City Council - Regular Meeting

um sign in. Um there's a QR code just a sign in for that. And if you want to speak on an agenda not on the agenda afterwards, we have a sign in for that as well. Good evening everyone.

I don't see anybody jumping up to get signed in. So I'll get us started at six o'clock. Welcome to the March 31st Bentonville City Council meeting. And if you will stand with me for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for a moment of silence for our military. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. Thank you. Please. Sanchez

here. Patterson here. Zeba here. Sudter here. Richardson here. Burkheart here. Hook here. With that we will go to committee of the whole. The only item we have is cons agenda. I don't know. Is there any other discussion the committee as a whole or anyone? Okay. Um, we could consider consent agenda for new business. Item number one, two, three. Sorry.

One, two, three, six, seven, eight, and nine. Utility board one, two, and three. So move. Second. Okay. All in favor say I. I. Okay. Hey, mayor. Turn it back over to you. Just trying to make sure I don't have anybody signed up for public comment on those. Okay. And I do not see anybody on those. Signing. You signed up for one of those items. You're on RZ. Are you Benjamin? Yes. Okay. You are on zoning. You're on

planning. Not on consent. So, you're not I don't think your items on. Yes. I was trying to make sure. Okay. Yeah, I think we are good. So, I would make a motion to suspend the rules requiring ordinances be read on three separate days and further move all ordinances and resolutions be read by their title only. Motion and a second. Roll call, please. Add a yes. SA Sudter. Yes. Birkhart, yes. Hook, yes. Sanchez, yes. Will you read the July? Get hydrated first.

All right. New business item number one. A resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to enter into a three-year agreement with Heartland Business Systems in the total amount of $334,815 for security software and for other purposes. New business item number two, a resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to enter into a contract with Empire Group Property Management in the amount of $67,053 for mowing at Creekide Park and for other purposes. New business item number three, a resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to enter into an agreement with Musco Sports Lighting LLC in the amount of $551,800 for sports lighting at Memorial Park and for other purposes. New business item number six in the city council for the city of Bentonville, Arkansas. New business item number seven, a resolution authorizing the development of a razorback greenway corridor keyplace plan for the city of Bentonville and further purposes. New business item number eight, a resolution expressing the willingness of the city of Bentonville to utilize the federal aid surface transportation block grant program attributable STBGP- A FFY 2027 grant funds administered by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission NWARPC for construction activities to improve greenhouse road. New business item number nine, a resolution expressing the willingness of the city of Bentonville to utilize the federal aid surface transportation block grant program attributable STBGP- A FFY 2027 grant funds administered by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission NWARPC for construction activities to improve Southwest Regional Airport Boulevard South Vaughn Road intersection improvement utility board item number one a resolution authorizing and the mayor and city clerk to enter into an agreement with lease for the purchase of

a heavyduty forklift in the amount of $18,840 and further purposes. Utility board item number two, a resolution authorizing the city of Bentonville to dispose of certain property in the landfill recognizing that the property is rendered worthless, acknowledging the oversight for disposal and further purposes. Utility board item number three, a resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to enter into a professional services agreement with Olson, Inc. in the amount of $165,000 and for other purposes. Move. Second. A motion and a second. Any other discussion? Please. Yes. Yes. Sudter. Yes. Yes. Book. Yes. Sanchez. Yes.

Patterson. Yes. Move to item number four, which is an ordinance accepting Henderson annexation. New business. Item number four, an ordinance accepting the annexation of certain territory to the city of Bentonville, Arkansas, making the same a part of the city of Bentonville, assigning the same towards other purposes. A second a question. Are we going to have to do any significant infrastructure improvements with this annexation? You might want to get Tyler. I'm not aware. Yeah, because it did say there's not currently sewer, but they would have to be paying our new sewer fee, right?

If a development comes in, they'll have to put a So that would So all of it is undeveloped right now. Is that correct? I believe so. Yes. So are the roads are going to require anything outside of what the developer would have if the development comes in, they'll be required to do half street impre improvements. So depending on what well teller in regards to the um annexation uh are there any immediate needs for infrastructure improvements that the city would be required to do? Uh not that I know of based on review from other city departments. Yep.

Any other questions? How long before we would have in needed infrastructure there if for that property that's being annexed?

I'm going to pull it up. Yeah, I'll pull it up in the actual I just know that it you know there there is a reasonable expectation for utilities if you're being annexed. Are there currently houses out there? Well, that's that's on the curves where the distribution and all that is. There's no voluntary annexation though, right? So, we don't have to um cross regional airport but not on this over here. Yeah. So, they have asked for and we would be responsible for police, fire, water, sewer that piece. Well, we would we would be Yes.

Yes. Correct. If they annexed the city, we are responsible for those. That's what I wanted to make sure. So we will be responsible providing those services. Yep. Yes. So here's currency. There's the the connections are there's sewer all around then. I think that if Yeah. Can you pull you can pull up the water is they're I think it's right there. I mean they would have to connect but I think it's there's sewer utilities are right if I'm correct. Is that right? That's correct. Right. There's I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? You didn't. There wasn't any objections from water sewer on me with the exization and it's right.

No, no, there was not. And then we used the uh the future lane use map amendment to make sure that we were calculating what could potentially be there within our projects that we identified. And so there's water is a 12in water line that's across the road from it. Yep. So there's adequate water there. There's two nearby. Yeah. Yeah. I'll have to extend it, but uh tried to master plan that area. Bo took and his team master planned a lot of that and took those low calculations into consideration based on the land use map. Yep. That's benefit of the planning area even if it's not in city limits. We have a master street plan and a future lands.

So what an island basically what does it come in zoned as? Uh, this one would come in zoned as A1. President annexation would have to dictate the zoning it request. Otherwise, it comes in at A1. Correct. And it'd have to go through a land use change. Correct. Or zoning. Zoning change. Yes. Since it's running arterial, that's more than likely going to happen. Thank you. Anybody's question? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Rooff, please. Yes. Yes. Birkhart, yes. Hook, yes. Sanchez. Patterson,

yes. Yes. Number five is a public hearing and ordinance vacating a utility drainment easement. At this time, I'll open the public hearing for anyone online or in person to speak on the item. Seeing and hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. New business item number five, an ordinance vacating utility/drainage easement located at lot 1, block 9 of Dogwood Place subdivision of the city of Bentonville, Arkansas, Benton County, Arkansas, BAC26-000010.

Motion and a second. Any other discussion? Call. Yes. Rhart, yes. Yes. Sanchez, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Items six, seven, eight, nine were on consent agenda. Utility board one, two, and three were on consent agenda. So, we'll go planning item number one, which is a final plot of lot one of the Walmart campus subdivision. Planning item number one, an ordinance accepting a final plat of lot one of Walmart campus subdivision phase 15 to the city of Bentonville, Arkansas and for other purposes project number FP25-00002. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Cart, yes. Hook, yes. Sanchez, yes. Patterson, yes. Yes. Stea, yes. Sudter. Yes.

Number two is a final PL of lot one of the Walmart campus subdivision phase 16. Planning item number two, an ordinance accepting a final plat of lot one of Walmart campus subdivision phase 16 to the city of Bentonville, Arkansas. And for other purposes, project number FP5-00003. Second. Motion and second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Bart, yes. Hook, yes. Sanchez, yes. Patterson. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sudter. Yes. And number three is a lot split of lot 13 and block four of Demings Edition.

Planning item number three, an ordinance accepting a lot split of lots five and six, block four of Demings Edition, creating new lot 13, block four of Demings Edition to the city of Bentonville, Arkansas. And for other purposes, project number LS26-00003. Second. Motion and a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Hook, yes. Sanchez, yes. Patterson, yes. A, yes. Diva, yes. Sudtor, yes. Yes. Item number four is a reszoning from A1 to R2.

Planning item number four, an ordinance changing real estate in the city of Bentonville, Arkansas from its present zoning classification of A1 agricultural to R2 medium density two family and town home residential and public purposes. project number RZ26-00007. I have some notes for this item and then we can discuss them. Let me pull this up. Unfortunately, my iPad is not

folded over the floor. secret.

So, this item calls for the resing of a 10 acre parcel from uh A1 and RE to R2. uh on on the notes that I prepared I had the in the last page single page a comparison between what it is possible or what are the specifications between R1 and R2 and uh one of the main one of the main considerations or one of the main differences is that uh single family in R1 requires 6,000 uh square feet while in R2 it requires only 5,000. So if if all of those uh if all that property were to be developed as single family in uh with 5,000 square ft, you'll be 20% more units than what it will be possible with R1. However, if uh the property is developed as uh uh duplexes, it is possible to build up to 130 units over there. And uh for triplexes it it is possible to build up to 162 units. This is uh this has a 75% factor of utilization of the land because obviously there has to be streets and other facilities into it. So that's why I'm considering 75% just just as a number to use for the calculations. And uh so this is this is what the h what we have the maximum on R1 that could be 54 units and the maximum of triplexes that could be 162 units. There is uh there are many other considerations in this particular situation and one of them is that there are no current plans for improving uh

rainbow farm or shell roads. There is also the center neighborhood uh by Shell Road may take 25 years to develop uh as well as the transition from R1 or RE on the west side of uh Rainbow Farm that it is also uh potentially even longer because it is a very nice home that it is built on that spot that it is currently re and uh it is unlikely that the anybody is in their is going to demolish that in order to build some kind of commerce. Uh what it is more likely is on the side of a shell and farm uh farmhouse uh no rainbow farm rainbow rainbow farm in that particular corner. There is a lot of traffic. The property is quite large and grading it as a R2 may be a may be a good solution for that specific purpose. that uh land as you see it on on the back of it and and the map that is on the back marked with A1 in a circle it is the property that is currently I I1 I'm sorry A1 and to the right of it is re with a future of uh C1 so C1 is perfectly possible in a relatively short term owner of shelf and the rainbow farm, but it is highly unlikely that it will happen at least in 20 years uh on the side across the street because it is as I said currently re in a property in a development that is a very nice home and uh obviously the owner of the property is not happy about our move as

well as many other neighbors in in the neighborhood to the south west of the of the properties. I think I as you see in this map to the left I'm sorry to the right of the requested resing there is mostly R1 and to the left of it there is mostly R2. However, most of those arts are separated by little oage creek and that creek has uh it is very capricious and it has a bring us a lot of difficulties to cross it and uh so extending Shell Road which is a nice thing to do on the north of this resoning property requested to be resone it is it is a good thing for the exit of the the development on those uh two two parcels or actually five parcels but essentially two of them that are being requested to be resone. So there is as I said there is R2 to the left of it mostly are to to the left and the north but to the south it is R1 and most of the neighbors are in disagreement with their resigning to R2. So I just have the information. We'll we'll discuss it and come up with a conclusion later. Thank you.

The master street plan shows Shell Road going all the way across the creek or not. Correct. But that would be it was responsibility ours to build it there. So there is a portion in here that is actually already owned a city of Bentonville rightway. There you've got the north side where center 10 did require adequate rideway to be dedicated here. Yeah. And then when any development happens here, we would require this portion to be built.

There is also uh it has been working on this project I think back to 2006, right? Preston. Uh we've got a subdivision on the other side of the creek that there is a plat note that some kind of east west connection needs to be done prior to the final phase of this being constructed and that would be Shel. But we've studied Shell, we've studied uh Rainbow Farm,

we've studied Brookside at one point. We've looked at every potential east west across this. Is it I do have a quote on that. They would have to dedicate right away on that but um the improvement because that is in the center 10. So the city would have the impion of the back road improvement. We would and even though that's on the center 10 side.

Yep. So that's where I mentioned it a second ago like that's where this development is still on the hook to do some kind of east west connection in here. be it at Shell or at uh I think this is ink right here. We have worked through that multiple times over the years. That is also where this ride ofway dedication came from. It was when they were splitting out and redeveloping this portion of it. That's where this rideway came. And with any development we've had approved out there, we've required half street improvements. So it's not that the road hadn't been improved, it just happened. Correct.

So what would a development in on this property be likely required to do because the infrastructure? They would have to do half street improvements to Shell and they would have to do a traffic study. And as part of that traffic study, we would look at on and offsite uh improvements that are necessary be it intersection improvements or any off-site street improvements that would be uh necessitated by this development. At the very least, they would have to do half of the collector,

both sides, both Rainbow Farm and Shell since they're both collectors. So, a lot of your acreage because of the collector rideway and other easements are eaten into that. It's not like a local road. So, a lot of your density is lost. Your calculations there will be a little off. Um, but that will improve the collector street on both roads, north and south and east and west, and get that portion done for us. Do we know if there's a development in play or is this just sort of a f like they're just reszoning kind of as a future hedge? I think they are. I haven't seen anything submitted to our office, but I think they are reszoning with immediately

whether it's R1 or R2 that they they would be required for half road improvements, right? So, which is our best chance of getting any street improvements done, but how does that work with us as far as being able to do our part? like if we don't have it budgeted, well, they'll do half of it and then either another development will do the other half or we'll have to come in and clean it up at some point. The otherment is already developed just like everywhere else in town. Yeah. I Well, and I'm finding out this is becoming more and more of a challenge.

What you mention about the other development, it is already done. It is that portion in which belongs to Centerton. They already did the development and they don't have the streets. local center didn't require. We can't control that. No, that that's what I'm saying. It it has to be owned by the city and the developer on our side. But the city of Center don't have to build the street, right? They wouldn't have to. No, they don't have to, but we're not going to build it. where we've had this come up before with collectors, even if it's,

you know, we uh it wouldn't necessarily create the bridge, but what we will have them do, let's say it's uh an example of this was off not too far from here off of uh Pery. We did this. Let me find orient myself here. Yeah. So PI is an example of this where this was all dirt road collector roadway. Uh when this development came through, we weren't going to have them build out on the south side or take right ofway from this guy. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So what we had them do was build out this collector section so that it would still have two drivable lanes through there, but they're not doing the full curb and gutter on both sides of the road. So that when the guy on the south side builds their half street improvements is finishing Piery finishing that collector. We would do something similar here.

But it seems like 20 foot asphalt section. It seems like here though there's never going to be anyone on the other side. Correct. Because it that side's already done. Yeah. And again I I can't control center but

Yeah. And I I think that's I will say this is a challenging section because but whether it's R1 or R2 doesn't is not going to impact that. What what does concern me is are you sort of implying that the city has that other portion of road and with no parameters of cost or anything on that? And that's what we're running into that on in another area. And that that is I'm not sure how we go forward we address those things. But there is not like we you know we have our road projects lined out and that that project is we have no funding set for that. So that's that is a challenge. But

is centerton still not requiring half street improvements? I don't to this day they are they are not required. They already built the situation. I'm shocked that we have they have the right away on that to be honest. If I if memory serves me correct and would probably jump in here if he knows anything about it. I think it took like our team slashdennis asking for that from them or making sure that they dedicated that because we were actively talking to Oage Hills across the way and I don't think they were going to make them do anything.

Yeah, I this is maybe I mean we are doing the project with our ten on greenhouse. It has been a beast to get through on funding. We are still trying to but this is pro this might be an area where you might look for a grant on that side and the two cities go to together to finish the road. Has there been any dialogue between Centerton and Bentonville like that it would be helpful if they would require I mean I don't know why they wouldn't require if we're requiring it just because it makes it cheaper I guess but causing a problem

required right away and now the utilities are coming in with prescriptive easements that they want us to pay for that are hundreds years old. We're going to run across this. didn't really in some instances even that's not helped. So I'm just saying like it's complicated but these little neighborhoods where the lines connect Bentonville to senate we're going to run across this a lot. I mean what are we going to do? We're not going to revisit that with senator and see if we but that would require them. Yeah I you know yeah.

So is this something we don't have enough information on yet? Well, I don't I don't the zoning we have enough information on on the larger question. I think the question for us is we have to have a major east west corridor. Yeah. And we need to have a ongoing and a detailed conversation with Centerton. Exactly.

And Rogers on how which road are we going to make priority and where are we going to make this crossing and get the we're going to have to have another east west crossing a significant crossing south of 12. And it's going to have to be in here somewhere. If you've already got half of it built either way, either zoning you get half the road built. We're not if we're not having better conversations to to with Centerton on how we're going to connect well all these additional rooftops and which road we're going to focus on where they're butdding up to our property. We need to be having those immediately and having ongoing conversations on rideaways or do we have them see if we can convince them to do half half improvements on where we're budding property I think

so we for zoning purposes conversations like I said greenhouse is our current example our staff is driving that part project and we are paying for 55% of it based on what is our portion so that's how we've done that so we are in our first but I'm just going to tell you like it it has been super challenging. Yeah. And but yes, those continued conversations need you're right with all cities around us on these roads. When we did the master street update, we did coordinate with them. They are aware that's clutter. I think that's how we got the right away in that piece of it. But I would say conversations with the surrounding cities to yes

bring funding to the table on those projects is what needs to happen. We've got them in master street plans, but we need those cities to Yeah. So, back to the zoning if that's our conversation. But I I think we need to decide what streets are major priority getting east and west and and there's some streets we're going to have to belly up to like in our street plan. And if this is a major connection of thousands and thousands of rooftops between municipalities, it's it probably there are some that we're going to have to get out in front of. And so that's a later conversation. But whether you do R2, R3, the road's going to be improved half doesn't matter. Even if day one, we need the road to but R2 or R1. Yeah.

Uh but the amount of the the calculations of rooftops are are probably pretty far off for you. If you're looking at R1, you don't you don't get four, five units an acre with standard. With our current rideway and easements and dedications, you probably get 2.7. And the same with your other analogy. Uh, and so it with the improvements that they'll have to do with collector improvements, um, and the utility dedications that they're going to have to have, I understand why they need a little more density. Um, you look at what's R2 all the way to the all the way to the uh, west. Uh, this is a going to be a major intersection. So, you're going to have few Yeah, they'll tear down a house for major commercial down the road. You bet they will if it if there's enough traffic there. Um, so I don't think you're going to get the unit count that you're referring to and I think missing middle housing is desperately needed and for the cost of the property and what it what you have to improve for the collector streets on all sides of this since it joins all sides of the property uh to be able to make up some of the density over R1. you're going to get the same house cl and uh I just I I don't think you can recover it in an R1. I just don't think you can do it.

The number of units that I presented in this example is uh essentially imaginary. It's optimistic perhaps because I said 25% of the land has to be used for the the roads and everything else that is needed for it. Uh remember 6,000 square feet is the length the size of the lot not the size of the house. That's correct. So it it can be easily b made 6,000 square feet for R1 and you get six 54 of those. I think it is pos possible. But even if the amount is smaller, the proportion is essentially the same. You you cut this one the number of units on R1, you also cut the number of units on R2. So I certainly understand

remains. If you go R1 and the density is less, then the prices of the houses will be considerably more. And is that what we really want in all of these boundaries of the city is to increase our prices to they're well above $600,000 per unit. I don't think that's what we want in every subdivision. So, uh, that's probably why they're looking to do that is to bring down the price a little bit and improve their density just a little bit. Still residential. And what are you advocating Octavio R1? Nothing. I have not said a thing. Okay, I was just asking.

I'm I'm just presenting the information as the way I see it because it is a complicated case. It is not the easy just do R1 or R2 and you're done. It is something more that involves another city that involves a connection that it is not there and we don't have the money to pay for the whole thing. And there is also a a president about three or four years ago a development in the vicinity and I don't remember exactly where but I think on uh morning star road was built and they we wanted them to cross the creek and we authorized them not to their new phase. Which one?

It was a new phase they were doing but they did it on the other side and had a different access point instead of crossing the creek. Yes, sir.

Yes. and and they didn't they didn't build the bridge that was needed to make the h the street connect from one end of the from one side of the creek to the other side of creek. Instead of that they built a couple of homes in what it was supposed to be initially the house the the road that was going to connect to the west side. We didn't do that. We lost the opportunity to have a connector over there whatever type of street it was but we lost the opportunity. Now I'm I'm afraid in this particular case it will be something similar that it will not connect because the bridge is very expensive and nobody wants to pay for it which is understandable. So that that is part of my reasoning. On the other hand this particular so uh type of area which is suburban neighborhood allows either R1 practically as right and R2 with enhanced review. uh uh R1 every all the neighbors in the vicinity or 99% of the neighbors in the vicinity are in agreement to R1 and there is only two of them I think one or two of them are in agreement with R2 so that is that is the voice of the neighbors who said we don't want R2 we said they want R1 this is the neighborhood on the south of it that has probably 80 homes or so they are obviously nicely built in large relative particularly large lots and etc. the the corner of Shell and Rainbow Farm. It is a very nice lot with a house that is not in very good shape. So it can easily be demolished economically financially convenient to demolish it and converted on uh commercial one which is perfectly possible today because that's the category that we have assigned to it. Uh the property across the street is a very nice home. I don't cannot estimate the value of it, but I'm

guessing it's at least half a million dollars or more. And it is relatively new. I don't think anybody is going to be willing to demolish it to build anything commercial over there. Not even that for the less for the next 25 years based on the reasoning that the planning commission had three weeks ago or two weeks ago. So, but no matter the zoning, we don't solve the road problem, right? Yes. I don't know how we solve the road problem. We don't solve it with A1 or R1 or R2 Z1. Well, I think we solve the traffic problem if we don't do it because if we don't do it, nothing changes. That's what I'm saying. I mean the project if we don't do a project

if we don't get it figured out before we approve this well some especially since we're dealing with 10 carry on a 10acre project the cost to cross Oage with the wider floodway that's there is beyond any 10acre parcel this a major crossing across that that tributary that creek whatever you want to call it is a major endeavor and it's not going to basically on a 10acre owner ain't going to happen.

It's going to have to be with cooperative effort through municipalities. That's why we do the major infrastructure and people connect to those. And so this is something we need to place on our master. If we're going to keep developing out here, we have to deal with this. But it's not going to change whether they go R1 or R2. They're going to develop half of those roads for us. And we need to take advantage of their money uh if they're willing to do it. and at least we get half those roads built, which is a long ways toward getting the full road built versus not building any of it because we're going to have to have the connection either way. So, I wouldn't recommend throwing it out for the sake of building a long-term road. At least you're going to get halfway there on those properties, and that's better than what we have right now. Tyler,

on the other hand, I think if you look at the creek being a natural dividing line, you've got R2 to the left and you've got R1 butdding up against on every other area on that property. It would make sense both for traffic issues and without knowing how we're going to finish that road. I don't think they will not develop it. They just will develop it differently. I think it makes sense to leave it. Well, I'll support the planning commission's recommendation of 70 and I will go with the planning commission's recommendation of my vote.

Tyler, um, at the planning commission meeting, several people had drainage concerns with a duplexed development. What would what are the requirements? Well, any kind of subdivision, which this would have to be would have to do a full-blown drainage report on it would. Okay. Tyler, can we require any fee in lie of or any contribution from developers on both sides of the creek for a future bridge? I mean, can we at least get some participation? So, that's in in this particular situation, the development, the reasoning that we are being requested to vote on today is not obligated to do the bridge across the creek because it doesn't extend that far.

But that would be determined by the traffic study and the large. But even if it has to be built, it's not going to be the obligation to build it is not going to be from the current developer of that particular parcel because they are only obligated to do what it is facing centered on on that square that it is purple in color.

Can I ask a question? Why are they Can you help me with why we're bringing it there as R2 and not just with the new Z I mean the urban neighborhood piece there and reszoning like why is there why is this coming through now? Do we know? I think they they wanted to bring it through uh now because they've got a I think they have a pending offer on the property and they're looking to acquire it and we haven't passed the land the new uniform development land use dictated

uh land use to the point that was brought up earlier. It's kind of an interesting one. You've got suburban neighborhood here and then this remainder I think it's because it was a not too recent annexation is listed as blank. So we were actually evaluating the whole tract as suburban neighborhood just assuming yeah it's probably the intent was for this whole thing to be suburban neighborhood. So suburban neighborhood leads naturally to R1. R1 under review or DN1 under standard review. R2 is enhanced.

We we asked we had this conversation when everything was all suburban neighborhood when we did the land use. Everything south. You remember all the acreage that was south was just blanketed in rural and suburban neighborhood. And that's where the more affordable land can be to build the workforce housing. We then decided to allow for R2 to provide some workforce housing within the mass amounts of this acreage uh because it offers the opportunity to build some maybe missing middle. And so since we are offer through an enhanced review, that's probably what they're they're going to go through and that's what they're going through uh to try to get it. And so they'll have to go through all the full development processes. But if you look at what's going to happen here, I I think you can have a great residential neighborhood, whether it's R2 or R1, and you're not trying to do a multif family project there. I think it's a great family. It'll offer some a little more reasonable lot sizes, so you can lower the overall price points and maybe bring it in. Other than I think if you go R1, your minimum price is 650 and above. That's just the way it is. uh the two partial. Yes. Uh initially we blanketed out everything the uh suburban uh neighborhood and then we made some changes including those very very intelligent changes to re to locate some higher density higher usage in some of the in in different places around the city. For example, in that little corner, Shell and Rainbow, the the parcel on the right is the one that it is graded as commercial and and that is the one that, as I said, could be developed tomorrow if they wanted to convert it into some kind of commerce area.

So, isn't residential R2 would be a down zone from commercial? And wouldn't the neighbors be more happy to have a down zone and not have commercial? uh way the the parcel on the right of the industed as commercial and what I'm saying is that if their owners today wanted to have some kind of commerce in there they could do it today with no major difficulties the parcel on the on the left of the street is category re and that re is not changing it's included but it is included in the future land use map as commerce C1

that's that's what I'm saying so it is not changing that is not changing the re and the R1 that is opposite to it they are commerce and they remain like that there is absolutely no change to that what we are talking about is the green area and bless you normal buffer zone from a commercial to go to R1 would be a a typical buffer would be an R2 to go from commercial to R2 to R1 or you going to put the R1 right next to the commercial future commercial. Thought we expected.

Well, that's typically our plan. Yeah, we're like on the other side of the street. It's all R1 around the commercial. So, that'll be a question whether that actually zones out. Well, Becky said it correctly. Everything on the right is R1, including the property in the corner that it is currently for the future seen as common commercial C1, a neighborhood center. Yes. Right. That the one on the re was built in 2024.

It is a beautiful home. At least half a million, probably more. We can either vote on the planning commission recommendation or we can send it back or we can deny it. If you wanted to be reconsidered as something else, I would suggest we you all send it back to I don't have an issue with it, but if there's a enough issue with it I think there's enough constituents that are have some very valid I mean I wish I had the magic ball to tell me why their backyards are flooding you know because it it whose backyards are flooding

the ones that came to planning commission and the tea whatever the tea turn on the flooding the tea streets you zoom in on that just turn on

mine's Yeah, I can't get my plaid phone on. It's loading. I've got a spin wheel. You've got the So, uh, the backyards to the south that you're referring to. Yeah, it's the incline of the land is going south.

Yeah, it's on that southwest tea. There's a word a name of that and the backyards are holding water because of the drainage between lots is not allowing the water to get out or get to the road or what not has anything if it's already flooding has nothing to do with the neighborhood it land behind you. Yes. And so they're on that they're on the they're not budding to the property. They're on the other side. They're on the west side. So I I don't know. I don't I'm sure that concern

it has to be mitigated through the large scale development and a drainage study and I'm sure our engineering team will make sure that the drainage study is adequate to make sure that it doesn't discharge any more than it currently discharges, which is the rule and the law. And so that can be accommodated um and will be based on our rules of of the engineering.

So according to the all the background that we have on this couple of properties uh the the national resing is to R1 or R2. Uh the planning commission agreed 7 to 0 to have it R2 and that is the proposal that it is on us. uh what I'm saying is that the the R1 is also is is the the initial possibility the the natural possibility because that's what it is uh that's what it leads without enhanced review the the natural or the standard review will lead to that. Now we say as we said Chris mentioned it correctly we can approve it the way it is. We can reject it the way it is or we can send it back to the planning commission with a recommendation to build it on R1 if that is what we wanted to say. Those are as I as I think it is the three options that we have at this moment. Either reject either accept or send it back to the planning commission for them to follow our recommendations. And is it correct, Tyler, that if it were R1 zoning,

they could still have an enhanced review for R2? Is that what he's saying? In suburb, that's what I was saying. In suburban neighborhood, suburban neighborhood still has R2 as an answer. Now, it's still possible they could get their options. There are options under standard review where the R1 and DN1, which DN1 is more of like a small lot district. Yeah. And we have been talking about this item, but I think we have a person who is interested in presenting their opinion. Isn't it good on this? Don't we have one? Yes. You you spoke to all these neighbors?

I talked to many of them. I visited the neighborhood three times, including today at 5:00 p.m. And Benjamin is signed up. Do you want to you want to speak from the audience?

Yeah. city council members, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ben Hunter. I live at 5506 Southwest Tall of Lane. Uh my primary concern is compatibility and consistency with the surrounding land uses. The properties adjacent to the surrounding site as discussed are R are R1 um except for the portion to the west across the um the creek which essentially acts as a as a pretty significant buffer that's a mature uh repairarian buffer there and then you also have a sign significant flood plane. There's also discussion about this east west corridor with the shell extension. I have a hard time believing that that's going to be an appropriate extension for many reasons. One is if you look at the adjacent property to the west, the one that's already been built. The extension road is not set up like it is on the east side where Shell Road exists. So, you're going to be running that corridor right through a neighborhood fronting with their roads fronting. So, you can see the connection. It does not match with the way that Shell Road is um with that extension. Um also just I had discussions with the planning commission uh the planning department when I spoke with the planning commission as well. The whole thing that the planning department that I discussed with them is they're trying to create a transition zone. So, as uh Council Member Sanchez said, no one that I spoke to in my neighborhood, the uh single family homes that are designated as commercial and then the neighborhood to the north, no one wants this to be an R2. It's not consistent with what we're talking about. And kind of going back to to what what we were talking about, um

all the areas that are R2 are t uh duplexes. In the application, they talk about implementing town homes, which would be the only town homes in and around this area. So, I know the planning department or the planning commission when they were discussing talked about, you know, the difference between a single family home and a duplex. Not really big difference, but when you start implementing what's in the application as town homes, that's not consistent with the adjacent properties or even the adjacent R2 districts. And speaking of the transition zone with the Shell Road, the whole transition zone is based on the Shell Road extension east west corridor. If you don't get that, which we've discussed is is a very difficult thing to happen. It's going to require a pretty significant span bridge. This is not a simple culvert. We got about 35 ft vertical difference between the uh back of the property and the stream directly adjacent to it. So, it's it's not going to be a small endeavor. Um, if you remove that connection, this is no longer a transition zone. You're transitioning nothing other than putting R2 surrounded by R1 with a major buffer adjacent to it between the R2 districts. So again, going back to

point of order public comments reached three minutes. Thank you.

Okay, so any other discussion? Again, your options are just you can send it back in and pass or deny. I would only say that if you deny it, the opportunity for them to reszone is much more difficult down the road immediately. So, if there is a majority that would like to that thinks they're going to say no, then I would send it back so they have some opportunity. Uh so I would take rejection off the table if that's so everybody's opinion on that the applicant is not here that would consider they could also ask for us to table it think I'm assuming they're not

they are online but if yes and we and we can't we can't down zone atone to R1 without the planning commission if that were if that's the road we're going down I would send Unless the applicant requested that. I guess I feel like, you know, it's a bigger question is is it irresponsible to reszone for development in an area that has really insignificant infrastructure and isn't likely to have it in the foreseeable future. We just did a neighborhood to the south without adequate infrastructure. There's no additional. Are

you saying not to allow development on this parcel? I mean, I don't think I don't think that's that's possible. I just don't think it's consistent with what's out there because of the natural dividing line which is the creek. I mean, I think part of the part of the struggle because we have to look as has been brought up, we have to look at things through a 20 to 25 year outlook. If we're going to say we're not going to reszone property until adequate infrastructure is in place in this area of the city, then that has to apply to R1 zonings in this area as well. But the impact

I guess the impact is Octavio's point, it's a three, four times, you know, impact. Is that like either you Yeah, I think actually I know someone that looked at this land and they couldn't fit they Yeah, they couldn't fit what they needed to fit on it. Personally, I have as well. So, I'm familiar with the density. It's obtainable through both zonings and it's not near what we're talking about. But, it doesn't matter. It's either R1 or R2. They're going to build half a road for us if they develop. Um, so no matter who does is going to build half a road on both sides.

We need to do is send it back to planning, see if this particular person will accept R1 and still build Her, which is doubtful to me. Doubtful for me, too. But we can't actually say this. All we can do is vote against R2 or send it back. Those are the two options. Yeah. Because if it's not, can they come back with R1 if we vote down R2 or do they have to wait the whole year? I move that we send they can come back. They can come back year out of within the It's not the same. What would this become? It would become R1 if when with if the new zoning passes,

the new zoning passes, it translates directly to T2, which is rule because what you said it's it was a block of nothingness. Did you hear my motion? So then you're dealing with rule. Yes. Setbacks. Rule lot size is not not what we're talking about. So I'm just

I I'm really torn on this. I because I you know I I I can totally just see both sides. You know I listened to the planning commission. There's a lot of people, you know, that are really against this. And I, you know, we've kind of made a promise to people with our new plan that your suburban, you know, R1 neighborhoods, we're going to leave those alone. We want density in certain areas, but in other areas that we've designated all our one and suburban, we've kind of promised people that we would leave that. And but on the other side, I see, you know, the difficulty with developing a piece of land that you need to be able to get enough on to pay for, you know, a half a road or, you know, whatever. So, I I just I feel like this is a really kind of I don't know like didn't we tell people that like isn't that part of what we kind of said that these are one areas we wouldn't

mess with, you know, with the plan Bville? I feel like that's kind of what we promise people and I think that's what they expect and it and when it's inconsistent with the use it's already there that's the measure we've always used and I don't think we should deviate from well we dropped the land use on an entire entire area

tremendous amount of developable acreage and if we're not going to allow through enhanced review to even do an R2 and we're going to say it's going to all be ruler R1 uh the ability to support the workforce will be all out of town and then think about the roads we're going to have to build to bring another 100,000 people in here a day that can't live here and we don't have the money to start the first widening project. So we're really talking about a significant change if you're going to go down all this develop land and not do anything over

a little 10 acre R2 surrounded by all R1. I feel like that's what we kind of told people we wouldn't do. But we're saying if it even if it were if we were reszoning at R1 tonight, Tyler's department can do an enhanced review of it. Am I reading? Is this correct? There is no need. Who who's done a planning commission to you all? But it could still end up R2. They'd have to come back again. Do an enhanced review and they could do that within the year. Yeah. If it were zoned, let's say R1, and then they want to come back and reszone it again and we go through this all over again, would that come back through city council?

Yes. Be a brand new zoning. But they have a you said they have a an urgency because there's a pending sale. So they really do have a urgent. Whoever wants to acquire this wants it. So before they acquire it, if this was a split decision or seven, you know, 52, this was 70. Uh we going to um Well, that's up to y'all. I don't want to speak anymore.

I never say that this was an easy decision. No, it's never. In fact, I have not presented my opinion on the subject because I still on one way or the other because those two solutions or those two reasonings to R1 and R2 have their own benefits and and they are so good that I decided to spend many hours on preventing those and investigating with the citizens and everything. But in my conclusion is leading more to the R1 because uh to begin with that is the natural progression of the resoning to do R1 instead of R2. But yes I understand all the arguments against it but as I said the simple reasoning the simplified request goes leads to R1 not to R2. On the other hand, the the property to the north and the south and the west, all of those are our ones.

I make a motion we approve the um recommendation. So, we we already have a motion to send it back on the floor. So, we do not have a second on that. I just want to make sure, but there was not a second to that one. I'll second that. That motion is to have to send it back to R1 with our recommendation that it be send it back to planning commission. Well, we just go through it all again. Either either way they can come back my motion better. Either way, they can come back with our she sending it back gives the applicant options. It's only either way they have an If we vote it down, they have no option, right?

Back and ask for R1. That's what Tyler said. After Oh, they would not have to wait the one year for R1. If it's they're requesting a lower zoning, okay, either way, they could come back and ask for but they do lose. But I would, you know, I would propose you. It'll be it'll be if we sent it back planning, they wouldn't lose as much time. Is that what you're saying? Correct. Bring it back on as soon as probably next week's agenda. Well, my question is if there's 70, what's going to change their vote? I don't think it's going to change the planning commission. There's several people on planning commission that will vote for higher density wherever it is.

Seven of them, but yeah, that is seven. I think it just gives the applicant the option to have that conversation with them in a more expedient manner of possibly requesting something lower is what it seems like. I don't want to speak for them. They may not even want it, but um it it shortens their timeline. I don't know. So I Becky, I understand that you withdrew your motion to send it back to the planning commission. Yes. Second Chris's motion.

You repeat your motion. to approve the item as recommended by well if it is rejected that's it if there's a deal on the table to that this is contingent on the reasonzoning of R2 it's not any good if it's an R1 we don't get a road built we unless they

you know we don't have get a road built we don't get all this stuff done and they I don't know if the contract whoever's has a contract pending on this will say oh yeah our one will If there was half a road in perpetuity, how valuable is that? Like if we're not ever able to finish the other half and we don't that's never a priority for our funding, how how much additional value do we get out of half a road if the other half is never completed? Well, so that's what I was getting at earlier is even if it's a half street improvement, we still make them build two lanes. Collector one terversible road. That's one of my biggest problems.

We're not going to build the road out. Remove collector on the master street plan because you're forcing people to build a collector road or half of it. Either remove it or we're planning on extending it. Maybe that's what we need to. So we either remove it or we hope we get a half a road out of this deal because right now everybody has to build half a collector road to make that work. So to our public speakers either it is or it isn't comment you know that road really does run directly into a subdivision. So is it an error that we have that labeled as a future collector? Well if you want them to get across and over through to Rainbow Road and others through the subdivision. But is that what we want people to do? Like we have that

Well, we need them to cross somewhere and right now there's no crossing in any of that subdivision. Somebody's going to have to We need desperately. There's thousands of rooftops going up and nowhere to cross. The city may have to think about how we absorb that and maybe we allocate it out when it's built. But I mean, the bottom line is

that bridge would cost. I'm not minimizing the impact of the planning commission, but there's a difference between an appointed body that oversees planning and a legislative body that decides legislation and policy. And if our citizens have put their confidence in us and to their understanding expect us to consider the consistency of the use around them, then I think we have an obligation to either vote this down or send it back. But I also think we need to think about there's there's one neighborhood there. I get it. They don't want R2 there. There's also a ton of other neighbors that eventually would like to be able to cross through. We need we need to go across.

There is no way we're going to have the money to build a giant bridge there in the next 20 years. Yeah. If we don't do east west connections and get it on our radar and start planning for the funding of an east west corridor across areas like this, we are not doing our job. We had sort of the same issue with Gator Road or Gator or whatever. And ultimately the city had to go in and build a section of it in the middle of nothing really to connect two subdivisions and keep traffic moving. So we're going to have these issues. This is going to be a more expensive one. Dollar I have another question regarding the access.

So if we do this before, you know that developer goes to planning to with his plan. Can they find another regress or another way to get around finishing that road with that property? So are we guaranteed that by reszoning this they will finish that road all the way across creek? And it's not like we're paying. We're going to have to pay to go across subdivision. No matter if it's a R1 or an R2. Either way. Correct. They're going to be required to do their half. It would just be they may not be able to afford it if it's just

The point is is that people have said no to this property because they can't fit enough units on it to make it pencil. And that's an R1. are two. There's a possibility of pencils for someone. We've had this issue all over the city for the last 25 years. You never complete a whole road. You don't ever make connections, but at least we're requiring the developer to do their half. And that's a much better situation than not.

They will have to develop once they go to large scale. they'll be under the new uniform development code and so it's going to be costly anyway and they're aware of that because costs go up with the new uniform development code. So they've already got those added to the cost of this housing as well. So that's probably what in their thinking is also it's like a road to nowhere though like I for now for now. Okay. Is there a motion and a second on the table? I don't know if there's any more discussion. Any discussion? So the motion is to approve the request as it of the R2. Correct. Sanchez. No. Patterson. No. A no. SA. Yes.

Sitter. Yes. Birkhart. Yes. Hook. No. Three. Item number eight is a the ordinance adopting the Bentonville community code. I think we're on five. I'm sorry. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Adding to consent agenda. Hi. Sorry. I marked that off. So

item number five is a planned unit development amendment for Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art. Landing item number five, an ordinance amending OD2020-43 and further purposes project number PUD20-00001/PUD26-00001. some second with a comment.

There are two main items that are in me against this project and uh one of them is is there enough parking and I understand there is a plan for it and I'm relatively happy with it. Not extremely happy but but okay. Uh the next one is the noise and I have received already promises from uh the organizers of this uh that noise is going to be controlled within the confines of this little bitty 2500 room people room and uh etc because that has been a continuous problem emanating from the same area and other areas also but uh considering that promise I'll say Let's go for it. That's what I move it.

A second a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Patterson, yes. Yes. Eva, yes. Sudter, yes. Bart, yes. Hook, yes. Sanchez, yes. Number six is a reszoning from R1D and two. Planning item number six, an ordinance changing real estate in the city of Bentonville, Arkansas from its present zoning classification of R1 lowdensity single family residential to DN2 downtown medium density residential and for the purposes project number RZ26-00004 second motion and a second and other discussion please

yes yes yes yes Hook. Yes. Sanchez. Patterson. Yes. Item number seven is reszoning from R1 to DN2. Planning item number seven, an ordinance changing real estate in the city of Bentonville, Arkansas from its present zoning classification of R1 lowdensity single family residential to DN2 downtown medium density residential. And for the purposes project number RZ26-00005. Second and a second. Any other discussion? Call please. Eva, yes. Yes. Bart, yes. Hook, yes. Sanchez, yes. Patterson, yes.

Yes. Number eight is the ordinance adopting the Bentonville Community Code. Planning item number eight, an ordinance adopting the Bentonville Community Code pursuant to Arkansas Code annotated section 14-56-301 and further purposes. Second. A motion. Second. Any other discussion? Do we have comments on it? I don't have anybody signed up, but you signed up on Are you I signed up online? I got it pulled up and it doesn't have you. It had Benjamin, but it doesn't have you on it. So, but Okay, you're here. And so, just come forward.

Um, I think most of you know me. and Kevin Butler on the utility board has also been on the steering committee for Plan Bentonville. I want to start by saying that overall um I think that the the code is is great. We're moving towards a more walkable um you know code that that'll accomplish the density that we need for a growing city. Uh there's two things I want to bring up. First is that I'm opposed though to uh the T6 being 10 stories. There's a lot of lot of reasons why we don't need to go to 10 stories right now. um that actually be detrime detrimental towards growth and towards traffic. When you when you move to too high too fast when you have a city that's one to two stories, we want to go to four to six. Going to 10 can actually uh I have a PhD in finance and economics can actually bring down development and densifying elsewhere by having basically islands of hype. Um, we also uh and the the second thing that I wanted to and what we can do if if this is really a thing that we need to do this in order to build a hospital, we should do a a 6.2 that's a special thing that's the same thing um that allows for the special situation of this hospital that carves it out rather than bringing this across the entire rest of the city. The other manner I wanted to talk about is that um this has been something that's been not publicized to people. I'm on the steering committee. I only found out that this was actually we had another draft um that it's gone to planning commission that there were public hearings by emailing Tyler and reaching out last week. I asked other committee members. They also did not know. And I began talking to residents who had been asking me about this for the last several months and wanted to participate in public hearings, wanted to comment and we've been told since the beginning. Planbendville.com is the place to go. I I forgot to bring it, but I had a card

that we were asked and to hand out. This was the way the city set up and communicated to everybody this is where to go. Has not been updated since September. So, people told me, "I've been going there waiting to waiting to comment, waiting to bring up comments on this, but the site that you guys told us to go to has not changed. And so, I'm I'm waiting for it." And and they're just now finding out through me that that this is different. A lot of them, I think, emailed you. Um, a lot of them said, "You know what? I give up. I think they're trying to hide this." Um, and also I don't think it's going to make a difference because this makes me feel like they don't care about how I feel. Um, I can guarantee you that that any outreach that you've gotten, there's 20 to 30 other people for every single one that that has felt this way and that that wanted to be involved. And their biggest thing is we love this. We want more density, but 10 stories is not where we need to go right now. So, I'll I'm happy to answer more questions if you you have them. So,

Tyler, is it possible for you to display the map of the city with the T6 on?

Yep. This is actually your next item on the agenda is the zoning map itself. So I'll pull up two things for you. One is the future land use map which if we look at the future land use map the areas that would even conceptualize P6 uh under standard reviews would be the dark blues. So you can see the dark navy blue are areas where you could feasibly have T6. There are a couple of areas though I would flag this proximity, this proximity, and this proximity that are in proximity of either XNA or the municipal airport, which would severely limit height. The dark purples are would uh consider T6 under what's called enhanced review, which we talked about at length. um I would now point to the if I can move this thing right the actual draft map itself. So if I look at this, if you remember, we talked through the translation policy of what today's zoning districts turn into tomorrow. Of today's districts, none of them translate to T6. T6.1 is a new district that was created. We allowed for what's called a an an opt-in procedure for the zoning map where any property owners and we required property owner consent forms uh they could request zoning in accordance with the future land use map. through

that whole process. The only properties that we were recommending for the T6 and that were also recommended by planning commission is these properties within proximity of I49. So if you were to adopt the comm the Bentville community code, any additional T6 in the future would have to request res and come through this process. You go to the res.

This is it. Yeah. So on this map you can see the colors are the zoning districts themselves. Uh the outlines uh what those mean is if it's got a green outline, it was requested by the applicant. It's in accordance with the flume. You see the like the bright green. Um, so if it's it was a a request received from from an applicant that met the future landings map and staff ultimately recommended it and now planning commission recommended it. If it is a uh if it's red, it was either not recommended by staff or not recommended by a city council based on either the future land use map or this one in particular was just based on surrounding context or if it was blue it was recommended but adjusted from what the original request was like. So for instance, this one, they were requesting T5.1, but the future land use map would only allow up to T4.2. So that's why it shows as blue adjust. So we were recommending, yeah, I hear you. You want T5.1, but the most we could do under standard review for optin is T4.2. And

that's the list of individual properties that you have following that agenda item. Correct. Can you go back to the land use? Yes. Zoom in a little bit to these maps have been updated on the website. They're not been hiding.

Yeah. So, if you go to the Plan Bentville website, so it's right here. If you hit right here, review and comment on the zoning and draft code, it takes you to that page I was just on. What Mr. Butler is referring to is these news posts. Uh there hasn't been any news post

but where do they go to problem? Well, I would like to point out all the outreach we have done because we've updated every time we've had a new draft out, we've updated it on this website and on our city website where we list all pending code revisions with each subsequent revision. We also publish an article in the city newsletter which goes out to everyone who receives a utility bill in February prior to starting public hearings. We posted all updates through our city social channels for each individual draft of this code. We did publish our formal public hearing notice in February and we have had the Bentville Community Code as a standing item on every planning commission agenda dating back to October 21st.

So Tyler, we've left the website up. We've taken down the map. That doesn't make any sense. If if we're wanting It's right there. Click in the middle right there. So that's where we are now. The very first page says review and I thought you just hit on that and it just show that's if you scroll down the page the first thing people see is review and comment on the zoning map and draft code. So the current map the changes on there now and it just says it here

and the code Now, how many of those allowable zoning districts that allow the 10 foot or 10 T6? T6 are up against a single family residential neighborhood. And I know we can do a buffer, but I'm just curious the buffer. So, now we require buffers, right? The buffer is only 50 feet. That's 100 feet or T6 next to T3, T4 or R1. It's 100 ft. It's a two It's a two-tiered 50 or 100 depending and how many of them are even against the family neighborhood. I thought most of them

So you might have some ab budding here but if you look the vast majority of it like in this area of the city here where you've got the blue the purple it's not going to be directly adjacent. You've got this area here which is the old Walmart home office campus. There's the plaza Bentville Plaza building which is currently at roughly what eight stories right there. Um, and then to the point where T6 were to like if someone were to zone something T6, let's say, um, and it were adjacent to an R1, a T3, or a T4, which based on the zoning criteria later in the code, we would recommend they not do that. But if they did, we require if it's adjacent to R1 within 50 feet, it has to be the same height as the adjacent R1, same maximum height, which would be 36.

And then within 100 ft, it can go up to, I believe, I I'll pull it up two stories above the R1 height and then it can go to it can go to full. It's a stairst step process.

Plan is good. And I think the outreach has gone above and beyond, you know, and I think there are things in place to mitigate, you know, the height, but is 10 higher than we really need? Like I guess that's kind of the the question here. Like do we have things that are already 10? Like could we do six? Like what would be the problem there? Um I you know I don't think it reflects on the plan as a whole which is very very good. But if there is, you know, this is this something we should change. Are we right with doing 10? Like I think that's just what here's we doing this just for the hospital, man. We haven't seen a

I haven't heard of anything. Here's what I would ask, and I was going to jump through the individual sections, but if we're starting with 10 stories, we'll start there. If you are asking me to change things in this document, I need to know what we're changing, what we're changing it to so that Shellyley and I aren't going back and interpreting intent on the back end. I've done that three times already planning commission of like and that's exactly what I had them do. Tell me what you want changed, what you want it changed to so that we can figure out what we need to do. And I also asked to make sure that there was consensus among all of planning commission on the changes.

I don't have an answer for your question, but what I have is is is the code the one that specifies 10 floors or T6. So that that is only reflect that is only uh related to the actual map and and and the map I I couldn't read it. I spend a lot of time trying to read it. My eyes go crazy with those many colors. And and that's what I was asking you if there is a way of finding only what it is expected to be T6. So the only ones that if you adopt this map tomorrow, the only ones that would be T6 would be this without enhanced review.

Correct. Well, those would be zoned if you approve the next item, which is the official zoning map. Those would be zoned T6. And why is that? But it's just that specific those were this is the properties that requested T6 zoning when we opened up the optic. When you're saying requested requested by who? Because that's where I'm getting a lot of the push back. The property owner requested it. And then we have additional T6 in the land use plan in certain key areas that uh everybody felt would be the opportunity for that same type of growth in those those regional nodes.

We already have six story buildings and probably seven or eight on Walton. So 10 is not too much out of the picture. In my mind it could be in the code but in my understanding the restriction has to be as to where they are located. Those D6s are located. Where are they next? And that is that is the part as I said my eyes cannot see that which is the dark blue right there.

The future land use map would could now of course any request for T6 would have to go through zoning but the dark blue someone could request T6 under standard review. Let's begin on the on the east side. There is 32 and 49 and all that area. Then the other side of the highway which is that area and then the parcel on the corner of Battlefield and uh water tower road or the other end that is Battlefield and they could they could request T6 but ultimately it's up to you guys to agree.

So it is possible to have it. All right. Now coming this way, there is uh there is plenty of a space in that particular corner that I said battlefield and

there is plenty of space because there is a there is a not a creek but a kind of a big deep ditch on the side that it is it is essentially the buffer for the neighborhoods for the homes on the east and the south. And so that that is as I said something that it is not affecting very much even if it is 20 stories over there. It is still far away. There is also a cemetery nearby and uh and there is there is no impact to the homes in the vicinity. There is nothing on the north part of it and it is far away from the east section which is uh what is it? Woods Creek I think. Yes. on on the on the right side of it, it is Woods Creek. But to the north of it, if all that property is considered the same, uh there are many homes on Rice Road and many others on the north side of the right side of the highway, right? So, could the buildings be installed far away from the homes? Not just 50 50 feet or 100 ft, but I'm talking more like 500 ft or something very very far away from the homes.

Remember, a T6 has to come through this as an enhanced review. You can always accept or deny. It's if it's in the blue, it's standard. Is it standard? Yeah. So, that's what I'm saying. It is

I will I will just say that we've we've looked at the land use for a long time. The idea that our our most high value high tax area that will support this city to be able to go 10 stories uh not just as needed now but it's certainly needed in the future. And uh that air is certainly a lot less expensive than the ground. And so to inhibit people for the foreseeable future to less than 10 um in areas that we believe is going to be a regional hubs or city centers uh which is what we're trying to do here through those blues. Uh we're not talking about neighborhood centers. We're not talking about those types. We're talking about major centers. Uh it's going to be the workforce or tax base in the future. uh going another story or two off of what we exist and have is not a big leap and I think it's desperately going to be needed and we need the tax base to be able to support our infrastructures in the future.

I'm not advocating for going removing the 10 10 or no no my concern is misunderstood. I'm sorry.

No, I'm I'm not going for that and that's what I said that is in the code. So as of now for me I'm I'm happy with the code if does but my concern is on the actual map which is the next item on the agenda. The actual map I I was telling you on this on this side of the of of town I I don't see much of a difference because there is very little development. There is one to the west of the central part of it. Uh where go up a little bit point to the down a little bit. Yes. The second the second parcel. Yes. That there is a subdivision with about maybe 60 homes over there. Yeah.

Now I I saw the construction yesterday or the beginning of the construction. There is a road that is probably 100 feet away from the houses on on that particular site which is fantastic. 100 feet it has to be okay. And from there they are going to make the bu if they put a 10-story building over there, it's going to be away from the street another 50 ft or whatever. So that that area I don't have much of a concern with it. But I'm talking about the other places. Where do we have residential next to T6? You won't have the buffer will be such an extent just like you just said 100 foot away it would be fine. That's exactly the buffer.

Yeah. And if if you adopt this map, any future T6 would have to come to you all for your review and approval where you could

consider that. I would also point to once once once acreage gets over a certain amount, the code starts requiring a mix of zoning districts, which would mean in a situation, let's say you've got a 40 acre regional center, you've got a single family neighborhood next to it. What you would do is you would lay it out such that the T4 T5 is next to the R1 and then it steps up from there. You're not going to put the T6 next to the R1. Yes.

Okay. I just want to clarify because when we met today, it was my understanding that you said there was only one district in the zone, current zone that was a commercial district that allowed That's T6. T6 standard. Anything else would have to be reszoned and come back to this body. That's right. Correct. That's right. That's the only one that's based on this map that we're adopting would be zoned. The rest of them are land use and it's on the interstate which is a good place for 10. Am I understanding that correctly? Yes.

Back again on my trying to understand. I'm sorry I'm very slow in learning things but show me the map again and tell me what are the areas areas the only area that if this map is adopted can be is will be zoned T6 if you adopt it as is shown is this property right here in the future if additional people wanted to request zonings to T6 the only areas we would even present it to you are the ones that are in blue under standard review. Standard review or purple under enhance dark purple under enhanced review. Magenta magenta.

Magenta highlighter purple. Yeah. Is central and battlefield in that blue that's going T6. Central and battlefield is shown right here is urban neighborhood. Okay. which the most you could do in an urban neighborhood even if you get into enhanced review is T5 I just know there's been a lot of yes but it was approved prior to the adoption of the code prior to yes my concern was they were concerned about seven I didn't want to now all of a sudden give them the ability to go to 10 without so that's not they could ask for 10 no it's it's the brown right is it brown. It's brown.

It's brown, which is urban neighborhoods. So, if the PUD were to if the PUD were to go away, they would have to request zoning in accordance with the future land use map. Most they could ask for would be T5.1. Okay. Well, we currently have already done that property and there's a developers agreement in the works right now for the development. So, I know. I just wanted to make if it was blue and they're like, "Okay, now we're going to 10." That would We don't have 10 story buildings proposed. those neighbors what the emails have been have a heart attack. So, it's good though. It's brown. We're We're good. I just feel like if we I mean,

how are we not going to be able to pass the other 15 navy blue ones? If they're already zoned for that and we already have one area that we have, some of them are in the flight. Yep.

What I would if if that is a concern if allowing T6 under standard review and you're concerned that you know you won't have any ability to look at it like one potential compromise would be looking at T6 as an enhanced review in both regional center and uh the uh urban corridor. That is one middle ground. I don't know that I would want to create a whole additional zoning district for 10tory structures, but doing it under enhanced review where you have to take a closer look, that could be one way to accommodate,

you know, without having to I'm sorry. Go ahead. And isn't the whole purpose of what we've done with the land use is to make it predictable. Are we going to are we going to continue making each one where it's not? I mean, here shortly, the 10 acres that we just failed, has to have two zones in it. You'd have to do an R1 and an R2 in the new code, which is something I'm going to discuss here in a minute. You'd have to have two zones in it. And so, I mean, there's a lot of things that if you were going to go down this road would go through every one of these tricings. And so, uh, transect zoning, excuse me. Thank you. Uh

I I don't think it's unreasonable to really think through this and make sure we're being really careful with with something we haven't seen yet in Bentonville, you know, and make sure that those are in the appropriate places. You know, I think we're doing our due diligence here to make sure. I don't think that I don't apologize for that, but I do think this is a good plan and I would really like to pass this with the maybe the amendment that it T6 only comes in with enhanced what was an eight. I think we didn't put together the map with the codes until later. So, we're still trying to through the codes that the build plan that makes sense. The building on 8th Street, it is it is eight stories, correct?

On eight. Yeah, they the plaza. Yes, that was

so Yeah. Yeah, that is an So, we've had this discussion at planning commission in the past too. uh when we've looked at reszoning your requests to like C2 or C3, the old code had a had a provision that I think is having the opposite of the intended effect that you would normally want. So it allowed for in C3 or C2 if for every additional foot of setback you could go up one foot in height. So in a C2 or a C I'll use C3. It's the most extreme. uh if you know C3 has a maximum height of 60 feet but for each additional foot you set it back which C3 has a zero foot setback you can go up one foot in height. So even in today's code if someone had a deep enough lot and it was a C3 or C2 you could do an eightstory building or even taller than that. Now often what happens is it it can become cost prohibitive once you get above uh 75 ft and once you get above 120 feet because additional fire code requirements in at those two height thresholds

in that location I don't think anybody would argue that there's anything wrong with that the height of that building right I mean it's appropriate planning around that area right now so if we remove the predictability of T6 and those future land just if if we don't find a problem with it in in these blue areas. Um I don't know why we need to force enhanced review on every single one of them. That was an idea. Yes. And if it was an enhanced review, then that's something that the constituents would be aware of and they would be able to have opportunity

regard I mean regardless of whether it's standard review or enhanced review, it still goes through the same zoning process. It's just the review criteria we judge it against which the standard review enhanced review is in article 7. I'm I'm zoning still has to be voted up. Some con and and if they I mean I think that's a great solution to figure out what the constituents want. Would this body still have to vote on either one of the reviews? Yes,

that's what I'm saying. It just no differently can you turn down the R2 earlier? You could still turn down a T6 because this body will vote on it whether it's standard review or enhanced review. So, I'm not sure why we're going to force the applicant to go through an enhanced review process when we still have to vote on it. What What extra is included with enhanced review? That's my question. What's the difference between the two reviews? And does it have enhanced is it providing us the safety net that we think it's providing us here? Well, the question for me is, do you get to vote on it or not if it's standard review? Yeah. And we do. So, you can vote it down. That's the safety net you're looking for. When

you get into enhanced review, we start talking about uh does it lie? So, here's some of the things we we we would be evaluating that then ultimately though to Bill's point, it still goes to planning commission and city council for review um and ultimately recommendation adoption. So, would it result in exceeding existing or planned utility capacity for the place type? Does it lie on a place type boundary and is the requested district match a district applied on either side of that boundary? Is it within a quarter mile of transit, a four-lane road, or a shared use trail and additional travel man can be served by existing infrastructure? Is it within a mile of a job center? Uh, is it adjacent to vacant land and the requested district sets a clear pattern for compatible future development? Is it consistent with the surrounding development pattern or does it advance the goals of the comprehensive plan? So those are seven things that we would just talk about in our staff report. That is in addition to in general for standard review we talk about if it's a transct district having a transition of intensity from center to edge of the place type. Generally we want it to be within one transact degree of the zoning of adjacent properties. That's where I talked about earlier where you know there could some you could have transition buffer zones between these areas and then ultimately so that's kind of the baseline and then we can edit. I'm I'm very much in favor of predictability on the map and that's why I'm trying to understand and make sure that I have it correctly because as soon as we say yes that's what it is and and uh if if we give a higher level of uh buildability to some uh property then we cannot take it back because it is already given that's what I'm saying

it's not zoned though only piece that's being zoned denied is if we approve the zoning map the rest of it land use so it still has to be reszoned and approved by this body.

Yes, but it is it it is perfectly likely that it'll be just go through the standard review process and it'll come to us and and that is that is not predictability still because if there is already some potential conflicts like for me in the future will be if it is a 10-story building right next to a subdivision with single family homes I will not be happy with it even with 100 feet of display. But I'm happy with a 100 feet of separation be if it is between one building and the other or what one building and a factory or one building and the highway or whatever. But it is if if I see it as I said the the the dark

we're on a different map. Go back to the future land use. That's what I call that more of an this that's what's actually going to be changed. The zoning will change at the adoption of this for that. But the future land use which we're looking at the dark blue areas isn't this map. This is that's what'll be changed tonight. What is dark blue? I don't understand that. Is this the other map? I don't I don't see it. I'm sorry. Oh, can you go to the future list? But I'm not able to understand. Here's here it is. Blue. Okay. So, the right is the zoning map that we're going to approve tonight, which only has one area of T6. I don't have any problem with that.

And the left is well, excuse me, it would be your No, your left uh is the future land use with all the possible T6 locations. and possible six locations are. Now tell me there there is uh one on central I think and not far from the highway uh probably on Moberly is that that's a T6 right next to some apartments. Yes. Here that's the Walmart home office campus. Okay. Where is that's all that's all Yeah. There isn't one on that corner that people have been saying there's not a 10-story building on the corner there. Where is Central and Moly? Central Moverly is right right there.

Okay. So, what is Central? I'm sorry. That's Moly and Aberly. One of the central one of the Mohu and those are that is uh the the train rails uh used to go through there. Uhhuh. And that is essentially the computer center for Walmart. They can do 20 stories. I don't have a problem. But that backs up to a neighborhood. Yes. But it is a street mind. A street separating them. That's what I'm saying. Where are the potential T6s together with homes?

That is that doesn't count because there is a street that separates them. Where is where they are together? We got here got here. But you already kind of talked through that area. That's the home office that you're on right there. This is home office. Yep. This is uh momentary and the surrounding vicinity. That's I guess a station. We've got old home. That's where the old home office Gateway Park. So here's Melissa the dogs. the whole thing

and then you have where the hotel is going or whatever's going on the corner of 102 and I street there park thank you thank you for the explanation that is clearing most of my concerns where is keep on here is uh 41st and I so you got this so city owns this here's the the uh animal services building here community centers here limited there because of the airport. So you won't be able to go up full 10 story and all that because the airport and you got to put a hole through the building so they can automatically

those are the ones that will have the automatic potential to become T6s, right? Not automatic. We still have to approve that's what I meant standard review for T6s. Now there are the potential or enhanced review for T6. What are those? the this dark purple. So the urban corridor this I think uh it was called magenta magenta these areas which if you look at where the urban corridor is located you've got the kind of this vendor office space in here here's northwest medical down here so you're near I49 you're on Walt Boulevard

where the clear animal is and where the other hotel is all the office Yes, it is. It's all kind of two and then you've got north walls or streets or air force or nothing but the concern is something that it is right next to residential which would be if you look at view no but as I said those are not uh by right right that's

that's enhanced view that's pos the possibility the the pink the dark pink or magenta or whatever it is it is the the potential to be T6. The dark blue is what we are renaming now if we approve it the the T6s that's on our agenda here shortly to approve that land use. No, that's just that's s standard review standard. The only one we're approving is just show them Tyler again. The only one that automatically would be 26 is the one up on the right hand corner outlined in green. All that right correct no other dark automatic automatically. Yes.

I'm done with my questions. But I go back I I like the enhanced review for the possibilities of the other if this particular one passes tonight because I do think I I I like the criteria that you listed. I feel like those are things that are very valuable to the constituent and I would be on board if we could look at the other T6s as having a enhanced review. Already gone through a lot of that to create those dark blue sections. Anyway, Tyler, that's what we've already done.

That's that's true. And that is the the projections of the flume are based that model is what is now plugged into our wastewater model the president say. So are you saying that if we approve the standard review that would come with the map basically then as that comes to us then basically rather than the department asking all these questions and doing the background we have to do it on our own if those are the questions we want answered

well either they're in the proposal that passes planning commission we either have an expectation that they'll use the criteria in the standard review or the criteria in the enhanced review. And I think that's where we're at trying to decide on any kind of reasoning that's referred to us from planning commission. Do we want them using the criteria that's in the enhanced review in their decision making and referrals? I would rather developer know beforehand of the enhanced review than get to city council and us have the questions and be like if you listen to your enhanced know

if you listen to your enhanced review what is going to be a a 10story building and where it's going to be it's going to be a commerce center it's going to be at connector points it's going to have a trail system it's going to be where everybody you're coming and doing all everything that you're asking for it to be in enhanced review. It's only located in those areas because it is going to be an employment base some way or another to have 10 stories. What what are you going to fill it with? If it's mixed use, you still have to do different zones. It Well, if it is and if it's an appropriate place, then no, no problem. But it doesn't necessarily need to have an enhanced review for predictability for a developer. I mean, that's a lot of

extra things. Maybe Tyler, you and I talked about a bit of a compromise on the kind of waiting to see how this conversation can be. But I've got all kinds of optimizes in mind. I just need to know what direction we need to go. I think the T6 personally is should be we have a chance to vote for it either way. You can get any information you want anytime you want on any project you want. And we've worked really hard on this and so I do want to try to get something through here. Um You could you could do it keep it as is. You could do the 6.1 is er and regional center.

You could you could even look if if the issue is 10, what does the height and stories need to be? Is it eight 10? What is it? Like there. So that is that is another you know op potential option. If 10's a bridge too far, does eight work? We No, not with the additional parking that's going to be required. You're going to have multiple stories of parking. You're going to 10 is is barely enough in the future. And just putting it out there. So, um either we agree with 10 10 stories and there's no other place but regional centers that we're going to and city centers that we're going to have these.

Not city center. Well, excuse me. We've all got to learn. Yeah, I city regional center and urban corridor. Thank you. are the districts that allow it with the Let me get my verbage straight. You're you're all good. Well, just looking at that map on the navy blue on Moly that is right next to R1 and that's what the height transitions are for. like that is that is what they are intended to solve which we haven't dug into that. Yeah, that's what so it could very well.

Well, even if even if a property were to be zoned T6, you still have to provide for adequate height transitions, which is listed here. So if it's adjacent to R1, you're limited to the R1 maximum height within 50 feet between 50 feet and 100 ft. Two additional stories not to exceed 30 feet above the R1 height maximum height. If it's adjacent to T3T4, it's limited to the maximum height of the abuing lot plus one story, not to exceed 50 additional feet within 50 feet. between 50 and 100 feet, you are allowed two additional stories not to exceed 30 additional feet. So what does that look like in practice? That's what this image is for. If I've got T3.2, which has a height maximum three stories, within 50 feet, you can go up four stories. Within 100 feet, you can go up uh you can go up to six stories. And then beyond 100 feet, you could get the full 10 stories

if there's nothing on the other side restricting your height coming the other direction. That's that's a good point. Yes. So I mean basically the building tallest in the center of the property. Like I said, I wanted to point out the building that's on 8th Street is eight. That actually can be and I think they were trying to do these transition zones to account for that. So that's I think they did it again.

They They have worked really hard trying to listen to everybody and and you do still have to you still are going to vote on it in those section. So again, the only one going through zoning is what's in green showing you tonight. But um like we've we've struggled a a little bit with this. Um, again, some of the compromises Tyler and I talked about was is eight stories is that a comp is that a compromise going from 10 to eight that everybody would feel comfortable, but you still are going to review that. Um, based on all the conversations we've had and they the eight story seemed to be something that most would get on board with and

you're saying well that was the compromise in option one compromise would be instead of the max being 10 is it eight or I think that would be a significant failure. In reality, an eightstory versus a 10story next to a single family home. What is there any difference? You won't be able to build that story next transitions. That's what I was trying. But we're talking about dramatic, but yeah, 100 foot away. What's two stories? I don't think it's going to make a difference. And that's I'm just trying to put some things in front of you and how they got there. And I guess

we talked about 10 story a long time ago. Um, this is new and a new concept. As a matter of reference, the Empire State Building was built 95 years ago. 95 years ago was completed and it has 102 floors built 95 years ago. The other the tallest building in uh uh Dubai which I visited a few years ago has 163 floors. 163. So if we are talking 10 that's peanuts. We have 10 stories in Little Rock that were built over 50 years ago. So, I mean, it's 10 stories. Yeah, there's 10 stories in Ro. Yeah.

If we're going to grow to a city of 250,000 people or whatever the number might be, we're going to and we need the tax space have 10 story buildings in certain you have what's in front of you. I'm just Tyler and I had talked about that we could if we wanted to listen to your conversation and so we had talked about a couple things that we could but well I mean mentioning those to you

in my opinion we the dark blue areas have been vetted for this specific purpose. We have protections for the single families with the height transitions and we it also has to come back here. If there's something that is not that that sticks out that's odd that hadn't been thought through, it still has to come back here. So I don't blanket saying everyone has to go through enhanced review right now doesn't really make sense to me. Again, I would rather them have the expectation upfront than to wait till they got here.

Do we want to take They know up front they can plan for it. Do we want to make a hand vote so he can have some direction on this one subject? There's a lot of things to go through in this document. Should we say or let him know? Do we want the body majority feels that we change it to enhanced review or we leave it standard review and count on the vote? The best way to accommodate that. Is that all right with you to just you can discuss what you're you're on the public. We got a lot more to go over before we're not before we adopt this, but this is just one segment in this whole doc

be a very rare thing, right? Like this hopefully I mean so I don't I just doesn't seem like inquir requiring enhanced review is unreasonable. Well, I would say that for if you're wanting to do the full I think we'll have more pressure on us as we grow and we continue to try to develop these um we can either continue to live

we want to go higher but we have to consider the constituents that we have in this community now the people that live and work here and what they feel about the city and how it grows. So maybe in 20 30 years we still have a lot of pressure on us to go higher. We don't necessarily have to do it now.

I just for those that that remember when we lost the Scottsdale deal and all the retail went on the other side in Rogers and we lost all the tax space and for those of us remember that when the towers went up in the vendor community and we didn't allow any of that construction here or we we didn't do our infrastructure needs all the tax base goes to other communities. We struggle with our road improvements because of our tax base. We don't have the tax base of the communities that went forward in knowing that these were going to be in high demand. We have the largest influx of Fortune 500 companies here supporting the world's largest retailer. We have the best we'll have the best medical. We have great schools. We have a new school coming. We we can either engage and have have these things developed here in our tax base or we continue which I've watched for 30 years continue to go to other municipalities where they can build a roundabout every 100 ft. They have the money to do basically what they need to do because their sales tax and their tax base far exceeds ours. So we can continue pushing that development to other locations, Pinnacle, Rogers, wherever it may be. or we can at least to a 10-story level acknowledge that that's going to be necessary in in a core areas and try to gather some of that and and create that experience here which will have mixed use will have all these things embedded with it and also create a tax base for us that we can actually support the infrastructure to bring all these people in. So I I think it would be shortsighted. I've watched it happen so many times before I even was on this council and pleaded with this municipality to not do it to please engage these people to bring the businesses here to our side to our municipality so we can have the tax base

and instead we didn't and we now have not been able to catch up since the day that happened. It's not so bad that people quit moving here and in fact they just keep flocking here. So, I don't It's not so bad until you can't support it because we don't have the tax base. We still got to listen to the constituents and the people that are designing their city. Well, then you can vote on the zoning. Absolutely. Oh, no. On the zoning.

Oh, I think the code has been is the result of a significant effort by the city personnel and company. And uh my only consideration, my only concern had been about the height of the of the buildings, not of not of my own idea, but ideas that came from citizens and and and the residents of the city. And that's why I came deep into it to my understanding to see what is the impact of having 10tory buildings. Are they going to be next to a one-story home? No, that is not the case. And it's going to be separation preferably by blocks or by at least a highway in between or something like that big time which is which is the case on all of the properties that I saw. Uh there is a motion on the table to approve the the community code as it is day.

Well I have some additional questions if that's okay. There there is also a second. So if we are done on this item I mean on this particular subject let's go into the next quest set of questions that Bill has. I'm just trying to give Tyler guidance on this subject matter so he knows if he needs to do something or not. If not, then I can go on to my questions and we come back to this. Just thank you. Thank you.

Uh first of all, Shelley, uh thank you for well over a year's worth of work and all of the staff here. This has been going on and all the public input. This has been going on a very long time. Uh I know we were trying to pass this back in June, July last year and and uh it's continued to move on and more public input. So uh my questions have to make sure that I understand thoroughly on what I'm passing. There's some questions that I have. Uh but it's not to say that the hard work that all the team has done, particularly the the staff and you mayor and everybody involved trying to bring this to to this point. uh as my question has always been and I I'm leaning more for answers from y'all um on do you do you understand it the same way or maybe Tyler can explain it to me. Uh I first want to ask about the utility locations. So Preston maybe you can help me or if Travis is here that would be great. Uh with the new rideaway layouts, uh they work uh basically we end up between the easements required if you don't have an alley. Uh between the easements required and the setbacks from utilities and the separation, you end up with the basically the same amount of distance to your your easement lines that you do now. So, it really doesn't change things other than you do have more cost in the street right away because of the additional parkways, wider sidewalks, things like that. Most of my comments are going to be about residential because that's the that's my biggest concern is for the bulk of our housing and how do we maintain some affordability in our housing. So, I'm really focusing on 10 acres or less because that's the smaller projects that more people can do in today's prices and how this affects those projects and what will it do to the housing cost within

those projects. Uh the utility layouts seem to work uh on these. I did have a question though because we really are promoting alley construction in most of this zoning but I don't see a utility fixed utility diagram like I do without alley alleys in any of the road crosssections. So like if we have an alley where's the electrical going to go where's in the back like we had talked about but I don't see any of those in any of the descriptions that I have here any of the alley related utility placements. Um it just gives me a generic discussion topic. So have we not been able to get a fixed utility layout for an alley layout?

Uh not for dry utilities. Dry utilities mean so even yeah even previous drafts of this that had a

a alley utility layout uh the intent was it would be dry utilities in the back wet utilities up front. So water sewer, we've worked through all of the utility layouts with water sewer. If you want to put lo utilities within alleys, on street rideways, like if you want to do trail oriented development and want to put utilities within a trail or if it's for uh you know infill where there is sig well when I say infill that is more specifically defined as like your downtown where we have tight utility constraints. That's where we have what's called a uh infrastructure coordination conference that's scheduled where those issues are worked out hosted by planning but it's worked out between water, sewer, electric, transportation for non-standard utility.

I would like to see not necessarily for the passage of this but to have a defined utility layout. We did one in Glenn Arbor. It worked beautifully along the alley. I thought we were leading toward that direction for the dry utilities in the back. Um, but to have since we have such a change in our ride ofways and what we're being demanded on, it wouldn't be nice to have that predictable as well. So, I'm not sure why we couldn't move that needle to the final point, but if we could, that would be great sooner rather than later. That's been a big conversation over the last five years. Everybody has to go into a conference to have this discussion, so forth and so on. Instead of just like you've done in the front, it should be able to be done with the alleys. And so it would make it a lot easier just to have that layout. You know what you have to do. Then you can determine your footprint just like that and you don't have any other questions. So I would ask that that gets more predictable when it go regards to the utility layout. Last question on the utilities on your uh water services uh Travis and this would only relate where it comes to hydrants because you're separating your yard lines on either side, your water on either side. Uh this is on page 190 for an example. Uh it's not the intention on other water lines where you could still do a double meter set because in this case you couldn't come through because of the hydrant. So you do a single meter set on each lot. So you're but it doesn't show where you don't have a hydrant where you could still do a double meter set. So yes, this is typical layouts, but based on single or double installation of services, we're going to refer to our utility specification.

Okay. That are current that we currently currently these are labeled as figures, not tables. Yeah. So it's kind of hard to meet every situation in a diagram. And it's kind of why we we kind of landed where we did on the alleys because, you know, if you have alleys in the h in the back, you know, you're going to have garages going to the back. So then what's the distance from the garage to the alley? What's the width of the alley? That's defined, you know, and so all that it, you know, so we didn't think it was a big ask if there were big developments of tracks bringing alleys in to bring the the owner, the developer in and let's discuss that. Not saying we're not we're against it. Well, we've done we're just saying it's not a big ass to come in discuss those things.

Well, we've been able to y'all have done a great job on sewer and water. I mean, you've gone even to the amount of distance to the overhang from the pedestal of the electric in the front. So, it's not like we haven't done hard work on placement. We're only talking about putting a couple utilities in the back. You would set a minimum for the driveway parking for the for the garage like we did on the on the other example that I gave. Um, but I would like to see an example, a hard example of what an alley configuration would be. the distance from center line, the distance for the easements, and that way you you knew how far that driveway had to be and what your easements had to be. So, you could pre-esign it. Most of us design these things before y'all ever see it. And so, it'd be helpful if we knew some parameters or here's your best best practice of these utility layouts would give us a head start. Um, but that's the only uh

even on these drawings like I know there's the seven foot uh easement on the one I've got on the screen right now. That's to account for the seven foot clearance from primary electric. If I were to lay this out or if you were to lay it out, the easy fix on this one is if you were to swap the telecom and the electric location, then you just have to provide for the separation from telecom to electrics up front then telecom and then that east. You can't because of the distance from the back of curve the primary and the transformer box in my understanding.

Yeah. Um, so if you look at this, we still end up I mean the rideaway distance and when and you're talking about the clearances, we're still at very similar to what we have before with the enhanced cost of the planners. Uh, but that clarified my utility question. If we could address that, it doesn't have to be addressed tonight, but I think it's imperative that it is addressed. If you can go to all the trouble to do it a layout of all the utilities in front without an alley, the alley only makes it easier because you have more places to put it. So why couldn't we just finish this discussion and be done with that for the for our uniform development code? We've been having the same conversation for almost a decade about utilities and alleys and rears. And so can we just finish it? That would be great. Um, so I'm going to I'm going to try to go through this and and talk solely about residential. There are a few things in the commercial area in the later T-zones that talk about 12 foot inside your building that you have to give up for basically what I would call an experience zone for whether it's museum or artwork. But think about every building that you build, you're giving up that lease space.

Are you talking about the ground, the active uses? Yes. The active uses on the on the I'm just trying to leave commercial behind here for a minute. This is the last thing that I really don't understand is your size of your building on your on your forefront, I guess, is how you say it. Four four and your and demanding 12 foot of your area as you step into each building to be What do you call it again? Accent active use.

Active use. Uh I could see an entire area maybe defining one building if it's a large building of that's your foyer area that would have that, but requiring everything 12 foot. It seems excessive and you're taking away viable rental property and make that property viable. I'm not sure why we're demanding that on every single floor. It's only on the ground floor that Right. No, I I get it. I get that. Um

that could be entrances, lobbies, reception areas. Like it doesn't have to be just commercial, but could be shared space. Do we have to specify that it has to be 12t when somebody could do 11 or 10 or six? I think we should leave it to the developer. It's like exhibits need exhibits is one of them you know you could you know but it's creating a space there for other than maybe necessarily leased up space the developer to build something that it may not be necessary in some cases it'll be good that's what I'm saying if you leave it to the developer to do one foot or 20 or whatever let them have it

across the whole ground floor I'm sorry go the the only reason you Do you want to specify some logical depth is otherwise if we just say active uses must be incorporated on the ground floor at T5 or T6 buildings developer could feasibly set have a a one foot deep uh space and say yep this is my art gallery space and they would meet the requirements they have to have some that should be enough. So, we want to make sure that we have an exhibit space or a or basically a storefront 12- foot deep interior to create these spaces on every ground level across the board

only within a build two zone and only in T5 and T6 which is mostly your commercial zones. Uh there we also have highway commercial or general commercial. The space is going to be built into the building otherwise the building doesn't make sense. you're not opening the door to the to the office street. So, it has to be a for it has to be a kind of an entrance over there. Let them design it in the way they want to. I'm just curious. I mean, I I'm just making sure I This is for the entire length of the building that is fronting the that scenario. All of it has to be that way. Is that a correct statement? I'm just making sure that I understand.

It's only within the build to area. So, the build to area would be along your frontage. So it would be within So if I've got a zero to 12 foot front setback, any portion of the building that's within that build to zone has to have some kind of active use. Okay. And it would be across any all of the area that is within that zero to 12 foot only on the ground floor. But yes, uh just throwing it out there. I just I thought that's what it was

because otherwise you know when you get into especially T5.1 and again looking for consensus on this you get into T51 T52 um I've also heard concerns from other people uh in the community about like if it's in a T5 allowing in a bill to zone allowing like the the look from the sidewalk which in a T5 it could be up to 10 feet away like looking looking to your right and seeing someone's living room. That's part of why you have these build to areas built in.

Or you could bring a cafe out to the very edge and have a nice foyer with your with your exhibits in the middle and you could have that as extra dining room overlooking the the walkway. Yeah. And those those would be other spaces for regular use frequent occupants just

um it the only areas that I find in this this whole thing is that we're getting so far into the details even to what materials on residential that we're we if we could have stopped short just a little bit it would have been helpful for me in some of the high details. That's the only other question I had on on commercial because I just think that demanding 12 foot of only these spaces is challenging. Um, and with the limited space you have on these depthwise plus the parking requirements, um, it's going to you need all the space you can possibly get. And you also have the cost of all the glazing which is going to add 20 to 25% of that entire floor cost additionally to what it is now. So you already have additional cost in the glazing. You already have additional cost in in improving these these these road sections to this extent. Uh you already have if it's a larger project civic spaces. So do you have to also give up 12oot across the entire length? Just a question you all can decide. I just uh and it is a it's a challenge to me to to knowing what these costs are. Um, or you could block off a certain area that if you're doing a building that's, you know, 50 foot wide, a certain percentage of it had to be this active use space. I don't know, maybe you could have adjust that to compromise. So, to your question, for me, if you could put a percentage of the building frontage as active use space that you think would accommodate a breakup, I would prefer that over the entire length of space.

Good work. That's reasonable. that could work. And if even if it's even if it's 30% or or whatever, I mean, and people might want to do more. Yeah. It just depends. But I think I think the intent is really trying to avoid like the the view from the pedestrian scale along like a a T5 corridor where it has a build to zone being like or like like it like a dining room. There's an example across the street here. The shadow box, right? That's what you're trying to avoid. Well, no. That would be an exhibit space because there's stuff that's actually But it's only two foot deep, right? Well, that's a good point. Yeah.

So, I mean, I I would if if I would consider certainly it's not just up to me. And I would just say if you if there was a percentage to where you could take advantage of the full width, but then also it would have that entry fill or access fill uh to where it wasn't just one straight line. And you had you had view in I think would break it up a little bit. You could even call it 50%. Okay. So if y'all whatever y'all think I mean if that would line up with the glazing requirement on ground floor too which is 50%.

If you could align it with that I think it'd be helpful. People will do more if they want to have that full look inside an exhibit space but as a minimum that would be at least aligned with your glazing because they're not looking at anything if it's not glazed. I'm very confident that the architects will design a building that incorporates those elements. There's no need for us to indicate it. And if it is 50% instead of the whole thing, I'll go for

Yeah. And if it's 50% glazing, the rest of it wall, right? You're not looking through it anyway. Unless you have this provision. I'm not sure how that would work if you don't have glazing in. How would that work? If you only have a 50% glazing requirement, how would they see in the other areas? Good point, Bill. Yeah, we can put up that.

So, aligning it with glazing probably makes sense. Um, so I would like to get down and so I'm going to try to just narrow this down to 10 acres or less. You get over 10 acres, you get to 20, 30, 40 acres. It makes sense to have a minimum of two zones above 10 acres. But to our discussion earlier, imagine if you tried to force the person that's trying to do R1 to do two zones and break that up into two zonings in that 10 acres or less. Over that, I get it. Under that, your restrictions of what you're dedicating already under this new plan and what you're being demanded of is is challenging at best to make a project which is going to be the typical size if not less. Uh but 10 acres is fairly feasible still for independent builders and developers. Uh at least it's kind of my my range without having to get other equities and different things. So there's a couple things that comes into 10 acres or less that I would like to go through um and how the POA and their own homes homeowners are going to afford this. So we have we have civic spaces. So we're going to have 10 acres are going to have civic spaces required.

Yeah.

Okay. So civic spaces are a mandatory space proportional to the size. It's and it it's not just a green space. It's not just a yard or or areas that's not suitable to build. It is a defined within the core of the of the neighborhood. You also have a midblock trail that's demanded. Has a 20-oot easement plus the trail plus landscaping on both sides of the trail all the way through. So you have a combination of even on the smallest one 11 foot planters on both sides of the street that has to be maintained kept up irrigation. City's not going to maintain all these within the neighborhood. So it's going to have to be the POA. You're going to have to maintain the civic space. You're going to have to m maintain the trail space. You're going to have additional screening requirements that's better than just evergreens. uh and you're turning a you're turning a 10acre site to having additional cost. Landscaping uh with the screening and the new landscaping requirements will be 20 15 to 25% higher. The phasing uh we won't get into phasing at the moment. Professional fees will be up by 10% because of the additional cost of your street your uh your your tree surveys plus the uh the phasing surveys. You'll have infrastructure because of this additional infrastructure of sidewalk widths, planting areas. Uh you'll also have probably I'm using 250 as a cost. 50 to 500 was the range I got from the engineers. I'm using 250. This is a 10acre site. Uh so just to give you a round number on a 10acre site, assuming that we're only doing uh say we can get 12 units an acre. That's that's what it would be allowed for. Just I know we don't do units per acre, but say to your point, you got that. Wastewater fees 23 $2.3

million, not including old impact fees. Okay. Your street construction based on the new footprint of the demand is another4 million. Sidewalk and streetscapes, furniture, trees, lighting, everything that's required is another quarter million dollars. Uh we'll skip the glazing because that's more for commercial. Professional fees will be another 60,000. Civic space mandate will be 100,000 depending on it'll be 50 to 100,000. Now say you develop that and that can fit in your home prices. Now we are demanding people to give us civic spaces, give us trails. Roads is one thing, sidewalks over 5 foot is another, but we're demanding people in the small neighborhoods to now take on an ownership of something that is really for public use. We're asking them where POA dues for anybody that's trying to build an affordable or live in an affordable neighborhood to have much higher POA dues. The average contract without all this is around $60,000 a year for an average 10acre site. That's not including any of this stuff. So, you're talking about POA dues that'll far exceed what they do now, which is going to be another payment they're going to be required to make. All of this is put on the neighborhood. It's not put on the city. It's only put on first the buyer has to pay more for the house to accommodate this pass through with margin. Now, you add up all the fees that we've got on a 10 acre site, 12 units an acre, including the capacity fees, not including existing fees, is an additional $3.4 million on a 10acre site. Now, I'm just trying to give you reality

of what we're passing through to our homeowners. How is the POA going to maintain all of that extra cost? Now, typically people choose if they want to have all those amenities in a neighborhood and they choose to pay the POA dues. We're not given an option anymore. So,

take those things one at a time. Let's start because I I hear you on trails. I hear you on civic space. Maybe let's start with the civic space. So development we say it is true we do say when you get over six acres we do require a portion of the site to be set aside as what's called civic space but those are really meant to be open spaces primarily. We also say if a site is less than 10 acres within half a mile of a public park they may have their civic space requirements removed. So, if you're within a half mile of a public park, which is the typical metric that David uses when we're planning our future parks facilities, making sure everyone is within walking distance of a park. If you're within a half mile, we wouldn't require civic space requirements. Um, now we do and then we get into some of the specific stand.

Can we extend that to a mile as the road as you drive, not as the bird flies? a mile as you drive, not as the birds fly. So that you could walk to the park within a mile is what you're saying, right? But but here's the thing. You if I choose to put parks in my neighborhoods of 10 acres or less, but it's a choice my homeowners are making to pay those additional POA dues. We're not giving any choices in a POA. Don't want to pay maybe they're okay with $100 a year for the

Yeah. If I'm trying to build a 70% of area median or excuse me if 50% of the area median income and I'm trying to build it at uh you know just below that say 60 to 80% of area median income. I'm trying to build a place that every dollar matters and you you get the POA dues to $200 $300 a month which is where it's going to be. It's challenging for them because that's a mandatory monthly payment. Uh was that civic space that open space that include detention bonds? No, it okay. It said excluding not not allowable is what I read in the in the civic space.

Yes. Storm water storage and treatment is limited within civic space by the ranges ranges specified in table 5.7 civic space types and as follows. So there are specific standards where we would allow for storm water uh detention facilities to count. So if you're setting aside say an open space area, we would count up to 100% of this area would count towards your civic space requirements. If it's what we would call a in what size? That is a one half acre minimum.

Okay. So, if I set aside now, the location of the civic space has to be in a in a in a particular location. Now, we're jumping back up here. Oh, I'm sorry. It's just all civic space. Sorry. Yep. So, if I get back down to here, I guess simply for me, I don't think you should force trails and civic spaces when you already have this additional rideway cost in planners and and this additional widths of sidewalks in that small of a neighborhood. I could simplify my questions in that.

What's continue, Tyler? So if you've got if you're building out a plaza, we'll allow for up to 100% your civic space. You could do subgrade storage or you could do 20% on surface.

Subgrade storage is too expensive for a neighborhood setup. So I'm just talking about neighborhoods. I'm talking about residential neighborhoods. I'm not not plazas, not not I'm just talking about a residential neighborhood trying to produce what we're looking at doing whether it's in whatever transact zone. Um, but what if you're trying to do an R1 in acres or less? Um, with only se 2.7 units per acre when you ultimately get there and you're having to I'm just worried about that's a lot of cost to carry when you're increasing your road cost already and your your planners and your sidewalks. you already have this infrastructure cost increase already without taking more land and then they have to maintain it and it's considered a civic space. Can you keep others from going to that civic space public?

Well, we took out the note in here where it said it must be open to the public. So, so this is only for the owners, right? Uh we it is not it does not require it to be open to the public. So, this is only for the owners if they choose. Basically, we're saying you have to have a civic space in your neighborhood whether you want it or not. Well, we previously said it was open to the public and then in a previous you said that would be a takings.

It would be a takings because you're demanding a space to be reserved for the public while not reimbursing them and requiring them to maintain it. And so, yes, it would be a takings. you're you're you're demanding something of somebody else and not reimbursing them for it. Uh and also requiring them to maintain it. That that is something I will I will fight forever on on a takings claim. So uh now the question is now with that adjustment uh should it be required for really anything under 10 acres? I don't know. It's up to y'all. That's my biggest point. And I I mean I can go through all the cost increases for the new landscaping plans for the the new planters of the different rideways whether it's 9 or 11 ft and the rubber mulch that's going to have to go in there and the irrigation that's going to have to go in there to keep these trees alive. Uh who's going to maintain all that? Well, the POA will be you know how much that's going to be. You know how much irrigation is now. So it's it's an expensive endeavor for a neighborhood, small neighborhood. We have said repeatedly that we would like to have uh less expensive homes in the city in order for uh people with less income to be able to have them. But with all those requirements even for a six six uh acre parcel, it it will I think significantly increase not only the cost of building it, but also the cost to operate it with the expenses paid by the POA, which will increase the expenses that the homeowners will have to pay for the rents, the renters if it is owned and rented by somebody else. So that is that is that is contrary to what we have said repeatedly that we want to uh reduce the cost of housing in the city. This uh particular uh chapter of the code in the

way that Bill has presented it now it it clearly shows that we are making it more expensive.

Well I think that you have the additional I agree with the connections. We have to have the additional connections. They're laying out the blocks in a block type demanding connection points. So, there's going to be additional connections anyway. So, there's additional road cost. Uh I if you're going to do this format inside these small neighborhoods and these rightaway designs which so yes it will add more cost but I if we continue to we're dripping it in the wrong direction additional cost over time once you get above a certain level having civic spaces because you have to have have multiple zones different zonings within that I I get

the multiple zonings I may have misspoke that only kicks in when you get above 20 acres or more. I just looked at that a second, but once if you're between once you get to 20, you have to provide for two zoning districts. Now, I want to let's can we park the civic space because I'll be honest, civic space is both for Benville and Rogers. It is probably the single code section that has gotten the most feedback in both of those communities over the course of the last however period of time. But I do want to say on streets, you may have noticed that the neighborhood street on page 171 that allows for a 22 foot face of curb face of curb which was eliminated as a local street section in the master street plan. It is back with a 45 foot wide rideway which would accommodate a five- foot sidewalk on both sides, a 6 foot6 inch green space which that could be a continuous planting strip where you would plant your trees and 11 foot drive lanes.

Yes. Under the neighborhood under the neighborhood side street. Yes, correct. 45 which would be an R1 which would be allowed in R1, T3 and T4. Yes. So that that allows this to have the offset of the cost of the additional planning and irrigation requirements down through there, right? Because your utilities still go out uh you still have a a a footprint there

uh that goes out further if you lay it all out based on the designs of the utilities. But it does allow in the so if you do this street in a neighborhood you will have additional cost in the plannings and irrigation but it's not near if you have to add all the other aspects to this. I don't I like this typology for a small neighborhood. I think it's great. Uh I think the utility layout without alleys works on this typology. What Bill let me ask because I I may be to this. What do you do with the front yard tree and the ride-of-way tree that we require to be planted today? Do you

Well, not not all the neighborhoods. It it requires the homeowner to own to water the tree, right? Which is what we would do in this scenario because this is a neighborhood street and unfortunately they don't always

and we're holding we're holding the developer to maintain that for longer than property. But uh yes, in the streetscape like this, if if you you will have if you're going to irrigate it, then you will have to have the additional POA dues. You can force the owners to water their own trees, which we did in Glen Arbor. The entire neighborhood has to be watered on their own because they couldn't afford the additional POA dues over all the parks that we had and everything else. They they have to water their yard. Now, we mow it. It's part of the fee, but they have to water their yard. So that's just part of their life, but they're choosing that they get to choose. They don't want to spend the money on the irrigation and take the responsibility for it. So I just I'm trying to find a a way that we can do these smaller neighborhoods without using up too much land. Just an easement around a trail, midblock trail is 20 ft with five foot landscaping on both sides.

Yeah. A very simple concept is the more we demand from the developer, the more expensive it is, the more difficult is for people to obtain those those homes. It all gets added to the home price with a margin and then it's financed with interest carry. And I I just know where our housing is heading where it is now. And if we can get is the small if the small site should be up to 10 acres where you can remove some of these things and just deal with the typology of the street and deal with the block new block design, deal with the new setbacks um and maybe not have the the uh we've we got to deal with the trees. We have to have a tree survey. We'll have mitigations with those. That's a that's some cost there. uh I'll forego all my discussions on any of this on those items which I have many because it's additional cost. Um but taking up valuable real estate after you're already eating up easements, you're already dedicating your road typology, then you've got extension of utilities based on these plus the extension to the overhang which we're now going to the overhang. It says foundation, but in the utilities it says to overhang because they have to have the 10-ft separation. So, we already we've got a great design for utilities. I think will work. We can still get our houses about the same where they are now. Um, we got some reduced setbacks in the rear and the sides that will accommodate a little better density, but it doesn't accommodate additional space being taken or the people that are going to live there. It's their choice whether they want civil inside civic space inside their property or not. Do they want to pickle ball and pay for it or do they not? That is a decision for somebody to

purchase that from that neighborhood whether it's provided their experience or not not to be demanded. Otherwise, everybody has to pay no matter what. So, we already as it stands we already have developers that are choosing to do those type of developments. And then we have developers that are choosing not to do the correct development so that we have an option for basically every neighborhood has to put put hand in kind of like a pud had to do to get that additional approval.

But a lot of neighborhoods don't put anything in. That's where you're getting some of the affordable housing over at Centerton and others because they're just doing straight flat. Here's the house. Here's the house. There's no amenities. There's no civic space. Nothing. That's their choice. But their house price is also 100 grand less than most. But we need the housing. But if we demand every subdivision, they would no longer be able to even offer those because they'd have the additional cost and the POA dues in those. They would have to form a POA to maintain those, which currently they do not. I suggest you shouldn't have to have a POA if you build a neighborhood that you don't want to have one and the homeowners can't afford it. What is what will be your proposal to change in this particular code that we are presented? I would for me and it can be discussed 10 acres or less shouldn't be mandatory civic space or trail space unless it's on the master street plan to connect a trail or already or a road or but to add any midblock trails or add any civic spaces into those properties reduces the number count which raises the prices to such an extent small part.

Can we can we can we jump to the trails? I hear you on the civic space. Can we on the trails I you let me know. Maybe I missed it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Where where are we requiring trails other than I know we do for we require a midblock trail, but that's only when the block length gets over a certain amount. And the purpose for that is so that you don't have a long swath before someone can make it to the opposite side of the block.

Um I may have lost my map piece. Can you pull up that midblock trail map that you have on that's in the code? I had it here. I thought I brought it. Maybe I didn't. I apologize for that. Now, I will preface this. A lot of people may think this is personally driven. Um, I have zero on the books in development or in the foreseeable future period because I can't afford the cost of I can't develop in Bentonville anymore right now. So, this isn't for this is about housing prices and whoever does it is going to still have the same cost increase and the same margin. So, this isn't about me. I don't have anything on the books period. You won't see anything from me for years because I can't do it anymore. We look under 3D if a non-exempt block, which we have exemptions for block link standards for things like uh let's say if it's adjacent to a floodplane floodway doesn't make a whole lot of sense to require a a block perimeter standard. So if a non-exempt block is longer than 500 ft, a midblock trail must be be added through the block following subsection four. There we we talk about what is a midblock trail? Well, in general commercial, it could be satisfied with pedestrian walkways through parking areas which we already require or under sea. Midblock trails are not required in T2, R1, T3.1, LI and LFI where we do require them. They have to meet the standards of trails and bike lanes. But it that minimum width of easement track or rideway may be reduced if to if it's

in order to uh demonstrate adherence to other design statements. So can you scroll down to the midblock residential? Which one? This one. Uh that's fine. Yeah. So if you have a 10 acre, more than likely you're over 500 feet. Is that pretty fair statement? Well, or you could break up your block structure with streets or major driveways. You have streets there, but it so a midblock.

Another way to do this would be if you were to instead of that being midblock trail, you could break it up with an alley like what's depicted elsewhere or more pedestrian walkway, you could break it up with other types of rights of way. It doesn't necessarily have to be trail. I'm just trying not to lose the 20 feet. In a 10acre parcel, you could also reduce the size of this block or the length of the block according and the length of the block will be determined by the parcel. So a block length is 660 ft, right?

Streets, civic spaces, and trails delineate the sides of blocks known as the block perimeter. So it's your exterior rights. So again, if it's a residential neighborhood and it's over 500 ft, unless I do something else there or throw an alley in there or something else, you're going to give up that space one way or the other.

You would you would provide for some kind of midblock connectivity. Yes. Now in Allen Craw or Glenn Arbor, it didn't matter because that was my main boulevard and I basically had several zoning types within it. So, you know, but I had that break in that. Well, in Glenn Arbor, didn't you have you had a street down the middle and then you had civic space down the middle of that area, didn't it? I created pods of civic space on both sides of the main boulevard behind the town homes which created a green space on basically internal of both those blocks that you see there with the boulevard down the middle. But I didn't give up another space. Well, but you met that requirement because you had a civic space delineating sides of the block.

Well, that means I have to create a civic space. Have to. That's what I'm saying. I chose to. But if if if if it if I don't do that, I would have to do a civic space inside those. So I still lose the area. That civic space serve as um drainage. It can. I think that I think what I know my big ask in this was it's not was the was the drainage piece to and if we can incorporate that and it can be considered civic space green space

and that was um I mean we just have we have flooding and draining issues across the city and I have documented those for you all and that's one of the reasons I think this was developed as it was is to try to address those issues and allow that civic space to serve as periods.

Well, it says specifically that it cannot be and I'll find the language that under the definition of civic space that it cannot be uh that solely that area. So, I'll find it here, but I'm sure you know where it's at. Um, but it specifically requires it not to be solely that drainage space. Um, we can look at that. But I, like I said, I think they're why do we need to have the original intent was to be able to allow that to be seated, but to serve another purpose, which is the what is the other purpose? And I which was the drainage, right? And we have to have drainage either way, right?

So again, and you can put it in there's going to be a cost in that, but you need to make sure you're putting it in, right? Is is the issue though requiring civic space at all or is it the threshold at which we start to require it?

I think that if you once you reach a certain level of development you have the ability to spread the cost over a much more higher unit count and the larger the project probably the more to your point creating these open spaces is more of a need. I'm trying to find a way to still develop for this community have an option for people and choices for people for housing that maybe can't afford all of this in their POA dues. And if this is not open to the public and it's only open to the neighborhoods, it should be a choice, not a mandatory item. So, I would say it's the size of the neighborhood for me, uh, Kyler. Okay. that if if the neighborhood uh was less than 10 uh because if you think about even in even in your zonings now R1's 2.7 you're going to get 27 houses carry this cost on 27 houses if it's say you can maybe get 10 units to the acre you're carrying it on on a 100 units if you can get there it maybe be more feasible Uh I got six units to the acre with three zoning types at Glen Arbor and I they say I can do more. I don't know how and I got 120 units and 10 acres it was equ uh no I got uh I got 6.6 6 acres to the acre because remember the remaining developable property as soon as you plat this the usable property reduces dramatically by all your rideways exterior rideways sidewalks and easements you reduce immediately your your buildable area. So, if you think about what that is on your buildable area, once you get under 10 acres, it's it's critical to use all the space you can, especially under the new block rules.

Um, I think you have more flexib flexibility when you have multiple zonings uh in larger parcels, but you can't do that in a smaller parcel. It is it is for me just weighing the fact do we mandatory increase cost in these small neighborhoods and the POA dues or we allow neighborhoods to still be built where it's not doesn't have to be is the language civic space the problem like if it really is just open space green space drainage can be in lie like I mean I I could I could is that like I because it seems like requiring drainage space or green space is

I could live with I I could I could live with if you were to change the threshold to 10 acres on civic spaces and then under five where it says sites less than 10 acres as opposed to increasing the distance from a public park if it was sites less than 20 acres within a half mile of a public park they have their civic space requirements removed that way we've just like what we had before we've created did a two-tier system. If it's less than 10 acres, we're not going to require civic space. If it's more than 10, we require 5%. But if it's more than 10, less than 20, and if it's when within a half mile of a park, we don't require. But

I I would concur with that. I think that you have more density to work in anybody to build building an experience of that size of that many units is going to need a park setup which would satisfy that. Um, there a downside to that? Like what would be the I mean it would mean less developments where we have civic spaces, but honestly like 10 acres that's I mean

that I mean that that's going to hit a a lot of your like infill development but then your green field to where Bill's point where they have enough space to make up the civic space where 5% yeah they were probably already having to set aside IDE 10 to 15% of their site for drainage anyway. We have to have an extension pond anyway. The drainage is already and I think like I guess my intent was that okay the amenities can be your civics I mean that it can dual serve but okay

yeah seems like a reasonable comp will you repeat what you're doing there? Yep. So, E1 A1 uh would be sites under 10 acres, no civic space requirement. A2 sites over 10 acres include at least 5% civic space. And then A5 is sites less than 20 acres within half a mile of a public park may have civic space requirements removed by the D.

That area is that sounds reasonable to be able to do. I'm I was trying to bring in resist some of that cost both to the owner and to the POA. Would you have to take back those uh changes to the planning commission? Can we just approve them? I think I can explain that to planning. It's so it's so minor. I think my goal is here is not to not to take there's a lot of on this predict getting this addressed and so I certainly appreciate everybody's openness. Uh the last thing I had Thank you Tyler. Yeah.

The last thing I had is there is language now in this in our code that is a that has taken from basically Tishler language and impact fee language for rational nexus. Uh it consists for streets, it consists for water or for utilities and it also consists for drainage. So streets, intersections, drainage and so forth. Sidewalks uh because there may be ob street improvements required depending on the nexus or fee in Lua. In most cases, if we have to do a traffic study, that's defined. It tells you you need a stoplight down here. It tells you that this intersection is inadequate. We don't have any regional detention methodology or plan in place. We have other than our drainage system and our drainage manual, we don't have any other drainage methodologies out there that I'm aware of. And there isn't a rational nexus defined by any means. Uh we build our own roads and widen our roads without building detention ponds. If there is a rational nexus that has to be made, then at the very least we should follow our own drainage manual on our own road widening. So I don't think that we should leave something in the code that leaves something ambiguous as it does with no plan in place to what that fee in lie of or the rational nexus to the re drainage outside your offsite. Your drainage study will say by law I'm the water that comes off my site comes at the same rate it did before I built anything. That's our requirement. So if there's going to be a requirement for downstream. If the drainage study shows that you can produce the same and the other then you shouldn't have to do anything. But the

language sounds like an impact fee where there is no plan for drainage outside of your development. and we have bar ditches all up and down here that needs to be cleaned out. So, I'm trying to understand why are we putting the language in here? Uh, and I I would prefer not to have rational nexus to off-site drainage without any formula, any plan that we've adopted, any regional, we don't even have a regional plan. So, without that, what are you setting in place as your methodology for reasonable Without that, I can't endorse having this in here at a fee in lie of or a rational nexus to other drainage issues outside your development. Unless your drainage study requires it, that is a rational nexus to your drainage study. You have a formula, you have a base for it, but anything outside of that, we don't have anything. And so streets, we have a street traffic study that'll determine that. uh if you have to improve your intersection where you're at that'll determine that or one up the street that traffic study will tell you that. But it should be a direct relationship to your your impact not a rational one for something that we don't even have discussed yet. So that's my only question that uh I'm concerned about using rational nexus without a methodology in place and a and a study in place to define those. We can always add them. You can always add them in through impact fees or whatever you want to do, but don't include them in the in the study in this code saying that that's availability on a rational nexus when you do not have a study in place sharing that.

But if you're but you you also said if your drainage study says you're creating offsite drainage impacts, you should have to mitigate this, right?

That's correct. But a rational nexus isn't a direct relationship. you've rational nexus definition is much broader than a direct relationship to your to what you're impacting. So you're broadening the the the statement from direct reason direct relationship to a reasonable or rational nexus. You can make it rational that I should have to pay $100,000 to create a a regional detention depending on who does the rationale. But if I have to have a direct relationship to that, it would be done in my drainage report and it would state that I have a direct impact on this basin on this drainage determined by the drainage manual. Doesn't it refer back to the drainage?

That's also in this section of the code. This deals with on and offsite improvements. So we we open by saying that on and off-site recruitments must be made according to city standards. Yes, the developer is responsible for that portion of offsite with a rational nexus roughly proportional to the impacts of the development. And that's us pulling directly from Nolan and Dolan, which is see that's the difference. Well, I mean that's that's well

defined by your drainage report. It says a rational nexus pulled from a Supreme Court case that is directly involved with impact fees. It has nothing to do with our drainage manual is really clear. just say sea drainage man. Why are we putting these do this language in here for no other reason to put a fee in later and have this already adopted and I don't have any idea what that's going to be and I have no rationale to know how that's going to be or the cost of that. So is the issue is is the issue in this section primarily drainage because I think the other things like utility extensions, street extensions, widings, intersection improvements,

those are all defined pretty those are all well understood. The issue is drainage, but then the drain do you think the drainage manual covers us adequately already because we require a drainage study and we know any kind of off-site drainage impacts until we dra Yes, I do. until we change or we come up with a regional plan or we're going to be doing a additional drainage study to incorporate how we're going to handle our drainage outside of an individual site. The only thing we have is the drainage man and it's referred to several times but this particular quote along with some others is inserting this language based on impacted language. Okay, I think that's that's fine. I think

future conversation we we already have plans to talk about storm water and drainage and that's across the state and the region. So that may be why the language is being put in there are going to be coming. That's exactly right. So I mean I wouldn't suggest the language before we talk to address that if there's a I don't have a problem because I figured there had to be something coming because otherwise this language wouldn't have been entered. So, but I just don't

think that that language I'm not under the understanding that that particular language is put in there. We have been very forthcoming with you that the state is doing a storm water survey and study. We know we have been clearly documenting any flooding or drainage issues in Bentonville. I have all of that data for you. And so, we do need to we will be bringing forward things to better address those things for the public. We also need to have a discussion about our own projects on rideways and others on how we're going to address runoff and increasing or doubling the runoff size. For instance, 28th Street, that's an entire new pave in section five lanes long with no detention. What do you think it does to the tributary when it hits little Osage strip? But we didn't accommodate for but the land owners have to deal with it with the BLE changing height but we hadn't addressed it but yet we're requiring some of this language and others on site specific for developers but we're also increasing the BLE on our own devices without requiring it from us. It does cost more money. I get that. But if you're going to require it on one you need to think about it. If the runoff is the issue, you have a a paved area that wasn't there. It is now there. And how wide is it? 70 feet, 60 ft by 2,000. It's a lot of water.

So I think about I said we have already told you bringing storm water and that is a big conversation across the region with the high growth and honestly across the state. And so it should not be a shock to any of you that we need to deal with those issues and we need to make sure that we are yes putting in the infrastructure and finding the funding to make sure these we want to be a sustainable city and people want to continue to come here and live here. We need to be addressing this issue. So that that will be coming but I mean I think right now we have not put that in front of you. So that address that. So a motion was made to adopt this as it is but then it has to be changed with all those

can we do an amendment and pass clear on the height I don't I'm still not

I think we need to make sure we understand everything if we are not going to get to vote tonight we need to know exactly what needs and I think probably Tyler if we're going to make multiple changes here you might want just run it back to planning commission in between the next city council meeting which you can do. So I just I think what we would ask because we've asked for multiple individual meetings with you and everything to try to address every concern and so we still have some changes here and so I would just ask that you give Tyler I mean Tyler's team has went so far above and beyond this that our consultant is no longer they are finishing like we have ran out of the hours with the consultant and this team is bringing it to the finish line to try to accommodate everybody's need in this and how extensive we have done this. So what I would ask of you is that you give Tyler very clear direction of what we can all get to in this.

Does that mean we need to show a hand on the height I want. So whether it's height or whether you want enhanced review or both so that that's clear we need to I would appreciate fix that or not. 10 stories. You want to say the height? I think 10 stories fine. Yeah, 10 stories is good. 10 stories. Stories and I don't think we should require enhanced review. 10 stories. I think we do require. We're all raising our hand. So, how many for 10 stories? If if you could get enhanced review, would you be for it? Well, the enhanced review's got to pass first. I would be.

Okay. So, let's How many would want enhanced review? Okay. So, it it doesn't pass. How many want the 10 stories standard review in the blue sections that have been already reviewed for that type? So, that doesn't with the magenta with enhanced review. So, 10 stories allowable but has to come to this body to vote. So, there's four. or it's a 44 and then and then the next time we come around somebody will have problem with nine stories just going to keep

if it was 10 stories with enhanced review how many would vote that's all we could get I guess I'd vote for that's the choice if that's I'm just trying to narrow down the choices are getting worse well yeah I don't want to complicate things but you said four 27 of Oh, well then we and it passed. Look at split. There you go. It passed. I like what passed though? Well, the 10 story there's four. How about you make it very clear what Okay. Do you favor 10 stories? Is that what you said? First of all, no enhanced. So, there's four.

If you look closely at it, it does back up to some single resident. I mean, I just spent a lot of time looking closely at it and it does more than just the brushover. That been in there, Tyler? 10 story. Did that just come up yesterday or has it been in there for drafts? Real quick. I mean, I just feel like we got two or three complaints about 10 stories and I were all freaking out about I got more than two or three. We were talking about 10 stories back when we were deciding what fire truck to buy years ago. And we bought a truck that was Yes. But do we have to buy a fire truck for every single department that has one of these 10 stories?

I need to go. That's not what Justin's done. I guess if you had more than one 10story building, they all caught on fire at the same time and they didn't have the enhanced linkage systems. Okay. Can we exclude the properties that are uh to residential or one that gets almost more complicated. Yeah, that's the purpose. I will go with enhanced review. 10 stories is that important, but I would be willing to say enhanced review. I don't agree with it, but if that's the limitation of us all agreeing on 10 story, it's that important for the future. I'm I'm 14. Okay. All right. Let's

I can I can do that. Great. Okay. So, do you have the answers on the other things we talked about? I think it's pretty clear.

Yes, I do. So what I have is under civic space for E1A1 where we talk about acreages, we're going to increase the threshold for where it's required to 10 acres and then double. So previously it said uh less than 10 acres within half mile of park are exempt. We're going to increase that to 20 acres within half mile of park. Uh we've got on uh E2 on page 26 when we're talking about off-site improvements, we'll just eliminate drainage from that list because drainage is covered through the drainage manual. Um and then we did talk about required active uses for commercial 50%.

We can take another look at that. match the glazing. Make sure it's like a a a uh a key I think goal of this code is plain language and so we can revisit to make sure that that is actually doing what it's supposed to do. That's a good matchup I think glazing to to that the lobby that'll be the same thing in the in there. Is that they're just matching the glass area or the glazing area which is what you're going to cement. Okay. Is there anything else? Because Yeah. Is there anything in my opinion? Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Well, I think we've now gotten the constituents where they're actually reading it and paying attention to it and and we've been doing this for but I don't think they have I I think it's different. I think the um master plan absolutely like when they showed up at Orchard's Park, they showed up at the library, but with the zoning I I have to beg to differ with you. I don't feel like they have been as engaged. It's super and it's not because we haven't tried

and it it's super complicated. So, I can understand if you're in the public um we have had a very extensive process on it. Um what I what I hope you all will take from this and from like the height and and I think there were some good points and we I think we can make some adjustments tonight. Okay. Um and but we do need to can bring it back to you. Um on the height I I just wanted you to hear how the team I heard Kevin and I understand um Kevin's frustration because he was on the steering committee and not but they worked through the process on the height and they took into account what you can current like how you can get eight stories currently in that process and so it but it is it's complicated and so I can I can understand from the public, too. I hope what we just got to here was listening to all of that in a in a compromise. So, I'm going to say Tyler repeated those things. We're going to go work on those things. I think in the interim, you take it I would just take it back to planning commission, show them the things that you're doing, and then it'll come back to city council at the next meeting.

That's all right. Small question on performance guarantees. Yeah. Uh, it's been changed to where now it's not based on the contractor's cost, it's based on the city's cost. I'm not sure how you can rein that in depending on the the city's cost. And there's a 10% charge as well. So, did the city's only on the maintenance, not the performance? Let's look at it. That could be wrong. But I believe the performance in here now states that um the performance guarantee of off-site improvements must now include a 10% administrative fee and it's also at the uh city's pricing, not the contractor's pricing.

Is that on bill? Uh this is my outline. I'm sorry. Um I don't know. It's in it's it's in article seven which is where we talk about timing of improvements performance guarantees. Let me see the only question I have is the and maybe I can sum it up. Uh those are all liabilities are still held against you and you have to be able to get a note for that. So those are liabilities that keeps you from financing other things. And so

not sure where the 10% admin fee came from. I if you could if you could tell me or send me like Sure. I'd be happy to. I don't I don't and I would like to merge. I don't remember that being there, but

And if we could check with legal I've had several requests from institutions. Can they just do one LLC for the performance that automatically reduces to the maintenance amount instead of having to reissue another LLC, have the additional liability, and then wait for the other one to come back? Can we just do a comp? You're nodding your head back there. You understand what I'm just say, okay, here's my performance LLC, the original, and at the point that the site is uh accepted, and it this will automatically turn to a maintenance fee at the new required amount. And that could be that could be done automatically instead of having to reissue another LOC for the maintenance at their reduced amount uh and then wait on because they can't release that liability from the developer until you they actually get the physical copy in their hand. So if it's going to be simultaneous, it could be simultaneously just in one document and maybe we could look at that in the future. doesn't have to be in the code, but if if we could, I think a single LOC document that would take care of performance and the reduction for the maintenance. So, that doesn't have to be redone or gone back to the bank for another LC.

I feel like we we had a conversation around there. There was some legal let's we can revisit legal and Yeah. Yeah. I Okay, I see what you're talking about. We did increase the amount of the offsite of the performance guarantee, but the old code did say it's 100% of what it would cost the city to complete the improvements. So, it was city cost the amount increase, but we can we can look at that bill.

Yeah, we give an engineer's estimate, which I guess they've been accepting, but I don't know what the city pays for services. I know it's larger than we pay, so I don't know what amount they'll be requiring, but whatever it is, it is. I would prefer to be able to use a engineer's estimate that is more to your peers than it would be only to the city cost. I'm all I'm all in favor of uh simplifying the code and reducing the requirements because all of that will uh end up in less cost for the development and less cost for operating the they charge me points every time I get a letter of credit and they add it to my liability

and because of that I'm very appreciative of all the comments that you have made today in this respect bill. Thank you. We just need to make sure because I will tell you a lot of costs come on to our taxpayers when we have to take care of things if things don't get and so I'm just saying the performance bond is important. We need to look at that and make sure it's calculated correctly. So there is a reason why we have that in there. No, we no I'm not suggesting we get remove the performance bond. I'm just saying it's one document and simultaneously can be shifted to the maintenance bond which is a lot of the areas that people may not follow up on taking care of their maintenance.

Yeah, it's just one document clarifying that you can be used for both at the time that the trigger hits just saves everybody time and the banker aggravation and some points. this with the label on that just make sure that I appreciate everybody's patience this evening. Okay. So, I'm going to we're going to t I guess need to vote to table and make the changes and bring it back. Is that what we I move we table this agenda item until the next meeting? Withdraw the previous motion.

Yeah, I removed my original motion. But it's going to come back in two weeks, not 30 days or a month or we're going to we're going to make sure it happens. Member A. No other questions stated for the next council meeting which is April 14th. Tyler, what's the easiest way for our constituents to review this? Here's Well, here's what I can do. I can work with DPZ on doing a new post on the Plan Bentville website. as to similar to what we did when we adopted the lane. We can do that. So send them to the um planet.com.

Yes. Okay. Anyone who is registered for that will get a notification. Good. And but isn't it currently on our website? Correct. So can we just direct everybody to our website? Is it I'm not sure. go to the on there that you can click on it's right on there first thing up you can I mean it can be a very basic site notice make it more noticeable and just the code on this okay I just like to give people an opportunity beforehand instead of hearing about it after what else do we have mayor okay so we have a motion we have a motion and a second

they both all in favor any but okay so really okay item nine we go ahead and approve the zoning map no not without the code but I would if there's any concerns or questions about any of the stuff in green or red or blue please let me know now I want to review with you the colors you don't like magenta I don't know what's magenta I don't have any zoning or or we are okay.

Can I tell you the theory behind the colors on here? So, the old code had uh typically you would look at the purple as a mixeduse type of district when we're mapping things out. So, when you get into four, five, six, that's where you get into the shades of purple. The threes and the R1, that's where they're the much lighter shade and the yellow. Uh that is something we have talked about. Maybe we look at the colors on this thing like it does create a nice drill down to

at this point guys that that is just going to confuse people. It's going to be different and like and so I would highly suggest we don't do that. Just that's that's a later that's a tomorrow. No, don't change anything. But I just can read two colors or maybe and you can I would I really would ask that you if there is anything that we can get consensus on. So we bring this back once to you all. Um, does anybody have any

we have had we have asked multiple times for meetings to go through every section of this and so that's what I'm really would we do need to move this and give some consistency with everybody and be able to put this in place. Yes. Okay. So item nine I guess I need a motion to table it as well. Second. Motion a second. All in favor? I Okay. um an ordinance adopting the downtown center overlay district map. I think we could that one we can table as well and we go ahead and pass it if we can. But I do want to commend Tyler. I don't have a code that it talks to

or a map what he has done on that overlay. I think it's well done. I think it's what we can reasonably do right now. And as we have talked, we agree that we can still pursue a historic district downtown. There are other things that we can continue to do. So I don't think this is the end, but I think it's a great beginning. So I move that we table item 10. Second have a motion, a second. All in favor? Okay. I gonna get a motion to adjurnn us from the formal voting and then we have one make a motion to rest. Yeah, we do have one person signed in for after

unless you first not sure is it I wasn't trying to he's willing to stick through all that conversation. He says no. you could just give us your name and your address and if you can keep your comments to three minutes or under we would.

Uh my name is Alaric Mccclure. I live at 809 Durham Place in Bennville. I wanted to talk about the momentary. They have lots of uh low frequency noise pollution. They have speakers pointed at my apartment area that are taller than me. Uh there's a what is it called? There's a decibel limit that doesn't apply to the the hertz. You already talked about that. It travels for everything. You can't hear the music at all. It's just a a loud booming sound, like a banging sound that travels in the base. It travels through the walls, everything. You can't get rid of it. It's a violation of the World Health Organization's recommendations. It's not healthy at all. I can't sleep. It raises your heart rate. Even if you're not aware of it. There's been times that I've just blocked it out and then in the middle just sitting down like, "Why is my heart rate so high?" And then I say, "Oh yeah, it's that sound. It's uh not good for my health because uh there's been times I've not been able to sleep which uh that is uh that would negatively affect my development in uh when when I should have been when I was growing. I'm still am, I guess. But that's not that's very bad. And not everyone uh not very many people complain about it, but barely any people show up to this. So, it's objectively in my opinion a bad thing and it there needs to be something regulating it because it it obviously isn't consistent. I don't know. I checked the Momentaries website when they have concerts. It depends. It it depends on the severity of the concert, how loud they are, and randomly they they'll just play the speakers randomly. I don't know where the sound I assume it's from the momentary. It sounds just like it.

That's all. Uh yeah, it can it's bad for my cardiovascular health and everyone else around me if they acknowledge it or not. It's sleep disturbance. It can cause birth problems. It can cause all kinds of indirectly uh health defects and it's been going on for like 10 years. That's all. Thank you. Thank you for

um we'll go to the library had an excellent uh court string quartet to a musical presentation of classical music. It was fantastic. It was students from a high school that came and did the presentation. It had a quite a crowd over there, not thousands, but good number of people who wanted to hear the concept. It was the most distinguishable situation that happened in my

Sorry, I missed it. That was nice. I And uh the meeting is tomorrow, so I don't have anything else. the utility board met uh three weeks ago and we everything discussed that was approved today. Thank you. I don't have anything. I don't have anything. Um state of the city and volunteer appreciation night Thursday at 6 to 7. We do have Jared Wy with Art. I mean he'll be our future interview. Um so thank you for the very nice to him because we need Art of things and very appreciative he's coming in. So um six o'clock.

Yes. Starting um the doors open at 5:30 5:36 sort of networking and then the program will start at um 6 and then on Saturday it is the half marathon. I am setting up a cheer booth because I'm not running. So if you want to hold signs welcoming runners from across pretty much all 50 states in several countries. We will be at that little inlet there um on Orchards Park on J Street um on the west side of Orchards Park and we'll be the welcome to Bentonville. We're glad you're here. So, if you want to make a sign, I have some suggestions for some sayings for signs um just to be nice. And the half marathon is one of our signature events and it it does expose a lot of people to our our city. It's one it's a

be nice. So be nice. Come out, cheer them on. We have a few city employees I think that are actually running the half and so they would like to be cheered on too. We'll do some cheering for them as well. So if you would like to do that. So it is 6:45. So we have the we have mile one. So we might not be good but we'll be there. 6:45 to 8:45 because I want you need to park at that at the parking garage there at the amazing. You can possibly do that gravel parking lot, but we'll need to get the race all the way through there so you guys can leave. So I would plan from 6:45 to 8:45

park before that sort of either by be at the booth by 6:45 and park so that because the race starts if you guys want to do that um love to have you um is it going to rain mayor or is it going to be well so I don't know I mean I don't know exactly but we knew the race, rain or shine. So, you all can make that. So, if it rains, will they do it on Easter Sunday? No, they'll just run round. I mean, well, last year they moved it to Sunday. They did. Yeah. I don't think we're supposed to have that type of supposed to be like I'm sorry to bring it up.

I had ran it in the sle snow and so unless it's a flooding. What happens when we had to move it? It was a flooding like the rain was so I don't think we're it's called for quite that that storm event. Yeah. So along that uh line David indicated this afternoon we have 5,100 people registered which is a new record. Dang. 44 states new record and three countries. That's crazy. All I have

big deal for your patience this evening. I just wanted to say, and nobody here is from the library, but if you didn't know or if you weren't able to attend the naturalization ceremony, it's the first time that Bentonville has ever hosted. Um, and so I just appreciate I don't know I was grateful that that happened and um I heard a lot of feedback and it was one of the best ceremonies that um the attendees and even the people from Fort Smith had um observed. They were very proud of how we handled it. We decorated. We had refreshments and it was just a great experience. I forgot to mention that they were 46 uh new citizens and there were 15 15 different countries where they came from

and there was one from Ben just one but but I think we're um register or signed up to host again next March. So I mean it's kind of an honor for us to have that but it's also um we did a great job. That's awesome. A full presentation. All right, let's go. All right, what's Tyler got? I just have a handout. It's our 2025 development report. It's the printouts of it. So, I have a copy for each of you. We also have our developers forum which we are calling a code school on April 10th from 11 to one to walk people through the new code. So,

we need to have it. Well, it's too late for that. Sorry about that. is good. Thank you, Tyler. Yeah, I actually got the truth. I see. I don't know if I want to hear any more about it.