Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Triangle topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over Triangle project, TID spending and 13‑story proposal
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Saint Francis council to honor the comprehensive plan and oppose a proposed high‑rise on the Triangle property; commenters cited public records they said show city payments and petition counts, while council members urged engagement and stressed that a final PUD has not yet been filed.
A string of public commenters at the Saint Francis common council meeting on March 3 urged elected officials to halt or reshape a proposed high-rise plan for the Triangle property and to respect the city’s comprehensive plan.
Kendall Fulmer told the council that public records show a voucher list and check register "that shows payment from the city of Saint Francis to MSA professional services for combined total of over $40,000 between March and December 2025 for the Triangle project," and said payments included more than $8,000 toward design before a letter of intent to work with a developer. Fulmer said a letter of intent dated July 10, 2025 predated the initial PUD and the planning committee’s Aug. 27, 2025 rezoning recommendation to the council.
Several other speakers reiterated opposition to high-rise development and urged the city to favor smaller-scale, walkable retail and office uses that match the community’s character. Sheila Semrow said the petition opposing the high-rise had reached "728 total and 329 are from District 3," and speakers described broad neighbor outreach and concern about parking, a water-retention pond and the local housing market.
Council officials responded by encouraging residents to raise questions with staff for clarification. An official identified as Mark said his office was open "for any resident questions" and warned there is "an awful lot of misinformation" about the comprehensive plan, zoning and TIDs. Council conversation also included members who said they will withhold final judgment until they see a complete PUD; one council participant, Matt, said he wants commercial development in Phase 1 and said "if there is no commercial development in the first phase, it's a no go for me."
Council member Sean framed the debate around opportunity and timing, arguing the city risks losing development opportunities if it scares off developers and noting that TID financing is a long-term process. He said the community’s character matters but also stressed the city needs to pursue projects that can stabilize or lower tax rates over time.
No formal council votes were taken on the Triangle project during the meeting. Several citizens asked the council to use the comprehensive plan as a guide and to pursue solutions that integrate local businesses rather than build large towers; council members asked for patience until a final PUD is filed and encouraged continued public engagement.
