LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Jan. 5 & 7, 2021

Notes: Turk nominated Bunch. Gutierrez seconded. There were no other nominations. The council voted unanimously to approve Sarah Bunch as the new vice mayor.

Transportation: Sonia Gutierrez, Matthew Petty, Sarah Bunch, Holly Hertzberg

Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste: D’Andre Jones, Mark Kinion, Sloan Scroggin, Teresa Turk

Nominating: Sonia Gutierrez, Mark Kinion, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk

Ordinance Review: D’Andre Jones, Matthew Petty, Sloan Scroggin, Holly Hertzberg

The mayor also appointed the following to serve as council representatives on various other committees:

Active Transportation Advisory: D’Andre Jones

Advertising and Promotion Commission: Matthew Petty, Sarah Bunch

Animal Services Advisory: Sarah Bunch

Audit: Mark Kinion

Energy Improvement District: Sloan Scroggin

Environmental Action: Teresa Turk

Washington County Regional Ambulance: Holly Hertzberg

Equipment: Sonia Gutierrez, Matthew Petty, Sloan Scroggin, Holly Hertzberg

Town and Gown Advisory: Mark Kinion

Arts: Sonia Gutierrez

Stormwater Utility Study: Sonia Gutierrez, Mark Kinion, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk

Background:
This item was tabled at the Dec. 1 meeting.

Staff said trailside economic development initiatives have led to heightened interest from developers as trail systems expand and citizens increase usage. Additionally, as the Covid-19 pandemic continues to create an impact in the way people work and live, they are increasingly utilizing active transportation corridors. Staff said many cities have increasingly focused on improving their economic resiliency and have sought opportunities to maximize their potential growth associated with trailside development. Transforming and repurposing undeveloped trailside parcels has generated renewed investment and revitalization from citizens and developers alike, according to a staff memo. Trail systems tend to be the “ultimate convergent point” of transportation and economics and can quickly become catalysts for sustaining healthy, interconnected and resilient cities, the memo states.

Dec. 1 Discussion:
Staff requested this item be tabled until the first meeting in January to allow time to make some necessary changes to the proposal.

The council agreed, and voted 5-3 to table the item until Jan. 5. Marsh, Petty and Smith voted against.

Jan. 5 Discussion:
Staff described one of the specific goals, which is to increase local entrepreneurship near the trails, including revising existing mobile vendor regulations to allow operations in more public locations, and converting underutilized city property into temporary mobile vendor courts. One of those locations would be at the trail crossing on North Street

There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
This item was tabled at the Dec. 1 meeting.

A short-term rental is the leasing out of a furnished residential dwelling on a short-term basis, generally less than a month. It is estimated that there are approximately 500-600 STR units in Fayetteville. However, Fayetteville’s codes do not have specific rules for STRs and they are classified as hotels/motels in the zoning code. This prevents them from legally operating in a single-family district and there are numerous STRs currently in violation. In July of 2019 the council adopted a resolution directing staff to study and develop an ordinance for STRs for their consideration.

This proposal has support from city staff and the Planning Commission.

Here are the overview slides presented tonight:

Dec. 1 Discussion:

Several people spoke during public comment, some who were in favor and others who were against. Some of those against said the rules were too overbearing and would make it difficult for people to operate short-term rentals. Others said they’d like to see the proposal be changed in some places, particularly the limit of eight people per residence.

A few council members also said they’d like to see some fine-tuning. Staff agreed, and said they would work more on the proposed language.

Turk and Scroggin suggested tabling the issue until the first meeting in January. The council agreed, and voted 7-0 to table until Jan. 5. Petty’s vote wasn’t audible.

Jan. 5 Discussion:
During the vote to move the second reading, Gutierrez and Kinion voted against. All other members voted in favor.

Staff asked to forward the ordinance to the council’s Ordinance Review Committee. Several members said they like that idea. The council voted 8-0 to table the ordinance until Feb. 16 to give the committee time to meet and discuss the proposal.

Background: This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda on Dec. 15 by Council Member Sarah Marsh at the request of a constituent who wanted to comment on the resolution. It was then tabled.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
During public comment, there were no requests to speak. The council voted 8-0 to table the item until the New Business portion of the meeting to allow the person more time in case they still want to speak. The person later said she is concerned about the language and how it pertains to officers speaking to juvenile without them first being mirandized, and how parents could first be contacted to be present during any interviews. Another person spoke and asked the council to table the item for more consideration before it’s passed.

Police Chief Mike Reynolds said the policy follows updated rules of criminal procedure and is in line with state law. He said if the issue is tabled, the department would be out of compliance with CALEA for a small amount of time, but it might not be a major issue since the council is only trying to soften the language.

Marsh and Smith said they would be fine approving the proposal tonight, and that time is of the essence when coming into compliance. Details could always be changed later, they said. Scroggin agreed.

Petty said it’s just a fact that noncustodial juvenile interviews need to take place from time to time. He said he’s fine with the proposal, but since the police chief said it won’t likely be an issue to wait a couple of weeks to get the language softened a bit, he’d like to table the item until the next meeting.

The council voted 5-3 to table the resolution until Jan. 5 (Bunch, Smith and Marsh voted against).

Jan. 5 Discussion:
One resident who spoke said she’d like to see the changes vetted by professionals who are experienced in juvenile matters.

Another person said they are concerned about situations when officers might be interrogating juveniles when their parents are not present.

Deputy Chief of Police Jamie Fields said interviewing and interrogating are two separate procedures. Fields said officers frequently encounter juveniles to ask questions related to police calls (which way did someone run, what is the name of an injured person, etc.), but there are very few actual interrogations of juveniles who are suspects. Fields said there were only 18 juvenile interrogations last year, whereas there are encounters with juveniles every day.

Petty said it would be nice to have these types of changes vetted by professionals before they are presented to the council, but he’s prepared to support the resolution tonight.

Jones moved to pass the resolution, and Gutierrez seconded.

Decision:
The council voted 8-0 to pass the resolution.

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Dec. 15 meeting.

This contract will authorize a land purchase needed for the replacement parking deck to allow the project to move forward and expedite the completion prior to beginning the Arts Corridor Civic Plaza Project.

Dec. 1 Discussion:
City staff shared the following updated conceptual images of the new deck (see PDF here):

City Attorney Kit Williams said the contract is not ready to be approved. He said more time is needed to make adjustments to both sides of the deal.

There was no public comment.

The council agreed to hold the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Dec. 15.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
City staff said more time is needed to work with all parties to come to an agreement. City Attorney Kit Williams said he believes the council could wait to approve the contract and still meet the city’s bond obligation.

The council agreed to leave the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue Jan. 5

Jan. 5 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan said he’d like to table the ordinance until mid-February to give him more time to work through the contract with the developers and to seek some advice from professionals who are experts in public-private partnerships.

Kinion said having a specialist’s opinion would make him more comfortable. Scroggin and Bunch agreed.

Cary Arsaga said he closed his business in the Depot Lot when the pandemic hit and was prepared to re-open in July but decided against it because he heard the council might be making a decision about this in October and it wouldn’t have made any sense to only open for a few months before closing for construction. He said it’s frustrating for the decision to continue to drag on because he is depending on this deal to go through to make it as a business owner.

The council voted 8-0 to table the item until Feb. 16.

Background:
This item was tabled at the Nov. 17, Dec. 1 and Dec. 15 meetings.

The work is related to a replacement parking deck near the intersection of Dickson Street and West Avenue.

From a staff memo:

This amendment includes the Balance of the Architectural Services for the Architectural Elements of the Deck and West Avenue Police Substation including Design Development, Construction Drawings, Bidding and Negotiation, and Construction Administration. It also includes the structural Design of the Colonnade, Survey and platting.

Nov. 17 Discussion:
Staff requested this item be tabled until the next meeting to allow more time to get an acceptable contract. The discussion will continue on Dec. 1.

Dec. 1 Discussion:
Mayor Jordan requested this item be tabled again until the next meeting to allow more time to work on the contract. The discussion will continue on Dec. 15.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since it can only be approved after the previous item is approved. The discussion will continue on Jan. 5.

Jan 5 Discussion:
The council voted 8-0 to table this item again since there’s still no contract in place. The discussion will continue on Feb. 16.

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Dec. 15 meeting.

This property is just east of I-49 at the interchange with Wedington Drive. It is the site of the Marinoni farm, and is primarily rural and agricultural in nature. The site contains four parcels and includes at least one home constructed in 1926, with associated outbuildings and cattle pastures. The property consists of a variety of zoning districts, ranging from commercial to low-density residential. The applicant has not submitted an associated development proposal, but has indicated the intention is to develop it as mixed-use.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.

Location:

Dec. 1 Discussion:
One person who spoke asked how flooding would be handled in the area, and how traffic issues could be improved. Staff said the potential for flooding would be addresses whenever the property is eventually developed, and that changes are coming to the nearby area when the state transportation department redesigns the I-49 interchange to be safer and more convenient.

Three people spoke against the request, citing concerns about increased traffic, noise and density if the property were to be developed. One person said they’d prefer to continue seeing horses on the undeveloped property rather than buildings.

Council Member Turk said she’d like to hold the item on the first reading to allow more time for public input. Smith and Scroggin said they’d prefer to see a Planned Zoning District request for the property instead of a standard rezoning.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Dec. 15.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
The applicant, Paula Marinoni, said she won’t consider a Planned Zoning District for this project, as requested by Scroggin and Smith at the previous meeting. She said the application already includes what the city’s long-range planning documents call for when it comes to future development.

During public comment, seven people spoke against the request citing concerns similar to those expressed at the previous meeting (increased traffic, lowered safety, added noise and density if the property were to be developed).

Scroggin said the area can handle more density, but he won’t support the request. He said such a massive development needs a planned zoning district.

Smith said he knows development of the property is inevitable, but he shares some of the traffic concerns of the neighbors, particularly when it comes to funneling traffic onto Wedington Drive.

The council agreed to leave the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 5.

Jan. 5 Discussion:
The applicant has offered a Bill of Assurance that guarantees the following:

The east 100 ft. of the property to be rezoned to CS (Community Services) will be limited to a maximum of three stories. The east 100 ft. of the property to be rezoned to UT (Urban Thoroughfare) south of Lancelot Ave., will be limited to a maximum of three stories and from that 100 ft. line and proceeding to the west an additional 100 ft. will be limited to a maximum of five stories. Thus, 100 ft. depth on east side is limited to a maximum of three stories and 100 ft. depth to the west of that is limited to a maximum of five stories in the UT zone.

A Bill of Assurance is binding and runs with the property and all future owners unless specifically released by the City Council.

During public comment, four people spoke against the proposal.

Gutierrez said she recently visited the property with several other council members and hiked around to the boundaries. She said in the south area near Loren Circle, she doesn’t think it’s appropriate for development since there’s a convergence of creeks and a neighborhood. She said there are other parts of the property that are absolutely primed for development.

Scroggin said UT makes sense near Wedington and the interchange, but maybe not so much near the neighborhood. He said he’d still like to see a PZD, but he’s not sure how he’ll vote.

Petty said he likes the entire UT-requested area and most of the CS portion, but would prefer to see something like RI-U near the rear of the property. If the applicant won’t consider tweaking the request, he said he’s not sure how he’ll vote on the current proposal.

Bunch said while she’s not thrilled with the CS zoning area, a 100-foot buffer for a reduced building height is a pretty generous offer.

Turk said she’s worried that development of the property would lead to new access points to the east that would create traffic issues. She said without changes to the proposal in regards to the eastern portion of the property, she won’t support the request.

Decision:
During the vote, the ordinance passed 5-3. Turk, Gutierrez and Jones voted against.

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Dec. 15 meeting.

Council Member Kyle Smith brought the item forward and said the idea is to address some major issues that the council has discussed for at least three years. He said the plan doesn’t remove any uses, but increases planners’ ability to conduce contextual review of projects.

The first change would move Use Unit 18, which is gasoline service stations and drive-in/drive through restaurants, to a conditional use for Community Services. He said proposed rezonings on Mount Comfort Road have been contentious in the past because of the potential for these types of uses.

The second change would move Use Unit 8 (single-family dwellings) and Use Unit 9 (two-family dwellings) to conditional uses. Smith said this is in response to development patterns on south Rupple Road. He said previous council members made it clear when they rezoned the land that it was intended for a walkable mixed-use center with a neighborhood that could access nearby services. Instead, he said, developers began exclusively building homes with no mixed uses at all. He said in order to protect the remainder of the property from the same fate, the council should make this change to allow the Planning Commission to look at whether or not the variety of uses being proposed is appropriate for that area.

Dec. 15 Discussion:
Smith said it’s a band-aid approach, but without a major overhaul of the zoning code, this is the best option if the city is to get the type of development it wants.

Marsh agreed and said this has been needed for several years.

Bunch asked if real estate stakeholders were a part of this proposal. Kinion said stakeholders must be involved in a process like this. At the very least, it needs more discussion.

Smith said he’s happy to leave the item on the first reading to allow more time for people to consider it.

Scroggin said he doesn’t want to vote today, but it’s worth looking into. He said while some people say the city has too many restrictions, there are a lot of people who prefer living in a city with tight restrictions on development.

Marsh said she’d like to advance the item to the final reading tonight. Bunch disagreed and said developers need to have a say-so and should be given more time to consider the proposal.

City Attorney Kit Williams said this should have a slow rollout or phased implementation to protect the city from potential lawsuits. He said he can draft that language soon and have it ready at the next meeting.

Turk said the item should be held to allow time for more input.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 5.

Jan. 5 Discussion:
Williams again stressed that the changes, if approved, should be delayed so as not to have a negative effect on any current deals that may already be in motion. He presented a possible amendment to include a six-month delay.

During public comment, former Council Member Kyle Smith said it’s understandable to grandfather in anyone who already has a permit submitted with the city, but six months is too long for a city that is growing as fast as Fayetteville is.

Another person who spoke said it’s certainly right for current applicants to be protected, but the city shouldn’t need to protect people who might simply be thinking about submitting a permit for a development in the future.

Kinion said just because someone doesn’t have a permit already in place, that doesn’t mean there aren’t plans that could already be in motion and investments being made with the intent of submitting a permit application. He moved to approve the amendment. Scroggin seconded.

The council voted 7-1 to approve the amendment (Petty voted against).

Gutierrez suggested the Ordinance Review Committee take a look at the ordinance before the council votes. Kinion agreed.

The council agreed to leave the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Background:
The council re-adopts the rules of order and procedure at the beginning of every year.

Discussion:
Turk suggested some changes, including adding gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and religion to the non-discrimination categories in the code of ethics for law enforcement when acting impartially. It currently mentions only race, creed, color and economic or social position of individual citizens. The council agreed and voted unanimously to amend the resolution.

Decision:
The council voted 8-0 to approve the amended resolution.

Background:
This item was tabled indefinitely at the April 7, 2020 City Council meeting due to the onset of COVID-19.

As was discussed during the 2020 budget process, the mayor is recommending a compensation package to the council based on the fiscal results of 2019 operations and the Merit Pay and Benefits Study completed earlier in 2020.

At this time based on revenue results through November 2020, the mayor believes that the plan presented in April 2020 is now affordable, and its implementation is recommended.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 8-0 to approve the resolution.

Background:
This item was also tabled indefinitely at the April 7, 2020 City Council meeting due to the onset of COVID-19.

As was discussed during the 2020 budget process, the mayor is recommending a compensation package to the council based on the fiscal results of 2019 operations and the Merit Pay and Benefits Study completed earlier in 2020.

At this time based on revenue results through November 2020, the mayor believes that the plan presented in April 2020 is now affordable, and its implementation is recommended.

Discussion:
City staff said the city is now in a position to pay for these raises, and despite the pandemic, if the city meets the same sales tax figures in 2021 that it did in 2020, the raises will have paid for themselves.

There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 8-0 to approve the resolution.

Background:
The school district purchased the land for a new middle school.

City staff recommend approval of the request. The Planning Commission forwarded the request to the council with a recommendation of zoning the entire property as CS, Community Services instead of the requested P1, Institutional.

Location:

Discussion:
Scroggin asked why the council has a request for P1 before them instead of the Planning Commission’s recommended CS zoning. City Attorney Kit Williams said the council always takes up the applicant’s request, regardless of the Planning Commission’s preference. Scroggin said he’s heard that schools prefer P1 because they’re safer than using CS, which puts buildings closer to the road. Scroggin said he’s not sold on that theory, but he is certain this location is right for a new school.

Bunch suggested holding the ordinance on the first reading to allow time for the Transportation Committee to discuss the proposal before the next meeting.

Kinion said he has total faith in the school district and the work that has been done. He said he thinks P1 is an appropriate zoning for the area and he’d like to move forward with a vote tonight.

During public comment, some people said they’d like to see the request approved tonight as it’s written, while others said they agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to rezone the land as CS.

District representatives said changing the zoning would delay the school project, which is part of a recently funded bond issue that needs to be used as soon as possible.

Those against P1 said the city has had a longtime vision for Rupple Road that includes form-based zones with walkable environments, and veering from that vision for this project would set a bad precedent, even if it’s for a public school.

Kinion moved to send the ordinance to the second reading. Turk seconded. The motion failed with Bunch, Gutierrez, Petty and Scroggin voting against.

Petty said he will work on getting the item up for consideration at the next Transportation Committee meeting.

The item was left on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Background:
This item is for the purchase of asphalt materials for the Transportation Division in 2021. It’s in the New Business agenda because staff is requesting a bid waiver. Staff said due to the fluctuations in the price of crude oil, local asphalt suppliers cannot feasibly guarantee a fixed price over a 12-month period. The ordinance still requires informal quarterly bids or quotes.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.

Background:
As of a few years ago, state law requires local governments to approve or reject permits for new private clubs before the owner can apply for a liquor license.

Discussion:
Deputy Chief of Police Jamie Fields said the applicant has a pending ABC violation related to COVID-19 restrictions at another one of his locations. She said the department is not necessarily against the permit, but wanted to bring that to the council’s attention.

Robert Rhoads, an attorney representing the applicant, said the owner is working to resolve his other business violation issue, including paying the first of two tickets. He said the applicant has had no violations at the current location.

Turk said she wants to hold the item on the first reading to allow the applicant time to resolve the second ticket before approving this permit.

Gutierrez said she’d like to move forward tonight. Petty agreed and said the only difference in the current permit and the requested permit is to be able to serve mixed drinks.

Turk said she doesn’t want to send the message that violating COVID-related restrictions is OK, which is what approving the permit tonight could be doing. Kinion agreed.

A motion to move to the second reading failed, with Turk, Kinion and Scroggin voting against. Mayor Jordan declined to cast the last vote needed to advance the item.

The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Background:
The property includes two parcels, one of which is developed with a single-family dwelling and the other remains undeveloped. The applicant has stated that the rezoning is necessary to subdivide and develop the property.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.

Background:
The property is on the northeast corner of Mount Comfort Road and Rupple Road. The request contains the southern portions of two separate properties, which are developed with single-family dwellings and associated rural land. A similar request was approved by the Planning Commission in August 2020 for a smaller portion of the site where a Kum & Go was proposed, but was ultimately withdrawn by the applicant before the council made any decision.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.

Location:

Discussion:
Scroggin said almost all of the comments he’s seen in opposition to this rezoning are based on not wanting to see a gas station at this location. He said if the applicant does not plan for the property to have a gas station, there are tools the applicant can use to proceed with the current rezoning to address those concerns.

Hertzberg asked if the applicant is under contract with any gas stations. The applicant’s attorney said they are not.

Jim Hazen, a resident who in 2018 successfully rezoned part of his property to CS, said he is against this rezoning request.

Kinion asked Hazen what is different between his property and the current property that they shouldn’t also get a CS rezoning. Hazen said he never planned for a gas station on his property and he’s worried that the current applicant might eventually build a gas station on their land if CS is approved.

Another person who spoke against the rezoning said before a decision is made on this request, they’d like to see the council first finish a previous discussion about gas station permission in CS. That proposal, which was left on the second reading on Tuesday, was to move gas stations (and some other uses) from by-right permission to conditional use permission, which means the applicant would have to apply for and receive a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission before being able to build a gas station in a CS zoning district.

Others who spoke said if the applicant offered a Bill of Assurance that a gas station wouldn’t be built on the property, they would be in support of the request.

Kinion motioned to send the ordinance to the second reading. He said he’s OK with not making a final decision tonight, but wants to move it forward one step. Kinion’s motion passed, with Turk, Gutierrez and Petty voting against and Mayor Jordan voting in favor.

The council agreed to leave the ordinance on the second reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Background:
The applicant proposes a vacation of the 20-foot wide general utility easement located along Lot 3 and 4’s shared property line. Approval of the vacation will allow the applicant build a single-family dwelling on the property line. Staff said all of the utility companies have signed off on the idea.

City staff recommend approval of the request. A recent change to city law allows easement vacations to bypass the Planning Commission, so there is no recommendation from that group.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.

Background:
The current PZD is divided into five planning areas, of which the subject property is a part Planning Area 3, The Trails of Forest Hills. That area was approved for multi-family development of 22 buildings and 354 dwelling units. In 2011, the council approved a reduction in density, from 354 to 240 units concentrated in three large buildings with large, consolidated surface parking and greenspace to the eastern extents of the property. Where other phases and planning areas of Forest Hills have been constructed since the PZD’s adoption in 2008, Planning Area 3 remains undeveloped.

Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions of approval:

1. Development plans shall reflect the general layout of the revised master plan;
2. Individual dwellings shall not have direct vehicular access to Salem Road. Where units are adjacent to Salem Road, dwellings shall be rear-loaded with front doors facing the public street;
3. Where adjacent to recreation or tree preservation areas, units shall be oriented with entrances and principal facades towards these open spaces and parking to the side or rear of the building;
4. Revise Sub-Planning Areas 2 and 3 to permit Use Unit 1, City-wide Uses By Right, allowing for construction for common site features and elements, including sidewalks and trails;
5. Include language regarding consultation with Urban Forestry about the proposed trails that may occur within Planning Area 3’s tree preservation;
6. Staff recommends inclusion of an administrative approval option for alternative building designs if incorporating street- or greenspace-facing elements, such as porches and stoops; and
7. Approval of this PZD amendment does not grant development approval for the property. The proposed preliminary plat will be required to be reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code as a part of the standard review process.

 

The Planning Commission recommends approval of ADM-2020-000010 with the following, additional condition of approval:

8. Parking lot tree islands shall be provided at a frequency of one per eight parking spaces where the Unified Development Code requires one per 12 spaces.

Location:

Discussion:
Public comment was in favor.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.

Background:
The property is on the south side of East Zion Road and has a single-family dwelling with associated outbuildings for what has long been an agricultural use. Hilton Creek runs east and west through the site, and the area surrounding the creek is designated as a flood plain. The property is located within 1 mile from the Fayetteville city limits, and the westernmost portion of the property is adjacent to the current city. An associated PZD rezoning has also been submitted (see next item).

The applicant has stated that the annexation is needed so that the property can be developed.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request.

Location:

Discussion:
Those who spoke against the annexation said they were concerned about potential flooding in the area from development, the possibility of development negatively affecting water quality at Lake Fayetteville, limited infrastructure availability for new residents and the potential for traffic issues.

The council left the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.

Background:
This property is the same as the previous annexation request. It would be divided into three planning areas:

Planning Area 1 – 6.20 acres: This area is primarily commercial in nature, though it does allow for multi-family dwellings, and is intended to serve surrounding residential areas with convenience goods and adaptable mixed use. The area is divided into two locations, the first being located along the property’s North Crossover Road frontage, and the second is located towards the center of the site.

Planning Area 2 – 39.63 acres: Making up the primary acreage of the proposal, this area is categorized by a mix of housing types, ranging from single-family to three- and four-family dwellings. The map shows a variety of lot widths, alley-loaded development, and a gridded street pattern throughout the site.

Planning Area 3 – 36.06 acres: Scattered throughout the site, with primary consideration for the area surrounding and north of Hilton Creek, this planning area’s primary purpose is to provide open space, detention, drainage, and natural areas (though does allow for low-density single-family dwellings with two-acre lot area minimums). The site plan also indicates an intention to provide a linear park extending north and south through the eastern part of the site, as well as a dedicated area for parkland.

Location:

Discussion:
A few people spoke against this request with the same concerns as the annexation above.

The council left the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Jan. 19.