969 square feet and was one of three easements on the parcel. The purpose of vacating part of the easement was to install a drive aisle to allow vehicles to circulate around the entire building. She emphasized that while the canopy and root zones extended onto the Lewis Auto Park property, the tree trunks were located on the adjacent church property to the south, meaning the easement did not offer full protection. The applicant did not intend to remove the mature silver maples and planned to use tree preservation fencing to protect them as much as possible during grading. The new tree preservation easement would be located on the Lewis Auto Park campus near Moore Lane and would cover more than 12,000 square feet to account for any potential impacts to the affected canopy. There were already trees in the proposed area, but staff recommended that some of the 46 mitigation trees be planted within the new easement and the remainder elsewhere on the site, depending on species and spacing needs. She also addressed tree type, noting that the applicant preferred bare root saplings rather than the two inch caliper ball and burlap trees normally required. She described the pros and cons, stating that saplings were lower in cost and had health benefits, including visible roots that reduced the risk of girdling and more balanced watering needs. The Urban Forestry Advisory Board discussed the proposal on June 3, 2026, and voted in favor of the new easement, the mitigation tree requirement, and the use of bare root saplings. No public comment was received. Adam Osweiler with McClelland Consulting Engineers was available to answer any further questions. Council Member Turk thanked Willa for the tour that was provided. She also thanked her for comparing the bare root versus the two inch diameter. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Wiederkehr seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6–0. Council Member Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch and Turk voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones and Min. Jones were absent. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 21 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 6–0. Council Member Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch and Turk voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones and Min. Jones were absent. Ordinance 7017 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2026–0020 North Mission Blvd: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-20 for approximately 0.20 acres located at 518 North Mission Boulevard in Ward 1 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre, to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, Twelve Units Per Acre. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The property contained a single family home and an unfinished detached garage, adding it was not a second home in the backyard as had been asked during the agenda session. The request was to rezone the property from Residential Single Family – 4, which allows four units per acre, to Residential Intermediate – 12, which allowed twelve units per acre. Staff found the request compatible, pointing out that although it may not be obvious to visitors, the surrounding neighborhoods include a mix of single family and duplex homes, both historic and more recent. If approved, the property could be developed with either one single family home or one duplex. Because the lot was nonconforming under the current Residential Single Family – 4 zoning due to insufficient street frontage, the Residential Intermediate – 12 designation represented the smallest increase in zoning entitlement needed to allow development and bring the property into compliance. He explained that this aligned with the future land use map, which identified the area as a residential neighborhood with moderate infill potential. Tree preservation requirements would decrease from 25% under Residential Single Family – 4 to 20% under Residential Intermediate – 12. The new zoning would allow the lot to conform and support either a single family home or a duplex. The Planning Commission forwarded the request to the City Council unanimously and no public comment had been received. Council Member Turk and Jonathan discussed the possibility of housing being built on the small lot size. The underlying property in a Residential Intermediate – 12 zoning district had to have a frontage requirement met for the structure type. The City Council received 1 public comment regarding this ordinance. 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 6– 0. Council Member Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch and Turk voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones and Min. Jones were absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 22 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 6–0. Council Member Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch and Turk voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones and Min. Jones were absent. Ordinance 7018 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2026–0021 North Hughmount Road: An ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2026-21 for approximately 3.78 acres located at 2445 North Hughmount Road in Ward 4 from R–A, Residential, Agricultural and NS–G, Neighborhood Services – General to RSF–8, Residential Single Family, eight units per acre. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The property contained about 3.7 acres that were split zoned between Residential Agricultural and Neighborhood Services General. The split zoning originally reflected the FEMA floodplain designations on the property and was part of a larger area annexed in 2020 to allow both residential and nonresidential uses so new neighborhoods would have nearby services. The request was to rezone the entire 3.78 acres to Residential Single Family – 8. Staff had mixed findings regarding land use compatibility. While the area was almost entirely single family, staff felt that the property’s location along Hughmount Road, a major corridor, supported maintaining the wider mix of uses permitted under Neighborhood Services General, including single family, townhouses, and small to medium scale nonresidential uses. From a long range planning standpoint, the request was inconsistent with the future land use map, which showed part of the property as natural area due to the floodplain and the remainder as residential neighborhood area. Staff believed the Neighborhood Services General zoning was more appropriate because it aligned with the transportation corridor and allowed greater diversity in housing and services. Tree preservation requirements would shift, decreasing to 20% under Residential Single Family - 8 compared to the current requirements under Residential Agriculture and Neighborhood Services General. The property included floodplain associated with Clabber Creek to the south and a north south tributary. These factors contributed to staff’s recommendation for denial. He reported that the Planning Commission had mixed findings and forwarded the request to the council on a split vote of four to three. There had been no public comment and stated that representatives from the applicant team were available to speak. Representative Kyle Willock presented on the item. He had worked with planning on the proposal and described the property as a unique situation. Although it was just over three acres, only about an acre and a half was actually usable because the remainder was within the flood zone or the streamside protection zone. Given those constraints, he felt that Residential Single Family - 8 was a better fit than Neighborhood Services General. He acknowledged the need for commercial uses in the area but stated that rooftops were needed before commercial development would follow. He added that the corner of the ‘S’ curve was not a good location for high traffic or commercial access. The intent was flexible. One option was simply to replace the existing single family home with another, but that would not meet Neighborhood Services Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 23 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov General setback requirements. Another option was a small single street with a cul-de-sac that could support six to eight lots. He noted that cul-de-sac configurations created problems with the build to zone requirements, which would likely lead him to request variances for multiple lots due to their triangular shapes and the need to place the houses farther back. Council Member Turk and Kyle discussed the intentions with the nearby stream. Kyle stated they had no intention in any path forward to ever encroach on the stream sides. Council Member Stafford followed up questioning why they wouldn’t leave the flood zone areas as Residential Agricultural. Kyle stated it was more than likely a complete mistake on their half. They knew it was split zone and were trying to figure out the exact bearing of distances around what it was currently. They had no intention of encroaching anywhere outside of the Neighborhood Services General zoning. Council Member Stafford expressed that he liked Residential Single Family – 8 but didn’t like building in flood zones or floodways. Kyle stated he wished they would have contemplated that as he agreed with Council Member Stafford. Council Member Wiederkehr and Jonathan discussed whether a home could be built in a Neighborhood Services General zoning district. Jonathan explained a single family home was allowed. There was a built to zone requirement of Neighborhood Services General that required any house or structure on the property to be located within 25 feet of an adjacent street. Council Member Moore then asked if there were any specific challenges when building residence within Neighborhood Services General. Jonathan stated his understanding of the applicants plan was to develop one single family home. Residential Single Family – 8 had conventional setbacks that required it to be away from the outside property lines. They then reviewed what services could be offered under Neighborhood Services General zoning. Council Member Turk asked if the applicant could amend their zoning request to protect the streamside protection area. Jonathan explained the most common way was to have revised legal descriptions submitted. There was then discussion on what the zoning could be changed to. Mayor Rawn questioned if it would be possible to split the item as they tried to do with a previous item earlier in the meeting. City Attorney Kit Williams explained there had to be a legal description of what the City Council was trying to do as well as a map. It was decided the applicant would come back in two weeks to amend the item. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. RZN 2026–0018 West Wedington Dr. (Appeal of Planning Commission Denial): An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026–18 for approximately 0.55 acres located at 1845 West Wedington Drive in Ward 4 from RSF–4, Residential Single–Family, Four Units Per Acre, to RI–U, Residential Intermediate–Urban. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 24 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The request was to rezone the property from Residential Single Family – 4 to Residential Intermediate Urban. The request was compatible as Residential Intermediate Urban allowed the same building height as Residential Single Family – 4 at 3 stories. It aligned with the residential neighborhood designation, which encouraged housing diversity along major corridors. The tree preservation requirements would decrease from 25% to 15%. There was notable public comment received on the item. The most predominant concern was regarding drainage issues on the property and adjacent ones. Staff spoke to the stormwater lead with the city and they were not aware of the problems with drainage in the area. Staff was recommending approval of the item but the Planning Commission had significant concerns about the drainage issues and denied the request, 1 – 6. The item was being heard by the City Council as an appeal to the Planning Commissions denial. Representative Cindy Wilson thanked Development Services for answering all of their questions and for their collaboration. She said that a nearby property at 2235 West Wedington had been rezoned from Residential Single Family - 4 to Residential Intermediate Urban with a bill of assurance limiting development to two duplexes totaling four units. If the City Council deemed Residential Intermediate Urban appropriate for the current request, she and her team would welcome that opportunity, and they were also open to a similar bill of assurance if the City Council felt it was best for the neighborhood. She had researched 27 surrounding properties using PropStream, which compiles tax records, MLS information, and other public data. Only 9 of the properties were owner occupied, with two currently listed for sale, which she felt showed a strong demand for rental housing in the area. She believed the rezoning could help meet that demand. She acknowledged that drainage concerns had been a major factor in the Planning Commission’s denial and a significant issue for neighbors. She had walked the site with civil engineers to understand steps that could improve drainage in the area. Although engineers could not specify development requirements during the rezoning stage, they did provide guidance on engaging neighbors and submitting data through See Click Fix to document problems. Once enough information was gathered, the city could determine how to address the drainage issues. Her understanding was that the process could take about a year and a half, and since development would not occur immediately, she believed these efforts could advance in parallel with planning. She noted that the existing house on the property was unlivable, meaning development would need to occur regardless of whether it remained a single family home, a duplex, or a Residential Intermediate Urban project. This was an opportunity to address drainage concerns alongside redevelopment. They were willing to cap density to a level appropriate for the neighborhood and invited further discussion. The City Council received 4 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Turk disclosed that she did own a house at 1207 N Vista Place. She did not think owning the home would influence her vote, but as a public commenter had mentioned, she had 3 flooding events at the home. She shared the damage that occurred to her home. She had been surprised that the area had not been identified on the city’s stormwater map and felt it should be identified. She had not been able to make any headway on getting it resolved, stating the whole area had flooding issues. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 25 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov Council Member Stafford stated the item was a complicated issue and due to that, he hoped it would be left on the first reading as he needed to look into the item more. Council Member Moore wanted to build on Council Member Turk’s comments about the general area. The broader neighborhood had long struggled with stormwater issues, including areas near Valley and areas close to Lewis that the city had discussed extensively. She said the road and large amount of impervious surface contributed to those problems and that the situation raised bigger questions about the long term future of the corridor, including whether the city might eventually take it back. She questioned whether it was fair to place the burden of an area wide stormwater failure on a single property owner when the issue was systemic. She wanted feedback on the legality and practicality of holding one owner responsible for neighborhood wide drainage concerns, especially because she had been talking with residents since 2022 and the problems had been identified long before that. While the drainage issues had not been documented in the specific area, the larger system clearly needed attention, and the current situation might be an opportunity to consider a broader project area. She added that this should not prevent improvements on the corridor itself and said that zoning decisions could help support long range goals for the area, which she hoped would evolve into something similar to parts of the 71 Corridor. She expressed interest in slowing traffic, reducing speed limits, and eventually redesigning the roadway to create a promenade feel. She felt that more residential density would be appropriate along that corridor and that her concern was whether this would be the only property denied when the entire area faced stormwater challenges. Council Member Wiederkehr stated he believed that stormwater management would curtail growth and development in Fayetteville more than land use zoning. All the easy places in Fayetteville had been developed. He requested a topography map from staff and asked if stormwater staff could help the City Council understand the complexity of the situation. He defended stormwater staff stating there was much need and demand of observation of drainage issues in Fayetteville. He was thankful the stormwater utility was passed to allow for additional resources to contribute to addressing the issue. He would be comfortable leaving the item on its first reading. Announcements: Senior Deputy City Clerk Treasurer Courtney Spohn announced that the city was currently accepting application for open Board, Committee And Commission vacancies. The deadline to apply was July 24, 2026 by 5:00 p.m. City Council Agenda Session Presentations: None City Council Tour: Agenda Item C.5: VAC 2026–0008 North Deane Solomon Road: Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Page 26 of 26 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575–8323 www.fayetteville–ar.gov Date & Time: July 20th, 2026 at 4:30 PM. Address: 2434 N. Deane Solomon Rd. Parking: Off–Street at Fayetteville Church of Christ (to the south) Adjournment: 10:35 p.m. _____________________________ __________________________________ Molly Rawn, Mayor Courtney Spohn, Senior Deputy City Clerk Treasurer Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0