HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-385 (3)
CityClerk
From:Ethel C. Simpson <esimpson@uark.edu>
Sent:Thursday, August 15, 2024 12:06 PM
To:CityClerk
Subject:FW: (RZN-2024-0030) oppose appeal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
_____________________________________________
re: Agenda Item C-4 Council meeting August 20
Please note this passage posted on your Website:
Fayetteville Vision 2050 Guiding Principles
Naturally Beautiful City
Ecosystem Preservation
Well-Maintained City Infrastructure and Facilities
Safe and Fun City in which to Live
Please vote against the upzoning of the Watson property on the west side of Markham Hill. This
pertains to item C.4 on the upcoming City Council's agenda for August 20.
The Planning Commission denied the upzoning request (RZN-2024-0030) in July, but the applicants
have appealed this decision to the City Council.
We are in a difficult place in Fayetteville, with concerns for more, and more affordable, housing. I
think we are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath-water. In this case, as is often the case,
the “baby” is the quality of life that makes people want to settle here. They like the physical
landscape, trees, springs, trails, and other natural features we have here.. These qualities are
expressed or implied in the Vision Statement. Once these features are bulldozed away, they cannot
be replaced
The current zoning of RSF-4 is far better for Fayetteville in these wooded areas than upzoning to CS
or NS-G or any other upzoning category. Especially with our newly approved Climate Action Plan.
The current RSF-4 zoning will allow some development while still paying attention to the
environmental concerns. The more pavement and construction we have, the more we add to issues
of flooding and drainage. That pavement also contributes to the warming of the environment,
absorbing and radiating the heat of the sun, which has become such a serious issue in recent times.
The lower density RSF-4 allows for preserving more tree cover. Losing the trees and other vegetation
loses their valuable role in maintaining clean air and water. Markham Hill’s natural springs would
likely be threatened by the work on that hillside. Earthwork on that steep hillside would surely create
runoff problems.
1
Fayetteville has lost or is losing much of its natural landscape to development and pavement. We are
committed to trails and walkability; we should preserve those qualities that make that commitment
meaningful. People don’t want to bike or walk through parking lots, but to enjoy trees, wildlife, and
quiet. There are conservation easements on Markham Hill; their value will be much diminished if
adjoining them are high-density development, with cars, pavement, and the other drawbacks they
bring. Markham Hill has already lost a lot of its tree cover to development; the City should strive to
protect it from further destruction.
The planners are working on developments in other parts of the City, particularly College Avenue. I
think that could be the focus of the next interval of development. It would no doubt result in a real
improvement. Clearing and paving a hillside full of trees would certainly not be an improvement.
All that being said (mostly not for the first time), I urge you to support the Planning Commission’s
decision.
Ethel C Simpson
409 N Oliver Avenue
2