Okay, everybody, we are gonna call the Tuesday July 14th agenda session to order.

And we will begin.

This will be the agenda for next week's meeting.

And we will start out with any presentations, reports, or discussion items we have, and then we'll move into the consent agenda.

After we vote to approve the minutes, we will have the annual employee benefit renewal.

Um it's a resolution to improve to approve the 2027 employee benefits package.

Actually, a notice went out from uh HR to staff today.

Um, and I want to commend our HR department for working to keep our um increase cost increases low while keeping our benefits robust.

So this is vision health, dental, all of those great things.

And um Missy Hutchison is here if you have questions for her about that item.

Ms.

Turk.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um, yes, uh Missy, if you could kind of come up and give us a summary and some feedback that you may or may not have heard, that would be helpful.

Yeah, I'm actually gonna invite our benefits broker to go through a brief presentation about this year's renewal, if that's okay, Todd with Brown and Brown.

Okay.

Is there a it's all up advance?

Is there a click next?

Oh okay, okay.

So uh this this year uh we had a little tough year this year, uh about 109% uh in utilization.

Um so so uh blue cross was asking for uh a fair increase, uh 7.10 percent is where we landed.

Um last year we had a 2.6 percent increase.

Um, and then utilization last year was about 102 percent.

So trying to stay a little bit uh a little bit ahead of trend so that next year we're not impacted by as much of an increase.

Um questions in regards to that, Teresa.

I I guess maybe at the end or whatever, you could explain what the increase will be or how that will work.

And I'll so I'll just hold my questions till then.

Yep.

And so you'll see on the illustration uh on the PowerPoint uh up at the top left corner, uh, year to date through March is when we did the uh that what they use for claims uh uh comparison.

So you can see we're running about 109 percent um vision, dental base life, everything else was flat, so no it no impact on those.

Really, we're talking about the medical is it was the only thing impacted this year for 2027.

I actually do have a question here that I'm looking at on the HSA.

It says no employer contribution changes, and so last year we had an increase in our rate, and we also had an increase in our contribution.

Can you walk me through what our thinking is on keeping that with no change to the contribution from the employer?

Just a budgetary item.

So we're picking up the same cost shares of the premium increase.

We're gonna pick up the majority of the increase of the premium.

So it's just a budgetary item.

So what will be allowed though is you'll be able to contribute more, or the employee and their family can contribute more into an HSA by law under the IRS standards for HSAs, but the employer is not contributing more into the HSA.

We'll contribute the same amount that we are contributing now, which I think we have a slide directly on that.

Oh, okay.

I'll I'll hold my comments then.

Thank you.

Why don't you go to the next slide?

Yeah, this is just showing the uh the impact of the increases over uh year over year and then the loss ratio.

So right now we're like I said, 109.

You can go the next slide.

Um so so currently on our high deductible, it's a $3400 deductible, and the plan pays 100% after that.

Um for the 2027 year IRS uh has us move up to the minimum $3,500 deductible to to uh keep the plans embedded, which means you just have to each person has an individual deductible.

So IRS is forcing us to push up uh the minimum uh deductible on an embedded plan to 3500, and so you'll see in the next slide, I think.

Uh this is just the PPO, so there's no plan change on the PPO plan.

Um then you'll see this is kind of hard, but you focus on the yellow.

So the PPO plan is taking a 7.9% increase.

The high deductible plan had it been able to stay uh at the $3,400 deductible would have taken the same.

But since they're moving the deductible up from $3,400 to $350, that uh that increase was 7.1%.

Because that change of a thousand dollars was an eight-point difference.

So yep, any questions on this?

And I think this is showing contributions for the 27 as well.

Yeah, so tying into your original question.

So what you'll see on that slide in particular is you'll see the change that the current premium is going to be.

And so the cost shares on the far right column tell you how much the city picks up of the changes.

And then the the next slide is just a change in the uh that's just that's just going back to the IRS limits changing.

And then the following slide is on the health savings account.

So I believe we're leaving that the same as it is currently.

So that's the contribution uh towards employees' health savings account, and that's staying flat.

The rest uh so dental, no change to dental plan stays the same, rates stay the same.

Same thing on the next slide is vision, I believe.

Everything's staying the same.

They extended the the the offer for one more year.

Um and then BRE is our employee assistance program, no change in there.

Um change in that.

I think utilization is really good on on the EAP program, so that's for behavioral health.

Um I think we're actually above standard as far as utilization at about 13.89%, um, whereas standard is about uh anywhere from seven to ten percent utilization on most EAPs.

Actually, most EAPs are around three to five.

Brie is a little better at seven to seven to ten, so we're even above their their standard of uh uh the seven to ten.

So good good we'd say better utilization would be a hundred percent, obviously, but uh but 13.89 is is our current uh utilization on the EAP.

So I think that's the end of the presentation.

We can take some questions about the renewal.

We'll start back with Ms.

Turk and then Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, a couple of years ago we had um some employees come up and were dissatisfied with the plan.

Have and and I think last year everybody was was great.

Have you had any feedback from employees this year?

No, and if you'll recall, that was when we tried to change the plan designs that you had some vocal employees, and so um most employees appreciate the 100% coverage after the deductible is met, and at the time when we brought that forward, we had brought some options that dropped the premium, but it would be like an 80% coverage co-insurance once the deductible was met, and then you had some you know very vocal employees about how the final out-of-pocket amount might be quite a bit more if they did that.

So we kept it at the 100% um as our employees have seem to appreciate.

So wonderful.

And then even though we've got a little bit of a raise in the premiums, um, there they've been fine with that too.

Yeah, I'm sure nobody likes having a raise in their premium.

But the city does instead of splitting that increase 50-50, we pick up the majority of it.

So whatever the cost share is, if it's an 85%, um, we'll pick up the 85% of it.

So the impact to the employees since 95% of our people are on that high deductible plan is pretty minimal.

Yeah, thank you for putting that cost share in there.

That was really enlightening to me.

I'd forgotten it was that um lopsided, if you will, or generous, I guess is probably a better term.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Miss Moore.

Thank you.

Um, are you uh able to share further on the BRE that you talked about?

Is that a set of provide like set provider, or is that a host of providers that are able to provide that coverage?

Yes, so BRI, we use them for all sorts of services, which I think their brochures probably in there.

But primarily we use those as a referral service, and we have a network of um counselors and therapists that we use, mental health providers, and by doing and using this, every employee gets and their dependents get access to eight free visits per year per event.

So in a family, that if you've been to a medical health professional, you know it can be expensive.

And so this covers it just as an employer.

We pay the cost of that.

So it's not hitting their insurance.

And we have a very high utilization.

It is a network of providers.

We also use it for our fire and police who maybe have gone through some actionable events or critical events.

And we use trauma providers specifically to this area.

Um and have several providers that they've all vetted and and really feel comfortable going to.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then will you remind me of what the um pay raise was that we did for staff?

Was that set percentage that we did adjustment since we're in a pay study?

We did 3.5% as just a baseline for all non-uniformed.

Okay.

And then this is a seven percent increase in the cost of the insurance, is that correct?

Overall.

Okay.

But we'll pick up depending on which plan you're on.

We pretty much pick up 85 to 89% of that.

Okay.

Okay.

And then do we have any indication?

I think that we're looking at the pay currently to look at like adjustments for for that as well.

And so I know we talked about not making the adjustment um for the HSA.

I mean, is there some thinking that that we're hoping to create some cost savings to be able to think about total budget?

And I don't know who this needs to go to, but total budget to potentially, I'm thinking about total compensation as a user of of the um services for my family as well.

When I came onto council, I actually lost access to my low-cost health care plan through the um health care exchange that I had since the inception of the exchange with my husband working at a small business.

And so I'm just curious.

I know employees haven't given feedback, but I think they're probably just also not fully maybe understanding the whole picture too yet, because they're just a bunch of moving parts and hoping.

Can I get can I repeat what I think you're asking?

And then you tell me if I'm off track or not.

Are are you asking if one of the reasons why we didn't increase the employer contribution to employee HSAs is because we knew that we would want to be able to maximize what we had available to bring everybody up to a more competitive pay range, then the answer is yes.

Okay.

If that was your question.

If not, then I'm gonna send it back to missing.

But but I mean that was yeah, that's essentially I was trying to frame to just say because I know we talk a lot about our total compensation, trying to make sure that you know we have a full package, and so that's hard.

I think it's hard for me to hear that right now, not knowing exactly what we're gonna be able to do for that compensation.

I mean, I'm in the upper middle class working for a nonprofit.

My husband works with at a small business, we have for a number of years.

Um, and so those increases are substantial for us on dental alone with my two children in brace us now and using the city's plan.

Um, with my dental, we've had to do a lot of additional, and we've been surprised.

My kids even were funny when we talked about the math around them.

My kids both exclaimed out loud because um the compensation we've gotten back has been so low on the dental that we've used.

And so we've really had to rely a lot on our HSA.

And I would just think our household's probably not a lot different um than other households um across the city, and so I just wanted to check in on that.

So thank you for for humoring me with that, because I mean I'm doing my math for my own, my own family as well.

And just so to make you comfortable, we are looking at all benefits as part of that comprehensive plan that we are putting together, and you all will be seeing an executive report that details those types of things that you're talking about, along with the proposed changes.

Okay, thank you.

And then um I wanted to check and see.

Um, we said because we have the higher deductible plan, but that's a a benefit to our um our staff.

How many on average um are of our staff members are actually going over that and being covered then at 100%?

I don't know how many people actually hit their deductive.

Uh that's a great question.

We can follow up with that.

Okay.

Usually we look at we can look at 2025 for sure, but being mid midway through the year, we can get uh kind of a midpoint, maybe through May by now.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that.

And then I had one other question about so the total premium for an employee for their PPO and their high deductible plan.

Um, what percentage is the city um paying on that on those high no, it's a different percentage.

It should be on the is it on that chart.

EJ, can you go back to that slide that has got it in here?

Matchings slide six, maybe is this the one uh no?

Uh no.

It's called health plan comparison.

That was in.

Yeah.

So the top, um, the top grid on the far right.

The city contributes less to the PPO.

Um, but also that is if you look at the the um deductible on that, I think it's a $1,000 deductible.

Okay.

So the employee is paying more in premium and less on deductible.

So it is a choice, and you can see that on the far left, you can see how many people are enrolled in that plan versus how many people are in the high deductible plan.

Okay.

Did we talk?

I felt like at some point we had talked about potentially only offering the high deductible plan just because there was such a split between or there's such dramatic difference between mostly folks were on the high deductible plan.

Was that something we had considered, or we're continuing to think we're gonna do two plans going forward?

You said am I I'm gonna try to reframe just offering one plan.

Correct.

I thought I heard that mentioned that maybe we had looked at that just because there were so many folks that were on just one of the plans.

Yeah.

Am I misremember?

I might be misremembering that.

I don't think we've brought that up.

I think one thing that we've considered and and don't necessarily want to look at it for next year is having two different high deductible plans.

Okay.

So that you could control some of the premium, but then the out of pocket uh exposure would be higher because you would have less coinsurance.

So having multiple options within that may be something that we would bring forward.

I think I know my household would probably love to have that as an option.

I'd be curious what other staff members would think about that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you both so much.

Thanks.

Okay.

Our next order of business is um pretty straightforward a resolution to approve a non-exclusive telecommunications franchise agreement with Ozarks Go LLC for the placement and maintenance of buried and aerial fiber octo fiber optic cables and other broadband and other broadband system equipment within the city's public rights of way.

Okay.

Moving on to A4, a resolution to award RFQ 26 3 and authorize a general contractor construction management contract with Emory Sapp and Sons in the initial amount of $50,500 for the Plainview Avenue project.

I know this is one that's been um kind of in the hopper, so to speak, for several years.

We've talked about, and so I know the staff is excited to get started on Plain View.

And Justin's here if you have questions.

I just have one question on that.

Justin, you want to come on up.

I know we've talked a lot about relationships and like past work with um different vendors.

And so just wondered if you'd walk us through with the selected vendor, um, like on what our background has been with them, like how they worked on the previous projects, or are they new to us?

Because I know that this is definitely um a project that's gonna have a lot of eyes on it.

Yeah, absolutely.

And um, unfortunately, I uh only being here for a year and a half, I don't have the history on that, but I do I do remember Chris saying that they did um I know they worked recently.

I I want to say they were part of the Dean Street project and that we had a really good experience with them on that.

So, but I don't really have much history but beyond that one, unfortunately.

Okay, Miss Bunch.

Um it was my it's been a while since I said on this uh meeting here, but um my understanding if I remember correctly, they maybe subcontracted on some other projects in the city.

So we did have a relationship with them in the past, and I wish I had my notes in front of me because but but yeah, so this was the per this was the company we chose, and we all had we had really good uh good choices to you know, good groups to make choices from one was not as good as the others, but but everybody else was really top notch.

So and we'd all worked with all of them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

A5, a resolution to increase the project contingency for the Walker Park Improvements phase one project in the amount of a hundred thousand dollars.

This is our final um uh change order for Walker Park.

Ted is here if you have questions.

Ted or Alison is here, perhaps.

I'm not for sure.

We have someone from Park Allison is there.

Sorry, I couldn't see Allison and Ted are both here.

I've just had a recent just question about um what our kind of a timeline for completion is for down at Walker Park.

So I don't know if this might be a good opportunity to hear kind of what we're looking like.

If you'll come on up, I I think we've been talking about early September, but Ted will certainly have more of those details.

Evening, council mayor.

Yes, that's that's we're looking somewhere probably early September for them to be get to substantial completion.

They may have some more work after substantial completion, but but coming up soon.

Okay, thanks, Ted.

A6, a resolution to award RFP 26-4 and authorize a contract with post-oak preservation solutions in the amount of 79,280 for phase two of a citywide windshield survey of historic properties using a combination of grant funds and pre-approved budgeted funds.

And Kylie is here to be able to answer questions about this if you should have it, if you should have any.

A resolution to authorize the city attorney to seek condemnation and possession of certain lands owned by individuals needed for the South School Waterline Bottleneck project.

And um Tim and Kit can both answer your questions if you have any.

Yes, Mr.

Stafford.

Yeah, I'm just uh just seeking a little info on what this is.

Got it.

Okay.

Um Corey, if you could come up and maybe shed some light that isn't that isn't in the memo, that would be great.

Or even that is in the memo, but just to kind of give us an overview.

Sure.

Uh so this is a uh waterline project that was previously identified in one of our master plans.

It's to relieve a bottleneck in the south end of Fayeville.

The project goes approximately from the Washington County uh kind of complex properties down to Willoughby Road, and there's currently an eight-inch waterline bottleneck there that we're gonna upsize to a 12-inch water line.

Uh along this alignment, there were about 11 property owners that we needed easements from.

And we have uh when we were at water sewer committee last, we were asking for approval to request four uh condemnation proceedings.

We've narrowed that down since that meeting to just one single property.

Um the property that we're requesting this for, we've had uh correspondence touch points with, we've met on site with the property owner, and we've actually accepted their counter offer for the easement.

We just don't have all the signatures yet.

It's one of those properties where you've got multiple family members that would have to sign for it, so it's just a little delayed in getting signed.

Uh that being the case, we are ready to move forward with advertising and bidding the project.

So fingers crossed, we shouldn't we should be able to settle this no problem without going to this, but we do want this approval in place before we advertise.

So this is almost kind of like a safety net.

Exactly.

Safety net.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Thanks, Corey.

That brings us to unfinished business.

The first item of unfinished business is the rezoning on Dean Solomon and Van Act Drive.

Um, which we heard at last week's city council meeting.

Um Jonathan, do you have new information for us about this or anything?

I know there were some questions perhaps that maybe you were working on that you can share.

Yes, very briefly.

I can touch on it.

The two main items that I heard from the council as far as additional information coming out of last week's meeting were accident data along Dean Solomon and topography information.

Uh I have almost have accident data altogether for y'all and have topography information.

I'll make sure that goes out with the final agenda.

I'll also send that directly to you all as well.

Uh additionally, in speaking with the applicant earlier today, they shared that they have met with the nearby residents and they may be bringing forward a revised bill of assurance to uh perhaps uh acknowledge some of their concerns.

Uh but mayor, that's all I have at the moment, and I can answer any questions uh that the council might have.

Okay.

Uh Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

This question is for Jonathan.

I think um Councilman Whitaker proposed last week, Jonathan, and I didn't know if we got any answer about splitting these two up.

I think I can speak to whether we've done that before, and I'll have to rely on Mr.

Williams if there's a a legal concern with that.

My understanding is that the council's ability to do that would be to amend the request before you, which has two parts today.

You could amend it to remove a piece of it that you feel is problematic and vote on the other one.

I don't believe that there is a way for you all to split it into two separate items and then vote on those separately.

Uh I think there's concerns with uh public notification, making sure we have adequate legal descriptions, getting the planning commission's recommendation on those.

But again, if Mr.

Williams has more to add to that or a different take, I'm I've encouraged it.

This has to remain a single item.

Uh you someone could say that uh they want to change the proposed zoning on one partial uh to something else, and that would be an amendment to this ordinance, but it's still eventually is gonna have to be voted on one time either to approve it amended and disapprove it or approve an unamended.

So uh it still has to be one vote at the end by the city council.

So I think that's clarifying question that it that understanding it has to be one vote, but to Minister Jones's point, if it were amended, you could could you in one vote rezone two separate properties each with a different zoning.

Um, your amendment can cover the whole property or half the property or whatever you would like to do on it.

Uh although I will say that probably you have to have partial to partial because we do have the legal descriptions of those parcels.

We don't have legal descriptions otherwise.

So it would have to be partial and partial.

There's two parcels there.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um B2, an ordinance for this is the ordinance to promote transparency, and I spoke with Kit about this yesterday.

And um this is the ordinance brought by Councilmember Sarah Moore.

We still have an amend we still have a motion and a second on the table from council member um Stafford, forgive me, from Councilmember Stafford to amend.

Um we then had a motion to table, I believe from Councilmember Turk.

And so the motion to table supersede.

So it's been tabled.

Um, but when we come back and when we get to this item, we have a motion that still stands from Mr.

Stafford on an amendment.

And there may be other amendments to come.

Uh Ms.

Turk.

Um thank you, Mayor.

I plan on bringing something forward uh that will probably utilize both of your um uh uh of your ordinances.

So just uh just a heads up.

I was hoping to have something today to give you plenty of time to review it, but I I'll try and um give you as much time as possible.

Thank you and thank you for the heads up, Councilmember Turk.

And I'm very open, obviously, to to continuing to talk about it, and I myself have been speaking.

Also weird feedback.

Um have been speaking with people as well in the event I could potentially come forward with a compromise amendment as well.

So hopefully we'll try to get language out as quickly as possible.

But yes, I've been chatting with some other legislators in other parts of the country on it.

Um Dr.

Jones, were you wanting to weigh in or was that just a technology snap?

Uh no, uh I have a question about uh amendments.

Uh and maybe this is for another time, but um when we is there a policy as uh relating to amendments because sometimes when they're made, they come out super late, and I know myself I don't always have the opportunity to look at them.

So I really appreciate uh council member Turk doing hard due diligence of of having them uh for us at least a week earlier because it's really hard to get it an hour before and digest it.

So I'm not sure if there's a policy around an appropriate time to have uh an item that's going to uh to have information uh related to an amendment be for the council, and that's just the thought.

Yeah, that's a great point, Dr.

Jones, and I think that um you if you didn't notice several people were nodding their head in agreement.

Um I believe in Mr.

Williams can correct me if I'm wrong that that would be governed by your the council's rules of order and procedure.

And so no, there is no existing rule that prevents or that sets any sort of timeline for an amendment.

So um you all are by your own rules that you all set for each other, you all can bring an amendment whenever you want.

And I just to add to the conver it's okay.

Oh, it's okay, Bob just waited.

If you want to go ahead and it's okay.

Go ahead, Miss Moore.

Then Mr.

Stafford.

I yield the floor to her.

Thank you.

We're not as formal as in our council meeting, so I apologize.

Um I just wanted to add for consideration of the discussion that we are elected officials, and so one of the things, as much as we want to and should try to um for respect for this body and to digest information, try to get it out as soon as possible, and I'm in agreement.

I think we know the pace and how we just you know learn information.

One of the incredible things that we have about um the power kind of vested with us is that ability to be able to maneuver, and so I'd really caution us at creating handcuffs and putting ourselves with additional rules that don't allow us to fully execute the powers that people elected us, and so we do need maneuverability um because of new information that's gained or you know, things that do just come to us last minute that we learned to possibly have to you know amend things or bring something forward at the last minute.

So I just caution us that setting a time frame um just because we can't um call for or no for every instance that might happen.

So just some uh food for consideration.

Uh Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you.

Uh I just want to quickly apologize to Dr.

I just want to quickly apologize to Dr.

Jones and to the rest of the council for it coming so late.

I've had extremely busy weeks with work uh outside of council and having to coordinate back and forth with with Kit and getting things done in a timely manner uh can sometimes be difficult.

Um I hope everybody's had time to uh review it at this point.

And uh I would also throw in, I'd suggest everybody read uh the Sunday's uh uh Democrat Gazette editorial, I think.

It as far as it brought, I felt brought my points home.

And uh you know, and so I think it's an important read.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Bob.

Okay, so that is all for item B one.

I mean, I'm sorry, for B2.

And that brings us to we'll have new business.

This is really the Mr.

Kurth's the star of this meeting next week.

Um C one ordinance to amend the definition.

Oh, actually, I think these next three, I believe we're gonna hear first from um our chief housing officer Marley Stark.

Um are you and Jonathan presenting for the purposes of tonight?

I know there are three separate items and three separate votes.

Are you presenting all three at once tonight for discussion?

Um I'll have a general intro to just kind of contextualize this with the housing action plan, and then I believe Jonathan has three.

And then we can go back and ask people we can take questions about each one.

So okay.

Well, first up is C1 ordinance to amend the definition of through lot.

Um C2 is an ordinance to modify lot width minimums, and C three is an ordinance to amend residential parking requirements.

We'll take questions separately about all three, but we're gonna talk about them and present them together.

All right, good evening, everyone.

Um tonight I'm very excited to introduce a set of staff-driven code changes.

Um, just wanted to start off by saying that the goal here is really to support Fayetteville's small scale development community.

Um, and we're thinking about our sort of staff-led housing work moving forward.

Um, as we said earlier, Mr.

Kurth will delve into the more technical details of each.

He's got some nice visuals that I think will help everyone get acquainted with each of the recommendations, but I wanted to provide some context about where each of these items fits into our city's broader housing strategy.

So back in June, the city released its 2026 housing assessment as well as a three-year housing action plan.

So instead of the annual set of recommendations that you've maybe seen in past iterations of the housing assessment, um, we really wanted to opt for a sort of mid-term housing strategy, sort of planning document to guide our work moving forward.

Um I think also I like to think about it as sort of outlining our core focus area that are really shaping staff's work plan both in housing and community services and in development services.

Um I think these are also really the areas that when we're thinking about guiding cross-departmental work moving forward, um, that's what we've tried to outline in the housing action plan.

Um so during my annual update back in April, uh, we outlined sort of three major housing goals that we're working towards with those being establishing a local housing funding plan, expanding local shelter capacity in Fayetteville as part of the regional response, um, and then also completing the comprehensive plan update and the code rewrite.

Um, working up towards that.

I think it's also helpful to think about the housing action plan has five uh key strategies under which uh a set of different action items for staff are organized.

So tonight I wanted to give a little bit of context for our first strategic focus area, which is advancing pro-housing reforms.

Um, in particular, um, really want to emphasize that we know that removing barriers for our local smaller scale home builders is really mission critical for delivering the types of housing that we know Fayetteville needs most, not just what is easy to build today.

Um I think this is particularly important when we think about that desire to see um you know encouraging more missing middle housing, so things like townhomes, duplexes, ADUs that I think we're all hungry to see, but making sure that our um sort of development environment encourages that as well.

So looking at strategy one, um I've pulled out kind of the key items that are in the housing action plan, which is available on the housing and community services website, um, but really wanted to focus on the items that are related to housing policy development, both at the local level and the state level.

So I really think that the through line here is a commitment to continuing to bring you know these targeted local changes that are more immediately within our control, um, and then combining that with a bigger picture focus on sort of state level opportunities that we can you know be supportive of.

So the package of pro housing policies that's before you tonight, and you'll you'll vote on next week is really the result of um you know many conversations, not only amongst staff within you know different housing working groups, but also our external partners.

Um I think Fayetteville has really been a leader in Arkansas in the local housing policy space.

And I know sometimes those those feel like incremental changes as we as we're working up to this bigger um you know project of a code rewrite, which we're we're certainly excited about and excited to see that accelerated.

Um but I think Fayville will continue to lead in that space.

That's why staff um continues to remain committed to this uh sort of periodic changes.

Um so in addition to the three that we've brought to you this week, uh we also intend to bring a second batch of recommendations um in the fourth quarter of this year.

So just wanted to go ahead and flag that um for for your calendars moving forward.

Um and I think again, just uh really uh uh underscoring that commitment to continuous incremental improvement and knowing that that does add up over time.

Um in late 2026 through mid-2027, um, city staff in the mayor's office will be hyper focused on thinking about state level policy advocacy, um sort of in in the housing um realm, really thinking about the state legislative session.

Um and also I think part of the the focus of that um, you know, just to highlight is really thinking about the future of mixed income housing development, so not just mixed use, but also mixed income, sort of the barriers um that exist today and also expanding the tools that we have statewide um to advance a variety of housing goals in northwest Arkansas.

So now on to the fun part.

Um so this should look a bit familiar.

This was a slide from April's housing update.

Um the ordinances for your consideration on this agenda include modifying the definition of a through lot, reducing the minimum lot width to 12 feet for dwellings in urban residential and mixed-use zoning districts, and ensuring that the planning commission has the discretion to write size parking requirements for residential developments.

I'll go ahead and hand it over to Mr.

Kurth um to talk about each of these in greater detail, but be happy um to answer questions this week or next week about the housing action plan and how this relates.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Stark.

Thank you, Mayor.

The first of the items before you, I don't know, Mary, if you'd like to read their descriptions first or if my presentation will suffice for that.

Um C2 now.

C one.

Okay, yes.

Do you want me to read it on that?

Oh, is that okay?

I can read it again.

No, an ordinance to initiative in 1518.

Gotcha, thank you.

Uh and it bears knowing uh for council that all three of these items are before you with the planning commission's unanimous recommendation of approval and staff support.

Uh this item, uh discussing through lots specifically, has its roots back in late 2019 when an ordinance was brought forward by a city council member to discourage double frontage lots.

Uh that begs the question what is a double frontage lot if you don't speak the typical lingo that we use in land use development.

A double frontage lot is a piece of property that's not a corner lot, but has access to two streets.

So taking this example on RuPa Road, the lots outlined in yellow, all access RuPaul to the east and an interior street of the subdivision to the west.

Uh, one of the reasons that this was a concern of that council member, and which ultimately led to the ordinance's adoption was that the outcome of this is tends to be streetscapes that are uh predominated by privacy fences, woodboard fences, uh not particularly conducive towards interactions with properties.

Uh and accordingly, uh the ordinance was adopted to discourage uh that from occurring.

Uh unfortunately, where that was a uh a concern that is uh repeatedly seen uh outside the city's uh core, uh where it had a unexpected consequence was closer to the city's interior on infill lots in particular, where it's a fairly common condition in new subdivisions to have water and sewer lines on every single street where every single lot can access them in several of our older neighborhoods in Fayetteville, it's a more common condition to have water or sewer on many streets, and some lots have or some streets have no water or sewer at all.

And so as we look to encourage uh more uh flexible housing types, more flexible lot subdivision options.

Uh, we found that the several infill developers in the city were not able to subdivide as needed in order to be able to access these utilities, not to have a double frontage lot to create fences, but to simply be able to access the water and sewer necessary to subdivide those lots.

So ultimately, uh what we're proposing with this request is to um uh revise that uh definition somewhat to allow a through lot where uh it is only being used for access for required utilities.

And uh we are again are recommending in favor of that.

And when the planning commission heard it, uh they supported it unanimously forwarding it to the city council.

And I can take any questions on that item or advance on to the next one.

I think I have some questions to the others.

So go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh so Jonathan, um, right now, under this scenario, are you saying that I'm a little confused about where it stands now?

Right now, you wouldn't be able to do the through lot like you're saying.

Is that is that the issue?

Correct.

A developer or a homeowner or property owner would have to go to the planning commission and ask for an exception.

So it adds six weeks or longer to the process.

So just getting a variance, and how often does that happen in a situation like this?

Can you can you kind of give us a you know five times, ten times a year or uh I don't have numbers.

I can work to get that for you uh for the council meeting.

Um of the challenges with frankly all three items that we're gonna be discussing tonight is sometimes there's a uh that it's difficult to quantify things that don't happen.

Uh it's very frequent that staff are approached with proposals, and when we share the standards or uh some of the process that's involved in them, they we don't hear anything additional to that.

But I I can pull the information on those that did go to the planning commission and see if there's anecdotal evidence beyond that uh for for the council to hear.

That that would be very helpful.

Um so I remember when we passed that and the reason for passing that.

And so um, yeah, it would just be nice to know how how challenging this is or how frequent this is.

Certainly.

Thank you.

Didn't have my mic on.

A resolution to read, I'm sorry, an ordinance to reduce the minimum lot width for residential dwellings from 18 feet to 12 feet in the residential intermediate urban RIU, community services, urban thoroughfare, main street center, and downtown general zoning districts by amending sections 161.12, 161.22, 161.24, 161.27, and 161.28 of the unified development code.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This proposal is in response to many, many, many years of feedback that we received from developers again, uh, those that tend to do infill development about the need for more flexible lot widths uh to afford the ability to subdivide property in more flexible ways.

Uh staff initially addressed this in uh December of 2025 last year when we brought forward the proposal to adopt the UN urban neighborhood zoning district with the which the council ultimately adopted.

Uh what we found uh almost immediately thereafter is that the appetite for having more flexibility and subdividing land was greater than we uh perhaps had even anticipated.

And there were several instances where property or where developers wanted to pursue the UN urban neighborhood zoning district, but staff gave feedback that it wasn't something that we could support.

Some of those went forward, some of those did not.

And ultimately uh we became a reoccurring theme that uh developers needed more flexibility, especially in those urban and mixed-use zoning districts where uh 18-foot lot widths are currently what is allowed.

It's not that 12-foot townhouses are what are desired to be built, but it's more to be able to create fee simple properties where they can create a 12-foot lot width that extends to uh typically the rear portion of the property uh on which a house could be located or or portions of a house in a duplex.

Uh with that in mind, what staff is proposing is to reduce the lot width on the uh zoning districts that include our UT Urban Thoroughfare, CS Community Services, Downtown General, DG, MSE Main Street Center, and RIU residential intermediate from the lot width of 18 feet where it is today to 12 feet, uh which would mirror what the UN urban neighborhood zoning district has today.

Uh again, uh as with the well, as a visual example of what I'm discussing, is uh again, it's not as much in our experience uh a desire to see very, very narrow units.

Uh the market uh does not seem to have much of an appetite for that, but it does allow access or does allow the ability for more flexible land subdivision where a strip of property can be maintained out to the street, uh, where water and sewer access can uh be provided to the unit as a related aside.

Uh we do have policies in the city of Fayel when it comes to private water and sew private water and sewer service lines uh where they cannot cross uh private property lines.

Uh if you have a a water your service line and your water sewer and your water service lines coming from the main, they need to go directly to your property, not crossing your neighbor's front yard where in the future they could possibly have to be dug up.

And so this allows the flexibility of a fee simple piece of property extending from a unit out to the street where they can connect to that water and sewer.

And as a visual of what's being proposed, uh it is uh deceptively simple, perhaps a changing uh 18 foot to 12 foot in those zoning districts that I described.

And I can take any questions that the council might have to uh Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

So Jonathan, uh help me understand this.

What I heard you say is as a council we adopted is I'm sorry, the UN zoning code, which is urban neighborhood, and they haven't been able to get approved because of the 18 foot lot width rule.

I think I may have described that poorly.

The the UN zoning district has a 12-foot lot width allowance with it, and it is that 12-foot lot width that a number of developers would like to utilize as a part of redeveloping or developing a piece of property.

Uh the UN zoning district also includes non-residential uses specifically that cannot always be appropriate in all circumstances, whether it's in a mid-block condition in a neighborhood uh where narrower lots might be appropriate.

And what I was aspiring to get across is that there are conversations that staff has with uh developers where they may want to develop, may want to rezone a property to have those 12-foot lot widths, but we don't feel comfortable with staff supporting it from a land use compatibility standpoint because that UN zoning district includes non-residential uses in particular.

Does that help clarify?

Okay.

So Jonathan, I think what would be really helpful for me next week is that if you had what the existing CX CS and other um RIU and all the other ones that you've got up here downtown general, um what their existing lot with is right now compared to the 12 foot that you're proposing.

And then secondly, did you all have discussions or conversations about just um uh adding on this 12-foot uh axe basically an access area for any tandem lot?

It it to me it seems like a radical shift to um reduce the lot width for the for this many zoning districts as opposed to just simply adding this 12-foot um allowance onto a tandem lot.

Does that make sense?

It does.

I think and taking your your first comment first.

If again, if I did not if I wasn't uh effective in describing it, all those zoning districts I described are have 18-foot lot width minimums today, and we're proposing they all go to 12 foot lot widths today.

But I'll make sure to include that more clearly in my presentation on Tuesday.

And to your second question, which or your question, I think I understood it, which is why why are we using zoning perhaps as the tool to allow more flexible lot width instead of perhaps our tandem lot standards?

Uh I think there's a few components to that.

Uh tandem lots do not allow uh different varying building types.

Uh so you can't necessarily put a duplex and then subdivide that duplex on a tandem lot.

Uh where we have seen the UN zoning district used, uh, one example is where you have a duplex at the street and you can subdivide both those units and sell them fee simple.

And then you could have them share a parking area.

Uh and that there would be a duplex position somewhat behind it, and then be able to divide that on with individual pieces of land coming out and also being able to access it.

And our tandem lot ordinance does not allow that flexibility.

I think broadening the tandem lot allowance represents a wider consideration where tandem lots are potentially allowed citywide, and this is intended to only be focused on areas where we've determined that the zoning districts are urban or mixed use in nature.

If if if the does that help answer your question, the tandem lot is a citywide standard, whereas we're intending this to be dialed into the context where we have a city or we as a city or the council's approved zoning designations that are more urban or mixed use in nature.

That's really helpful.

And I'd forgotten that like community services only had an 18-foot lot width.

So thank you for reminding me that.

Um Yeah, it it would be great if you could provide a lot more examples um next Tuesday, uh, because I think there might be um some other people that have forgotten that those lot widths are already very narrow.

And and then I guess my final question is in terms of the approval process, the zoning approval process.

So actually, I'll hold off to next week.

I'm just wondering kind of procedurally, and I don't have it all in my head to ask the right question right now.

Okay.

So yes, you had mentioned fee simple, like on a duplex, being able to split it off.

Do you think that this would allow some tiny homes to be built?

They'd have to be really tiny homes, but you know, on 12 foot wide lots, would we able to be would we be able to do that in the city?

Are you asking if you could build if if you have a 12-foot wide lot.

Is it is it a concern that there we'll be seeing detached narrow homes that you're asking about?

Or I think there are, you know, like little bitty small studio homes.

Understood.

I think I think there are not overarching necessarily, but orbiting regulations that may limit homes that are problematically narrow, if that's what you're asking for instance, building code uh requires separation from property lines uh to to make sure that the walls have adequate fire rating.

And I think that would inherently prevent somebody from doing a what like a four-foot structure or something like that.

If somebody wanted to do a 12-foot town home, for example, that would be feasible under this.

You could have a lot, a 48-foot lot in theory, where you have well, it probably need to be more, so you have exterior separation, but and then have 12-foot lots with units within those.

That that was kind of what I was going more for instead of like the you know, freestanding tiny, tiny homes.

But but you know, if you had like they would still be tiny homes.

I mean you uh if something is 12 feet wide, you know, it's not it's not gonna be very big, obviously, unless uh but uh that's what I was wondering if we could do that.

I guess it would be the same thing as the duplex, basically.

You know, I think so to count and to Councilmember Turk's question, I think I can do I can provide more visuals that may help with it or at least may help frame uh any additional questions that the council has.

And to that point, I I believe that there is a need for more smaller houses in Fayetteville.

A lot of our demographics suggest that our households are getting smaller.

Well, I was going for instead of I I'm it's it's been hot today.

So it's it's been I've been outside a lot, so I'm kind of like I'm tired.

But um that's kind of where I was going for more than more than trying to deny something.

We might have some a very small studio type home that someone could actually buy.

So thank you.

Mr.

Beaker.

Thank you.

Kind of the New Orleans shotgun model we're we're talking about here.

Jonathan, when I saw this, I I inadvertently and prematurely got excited that maybe we would be reducing the number of rezonings, but that's not the purpose of this code change at all.

It's and so we I you have no hope that this would reduce the number of rezonings coming to us.

It it may.

Uh I know we have seen some surprising requests in the past to rezone from uh downtown general, for example, which is a very permissive zoning district, uh, people wanting to re-down zone effectively to UN urban neighborhood.

And so that's kind of the inverse of what I was uh dialoguing with Councilmember Turk about, which is it's not always that staff has anxieties about increasing entitlement.

Sometimes we as a city have determined that we want to see a higher level of entitlement in a certain area.

And if somebody wanted a 12-foot lot width, but they were decreasing the entitlements on our property, staff could have similar anxieties, which as a spoiler, there's a a similar related rezoning down agenda that we'll be talking about where an applicant is requesting to down zone a piece of property and staff has reservations about it.

So I I don't I don't want to misrepresent that council will be seeing fewer rezonings without any doubt, uh, but I think it could potentially uh do that with um some of the zoning districts in the city that are more common, such as CS and UT, where they're already today, they exist today.

Thank you.

Though Britain has worked really hard to accelerate the launch of our unified development code rewrite, which will mean fewer rezonings.

So we'll have to find some other way to fill our time together.

Uh oh, I thought I saw.

Okay.

Jonathan, so that brings us to three.

An ordinance to allow the planning commission to grant additional parking reductions for residential uses by amending 172.05 standards for the number of spaces by use of the unified development code.

Thank you, Mayor.

And as with the previous items, I will step back a little bit before coming to where we are presently to do so, uh, just as a brief reminder to council.

Uh prior to May of 2025 last year, uh our parking ordinance was set up such that uh any project of any size was eligible for a series of parking reductions.

Uh those were based on factors like proximity to transit, their willingness to substitute bike racks for parking spaces.

Uh and then in addition to that, the planning commission had very broad variance authority to both increase the amount of allowed parking and to decrease the amount of allowed parking.

In the period since that standard had been adopted, which was years prior to that, uh concerns had arisen in many parts of town, particularly where there were student housing complexes where many of those developers took the full reductions and where those reductions constituted a larger number of parking places for every percent of parking that was not built.

So reducing 10% of a hundred unit building versus 10% of a 10 unit building, you're inherently having much more parking that is not going accounted for.

A concern that we expressed at the time was uh there was a perhaps uh there was expectation that we may be seeing projects that could come forward that need more flexibility in in parking.

Uh and uh we uh we shared that at the council uh uh when it was discussed.

Uh not long after that ordinance was adopted and in early May of 2025, a ordinance that specifically targeted student housing uh was adopted.

Uh that instituted a requirement that private dormitories receive conditional use permits.

A component of that was that parking was a specific use condition uh that the planning commission will specifically consider uh with each and every one of those proposals.

Considering that timing of those ordinances uh and and staff's concern, uh we felt it was uh uh prudent after evaluating a number of projects with developers that ultimately did not come forward that needed more parking uh flexibility uh to bring a proposal that changes effectively one section of the uh uh the code that was adopted in May.

And what that will do is it takes the planning commission's cap today, which is a maximum of 35% reduction, and it will allow them a addition a 35% reduction in addition to any of the reductions that are already described uh in the table that uh identifies how much parking can be reduced based on the unit counts.

So to put that perhaps in more visual terms, uh again that table or that that tiered reduction allowance was based on bedrooms, uh a buy-right reduction, and then the the third column or fourth column you see there, the reduction by variance was that cap that the planning commission could offer.

Uh what staff proposes here is granting a 35% or allowing the planning commission to grant an additional 35% on top of that.

Again, this is a variance, it's not by ripe, uh, and uh we are recommending in favor of it, and the planning commission forwarded it to city council unanimously.

Um happy to answer any questions the council has.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, could you send us that slide?

Especially that one is really important.

I didn't see it in the planning commission packet.

Maybe it's in there, but um, it would be helpful if we could get that slide.

And um, what I would really appreciate is to see again.

Sorry, I need real world examples um, you know, of place of uh situations that you all have encountered where they needed more parking, and so we can kind of scale it and understand how that would work in in the real world.

It it certainly if I understood you're correct, you want to see situations where more parking was needed.

Is that what you said?

Yes, that you had developers that were turning away because of the limitations that we had set last year on the parking.

Okay.

I and to be clear, what is being discussed here is to have off is to allow the planning commission to consider variances for less parking or less parking.

Did I misstate it?

He just said more parking.

Okay, okay.

I just wanted to be clear.

Okay.

Yeah, so just if you could just a lot, I'm just an example, gal.

So if if you could provide some of those, that would that would be really helpful for me to better understand it.

Next week.

We'll see what we can do.

And again, this is a similar comment to the first item.

Because the planning commission today cannot grant variances beyond this, people are not submitting projects beyond this if they can't make them work without this.

But did I misunderstand?

I thought you I thought you had conversations where they needed they they needed a uh a variance and and that wasn't allowed.

Correct.

Yes.

That staff is approached regularly uh with proposals for projects.

They don't always turn into formal submittals or applications.

Uh, I can see if we have documents, sometimes they provide documents to us in advance so that we can evaluate those.

If we have those, I I can certainly thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan, I think my um question would be our planning commission.

Has the state constitutional and trusted powers to make decisions on equitable contribution to mitigate the impacts that the project is having.

For instance, building sidewalk or trail that are street widening.

And so I have concern, as I voiced many times, and you've been very patient with me as always to say I fear that we give away our power in Fayetteville, and that we have a tradition of not realizing that we have the ability to say you want something, I want something.

And so I think that I would want to be sure that we're training our planning commissioners that they have a legal basis and foundation for saying that yes.

Um it's a business model difference.

Just as an example, well, what's the you're gonna say Vicks parking spaces?

What's that dollar value?

Are you interested in contributing that dollar value to our public transit system?

Or other means, because I I feel that when we change the rules citywide, we dilute our ability to incentivize development the kind we want where we want it.

And so that's always my hesitation when we just change something like this.

So you're asking me to trust the planning commission to change their comfort level, and that's going to involve guidance from my city attorney, it's going to involve guidance from you, it's going to involve guidance from my mayor, so that I won't feel like we're just giving it away and not getting something for the residents of Fayetteville, whether that would be a lock-in on a rental rate below market value.

Uh so those are going to be the concerns and cautions that I'm going to bring, because we're not going to give anyone money.

This is a powerful incentive, or you wouldn't be bringing it to us as a need.

But if someone wants this, what does the community get in exchange for putting more cars on the street?

And that would be my comment and question for us to consider.

Okay.

Do we have any more questions about um item C3 for Jonathan?

Okay.

So we will move to C4, an ordinance to amend ordinance 6957 regarding the conditional removal of 279 linear feet of Tanglewood branch from the streamside protection zone and allowing the developer to submit a revised site plan for the property located south of 576 West Center Street.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, while this location may initially look familiar to the council, I'll take a moment to orient you.

Uh we are in downtown uh along West Center Street, immediately west of the Razorback Greenway on the south side of the street.

The council last considered this item in January of this year.

There was a proposal at that time requesting to amend the uh streamside protection map of the city of Faville to remove a portion of it uh so that a development could be built uh straddling the stream in that area.

Uh if the council recall, one of the conditions of that approval was that the project be substantially similar to what was approved at that time, and one of council's parting questions to me is what's constitutes substantially similar or not.

The applicant proposed this a few months ago with modifications to the project.

Uh those include an additional story, additional residential units, and a change in how the project interacts with the stream, uh specifically where there was previously a open interaction.

I believe the applicant called it a streamside appreciation zone.

Now the proposal is to uh completely cover the stream uh by what will be a structured parking deck.

Uh and we feel that that constitutes uh a substantial change, and we asked that the item be resubmitted to the planning commission for their consideration.

Uh when the planning commission look uh considered it, they ultimately uh recommended it in favor of it and they forwarded it to city council by a vote of five to zero, with two recusing.

Uh we do have concerns about uh or remaining concerns or uh outstanding concerns that still remain from the first time this item was considered about uh the potential implications for future projects making similar requests to amend our uh streamside protection zone uh this substantially.

And I can take any questions that the commission has, and I believe uh we'll also have presence by engineering too if you have uh detailed questions either tonight or on Tuesday.

Uh Ms.

Moore.

Um Jonathan, did I hear you correctly that there was um were of the stream that was going to be covered and not open?

And can you walk us through that?

I'm looking at the packet.

Is there an illustration?

Because uh part of the appeal was like that there was more of a like a water area and the ability for like the public and for residents of that to be able to kind of engage there.

I'm just trying to understand what we approved previously versus kind of what the changes being able to see that pretty clearly, and maybe it's in the here and I'm just struggling to know which is which.

Yes, that's a good question.

And if I'm not able to adequately show it tonight, I'll ensure that uh that is absolutely clear on Tuesday.

I'm seeing if I can pull it up in this moment.

Sorry, it's taking me a moment here.

They're like sideways too, so trying to look sideways.

25 This is an effort to be hasty.

I'm giving it to you at a 90 degree angle.

I apologize.

And that's what we approved, correct?

Correct.

And so they're removing that.

That's correct.

Yes.

Yeah, that's incredibly concerning to me.

Yeah, I'm super disappointed to hear that.

I mean, that's being kind.

Yeah.

I don't think we have any more.

Oh, Ms.

Turk, sorry.

Just to reinforce um Councilmember Moore's.

If if you if we could have a here's what we approve versus here's what they're proposing now, and have them not sideways but lined up, that would be really helpful so that we can we could better understand, and especially um the stream section that they may want to cover uh if that's different than last time.

So I I'll work to in retrospect that's something we ought to have included in the packet.

I apologize.

I'll work to get that to you all before not at the council meeting next Tuesday, so you can have it to deliberate as you look at the packet over this week.

And then did I hear you correctly that the changes that they're proposing with that are an additional story and more covered parking?

Correct.

It's an additional story of structured parking, and so the building will move vertically.

Okay, so that goes hand in hand.

And it will ultimately also include additional housing as well.

There'll be 10 more units that they're proposing with the project.

Okay, so we we lose the water being in enacted with in the way it was originally proposed to get those things.

I think that's a fair way to describe it.

Okay, all right.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Thank you, Jonathan.

And that brings us to C5, an ordinance to approve vacation 26-8 for property at 2434 North Dean Solomon Road in Ward 2 to vacate 3,320 square feet of pre of tree preservation area contingent upon the dedication of a new 12,915 square feet tree preservation easement, the planting of 46 mitigation trees and other conditions.

Is this you or um Miss Thomason for presenting on this one?

If the council would like to hear it, Miss Uh Thomason is here from Forestry.

Great.

If we have questions.

If not, we will move on to the next one.

Yes.

I knew you would, so that's why I said that because I thought there's no way.

I was looking around because I thought somebody else would have some questions too.

Um so yeah, if you yeah, come on up, please.

Thank you.

I will so I know we established that um vacation policy last year, uh, where I believe if I'm it was at least twice uh of what the original vacation was.

Is that correct?

I think it's I I might be incorrect.

It states that the um sort of trade-off must include an easement of equal or greater size.

Okay.

I thought it was I may be incorrect.

I'll look that up this week too.

I was thinking it was twice, but uh or it was substantial, something like that.

Um so if I haven't had a chance to go through the packet, so it would be kind of like a spreadsheet.

If it's already in there, that's awesome.

If not, if you could kind of lay out what is existing now and what they're offering.

Sure.

So this um tree preservation easement was dedicated in 2022 as part of the requirements of a large-scale development associated with the auto park.

And there are actually three tree preservation easements um associated with that dedication.

Um the one which they are proposing to vacate a portion of is nearly 5,000 square feet.

Um they're proposing to vacate 3,320 square feet.

Um and in exchange, they're proposing to dedicate a 12,915 square foot um easement on the same property.

So it it would be on the Lewis Auto Park campus, um north of where this current tree preservation easement is.

And with that, they're also proposing to plant 46 mitigation trees on site, um, some of which would be placed in the new proposed easement, some of which would be planted in available green spaces elsewhere on site.

And I think it's important to note that the trees associated with the portion of the easement they're proposing to vacate um are mature silver maples, but they are not located on the Lewis Auto Park campus.

They're located directly south on the church's property.

And while their root zone will be potentially impacted by um this drive driveway to allow for vehicular circulation around the building.

Um they might be impacted by that construction, but they are not planning to remove the trees.

They're intending to install tree preservation fencing and um you know ensure their protection to the best of their ability.

I uh so when I read through this, it was I thought it was pretty complicated and it sounds like it still is.

Um I might um I don't know if anybody else is interested, but I might want to go on a tour for for this maybe on Monday, if that's possible.

So we can I guess we could talk about that later.

Mr.

Kurth, do you want to go ahead?

Let's go ahead and ask him to go ahead and get it out of the way now.

Multiple counselors would like that, or if y'all would like to visit the property independently, that's um at least two have requested a tour.

Uh, two, okay, I'm sorry, I was not like that.

Yeah, it's okay.

Okay.

Um yes, we can coordinate that.

Is does Monday work for the council at large.

They're nodding.

Yes.

Okay, sorry.

I will.

We will look this apologize.

This is a guy.

What time?

I pulled up my calendar.

Uh we typically have done it between about three and five o'clock.

Uh so I'll propose three o'clock if that's a good starting place.

I mean, as usual, 4 30 requests for me for work.

Um 4 30 is fun with me.

If it needs to be earlier, I could always drive by myself as well.

Yeah, 4 30 for me.

So I don't have to interrupt my work.

Does 4 30 on the 20th then work for the larger group?

All right, we'll work to coordinate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And mayor, briefly before we move away from that item to council member's question.

I was able to look that up.

The way that section reads is it does not quantify what it must be offset with.

It reads the city council may require that vacation of summer.

All the tree preservations shall be offset by the establishment of a new tree preservation easement of greater size and/or improved canopy health and ecological benefit.

So it's written as a they may require that, and it doesn't say if it's one for one or two for one or ratio like that.

Great.

Thank you.

Um moving on to C6, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026 20 for approximately 0.20 acres located at 518 North Mission Boulevard in Ward 1 from RSF 4, residential single family for units per acre, rezoning to RI 12, residential intermediate 12 units per acre.

If anyone has any questions about this one, uh Ms.

Munch.

Uh yes, Jonathan, I have a question.

Uh owner.

I forgot if this is A or B attachment here.

It are there two structures on this property.

It it mentions an 800, like an 826 square foot home, but are there two buildings on it?

I believe it's an accessory structure on this one.

I don't think it's a uh a dwelling unit from from my recollection.

Okay.

Talk about the structure in the backyard.

Yeah, yeah.

And I'm I'm trying to um go back to your report here.

So there's an 800, there's a house on it, correct?

That's 826 square foot single family home.

Is that right?

Yes, correct.

That's the structure towards the front of the property, and I'm double checking with county records right now to see if they list both structures there.

It just looked on that diagram.

It just looked like both structures were about the same size.

So you're not wrong.

They are they're about the same size.

Uh one is about looks like they're both about 800 square feet.

One is listed with the county as a single family residence and the other as a unfinished garage.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

Seeing no more questions about that one.

C7 is an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-21 for approximately 3.78 acres, located at 2445 North Hume Humont Road in Ward 4, from RA Residential Agricultural, and NSG neighborhood services general to RSF 8 residential single family eight units per acre.

Is this the one that you were saying that had a down zone that was had an interest that was a little bit interesting?

This is.

Would you like me to touch on that, Mayor?

Please.

Okay.

This is in Northwest Fayetteville.

Uh it's along North Humont Road.

Uh some on the council may recall this.

This was annexed in the city in 2020, and that was effectively a requirement of the subdivision's construction.

Uh long ago, the city agreed to give water and sewer to the subdivision, and when the potential existed to annex, they had to make that request.

So that was honored in 2020, and as a part of the annexation, uh the subdivision was rezoned uh to uh RSF 8, I believe it is, and then a portion along floodplain was zoned RA as our uh previous standard for uh areas we want to keep as open space.

And this portion that is before the council tonight or next Tuesday, which is about three and three quarter acres, was zoned NSG neighborhood services general.

Uh at the time uh this was intended to offset the land that was downzoned effectively to RA and to afford the ability for residents in this area to see services built near them since the NSG zoning district allows uh small amenities, offices, restaurants, and the like.

Uh as the property has changed hands uh to the current applicant, DR Horton, uh they found that their preferences to develop it with single-family dwellings and that they can more readily do that under the RSF-8 zoning district and are proposing to rezone it uh from NSG which a neighborhood services general to RSF-8.

Uh staff is not in favor of that request.

Uh, we find that it is appropriate to have the opportunity for non-residential uses and potentially even diverse housing types in this area.

Uh the planning commission, however, uh felt generally felt it was appropriate to uh rezone it and forward it to city council by a vote of four to three when they heard it at their uh June 22nd meeting.

I can take any questions that the council has just to be clear, um Jonathan.

Um all of that property, even the flood zone is they're proposing RSF-8.

So there's no cutout or allowance or RA even in that flood zone area.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Moving on to our next item.

An ordinance to rezone or sorry, C eight, RZN 2026-18 West Wedding Drive, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-18 for approximately 0.55 acres located at 1845 West Weddington Drive in Ward 4 from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

And I am actually gonna pause to take care of a technical difficulty.

We have um residents that are locked out of the Jordan Annex that are there for a meeting that begins at six o'clock.

Um I don't see Byron or Quinn in the room.

Um Chief Harden, I would greatly appreciate it.

Do you mind to go over there and see if you could get that open?

I apologize, but greatly appreciate it.

You're never gonna come to an agenda session again.

I'm gonna put you to work.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moot you're welcome.

And moving on, and and sorry about that.

Um that that that wasn't open.

Um, and thank you for letting me know, Clerk Paxton, or I'm not for sure who sent me that message if it if it was your other number, but thank you.

And back to C eight, West Weddington Drive rezoning.

Um, if we have questions about that, Jonathan is here and available and we'll happily answer them.

Yes, Teresa.

I'm just a perpetual talker tonight.

I was like, you can't let it go.

Give me a gold star.

So uh for next week, Jonathan.

If you could really, you know, I mean, we're considering changing the RIU from 18 to 12 now.

What's the implication for um this proposed property?

How many uh units could you get in there?

Um, all of those things I always ask about, but especially since we're considering changing the lot width.

Certainly I'll try to diagram that out.

Thank you.

And if there's any topography information, I have to, I think that's a little bit on a slope.

And I believe that there's been some drainage issues there too that have flowed down into VISTA.

So that would also be really helpful to have those documented and available.

Certainly.

And if you haven't had a chance to look at it, uh it does bear noticing that this item is at the council on appeal.

Staff uh planning staff recommended in favor of it, but the uh planning commission did deny it one to six.

So just to keep in mind as you consider it, and I'll work on those other items.

Great.

Thank you all so much.

Oh, sorry, Bob, go ahead.

That's all right.

I just turned on my light.

Uh Jonathan, what were the uh planning commission's uh that's a pretty big denial?

What were their uh main objections to the rezone?

The the main concern that I recall hearing was one about drainage.

Uh I think this is towards the northwest end of the slope coming down from uh that area.

That's yeah, again, if you've not had a chance to look at it closely, this is what I would characterize as near West Weddington.

It's just immediately as you come out of the curve from Garland on the south side of Weddington between I'm sorry, I believe it's Eva and saying on the south side of the street.

Yeah.

Okay.

So it was mostly about drainage.

You'd say that was the chief concern?

Yes.

Were there any other major concerns?

Uh I think there was some public comment.

I don't know if that factored into it, the expressing that they felt that this was spot zoning, uh, going from RSF4 to RIU.

Uh case law has not necessarily supported historically that it's spot zoning to go from a residential to a residential zoning district.

Mr.

Williams can, of course, speak to that more ably than I if needed.

Um, but I think there was concerns that going from RSF4, which is a generally low density zoning district to RIU, which allows more urban density and and and townhomes and other housing types was was problematic.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Sorry, I'm trying to solve our door situation.

Do we have any other um I don't think we have anything else we have um a vacancies and announcement if you want to go ahead and share that with the group, Clerk Paxton?

Good evening.

Um the office of the city clerk treasurer is currently accepting applications for boards, committees, and commissions on behalf of the city of Fayetteville.

That is posted out on the city's website under boards and committees.

Those applications must be submitted by 5 p.m.

on Friday, July 24th.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

And we're gonna wrap up our agenda session.

We have I know a food commission meeting.

Thank you, Brad, for making sure we can get into the Jordan Annex.

And we have other committee meetings after this, yes or no?

Not that I'm I think just food commission.

We canceled.

Correct.

Okay, great, thank you all so much.