Okay, everybody, if I could have a little bit of quiet.

Um, we are about to we are about to call this meeting to order.

Um, and then I have a couple of announcements, but let's go ahead, uh Clerk Paxson and call the roll.

Mr.

Stafford.

Here Dr.

Jones, here Ms.

Moore, here Mr.

Wiedaker?

Here.

Mr.

Berna?

Here.

Ms.

Bunch?

Here.

Ms.

Turk?

Here.

Minister Jones.

Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just have a couple of housekeeping announcements this evening before we get started.

And the first, um, you surely will have noticed the ductwork that is decorating the uh perimeter of the chamber here.

We are working to make it more energy efficient and more comfortable.

However, in the meantime, it is quite loud, particularly for those of us that are sitting up here because it is right behind us blowing air.

So usually we're the ones that are blowing a lot of hot air.

Right now, we have this is blowing a lot of hot air.

So I would ask that you all please keep the chatter in the chamber to a minimum so that we can focus and hear on who is at the microphone.

Also, we know that we have a lot uh or we have topics tonight on the agenda that have inspired a lot of passion and engagement in our community, and that is wonderful to see.

I am going to ask on behalf of all of my council members that we please keep things respectful.

We all want to hear your voices on this matter.

Um, they are important to us.

Um, but if we could just keep some civility and be respectful, I think that will make for a much more productive evening.

And so with that, I'm going to uh move on to the consent agenda.

Item A1, a resolution to an approve and agreement with red line contractors.

A2, approval of an insurance broker contract, a three, approval of citywide corporate accounts and cooperatives, a four approval of a contract with first employment staffing for temporary staffing services.

A5, approval of a contract with HQ NW Arkansas, LLC for temporary staffing services.

A6, a cost share agreement for with Greenway, pardon me, cost share agreement for the Greenway Trail with Greater Productions LLC and the associated budget adjustment.

A7, Environmental Consulting Operations Inc.

Amendment Number 12.

A8, Skull Creek Stream Restoration, and A9, 2025-40 West Elm Street and North Leverett Avenue, a resolution to approve ADM 2025-40, amending the master street plan.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to pass the consent.

Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll?

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

And Minister Jones is absent.

Okay, great.

That passes, and that will bring us on to Section B of the agenda.

Unfinished business.

First up is B1, RZN 2025-46 on North Penelope Lane.

An ordinance to rezone the dis the described the property described in RZN 2025-4-6 for approximately 2.58 acres located at 2097 North Penelope Lane in Ward 4 from RA, Residential Agricultural, and RMF 24, residential multifamily, 24 units per acre, rezoning to RIU intermediate urban.

This was left on the first reading at the last city council meeting.

Kit Mayor, do you want to uh ask if they want to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading?

Uh councilperson Stafford.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Councilperson Moore.

We've thought we suspend the rolls and go to the third reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion to second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

And ordered to rezone the property described in a rezoning petition RCN 2025-46 for approximately 2.58 acres located at 2097 North Penetope Lane in Ward 4 from RA residential agricultural and RMF 24 residential multifamily 24 units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Thank you, Kit.

Mr.

Kurt.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan Kurth, Development Services Director.

I have no new updates on this item for the council after it's tabling at your last meeting.

But as a courtesy reminder, staff is not recommending in favor of the proposal.

However, the planning, however, the planning commission forwarded it to city council by a vote of eight to one.

Thank you for the prompt, Councilmember Vernon.

I believe that Tracy Hoskins is here in person, Mayor, as the applicant for the item, and uh Addie Man Addy Manzi is available online.

I'm happy to take any questions.

Okay, and I'm having a little bit of a hard time hearing, so if you I apologize if you could say again, you said somebody was online as the applicant or applicant Hoskins is here.

Yes, Mayor.

Tracy Hoskins is here as the applicant for this item.

Okay, great.

Tracy, would you like to come up for your presentation?

Yes.

And Keith, in the meantime, do you think is there a way to turn up the volumes on the mics?

And I think it's probably just us right behind us that's the issue.

Okay.

Good evening, council members.

Uh my name's Tracy Hoskins.

I'm the developer of the Well, you're gonna, I'm so sorry, you're gonna have to just write into the microphone.

I apologize profusely.

Okay, okay.

My name is Tracy Hoskins.

I'm the uh the applicant and developer of this project.

Uh the uh um last time we were here, things got a little bit weird because I was a little bit unprepared.

So um uh this is a project on Penelope off of Penelope Lane in the west side of Fayetteville.

It's actually a uh in and a restructuring of zoning of the property.

Um the property is currently uh uh um RMF 24 to the on the south half of the property, and it is uh currently zoned RA on the north part portion of the property.

Um what I left with you uh a few moments ago or whatever is a uh concept or whatever that we intended to distribute last time that we weren't it weren't able to at the time.

Uh basically this is a uh project where we're asking for rezoning so that we can begin uh uh design of the property to try to design it in the uh spirit of city plan 2040, uh which uh allows us to do smaller uh compact lots, which would which would uh allow us to be able to group uh houses together in clusters to avoid various areas that we'd like to try to stay out of.

Um the uh uh again the property on the uh south side or actually just to the north side of the creek and south is currently zoned RMF 24.

We're actually talking about down zoning the property along the creek on both sides of the creek to RA so that it can't really be uh developed in with for any intents and purposes uh in the future, and uh and so mostly what this rezoning is about is on the north side to give us some opportunity to to have some uh smaller lots and to be able to concentrate development in areas uh that are less sensitive, areas that where we want development to be.

Um the uh uh I'm here to answer any questions that you have.

Um again, this is RIU zoning, and we also have in the area RS RIU zoning attached to this very property to the east and to the north, and uh of course, neighborhood conservation to the south, or so the north, excuse me, and uh RMF 24 to the south, which if you're talking about transect zoning, it's actually RIU is actually the absolute perfect transect zoning for for this area.

So I'll be here if you have any questions.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Do we have anybody else on the call that would like to make a statement Jonathan?

Okay, okay.

Do we have questions from the council for either Mr.

Hoskins or Mr.

Kurth?

I see you, Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Mr.

Hoskins, I did have a question.

Yes, Mayor.

So um, I think you're orienting us the last um time that you were in chambers, and if you'll remind me, I think you have some additional property outside of what you're asking for rezone today that you also own.

I know in this exhibit, you know, you're showing the impacted area uh where you're gonna develop, but there's some green space that's over um to the side.

Um is that property that is still a part of your total plans of what you own, or is that something else next door to you that you do not own?

I have to know exactly which piece of property you're referencing.

Okay, that is not mine.

That actually that's actually a detention facility for the neighborhood to the north.

Okay, all right.

That's I that's not part of our resonance.

Okay, all right, thank you very much.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, are we still gonna get your presentation or uh are we resting on what you showed us last week or two weeks ago?

I I can present it again if it's helpful.

Uh well, I I think what would be helpful since we have this new diagram from the applicant is to see uh the diagram showing uh the map with the floodplains and floodways, so that we can kind of imagine the overlay between the two.

Thank you.

Certainly, allow me a moment to pull that up.

Councilmember Stafford, is this what you're referencing specifically?

Uh yes, thank you.

Yes, thank you.

And to orient you specifically to the request, uh, what the applicant is proposing is to rezone the portion that you see is hatched in red and blue, which is the floodway.

Uh, the proposal is to effectively downzone that to RA residential agriculture, uh, and the remainder of the property that you see outlined in bold, the balance of it to the northeast is proposed to be rezoned to RIU.

Okay, thank you.

Uh is there a way to tell the part that's RMF 24 that is along the streamside now?

How wide is that?

Uh either side of the stream.

Do we I mean just estimate?

I I don't have the distance of it, but it is the remainder of the property south of that bottom bold line and the subdivision to the south.

That remainder of the property is would remain RMF 24.

Okay, thank you.

Certainly, Mr.

Burnett.

Uh Jonathan, with the zoning as it as it is right now, can you tell me roughly uh with the streamside issues and the floodplain and and flood zone?

What roughly could could he develop right now there?

That's a good question.

Uh not evaluated it in those terms.

Mr.

Hoskins might be able to answer that if he's uh taking the opportunity to look at that as a part of his uh consideration of the property.

Uh just a raw raw math of the property uh with the portion that's zones RMF 24, it would be roughly sorry, let me a moment it would come to a theoretical roughly 70 units per acre.

Uh I think that's an extreme version.

Roughly how much 70 units per acre, but that's extreme.

I don't think that is remotely feasible on this property given the floodplain or tree canopy requirements or density requirements.

Uh additionally, there could be additional layers of complication at the development level with how the property is accessed.

We have fire code allowances for how many units can be developed if they only have one point of access.

So it could depend on how the applicant develops the property ultimately.

Okay, and then is request to down zone.

Uh how is that going to affect those numbers?

That the number I gave you was contemplating that.

Yes, great.

Thank you.

Mr.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Jonathan, the the request to down zone uh in that little sliver by the by the creek.

Isn't that already unbuildable because of the streamside protection ordinance, or is there additional uh leeway on either side?

The in many ways it is uh in effect effectively unbuildable.

Uh I don't know the exact dimensions of it if the floodway and the streamside uh align exactly with each other.

Typically the streamside begins at the outside of the floodway.

If I remember correctly, I can't remember if our public works director is present, he may be able to sort of correct me on that one.

Uh but typically the floodway is the beginning of that streamside zone and it expands outward from there.

Thank you.

Would you like him to are you asking a question of Chris, Teresa?

Or did that settle it for you?

Okay, okay.

I'm not seeing any more clarifying questions from the council, so I'm gonna turn it over to public comment.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak about this item?

If so, please come on up.

Keith, I do understand we have some on Zoom.

Yes, we have one person, Chelsea Whiteside.

Oh, she just actually lowered her hand.

Okay, Miss Whiteside.

Oh, yes.

I see it is raised if you want to.

It goes ahead, Chelsea Whiteside.

Yes.

So mayor, council members, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

So thank God for Zoom.

Um I appreciate it to be able to speak.

And my name is Chesley.

Chelsea happens all the time.

Uh but my name is Chesley, and I actually live at 2959 West Souter Lane.

So the property, one of the houses that backs up to the proposed rezoning area.

And I wanna start off by saying that I support growth.

I support development.

I come from a family that owns local businesses in Fayville, so I understand, right?

The importance of development and growth.

But I also wanna talk about the restrictions on this land and um the safety concerns as a homeowner that lives it every day in this area, that that area that would be impacted, the neighborhood right there.

Families walk every day.

People are walking their dogs every day.

Children play in that area, and I'm I'm telling you that the sidewalks in the neighborhood, it was never designed for the high volume traffic that could go.

Um they're narrow as is, there's very limited room for error.

And I just wanna say that more cars on these streets obviously concerns me, even for Mount Comfort, how we enter into off of Mount Comfort, excuse me, how we enter into the neighborhood is a tough place right now.

Um, and I wanna acknowledge the environmental constraints.

And I'll tell you our yards, our fences, we absorb it even today.

Um it's what I personally live.

I personally have seen, I'm not here to to speak in technical terms, right?

I just wanna to say on record that you know what we view this neighborhood as, the combination of that limited infrastructure, the small residential streets, the environmental constraints, it's just it's a huge safety concern for us to add in more density in that area.

You know, so I respectfully ask you all to uphold the staff's um denial recommendation.

Um do not approve this rezoning.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Chesley, and sorry about the pronunciation earlier.

It's okay.

I'm in deep therapy about it every day.

Keith, do we have other people on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay, I'm gonna bring it back to the city council.

Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan, we talked about um the first time we looked at this, is possibly an entrance from the Glenwood Wildwood area.

Um below.

So I know it's backs up to Penelope and Sauter, but on the other side of this development that there could possibly be another another connection.

Is that correct?

Are you asking if there could be a connection from the south or the north?

The south.

Yes, a proposal, a development was approved on the south side of the creek here about eight or nine years ago that did connect to the Macy Drive right-away, which is at the westernmost edge of that subdivision to the south.

And is it the possibility that this could happen again with this development?

It is that would uh require the property owner to uh negotiate with the there is an intervening property owner in between where they would need to to acquire access right away or some sort of way to get to the property, but uh it was successfully entitled before uh doing that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Council person burn.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, considering this is uh there's some considerable issues with the uh floodplain and and uh flood zone.

Could you kind of explain a little bit for me?

Um the difference between the two, and then some uh challenges that you might he might encounter if by chance this is passed tonight.

Generally, floodplain developments are held to the standard that buildings have to be built built above a certain elevation.

So the flood height is anticipated to be a certain level, and our local standards require buildings to be built two feet above that.

Uh that is in line with what FEMA requires of development as well.

Fayetteville, more specifically, it goes even further.

And when floodplain development is proposed, we require a concept called compensatory storage.

Basically, if you are filling into a floodplain, you have to account for that water that's being displaced by any fill you added to the floodplain on the property itself.

So those are the two big factors.

And that's floodplain development, floodway development.

Uh tends to get much more complicated and requires uh FEMA approval, and can on the back end require revising the floodplain maps to account for any changes that were made with with with fill or cut in the floodway or floodplain.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, I can't remember.

I don't have my uh packet pulled up just yet.

Um is staff in favor of approval or denial of this one?

Staff does not recommend in favor, and the planning commission recommended it in favor.

Okay.

Um, you know, I'm generally uh Mr.

Hoskins has been behind some great developments in our city real place making.

And I know you can technically develop in a floodplain.

But the question is, should you develop in a floodplain?

And and and yes, you can make it to where those houses won't flood, but when you raise up that land and you build those foundations up, well, that water that would take up that in a flood is is gonna go somewhere, it just doesn't disappear.

And so we create more flooding or increase our flood planning in other areas.

So I do have great reservations about this and about the bridge going across the creek there.

Um but uh those are my comments.

Thank you.

Okay.

Council, that's up to you.

Ms.

Moore.

We're on the third reading, correct?

Correct.

Okay, so we're we're ready as far as we can vote.

I'm just trying to just I was just checking every time I do that, y'all sort of jump up and turn on your lights.

I really was just finding out where we were.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

No.

Dr.

Jones.

No.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

No.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

No.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones.

No.

So the ordinance failed.

Okay.

That brings us to our first item of new business.

Item C1.

It's a resolution to authorize acceptance of the 2025 community-oriented policing services hiring program grant in the amount of 250,000 to fund two new police officer positions for expansion of the school resource officer program for a period of four years with a required local city match of 193,135, and to approve the associated budget adjustment.

Dr.

Jones?

Um Mayor Ron, I would like to call for an immediate vote.

Second.

We have a um motion and a second to go to immediate vote.

Clark Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

No.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones.

No.

Mayor, I count five affirmative vote on this.

Do you care to vote?

Does the can you explain for people that might not be aware that a motion to call for an immediate vote require does it require six votes?

Yes, it requires a majority.

I mean a supermajority, two-thirds vote, so it requires six votes to pass.

I would like to vote to go to immediate vote.

Okay, that has passed, and so now you need to call the roll and Clark Paxson.

Will you please call the roll on the cops hiring grant?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

No.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

No.

So that passes.

Moving on to item C2, a resolution to name 1.28 acres of parkland located at 700 South Lieutenant Colonel Leroy Pond Avenue as South Yard Park.

And I believe we have a brief information from Allison Jumper, Parks Parks Director.

Thank you, Mayor.

Can you guys hear me?

Okay.

So per the park naming facility policy, the parks and recreation board recommends a name for new parks and four is the name to city council.

The park naming policy lists five items to consider when proposing new names for the park.

Those include geographic location, outstanding features, commonly recognized historical events groups or individuals, individuals or groups who contributed significantly to the acquisition or development of the facility, and individuals who provided an exceptional service in the interest of the park system.

In 2019, specialized real estate group agreed to dedicate 1.24 acres of parkland and fees and loo to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements for the residences in South Yard.

The parks board later recommended using approximately 64,000 in parks fees to contribute to the development of the new park with the remaining development funds coming from specialized real estate.

Specialized design the park in coordination with park staff and ultimately uh recommended a cost share agreement, which was approved by city council in 2025, and that committed $64,000 in parks fees for construction and requiring specialized real estate to maintain the park for 10 years.

At their September meeting this year, the parks board discussed three potential names for the park.

Those names included branch line park, junction park, both proposed by park staff, and South Yard, which was proposed by specialized real estate.

An internal staff vote supported branch line park.

However, the parks board voted 5-4 in favor of Stockyard Park with four votes uh for branch line, resulting in a recommendation of South Yard Park to the council per the policy.

Happy to take any questions.

Great.

Do we have any questions for Allison before we Minister James?

Yeah, I did have one question.

You said that the cost share was 64,000.

Is that also for ongoing maintenance, or is it just for the development?

So this the 64,000 was uh parkland dedication fees that were put towards the construction of the park.

Okay, I'm not seeing any further questions, so I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on this item?

Keith.

No one on we need on Zoom.

Okay.

Um I'll bring it back to the council with the reminder that it is a resolution, so we would need a motion to move forward.

Um councilperson Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, before I make a motion, I'd like I just like to say I think this is a a great name in the sense of placemaking in our city.

Um, I know myself and a lot of people I know are already referred to this area in South Park.

Um, I think what they've done with the park so far uh is awesome, and I look forward to using it and to be in a regular user of that park.

Uh and with that, I'll make a motion uh to pass this resolution.

Second.

Thank you.

Um we have a comment from Councilperson Turk, you had your light on at the same time, so I'm gonna allow her to weigh her comments as well.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, I guess you know, this this dedication was a requirement for them to build um South Yard, and um it just seems like if they were kind of doing it completely out of the goodness of their heart, I might have a really different opinion about this, but that was part of the requirement.

And then the city kicked in 64,000, and so it seems to me like you know the developer is getting much more bang for their buck than maybe they should be.

And so I I um I'm gonna vote against this.

I I think branch line is a more appropriate uh name uh for this place.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I believe we still have a motion and a second.

So Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes, Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheateker, yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones, no.

Okay.

That passes.

That passes, and we'll move on to item C3, an ordinance to amend ordinance 6888 passed on June 17th, 2025, to extend the sunset clause effective date to December 30th, 2025, and to declare an emergency.

And I realize now that in our short title in your packet, it does not say what the uh sunset clause is referring to.

This is referring to the short-term rental ordinance.

Um Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas ordinance 688 passed on June 17th, 2024, amended the sunset provision of ordinance 6710 passed on November 21st of 2023, which provides that all amendments to the code sections ordained or enacted by ordinance 6427 and subsequent ordinances shall automatically sunset, be repealed and become void on November 30th, 2025, unless prior to that date the city council amends this ordinance to repeal or further amend this sunset repeal and termination section.

And whereas the ordinance review committee would like an additional month in order to conduct one final meeting to review the proposed changes to the short-term rental code regulations prior to their recommendation being presented to the full city council.

Now therefore it be ordained by the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1.

That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby determines that ordinance 688 extending the sunset clause be amended so that ordinance 6427 and all amendments to code sections ordained or enacted by ordinance 6427 and later ordinances shall automatically sunset be repealed and become void on December 30th, 2025, unless prior to that date the city council amends this ordinance to repeal or further amend this sunset repeal and termination section in section two that the city council, the city to faible ark saw hereby determines that this ordinance shall become effective without delay because allowing the city's short-term rental regulations to sunset and expire could lead to unregulated and illegal operation of short-term rentals not subject to the city's life health and safety inspection standards as well as insurance issues and the disruption of neighborhoods such that an extension of the sunset clause is necessary for the public peace, health, welfare, and safety of faithful citizens.

Therefore, the city council hereby declares an emergency exist such as this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval.

Thank you.

Councilperson Berna, I believe you have comments to make on this item.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um the as uh chairman of the ordinance review, we're just simply asking to uh give us uh until December 30th.

Uh we're gonna have one more meeting tomorrow to go over the final ordinance, and uh we just request that you give us one one more month to get it uh squared away.

So that's I'll keep it short.

Okay.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

Keith, do we have no nobody on Zoom?

Okay, I'll bring it back to the council with the reminder that it is on the first reading.

Should we wait?

Oh uh Councilperson Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I am willing to give uh uh the ordinance review committee one more month.

I I think this uh uh council's been very patient uh waiting for this to come through, and and I am glad that you're very glad that you're not asking for one more year.

Uh uh, but I think that um I'm hoping that all the hanging uh issues can be dealt with uh tomorrow um and that we see this in its fruition uh come to us on December 30th.

I'm willing to give you that 30 days, but I I think after that uh I'll kind of be at a two-week by two-week uh basis on this.

Okay.

Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so we've been talking for a number of years about short-term rentals uh before I even came on council and have now been here three years.

Um I continue.

I had a meeting with residents on Meghan and they lamented about short-term rentals and that it leaves vacant houses around their neighborhoods.

Um, and we talked about the lack of housing stock that's available in the rental market.

And so for me, you know, I we declared a housing crisis and said, you know, our houses on fire.

Um, my concern is locking this in even at 475.

Um, those are units that are not available to be either bought or rented every day.

Um, and we know that there are units across all of these different levels that are needed in our community.

Um, for that reason, you know, and the reason we kept it in the sunset clause language was so that our attorney told us we had the flexibility that we could end it at any time once we do um uh finalize and form this into ordinance, then it really makes it much harder and more difficult because of the property rights that then folks have locked in that they have these CUPs versus this uh being in the sunset clause form.

Um so for that reason tonight I'm very comfortable letting the sunset.

Um, I think we have to do everything possible to address our housing crisis, and um I'm more open if we're gonna go forward that we say that we're not doing short-term rentals in the city of Fayetteville until we see a healthy rental market, and that's at that 3% or higher.

Um, that that shows that um unhealthy market.

My my concerns are that we're not there yet, and I do want to offer that as an opportunity when our market is healthy.

Okay.

Do we have any other clarifying questions?

Um, Councilperson Turk.

I was gonna make a motion to um suspend the rules to go to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones, yes, is more no.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

And in order to amend ordinance 6888 passed on June 17th, 2025 to extend the sunset clause effective date to December 30th, 2025, and to declare an emergency.

Okay.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll for the final vote?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

No.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

And I would make a motion to pass the emergency clause.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to pass the emergency clause.

Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

No.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Moving on to item C4, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-47 for approximately 0.33 acres located at 2411 West Meghan Drive in Ward 2 from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre.

Rezoning to RSF 8, residential single family eight units per acre.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Section 1.

At the City Council, the City of Favel, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map, Exhibit A, and the legal description, exhibit B.

Most attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to RSF 8 residential single family eight units per acre.

Section two at the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas here by amends official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to flect a zoning change provided in Section 1.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to Northwest Fayville and to Ward 2.

It's at the southwest corner of Megan and Porter between Dean to the north and Weddington to the south.

It's directly across the street or across the border from uh Calvary Baptist Church.

Uh the property includes about one third of an acre that is currently developed with a single family home with its driveway access onto Meghan to the north rather than Porter to the east.

Sorry, there we go.

I think you're all we're expecting to see a slide up on the screen.

The request before council tonight is to rezone the property from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to RSF eight, residential single family eight units per acre.

Uh staff does find this request to be compatible, and we are recommending in favor of this.

There are a multitude of different residential housing types in this area.

One lot to the south are multifamily houses immediately to the southeast are townhomes, and similarly to the northeast, our townhomes as well.

Meghan itself and the neighborhoods of the northwest is uniformly single family nature, but the overall diversity of housing types in the area makes half home to its finding that this is a compatible request.

From a land use plan standpoint, uh we find it to be consistent with our city plan 2040 goals, uh including the future land use map designation for this property, which is residential neighborhood area, uh, along with the uh seven infill attributes that can be found associated with the site, uh perhaps most prominently of which is that it has immediate access on the transit uh along Porter uh along this property's frontage and the the proximity to Asbell Elementary School to the northeast.

Uh support some additional items uh that staff considered in the request.

Uh, this would reduce our tree preservation for the property uh since Fayville does tie tree preservation to zoning designations, RSF4 zoning designation is 25 percent, uh, where the RSF eight zoning designation is 20 percent.

Uh also and as came up at the planning commission uh to some extent and from public comment uh we're concerns about access management uh to this property.

Uh there if this property were to be uh rezoned and a lot were to be created fronting onto Porter directly, uh that would allow it the opportunity to have a driveway directly on to Porter.

Uh staff finds that the RSF4 zonings uh limitation to only single family dwellings does not constitute a concern that there will be the creation of a dangerous traffic condition.

Uh that was a concern repeated uh numerous times by the public uh and comment uh both uh at the planning commission and that the council has received in the time since uh other public comment includes concern about existing water infrastructure in the area, uh the potential for trees to be removed on the property and the general degradation of neighborhood character uh with the potential to have one additional house uh on this property.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of this request, as I noted at the top of the presentation.

The three dissenting votes most prominently seem to base their vote on similar concerns about access management and that uh developing this property may pose a traffic concern.

With that, I'm available for any questions.

And Mayor Christina Zhuweaver is online as the applicant for this item, and she also has a presentation.

Great, thank you.

All right, if Keith, if you want to allow us to hear from the applicant.

Seeing Rebecca Steele, but is that the incorrect name?

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and the City Council member.

My name is Christina Drew Weaver.

So thank you so much for your time.

And Mr.

Weaver, I'm so sorry.

This is Mayor Ron.

I'm so sorry to interrupt.

I will give you your, I'll ask them to reset the clock.

If there's any way, it's quite loud in the chambers today.

If there's any way you could just turn your volume up and try to get as close to the microphone as possible, that would be much.

Can you hear me better?

Or is that scale better?

Okay.

Hello?

Can you hear me?

Yeah, yes, I think we can hear you.

Okay, is that better here now?

Okay.

Hello?

Hi, my name is Christina.

Good evening, Mayor and the City Council member.

My name is Christina Drew Weaver, and thank you so much for your time and opportunity to present my request to rezone Megan 2411 West Megan.

Please go to the next slide.

I'm a numni of University of Arkansas graduate, and my I want to my family and I are long-term local residents deeply connected to this neighborhood.

In fact, my in-laws actually worked at Washington Plaza for 30 years, and my husband actually grew up in this neighborhood.

Every day he walked from school, walked from home, Washington Plaza apartment to the Asabel Elementary School.

These are some of the photos that over the years that he from his family and also he received his PhD in computer science.

So we are committed for responsible long-term investment here.

Tonight I would like to address a couple issues that brought up by the Planning Commission during the meeting and also public comment.

Maybe I would address development character scale, water main concern, traffic access, and the Y ADU on the RS4 would actually create more impact than RSF8.

So next page, please.

The existing home is roughly about 0.2 acres per the survey.

And because the house is 10 feet deeper than the required setback, the remaining portion is actually only 0.14 acres.

This is significantly also constrained.

Good next page, please.

By the utility easement of 25 feet on the east side and south side.

So if the lot forever to split, and then also uh I will keep the current home, it's actually a very small lot.

So the result is a small uh development that is um that's only physically feasible.

And go to the next slide, please.

Um I also want to share some of the concerns I think um I was not able to um address uh last time.

So we just came by saying they're gonna they're probably thinking about apartment building or some big large um development multifamily.

Actually, what we did is actually improved the existing home.

This house was built in almost 40 years ago when we um we actually um when we um found out is the old siding when we replace it.

You see one of the picture, actually, birds of school has living in there, and there was lack of repair.

So we replaced um when we um try to replace a siding, and we found out there's no OSB and no house wrap.

Actually, this is not meeting the today's building safety code due to the moisture and safety level.

So we installed the OSB, we put a house wrap on it, and to meet the uh today's code.

We also um restore the proper, uh keep the integrity of the house, but restored um uh the house with proper structure, moisture protection, and durability.

I believe this will improve the safety and structure integrity and also enhance the long-term durability of the house and the neighborhood quality.

Next page, please.

And also some of the neighbors came over concerned about the large development that put a pressure on the main waterline.

I have my plumber and also the inspector looked into the water issue.

Actually, what they found is because this neighborhood developed about 35 to 40 years ago.

Um we found out the pressure issue, at least caused by our home, I believe it's probably applied to the rest of the neighborhood, is the aging neighborhood infrastructure.

During the inspection, we found out the water uh near water main actually was by it was the old PVC and no pressure reducing valve.

This caused waterline break and also um constantly in fluctuation of the pressure.

What we did is actually we installed a brand new Plex water main and it's more durable, leaking resistant, and stable.

We also add a pressure reducing valve.

So to my neighbors nearby, I would say uh this is something that um actually just take improvement.

So overall, we modernize the home and putting service lines to reduce strain, stability pressure, um stabilized the pressure, and it improved reliability of the nearby homes as well.

Next page, please.

And also I want to like address the key issue.

Um some of the um neighbors are um uh during the meeting that mentioned about access.

I want to mention is that right now the house is zoned RSF4.

So I have the by is by right I can build an ADU to increase the housing stock in this uh neighborhood.

And um, so um the rezoning uh does not granting new access.

Uh let's go to the next page, please.

So assuming, let's um do analysis here.

Assuming we I you know, just under RSF4, I would like to build an ADU.

I can I could enter from the Megan drive.

And uh since there is not enough space, so I will have to park my car in the Megan Drive, which were the neighbors who are living right now.

This actually increased traffic and congestion in the quail ridge um um neighborhood.

And I believe this actually creating more neighborhood impact.

Next page, please.

On the second option, if I want to build an ADU, I can by right access from Portal Road.

And uh Portal Road is a collector street and with 47 feet according to the master planning, right?

Uh master planning of 2024.

The vehicle has a lot has more, can hold more volume, and this access is already permitted on the RSF4.

So I want to stress that rezoning does not create new access right.

It only directs new development.

So I could build ADU and also access for portal road if I uh decide to.

Next page, please.

Um, so um through the analysis, I believe why RSF-8 is actually reducing the impact because if the lot um say if um get rezoned and eventually do a lot split, the new home will have to face portal road, not Megan.

And all the driving activity will be occurred on a collector street that can actually hold more cars and volume.

And also the setback is the same as RSF4, which is 15 feet from the portal road, and also City Failure requires that if there's a sidewalk, you have to make sure your driveway is 18 feet.

So the cars will not actually park on the street.

It will have to park in the private lot.

The outcome is that I believe the RSF 8 actually reduced impact and there will be no traffic on Megan Drive.

Um, that neighborhood remained the same character.

Next page, please.

And also, I want to um uh share a little bit about neighborhood character that Jonathan uh also touched upon.

And I have seen quite a bit of development in the port on Portal Road, and uh as I said that this will actually um uh this single family rezoning actually is a minimum development that have a minimum impact in the neighborhood.

And I believe it'll be uh residential compatible with the uh quail rich as well.

Next page, please.

Um what I want to um share is that for um neighbors or uh residents who are concerned, this does not increase permitted building height, it does not allow apartments or multi-family, does not change the single family character, does not create a new driveway access, because I currently already have driveway access from Portal Road, and does not reduce the setback or expanding building envelope.

It does not increase the development intensity beyond the single family scale scale.

So conclusion is it's RSF and residential, one house, same use, same height, same setbacks, and same neighborhood form.

And plus, I'm also keeping the existing home as well.

Next page, please.

Um, I believe um is also in alignment with 2024.

I believe the uh um the city uh planning already dressed that, so I don't want to uh repeat the insane information.

But I do want to mention, as you can see, this is a picture taken with the um church across the street.

I believe the young family, just like my husband's family, that that time they were not able to afford housing to live this uh section eight low-income housing, but they were able to walk to school.

His mom worked part-time, there was nobody picked them up, uh, drop them off.

But um, he and his brothers walked to elementary school.

So I think a vibrant city to um to welcome young people could live close by.

It will be um great for the families um, you know, who decide to live uh live in this neighbor wonderful neighborhood.

And uh next, please.

And also um, I also look, you know, I believe it's also in align with the mayor's housing crisis task.

Like I said, um, there are young people who want to live here and move here, certainly can not find housing.

Even the wonderful neighborhood here, like when I um have um just recently uh doing some improvement at home, I found out simply some of the homes, even in a good location, just lack of improvement.

So I'm thinking um if a you know energy efficient new housing will benefit from the uh benefit the community.

Next page, please.

Um so I believe that.

And you're actually um I'm sorry, Mr.

Weaver, we're actually out of time.

Um unless someone from the council would like to I would give you more time.

I would like to give her two more minutes to summarize and finish up since that's what the page stands.

Okay, we'll go ahead.

You have two more minutes.

Um, Mr.

Weaver.

Thank you so much.

And so I believe it's modest, reasonable, and traffic neutral and compatible and consistent with the city as 2020 2040 plan, and uh is also supported by the staff and uh planning commission.

The last page, I believe.

Um we have another one.

Oh, do we have a next page?

Could you please move?

Um, so what if it's not approved?

Uh, if it's not approved, it will still have RSF full.

And however, um, it will not guarantee the driveway design and also parking on the um no guarantee on the uh parking on a private lot.

Um, so as ADU is permitted by right.

So I believe to um RSF4 and have access on the portal road will know how with no impact on the Megan and ensure the driveway is on the collector street and off-street parking and a better long-term planning outcome as well.

So the last page is um I wish you could consider to approve on the rezoning.

Thank you so much for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Ms.

Weaver.

Um, before we open it up to public comment, do we have clarifying questions for either Jonathan or for the applicant from members of the council?

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have a clarifying question.

So I'm a little confused.

If they put an ADU on there, do they have access from Porter or is it only from Megan Drive?

To if the property is developed with an ADU and they wanted an access on Porter, it would require a variance from our planning commission.

So by right, it is not allowed.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, uh, I mean, basically what we're looking at here, there's only 0.33 acres uh with RSFA, they they can really only build one small unit there.

Is that that's accurate?

And they're not planning to tear down the existing house.

I believe that's what the applicant was attempting to represent with the slides about their repairs.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on this item?

Looks like we have some people walking in.

If you will come on up and please be mindful, you'll have three minutes, and if you would please state your name and address.

Hello, my name is Whitney Thurston.

I live at 2517 West Megan Drive.

Um, I'm a native of Fayetteville.

I've spent my whole life here.

Um, I've also lived in my home on Megan Drive for 17 years.

Um I'm here tonight with my husband who's lived in our home for 23 years.

And I'm also speaking on behalf of dozens of our neighbors who live on West Megan Drive, Arthur Hart and Um North Stable, who have each lived in their homes for between 10 and 30 years.

And we vehemently urge you to vote no on this issue to rezone 2411 West Megan Drive.

There are many reasons why we think you should vote no, including preserving the tree canopy, pedestrian safety issues at Porter Road and Megan Drive, existing waterline and drainage issues, and protecting the fabric of our neighborhood.

But I want to highlight a few ways this rezoning is not in line with the 2040 city plan.

Our area is not included in the growth concept map in the city plan, and there are many other areas on the map that are near the city core that are the target for infilling.

The existing RSA Ford zoning in our area maintains lot sizes, spacing, and character in our neighborhood, which is highlighted as a priority in the city plan.

The leap from RSF4 to RSF 8 on one single lot in a 25-acre area sets a bad precedent and disrupts the neighborhood fabric, going against the city plan's context sensitivity goal and zoning.

One of the major goals in the city plan is to make a traditional town the standard, and to me, this means respecting the existing lot patterns and building character, not increasing density in a way that undermines neighborhoods.

We all moved to and stayed in our homes for the character that this thing of the single family neighborhood.

We love our tall trees, walkability, bikeability, accessibility, and all that Fayetteville has to offer, and the privacy and peace that this area provides.

We all enjoy our backyards without feeling like we're living on top of one another, adding density to the street will take that feeling away.

If you allow this property to be rezoned, it could be the first in a series of bad decisions made by this council in the name of infilling in our neighborhood, which is not desired by the current residents.

The need for attainable housing is real in Fayetteville.

However, increased density should align with neighborhood planning, infrastructure capacity, and sustainability, not by random rezoning of isolated lots within an established neighborhood that dates back to the 1980s.

And lastly, I want to highlight a citizen quote from the 2040 city plan that my neighbors and I all agree with.

It's quote, long-time residents should be able to decide if they want their neighborhood to become higher density or not.

Higher density feels like they're living in a big city, and lower density feels like they're living in a small town.

The latter is what my neighborhood prefers, end quote.

We support Fayetteville's vision for balanced stockal growth and the proposed rezoning at 2411 West Megan Drive is not consistent with the values of the city plan.

Approving it will undermine neighborhood character, weaken ecological protections, and risk infrastructure overreach, all in the name of infilling the appropriate for the area.

That's your time.

I'm sorry, thank you.

Hey, do we have anybody else in the room that would like to comment?

Yes.

Please come on up.

Thank you.

My name is Juana Gilstrap.

I work for the university and I've been there for 40 years.

I love students.

The ladies say that this is not going to affect parking, but it will, because right now they are working on the four-bedroom, four-bath house that was going to be ready for $3,600.

So which means that not only the residents will be parking there, but friends and visitors, which is a normal thing for students.

There's nothing against that, but that would create problem with traffic on Megan.

You know, Meghan and Porter.

So anybody who wants to exit from Megan into Poro, that'll be already a problem.

Not all the time, but many times.

So adding on to this new house or ADU, if they cannot park on right outside on the driveway, where will they go?

Megan.

Now my main concern is safety, because a lot of people walk through that trail, the walking trail, because they don't want to cross Porter because of traffic.

What's going to happen many times?

If students want to live in that house, it's going to walk to block the trail.

So what's walkers going to do?

Have to go to Porto to go around it or not walk at all.

The city spends a lot of money and time building trails and sidewalks and so forth.

Why not keep this one safe?

And then she mentioned also she grew up in that neighborhood, her husband and all that.

What it's it is safe.

It's a good neighborhood, and I've been there for 22 years and I love it.

But with those dwellings, the yards are going to be small, and there's not going to be much room for playing.

When are they going to play?

Well, the children are going to go play.

So, but please vote no to this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Matt seeing anybody else in the room who would like to comment.

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom?

Yes, we have a Rebecca Steele on Zoom.

Okay, Miss Steele, go ahead.

Hello.

Um, my voice is going out, so I hope you can hear me.

Um, I would like to start by drawing your attention to exhibit A, which is one of the slides that Mr.

Jonathan shared with you earlier in this presentation.

It's the one with all the pale yellow on it.

And the reason I want to draw your attention to that is to show you that there would be very inconsistent with the fabric of the surrounding neighborhood.

All of the other homes on Megan Drive, Arthur Hart, and Stable Avenue, as well as the homes that directly back up to Megan Drive along Cornerstone Place, are all currently classified as RSF.

Uh four.

We want to maintain that consistency.

Uh reclassif rezoning this one property is RSF 8.

Um starts a slippery slope and is not in line with the character and integrity of the neighborhood that we bought our homes in.

Um I would also like to re-emphasize a couple points that Whitney made.

Um we are a very long-term neighborhood.

Most of the neighbors that I have the pleasure of interacting with have been in our homes 10, 15, 20, even 30 plus years.

We love our neighborhood and we care very much about continuing to support and develop it.

There's some things from our city plan that stand out to me, especially that quote that said, long time residents should be able to decide if they want their neighborhood to become higher density or not.

Higher density feels like they are living in a big city.

Lower density feels like they're living in a smaller town.

The latter is what my neighborhood prefers.

End quote.

That's from the Fayetteville City Plan.

What I'm asking is for you all to be consistent with the city plan and to listen to the long-term residents of this neighborhood who say this is not what we want.

We want to maintain the current zoning of RSF4 and the integrity of our neighborhood.

I also sent a very long and detailed email yesterday on behalf of several of my neighbors, um, highlighting many of our other concerns related to safety, the environmental impact, infrastructure concerns, and again community impact.

And one last thing I want to emphasize is that with that um infill score uh that you guys listed of seven, I don't think that is accurate.

One of the things that was listed was a nearby park, friendship park.

Uh, we actually brought that up yesterday or Sunday in our conversation with uh council person more.

That nearby park is not as advertised.

It is not accessible, and it should be not be listed as a resource that way.

And we have also mentioned several times our concerns with the water main breaking on a regular basis.

With that in mind, I don't think that score is as strong as that initial result said, and I think you need to revisit and please vote no.

Thank you.

Keith, do no one else on Zoom?

Okay, I'm going to bring it back to the council.

Thanks for Councilperson Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I have a couple more questions, um, Jonathan.

Um, I go down that street, I go down Porter all the time, and it it's pretty busy.

Um, and then with this new RIU on the east side of Porter, there's parallel parking in there now.

And so it's actually narrowed the street, and while I know the concept is it would slow people down.

Um, I'm not sure that's really been successful.

In fact, I think it's all uh made it actually a little bit more dangerous.

So my question is um, is there any um is there any uh plan, or maybe this is for Chris to expand that street to widen that street and um in the near future?

And Jonathan, but before you answer that, and I do want you to address that, but can we clarify and just make sure my understanding and based on the agenda is that this still is on the first reading, correct?

This is not something we've heard.

I think there was some confusion that maybe maybe we heard something else on Megan, but this is the first time.

Okay, okay, great.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Teresa.

I apologize.

Okay.

The short answer is no.

There are no the short answer is no, there are no uh projects planned to widen Porter at this time.

Uh the project or where that happened uh near this property where the on-street parking is today, that was associated with that development on the east side of Porter.

Okay.

Um and then um I I have a question about the friendship heights or friendship park.

Where is that located?

Um, I'm a little confused by where that the public comment.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, I'm sorry, I'm not certain.

Uh it's off of Saddlehorn to the northwest of this property in the neighborhood.

I believe it was dedicated as part of the subdivision's parkland dedication, if my memory serves, and there is an access easement uh that is the is platted with the subdivision to require access to that piece of property.

And so is that park large or MSB?

I mean, like I said, I'm in that area often and I'm not familiar with that park at all.

I would not characterize it as a large park, I think it's less than half an acre.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Stafford.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um Jonathan, uh right now, as it stands, the owners of this property could just build an ADU, and they would have no requirements for parking.

As a matter of fact, they they wouldn't be able to necessarily put uh a drive by right uh on a Porter Road.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So in a way, a you know, what we're looking at is just they're gonna build something there.

You want them to have off-street parking or not, is kind of how I'm looking at this.

This is not a large development, there's not multiple units, is not changing the character of a neighborhood.

Um so I I don't find any way that I personally can oppose this.

This is extremely reasonable, it extremely fits into what I look at when I look at the the Google Earth map.

So thank you.

Ms.

Moore, thank you, Mayor.

Um, first I want to thank the neighbors on Megan Drive.

Um, they were a lovely group of neighbors.

I really enjoyed, and I I really um enjoy that that to me is very much very fatal, right?

That everyone comes together.

Um they did their homework too, they're very educated, and I and I appreciated that.

Um I was very honest with them that I was supportive of this rezone, and they still talked to me and they didn't kick me, so I appreciated that.

Um, one of the things I did just uh want to discuss too when we talk about single family neighborhoods is that um we have designations in our future land use around um what what uh our future land uses for that area and many of our RSF4 neighborhoods are actually um designated as residential neighborhood areas and just wanted to at least um let those neighbors know as well as the general public that this is you know single family homes, duplexes, townhomes, multi-family and accessory dwelling units, and so it's really wanting to have high connectivity, um, these compact blocks and gridded street patterns.

Um, and so I feel like this plan um it aligns to that.

I mean the fact that they can put an ADU in the backyard.

I think there could be a better potential outcome that happens, especially if they're gonna access off Porter.

I think that there could be some improvements there at Porter that they'll actually be responsible for that can actually be helpful for those neighbors.

Um we are in that area, it's a little low-lying, it it takes on some moisture.

Um, I have a feeling um just like they've made improvements to the current house, they're probably gonna end up needing to make some improvements there to make that unit work.

And so um while I'm very empathetic with the neighbors, I I really enjoyed my visit and I hope to continue because I do think we have some things um that were brought up that are incredibly valid, you know, the safety concerns around the speeds that are on Porter, um, you know, looking at what the parking situation is on Megan.

And so I think that we have tools in our toolbox to address that with current regulations in the city, and I'm committed uh to following up with those neighbors on that.

So tonight though, um, I'd like to go ahead and uh unless there's any other discussion, uh I'd like to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Okay, we have a motion.

Um, Dr.

Jones.

Uh I have a question for Jonathan.

Uh Jonathan, did you say that uh the planning staff did support this?

Yes, that's correct.

Well, the planning staff and the planning was to correct yes, the planning commission forwarded it by a vote of six to three.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, second.

Okay, so we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll on moving to the third and final reading?

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedeker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turner?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

And ordinance to rezone the property described and rezoning petition RZN 2025-47 for approximately 0.33 acres, located at 2411 West Megan Drive in Ward 2.

From RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to RSF 8, residential single family eight units per acre.

Clerk Paxton, we please call the roll for the vote.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turr?

No.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

That brings us to our next item.

Item C5, an ordinance to approve vacation 25-24 for property located at 618 North Wilson Avenue in Ward 2 to vacate 0.14 acres of right-away.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas the City Council has the authority under ACA 1454-104 to vacate public grounds or portions thereof which are not required for corporate purposes.

And whereas the city council has determined the following described portion of right-of-way is not required for corporate purposes.

And whereas on November 10th, 2025, the planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this vacation.

Now therefore it be ordained by the city council of the city of Fadville, Arkansas, Section 1.

If the City Council of the City of Fettville, Arkansas hereby vacates the portion of right-of-way easement as described in exhibit B attached to a planning department's memo.

Section two that a copy of this ordinance duly certified by the city clerk, along with the map attached as an exhibit A to the planning department's memo shall be filed in the office of the Washington County Circuit Clerk.

And section three, this vacation approval is subject to the following condition that any damage or relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner developer's expense.

Mr.

Kurth, or actually, I'm sorry, Miss Moore.

You're the one that brought this one up.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'm happy to let Mr.

Kurth do his presentation, and then I have some remark remarks afterwards, but thank you.

Jonathan, is that okay with you?

It is.

Please allow me a moment.

Sorry.

This property is located in Central Fayetteville.

It is somewhere between the what would some some would define as the downtown area and the Wilson Park area.

Uh it represents the easternmost extents of the property, a property located on Wilson Avenue on the east side of the street between Isla to the south and Louis Street to the north.

The request uh before council is to vacate a portion of alley right away totaling uh uh roughly 600 square feet uh at the northern end of the existing alley that connects to Isla Street today.

Uh in reviewing the request, uh staff uh uh confirmed that all consents have been provided from the franchise utilities, uh suggesting that they do not have any concerns about any infrastructure or or or facilities in that alley right away.

Uh we did note, however, that one of the adjacent property owners have not provided a signature.

Uh Mr.

Williams can speak more to that, and if that represents a legal concern.

Uh ultimately, what was the uh rationale for the the request or the reasoning for the request is that at some point in the last uh 10 to 20 years, a porch was built onto the back side of the house into the public right-of-way.

Uh and as the property owner has sought to sell the property, this was flagged as a title issue, and accordingly, they brought forward this request to see the the uh alley right-away vacation.

Uh another consideration of staffs is that the remainder of the alley, if I can go back a slide, uh this used to be a complete alley running all the way from Alley Isla Street to uh uh to the south all the way to the north, uh, completing or creating a complete alleyway.

Uh, this was uh, however, or the northernmost extent of it north of that red rectangle you see there was vacated in 1987.

So, what is there today uh represents an incomplete alley.

Uh we have received uh support uh in favor of the request uh and staff and ultimately considering the missing uh adjacent property ownership information and the uh ultimate rationale to vacate the right-of-way as being a self-imposed hardship of building the porch into a right of way.

Uh, we are not recommending in favor of the request.

Uh the planning commission, however, forwarded the city council unanimously.

Uh they found that the react the the likelihood that this alley would ever serve a purpose of uh providing alley access to any of the adjacent properties was very slim.

Uh and accordingly, they recommend in favor of it that the council support this vacation uh with one condition of approval, which is our standard that any damage or relocation of uh utilities in the alley right away be done at the developer or owner's expense.

Uh with that, I'm happy to take questions and hand it back to uh council member more.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Um, and I'll just briefly um I'm not usually a proponent of us vacating alleyway.

I think this is just a really unusual situation.

It's one thing to look at on your map, but to go on foot and to kind of see um what's happened over time.

There's a retaining wall that's been built, um, and one property that comes in that vacation has already happened, so we don't have complete connectivity.

We'd have to get additional alleyway, and it literally is just a stone's throw off of park, and so I can't think of the benefits of that that complete connectivity on those types of roads by Wilson Park.

Uh, you also have a fence that's there, a compost bin.

I mean, it's so much earth, and that's just kind of shifted in that area.

And so once I visited, um, I I felt like I could be supportive of this, and I hope tonight that you can be as well.

Thank you.

Um, Councilperson Stafford, do you have clarifying questions before we go to public comment?

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, uh number one, uh, we need to add that uh mentioned condition.

Would we need to uh amend to add that?

No, I believe.

I'm sorry, let me I believe that was included in the ordinance that the legal department yes, that's that's included in the ordinance that legal drafted.

And and then secondly, could you just quickly summarize uh staff's objection again?

It is based on three items.

One is that one of the adjacent property owners has not consented to the alley being vacated.

It is a standard uh in our ordinance that all adjoining property owners were supposed to seek their their consent.

Uh again, Mr.

Williams can uh address whether that represents some sort of legal liability or concern.

Uh the second concern is the that uh ultimately this property that this part of the city could see some degree of redevelopment and an alley loaded development may be a more preferable way for that to occur rather than more driveways onto public streets.

Uh and then third, ultimately, uh this is effectively a self-imposed hardship, or it's made the request is based on a self-imposed hardship of building a porch into our public right-of-way.

Granted, it is bare mentioning, as councilman more noted, the alley, it was not a public alley that a porch was built into.

It was a uh what I characterize as a paper alley.

Uh it did not have asphalt or or concrete in it previously.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

And Jonathan, clarifying question about, and maybe this is for you, Kit, about the um one of the adjacent property owners that did not consent.

Did I hear you say earlier?

Is that that person expressed that they did not consent, or we were not able to reach that person?

My understanding is that they did not respond to requests for consent.

Okay, got it.

Okay.

Anything further to add on that point of it, Mr.

Wade?

Well, the uh the reason that we I do like to have property owners who are joined into the microphone.

Can you scoot into the mic, please?

Thank you.

Yes, Mayor.

Okay.

The reason that my office has concerns when an adjoining property owner does not consent to the vacation of an alley or street, is because uh the property owner that abuts an alley has a property interest in that alley.

In other words, they own the right to access the alley.

And so they could there has been a case in Arkansas where an alley was vacated without the consent of an adjoining property owner, and the adjoining property owner then sued the city.

So you have taken away my access to this alley, and therefore you condemn my property, that property interest, and we have to pay them money.

Now, of course, you're looking at an alley here that is not been built, there's still right-of-way there unless you all vacate it.

And so it's kind of hypothetical about whether what kind of damages they might have, but it is does put the city in a situation where we have potentially taken away the property interest of an adjoining property owner because they did not consent.

Or at least we didn't and could because we couldn't reach them, right?

We weren't able to we we tried to reach them and they didn't respond.

I'm not sure they but they didn't consent one way or the other.

And the reason why I was harbor was drawing that distinction was because I felt like it was important for the council to know is it simply we attempted to reach the property owner and they did not respond, or did they respond expressing that they had the concern?

And it sounds like that we weren't able to reach them, is what my understanding is, which I do think is a bit different.

So is it uh uh Ms.

Turk?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, I um I'm a little confused here because uh and I know we don't want to divulge which property owner did not grant their consent or respond, but it seems like um it seems it seems would it would be important to know which one it is because are they really um losing alley alleyway right away or access um into this situation?

So I um um that's one thing.

The second thing is I'm very familiar with this house, and it's a jungle back there.

Uh I can't I can't in 50 years I can't see how somebody would build something back there.

It is very, very, very, very, very tight.

Uh and um so it's not like there's a lot of space between the house and where the right where the alley is.

So I I'm going to support uh vacating this because um because of the topography and the uh intense uh closeness of the house, even though the back porch is extending into it, but I bet there's less than 10 feet from the back of the house then into the alley.

Thank you.

Okay, um, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak about this matter?

Okay.

Hi.

Hi, uh, I'm Dot Neely, uh, Ward 3, 1244 North Mission.

And I'm just wondering, that's Patty Kent's property.

Okay.

And there could that be the reason why it's she hadn't responded.

I don't think we can oh discuss that or mention it or do QA.

I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Just I know okay.

Thank you.

Okay, does anybody else have a comment on okay?

Yes.

I please state your name and address.

I'm gonna eat this mic.

So you can hear me.

Andrea Fournay, uh, ward two, address 503 West Prospect.

I just have a question.

This alleyway is vacated because I did one years ago.

The person it vacates half goes to the adjoining neighbor.

And so right now, rather than questions, we can take questions from the council, but this is really comments from the public on whether you support or are not support.

I'm sorry.

Okay, I just didn't.

Because I just know if that they're getting one's getting all of it or one's get they get half and half.

That was my first question.

Okay.

Council can out.

Okay.

Do we have any other comments um expressing support or not for the alley vacation?

Okay, I'm gonna turn it over to Keith.

Do you have any on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay.

Jonathan, is there any clarification that you'd like to give based on what we've heard?

Certainly the way state statutes written, and please, Mr.

Williams, jump in if I'm getting it wrong.

The way state statute is written when public right-of-way is vacated, is it goes to the property that platted it?

So some there may be instances where if a street is platted by an entire subdivision on one side of it, they will get the entire right-of-way if it was to be vacated.

This particular property or this block was platted as a whole, so the right-of-way of effectively came from both adjacent properties when the alley was dedicated.

So it's a long-winded way of saying that in this instance, if if this alley is vacated, it'll be split down the middle and go to the two adjacent properties.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Wheataker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so my question is, and I guess this is for Jonathan Mayer, and that is I mean, no one is proposing to develop anything.

Someone did a title search, and an agent found this issue and brought it to our attention.

I'm just trying to figure out how we even came to be discussing this.

My understanding is that the applicant was seeking to sell the property, and either the buyer or the seller's agent or a title search identified that the this portion of the house was in the public right away.

So with staff staff is not bringing this forward.

We did not identify this issue.

It was identified by the applicant.

I think the buyer required this to be resolved prior to moving forward with the property purchase.

Okay.

And even though it's a paper alley and we're discussing is if there's two properties, there's literally would be four potential properties that could have access to a future alley if it went all the way through, I presume.

Yes, I if I'm understanding your question correctly.

Yes, there's two lots that front uh well, one that fronts Louise to the north and one that also fronts Wilson north of the applicant's property that could theoretically access the alley today if it was built, and then the applicant's property.

So three really the two that are on Isla have access to what would remain of the alley today.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, uh Mr.

Burner.

One more one more quick question.

So if we leave this as is right now and deny this, we're in essence denying the homeowners the ability to sell their house at any point, unless at some later date we get a vacation.

That may be a better question for Mr.

Williams.

Uh I don't know.

You're on deck.

Well, effectively you might be doing that.

I guess I could always cut off the come into the microphone kit.

Effectively, that's probably what would happen.

You know, you could always the owner could go out there and cut off the side of his house that's that's getting into the right-of-way.

That's not very feasible.

So effectively, you're making it very difficult to sell that property.

Um I will remind you all it is an ordinance we are on the first reading.

I will move on unless we have a motion.

Uh Councilperson Moore.

Thank you.

I'd like to move that we suspend the rolls and go to the third reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Mr.

Williams.

I'm so sorry, Clerk Paxton.

Will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Stafford?

No.

Dr.

Jones?

No.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

No.

Mr.

Burna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mayor, there have been five affirmative votes on this, but uh to suspend the rules, you require six votes in the affirmative.

So do you care to vote?

I would like to suspend the rules and move it to the third and final reading.

All right.

So that motion passes.

In order to approve VAC 2525-24 for property located at 618 North Wilson Avenue in Ward 2 to vacate 0.14 acres of right-of-way.

Mr.

Burner.

Oh, no.

Okay.

Clerk Paxton, we please call the roll.

Mr.

Stafford.

Um Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us on to item C6, a rezoning of North Marksmill Lane.

It's an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-48 for approximately 26.7 acres, located south of North Smill, south of North Marksmill Lane in Ward 3, from RSF 4, residential single family, 4 units per acre, and EC Urban Corridor rezoning to P1 institutional.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Section 1.

That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby changes the zone classification of property shown on the map, exhibit A and the legal description, exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF 4 residential singular family, four units per acre, and UC Urban Corridor to P1 institutional.

And section two at the City Council of the City of Fayeville, Arkansas, hereby amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Okay.

And Mr.

Karth, I'm being asked by um members of the council if we can take a five-minute recess.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Okay.

So if we could, what is that?

702.

I don't, I would like to not dally for too long because I know there are a lot of people here that are eager for this, but let's do a five-minute recess and then we'll pick back up with you, Mr.

Kurth.

Okay, I'm gonna call the meeting back to order.

If we could have a little bit of quiet in the council room, that would be great.

And when we uh left off, we are on item C6.

Mr.

Williams just read the ordinance, and I was turning it over to you, Mr.

Kurt.

No pressure.

Thank you, Mayor.

Sorry, allow me a moment to get the poll back up.

This property is in North Central Fayetteville.

Uh it includes uh about 26.7 acres uh spanning from Marksmill Lane to the north to uh ash and walnut to the south, and there's a portion of land also that extends westward down to College Avenue to the west.

The property remains largely undeveloped uh and quite similar to how you see it in some of our earliest aerial photography in the area from the 1940s.

Uh while a portion was developed with a manufactured home park uh sometime between the 1950s and 1960s.

Uh this was closed at some point between the 1980s and 1990s, uh leaving the property largely as you see it today.

Uh since that time, uh there have been two projects that have been proposed on the property.

Uh one preliminary plat layout was brought before staff uh in 2014, uh proposing 54 lots on the site.

Uh this ultimately proved uh unfeasible or is ultimately redesigned uh due to uh uh some of the constraints identified by the engineering group associated with engineering and the slopes on the property, and ultimately what was entitled and approved by the planning commission in that year uh was a smaller or at least smaller number of lots uh proposal uh for about 35 lots uh that would extend Marksmill Lane southward to a cul-de-sac, uh falling short of uh ash and walnut to the south.

Uh the largest distinction to note for the council is that neither of these uh proposals included the portion of land uh that is a part of this request south of here, uh towards the right side of the screen towards Ash and Walnut or the portion of the land uh further to the west, uh which is towards the bottom of the screen towards College Avenue.

More recently, this property is familiar to our planning commission and also to our city council when it was brought before you all as a part of the 71B corridor rezoning request.

Prior to that project, the property was zoned, a split of zoning designations mixed with RSF4 residential single family four units per acre, RO residential office, and C2, commercial thoroughfare, or excuse me, thoroughfare commercial along College Avenue, which you can see in the yellow pink and light red respectively.

This was rezoned as part of 71B project to the designation you all know today with this request, with the uphill portion being zoned RSF4 and the portion immediately adjacent to College Avenue zoned UC Urban Corridor.

With that, as Mr.

Williams and Mary noted, the request is to rezone the overall property, including both of those zoning districts, UC Urban Corridor and RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to a single designation of P1 institutional.

Staff does find this request to be compatible from a land use compatibility standpoint.

The land to the east, north, and south of this is developed uniformly with single family, while the area to the west is a much wider diversity of non-residential development types, including retail restaurants, and religious institutions.

Staff finds that the use is allowed in the P1 zoning district, ranging from parks and museums and cemeteries to schools and hospitals are compatible in this area and could appropriately support and complement the developments either to the east or west of this site.

From a land use planning standpoint, we similarly find this request to be consistent.

The future land use map has a split designation for this property, which largely reflects the zoning that's on the property today, with the portion adjacent to College Avenue designated as city neighborhood and the portion uphill of that as residential neighborhood.

The P1 zoning district can complement both of these, given the allowances, the land use allowances in that district, can serve a variety of different purposes in this location with the current applicant.

They intend to provide an educational facility, can meet that need very appropriately in our estimation.

Some other issues that were identified as a part of staff's review.

As I noted in a pair of items ago, tree preservation follows zoning in the city of Fayville.

Under the existing RSF4 zoning district, it requires 25% tree canopy plus an additional 5% in the hillside hilltop overlay district.

Under the P1 zoning district, that would require 25% tree canopy requirements.

The 5% additional for a hillside hilltop overlay district does not apply in our code today.

There were some development level details discussed as a part of this project.

Council has followed the movements of the school board and what has been publicized.

There have been a lot of specific project proposal elements out there to be considered.

When it comes to issues such as the hillside, we feel that the city has established adequate consideration with our hillside hilltop overlay district standards, most specifically that they require reducing the amount of disturbance on a given piece of property, and also that they require more robust building foundations and footers, whether it's a single-family home or an office building.

Similarly, we find that the access to three potential street connections, either Marks Mill to the north, college to the west, or ash and walnut to the south affords multiple opportunities to mitigate any potential traffic concerns, and we are evaluating those in greater detail with the developments submittal.

There were several items that came up at the tour that I want to touch on that I wasn't able to answer last week for the council members in attendance.

One was a general question about topography on the site, like how the slope on the property, which goes from higher on the east down to College Avenue lower on the west, and what that looks like in terms of a percentage slope.

If you will bear with me, I've reoriented the map on you so that north is to the left.

You can see College Avenue running north-south on the bottom side of the property.

Slopes across the property vary between 15% and then just over 22%, depending where you select those and where you see those on the site.

There was also interest expressed in understanding what the adjacent developments slopes look like.

So taking the property in consideration aside and seeing that in the dark outline on the right-hand side of your screen and looking at the Marks Mill subdivision north of that.

You can see fairly comparable overall slopes across that subdivision, not quite reaching 20%, but anywhere between 15 and just shy of 20%.

Relatedly, there was a question of what some other examples in the city of Fayville are that are developed on more extensive slopes or more some of our more sloped hills that you can find commonly in Fayville.

Uh one example that was asked about was Rockwood Trail.

Uh this is immediately east of Mission Boulevard as you go up the hill, uh that slopes at about a 14% uh downward grade uh from the top of it uh down to Mission Boulevard.

Uh and in a more institutional setting, uh, given some of the uses allowed in P1, uh identified the portion of the University of Arkansas campus southwest of the student union, uh, where several uh dormitory halls or student halls are located.

Uh that piece of property between Garland and Stadium Drive is about an 18 and a half percent slope for for reference purposes if that assists.

Um also asked about at the tour was what does what is the potential development of the property today?

Um given the 23 and a half acres of the property approximately that are zoned RSF4, uh a straight zoning entitlement of four units per acre would allow uh almost 93 units per acre, as you saw in those two subdivision iterations earlier in the presentation.

Uh given the shape of this property, and it's also that also that it's not level, uh that that type of um lot yield or the number of units that would be uh feasibly built is not uh realistically approaching that number, even accounting for the portion of urban corridor zoning uh near College Avenue that does not have a defined density.

Uh we extrapolated out from those previous subdivisions that were considered an estimated that roughly 70 to 80 lots would probably be feasible across the extent of this property given uh that adjacent property uh is included in this that abuts Ash and Walnut as well as the portion closer to College Avenue.

Uh additionally, we've received uh public comments on this item, uh both in advance of the planning commission at the planning commission and since it.

Uh this has been fairly mixed.

Uh those in favor are uh think it is very valuable in the context of its centralized location.

Uh also understanding that the context of the request is in building a school for the Fayeville Public School District, uh, and also asserting uh understanding that the school district has prioritized a high-level design uh with the building uh proposed for the property.

Uh those concerned about this request, uh many expressing opposition to it, uh, feel that the specific property uh represents a concern in terms of not just traffic and some of the uh development concerns that the council typically hears about, but also those sites specific to this uh related to the amount of tree canopy on the site as well as the amount of slope uh again going downward from the east side of the property westward towards college avenue.

Uh with those considerations uh balanced, the staff is recommending in favor of the request.

The planning commission forwarded it city council by a vote of seven to one.

Uh there was one recusal.

Uh the commission, uh those in favor found it to be compatible and consistent, uh, compatible with land uses and consistent with our land use plans, and felt that the zoning district proposed for it is appropriate regardless of of how it is developed or even if it is not developed.

Uh, if the council recall earlier this year and in years past, we've brought forward rezoning requests to P1 for our city parks property.

So P1 is a very commonly used tool uh for areas intended to be preserved or kept for recreation non-developed purposes, just as much as those for uh some more uh the typical institutional uses such as schools and museums and the like.

Uh the dissenting vote expressed that there were too many cumulative environmental concerns on the property that they did not feel it was appropriate to change the entitlements at this time.

And with that mayor, um council, I'm happy to take any questions.

And I believe there's several members of the development team to speak to this item tonight, and they have a presentation prepared.

I'm not sure if that will begin with uh Dr.

Mulford from the district or perhaps uh Hunter Adkinson.

Okay, whomever is representing the applicant, if you'd like to come up for your presentation, Councilperson Burner.

Mayor, uh, considering the uh the vast information that we really need to get this to make sure that we educate ourselves because this is a significant progress project.

I'd like to give him an extra five minutes if council would agree to that.

I understand what you're saying.

Okay.

And I'm um I'm gonna ask that I think that's a this is a good opportunity if you'll hold on for just one moment, Dr.

Mulford first to talk.

I know it is difficult to hear, um, but to the extent that we cannot shout out from the audience, I think that would be much appreciated.

Um, is it am I able to be heard, or is it was just um it's hearing nodding?

Right, Scott, can you test your mic again?

Test test.

Was that I think it's simple was it just simply a matter of him not leaning into it and you can hear now?

Okay, okay.

Um I'm just asking, considering uh the information, the amount of information that we really need to make a good educated decision, I'd like to give him an extra five minutes.

Uh Ms.

Turk.

I I'm fine with that, but I'd like to just only have a 15 minutes total, no extensions.

If that's okay with everybody.

Does anyone have any objections to that on the council?

I mean, I with a decision this large, I would like to take the time that it takes.

I don't I don't think in it, I don't want to speak for you, Ms.

Turk.

I don't think that you were meaning only 15 minutes for that questions.

I think you you just meant for Dr.

Milford's presentation.

You're still able to ask him questions after that point.

I think is that what Dr.

Jones?

Uh is that 15 minutes presentation or 15 minutes?

Just for his presentation.

He's allotted 10, and Mr.

Bernays just asking to extend that to 15.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Dr.

Mulford, please go ahead.

So uh if you would put 15 minutes on the clock.

Hello.

Do we have thank you?

Okay, go ahead.

All right.

Thank you, uh Mayor and uh council members.

I will try to keep it as close to that 10 minutes as I can.

But we appreciate the opportunity to come before you this evening.

We appreciate the staff's recommendation to proceed with this rezoning request as well as the recommendation from the planning commission.

Some of this information you're gonna be pretty familiar with, so I'll try to move through it quickly.

But we covered a lot of this at our joint workshop back in April.

But I want to start off with just what is focus on the future.

So it's a strategic redesign of our existing feeder patterns for elementary, middle, and junior high schools.

And the focus is improving proximity of middle and junior high schools to families, as well as the demographic balance amongst those schools in our district.

And it also includes a 10-year long-range facility plan that involves building two new buildings, new Ramey, New Woodland, additions to John L.

Colbert to become a junior high and renovations to the existing Ramey campus.

This next slide we can't show enough.

It's a comparison of the city's boundaries to the district's boundaries.

And while the bulk of our uh students and their families live within the city of Fayetteville, uh that certainly does not meet all of our needs.

So our goal is to certainly align with as many of the uh the city's priorities as we can while also meeting the needs of our broader district.

Uh the next map just is a visual of our existing middle school zones.

You'll notice if you reflect back to that last slide.

The three middle schools we have are kind of on the outer edges, what I would call of the city limits and not uh very central.

So that's part of what we're trying to address with our new feeder patterns.

This next slide is our current junior high boundaries.

We only have two, and you'll notice the significant amount of east-west travel that is is required to get to those two sites represented by those two stars right there.

The next feeder pattern is a heat map of where our students live within the district, and that's our elementary zones represented.

And you can kind of see the bulk of everybody is right in that central part, which is also kind of right in the middle of the city of Fayeville.

All right, this next slide is the new feeder pattern um map that will go into effect August of 27.

And this divides our elementaries into three pure feeder zones and pairs the elementaries with a specified middle school junior high pairing.

And so that allows students to stay together all the way through.

It presents a situation where each of the three middle school junior high pairings, one is kind of on the west, one central, and one more uh east central within our district, but on the eastern side of the city boundaries.

I do want to note that dotted oval that's right by Washington Elementary on the screen.

When we were looking for property for that lower zone, that was identified by a logistics expert as the ideal location.

If we could put a school anywhere in this zone to be as close to families as we can, that would be where it would be.

And that's basically from feed and folly along college to the scadium.

And as you know, that is all developed and there's no property there.

So we directed our realtor to search for properties that were at least 15 acres in size, that were as close to that as we could find, and again, pretty limited.

And uh we landed on the property that is before you as A, it was the only one that the owner was willing to sell of the properties we looked at, and B, of the properties we looked at, it was the only one that really met our needs and kept the schools as close to our families as possible.

Beyond that, we began to look at how it might play into this the city's own goals.

You might recall a little over a year ago, we brought to you the new woodland property to be rezoned.

And I heard from some of you sitting up here concerns that that did not align with the city's goals around infill and location.

And so we definitely took that to heart as we sought this next property, and we feel like we have checked a lot of boxes.

The next slide, you know, what I you are hearing from some people that may be saying, hey, we feel this is rushed, you need to take your time, we need to slow down.

But I do want to remind the council that this is a conversation that is almost two years in the making.

It started back in December of 23 when we first looked at new feeder pattern proposals.

In February of 24, our board approved this model and made it very publicly known that we were going to be looking for property in this zone as close to that dotted oval as we could find it.

We definitely had people begin to reach out to us and share properties, and we explored all kinds of properties before we landed on this one.

This property was identified in April 24 as a possibility.

We engaged our design team led by Crafton Toll, a local firm to assess the site and provide a report to our board on the feasibility of building on this site, knowing that it was sloped.

They provided that report to our board in June, and our board approved the purchase in July, and we closed on the property early August.

Additionally, since then we have had several board meetings where this project and the site were a topic of discussion, December of 24, January, March, August, October of 25, and at the joint meeting with the city council in April of 25.

So there's been a lot of talk, a lot of opportunity for public comment, a lot of opportunity for questions.

We've sat down with individuals, and as recently as last Thursday, we held a community forum where we had about 50 people attend, and by show of hands, the majority of those people indicated they lived within a half a mile of the property.

So it was a great opportunity for us to hear what was on the mind of those who live closest to the property, and we'll address some of those things in a minute.

This next slide is kind of what Mr.

Kurth already showed.

It is a property before you and really, you know, it's a consideration of compatibility.

Currently zoned residential.

Is it is P1 institutional a compatible rezone?

And so, you know, at the end of the day, I'm not going to belabor this point, but uh a map was shown of a neighborhood plan that was already laid out.

This is who we bought the property from.

The owner told us repeatedly that he didn't want anyone else developing that property but him.

He lives up in the Summit Place neighborhood.

The only reason he's selling it is because it was for the school and he felt like it was a great uh location for a school.

Um so he definitely had plans to develop it as soon as he had built out the lots in Summit Place, which are coming to a close right now.

The institutional rezone actually prevents it from being developed residential, if you were to approve that.

Um, and so it would take that off the table, where right now that would be a buy right opportunity.

I'll skip past this next slide since you've already seen it.

And then when you get into the next one, it it really just talks about why we believe this is a good spot for a school and how it aligns to the city's goals.

It's sited on the primary urban corridor.

Uh schools we know serve as anchor institutions for revitalization and development.

And 71B is an area that you all have identified as a priority to redevelop.

Uh, schools and I'm sorry, you all are having courage as a city in field development.

And you know, if if we don't put the school here, undoubtedly it will be on the edges of town.

In fact, maybe even outside of the city limits because we'd likely have to go east, and this would be our first school that would actually be outside the city limits.

Uh, on the next slide, I think it this one shows that this property is just almost ideally uh situated between two level two uh areas identified by the city for improvement.

And then the next slide is just an over over uh lost my word here for a second, an aerial shot of uh the area.

And what I really want to draw your attention to is the location of this property to the current Woodland Middle School, which will become the middle school that it is paired with.

So literally right across the street.

So when you think about families who have kids at both middle school and junior high, you're they're not having to drive two, three, four miles in between schools.

But what I also want you to see to the east is all the housing.

So when we talk about improving walkability, bikeability, that kind of thing.

Look at all the single family housing that is right there.

Um when you talk about the trail connection, you'll notice the two arrows on the slide.

The arrow to the left is where the midtown trail ends at Woodland Avenue.

The arrow to the right is the junction of old wire and ash, and we know it's in the city's goals to connect that midtown trail.

Development of this property fills that gap and guarantees that can be connected, and and uh essentially you're gonna have that trail connection to all those neighborhoods to the school property, and even for those that live west of college.

Um, because this site we know is 100% tree covered, it's sloped.

We know that we're going to have to be very conscientious in the development.

So we're actually pursuing three different certifications that would uh show environmental responsiveness.

And the one I want to draw your attention to is the site certification at the bottom because it specifically lays out how we're going to approach the development of the process, what resource or how to manage resources during the building phase, what types of equipment and methods to use and not to use.

And so it's a very stringent certification to our knowledge.

There's not a single school in the state of Arkansas that has ever achieved this.

And so that's something that we are working towards.

As we talk to people, and including the neighbors, there's three primary concerns.

Mr.

Kirth kind of already referenced it.

Site concerns about the tree canopy as well as the slope, stormwater runoff, and then traffic and parking and how that's going to play.

So let me kind of talk about these three.

So the first thing, why this site.

When we engaged with our families over two years ago now about rezoning for middle schools and junior highs, the top three things we heard was keep our kids as close to where they live as possible, avoid separating students as they go up through the system, and limit east-west travel to the greatest extent possible.

So we tried to keep those things in mind as we made decisions around feeder patterns as well as site locations.

This next slide is a map, it's a rough outline of that feeder pattern to the south.

You'll notice two boxes with dotted lines.

The white dotted line represents the area around college from township down to 15th Street.

So that's kind of where we prioritize looking for property.

How close can we get to that?

Keep the schools close to college as we can, a main northwest uh north south corridor.

The blue dotted line represents the part of that zone where the bulk of families actually live.

So a school outside of that, a school to the south, to the east or to the west, really becomes removed from families.

Uh increases drive time, increases traffic demand, uh, decreases walkability, bikeability, and alternate methods of transportation.

I do want to point out that we looked at several properties south of that blue line.

Uh most of those uh were either just as sloped, just as tree covered, or they came with other issues like being in the floodplain, being near Town Branch Creek, which brings in a whole another set of issues.

So uh just kind of keep that in mind.

And when you get out to the east, um the most of that land that's developable is already slated to be developed.

Um, and then you do get to where you're outside of the city limits as well.

Uh, the next slide, this is the the city's own uh one-page guide to development, and there's six priorities, and you'll notice the five purple check boxes next to the first five.

We check five of the six.

And while we don't have a check mark next to six, which is opportunities for attainable housing, we definitely think it it contributes that to that by keeping our schools uh centrally located uh within the city and where development has already taken place.

As far as stormwater runoff, uh, this next map, this was before the additional seven acres came into play, but you'll see that our engineering team is taking a lot of approaches.

What everyone will tell you is there's already issues from stormwater runoff on this undeveloped site.

We absolutely believe we can improve those issues, and it's gonna be a variety of things.

It's gonna include some uh terracing, it's gonna include some underground detention, it's gonna include some uh some site water retention and parts of it, and then the field in particular has received a lot of criticism because of the trees that might be removed to have a field up there.

That is a turf field with a pretty significant drainage system underneath, and it's actually a big part of the drainage control because it traps all that and diverts it to a specified direction.

So we feel very confident we can address that.

And then finally, the traffic impacts.

If you'll look at this spreadsheet, this is a breakdown of our current bus riders and car riders this year.

Of note, the current woodland, which is already in this location, has our highest number of students who do not ride the bus at all.

421.

Okay.

When you look at the rezone and our current trends of the schools it will serve, that same campus, we project only 246 students will depend on car rider uh cars every day.

And we project the new RAME would be 267 for a total of 513.

So that's a relatively small addition, and some of those will be the same families.

Okay.

Um going to the next slide, Mark's Mill.

That's emergency maintenance only.

Our current plan doesn't even have a connector there, but we have to go through large scale, and they may request that we have that.

College, you all plan to put an intersection there, which guided part of our decision to purchase.

Traffic study has been conducted there.

We can speak more to that.

On Ash, we've heard the neighbors, they have a lot of concerns about that safety.

We think we can help improve that with strategic thought and taking their concerns into play.

And that'll be developed through the with the city during large scale.

And then sidewalks will be developed only if neighborhoods want them.

And I'm out of time, so I'm gonna stop right there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we have questions for um either Dr.

Mulford or for Jonathan from the council before we open up to public comment?

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you.

Uh Dr.

Mulford, how many slides do we miss out on?

Uh, just three.

There are three maps.

One that shows just the site plan, the other shows the projected area of tree preservation.

And then the third slide is uh at the site map that shows circulation on site.

Okay.

Uh, do we have those in our packet or can we get those forwarded?

Um Jonathan has it in the presentation.

I don't know if you have access to the presentation.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Okay.

Uh Dr.

Jones.

Uh thank you for that presentation.

And if not that site, oh, I'm sorry.

I can talk loud now.

Uh if not that site, then uh you mentioned possibly on the outskirts.

What will that look like?

Yeah, so I think that's to be determined.

Right now, there's no properties for sale that would actually work for us.

Okay.

And so we would have to go back to the drawing board, approach property owners that have at least 15 acres that is developable.

And our goal would be to try to get it as close to college as we can get it.

But what we know, because we've already conducted an exhaustive search, is we're probably gonna be at crossover or further west is is probably best case scenario if this is not approved.

We've looked at the property south.

There does not appear to be anything.

There is a 30 acres that has been suggested that is owned by the university, which is previously told us they are not willing to sell.

Um, but that 30 acres is just as sloped and 100% tree covered.

So it's it's the same situation, just further away from families, making it quite frankly harder on them.

And if that is the case, how much more time will it how much time will be lost?

I think at this point, you know, assuming we can find a piece of property within the next three to four months, uh, at minimum, it's a year delay for those students.

You know, we're targeting August of 28 for the Ramey campus to open.

So, best case, everything falls into place quickly.

Um we're talking August of 29, but it could very well be August of 30.

And what about financially?

Financially, um, obviously, you know, we spent money on the property, so the board would have to make a decision whether they want to sell it or not.

I assume that we would, um, but that's their decision, not mine.

And then we put money and effort into the design, and so we would have to pivot.

I don't see the design itself changing a lot, but we would have to reacclimate to whatever site it's built on.

So, what you're saying is that's it it poses a huge risk to our children, correct?

It could.

It oh, absolutely.

If we don't rezone this, there's no doubt that the ones that pay, in my opinion, are our students because it's that much longer before the building is built.

Um, and then really the families in the zone because right now they can have a school that's relatively closed, relatively easy to get to, increase walkability, bikeability, and our other options will not have those opportunities.

Right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, Mr.

Burning.

Thank you.

Uh Dr.

Mulford, uh I drive through the route school cool school zone virtually every day or at least three three days a week.

And I'm always amazed at the number of families that walk their kids to school or little guys that are dri uh pedaling as fast as they can down the side down the the bike trail to get to school.

Um what are the what are the percentages of uh walkers or bike riders that uh go to root school versus bus riders?

Do you have that number?

You know, I don't have that number, and that's not something that we really track.

However, the uh we do have a partnership with the city right now is doing a safe routes to school study.

You probably heard of it, and I know they had people come out and and kind of track some of those things and identify ways to improve walkability and bikeability.

But what I can tell you is Root Butterfield and Leverett, three of the four elementaries that will be served by the school, are three of our elementaries that have the highest number of kids and parents that walk and bike with their kids to school.

So I 100% believe if there is a zone that would take advantage of the trail system and walk and bike to school, it's this zone.

And then the kids that presently today go to route.

Where will they go to uh middle school and junior high if we don't approve this?

Yeah, so they they will attend middle school at the current Woodland campus.

Okay, and they will attend junior high at the current RAMI campus, and that's where they would attend until a new RAME was built.

We intend to build a new RAMI, if not this location, it's just a matter of finding finding one.

But what I can assuredly tell you is it won't be as ideally located as this.

Thank you.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, are we able to bring up his slide 27, please, about the tree preservation?

Um I do agree there have been of several public meetings, and I believe earlier on in the project, the school district had goals and potentially stated a higher percentage tree um preservation than maybe where we're at.

Can you please walk us through where there was a thought of more preservation on the site and kind of where we've landed with this map that you've got?

Yes, so the kind of shaded area you see to the left and to the uh top is the area that we project to be undisturbed through the development of the property.

And then you can also see that there's a lot of uh intent to to replant around the site.

So when we first made the decision that we were going to build here, we challenged our design team to preserve 50 percent.

That's what we as a school wanted to preserve.

And so that's what that was our challenge to them.

And I think they have worked really hard in coming up with a design that goes up instead of out.

This is a three-story junior high, which is very uncommon.

Um it's generally better to keep it all one level just from a management uh standpoint.

But understanding that we want to have a small footprint, uh, we've taken that approach.

Um so anyhow, our design team, as hard as they worked, 50% preserved was not manageable.

Now we absolutely believe when it's all done and all the replantings occur that we'll be right around that number.

But uh we are above 30% at this point.

We certainly don't want to overpromise.

We still got to go through large scale development and there'll be tweaks and adjustments that have to be made.

But our team is is in that mid to upper 30 range right now of what we believe will be preserved.

Uh we're continuing to push to get to 40.

That's kind of our most recent challenge, get to 40.

So they're trying, but we can't sit here and promise it.

But uh what will happen is an improvement to that part that is preserved as well as the remainder of the site for uh a remaining forest that can be used as a learning tool that our kids can be immersed in each and every day.

That not only that, but truly could be open and accessible to the public outside of school hours and enjoyed.

And the part that's not represented in this map is the amount of tree canopy to the west and even to the east that is not on our property that will not be impacted by this at all that will remain.

So there's still quite a bit of tree canopy that will surround that entire area.

And ultimately with the Brooks Hummel to the south, it it I think really plays into that enduring green network goal that the city has.

And then just a follow-up then, you said um tree plantings.

What does that look like in the timeline?

Is that before occupancy of the building?

Is that in the years to come?

How does that look with the project?

Yeah, so I believe that Jonathan can speed this better than me, but I know there's a a certain requirement as part of the project.

Yes, landscaping and tree plantings are required prior to final occupancy for a building.

And then they're talking about targeting above what our requirement is, and so I guess that was the language I was trying to understand.

Would they still be under the same timeline if they're going above what's required with P1?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I'm I don't think how much cannabis they decide to preserve would impact their their timeline necessarily, but or not maybe if you can rephrase the question.

You're talking about for the replanting.

Correct, the replanting.

What do we have to replant as much if we preserve more than we're required to is the question?

Uh thank you.

I appreciate the clarification.

Um there are two circumstances in which we require plantings.

One is if a project does not meet its minimum canopy requirement.

If they fell below that 25%, if they fell below that 25%, they'd be required to plant back up to it.

And I'll additionally, even if they did keep that canopy requirement, that 25%, there are landscape requirements that the city requires, whether it's an association with the tension ponds, private drives, things of that nature.

So that all has to be taken care of and bonded prior to final occupancy.

Okay.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Part of the site certification also has some requirements around that.

I'm not the best one to speak to that.

We do have our sites experts on Zoom, uh, Meredith, if if that's of interest.

At some point it would be nice to yeah, to have a better idea on that because there are a lot of questions around the trees.

I just had one other follow-up.

You said that students are going to have access to this particular forest and residents will as well.

So that will be 24 hour access as far as that folks can access that forest at any time, or do you have the details as far as I know oftentimes on some of our properties for students, they don't have access during school hours.

So I just trying to understand the access they have to the forest.

Yeah, that that would be to be determined as we go through it, but what's typical on most of our campuses is that when school's not in session, so evenings, weekends, our playgrounds are generally open to the public, you know, those kinds of things.

So we anticipate the learning trails and different things through the forest would fall in line with what we already do.

Now it would not be 24 hours a day, so we would probably limit it, you know, certain time at night, nine o'clock.

Usually once it gets dark, we don't want people just hanging out there.

So uh, but evenings and weekends and when school's not in session.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Kit, uh, a couple of questions for you to start off with.

Uh we received a number of comments uh through our email that uh said we would be breaking many ordinances, city ordinances.

Do you know will we be breaking any ordinances by passing this rezoning?

Uh not that I am aware of.

I think that question might actually be better going to our development services director who uh has watched this program, but I'm not I'm not aware of anything that we would be breaking in part of the unified development code I that's a good question.

I think it has similar to the answer about tree preservation.

I think it has two parts.

I think with the rezoning request, I am not aware of any ordinances that would be violated.

The public notification requirements were made, the leak the legal description that was provided was validated, a request letter was submitted.

Um I think what may be being referenced is that if the property were to be developed under this zoning district, there would be ordinances to be broken, and that's to be evaluated as as a part of the development review process.

That that is that is why we go through the large scale development process for which there's a public hearing.

That's why we got through grading permit approvals and the issuance of those permits and inspections, and then ultimately building permit uh reviews and issuance and inspections.

So there's there's many layers that begin to look at the conformance with our ordinances, those typically come after zoning.

Okay, thank you.

Jonathan, we hear you really well when you look right at the mic, but when you turn like this and talk to Bob, it misses it.

So I know you are being polite and looking at him when you're talking about, but if you could look maybe right at the mic, I'm sorry to be a pain.

I'm getting I'm getting motions from the audience to speak up, so sorry.

Thank you.

Sorry, I appreciate the feedback.

I apologize.

It's the that's um Mr.

Stafford, are you still do you go ahead?

I'm still in the midst of my questions.

Thank you.

Uh uh, sorry, I have many.

Um uh Dr.

Mulford, uh, we've received also emails.

Uh it seems like there's uh a group trying to raise money that wants to purchase a property and potentially turn it into a perk.

Have they have they made any official offers?

Have they uh or approach the school district?

I have not received an offer.

I've had people ask if we'd be willing to sell it.

My response has been consistent that if for some reason it was not rezoned, I assume we would want to sell it at that point, but at this point we're not interested in selling it.

We firmly believe this is the best option for our kids, and so we're asking you to to consider our question for rezone.

Okay, thank you.

And Jonathan, uh, a question for you.

Uh, if this were if somebody did want to turn this into perkland, uh, what zoning would that be?

That would also be P1.

Am I not incorrect?

That is correct.

P1 institutional is the standard zoning district.

We use our parkland in Fayetteville.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then Dr.

Moford, last question.

Sorry.

Uh, you you do have a professional forester you've hired that uh has been inventorying the the forest and and we do, and he is here, Hunter Atkinson with Prism.

And so if you have questions for him, he's happy to speak to it.

Okay, thank you very much.

Ms.

Bunch, thank you.

Uh Dr.

Mulford, uh Becked.

Can sorry, into the mic back to the issue of if you let's say this did you did not pass and you were going to sell the property.

Can you are do you have any requirements for what amount you sell it for?

Does it have to be sold at a market rate?

Could you sell it to someone at a discount beyond what you paid for it?

Or what is what are your legal requirements if that were to happen?

Yeah, generally we do we do have some guidelines that we have to follow, and fair market rate is is kind of the standard that we have to follow.

There are some rare exceptions, but um our district has held to uh selling it at the fair market rate, and so that's what I would anticipate would happen should our board uh decide to sell the property.

Additionally, I mentioned earlier that the prior owner had indicated the only reason he was willing to sell is because it was a school.

Uh so if this was not rezoned, our first step would be to go back to him because he is very adamantly indicated he has doesn't want anyone developing it but him, and so we'd probably give him the first opportunity to get the property back.

Okay, thank you very much.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you for being here, Dr.

Mulford.

Um, I wanted to follow up on what Jonathan said that if it was rezoned as a park, wouldn't that also be CCR, potentially CCR as a conservation um zone?

We have not done that historically, it could be certainly.

Um I think one limitation we've run into, I've described to the council doing that with public property is the the requirement within that zoning district to dedicate a conservation easement and what that would look like with a public entity.

Right.

That's a recent um zoning type designation that we passed, but um that conservation zoning could be or um restriction could be included in that.

So that is a possibility, right?

Certainly, if I understand your question correctly, CCR could or the conservation cultural resources zoning district is an option, it's just not been used historically since it's new.

Since it's brand new.

And um then I wanted to ask Dr.

Mulford on your last um point about going back to the previous property owner.

Is that a requirement within the contract that you have or the so that would just be a good idea?

I don't believe it is.

I don't recall that being in there, so it's just more of a courtesy.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Berna.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, as the property sits here today, it's RSF 4.

The majority of the property is RSF4, the portion near College Avenue is UC Urban Corridor.

Okay, so can you give us just a uh an overview of if this were to be developed as RSF4?

Uh what we realistically could be seeing in the way of numbers on that hillside.

Certainly, and I can pull that slide back up that I had in my presentation if it's helpful.

And I appreciate you posing that question to me other tour so that I could formulate an answer in my mind.

Uh so the the RSF4 zoning district to delay today allows over 90 units across the RSF4 portion of the property, which is the majority, about 23 acres of the 26, more than 26.

Uh the portion that's UC does not have a defined zoning density.

It allows single to or excuse me, allows two, three, four family, and multifamily buy right.

So it's hard to estimate what could be developed there.

Um, and accounting for tree preservation requirements, detention requirements, and the like, uh, we evaluated past projects and the additional property and estimated probably be developable with about 70 to 80 lots, residential lots.

Okay.

And then I received uh an email, and I'm sure uh some other council members did as well with a video showing water running off that hillside into a neighbor's yard.

Uh and as I saw that I thought, well, the development standards that we have would benefit that property owner, would it not?

Because this project has to retain the water from this development on their property.

Would that be accurate?

It's possible.

It is a it's a kind of it's a complicated answer.

Uh the first is that our development centers are based on reviewing what are the current conditions, like pre-development conditions versus post-development conditions, and we have limited ability to require a developer to improve the conditions on a piece of property.

Um, there are, however, two ways that that can be done.

Um the oftentimes it can be incorporated into a development to at least slow water flows or as a part of our detention requirements, they slow the water being released into our system.

And the second one is that the city often has an opportunity to cost share on these projects when we have a defined stormwater issue.

We can work with a development or developer or a contractor with public money to improve an existing situation.

Okay, thank you.

And then uh I've got a question for Kit.

Um you sent out an email uh yesterday with guidelines for us on what we can and cannot consider with this rezoning.

We've had a lot of people that have talked about the cost of the project and different sites that were available.

Could you explain to us what we can and cannot take in consideration with this rezoning?

Well, that memo I sent out to you was a kind of a recapulation of memos I've been sending to the city council for the last 20 something years.

Uh the law around rezonings really has not changed very much.

The statute there gives you nine different factors you can look at, the statute and the development uh section of the Arkansas Code.

Uh there are many court cases, and I pointed that out to you about different things you can look at.

Uh what you really can't look at is trying to take away the elected school board's decision that where this location should be, and also about whether or not it's a wise decision by the uh board of educ uh the district board of education about whether or not to spend the money.

Those things are actually left up to the discretion of the school board, and it's not really up to the city council to try to second guess them, just like we wouldn't want them second guessing us if we decided a master street plan was going to go in a certain direction, and they'd rather go somewhere else.

So we have that kind of respect for them, but apart from that, there are about 20 uh things you can think about according to the statutes and the courts.

Uh now, one of the most important always is compatibility, because that's really the reason behind zoning in the first place.

Are you going to be compatible with your neighbors?

But there's many other things to look at too, and and like I said, there's about 20 different factors you can look at, but there's a couple things that really you should not be looking at.

I think it's up to the school board's decision, the elected school board to decide where they would like to have a school and whether it makes sense to build it there.

You can look at the land and other things like that.

You're not required to approve this rezoning uh just because of those two things.

You can look at other factors, but you should not look at uh complain about the location or complaint about the money that the school board might have to spend to develop this.

Thank you, Kit.

Okay, I'm going to turn it over to public comment.

Turn it over to public comment.

I'm not seeing any other lights on.

So, okay, I know we have a lot of public comment.

Please keep in mind.

Um, you each have a three-minute time timeline.

If you would like to line up after each other, you don't have to wait on me to call on you.

You can just keep going.

Please do state your name and address.

And I just really want to ask that the audience, if we could kind of keep it quiet, one just out of respect, and two, so that it is easier for us to hear.

All right, thank you.

Come on out.

PJ, that you got me here?

Yep.

Okay, I'm Andrea Fournay, and I live at uh 503 West Prospect.

And picture number one, I'm just showing just the forest as it is now.

I'm basically the Lorex here tonight.

And I have a comment that from Professor Steve David Staley, an expert in dendrochinology, the scientific method of studying tree rings, which helps to date events and environmental changes.

In May, he joined council member Turk to visit the 16-acre property owned by the Fifth School District that is located just east of college.

Property is fully wooded with second growth forests dominated by post oak.

Several other hardwood species.

Yeah, great.

Um like hickory and uh other species are present.

There are some handsome mature trees, and the oldest appear to be between 100 and 150 years old, some even older, like when Bayetteville got started in the city in 1829.

He core one of the oldest appearing post oaks, and the rings date back to 1850s to 2025.

And so that makes those some of those trees up there very old.

And I just want to say that because we don't have a lot of remaining older trees in our city.

We had some at the high school, and they're gone now.

And I'm just making that point that this is one of our last enduring green networks in our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kelly and Donna Mall Helen, 885 North Fritz Drive and Ward 2.

And our we're just simply gonna sing a song for our comment.

Look off to the east, thousands of trees, shape bark, oak, hickory.

Two hundred years they've thrived on this mountainside, watching or the town, a piece of hollow ground, a lovely morning brings the song the wood thrush sings.

I wonder if we'll hear it any more.

Sigh it is still a bitter pill.

If we lose the last forest in Fayetteville, when the day is through an evening shadows fall, you can hear the night birds call.

These ones have been their home, the only one they've ever known.

Singing through the night, praying it will be all right, but there won't be any songs.

Once the trees are gone, and the forest is turned into buildings.

Silent is still such a bitter pill.

If we lose the last forest in Fayetteville.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Chris Frankie, Ward 3, 2474, East Victoria Lane.

I'm here to voice my strong support for the approving the Planning Commission's recommended rezoning from RSF4 and UC to P1 for the new Raimi Junior High Development.

I'm a parent of four, um, including a sixth grader and four fourth grader and from Root and McNair that would be directly impacted by this project.

Also a 20-year experienced sustainability practitioner, currently leading Walmart's global food waste strategy.

So I care very deeply about this project's environmental impact.

I also volunteer locally teaching garden club at local root elementary, and I lead a local Cub Scout group, so I see firsthand how our decisions shape the next generation and the importance of fostering an appreciation of nature with our youth.

I understand a lot of the environmental concerns.

No one wants to clear trees unnecessarily, but this rezoning is a holistic and sustainable opportunity for our district's future.

We must recognize this a sustainable choice is not always the one that spares the most trees in the short term, but rather the one that dramatically reduces environmental impact over decades of use by minimizing urban sprawl.

If the district had not purchased this land, as you've heard, current zoning would surely result in clearing the forest for 70 to acre, 70 to 70 to 80 private uh homes with less oversight than a city project.

Instead, the school district is proposing a school in the forest, minimizing its footprint, preserving significant trees, and committing to ambitious certifications like sites, lead, and well.

This plan also aligns with the city plan and aligns with Faye's climate action plan by preventing urban sprawl, improving logistics and restoring ecosystem services.

Placing Raimi near the center of the feeder patterns reduces bus rides, traffic, and emissions, making life easier for all families.

The environmental design also restores forest health and uses native planting to improve stormwater control.

Research shows that connecting kids to nature supports learning and mental health.

The proposed campus will be an expansive outdoor classroom, teaching our kids about sustainability in real time, and a green space for all Fayetteville citizens to enjoy.

Sustainability is also about the people.

The new feeder pattern bridges demographic disparities, ensuring equitable access to the quality education for every child in Fayetteville and beyond.

The vote's more than rezoning land.

It's a step towards smart growth, long-term responsibility, educational equity, and a holistic vision for Fayetteville schools.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

My name's Ellis Ralph.

And that's 745 North Sequoia Drive.

I love forests too, and uh want to focus for a minute on money.

Um there's been passing references to the expense of building on a slope.

And all the ground around here is three or four different kinds of limestone, which is uh famously difficult to handle.

It's hard to dig, it's hard to make footings, everything becomes more expensive than we think.

Um we heard a mention about how certain water drainage handling issues would become more defined once studies were done.

And so I think buying this land on a 20% limestone slope and using buying the land as an argument for being committed and needing to proceed in a hurry is not good.

Uh the expense is gonna skyrocket.

All maintenance issues from maintaining the building to landscaping, everything is going to be more expensive in that area than it would if we built on a buildable location.

Um of the arguments put forward uh on Dr.

Mulford's slide in favor of this was the building quality.

That is not an argument in favor of this site.

We're gonna have a good quality building, whatever site we choose, and so that is irrelevant.

He did mention that it's unusual to make a school that's three stories high, that it's less manageable, and you wouldn't want usually you would want a single story because it's more administratively manageable, and so uh that's inconsistent, I think, with saying, oh, this would be the same building we had if we uh had a different site to build on.

The slides that we saw show I'm gonna call it almost no parking.

There's a circular route that goes along and it all goes into the one egress.

Whenever I go by a school at the time when parents are there and buses are there, it's always traffic problems out on the street.

There's a little diagonal parking along there.

Recently, we the city cut down trees that were nominally protected because they wanted to add parking at a school.

So I don't think that uh they'll avoid doing the same here.

Thanks.

Thank you good evening.

My name is Lindsay Smith.

I've been a Fayetteville resident for over 22 years, and now I have a child in the Fayetteville public school system.

I'm speaking today in strong support of the proposed rezoning for the new Ramey Junior High School site.

My family moved to East Fayetteville specifically for the schools, only to learn shortly afterward that our child will be part of a new feeder system.

While this was unexpected, the district's broader plan, particularly the promise of a new junior high school, has been an important reassurance.

Our community needs this school, and families like mine are counting on it.

The proposed site is not only appropriate but strategic.

The site is centrally located within the district's new boundaries, making it a sensible and accessible choice for students who will attend RAMI in the future.

As the planning commission heard, the district's long-term facilities plan aims to improve equity and distribute opportunities more evenly across Fayetteville.

This investment directly supports those goals.

I understand their concerns about traffic, environmental impact, and neighborhood compatibility.

These considerations are valid, but they're also part of the later site plan stage when detailed engineering studies and mitigation strategies are required.

The rezoning is simply the first step that allows the district to move forward with the planning and analysis the residents are asking for.

After reviewing the district's early vision for the campus, which includes preserving natural features, integrating outdoor learning spaces, and designing with environmental sensitivity.

After two decades of calling Fayetteville home, I have now seen the city grow, change, and rise to meet challenges with thoughtfulness and care.

Supporting these rezoning is an opportunity to do that again by ensuring that these students have timely access to the facilities that they've been promised and that they deserved.

Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.

I respectfully ask you to approve the rezoning for the new Ramey Junior High School.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I'm Teresa Clinton, outlive at Mars Mills, the very end of the culsack where this is going to happen.

And I was born and raised here in Fayetteville.

My dad developed the South Side of the Square.

And Fayetteville is not funky anymore.

This is not, I don't believe that we need, we're not gonna be Rogers and Bentonville and all that.

Fayetteville knees or forest, they need the trees and the all that.

And I am a witness of that.

We it's just been a horrible nightmare, and I don't understand.

I don't understand the reasoning of this.

There's tons of flat land in Fayetteville.

There's tons.

We are we need forests, we need our trees, we need our wildlife.

We need all that, and this is the end of our wildlife in Fayetteville.

And I don't understand.

If people want Fayetteville to be Fayetteville, why are we doing this?

I don't get it.

And that song was wonderful.

It really was.

I just don't, I don't understand why we're doing this.

I really don't.

And to even know that we're having problems where we are in Marks Mill, and they're trying to build a school there.

I don't get it.

I don't understand it.

So I just I'm so against this.

And I I'm at Marks Mills because I want my land.

And I've got the deer are coming up because they're destroyed in their day.

I have these rocks going up by my they they moved all our landscaping, and I had all these rocks coming up, and I thought that this was not going to happen very time soon, and all of a sudden they're moving everything.

I've got the deers, the foxes, everything.

I just I don't get this.

And I'm really I'm I'm sorry, but I'm really upset because I love Fayetteville, and I don't understand this.

And we why are they building where we're having so much problems with our guild with our house?

I don't I don't get it.

So anyway, I'm done, and I want to keep Fayetteville, the trees and everything because I don't want to be Rogers, Bentonville, and Springdale.

I'm done.

Thank you.

Keith Little, 2406 East Camelot Place Ward 3.

Uh, mayor, council members, other city officials, thank you for the time to speak on behalf of this measure.

Um, much like the last citizen, I do love this town.

Um, I do love our children.

Uh I am a conservationist, I'm also a realist.

Uh like the last citizen, I do love this town.

Um, I do love our children.

Uh, they are our future, and I don't think that uh that uh preservation should be at the detriment of our future.

Uh as the last is, and I have a couple other points that I can make, they're all gonna rehash what you've already heard, what you've got in your decks, and what Dr.

Mulford has said.

Um but I think we need to focus on one word that Dr.

Mulford said, and that was conscientious.

Uh you know, I'm a conservationist by heart, but I'm also realist, and I think we've seen uh the reality is that this plan is not go through that there are likely gonna be 70 to 80 housing units there.

Now, as the last citizen said there are stormwater issues from it, and I think that the school board has made a very conscientious design that helps mitigate that.

Um, so uh you know, in short, I don't think that we can find a better steward of this land than the schools and our children.

So I would appreciate uh a good vote on this and appreciate your time tonight.

Thank you.

Good evening, City Council members.

My name is Aaron Coleen.

I live in Ward 3, and I'm here to speak in support of the rezoning proposal that would allow Fayetteville Public Schools to move forward with plans for a new for the new Ramey Junior High Lation.

I'll be honest.

I too was concerned at first.

I was born a tree hugger, raised by conservation biologists, and I currently dedicate my professional career to sustainability.

I've spoken to this council to oppose projects when I believed they worked against our city's values without serving the broader community, such as the parking garage on MLK.

But this is different.

Given the real hesitation and concerns I had about the proposed location, I wanted to understand the environmental and community implications.

And as I began to attend school board meetings and speak with city officials, my perspectives has changed.

As an economist and a sustainability professional, I look at projects like this through multiple lenses.

Environmental impact, long-term value, and community benefit.

I've also worked closely with Fayetteville Public Schools on their sustainability plan.

And through that process, I've developed both trust and firsthand knowledge of the district's commitment to sustainability, not just in operations and infrastructure, but in curriculum and partnerships with the broader community.

From what I've seen, Fayetteville Public Schools is not only meeting standards, they're setting them.

They are seeking site lead and well certifications.

The concerns that we've heard, such as stormwater concerns are addressed through responsible design, student safety is supported by a planned highway, planned highway crossing across 71.

Traffic impacts are reduced by placing schools in a walkable transit supported area, and the district is meeting the highest standards for tree preservation and smart land use.

After learning the facts and understanding the due diligence that has gone into this proposal, I believe this site is not only appropriate, but the best possible use of the land.

Allowing it to be rezoned for a school will bring one of the greatest returns on investment in education, community well-being and value, not to mention a fantastic space for our kids to explore nature and cultivate their understanding of ecosystem services and responsible development and land management.

And while I understand there are pros and cons, and I understand my friends who have concerns about the proposed rezoning, I believe that contentious issues like these are resolved best when stakeholders come to the table willing to compromise and collaborate.

From what I've seen, the district has been open to thoughtful dialogue and willing to adapt where appropriate.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Hello.

My name is Joanna Person Mitchner, and I'm from Ward 1.

I speak as a Fayetteville resident and not on behalf of my employers or any of the groups which I affiliate.

I work in the field of mental health, specializing in working with clients who have climate anxiety and the benefits of nature connection as well as sustainability and community resilience.

Thank you, Mayor Ron and City Council, for this opportunity.

I do have a child also who goes to JLC and we love JLC.

We feel grateful that he can attend school in the FPS district.

So I want to begin by acknowledging the Fayetteville School Board.

They have been working diligently to address complex social issues, including equity concerns, feeder patterns, traffic and logistics, and vehicle miles traveled.

Implications while they try to choose a location for and plan the building of much needed new schools for our growing community.

And I deeply respect the amount of time and thought and care that they've invested in this process.

That said, I'm still quite concerned that the proposed Remy Junior High site presents environmental and long-term public costs that deserve really deep consideration, which I think we're all trying to do.

The steep forested hillside, where the new school is proposed, contains a significant number of mature trees, and I've heard estimates from three to five thousand.

I've been there.

The environmental action community raised concerns about the severity of the grade, the stormwater implications, and the permanent loss of tree canopy, leading them to recommend a rezoning to CCR.

I still have concerns that we're kind of moving away from as a community plans that the city's put a lot of work into, like the Climate Action Plan and City Plan 2040, the Urban Ag Ordinance, the Tree Preservation and Urban Forestry Goals, etc.

The strongest environmental argument that I've heard for the location has been a reduction in projected vehicle miles traveled.

Comparisons have been made with regard to carbon sequestration from the trees versus a reduction in those VMTs.

The analysis used as I understand it was the Arbor Day Foundation calculator, which is meant to be used for educational purposes.

I think there could be another site I've heard many talk about the Lewis Park, which may not be perfect logistically, but you're at time.

I'm sorry.

No, that's okay.

Thank you so much.

Hello, I'm Dr.

Ashley Milburn.

I'm a Ward 3 resident, 848 East Rockwood Trail.

I'm a Root and McNair parent and an engineering faculty member at the university.

The opinions I express are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the university.

My expertise is logistics network design, which includes where to place facilities such that system performance meets objectives.

This directly informs the question of where to locate a new junior high.

I am here to speak in support of the new RAMI site and offer justifications on four dimensions traffic, transportation, environment, and community.

Families from four elementary zones will use this junior high.

They are route, Leverett, Washington, and Happy Hollow.

With the exception of route to the east, these zones fall to the south and southeast of the proposed site on college.

This is relevant to traffic concerns.

While a full traffic analysis is not within the scope of tonight's decision, some basic observations can lead us to reasonably expect a net decrease in east to west traffic with this site.

This is because Butterfield and Vandergriff, two of the largest enrollment elementary zones in our district, use the current woodland site today.

Many of these families approach from the east on Township and Ash.

This traffic will be diverted when the new junior high on Joyce and Crossover opens.

Route will continue to approach the new rainy site from the east, but most remaining traffic will come from the south.

So while we may see increased northbound traffic on college, we should see decreased east-west traffic on township and ash with this plan.

Another transportation point to consider is driving distances.

For the families who will use this junior high, the new site on college saves around 500 miles of driving per day compared with the current RAMI location on MLK.

This reduction of 500 miles of driving per day saves families time and gas money.

It also helps the environment as reducing vehicle trip links from home to school reduces carbon emissions.

The traffic, transportation, and environmental benefits of this new RAMI site are clear.

I want to conclude with community impact.

The site in question is currently zoned residential.

At most, 80 families who can afford to build homes there stand to benefit from its development.

Approving this rezoning transforms the site into a sustainably developed community resource.

A new junior high will benefit hundreds of Fayetteville families each year for decades.

I thank the Board of Education for their diligence in developing this plan, and I urge the city council to approve the rezoning tonight.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Nicole Edwards.

I live at 517 West Hawthorne Street.

I am asking you tonight to table the rezoning request for the RAME project.

Too many critical questions remain unanswered for such a consequential decision.

While the district has expressed a sense of urgency, that urgency is somewhat artificial.

The residents and taxpayers of Fayetteville deserve clarity, transparency, and the assurance that every viable option has been responsibly explored before this council is asked to re rezone land of this importance.

Public concern is growing rapidly, not because the district has provided clear information, but because citizens are uncovering serious issues on their own.

These include unanswered questions regarding infrastructure, traffic safety, environmental impact, long-term cost, and the basic feasibility of building a school on a steep, unstable hillside.

But there is a constructive path forward, one that would benefit the entire community.

The Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association is prepared to purchase the property.

This would preserve the forest as a conservation area and allow the district to recover its land investment.

It would also likely reduce overall construction costs by avoiding the engineering challenges of this particular hillside.

This option also dispels the fear that if the project does not proceed, another developer will destroy the forest anyway.

A legitimate preservation alternative exists and is already being pursued.

Conserving this land would create educational opportunities for all Fayetteville students and provide a public natural space for more than 100,000 residents, not just the limited number of seventh and eighth graders who would attend RAMI.

And the extraordinary level of donations the FNHA raised in such a short period shows just how deeply the public values this forest, one of the last remaining urban forests in our city.

Despite statements that no alternative sites exist, community groups are already in contact with owners of properties that meet the district's criteria.

These options need time for proper evaluation.

The feeder pattern the district references is only a proposal, one that can be changed when safety and practicality require it.

Access points along Ash, Marks Mill, and surrounding roads have not been fully vetted for safe ingress, egress, or emergency response.

And geotechnical test borings are still underway.

Their results are essential to any responsible diszoning decision.

This decision is too significant and too irreversible to make under a sense of artificial pressure.

Tonight, I respectfully urge you to act in the long-term best interests of the entire city.

By tabling this rezoning request, you allow time for a thoughtful, collaborative, and community centered solution.

Thank you for your careful consideration and for your leadership on this important matter.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council members.

Thank you for your service and the opportunity to speak.

My name is Casey Kaiser.

I live on Walnut Street to the south of the proposed site, nearly at the corner of Ash and Walnut Streets.

I too am concerned about trees and traffic, but tonight I want to highlight the serious geological problems on the hillside, not as a scientist, but as a resident whose life has been transformed by them since buying my home.

I know you have been warned by geologists and other experts about these problems.

Once my neighbors and I can testify to you firsthand.

We invite all of the decision makers to come look at our problems, foundation issues, drainage, sinkholes, erosion, and wet weather seeps.

I have a PhD in English, but since moving on this hillside, I have developed a whole new vocabulary.

Swales, clay veins, hydrostatic water pressure, gabian fence.

There has been a lot of talk surrounding stormwater with the proposed build, but I haven't heard it described in quite the complexities that I'm dealing with.

I'm not sure that everyone is aware that water travels in this area through an extensive network of underground tunnels called clay vanes, which are collecting and transporting the water at high speeds.

As it travels, it takes thick clay and mud with it.

Hydrostatic water pressure builds up and then it emerges out of the ground, shooting out enormous amounts of water and thick mud and clay like geysers.

Ultimately, we have been told that serious mudslides and even slope failure are possible.

I know that some city council members and members of the school board have seen our pictures and videos.

They've been mentioned tonight and they're quite shocking.

I can't believe that the junior high would be immune to these problems.

We are also told that the rising levels of mud we are seeing is due to increasing development in Fayetteville.

How then will the junior high build affect us?

Will it increase this already unmanageable amount of mud?

And when the clay veins on the site are disrupted through building, where does that water emerge on the hillside in our yards?

I too, as I said, am concerned about the trees and increased traffic.

Simply cannot imagine an entrance at the corner of Ash and Walnut Streets at that blind sharp curve, making it even more dangerous for me to exit my driveway.

Please, I respectfully urge you to find an alternative, less problematic geological site on which to build a junior high.

At the very least, please table this issue and give it more serious consideration.

As others have, I encourage you to do the right thing and fulfill our promise to who we say is our we are as a city, good neighbors.

If you think the junior high can handle these geological problems, please help me help us figure out how to handle them too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, council members.

My name is Seneushio Sullivan.

I'm speaking as a mother of two, a social anthropologist, and a local family physician.

This decision is not just about a building.

It's about whether Fayeville chooses a future that supports equitable opportunity, strong community connection, and thoughtful development.

First, Fayetteville School Board has already made it clear that the goal of the new REME site is not only to address capacity, but to create balanced, diverse feeder patterns so students from different backgrounds can learn and grow together.

This location, more central, more accessible, makes that possible in a way that peripheral sites simply cannot.

Second, national research from economists that have made it into the journal titled Nature show something very important where children grow up has a major impact on their social and economic mobility.

Children who attend schools in mixed income, well connected neighborhoods, have significantly better long-term outcomes.

Rezoning this site allows Fayeville to build exactly that kind of school, one that enhances social and economic mobility, not just for some students but for all.

Third, we cannot ignore the epidemic of loneliness affecting young people.

Junior high students are among the highest risk groups for social isolation.

The proposed RAME design, walkable, nature integrated with outdoor learning spaces and preserved tree canopy creates a campus that naturally encourages connection, movement, community, and belonging.

This is not just good design, it is public health.

I cannot think of a better use of this land.

Finally, I want to acknowledge environmental concerns, but the district's plan is one of the most tree conscious, environmentally respectful school designs we've ever seen, preserving significant canopy, integrating bioswells, and keeping the natural landscape as a core feature of the school experience.

If this rezoning is denied, we risk pushing the school to a less equitable site, farther out, less connected, and less able to support the diverse integrated student body that gives young people a real chance at upward mobility and connection.

Approving this rezoning means choosing a school that strengthens community equity, a site that promotes walkability and sustainability, a design that supports teen mental health and connection, and a future in which more children in Fayetteville have a chance to thrive.

I think we can all tell that there's been a ton of consideration, a ton of planning.

This discussion started more than two years ago, so I respectfully ask that you vote tonight and that you do vote yes on rezoning for Raimi Junior High.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Leanne Jurgen.

I live on Windswept Lane.

That's one street up from Marks Mill where Miss Clinton, who just spoke, lives.

I have already, since I bought the house six years ago, had to put in trains, all sorts of landscaping, and now I'm going to have to have peers put on my front porch to keep it from falling off my house.

The grade of my hill is not as steep as where this proposed building is going to be.

Although the staff said that there is there are other structures that have been built on similar slopes.

There are no city schools on any slopes of this steepness, nor are there any football fields on slopes of the steepness.

That is a compatibility issue right there.

I know there's been a lot of talk about the traffic, and the school says we're going to work with the city and we're going to improve the traffic.

I would like to meet that engineer that's going to fix the steepness and the shortness of ash.

Because right now the school district is going to have their buses coming in and out of ash twice a day.

That's a lot more traffic that's on that street right now.

Also, we're talking about building a structure that's going to house potentially 800 kids and also accommodate 300 parking spaces.

Again, where's the compatibility with the surrounding land?

The city is also, excuse me, the school has done a full traffic analysis.

I know it's not required to be submitted on behalf of zoning or rezoning, but why not let everybody see it?

I mean, they've shown us everything else.

We have great designs for the school.

Beautiful, beautiful designs.

Why not share that information with the public?

If there is no traffic issue, share that information.

Traffic and the dangers that it causes is something that the city council can't consider when determining whether to rezone a property.

I've emailed all of you with my concerns.

I will leave you with this.

One of the main reasons the school is doing this is because of proximity.

But this decision you make is going to affect the city of Fayetteville forever.

Please don't make a decision that affects benefits and gives the convenience to a few for a very short period of time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Tim Hudson.

I live at 202 Isla Street in Fayetteville.

I've been in Ward 2 since 1997 and have served on the Fayetteville School Board since 2004.

I'm currently the board president.

If you drove my route elementary today, you'd have seen this on the school marquee.

Autumn reminds us how beautiful change can be.

We're here tonight to ask you to support the school district request for a zoning change that will lead to a beautiful school to serve students and families for the next 50 plus years.

This request comes to you from an elected body in many respects, just like the group of you I'm addressing tonight.

The school board is an elected, unpaid privilege deserve.

We act collectively in the best interest of the students, their families, and the staff who work hard to help our students learn and grow.

I understand and truly appreciate the opinions and passions of those who feel differently about the issue of developing this piece of property.

I have friends, close friends who want a different outcome.

No one else besides the school board and our district administrators and leadership and design team have reviewed all the parcels and options, weighed all the pros and cons and consider the needs of all students and our community.

For me, there are three highlights to the plan that Dr.

Moford laid out for you.

The balance of demographics so that students with low-income households aren't concentrated in one or two schools, the reduced commute times that will significantly reduce carbon emissions, and the tremendous opportunity for infill that has been identified as a preference in many city planning documents.

Since these types of decisions can seem to come down to personal preferences, I'll just share that in my own family.

My two sons attended Washington Elementary, then went on to Holt and Owl Creek for middle school, then on to Ramia Junior High School.

With this plan, Washington students will go to a middle school and junior high less than two miles from Washington.

Similar improvements will be experienced with the other feeder pattern pairings that you heard about.

As urged by many of you here on the council, the school district staff and the architects and engineers we've hired have worked closely, very closely with city staff on all phases of this project.

And that work started almost two years ago.

Contrary to what some have said, this has not been rushed, which is why this request is coming to you with strong support of city staff and a seven to one approval from the planning commission.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight, and I appreciate your support of the Fable Public Schools.

Hello, everyone.

Can everybody hear me?

Good.

Okay.

I'm Dot Neely, Ward 3, 1244 North Mission.

Um I am the president of Federal Natural Heritage Association.

We have raised a phenomenal amount of money in since October 14th.

Uh, that has uh we have millions of dollars to purchase this hillside, we call it the Heartland Hillside from the school district.

I've spoken to Dr.

Mulford many times about this at uh Java with John on the October 1st.

I asked him, you know, what he would take for the uh to be bought out, and he said three million dollars, and so we've been working with that figure since then.

It wasn't a formal thing, it was just conversational, but there you go.

So we now have a viable option that totally negates or uh does away with the RSF4 risk or threat.

If we could collaborate with the city and the school district, I bet you a homemade cookie that we could find other suitable uh more level property uh for the school.

We have a viable alternative now, and the Fettville Natural Heritage would work with the city at the time that we gain position of the property, the original 16 acres that the school district bought for 2.8 million.

I understand.

We would put the property into a CCR uh zoning designation, and the Fettville Natural Heritage Association would put up the funding for the continued maintenance and management of that property.

Um I want to cue the buses here.

I was up on the Sycamore Walnut Ash Street uh area yesterday between 3:30 and 415, and these are pictures of the buses.

This bus has come down ash, this is coming from Sycamore.

Uh let's slow it down a little bit, but the buses cross the center lane coming from college up Sycamore and turning onto Walnut.

They cannot make that turn without crossing the center lane in the same way coming down ash.

The school buses cross the center lane every time they come down in those tight curves.

So in my view, just standing there looking at it, traffic is an issue.

Also, cue the water.

Okay, this is Casey's house.

Uh, this was the last big rainstorm we had, and this is what she's talking about up on her hillside with water coming out all over the hill.

They're wet weather springs.

So, anyway, uh, I would ask you to table time.

Thank you.

Table, please.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Chancy.

Um, I'm a member of Ward 2.

Um, and I'm just here to amp up the voices uh for those advocating for saving the trees and for y'all to either vote against this or just table it, take a healthy little pause and kind of figure out next steps.

Part of Fayetteville's cozy, cozy charm is being able to look out a high window and looking out on the horizon and seeing the urban forest with all the big buildings and all the big trees.

It's such like you Google Fayetteville, and it's one of the first photos that you see.

It's such an appeal of living here.

Um, and I think it's really important to just kind of like not take away the reason why we love Fayetteville so much.

Uh, someone mentioned earlier that they have walked with the trees, and I thought that was one of the most magical things I'd ever heard.

Um, just being able to go outside and walk with the trees and hear the trees and stumble across wildlife.

Like that's just it's just absolutely magical, and we really need to hold on to what's magical, especially right now in our cozy little pocket of the world.

I think it's so important.

Um I just want to leave you guys with a little nugget of wisdom, and it's that unless someone like you cares an awful lot, nothing is going to get better.

It's not hello.

My name is Arita Hill Mosley, 2953 East Pebble Stone.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council for the opportunity tonight.

I'm a proud FS FHS alumna.

I have a second grader at Happy Hollow, a sixth grader at McNair, an eighth grader at Woodland.

I proudly serve as the PTO president at Happy Hollow and the Vice President at McNair and Woodland.

I'm in full support of rezoning of the land for the new Remy Junior High.

This location should be rezoned for a school instead of residential.

FPS plans for the new RAMI utilize an environmentally sensitive design.

A developer would likely not use the same conservation approach.

This location should be rezoned for a school because this site would provide a school that would fix the demographic inequity that currently exists in our district.

The FPS feed our pattern, which relies on this location, will decrease the current gap with regard to the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced meals.

Currently, the gap is 40%.

This speeder pattern would reduce that to 12.

The feeder pattern brings together students from Happy Hollow Route Leverett, Washington.

That is proximity to their homes and their partnered middle school.

These students deserve an equal opportunity and access to comparable facilities like the other two-thirds of the junior high population in Fayetteville.

Please pay attention.

If this rezone does not happen, then one third of the city's junior high students are denied equal opportunity to comparable facilities.

Those who have the means would likely transfer their students to the New Woodland and to McNair Middle School, creating a larger gap between the haves and have nots.

And this would also create crowded schools.

City Plan 2040 states that schools are cultural assets.

We have the amazing opportunity to create this for the kids of our community, not just the feeder pattern kids, but the community as a whole.

Thank you so much for the opportunity tonight, and please pick the best option for our kids.

I look forward to serving on the new RAMI PTO.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Kirsten Mormon, 1165 East Ridgway Drive.

I speak tonight as a parent in the RAIMY Feeder Pattern, a former RAMI Junior High student, an executive member of the Root PTO, a board director of the Fayetteville Public Education Foundation, and executive director of Safer Fayetteville.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I am here in strong support of the rezoning request that will allow Fayetteville Public Schools to move forward with the new RAME Junior High campus.

This project is not only a school level improvement, it is a direct reflection of the values and long-term priorities outlined in City Plan 2040, smart infill, transportation connectivity, environmental stewardship, and equitable access for all Fayetteville residents.

First, City Plan 2040 makes clear that appropriate infill and revitalization revitalization should be our highest priorities.

This site is exactly that.

The proposed campus is centrally located with its feeder pattern, serving neighborhoods that truly rely on it.

Instead of pushing development outward, this project keeps growth inside the city's core, exactly where the plan calls for it to be.

Second, City Plan 2040 calls for creating a livable transportation network.

By placing the school within walking and biking distance for many families, and by incorporating engineered traffic flow, safe intersections, and dedicated sidewalks, this project will this project will actually lessen travel through the university corridor.

That corridor is already strained during school hours, and this plan will use congestion rather than adds to it.

It supports safer, healthier, and more efficient daily movement for our students and families.

Third, the plan emphasizes environmental responsibility.

The new RAMY campus will be the first well-accredited school in Arkansas, designed to national best practice standards for sustainability, health, and student well-being, from native landscaping and stormwater considerations to maximizing natural light and clean air.

This design enhances the surrounding environment rather than harms it.

The team behind it was intentionally chosen for their expertise in sustainable educational facilities.

Fourth, the City Plan 2040 holds equity and opportunity as core values.

The current RAMI campus is aging, undersized, and inequitable when compared to newer campuses across the district.

Approving this rezoning ensures that every student in the district, regardless of zip code, learns in a modern, safe, and inspiring environment.

It also opens the door for the existing RAMI site to become a magnet or specialized program campus, expanding opportunity for over 800 Fayetteville students every year, well beyond this feeder pattern for decades to come.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sarah Rack.

I'm a Ward II resident, and I live at 408 East Lafayette.

I have a unique experience today that exemplifies the two vastly different results that would come based on how you vote on this zoning change.

Each school morning, I walk my daughter to Washington Elementary.

This school is the ultimate example of a neighborhood school, not just for the ease of transportation, but because of the deep relationship it creates.

The families are engaged in the school, creating such an amazing community.

And it's not just the community of families, but the direct connection with businesses surrounding the school.

Local businesses support the school and families support the businesses.

If you vote to support this zoning change, RAMI has the potential to become the same kind of thriving, connected school that is integrated into the daily life and heartbeat of Fayetteville.

In stark contrast, I get up at 6 a.m.

to get my son to meet the bus at 6 40 for him to spend over 30 minutes on the bus driving across town to JLC.

Our experience at JLC feels like a school on an island in the outskirts of the city.

It is isolated, disconnected, no community.

I must miss out on the Thanksgiving feast tomorrow with my son because I cannot make it across town in time from Washington, where I will be feasting with my daughter.

And this isn't about scheduling.

This is about the physical reality of where JLC is located.

It is no wonder that there are so few families engaged in the school.

If you vote against the zoning change, Rami risks becoming exactly that.

A school pushed to the outskirts, disconnected from Fayetteville, with all the consequences that distance and isolation brings.

Thank you.

Good evening, Marion Council, Kyle Smith 2801 Dove Drive.

Oh, thank you.

When the City Council rezoned College Avenue, it sent major market signals that this was the place where we wanted to see increased development, both residential, commercial, both of those come with infrastructure investments as a requirement.

Schools are part of the required infrastructure for housing that we say we want in the central area of our town.

We're supposed to not be talking about the specific development, so let's just look at the zoning real quick.

RSF4, what's currently there is about the worst zone that we could have honestly for any part of our city.

In terms of cost of infrastructure and getting ourselves into the mess that we're having to bond out of on sewer and water infrastructure, also for tree preservation.

Because once it's single family uses, there's almost no regulation of what someone does on their own lot.

And traffic, when we separate uses and push people further out to the edges, that's exactly what causes the traffic that I've heard people concerned about tonight.

P1 zone, on the other hand, as has been mentioned, could be parks, could be schools, could be a number of other things that would be appropriate assets to College Avenue.

What it won't do is allow somebody to come in and develop a lot and block neighborhood that unfortunately would clear cut most of that and plant up mitigation trees that would take decades to regrow.

P1 is more appropriate here.

Whether this is a school or something else, uh, the Natural Heritage Association idea for preservation is worthy of consideration if the specific development is a problem.

But uh I'll give you a little reading assignment for later.

Uh, in 2004, the legislature passed the Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities Program Act that might complicate anybody other than a charter school purchasing the property.

So keep that in mind as well.

Please don't leave this RCF4.

I hope you'll approve the P1 zoning tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you for promoting a consistent and positive vision for the future of College Avenue.

This council, supported by your planning commission and your dedicated and talented planning and engineering staff has made several strong decisions over the past decade that support the healthy redevelopment of the College Avenue Corridor.

In 2018, you passed the 71B Corridor Plan.

In April 2019, the citizens of Fayetteville approved a major public improvement bond issue that included significant funding for the 71B corridor.

Improvements that are under construction now.

Later that year, this council voted to take back control of the transportation backbone of our city from the State Highway Department.

You've supported the redesign of the streetscape and approve tens of millions of dollars for infrastructure improvement to make the corridor safer for drivers, walkers, strollers, wheelchairs, and people on bikes.

And in the fall of 2024, you proactively rezoned more than 1,000 parcels with the goal of promoting multi-story mixed use development.

These investments are crucial for our community's future in several ways.

Your decisions support development patterns that yield more sales and property tax on a per acre basis, more sales and property tax per linear foot of infrastructure, more active, healthier transportation options, more housing, more opportunities for local small businesses, and a more vibrant community.

It is a well documented fact that residential development follows new school construction.

K 12 schools are anchor institutions.

Our investments of public dollars in school facilities influence the direction and the form of private development.

A vote for this rezoning builds on your previous decisions and investments and will help create a future Fayetteville with more housing, more transportation options, more dollars for infrastructure maintenance, more green space, and a more vibrant community.

Thank you.

Hello, all.

I hope you all had a chance to read it because I won't be able to cover everything that I spoke about in the email.

However, wow.

Ash Street is a disaster.

If you've driven down there, you keep in mind as you drive what you can see as you come over that hill.

You cannot see the entrances that they are planning to put to the property there.

As you go down the hill very rapidly, you come to the 90-degree turn, which you've just seen, uh the buses can't even make that turn.

So we're looking at for the city or the school or somebody, a huge investment.

You're going to have a huge investment.

The sidewalks on the south side of the street are large enough for my dog and I to walk together.

Those are going to have to be rebuilt.

But that doesn't even answer the problem because kids will have to cross the street right there at the entrance to the school, unless you also build sidewalks on the north side of the street.

So I assume we'd also have bike paths there as well.

So you're talking about probably widening that street.

When you're coming down to the hill at the bottom of that hill, you have a place where you cannot widen that street.

There's been houses built right there on the edge of the street.

There's no widening that.

There's two 90-degree turns at that point to get to college.

You may have a lot more traffic there than you think because people coming from the south, if college becomes a bottleneck, they're going to be looking for other ways in.

And they're going to be driving through all of our quiet residential streets in general with some sidewalks, some no sidewalks, and it will become a dangerous path.

Um, I'm running out of time, so uh I would like you to table this, at least give FNHA some time to negotiate another.

Thank you.

That's your time.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Savannah Connor, and I live at 1609 East Brighton Place in Ward 3.

I'm the proud mom of four Fayetteville Bulldogs.

My children attend Betterfield, McNair, and Woodland.

In the summer of 2022, I became deeply engaged when school zone changes were before the Fayetteville School Board due to overcrowding at McNair Middle School.

I began digging into the history of our school zones, the placement of our buildings, and the unique challenges of being a public school district in the same town as the University of Arkansas.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I do consider myself informed.

And what I learned is this.

And it's come up in other conversations as well.

It's a really great story, and it communicates many values about nature and growth.

I share a love for the book.

However, I can't help but think about our community responsibility to help our children grow too.

So let's build this school in the middle of our city, surrounded by beautiful trees, and watch them grow.

629 North Oliver.

Thanks for the there.

629 North Oliver.

And I'm on the uh Fayetteville Schools.

Can you hear me now?

I have to turn this thing really far up.

Okay.

You have to get close to it.

I'm sorry.

No problem.

I am on the Fayetteville School Board has served since uh 2010.

Currently the uh the vice president.

Uh just want to thank you all.

I don't want to repeat anything that's been said, but thank you all for the diligence and the time that you've taken in looking into this uh rezoning request.

Um probably seen it's a very important issue uh we feel for um our students and patrons and families.

Um where we have come from to arrive at where we are now has been a long journey.

I think you heard December of 2023 with regard to the current uh feeder patterns.

Uh but we've been trying to fix this issue since I've been on the board.

Uh we have had issues with overpopulation in middle school.

Uh we've had issues with uh disparity of socioeconomic groups and different subgroups within our within our schools.

Uh we've also we've also had the issue of proximity.

And the three issues over time did not play well together.

If you tried to fix one, it exasperated the other.

If we tried to uh uh uh to fix overpopulation, we were gonna uh uh require more travel time.

Uh we were gonna exasperate already existing gaps in uh uh our demographics, and that's not something we wanted to do.

This plan I didn't think was possible.

I did not think it was possible, uh, but it does all three.

And uh, you know, if you've been on the council for a while, you've probably received complaints on our previous rezoning efforts when we were trying to fix these things, and people would probably call you and say, I'm gonna have to travel from one end of town to the other.

Uh this is what we're trying to fix.

Um, where we're going is the the three zones that you've seen that are more centrally located that will hopefully uh and will cut down travel time for our parents, but also very important for our bus system, uh, so we can increase ridership and uh uh reliance upon upon that.

But also where we're going is for uh uh there to be a second magnet high school uh in uh in in in a second high school that will be a magnet high school in our district uh at the at the existing RAMI campus.

And that is a very, very important goal that we are working towards, and the current RAMI site that we have located is central to that entire plan.

So I know you all have heard that uh, but want to thank you for your time uh and all your diligence and and consideration uh tonight and hope you see fit to vote to approve uh tonight.

Thank you very much.

Mayor and counsel.

Uh my name is Ken Thompson, and the family um home and everything is on the can you go ahead and turn the microphone towards me.

Yeah, and uh I was just you know, I was just thinking about when government was first being formed here around the square and the and the courthouse and all that 1829, it was a little before our time.

But you could look up on Mount Sequoia and see the buffalo still roaming up there.

But flora and fauna, they do not vote and they don't pay taxes, but they have value.

And uh, you know, we got birds and all that.

Uh but I just and I'm thinking about three-story uh middle school on maybe questionable land, and I think one thing that hasn't been addressed is you know that um there's a lot of light pollution, and you're gonna have a three-story building, probably well lighted.

I don't know what kind of lighting, you know, or the neighborhood, and and you know, you don't get to see the stars anymore with you know as well as enjoying the the trees and the birds, and uh so I I was just you know the lighting hasn't been and the light pollution hasn't been addressed, and you know who's gonna see all that up on the hill or over the neighborhood, and uh and three stories just that's that's that's a lot of it's a lot of school on a questionable little piece of land perhaps, and and I you know I don't want to be too critical, but I've kind of observed government for a while in Fayevell, and and you know, sometimes expediency kind of overtakes wisdom and and I as you know I think maybe a little pause or a little you know maybe that maybe there's a maybe there's a better option, and of course, you know, people have financial things involved, and that's that's okay, but but anyway, I just thought maybe maybe a little pause, a little hesitation, a little you know, thinking about how it's gonna affect everybody.

You know, that's all I have to say.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Catherine Richardson.

I live at 425 East Ash, which is the corner of Walnut and Ash Street.

I am a U of A undergrad when I graduated and moved away.

My husband and I met here, we moved back here to raise our family.

We have four children, two of which who attend Root Elementary and two attend Woodland Junior High.

We've also been at school in Leverett and Holt and have had great experiences at all of the schools.

There are a lot of things that have been said here tonight that I could read reiterate.

Um I have the mud problems in my backyard.

But the one thing that I would like to share with you, um, I have the unique benefit to depending on how you look at it.

I'm gonna greatly benefit in some ways, but also have some pretty significant um changes to my front porch view, which um but the main thing I want to share is my children currently bike and walk to Woodland every day from where I live.

We are navigating the crazy construction at Sycamore and college.

Um if this stays zoned as it is, and there are 90 homes potentially that go in here.

Um you could already argue whether or not it's safe for kids to walk and cross college every day.

Um we put a lot of trust in our kids and a lot of trust in the crosswalks that are currently not functioning.

But um I can't imagine how those homes, um 90 more homes, wouldn't would change the traffic that we already have.

And so I am in support of there being a school um there uh cautiously with some hope and also some trepidation.

Um generally though, because I want I hope that the school district, I believe that the school district district is going to work in that area to um to utilize our tax dollars to benefit the community to connect the pathways.

I would love, I mean, I'm so excited about the Greenway Connection because I think it does create a vision where students can be more pedestrian as they walk to and from school.

I think it greatly increases the safety for our kids, and I hope that you will vote in support cautiously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Yvonne Hudson and I live at 929 North Park Avenue.

I've been a Fayville resident since 2003 and on the school board since 2024.

I believe this new school location aligns perfectly with the six goals outlined in the City of Fayeville City Plan 2040.

Goal one, make appropriate infill and revivalization our highest priority.

The current RAME location will or building will become our second or second high school, which will be a magnet high school.

It is incredibly important that this magnet high school be close to our current high school.

So this location is of utmost importance.

Goal two, discourage suburban sprawl.

I think this is the most meaningful example of collaboration between the city of Fayeville and Fayev Public Schools.

By locating the new Ramey Junior High School in the center of town, near established neighborhoods, and within walkable area.

This proposal limits car dependent expansion and supports more efficient, sustainable growth patterns.

Additionally, the district feeder patterns will ensure that the schools feeding into this new junior high are nearby, allowing students to spend less time on buses and reducing overall traffic in our city streets.

Goal three make compact complete and connected development the standard.

This side was intentionally selected because of the proximity to the Fayeville's Population Center.

Families and students will have the opportunity to walk or bike to school that rather than rely on a car.

This goal will, this specific goal will be met by fostering a more connected, walkable community where residents can live and learn without depending solely on vehicles.

Goal four, grow a livable transportation network.

Three of the four elementary schools that feed to this new DRAMI, as Dr.

Mulford mentioned, have the largest community of students who walk to school.

I'm a Washington parent, and I can tell you walking to school is part of our daily routine.

We walk up Park Avenue Hill every morning and every afternoon.

Unfortunately, once my kid leaves Washington, I lose that opportunity to walk because the current middle school and junior high schools are too far away and lack safety walking connections.

By placing the school near established neighborhood and connecting it to the city trails, the families of students that are already accustomed to walking will continue this healthy, sustainable habit well beyond elementary years.

Goal five, assemble an enduring great network.

This school will feel like a park with walking trails, outdoor classrooms, and natural systems.

It will give teachers, students, and staff opportunity to connect with nature by fostering environmental awareness and stewardship.

And lastly, this school will help be near the location of sustainable housing that the city is planning for.

I'm out of time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, council members.

I'm Mika Waitsman, and I'm going to be brief, and I might be oh, I may also be lost, I'm not sure.

But um I, as you know, serve on the Fayetteville School Board.

I appreciate your conscientious consideration of this rezone request.

I recognize that it's not an easy decision.

Everyone who has spoken tonight has shared valid concerns.

There are potential community benefits either way.

You're charged with making the decision that is in the best interest of our community, and you can look at that from a number of different perspectives.

My request as a member of our school board is that you consider the potential of this school building in its unique location to give Fayetteville children increased access and more accessible access to this beautiful part of our city.

It requires foresight to envision this transformation, along with a level of trust in our school leaders and the designers we have hired to approach this project responsibly.

No doubt there are a number of ways to develop this land irresponsibly.

We are offering the city an opportunity to develop this land with nationally respected sustainable designers and architects with significant expertise.

This is not an opportunity that comes to you as city leaders every day.

I urge you to consider the uniqueness of this proposal and to see yourselves as partners in this project.

Together, I know we will be proud of the transformation that takes place and the way our children and families will benefit from this beautiful site for years to come.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Excuse me.

Can you hear me?

My name's Colleen Gaston.

I live at 3270 North Rome Orchard Road, Fayetteville 72703.

And I'll start by saying I'm sympathetic towards the challenges that school board faces in providing for a growing student population.

And frankly, I'm uh it would be easier for me to keep my mouth shut tonight instead of making some people some friends, even those on the school board mad at me for opposing uh this proposed rezoning, but I do.

And that's based on my desire to see what's left of our urban, excuse me, forest preserved, but also because of serious concerns about traffic safety and stormwater runoff.

The subject site, Mr.

Kurth showed, has slopes of 22% and maybe even greater.

He gave examples of properties that have been developed with slight slopes of 18 degrees.

Um when building and when dealing with grading and runoff, there's a significant difference between 18 degrees and 22 degree slopes.

Mr.

Kurt cited the example of Rockwood Trail developments long at Rockwood 12 being 14 degree slope.

I travel up Rockwood Trail regularly.

It seems really steep to me.

Years ago, when the subdivision that includes Marksville Lane was constructed, there were repeated instances of very muddy muddy water coming down township and on to college.

And I had been an environmental lawyer who's practiced at the time in practice, say 30 years.

One are not going to improve conditions at the site.

They do not require that, but they also do not address storm events above a certain level, the types of storms that we are seeing more frequently these days.

And so I'm going to run out of time, but basically, I'm going to ask you to please table this matter, allow the Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association some short period of time to work with purchasing assignments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I actually threw out everything that I prepared to say because things that have come up tonight have made me just change what you need to hear tonight.

Did you know that there is a restrictive covenant in place that Dr.

Mulford signed prior to the purchase of the land that restricts all pedestrian access from the Marks Mill Lane entry?

Did you know that according to the Fayetteville Public Schools own FOIA responses?

That they never spoke with the University of Arkansas regarding alternative sites, although you were told that by Dr.

Mulford here tonight.

We have FOIA documentation that can prove that that is not true.

We've also gone straight to the administration of the University of Arkansas and confirmed that Fayetteville Public Schools at no point ever had any conversations with them regarding parcels of land that might be available, and they currently have multiple parcels of land available and would be more than happy to work with the school district, but you didn't probably know that.

Did you know?

Gosh, that Fayetteville Public School's enrollment numbers have been flat since at least 2020, and even at last the last school board meeting, Dr.

And even at last the last school board meeting, Dr.

Mulford stated that the district anticipates that remaining flat for several years to come.

So where again is the sense of urgency if our enrollment numbers are flat.

I also wanted to read to you from the Fayetteville's urban forestry management plan.

The canopy cover goal, which is 44 per 44.4% over 30 years.

We're currently at 36%, so we are below our current goals.

The canopy cover goal aligns with other goals and priorities in the city, such as environmental stewardship, climate change resilience, public health, air quality enhancement, and temperature moderation.

By using canopy cover as an overarching measure, Fayetteville ensures a comprehensive approach that not only improves the urban ecosystem, but also fosters a sense of pride, unity, and responsibility among its residents.

And if you haven't read your for your Fayetteville's urban forestry management plan, I urge you to go and take a look at that.

Because there are a number of things that contradict this school on this site.

Did you also know that over 15 FOIA requests have been made at Fayetteville Public Schools and they are non-compliant in their answers to all of them?

They have withheld information, they have hidden email texts.

They have made it so that we cannot open attachments, and even when they were told of this, they still have not made corrections.

Thank you.

This time would you like hi?

I'll be quick here.

My name is Trey Marley.

I live at 1440 Markham.

I'm a tree hugger and I'm for this.

When you think of highest and best use, I can't think of anything better than putting kids in the woods and letting them develop an appreciation for those spaces.

And um, when it's all said and done, I feel like this could end up being one of the most Fayetteville things Fayel has done in a long time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm not seeing any more um comments in the room.

I know we have some on Zoom.

Also, as a manner of practice that we do and and standard procedure that we do for any applicant when there have been um accusations of someone doing something illegal.

I like to always give that act um applicant a chance to address that.

And since we heard some of those accusations, Dr.

Mulford, if you would like to come up and do that, you have the same three minutes that other public commenters have.

Um is it possible to give them at least five if he needs to?

I don't think so.

I don't know.

You would have to ask uh Mr.

Williams.

I would say let's let him talk for three, and then if he needs it, okay, we can address that.

Yeah, so just trying to remember all of them.

I know the question about the U of A.

Did I personally talk to anybody at the U of A?

Absolutely not.

We have a realtor that served properties for us.

She reached out almost two years ago to whoever was in charge of property at that time, uh, for both Woodland and Ramey.

And at that time we were told they were not interested in selling any property.

Um that's that one as far as FOIA's that is absolutely correct.

We have been slammed with FOIA's on this, uh, quite extensive for you.

So you guys know that sometimes that is that is hard to pull together.

And so our team does uh pretty good job of meeting that in a relatively short time frame.

Uh certainly there have been some things that uh Miss Lana as well as others have said, hey, this is this is missed or this wouldn't open, and then our team turns that around.

So you know that's that we are complying, and there are some requests that have been made that are not part of FOIA.

We've also communicated that those items are not FOIA a bull.

Um those were the I think the two main things.

I know there's a claim about two 22 percent.

If you pay attention to our design, we're actually building on that lower part, which is the 14% uh grade, and so I think that's important to note.

I don't remember if there were any other claims, so I think I made it uh within the the three minutes there, but thanks for the opportunity.

Thank you.

I know we have public comment on Zoom as well, Keith.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, do you want to just take them in order as you see them come in?

Correct.

We have Beth Schrock.

Um, yes, I'm here.

Go ahead.

Um, so I am a Mama 5.

I am.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I'm Dr.

Beth Bowen Shark.

I'm a mama five.

Um, I'm actually a resident of ward four, but I'm a um I own and operate a business at 2017 North Green Acres Road.

So that is in Ward 3.

It's actually directly to the west of this proposed rezoning.

Um, I did email all of you, and I appreciate the acknowledgement I received from one council member.

Um, but you can reference that email if you would like to know more about me personally.

Um, I am asking you to um please rezone this property from RSF4 to P1.

Um I do I have heard a lot of the concerns this evening, particularly about traffic and ash.

So I'd like to share a little bit about myself.

Um my two youngest children go to root elementary every day.

My husband and I drive them primarily using ash to go from college over to root elementary, um, because my um primary place of business is on Green Acres, which is to the west of college.

Um I am very very close.

I don't know as the crow flies, but I would guess less than a third of a mile from the current woodland location.

Um so a lot of the traffic concerns that have come up tonight.

I am one of the offenders.

I'm actually one of the offenders who would decrease my ash usage four times a day if my children could walk and ride their bikes to school.

Um I think this closely aligns with the um previously stated claims from the city of Fayetteville that we want to increase and fill.

We want to increase walkability, we want to increase bikeability.

My children personally could go from being car riders to being walkers.

And I love that about our city.

Um, yes, today when I was leaving my office, I sat at the intersection of Greenacres and Poplar for probably 10 minutes.

Um, it is inconvenient.

My children were late to their lesson.

Um, but you know, nothing fills my heart with joy more than watching students walk from woodland.

They're walking, they're talking, they're carrying musical instruments.

Um, they're safely going to meet their families who are parked close by.

And I think that that is what is important.

The children are our future, and they deserve this opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, we have a market in Britain.

Hi.

I'm Margaret Britton.

My address is 1931 North Wheeler Avenue in Theadville.

Uh, first of all, I want to point out that there is no reason that Rami could not be built new about four blocks from where the school board is currently proposing to put it.

The current Woodland Junior High School could be taken down and a new RAME could be placed on that site, meeting all of the board's feeder pattern goals.

A middle school site would need to be found.

I'm sure that's possible, not too far away as it requires less anchorage.

I'm also on the City of Fayetteville's Environmental Action Committee, and I think it is important for the public to know that the committee carefully considered and discussed this issue at three different EAC meetings with extensive conversations with representatives from the school board and also input from community members starting back in June of this year.

Our recommendation, which uh went to the council as a letter, um stated that we had come to the conclusion after studying this for a long time, that constructing the school on this site would be in opposition to the city's stated environmental goals.

Our concerns were as follows.

The loss of an almost completely undisturbed forest in a center location, which is instrumental to the city achieving its goal of climate resilience.

The impacts of disturbing soils composed of Fayetteville shale and expansive clays that are prone to instability, especially on an 18% hillside slope or 14% hillside slope, which would pose risks to the hillside's structural integrity, underground utilities, and slope stability.

The probability that disturbance of this currently stable hillside and its vegetative cover will magnify the potential for increased stormwater runoff erosion and drainage complications along College Avenue.

And the unassessed concerns for the unassessed springs and seeps on the site, which tend to be seasonal, which are likely to magnify the impact of disturbance.

I trust that you will take all of these points into careful consideration as you consider this zoning request, please.

On a personal note, I'd like to say that the idea that the city could potentially end up with a conserved forest like this in the heart of the city is very exciting.

This could become an important resource for everyone who lives in Fayetteville, including junior high school students.

Thank you very much.

Good night.

We have a Drew Connor, you're allowed to speak.

Yes, we can hear you.

Great.

Thank you for the opportunity.

My name is Drew Connor, and I live at 497 East Ozark View Drive in the Summit Place neighborhood that borders the proposed project.

And I'm here in strong support for the proposed junior high location.

I want to start by acknowledging the residents who oppose the project.

Their concerns about loss of trees, cost and traffic come from wanting to protect our community, and I really do respect that.

But when we look at the long-term facts, the school is not only reasonable, it's the responsible choice.