The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutORDINANCE 6062113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 6062 File Number: 2018-0085 RZN 17-6052 (EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR./KEENAN): AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 17- 6052 FOR APPROXIMATELY 22.59 ACRES LOCATED AT EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DRIVE AND OLD MISSOURI ROAD FROM RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE TO NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION 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 the 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 Single Family, 4 Units per Acre to NC, Neighborhood Conservation. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1. PASSED and APPROVED on 5/1/2018 A rm rov4 Page 1 Attest: Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk RZN17-6052 I KEENAN I EXHIBIT W Close Up View ETON S1 4 FAim r n, 17-6052 NS -G R-0 Legend Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint Feet 0 112.5 225 450 675 900 1 inch = 300 feet ! M M ORi A& NORTH Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 Residential -Office Neighborhood Services - Gen. P-1 EXHIBIT 'B' 17-6052 LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TO BE REZONED TO NC; A part of the NWi/4 of the NE1/4, a part of the SW1/4 of the NE1/4, and a part of the SEI/4 of the NWI/4, of Sectlon 36, TI 7N, R30W in Washington County, Arkansas and being described as follows; Beginning at the SE Comer of said NWI/4, NEI j4, said paint being the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence S47°39'53"W 239.26 feet, thence N65°30'44"W 202,53 feet, thence S4T3011311W 93.43 feet, thence N42°29147"W 120.00 feet, thence S47030113"W 205.00 fee, thence N42029147"W 10,00 feet, thence S47030'1 3V 182,29 fee#, thence N87°14150"W 282,64 feat, thence NO2°45'10159,37 feet, thence along a non tangent curve to the left 92.00 feet, said curve having a radius of 538.69 feet and chord bearing and distance of N20031118"E81,92 feet, thence N02045'11 011E 32.12 feet, thence N87014'50"W 745.99 feet, thence N19°07'21 "W 4.42 feet, thence N09°45153"W 52.11 feet, thence NO21147104"E 115.12 feet, thence S87°11'51 "E 770.82 feet, thence N02145'46"E 416.19 feet, thence N27112'39"E 204,31 feet, thence N30053'35"W 152,48 feet, thence NO2°45'58"E 422,44 feet, thence S88958137"E 50,00 feet, thence S02045158"W 407.09 feet, thence S3005313511E 153.08 feet, thence SB7°10'56"E 892.40 feet, thence S02°50127"W 617.45 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Containing 22,59 acnes, more or less, subject to easements and right of ways of record, City of Fayetteville, Arkansas T Text File File Number: 2018-0085 Agenda Date: 5/1/2018 Version: 1 In Control: City Council Meeting Agenda Number: B. 1 RZN 17-6052 (EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR./KEENAN): 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Status: Passed File Type: Ordinance AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 17-6052 FOR APPROXIMATELY 22.59 ACRES LOCATED AT EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DRIVE AND OLD MISSOURI ROAD FROM RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE TO NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION 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 the 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 Single Family, 4 Units per Acre to NC, Neighborhood Conservation. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 51212018 Garner Stoll Submitted By City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form '2018-0085 Legistar File ID 4/17/2018 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 3/30/2018 City Planning / Development Services Department Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: RZN 17-6052: Rezone (EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD./KEENAN, 253-254): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATE, INC. for property EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 22.59 acres. The request is to rezone the property to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. Budget Impact: Account Number Fund Project Number Project Title Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget $ Funds Obligated $ Current Balance $ Does item have a cost? No Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget $ V20140710 Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Original Contract Number: Approval Date: Comments: I V CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO CITY OF FAYETTE1 ILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2018 TO: Mayor, Fayetteville City Council THRU: Garner Stoll, Development Services Director FROM: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner Andrew Garner, Planning Director DATE: March 30, 2018 SUBJECT: RZN 17-6052: Rezone (EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD./KEENAN, 253-254): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATE, INC. for property EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 22.59 acres. The request is to rezone the property to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. RECOMMENDATION: The City Planning staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of an ordinance to rezone the subject property to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, as shown in the attached Exhibits 'A' and 'B'. BACKGROUND: The proposed rezoning request is an approximately 22.59 -acre portion of a larger 50 -acre parcel to the east of Old Missouri Road, between Farr Lane to the north and portions of the Strawberry Hill subdivision to the south. The property is currently undeveloped and zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre. Along with 11,000 acres of other property on the periphery of the City's boundaries, the subject property was annexed in to Fayetteville in 1967. Along the southern extent of the proposed rezoning, the City's Master Street Plan indicates a Planned Principal Arterial link connecting Rolling Hills Drive in the west with Old Wire and Crossover Roads to the east. Although not identified as being within Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District, the property is heavily -vegetated with a significant downward grade from southeast to northwest. Request: The request is to rezone the property from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre, to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, in order prepare the parcel for development. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding land use patterns in this area, which includes a mixture of residential and non-residential development of generally low -intensity. Despite the greater density allowed under the proposed zoning district, staff finds that the single-family character of NC will complement the overwhelmingly detached dwelling development pattern of the area. Further bolstering staffs support of the request is the existing NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General, property to the west and the planned extension of Rolling Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.tayettevilie -aLgov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Hills through the site. Although currently undeveloped, the property zoned NS -G allows low - intensity, non-residential uses along with some attached residential building types. If developed, a logical transition would result from greater densities along Old Missouri Road in the west to the lower -density single-family to the north, south, and east. Another consideration is the terrain of the area proposed for rezoning as it relates to surrounding land uses. As noted, the subject property slopes downward significantly from southeast to northwest. This gradient creates a natural transition of elevation just as the zoning transitions from the greater density of the proposed NC zoning district to the lower densities of the adjacent RSF- 4 zoning districts. Land Use Plan Analysis: The proposed zoning is compatible with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and consistent with the Residential Neighborhood Area designation of the subject property and surrounding area. Along with the recently -rezoned NS -G land to the west, development under the NC zoning on the subject property will encourage traditional neighborhood development in a compact form that is both complemented by nonresidential development to the west and complimentary of existing, low-density single-family developments to the east. Among the goals in City Plan 2030, the proposed rezoning represents the potential for appropriate infill development, development in a traditional town form pattern, and a means of discouraging suburban sprawl. Although extensions of infrastructure are likely needed to facilitate development, adjacent City facilities and amenities are already in place and available for access, thereby reducing the strain on City infrastructure and amenities that would result from similar development in a sprawl location. Similarly, the requested NC zoning district and its associated build -to zone encourage patterns of development that result in realizing the City's goal of making traditional town form the standard. This includes the expectation that buildings be located at the street and on corners, thereby creating an environment appealing to pedestrians. DISCUSSION: On January 22, 2018, the Planning Commission forwarded the proposal to City Council with a recommendation for approval by a vote of 7-0-0. Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the request, citing concerns about the Master Street Plan extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Crossover and Old Wire, and how the site would be developed appropriately given the terrain. Additionally, opposition was expressed regarding the potential that development under the proposed zoning district may cause traffic congestion, unsafe traffic conditions, adverse stormwater runoff, and dangers to pedestrians and school children at the adjacent Butterfield Elementary. On March 6th, 2018, the City Council referred this item back to the Planning Commission given the incomplete status of the application. A revised request letter was submitted and is included in the attached staff report. On March 12th, 2018, The Planning Commission tabled the request to the March 26th meeting to allow for the applicant to complete the legal public notification requirements. Om March 26th 2018, The Planning Commission forwarded the proposal to the City Council with a recommendation for approval by a vote of 4-3-0. Commissioners Johnson, Scroggin, and Niederman voted 'no'. Several members of the public again spoke in opposition to the request, voicing concern about the appropriateness of the site and adjacent services for development. Additionally, the completeness of the application was challenged. The submitted public comment and summaries of these concerns are included in the attached staff report. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: N/A Attachments: • Exhibit A • Exhibit B • Approved and Draft Planning Commission Minutes 0 1/22/2018 Planning Commission (Approved) 0 4/10/2018 Planning Commission (Draft) • Application • Planning Commission Staff Report RZN17-6052 I KEENAN I EXHIBIT W Close Up View ETON ST 17-6052 FARR LN ''s -c; R -O Legend Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint Feet 0 112.5 225 450 675 900 1 inch = 300 feet A& NORTH Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 Residential -Office Neighborhood Services - Gen. P-1 EXHIBIT 2135 17-6052 LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TO BE REZONED TO NQ A part of the NW1/4 of the NE1/4, a part of the SW1/4 of the NEI; 4, and a part of the SE1/4 of the NWI/4, of Sactlon 36, T1 7N, R30W in Washington County, Arkanias and being described as follows: Beginning at the SE Comerof said. NAVA NE11/4, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence 547'39'53"W 239,26 feel, thence N65'30'44"W 202.53 feel, thence S471130"13"W 83.43 feet, thence NV2914711W 120.00 feet, thence S47'3011311W 205.00 feet, thence H42029147"W 10,00 feet, thence S47'30'1 3"W 182,29 feet, thence N87`14'50" 282.64 feet, thence NO2'45'1 WE 59.37 feet, thence along a non tangent curve to the left 82.00 feet, said curve having a radius of 538.69 feet and chord hearing and distance of N20131118"E81,92 feet, thence NO2'45'10"E 32.12 feet; thence N87°14'50"00 745.99 feet, thence N1 9'07'21"W 4.42 feet, thence N09"45'53"W 52.11 feet, thence N02047104"E 115.12 feet, thence S871111'51 11E 770.82 foot, thence N021,45'46"E 416,18 feet, thence N27'12'39"E 204.31 feet, thence N30'53'35"W 152.48 feet, thence NO2'45'58"E 422.44 feet. thence S86'5813711E 50.00 feet, thence 502"4515811W 407.09 feet, tfionce S30053135"E 153.08 feet, thence S87010156"E 892.40 feet, thence S02'50127"W 617.45 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Containing 22.59 acres, more or less, subject to easements and right of ways of record. 17-6052 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (1/22/2018 - Approved) RZN 17-6052: Rezone (EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD./KEENAN, 253-254): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATE, INC. for property EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 49.60 acres. The request is to rezone approximately 22.59 acres to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, Jorgensen and Associates, Applicant's Representative: Has nothing to add, but is available for comment. Public Comment: Emily Birkman, Resident: Shares that she is a geologist and found out about the request online. Notes that there was excitement about the proposed zoning district among her neighbors until they realized it resulted in an increased density. Comments that 3- and 4 -family dwellings would be allowed despite these not existing in surrounding areas. For her, the 10 units per acre and lot area requirements would create a significant change from existing lot sizes in the area. When discussing the proposed zoning district, she thinks it critical to consider the slope given that many trees will likely need to be removed. Additionally, the Fayetteville fault runs under the site, which can lead to further concerns. Goes on to discuss the amount of runoff that will inevitable result from development and that it will impact the school, creek, and neighborhoods downstream. Disagrees that the proposal is compatible with the City's 2030 goals. Continues on to discuss the increased traffic that will occur given the lack of existing infrastructure, and the possibility that safety may be compromised. Concludes that she hopes her concern is heard, particularly regarding the increased density, and that the decision made is in line with the City's morals and ethics. Martin Jones, Resident: Lives on Strawberry Street above the subject property and has enjoyed its lack of development to this point. Shares that he attended the Rolling Hills extension meeting, and is concerned that the City may be getting ahead of itself with zoning and development before the street alignment is decided upon. Informs the Commission that it was the neighborhood's general opinion that the alignment of the street extension be pushed northwards and away from his neighborhood. While unsure if it is appropriate to discuss the extension at this point, he wants it understood that the zoning will have a direct effect on it. Any movement of the street's alignment will eat in to the property of his property or that of his neighbors. Nicole Clayson, Resident: Wants to address the rezoning and the street extension. Rapidly addresses the concerns of those in her neighborhood and wants an answer from the City about whether Rolling Hills will be extended. Comments that the negative impact on the surrounding areas will be negative and dramatic. Rhetorically asks what people would feel if this occurred by Vandergriff. Warns that if the rezoning is approved it cannot be undone. Shares that she finds 10 units per acre too dense, and that a backyard that size would be laughable. Comments that a developer has not even been found yet and that this seems like a money grab. Fears the impact of a development after it is complete and the developer leaves town. Rapidly lists concerns about student school capacity, development type, school recesses, tree canopy, water runoff, adequacy of water pipes, student safety walking to school, and if there have been ecological studies done. Does not know the answers to many of these questions despite looking online. Notes that this project will create suburban sprawl right next to an elementary school. Contends that the Rolling Hills extension will not improve anything, and will only serve to improve the access to College slightly while taking away several people's yards. Again, notes that neighbors deserve an answer to the extension possibility. Brinkman: Speaks again, stating that Jorgensen did not answer her call asking for information about the rezoning request and who petitioned for it. No more public comment was presented. Sloan Scroggin, Commissioner: Shares that he is in favor if the request for the same reasons that people are opposed to it. Disputes the fact that 300 units can be located on this property, and that locating more housing here is that much less housing in peripheral areas. Hopes that housing here will reduce the distance from work. Notes that people will be working here, and they will be walking to school. Matt Johnson, Commissioner: Appreciates his neighbors coming out to speak as this is his area of town. While he appreciates the deer in his yard, he thinks this would be an ideal place for smart planning. Development here will create a walkable neighborhood that is beneficial to the neighborhood at large. Contends that this area is special and can be developed in a manner that is better than other areas of Fayetteville. Asks what factors go in to the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District and how development on this property will occur. Curth: Answers that this property is not subject to the HHOD, but goes on to describe its requirements. Also shares briefly what ordinances will apply to any development on the site. Allison Thurmond Quinlan, Commissioner: Notes that the Neighborhood Conservation zoning district will actually allow greater flexibility on the site's terrain. Shares details of the NC zoning district as a response to public comment, including that the permitted uses are the same as the existing RSF-4 zoning district, and that conditional uses require a higher degree of scrutiny. Notes that development under either district is subject to City ordinance standards, but the form -based codes will create a safer, more walkable neighborhood. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Upon first consideration, she could not decide whether this was sprawl or infill. Notes that decades ago it would have been sprawl, and not it is infill. Agrees that it is denser, but that is ideal for infill. While she wishes the property could stay natural, she would rather see development here than on the periphery. Agrees that infill can be hard on neighbors, but it is needed. Encourages the neighborhood to continue participating as the property comes through for development. Shares that she is in favor of the development, but is cautious about seeing future development given its topography. Zara Niederman, Commissioner: Thanks the public for their comment, but agrees with the other Commissioners. Advises that in the future, if you can increase the density near the street and away from the terrain it would be ideal. Although he knows this is not on the table, he feels it is in-line with the City's goals. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Shares census data on the regional population, and that it will grow by over one-half million by 2050. Given Fayetteville's amenities he suspects many of these people will come to Fayetteville. As of 2011, the RSF-4 zoning district was 34% of the City and R -A was 28%. In order to accept Fayetteville's share of the population growth, it needs to accommodate greater density towards the urban core in accordance with the urban transect. Beyond this, there are discussions about a rail system in the region. Insists that residents need to have confidence in the City's stormwater standards, tree preservation and other ordinances to provide good, sensitive development. While not downtown, he contends that it is areas like this where greater urban densities need be supported. Notes that he will have no problem supporting the request. Motion: Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to forward RZN 17-6052 as recommended. Commissioner Scroggin seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. 17-6052 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (3/26/2018 - Draft) RZN 17-6052: Rezone (EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD./KEENAN, 253- 254): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATE, INC. for property EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 49.60 acres. The request is to rezone approximately 22.59 acres to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report. Ron Autry, City Attorney: Shares with the audience that there are three items that the code requires to be addressed at the time of a rezoning request, including a competed application, an accurate legal description, and a statement of the request's compatibility. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Agrees that this is generally correct and that applications currently being processed will meet this requirement. In reviewing the application for this request, he found the application to be wanting, but that additional items in the application and not the code are not legally required. A newly -drafted ordinance will address this discrepancy and will go in to effect on April 20, 2018 for those applications submitted thereafter. Mitch Weigel, Downtown Properties, Applicant's Representative: Is available for comment. Public Comment: Leigh Anne Yearge , Resident: Contends that the application is still deficient and that all issues within it must be addressed before the proposal is approved or fowarded. In response to the City Attorney's memo, she thinks the application is still deficient, and that items "a" through 'T' must be completed. Brian Billingsley, Resident: Is most concerned for the wildlife in the area. Requests the Commission deny the proposal given it is inconsistent with the surroundings. Feels that the request is a matter of weighing the pros and cons of a development. Comments that the proposed zoning would allow for 2-, 3-, and 4 -family dwellings with a conditional use permit, which he disagrees with and thinks the rezoning should be denied in the first place before the option to pursue a conditional use permit is even available. Shares that a planner told him the request is a political, not about what residents want. Emily Brickman, Resident: States that this property is rare given its natural state in a developed area next to a school. Comments that the area helps mitigate rainfall and that there is a significant elevation change across the entire site. Notes that the site is also on the Fayetteville Fault which is associated with freshwater springs. Disagrees with the non-inclusion of the property in the Hillside Hilltop Overlay district and that this should be evaluated. Comments that development of the site will impact downslope neighbors and not appropriately accommodate development. Developing under the existing zoning will reduce the canopy significantly but more so under the proposed zoning district. Asks the Commission to consider the ecological issues of rezoning and developing this area. Hope Hazen, Resident: Notes that no individuals have been listed as financially -interested other than the applicant. Contends that this is then a very speculative rezoning, and that the growth of the area should not come at the expense of the amenities of her area. States that saying this properties development will limit development on the periphery is inaccurate and many people move to this City to be nearer the environment. Goes on to share that Butterfield Elementary and the infrastructure cannot accommodate development under the proposed zoning district. Continues to discuss the noise nuisances and hazards that will be posed to residents by any development on the site. Kim Wyles, Resident: Speaks from her heart that she fears for the safety of children that are currently travelling to Butterfield, and that the school will not have sufficient capacity. Grew up on a farm and while she does not want that as an adult she wants the children of Fayetteville to have the best education possible, and that will be the thing most affected by the proposed rezoning. Renae Tobin, Resident: She thinks this may be a good opportunity to revisit the idea of infill and that there may have been some bad results that are occurring. Feels this is due to the inadequacy of roads, the impact on environment, and the desire to not live wall-to-wall with other people. Thinks one of the reasons Mayor Jordan won the last election is that he is not a developer. Asks that the Commission deny the rezoning. Lisa Burkett, Resident: Asks that the Commission not rezone the property for a higher density Has concerns for the environment and the loss it will represent to the children in the neighborhood and at the school. No more public comment was presented. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Appreciates all of the public comment. Assures residents that the City has a Unified Development Code that addresses many of the concerns expressed tonight. Informs residents that they will have the opportunity to comment when development is submitted Presents prepared documents about the population of the region and that Fayetteville will need to accommodate its fair share. Notes that regional mass transit will need to be developed to accommodate growth and commuters and that adding more traffic lanes is not a viable option. Sloan Scroggin, Commissioner: Thanks the public for the comment. Has two main comments. Although he is in favor of form -based zoning he feels that NC does not represent this, and will will not support the request this time. Regarding the natural state of the area, he notes that animals do not live in an area whether it is developed as RSF-4 or NC. For traffic, he contends that NC will not reduce congestion as it is just residential and will not promote walkability. Summarizes that the Commission is not voting on traffic and it's not voting on animals. Is worried that this area could be developed with snout houses which does not address the City's goal of traditional town form. Goes on to comment that there are people who supports requests but are pressured to go along with people in opposition. Wants the audience to know that they should stay civil and engaged as there are arguably bigger issues that receive no public comment. Matt Johnson, Commissioner: Asks staff to refresh the Commission as to why this area is not included in the Hilltop Hillside Overlay District (HHOD). Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Answers that a technical matrix was made that includes steep slope, the percentage of a site with steep slopes, development in the area and other matters. Goes on to advise that the HHOD does not restrict development, but just ensures it is more sensitive to the area. Johnson: Shares that he must separate himself from his position as a neighbor and look at the request objectively. In doing so, he feels that the request is appropriate. Disagrees with the public comment that this is a matter of pros and cons, and feels that development is happening Citywide. Has met with Engineering staff to get a better understanding of the area and has some hesitancy regarding stormwater or rainfall. Given this, he is not able to support the request. Goes in to some detail about the Engineering standards and why these do not reassure him. Williams: Responds to the assertion from the public about this being a political decision and not listening to neighbors. Reminds the Commission about past comments of his that public comment out to be a lodestar for assessing compatibility and that the reasonable comments heard tonight should be factored in to the Commission's deliberation and decision. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Appreciates all of the comment from both the public and the Commission. His understanding of NC's purpose it to describe in a zoning district many of the traits of Fayetteville's historic, established neighborhoods. Regarding uses, he comments that it is very similar to RSF-4, with single-family homes being allowed by right. Comments that's somebody right now could build a duplex under the existing zoning with a conditional use permit. Shares that one of the things he likes about Fayetteville is its welcoming nature, and to him this means, among other things, that others can move here and build homes for themselves. Given the unprecedented amount of growth that will occur with or without current resident preference, there are many issues that can arise. This includes growing housing costs, increased homelessness, and an increasing proportion of renters. This all results from under -supplying a housing market. What can be done includes choosing how growth can be allocated within the City. While the NC zoning district may. be flawed, it represents arguably the best available tool. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Thanks the public for its comments. Very much likes trees and does not even shop at Kohl's because of it. Lists all the things she wishes she could keep the same about Fayetteville, and even to move backwards. But the fact is that more people are moving to Fayetteville and they need to live somewhere and drive somewhere. Planning for growth is critical and the proposal may have come forward more appropriately as a PZD to focus density and spare some of the tree canopy. Shares that nothing has been proposed yet as far as development, and that while she would prefer a PZD, she does not want to see 4 units per acre spread across the entire property. She supports NC with smaller homes on smaller lots that are affordable and not 3,000 square foot homes because that' snot what's best for Fayetteville. She wants all the trees to stay, but is realistic in realizing that it will be developed. Zara Niederman, Commissioner: Shares thanks for the comments of the other Commissioners and public. Agrees with Commissioner Belden that he wants to see the development focused on the flattest portion of this property and that the NC zoning district gives the greatest flexibility. Questions the applicant's representative about the portion of the property not proposed for rezoning to NC and not zoned for NS -G. Wiegel: Responds that this area is where the majority of the slope and mature trees are. Niederman: Asks if it was considered to put this area in a conservation easement and what will occur with the land to the north. Wiegel: Answers that this may be developed with a single-family home. Niederman: Clarifies that what he is proposing is to develop more compactly on a smaller footprint rather than rezoning the larger area. Williams: Advises that the application is for the NC zoning and negotiations cannot be begun at this point. What is before the Commission is the proposal to rezone the site to NC. Niederman: Thanks the City Attorney for the clarification. Echoes Commissioner Brown and that density is needed in the core of the City to accommodate growth and transit. States that sitting on this matter is a tough issue, and agrees with Commissioner Scroggin's comments also. Is not amenable to supporting the request at this time. Autry: Advises that he understands the safety issues given his personal connections to Butterfield School. Shares that these same conversations occur in association with almost any development and he would like to have heard them when some of these other subdivisions in the area were built. Does not dispute some of the concerns raised, but contends that the severity of the concerns are blown out of scale with what is possible. Has heard fears expressed about huge apartment complexes and other issues that will not occur, and he hears them with nearly every change adjacent to a subdivision in the City. The City is going to grow and it is not going to stop. While development in this area may occur, it should be in the City, and not on the periphery. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 17-6052. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 4-3-0. Commissioners Johnson, Scroggin, and Niederman voted `no'. CITY OF FAYET`1'EVILLE, ARKANSAS REZONING FOR STAFF USE ONL Y FEE: J$325.00 Date Application Submitted., Sign Ft . $5.00 Date Accepted as Complete: S// Case /Appeal Number: �( PP#: Public Hearing Date: Zone: 11 Please fill out this form completely, supplying all necessary information and documentation to support your request. Your application will not be placed on the Planning Commission agenda until this information is furnished. Application: Indicate one contact person for this request: Applicant (person making request): Name: ;TZW ems, Applicant p Representative Representative (engineer, surveyor, realtor, etc.): Name: - J, Y E4�,A ('et tJ G• Address; D ] - G7 Address: 4— W W. s11W 1`�c i F' - `�11�'i s.t-l.�r' ++�•C2_ '`] 2� D � - - �-i'C�G' LLL�� ' % � rD � Phone: Fax: 1 i Site Address / Location: E-mail: &i - C.�l9„r Phone: ( ) X4-2- t v7 Fax: Current Zoning District. Requested Zoning District: La Assessor's Parcel Number(s) for subject property: 7ip— FINANCIAL INTERESTS The following entities and / or people have financial interest in this project: March 20/4 Page I el PI'I_ICANT /REPRESENTATIVE: I certify under penalty of perjury 111,11, the lixcgoing ,l Ueinenls and iumsurs herein made all data, information, and eviclence heie)vith submitted are in all respects. to the best ofmy knowledge and belief. true and correct. I understand that submitral of incorrect or false information is gronn(IS for invalidation of application completeness, deiernlination, or approval. I understand that the City might not approve Nvhat I and applying for, or might set conditions on approval. \ane tLnted}: Date Si_nature: PROPERTYOWNI;R(.S) /AUTHORIZED AGENT: Itwe certify under penalty of perjury that I unvwe are the owner(s) orthe property that is the subject of this application and that Uwe have read this application and consent to its filing. (Ifsigned hp the authorized agent, a letter fr•otn each properly owner• Hurst be provides! indicating that the agent is authorized to act on his/her behalf:) Property Owners of Record (attach additional info i/uec•essary): Name llmnted f •.1� siwrlalgrey Dater Name (printecl Signature: Date: Address: Blo P--Z'y, Phunc: Address: Phone: Rezoning Checklist: Alluch the following iierns to this oppliccNion (I) Payment in Full ofapplieable fees for processing the application: $325.00 application fee $5.00 publie notification sign fee (2) A legal description ofthe property to be rezoned. A survey may be required il'the property description can not accurately be platted or if. it is described by referring to other deeds. (3) CD containing a copy of the legal description in MS Word mid all required submittal items should be also included on the CD in PDF format. (4) A copy of the county parcel map from the Washington County Assessor's ollice or from the Washington County website (��-._c�;_w;)shit zt_e t .;it.uti). The subject property and all adjacent parcels should be identified on this parcel map. The mvner's name, official mailing address, and the parcel number for every adjacent property shall be shown on this map. ,alavcr rata P.,,se , I wo" CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS TO: THRU: FROM: MEETING DATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO City of Fayetteville Planning Commission Andrew Garner, City Planning Director Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner March 26, 2018 (Updated with Planning Commission Results) SUBJECT: RZN 17-6052: Rezone (EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD./KEENAN, 253-254): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATE, INC. for property EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 49.60 acres. The request is to rezone approximately 22.59 acres to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding RZN 17-6052 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, based on the findings herein. BACKGROUND: On January 22110, 2018, the Planninq Commission voted to forward the requested rezoning to the City Council with a vote of 7-0-0. On March 6t'', 2018, the City Council referred this item back _t_o the Planning Commission given the incomplete status of the application. A revised request letter was submitted and is included herein. On March 12 the Planning Commission tabled the request to the March 201' meeting to allow for the applicant to complete the legal public notification requirements, The proposed rezoning request is an approximately 22.59 -acre portion of a larger 50 -acre parcel to the east of Old Missouri Road, between Farr Lane to the north and portions of the Strawberry Hill subdivision to the south. The property is currently undeveloped and zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre. Along with 11,000 acres of other property on the periphery of the City's boundaries, the subject property was annexed in to Fayetteville in 1967. Along the southern extent of the proposed rezoning, the City's Master Street Plan indicates a Planned Principal Arterial link connecting Rolling Hills Drive in the west with Old Wire and Crossover Roads to the east. Although not identified as being within Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District, the property is heavily -vegetated with a significant downward grade from southeast to northwest. Surrounding land use and zoning is provided on Table 1. Planning Commission hA• -k ne-' iG31i Mailing Address: Agenda Item 3 113 W. Mountain Street www.fa)Wt6WlL<E"6v Fayetteville, AR 72701 Page 1 or 3 Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction Land Use Zoning North Butterfield Trail Elementary School; Large Lot Single-family Residential P-1, Institutional; RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre South Undeveloped; Single-family Residential NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General; RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre East Large Lot Single-family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre West Butterfield Trail Elementary School; Single-family Residential P-1, Institutional 7RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre Request: The request is to rezone the property from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, in order prepare the parcel for development. Public Comment: Staff has received substantial public comment regarding the request, almost unanimously in opposition to the proposed rezoning. Concerns can be generally summarized in the following categories, but are also included verbatim (attached): Infrastructure: Several members of the public have commented that both infrastructure in the area is inadequate and the additional development will cause undue strain to existing infrastructure. School: Residents have stated opposition to the proposed rezoning given its proximity to Butterfield Elementary, citing loss of student safety, inability of residents to walk or bike to the school, and that the rezoning will lead to overcrowding. Natural Resources: Several residents have voiced concern about the suitability of the property for development given the existing soils, slope, and drainage patterns towards Mud Creek. Additionally, members of the public have stated that the property is a valuable wildlife habitat with established wetlands, and that it should be protected. Traffic and Safety: Frustrations were expressed by the speed of traffic on Rolling Hills Drive and are concerned that this rezoning will aggravate that and increase congestion. Further, additional development will increase the number of vehicles and reduce the safety of other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Rolling Hills Drive: Many residents would like to see Rolling Hills' status in the Master Street Plan downgraded, and there is concern that approval of this rezoning will lead to an extension of the existing street through the subject property. Additionally, the Development Services Department has held one neighborhood meeting to gain input on a potential downgrade of Rolling Hills from an Arterial to a Collector Street and to discuss the potential street alignment. This neighborhood meeting was not directly related to the zoning. INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The subject portion of this parcel has access to Farr Lane to the north, unimproved Warwick Drive right-of-way to the east, and Old Missouri Road to the west. The Master Street Plan classifies Old Missouri as an improved Collector - classified street that has been developed with full right-of-way, curb, and gutter. Sidewalk however, is not present along any portion of the subject property's frontage. Although any street improvements required in this area will be G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-6052 RZN East of Rolling Hills Dr. & Old Missouri Rd. (Keenan) 253-254\03 Planning Commission\03-26-2018 Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 2 of 33 determined at the time of development proposal, the existing, un -built right-of- way for future Farr Lane extension will likely be included. Water: Public water is available to the site. A 36 -inch water main and associated easement bi-sects the property from north -to -south, and 6 -inch water mains are present on both the Farr Lane and Old Missouri Road frontages. The 36 -inch main is not available for service connections, but existing hydrants on this line may be used for main extension tie-in points. Sewer: Sanitary Sewer availability is limited for this property. There is an existing 6 -inch sanitary sewer main near the northwest corner of the intersection between Rolling Hills Boulevard, and Old Missouri Road. However, this connection would require a main extension, and given that it is only a 6 -inch diameter line, it may have limited capacity available. There is also an existing 8 -inch main to the north along the Farr Lane right-of-way. This would also require a main extension however, including relocation of service lines that connect to the manhole in this area. Drainage: No portion of this property is identified as containing FEMA regulated floodplain, nor are there any protected streams on site. Per the City's GIS Division data, Hydric Soils are likely present on site, therefore further wetlands evaluation may be required. The property lies outside the Hilltop -Hillside Overlay District (HHOD), but portions of the site include areas of 15% slope or greater, which may indicate further development restrictions. Any additional improvements, assessments, or requirements for drainage, slope, or other related issues will be determined at time of development. Fire: The Fire Department did not express any concerns with this request. Police: The Police Department did not express any concerns with this request. CITY PLAN 2025 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2030 Future Land Use Plan designates the properties within the proposed rezone as Residential Neighborhood Area. Residential Neighborhood Areas are primarily residential in nature and support a variety of housing types of appropriate scale and context, including single family, multifamily and row - houses. Residential Neighborhood encourages highly connected, compact blocks with gridded street patterns and reduced setbacks. It also encourages traditional neighborhood development that incorporates low -intensity non-residential uses intended to serve the surrounding neighbor- hood, such as retail and offices, on corners and along connecting corridors. This designation recognizes existing conventional subdivision developments which may have large blocks with conventional setbacks and development patterns that respond to features in the natural envi- ronment. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: Land Use Compatibility: The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding land use patterns in this area, which includes a mixture of Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-6052 RZN 17-6052 Keenan East of Rolling Hills Dr & Old Missouri Rd (Keenan) 253-254\03 Planning Commission\03-26-2018 Page 3 of 33 residential and non-residential development of generally low -intensity. Despite the greater density allowed under the proposed zoning district, staff finds that the single-family character of NC will complement the overwhelmingly detached dwelling development pattern of the area. Further bolstering staff's support of the request is the existing NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General, property to the west and the extension of Rolling Hills through the site. Although currently undeveloped, the property zoned NS -G allows low -intensity, non-residential uses along with some attached residential building types. If developed, a logical transition would result from greater densities along Old Missouri Road in the west to the lower -density single-family to the north, south, and east. Another consideration is the terrain of the area proposed for rezoning as it relates to surrounding land uses. As noted, the subject property slopes downward significantly from southeast to northwest. This gradient creates a natural transition of elevation just as the zoning transitions from the greater density of the proposed NC zoning district to the lower densities of the adjacent RSF-4 zoning districts. Land Use Plan Analysis: The proposed zoning is compatible with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and consistent with the Residential Neighborhood Area designation of the subject property and surrounding area. Along with the recently -rezoned NS -G land to the west, development under the NC zoning on the subject property will encourage traditional neighborhood development in a compact form that is both complemented by nonresidential development to the west and complimentary of existing, low-density single- family developments to the east. Among the goals in City Plan 2030, the proposed rezoning represents the potential for appropriate infill development, development in a traditional town form pattern, and a means of discouraging suburban sprawl. Although a extensions of infrastructure are likely needed to facilitate development, adjacent City facilities and amenities are already in place and available for access, thereby reducing the strain on City infrastructure and amenities that would result from similar development in a sprawl location. Similarly, the requested NC zoning district and its associated build -to zone encourage patterns of development that result in realizing the City's goal of making traditional town form the standard. This includes the expectation that buildings be located at the street and on corners, thereby creating an environment appealing to pedestrians. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The applicant has requested the zoning change to allow for development at a greater density than that allowed under the existing RSF-4 zoning district. The proposed NC zoning will encourage appropriate density on a parcel with access to major connecting corridors. Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-6052 RZN 17-6052 Keenan East of Rolling Hills Dr & Old Missouri Rd. (Keenan) 253-254\03 Planning Commission\03-26-2018 Page 4 of 33 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The NC zoning district allows a residential density that is greater than that allowed under the current RSF-4 zoning district: 10 units per acre versus 4. Given the property's undeveloped state, any development would invariably create the potential for increased traffic in the area. That said, and as previously noted, the property is located with access to Old Missouri Road, a Collector -classified street, and in close proximity to Rolling Hills Drive and Old Wire Road, Arterial and Collector streets respectively. There are not currently any signalized intersections in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, but this may change and be required in association with a proposed development submittal. While there will be an appreciable increase in traffic with any development, direct access to Old Missouri Road will likely limit the intrusion of through traffic into adjacent neighborhoods. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: Due to the property being currently undeveloped, development under the current zoning or the proposed zoning will result in an increase in the load on public services. That said, this increase has the potential to be greater under NC than the existing RSF-4 zoning. NC allows for 10 units per acre, while RSF-4 allows 4 units per acre. Despite the potential for greater density, the subject property has access to existing infrastructure, and is an area where staff does not feel a development would have significant adverse impacts on public services or facilities. Additionally, neither the Police nor Fire Departments have expressed objections to the proposal. 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding RZN 17-6052 to the City Council with recommendation of approval, based on the findings discussed throughout this report. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward RZN 17-6052 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval." Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-6052 RZN 17-6052 Keenan East of Rolling Hills Dr. & Old Missouri Rd. (Keenan) 253-254\03 Planning Commission\03-26-2018 Page 5 of 33 'PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Date: March 26, 2018 0 Tabled Motion: Hoffman (Second: Brown 0 Forwarded 0 Denied Vote: 4-3-0, Johnson, Scroggin, and Niederman voted 'no' CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES (Date: April 17, 2018„(tentative) 0 Approved 0 Denied BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • Unified Development Code: o §161.07, RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre o §161.29, NC, Neighborhood Conservation • Request letter (revised) • Rezone Exhibit • Public Comment • One Mile Map • Close -Up Map • Current Land Use Map • Future Land Use Map G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-6052 RZN East of Rolling Hills Dr. & Old Missouri Rd. (Keenan) 253-254\03 Planning Commission\03-26-2018 Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 6 of 33 161.07 - District RSF-4, Residential Single -Family - Four (4) Units Per Acre (A) Purpose. The RSF-4 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted Uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 41 Accessory dwellings (2) Conditional Uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 12a Limited business Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Unit 44 Cluster Housing Development (C) Density. Single-family dwellings Units per acre 4 or less (D) Bulk and Area Regulations. Lot minimum width Lot area minimum Land area per dwelling unit Hillside Overlay District Lot minimum width Hillside Overlay District Lot area minimum Two (2) family dwellings 7 or less Single-family Two (2) family dwellings dwellings 70 feet 80 feet 8,000 square 12,000 square feet feet 8,000 square 6,000 square feet feet 60 feet 70 feet 8,000 square 12,000 square feet feet G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-6052 RZN East of Rolling Hills Dr. & Old Missouri Rd. (Keenan) 253-254\03 Planning Commission\03-26-2018 Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 7 of 33 Land area per 8,000 square 6,000 square dwelling unit feet feet (E) Setback Requirements. Front Side Rear 15 feet 5 feet 15 feet (F) Building Height Regulations. Building Height Maximum 45 feet Height Regulations. Structures in this District are limited to a building height of 45 feet. Existing structures that exceed 45 feet in height shall be grandfathered in, and not considered nonconforming uses. (G) Building Area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-6052 RZN East of Rolling Hills Dr & Old Missouri Rd (Keenan) 253-254\03 Planning Commission\03-26-2018 Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 8 of 33 161.29 - Neighborhood Conservation (A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation zone has the least activity and a lower density than the other zones. Although Neighborhood Conservation is the most purely residential zone, it can have some mix of uses, such as civic buildings. Neighborhood Conservation serves to promote and protect neighborhood character. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Neighborhood Conservation district is a residential zone. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted Uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 41 Accessory dwellings (2) Conditional Uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 9 Two (2) family dwellings Unit 10 Three (3) and four (4) family dwellings Unit 12a Limited business' Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 25 Offices, studios, and related services Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials Unit 36 Wireless communication facilities Unit 44 Cluster Housing Development (C) Density. Ten (10) Units Per Acre. (D) Bulk and Area Regulations. (1) Lot Width Minimum. Single Family 40 feet Two Family 80 feet Three Family 90 feet (2) Lot Area Minimum. 4,000 square feet (E) Setback Regulations. A build -to zone that is located Front between the front property line and a line 25 feet from the front property line. Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-6052 RZN 17-6052 Keenan East of Rolling Hills Dr. & Old Missouri Rd. (Keenan) 253-254\03 Planning Commission\03-26-2018 Page 9 of 33 Side 5 feet J Rear 5 feet Rear, from center line of 12 feet an alley (F) Building Height Regulations. Building Height Maximum 45 feet G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-6052 RZN East of Rolling Hills Dr. & Old Missouri Rd. (Keenan) 253-254\03 Planning Commission\03-26-2018 Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 10 of 33 rw JORGENSEN ASSOCIATES Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture Services March 5, 2018 City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Attn: Development Services Re: Rezoning RZN 17-6052 Request Letter Revised This letter is in regards to a proposed rezoning and the following required information: A. The current owner of this site is as follows: 124 W Sunbridge Drive, Suite 5 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Office: 479.442 9127 Fax: 479.582.4807 www.lorgensenassoc.com a. James T & James F Keenan, TTEE B. Currently this property is zoned RSF-4. The reason for the requested NC zoning is to allow this property to develop in a traditional town form, with the form based zoning. C. The property due west is zoned P-1 (Butterfield School and Good Shepard Lutheran Church) and RSF4, along with NS -G, R-0, and RI -12. The property to the north, south, and east is RSF-4. The compatibility of NC fits well with the adjacent uses and is compatible with the 2030 plan. The transition from the NS -G, R-0, P-1 to NC, to the RSF-4 is a natural planning strategy that promotes the development pattern while preserving the surrounding zoning typologies. D. Existing water and sewer are on Old Missouri and Farr Lane. E. The requested zoning is in line with the goals of the City Plan 2030 for rezoning and development. F. NC is the appropriate zoning for the intended use. G. The adjacent streets has ample capacity to handle any additional traffic. H. The potential to increase the population density in this area as a result of this rezoning would not undesirably increase load on public services. I. While the current RSF-4 zoning isn't impractical, NC zoning would be more practical. Please review this application and let us know if there are any questions that we may be able to answer. Thanks. Jorgensen + Associates Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 11 of 33 jl Wit 11f�� ars �t �a I' n `2 ission !dii ffl = ill 2018 Aa Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Pame 12 of 33 RZN 17-6052 Public From: CityClerk Comment To: Garner. Andrew; toll Garner; Cc: opingsworth ahBollnoer. Bonnie; Pennington Blake; Broyles. Lana; rjLycounc1lematthew2gMj.ora; Marr, n; Eads. ai ; Roberta, Henson, Pam; Johnson. Kimberly; Ki; Branson. Lisa; Jordan. Lioneld; Lynch, Rhonda; Mglfor . Patti; Norton, Susan; Ramer; Smith. Lorinda; Smi h. Sondra; gOy_Ldg1l.g; Marsh. Sarah; Kinion. Mark; TennanL Justin; Bunch. Sarah; LO Tour. John; Smith. Kyle Subject: FW: Community Position on Rezoning & Rolling Hills Drive Expansion Date: Monday, March 05, 2018 8:14:22 AM Attachments: Attachment 4 - 20170706 City Council Agenda Memo Ddf,odf 6!3achment 2 •2RZN17-6052_2018020 Aggnda MPmo.Rdf Attachment 3 Gecjo-ay Sing. M E Bedrock Geology of Fay�tteyiF�Qu r n te�p�l¢ Attachment 4 - Topography 20140626 AR Fayetteville 20140626 TM geo Topa _Ddf.adf ghmonr R - NaVnnal Wetlands Inventory.12d Attachment 6 - 20INJ1 Q 22102210858 228- 5oil_Map D ff Attachment 7 - Corrosion_ 20180130-22202210451 16 Corrosion of Concrete.Ddf Please see email below regarding Rolling Hills Subdivision. From: Emily J. Brickman [mailto:emjhollingsworth@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 9:20 PM To: dogl3gregg@aol.com; rautry333@gmail.com; lesliebeld@aol.com; zniederman.planningcommission@gmail.com; atq@flintlocklab.com; matthew.johnson@mercy.net; matt@mbl-arch.com; rnoble@crcrawford.com; Sloanscroggin.plan ning@gmail.com, Garner, Andrew <agarner@fayetteville-ar.gov>; CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Fwd: Community Position on Rezoning & Rolling Hills Drive Expansion Please see my emails below sent to city council and others. I graciously hope you take into consideration my positions and the information below prior to making decision regarding Rolling Hills and the potential proposed rezoning. Sincerely, Emily Brickman M Hello, I am contacting you in relation to ADM -18-6098 Rolling Hills Dr. MSP Amend, 252-253: Submitted by the planning division to amend the master street plan to downgrade Rolling Hills Drive from a Principal Arterial to a Collector. Although I appreciate the consideration to downgrade RH, I disagree with this proposed amendment. The existing RH should be downgrade to a Collector, but the proposed extension area for RH should be removed altogether from the plan. My proposed recommendation is in line with conclusions reached in the neighborhood meeting held on February 22, 2018. Thanks for your consideration, Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 13 of 33 Emily J. Brickman Professional Geologist, AR, TX, MO 3183 North Katherine Ammue Fayettuill-e, Arkansas 72703 Begin forwarded message: From: Emily Hollingsworth <enljhollingsworthC�}yalioo..com> Date: February 11, 2018 at 4:06:46 PM CST To: "niayQrLa)fayettevillc7ar.govv" , " mar '(r4hyetteville-ar,,gov" <tin-tatr(C4),fayetteville-ar_gov>, "city erne yctteville-ar.gQv" <city_attartiey�u)f-ciyetteville-ar.�ov>, "ward4 osl"�,ottoyill„em_� ) ” <warcl4 nosl(cr�thyetteville-ar.gov>, "wardlpulLa)fayettevillc;-ar gov" <Wa osl�c�{�yetteville_ar gov>, "mrdll2�aiayetteville-at_,gov" <3ardl nos2QfaYett.evij„l!z-ar.gav>, 11warc12 posiLd1'ayrtteville-ar.gov"<ward2 Dos l4fayetteviile-at•gov>, "ryard nos2i M,Yetteville at' gov" <warcl3 XD_5_?t��.fayettevillf,-nr.gov>, "wai:0 pos1(a,)fayetteyiile-ar.g0v_" <ti�+arri3 a os1 fayetteville-ar°, >, "ward2_12os2 &bfay tteyillc-ar,gQ " <ward2�o52a fayeltevil{o-ag.f!ov>, "ocurth).faytle-al'.gC?v"<ietrtltCcfayetteville-res.;c�v>, "agt7i�(�uf�yeueville-ar.gov"<agarnertrilfayettevifle-ar.gov> Subject: Community Position on Rezoning & Rolling Hills Drive Expansion Reply -To: Emily Hollingsworth <Qn.1111 llin Swart tfc�)va t o. •om> Dear Mayor, City Council, and City Planners, I have spoken with many of you about the possible rezoning of the 22.59 acre parcel east of Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri and the possible extension of Rolling Hills Drive (RH). Since we have spoken, community members have collected over 1,000 signatures on ch e.� and over 50 on -paper signatures for the petition titled "Permanently Remove the Rolling Hills Drive to Crossover/265 Extension From Any Master Plan". In addition, we created a logo "We Love Rolling Hills, Keep Our Streets Small and Our Trees Tall", set up a Facebook group, and have had approximately 50 people contribute more than $1,450 to purchase yard signs which just arrived. Many, or all of you have said and official city documentation indicate that the rezoning is not related to the expansion of RH. I would like to beg to differ. If you would kindly reference the City Staff Review Form dated July 26, 2017 (2017-0335, Attachment 1), you will see that the rezoning from RSF-4 to NS -G of an approximately 11 -acre portion of the 50 -acre property is referenced in relation to the "Planned Principal Arterial link connecting Rolling Hills Drive in the west with Old Wire and Crossover Roads to the east". Reference to the RH expansion is included seven times throughout this 27 page document and is used for justification of the rezoning. In addition, the 2/20/2018 Staff Review on the rezoning from RSF-4 to NC (2018-00085, Attachment 2) mentions the RH extension six times. In the eyes of a citizen and based on a cursory review of city planning documentation, zoning classification and RH expansion are combined Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 14 of 33 items as they both have significant impacts on the future use of the property. The following is information which should be considered prior to developing the 50 -acre parcel located to the east of Old Missouri Road, north of Oldwire Road and North Strawberry Drive to the south, to the west of Oak Bailey Drive and North Katherine Ave to the east, and to the south of Farr Land and Raven Trail to the north. Site Background Information Both the larger 50 acre parcel and the 22.59 acres proposed for rezoning (the site) are located within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Fayetteville Quadrangle. As seen on the Bedrock Geology of Fayetteville Quadrangle included as Attachment 3, the site is bisected by the southwest -to -northeast trending Fayetteville Fault and shales and sandstones of the Fayetteville Shale and the Cain Hill Member of the Hale Formation outcrop at the surface. As shown on the geologic map, a dramatic change in surface elevation occurs along the fault trace bisecting the property. The topographic contours on the geologic map and the USGS topographic map for Fayetteville quadrangle (Attachment 4) indicate approximately 100 to 120 ft of elevation change occurs from Raven Trail (Farr Lane) in the north to Strawberry Drive to the southeast. Although the Staff Review mentions numerous times throughout the document the property's "significant downward grade", none of the figures provided in documentation include surface elevation contours. Hopefully, the visuals included as part of this email will help you to better understand the relevance of geology and topography to the site. Additionally and as shown on the topographic map included as Attachment 4, none of the maps or text included in either Staff Review mentions the tributary to Mud Creek which is mapped as originating near the northeast corner of the Butterfield Trail Elementary School property. This tributary flows to the north towards Raven Trail and through residential property, then flows to the northwest to the confluence with an unnamed tributary to Mud Creek. Surface water from the vast majority of the site, upgradient from North Strawberry Drive, North Katherine Avenue, Warwick Drive, and even the elementary school, flows into this surface water drainage. My son and I have walked this terrain many times on our way to kindergarten drop off and pickup; we have observed a large depression near the northeast corner of the elementary school property, large volumes of surface water within this depression, and surface water inundation of downgradient properties. In addition, I have listened to the concerns of these downgradient property owners related to historical flooding of their properties and concerns for how upgradient development could cause negative impacts. Additionally, I will ask you to refer to Attachment 5, documentation provided by the National Wetlands Inventory for surface waters and wetlands (liUps://www.fws.goy/weil,iiids/DatalMappgLIWW). As shown on this figure, a freshwater pond and the associated downgradient riverine system are mapped in areas in or associated with the rezoning request. Undoubtedly, dense developmenkanning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 15 of 33 of the site and the proposed rezoning area will result in increased surface water impacts on downgradient residents and should be taken into consideration when evaluating this rezoning request. Attachment 6 is the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Map for the site. Soil type corresponds to surface geology. The majority of the property is mapped as Enders -Leesburg Complex (8 to 20% slopes), a clayey residuum weathered from acid shale with a landform position of mountain flank. Enders -Leesburg Complex soils are described as having very limiting capacity to transmit water and a high capacity to induce surface water runoff. Attachment 7 is again provided by the USDA, and shows the Enders -Leesburg Complex soils located onsite as having a high risk of corrosion to concrete. This high risk indicates the potential for soil -induced electrochemical or chemical actions to cause corrosion and weakness to concrete. Other limiting factors identified from the USDA soil survey include poor suitability for roads, very limited septic tank absorption capacity, and very limited subsurface water management system performance. Zoning Requests in Relation to Zoning of the Area The proposal to modify portions of the site from RSF-4 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE) to Neighborhood Conservation (10 units per acre) is a very high density for this area of Fayetteville. Residential lots in Huntingdon (located to the east and north), Strawberry Drive (located to the east-southeast), and Rolling Hills (located to the west) average '/ to '/z acre or more in size. In addition, the rezoning would allow for potential 2, 3, and 4 family units, which there are few within the area. No matter what your City of Fayetteville Staff Review conclude, this rezoning request does not protect the character and integrity of the existing residential areas. Speaking as a property owner in this neighborhood (Huntingdon — 3183 North Katherine Avenue), this rezoning request is not in-line with the area, specifically citing: • inclusion of three and four family dwellings, • potential for offices, studios, and related services, • 10 units per acre, • lot with minimum of 40 ft, • lot area minimum of 4,000 square feet, and • diminished setbacks. Besides a very small portion of property located along the current Rolling Hills Drive, none of the aforementioned NC attributes are currently existing in our neighborhood. Thi,,; mzoning . test is not i«.line with the character and integl•ity o F the existing area. Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 16 of 33 Zoning Requests in Relation to Zoning Near Fayetteville Elementary Schools As you know, this zoning request is adjacent to an elementary school (Butterfield Elementary School) where children from five to nine years of age attend school. Land use near other elementary schools located outside of downtown Fayetteville includes: Vandergriff Elementary School is adjacent to civic and private open space, parks, and RSF-4, with the front of the school adjacent to a road and offices. Root Elementary school is surrounded on all sides by RSF-4 land use. • Approximately 85% of Happy Hollow Elementary School is bordered by residential, with a small portions adjoined by Main Street Center. • Owl Creek Elementary is adjoined by RSF-4, Institutional, Residential - Agricultural, and Community Services. If approved, the zoning request would allow for'/ of the Butterfield property boundary to adjoin NC zoning. This would set a precedence, as no other elementary school located outside of downtown has adjacent land with up to 10 units per acre. Not to mention the RH expansion would also put '/ of the Butterfield property boundary adjacent to a 4, and up to 5 lane, major road, while the western property boundary would also be adjacent to a road. The request to change the zoning for a property adjacent to Butterfield Trail Elementary School is not in line with existing land use patters for other Fayetteville Elementary schools. The staff review did not discuss or evaluate land use scenarios or potential risks related to zoning near an elementary school and, in my opinion, is a misstep and shows lack of understanding of the true nature of our neighborhood as most residents either went to or chose to live in this neighborhood because of Butterfield Trail Elementary School. This zoning request has little respect for the surrounding environment. Other Issues of Importance See Attachment 8. This property listing and acreage is only accessible from Warwick Drive. The planning commission memo (Attachment 2) Infrastructure section has no mention of connecting to Warwick; however, this listing indicate otherwise. Either the developer or city is not being forthright with their plans and have not provided citizens with adequate information and notification. Documentation included in the zoning application indicates Raven Trail will be removed from the city parks and trails system. This is not in-line with the 2030 Master Plan, Section 10. Framework. Goal 4.1. Expand and interconnect the sidewalk and trail system at the neighborhood, citywide, and regional levels. Removing Raven Trail and turning it into a Farr Lane isn't what you would call encouragement of pedestrian mobility. • The zoning request does not adequately plan, provide information on, or address road planning, construction requirements, and future traffic Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 17 of 33 movement which could negatively impact our neighborhoods. • The Fayetteville 2030 Master Plan Future Land Use Map indicates the site land use as residential. It has been noted by many, that the NS zoning goes against the 2030 plan and that going against the 2030 plan creates a "very slippery slope". There has been poor communication and discussion with and from the city on the vision for this project. Recent documentation indicates that the city has Many of the city council or planning group have said that there is no funding for the RH expansion project and that a bond would likely be necessary. Only one of you has been forthright and mentioned the possibility for a 2020 bond covering parks and transportation which this project could be funded under. In my opinion, there has been misdirection and a lack of truth from many in the city related towards funding of this project. Specific questions asked at the January 22, 2018 planning meeting by citizens were not addressed by the board; instead, the citizens were matter-a-factly told that this was infill. The applicant was not called up by the board to answer any questions. Many living on or adjacent to Rolling Hills Drive did not received notification related to past city meetings, such as the one held on October 26, 2017; however, after increased community interest, people living on Rolling Hills Drive received notification (letter dated February 5, 2018 from the City of Fayetteville Arkansas RE; Rolling Hills Drive Master Street Plan Meetings). o As documented in information gained from the Freedom of Information Act request, it appears that the council, planning board, and the property realtor/developer have a relationship exclusive of each other, which excludes actual members of the community. I ask, why is there a need for meetings between city officials and the developer? These are not all of my concerns; however, please consider this information while considering next steps related to the rezoning of the aforementioned property and the expansion of Rolling Hills Drive. We community members care and wish to be involved in this process. Sincerely, Emily J. Brickman Professional Geologist, AR, TX, MO 3183 North Katherine Avenue Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 18 of 33 Hello, I am contacting you in relation to ADM -18-6098 Rolling Hills Dr. MSP Amend, 252-253: Submitted by the planning division to amend the master street plan to downgrade Rolling Hills Drive from a Principal Arterial to a Collector. Although I appreciate the consideration to downgrade RH, I disagree with this proposed amendment. The existing RH should be downgrade to a Collector, but the proposed extension area for RH should be removed altogether from the plan. My proposed recommendation is in line with conclusions reached in the neighborhood meeting held on February 22, 2018. Thanks for your consideration, Emily J. Brickman Professional Geologist, AR, TX, MO 3183 North Katherine Avenue Fayetteville. Arkansas 72703 Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 19 of 33 From: Q&ier To: Garner. Andrew; Stoll, Garner; Harrison. An Cc: pggaydamgs@grodloy.net; Winggr. Bonnie; Penningtgn Blake; Broyles. Lana; ci'tvcnunc!L&M-atthewp=orn; Marr.._Don; Eads, Gail; Roberts. Gina Henson. Pam; Johnson. Kimberly; VjWarns Mt; Branson. Lisa; Jordan, Lion; Lynch. Rhonda; Mulford, Patti; Norton, Susan; Ramos Eduardo; Smith Lcginda; smith. Sondra;; Gray, Adella; Marsh. Sarah; Kinign. Mdr Tennant. Justin; Bungh Sarah; La Tour. John; Smith, Kyle Subject: FW: Rolling Hills Rezoning and Extension Date: Monday, March 05, 2018 8:09:01 AM Please see email below regarding Rolling Hills Subdivision. From: Peggy James [mailto:peggyrjames@prodigy.net] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 3:57 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Rolling Hills Rezoning and Extension Dear City Clerk, Please make this letter part of the permanent record for this issue. Peggy Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I am a 25 year resident of the Rolling Hills Subdivision. My husband and I raised our family here, so we can reflect on the many changes in the area. I'm a retired FPS teacher and my husband is retired from AT&T. The following are some of our thoughts about the items before your commission. (RH = Rolling Hills) *** waiting to get on College from Rolling Hills can take a wait through several light changes. Putting more traffic on RH will just increase those issues. * * * Our WONDERFUL flyover and the addition of the traffic light and Whole Foods (yay) has made this area of College a traffic mess. Cars start waiting to go north near Hobby Lobby at certain times of the day. Pouring more cars into this section, instead of the Joyce or Township junctions seems more reasonable to me. Those roads have more options for where drivers can go. * * * With no access to Gregg from this intersection (RH and College - without multiple jogs through neighborhoods) it seems like an unwise decision. Get that access first so people can have choices on how to get out of the College area easily. *** if you're ultimately going to connect to Old Wire, why don't you vastly improve the Old Wire and Old Missouri intersection as well as the section of Old Missouri from Rolling Hills up to Old Wire, (Similar to the Old Wire /Mission junction.) You'll be funneling the traffic in a very similar fashion without disrupting existing neighborhoods. The cars will all end up in the same intersection at Crossover regardless of your path. *** as we leave our neighborhood on Loxley onto RH, there can be so much congestion that we are stuck waiting for quite a while. The intersection in question has that funny little jog and it confuses everyone. ***speed is a huge issue on RH now. This is one of the reasons it is hard to get out onto RH **** Butterfield is a great school. The traffic in the area has increased exponentially since our son went there. He was a bike rider. Today I would not allow that. As an adult who bikes, we won't ride that way because of the speed and narrow passage. Allowing zoning in the area to be more dense than the current designation will cause so many issues for the school andPlanning commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 20 of 33 neighborhoods. *** Butterfield is crowded now. Where will all of the area kids forced out of Butterfield be bussed to make room for the new children? The current zoning will also bring new children, but the higher density in the zoning could quadruple the number of children who would come with the lower density zoning. *** Please come drive the roads in the morning and afternoon. Put your kid on a bicycle at 3.30 each day. RH is only a few blocks long, yet is fed by multiple neighborhoods, shopping centers, at least 4 churches and other businesses. Deciding we need those additional changes without seeing the real issues we face is not great city planning. Is this area of town ready for the changes the zone change and road extension will make? We do not think so! We believe you need to take a long look at what is REALLY here and only move forward once you've solved the problems you are going to create. There are other solutions. More brainstorming is needed before you jump on the changes you're currently considering. We obviously have plenty of people interested in the issues, so finding volunteers to help find a compromise doesn't seem out of the question. Sincerely, Peggy and Pat James 2620 N. Stanton Ave. Sent from my iPad Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 21 of 33 From; CiLyClerk To: Bo bar. Bonnle;�e? n�tori_81ake; r2&* lana; cc! yrcountlI@matthpwI2gMy.ora; Marr. Don; Eads Gail; R2herts. Gina;Q n n n Kim r ; Willi m i ; Branson, Lisa; Jordan, Lioneld; Lyr�th. Rhonda; Mulford. Patti; Barton. Susan; i4m+5. Eduar ; smith. Lo it ria; Smith, Sondra; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion._M_ark; Tennant. Justin; Bunch. Sarah; L -Tos ur. John; Smith. Kyle Cc: Garner. Andrew; Odom. Stege; Harrison. And ; Ikrauft@gr3all.0m Subject: FW: Rezoning near Rolling Hills neighborhood Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 12:57:47 PM From: Liz Krauft [mailto:lkrauft@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 12:02 PM To: dogl3gregg@aol.com; rautry333@gmail.com; lesliebeld@aol.com; zniederman.planningcommission@gmail.com; atq@flintlocklab.com; matthew.johnson@mercy.net; matt@mbl-arch.com; rnoble@crcrawford.com; Sloanscroggin.planning@gmail.com; Garner, Andrew <agarner@fayetteville-ar.gov>; CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Rezoning near Rolling Hills neighborhood Hello all, My name is Liz Krauft Today, I'm writing to you as a citizen of Fayetteville and resident of the Rolling Hills neighborhood. I'm very concerned about the fate of our neighborhood. I've been studying maps, plans, proposals, rezoning applications, and numerous documents I've acquired via the Freedom of Information Act. I know that Jorgenson and Associates have resubmitted their application to rezone a portion of property owned by James Keenan, due to glaring deficiencies in the previous application. It's shocking that it was approved in its incomplete state. If the planning commission approves that application a second time, it will get sent on to the City Council whom I believe will approve it based on various master plans. I cannot properly convey via email how I am adamantly against this rezoning. I have many concerns: 1. This is a wildlife habitat full of gorgeous deer, foxes, bats, songbirds, and many other species. It is also an established wetland that is at times used as an outdoor classroom. All of this will go away as a consequence of the rezoning. 2. The intersection of Rolling Hills and Old Missouri is already dangerous for pedestrians. Children are basically playing frogger going to and from Butterfield Elementary. Traffic will increase dramatically as a consequence of the rezoning. 3. The,soil on the 50 undeveloped acres is actually very unsuitable for building. A geologist has educated me enough that I know the soil is conducive to run off, and. literally corrosive to concrete. Can you imagine what would happen to the properties of adjacent homeowners after a heavy ran if there was suddenly a lot of pavement in that area? Flooded properties and faulty construction would be a consequence of the rezoning. 4. This is probably the most disturbing and insulting: I have come to understand that if Rolling Hills were to be extended, it would later be connected across Crossover road to Skillern, and eventually pushed through to the Brookwater subdivision. Am I to be at peace knowing that my neighbors homes are to be destroyed, my school age children's safety is to be compromised, wildlife habitats are to be destroyed, all to create a shortcut for the wealthy people (i.e. some Razorback coaches) on the East Side of town? It's a disgrace to the hardworking people that live in our neighborhood. The favoritism of the wealthy would be an obvious consequence of the rezoning. Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 22 of 33 I'm urging you to vote against this rezoning. It will have impacts and consequences beyond the immediate area proposed. I'm looking at the big picture, and I hope you will too. Please consider the wishes of hundreds of families that are proud to live in the heart of Fayetteville, and not the desires of a few. I appreciate your time, Liz Krauft Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 23 of 33 From: CityClerk To: Bolinger. Bonnie; �Pi7J11 no Blake; yrs Lana; ciptypunci}Ca3maithewoettv.ora; Marr. Don; EadsGail; Roberts. Gina; Henson Parrs; Johnson. Kimberly; Willires. Kit; Branson Lisa; Jordan. Llongld; Lvnch. Rhonda; MuiFord. Patti; Norton._5usan; Ramos. Eduardo; Smith. Lorinda; Smith, Sondra; Gray, Adella; NLrsh _S_ r_a_h; Kinion Mark; Tennant. lustin; Bunch. Sarah; La Tour. John; 5mith. Kyl Cc: Garricr. Andrew; Stoll, Garner; Harrison. Andy Subject: FW: Please Oppose Rezoning Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 7:40:26 AM From: Tonya Landrum [mailto:travel.teach.transform@gmail.comj Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 5:37 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Please Oppose Rezoning I would like for this message to be part of the official record and am writing to ask that you oppose the rezoning of the land on the east side of Rolling Hills. Additionally, we are very interested in that land being protected rather than developed and ask that you do all in your power to see that the area does not become a mass of cookie -cutter housing. If any rezoning happens, it needs to be to ensure protection of that green space, fewer houses and safety for our school children. While I understand that this is an overlapping of several issues, I am extremely concerned about the future of our neighborhood. The rezoning and development of the many acres south of Butterfield seems contrary to what the City of Fayetteville says it represents. Our city needs its trees, its wooded areas and its wildlife habitat. The citizens do not want large tracts of land clear cut in order to have developers put up subdivisions. While I understand there is a need for housing, the city must be intentional and proactive in order to maintain the character and small town feel of Fayetteville. Clear cutting trees and flattening large green spaces in the heart of Fayetteville is not in our best interest. We must find the best approach for ensuring that some of that green space be protected. As the city works diligently to address population growth, a conscientious effort must be continuously renewed in order to prioritize the quality of life of local citizens rather than the wishes and whims of wealthy, self-interested developers and businessmen. We deserve better, our environment deserves better, and this great city deserves better. I sincerely appreciate your time and efforts regarding the matter of the rezoning. I firmly believe that the far majority want what is best for our wonderful community. Please, when you consider that matter of rezoning, prioritize the needs of the majority and oppose this unacceptable proposal. Warm regards, Tonya Landrum Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 24 of 33 From: Ci Clerk To: a&aar. Bonnie; Peanington._Blake; 8B yes. Lana; citvcouncilZmatthewK -or ; Marr, Don; Ea s. Gail; Roberts. Gina; Hen5g[j. Pam; Johnson. Kmberly; Williams. Kt; 6ranson. Llo; lmdan. Lieneld; Lynch. Rhonda; Mulford, Pani; Norton. Susan; Ramos. Eduardo; Smith. Loriads; Smith. Sondra; Gray, Adella; Marsh. Sarah; Kinion. Mark; Tennant. Ju in; Bunch. Sarah; L Thr. 1ohn; Smith, Kyte Cc: Ckamer Andrew; 2pj Gamer; Harrison. Ando; a@rpr�rlard6bgL all.QQm Subject: FW: Rolling Hills Rezoning Request Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 3:24:46 PM ---Original Message From: Anna McClard Pope[niailtcr:aenicelardat.,mail_coin] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 3:13 PM To: dogl3gregg@aol.com; rautry333@gmail.co1-n; lesliebeld@aol.com; zniederman.planningcommission@gmail.com; atq@flintlocklab.com; matthew.johnson@mercy.net; matt@mbl- arch.com; rnoble@crcrawford.com; Sloanscroggin.planning@gmail.com; Garner, Andrew <agarner@fayetteville- ar,gov>; CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Rolling Hills Rezoning Request Dear Planning Commission Officials, As a citizen of Fayetteville and member of the Rolling Hills Community, I would like to express my opposition to the rezoning request put forth by Jorgenson and Associates. The impact to the current infrastructure, schools, and environment has not been studied to a degree to provide sufficient evidence that this will not negatively impact the area. In addition, I am concerned for the wildlife that resides in the Wetlands area that would be destroyed as the result of this potential development. I would like to add my statement to the public record. Thank you, Anna Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 25 of 33 Garner, Andrew From: Kristin Bosc <kristinbosc@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 4:43 AM To: dog13gregg@aol.com; rautry333@gmail.com; lesliebeld@aol.com; zniederman.planningcommission@gmail.com; atq@flintlocklab.com; matthewjohnson@mercy.net; matt@mbl-arch.com; rnoble@crcrawford_com; Sloanscroggin.planning@gmail.com; Garner, Andrew Subject: Rezoning Dear Council Members and City Planners, am writing to add my voice to the growing number of East Fayetteville residents concerned about the rezoning of the land adjacent to Butterfield School. I am a resident of Huntingdon Neighborhood, the parent of a 1 st grader at Butterfield, and a voter in Fayetteville. I attended the community meeting on 2/23, and know that you are all well -aware of the data regarding the inadvisability of the rezoning of the land adjacent to the school. I do understand the statement one of the officials made that there are winners and losers in a situation like this. My sincere hope and plea is that you will consider who the true losers are in this particular case --the students whose education and safety are at stake. Thank you for taking the time to read this. It seems unlikely that the City Planners will reject the rezoning request or that the City Council will reject the recommendation of the City Planners. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. The silver lining is that the exposure of this biased, if not overtly corrupt, rezoning process has reinvigorated voters who have taken for granted that our city leaders have our best interest at heart and spurred what appears to be the beginning of a true grassroots movement. Sincerely, Kristin Bosc, PhD Clinical Neuropsychologist Washington Regional --Pat Walker Senior Clinic Mother of Lucas Bourdon, Mrs. Wingo's 1 st-grade class, Butterfield Elementary Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 26 of 33 Garner, Andrew From: Tanya Owen <owenvoc@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 9:02 AM To: dog13gregg@aol.com; rautry333@gmail.com; lesliebeld@aol.com; zniederman.planningcommission@gmail.com; atq@flintlocklab.com; matthewjohnson@mercy.net; matt@mbl-arch.com; rnoble@crcrawford.com; Sloanscroggin.planning@gmail.com; Garner, Andrew Subject: Rezoning Dear commissioners: This is my second email to you to again request that you consider what you are approving when you approve the request to rezone the parcel of land owned by James Keenan. You have made the Huntingdon subdivision a walk -able neighborhood and have celebrated it as such with news coverage, events, etc. Now, you want to re-route traffic into the same area you have declared to be "walk -able." I have asked you to please survey the amount of available, commercial property in this area, as there is always a place to rent. I'm not sure if you have driven this area lately, but I did and I found 1o+ properties for rent/lease in this area. We did not need more, yet you approved the area for additional commercial space. We have serious speeding problems in our residential neighborhoods already. You removed the Rolling Hills speed tables, after speeders complained to you. You re-routed speeders through our Huntingdon neighborhood, when you needed to do construction in our area. Now, you are asking to route a major thoroughfare through our neighborhood. I'm unsure how the historic district/ Wilson Park neighborhoods maintained their speed tables while we lost ours, but we would appreciate the same consideration as the other neighborhoods have. Finally, the land that is asking to be re -zoned and developed has concerning development issues including poor soil, poor drainage, etc. In fact, if you do your research, you will learn that Jim Lindsey tried to buy this land years ago but abandoned the project when he learned how poor the land quality was. Now, you are rubber-stamping Keenan, Weigel and their partners to develop this land, without consideration of runoff issues, noise pollution problems, soil quality, etc. In closing, please do your due diligence when considering the pros/ cons of this project. I know that the Jorgensen/ Weigel/ Keenan coalition is powerful but there are many, less powerful citizens, with concerns about what you are approving. Sincerely, Tanya Owen Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 27 of 33 Garner, Andrew From: karen mcclard <karen.mcclard@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 8:17 PM To: dogl3gregg@aol.com; rautry333@gmail.com; lesliebeld@aol.com; zniederman.planningcommission@gmail.com; atq@flintlocklab.com; matthewjohnson@mercy.net; matt@mbl-arch.com; rnoble@crcrawford.com; Sloanscroggin.planning@gmail.com; CityClerk; Garner, Andrew Subject: Rolling Hills Rezoning Request Dear Planning Commission Officials, As a citizen of Fayetteville and member of the Rolling Hills Community, I would like to express my opposition to the rezoning request put forth by Jorgenson and Associates. The impact on the current infrastructure, schools, and environment has not been sufficiently studied to provide sufficient evidence that this will not negatively impact the area. In addition, I am concerned for the wildlife that resides in the Wetlands area that would be destroyed as the result of this potential development. I would like to add my statement to the public record. Thank you, Karen McClard 2167 E. Wolf Creek Drive Fayetteville, AR 72703 Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 28 of 33 Garner, Andrew From: Glenn Siegel <gslizard@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 10:32 PM To: dog13gregg@aol.com; rautry333@gmail.com; lesliebeld@aol.com; zniederman.planningcommission@gmail.com; atq@flintlocklab.com; matthewjohnson@mercy.net; matt@mbl-arch.com; rnoble@crcrawford.com; Sloanscroggin.planning@gmail.com; Garner, Andrew; CityClerk; Mayor Subject: Rolling Hills extension plus idea of re -zoning Planning Commission: As a citizen of Fayetteville and member of the Rolling Hills community, I am opposed to extending Rolling Hills to Crossover. I realize that Fayetteville continues to grow but all the more reason for judicious decisions when it come to eradicating the natural environments that are already diminishing all over the city. Limits to where the growth of population and density must always be made in order to preserve these natural treasures and the wildlife within them. Our children and grandchildren need these areas for their own connection to nature and balance against the spread of urban density. There are numerous ways to travel from College to Crossover already. I want to make my opinion known as you proceed with this serious decision that can have destructive consequences to the quality of life in this part of Fayetteville. It would be much more enriching for that area to be preserved in its wild, nature condition. Furthermore, the idea of re -zoning that area, which may arise on another agenda is even more disturbing since it clearly serves the interest of the few who are interested in profiting at the expense of the rest of us in this neighborhood. Greed of a. Few regarding packing in more dwellings for greater profit should not drive decisions when the overall environment and neighborhood quality of life is at stake. I would like to add this statement to the public record. Glenn Siegel 2167 E. Wolf Creek Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72703 Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Agenda Item 3 17-6052 Keenan Page 29 of 33 CityClerk From: Curth, Jonathan Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:57 AM To: CityClerk Subject: FW: Rolling Hills Drive Good morning, Please find below public comment related to the proposal to amend the Master Street Plan and downgrade Rolling Hills Drive. Thanks, Jonathan Curth Senior Planner City Planning Division City of Fayetteville, Arkansas icurth@favetteville-ar.gov 479.575.8308 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Youtube From: Marilyn Davis [mailto:mddavisdan@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:57 PM To: Curth, Jonathan <jcurth@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Rolling Hills Drive I have looked at your master plan for this extension. It is an ill thought out and awkward plan. If you want to develop the area north of the T at Rolling Hills and Old Missouri, go ahead. You don't need to make it a through street to 265. I live on Sharon Street and my neighborhood connects to Huntington subdivision. Going to Oak Bailey to turn onto Old Wire Road is not so easy. Turning left is an extremely acute angle and Oak Bailey is so wide there that cars pull up on the left of you and cut off the view. Same situation when turning from Old Wire to Oak Bailey. The angle is so acute that cars from behind nearly hit you because they don't think you will have to slow down as much as you actually do. Plus, visibility is almost nothing, due to the hill and curve to 265. When the light on 265 turns green, cars begin to barrel up the hill and you don't see them coming until they are on you. Oak Bailey cannot possibly handle the traffic that an extension would generate. You would have to do something about Old Wire as well. I see nothing but problems. Go ahead and develop the property. Make cul-de-sacs and residential roads that connect for local traffic. The area called Butterfield Plaza to the south of Northwest Rehab Hospital and Butterfield School is a perfect example of what you could do without connecting all the way to 265. Marilyn Davis 2514 East Sharon St. Fayetteville, AR 72703 RZ N 17-6052 I KE E V A N One Mile View 0 0.125 025 0.5 Miles NORTH RXIF_z4 R-0 Page 30 of 33 z..,.g EXTRAGTON RESIDENTIA L SINGLE-FAMILY 1.LI Legend 9 tirx GIDWEf7GTA4 Nxrnr ,K.•[ 1 4 Planning Area _ Ep RM RARER TMSFRIC ss 1 1 City Limits Zee .1 4 — _ _Fayetteville gEWOFHTU4LHU4TTi'FMI€.Y u.+r anwc...e Shared Use Paved Trail _. € —12 Resm emxirv,o x�omre�iamav ce�erai " a l:x9�bar�oatl Services orb�tl o xer.an Trail (Proposed) I _ _ R-24 PLA6 PIMdAjdHMAa Planning Area = -.^ Building Footprint NDDSTRIAL wcommeroaiaa ani mtl�mai INS IITI�2q-1 2g, 201 0 Fa ettevlle Cit Limits Y Y Agenda Item Page 30 of 33 RZN 17-6052 Close Up View ETON ST KEENAN FARR LN R -O Legend Planning Area S Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint Feet 0 112.5 225 450 675 900 1 inch = 300 feet —MMMIMM1 'J& NORTH Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 Residential -Office Neighborhood Services - Gen. P-1 Planning Commissioi March 26, 2011 Agenda Item Page 31 of 33 Page 32 of 33 RZN 17-6052 Future Land Use HAROLD ST PRIARCLIFF ST ST ETON ST HILLS DR KEENAN CREEK DR 'SEK D W p FARR LN NORTH WARWICK DR z J LU O O�kC�IFF U ST W _. Legend s Planning Area I Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint Feet 0 145 290 580 870 1,160 1 inch = 400 feet FUTURE LAND USE 2130 Natural Area Residential Neighborhood Arra Civic Inslitulional Planning Commissio March 26, 201 Agenda Item Page 33 of 33 CityClerk From: Howard Funkhouser <hfunkhouser@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 9:05 AM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Fayetteville Kayak Park I would like to voice my support for the Fayetteville Kayak Park. I live nearby and would use it very often. I think it would attract a lot of visitors. I would also like to voice my opposition to the Rolling Hills extension. I think there is a more reasonable way to route traffic through that area without leaving home owners in limbo regarding how they should make improvements to their homes. Respectfully, Howard Funkhouser 72701 Cit Clerk From: Nancy Harris <nancy@bradyplatt.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:47 PM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Rolling Hills Drive Extension Dear Sirs/Madams: As a registered voter/resident of Fayetteville, I would like to express my opinion that the Rolling Hills Drive Extension be dismissed, taken off the agenda, or please voted against. This is a residential area with an elementary school that does not need the added traffic. Please do not endanger the lives of those children that attend Butterfield Trail Elementary but adding more vehicle traffic, especially with the proposal to cut through so close to the school campus. Thank you, Nancy Harris Branson, Lisa From: Smith, Sondra Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:00 PM To: Branson, Lisa Subject: FW: Rolling Hills Connection Office of the City Clerk Treasurer Sondra E. Smith CAMC, CMC City Clerk Treasurer 113 W. Mountain Street, Suite 308 Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 ssmith faayettevllle-al°.gov �.: Fw n a"4tteville rc w ra From: Bunch, Sarah Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 4:20 PM To: Smith, Sondra <ssmith@fayetteville-ar.gov> Cc: Mayor <Mayor@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Rolling Hills Connection Sondra, Last week I received a call from Mr. Rex Dodge of 1121 Rolling Hills Dr expressing his concern over speeding on Rolling Hills and the proposed connection of Rolling Hills to Hwy 265. 1 told Mr. Dodge I would outline his concerns in an email to you and see if it could be attached to our council packet for the April 17 2018 meeting. His concerns are as follows: 1. He is opposed to 3-4 lanes on Rolling Hills because it will make it more unsafe for all pedestrians, but especially children, as well as cars. There is already a lot of speeding and widening, or extending the street will only make this worse. 2. Rolling Hills needs a stoplight at the intersection of Rolling Hills and Old Missouri Rd. At a minimum it needs a 4 -way stop, or more police presence, and police actually giving tickets. 3. Also need to work on the timing of the light at Rolling Hills and College to adjust the flow of traffic down Rolling Hills. 1.4 4. Maybe need signs saying speed is "radar enforced." Also getting to be a lot of semi trucks on Rolling Hills and maybe need signs to discourage that as well. Is it possible to add this to our packet? Sarah Bunch Cit Clerk From: Chris Gunn <chrisgunn@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 1:25 PM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: April 17 2018 The Rolling Hills Drive extension, Rolling Hills Downgrade and the Rezoning Request With due respect to my neighbors and the City of Fayetteville: I am perturbed by 'developers' and 'planning commissions' dangling 'affordable housing', 'greenways', 'trailways', 'infill', walkability', and 'urban sprawl' as socially responsible carrots, coupled with, as politely as I can put it, a plethora of long -ten -n, blind -eyed, incapacity for bold imagination, by the majority of the collective tasked as The City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. Whilst I sense, from reported instances, a'beating stick' of contempt, the presumption of ignorance, the goad of NIMBY -ism, a 'build it and they will come' disregard and 'pushback' of citizen's valid concerns for their homes, their schools, their safety, their established neighborhood and their environment. I expect much MORE future -sight and imagination from and for Fayetteville, than what I have heard debated. Calling it necessity. Progress. Growth. I call it asinine. Walk The Keenan Towerhouse (TKT) woods, walk the north side of the Joyce Boulevard/Zion woods. Take a ramble through the east side of our oldest road 265 -Crossover AKA The Great Osage Trail woods. You might be amazed at the richness of the eco -system, geography and Fayetteville history there -in. Follow the Butterfield Coach trail from Mudtown. Put your billy boots on and walk Mud Creek. Fayetteville is not Bella Vista, Bentonville, Rogers, Springdale, Lowell, Johnson, Siloam, Cave nor Elm Springs, Farmington nor Elkins. Why aspire to more of that 'tired and mundane'? Why present such blinkered arguments of potential growth and short-sighted vision in terms of forecast growth and necessity ? Except for the most obvious and oldest of reasons. We have the University and environs, the historic Downtown, the so-called up and coming Uptown. Why not designate The Keenan Towerhouse and all nearby acreage, Joyce, Zion, Mud Creek, Old Missouri, Old Wire, Gulley Park and 265 -Crossover as a living, learning eco -system ? To include Lake Fayetteville and The Botanical Gardens ? We can't ever grow land. Can we find funds, grants, matching grants, block grants, donations to purchase, maintain and sustain such endeavors ? Why not create an environment that matches the architectural art, artistry and purpose (and commerce) of a Crystal Bridges, within an educational, liveable and living eco -system and community ? The Keenan Towerhouse itself, the key structure, already exists. That structure and environs has been lauded locally, nationally and internationally. The University of Arkansas itself, recognizing the architect, Marlon Blackwell, his architecture and Fayetteville's unique Ozark heritage. As well as TKT's inclusion within architectural curriculums worldwide. NB: only ONE tree was removed for the construction of this "sanctuary tower" 11 ... aligned on the cardinal points." ... that is The Keenan Towerhouse. Let Elkins build its sub -divisions, improving access to them by expanding *existing* west-east/east-west access, allow appropriate and reasonable commercialization and affordable housing along 265 and 71b. Build smarter AND better! Maintain this established neighborhood as the gem it is to so many, for all who live in this city and all who want to live in this city and all who visit this city. Today. Tomorrow. And for the future. Make it safe. Keep it smart. Make it smarter. z Create, preserve and sustain this locale with BRIGHTER AND BETTER: A LIVING, LEARNING ECO -AID AND COMMUNITY. City of Fayetteville City Council, in the best current and future interests of Fayetteville: Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan. Toss the entire master plan as it exists for this area and start over. Respectfully, Chris Gunn. PS: City Clerk, please include and record this e-mail in the City's official records and the Planning Commission's records, as it pertains to the April 17 2018 The Rolling Hills Drive extension, Rolling Hills Downgrade and the Rezoning Request. Thank you. -CG. 3 CityClerk From: Michael <ewingm@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:43 PM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Cc: Michael Subject: The Rolling Hills Drive Extension, Rolling Hills Downgrade and Rezoning Request April 17 2018 With respect, City of Fayetteville, City of Fayetteville Council, City of Fayetteville Planning Commission: Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Drive to Crossover -265 extension from any master plan. Re -think alternatives particularly the expansion of existing east -west -west -east. Respect the safety, security, property value and infrastructure of this established neighborhood and community. Thank you. City Clerk, please record this e-mail in the City Records. Sincerely, Mike Ewing Sr. CityClerk From: Ryan Billingsley <ryan.billingsley@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:53 PM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Rolling Hill Extension - Tuesday night meeting Attachments: Plan D - Rolling Hillsjpg Dear City Council Members and Mayor Jordan, I will see you all Tuesday night, but I wanted to let you know my feelings about the two issues surrounding the neighborhoods around Rolling Hills that will be voted on since I am sure you are all thinking hard about the vote in advance. First of all, here is what I hope: I hope that the council votes "no" on the recommendation from the planning commission concerning the Rolling Hills extension on the master plan. I realize that the recommendation is to downgrade Rolling Hills and the extension from an arterial street to a collector street, and that is clearly better than having it arterial, but my ultimate hope (and clearly the hope of many in this area) is that the extension be removed from the mater plan entirely. If we voted yes on this recommendation now, I find it unlikely that we would ever return to the topic of removing the extension from the master plan before development occurs and the city asks the future developer of Mr. Keenan's woods to build the road the way it is in the master plan. Speaking of the city asking the developer to build the road the way it is, I wanted to tell you all about one of the planning commission meetings and a conversation I had with city engineer Mr. Chris Brown afterwards. During the planning commission meeting he tried to clarify that the location of the road on the master plan is important. He stated that the city will ask for the road to be built by developers in the case it is developed and there is a road on the master plan. He also pointed out that there is a big difference in the city claiming eminent domain if the street is on the master plan to ensure a cut -through is accomplished. This is all important to me and others because the city presented us with an "Option D" (I will attach it to this letter) in which the extension was removed and any development was interconnected through winding, small, neighborhood streets. After this statement during the meeting from Mr. Chris Brown, and shortly before the vote, planning commission member Mr. Hoffman stated, falsely, that the location of the road on the master plan doesn't matter. His argument was that maybe developers would ask for permission to build a different road so we don't need to change the master plan. I hope you agree that this is a backwards argument, and if the city prefers "Plan D" we should put it on the master plan and not simply hope "that the developer asks to build a different type of road". I bring this up because no less than 3 planning commission members were vocally in favor of "plan D" before Mr. Hoffman stated this statement "it doesn't matter where we put the road on the master plan" as if it was a fact. At least one of the members asked for further clarification of "does it matter where we put the road on the master plan?" It is my opinion that their votes were swayed by this misstatement and the recommendation was passed. I immediately voiced my concern with Mr. Chris Brown after the meeting in the hallway. At that time he shared my opinion that a few of the commissioners were confused. He reiterated that it does matter where roads are on the master plan. The city can claim eminent domain to build roads where they are on master plans, and they ask developers to build the roads on the master plan. It matters. Several commissioners clearly voiced that "plan D" was their favored option before the vote took place. Local residents were OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of plan D at the city -hosted neighborhood meeting where they presented the possible alternatives a couple months ago. You were in attendance there Mayor Jordan and you did a wonderful job letting it known that you heard our opinion on the matter. The rezone is less of a concern for me in theory. Although I sincerely wish we could wait until a developer purchased the land and actually proposed what they might build before we rezoned it. I don't see a need to put the cart before the horse there and finding out what the plans are should be the priority, not trying to make it easier to sell. It will break my heart to have it developed at all as I have lived around those woods my entire life. BUT unfortunately I don't own them, and if the city can not purchase the land, and the owner/developer do what they are legally allowed to do and develop it as zoned, I hope that the city does what is in their power to make it as right as possible for the citizens of this city and these neighborhoods. People who have lived here right in this spot their entire life. I hope we make the decision that encourages the roads to be used mostly by people going to their homes in the neighborhoods - Plan D. My neighbors and I are tremendously concerned about the possibility of a road being used as an East/West cut -through through our quiet, established neighborhoods where our children walk and play. We are talking about a convenience of a few minutes difference compared to taking Old Missouri to Old Wire to get to Crossover. This is simply fact. That route works. All it needs is a stoplight at the top of Old Missouri. Please help us prevent the possibility of our neighborhood being an unnecessary cut -through by removing the straight extension/cut-through from the master street plan. Please take the time to look closer at "Option D" from the city, a plan several planning commissioners said they liked during the planning commission meeting. Thank you very much for taking the time to read my letter, and I'll see you all on Tuesday. Thank You, Ryan Billingsley CityClerk From: Chrissie Gibson <chrisnstubby@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:46 AM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Rolling Hills Extension My name is Christina and I live on Martin Ave......1 am writing to you today regarding my concerns about the possibility of the Rolling Hills to Crossover/265 extension and the possible rezoning of a number of acres in that area. Due to having a surgery I will not be able to attend this next meeting in person . Since I can not be there to speak in person I am writing to you instead. I may not be the most eloquent writer, but know I write from both my head and my heart. I do understand that things change, some for the better and some for the worse..... Fayetteville has been listed as one of the top places to live for a number of years, and living in this area of Fayetteville, I can sure understand why. I own my own home. I purchased a house in this area mainly because of the established neighborhoods, ease of getting around (I can walk anywhere I wish in this area and feel safe doing it), and the simple fact that people own their homes and take pride in their neighborhood. Traffic has increased in this area, but that is to be expected as more people move to the Fayetteville area. One of the worse changes that Fayetteville has approved in this area, in my view, was adding the stoplight where Whole Foods built their new building. That backs traffic up tremendously and if you allow this extension to proceed , the backup on Rolling Hills from the cars trying to pull out on 71 B will be horrible. In the last meeting one of the Planning Commissioners stated something like: not to worry traffic will not increase tremendously on your streets, it will be 71 B where traffic will increase the most... well in my opinion that is bad too.... (and how are the cars getting to 71 B ..down our streets -right?). There are times in the day now that it is hard to pull out on 71 B and if this extension is approved increased traffic will happen. I look at the south end of town by Martin Luther King Ave and see how that area has grown with all those apartments and duplexes (renters not home owners). That is not the Fayetteville I moved into and I am hoping/praying you do not allow this area of Fayetteville to turn into something like that. I know you do not want Urban Sprawl ..however, I do not want the older inner city to turn into some kind of over populated area that will in -turn turn into run-down dwellings like other inner cities do. We have something special in this area... homes with yards.... homes that people own and not just rent... homes/areas that people like me can be proud to live. Rezoning and allowing homes/duplexes to be built closer and closer together will ruin the atmosphere/feel of the neighborhoods. One of the Planning Commissioners talked about there being more and more renters in Fayetteville and how they want more home owners instead. Well as things get rezoned and the areas change, not always for the better, people will rent instead of own homes, and there is no commitment no buy -in from renters. Here is another example of a change, not for the good .... in my area, when I bought my home, this was a quiet area to live (weird as that sounds and as close to the main arteries as I live). I made sure there were no bars or clubs in the area. Then Nibbles moved out and numerous other venues have moved into that building. The music playing so loud and the drunk karaoke singers singing is absolutely maddening. There are times I have had to leave the TV on to try and drown it all out. If that would have been happening when I was looking to buy a home, I would have thought twice about buying this house. But change happens and like I said before not always for the better. I do, however, love where I live and love my neighbors..... so I deal with the noise from that building (however awful it is), hoping one day it will go back the way it was..... although I have felt like calling the noise police numerous times. Back to this rezoning, some of the Planning Commissioners want to allow more denseness in this area, so more new people have the right and ability to move in, the denser it is the more renters you have, not homeowners. And what about our (the homeowners already living here) rights to continue to live in an area that we love, that makes this one of the best places to live, and one that is not over populated. Another one of the Planning Commissioners said rezoning will allow that acreage to have more dense building here and less dense building there..... Builders Build ..... they build as absolute much as they can in as small a space as they can so they can make as much money as they can... they will not build more over here so there is less over there. Look at the streets now that have been rezoned for more and more developments. Mud running into the streets and going into the drainage system. Water running down the hills to flood the yards of existing homeowner homes. We have all seen these effects, growth can be a good thing, but growth in the wrong way is not good for the city or our neighborhoods. I feel the reason people move to Fayetteville is getting over shadowed by the city just wanting to move more people in (make the intercity denser is what was said). People at some point will not want to live here. Can you not refresh /revitalize what we already have...... rezone or give developers incentives to revitalize areas that already have homes that are falling down. There are areas of Fayetteville that are more like slums than one of the greatest places to live. Redoing those areas would get more people to live here than tearing down this green space will. Fayetteville is know for having green space, good air quality, and being a tree friendly place to live. The city even gets awards for that. Goodness, I even have an arborist come and look at/prune all my trees to make sure they are healthy and in as good a shape as they can be in. My wish would be that the Parks Department would purchase part of that land and leave it as green space. One of the Planning Commissioners said the wildlife (deer and such) does not live in that area they just passes thru, but I am not so sure about that. If green space/parks is what brings people to Fayetteville to live, why not add some of this area as protected for the parks where people can go on nature walks and such. My other wish would be that if it is developed, it is developed with single family homes on large lots (not denser with as many people as you can fit into a small space). I do also fear for the safety of the children that go to Butterfield schools. There are a lot of kids that walk/ride bikes to that school. This is an established neighborhood where it is, at this point safe to do that. Increasing the flow of traffic will make it more dangerous for them on a daily basis and lets face it kids have enough danger these days. One of the Planning Commissioners even said something like.... Changes we make now will not really matter because most of us will not be here in 20 years anyway. Well, I plan on being here in 20 years and I do care about what changes are made to this city. We have seen candidates run on a more business type platform growing the city, building more, etc... and they have lost by a landslide ...... which means the Fayetteville residents as a whole are happy with our hometown feel.... including green space, parks, and neighborhoods. Changing the city away from what makes Fayetteville great is a mistake... rezoning this acreage is a mistake.... extending Rolling Hills is also a mistake. Thank you very much for reading my letter, I appreciate the time you spent to do so. Sincerely, Christina Gibson Cit Clerk From: Cassandra Walker <bishopmom@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 9:23 AM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Planned Rolling Hills Extension Good Morning, My name is Cassie Walker and I live on North Elizabeth Avenue. I have written and rewritten this letter hundreds of times over in my head. Trying to find the right wording, the most impactful) phrase but you all know everything already. The disruption that this extension would cause to our peaceful little part of our great city. The disruption to the school, the wildlife, the traffic for the people that live in our neighborhoods. I am not against developing the property, if it is developed in a manner that fits the surrounding neighborhoods. I haven't been involved much with the politics of our city. I assumed that our city government would always do the best thing for its residents. That's why so much business growth has gone north of us, we, the residents, don't want to be a big city. We have the University and all that entails. This being said, I went to my first ever planning commission meeting, more for information than anything else. I don't know the names of any of the members, I was just there to listen and what I heard was deafening. The two gentlemen that did the most speaking would have rather been getting a root canal. The eye rolls and slumping posture and head shakes - I have never felt so embarrassed to be a resident before. This meeting was a means to an end, something they had to sit through just as formality because their minds were already made up no matter what anyone had to say. The lady actually said none of us would be around in 20 years so it didn't really matter what happened now. Is this who is really making our decisions for us? I'm not sure about anyone else, but I plan on still being here in 20 years. I have been around the mayor a couple of times and various events and he at least acts like he wants to do right by our city and its residents, but the planning commission did extremely little to boost my confidence in their ability interact with the residents and make decisions best for the residents and not best for business. It's kind of like when you have been a long term customer of something like the phone company and they want to give great deals to the new customers but forget about the satisfaction of their long term customers. We are long term customers and will still be here after the businesses have come and gone. I was looking at a CitiScapes recently and noticed one glaring difference between our city and the other surrounding cities, our green space. Springdale had one park highlighted, Rogers had three, Bentonville had two, and Fayetteville had four. We love our scenery, our green space, our environment. We don't want our side of the city turned into Weddington, with all the apartments and traffic. We want to keep our quiet residential neighborhoods. Why do we think we are voted a top place to live? We need to remember who we are and why we are this special place. Remember that our neighbors and neighborhoods matter. Please vote to permanently remove the Rolling Hills expansion from the plan and please vote against the rezoning of the Keenan property. Respectfully, Cassie Walker CitvClerk From: Leigh Anne Yeargan <leighanneyeargan@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 12:17 PM To: Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; Marsh, Sarah; Smith, Kyle; La Tour, John; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Gray, Adella Cc: CityClerk; Mayor; Williams, Kit Subject: RZN 17-6052 Rezoning of Property in Rolling Hills Attachments: image2018-04-16-105419.pdf Dear Council Members: Please see the attached letter which sets forth the following reasons why the above -referenced request for rezoning should be denied: 1. Three out of seven Planning Commissioners voted against it. 2. The petition taken into context with all of the property for sale warrants denial. 3. The application is still deficient. 4. The proposed zoning is spot zoning. 5. The overwhelming majority of people in the neighborhood are against the proposed rezoning. Thank you for your time and consideration. Leigh Anne Yeargan 1 Leigh Anne Yeargan 3349 Picadilly Lane Fayetteville, AR 72703 April 16, 2018 Ms. Adella Gray (wardl posl@favetteville-ar.gov) Ms. Sarah Marsh (wardl pos2 favetteville-ar.gov) Mr. Mark Kinion (ward2 poll@favetteville-ar.gov) Mr. Matthew Petty (ward2 pos2@fayetteville-ar.gov) Mr. Justin Tennant (ward3 pdslPfayetteville-ar.gov) Ms. Sarah Bunch (ward3 pos22favetteville-ar.gov) Mr. John LaTour (ward4 poslPfayetteyilie-ar.gov) Mr. Kyle Smith (ward4 poo _ fayetteville-ar.gov) cc: Lisa Smith(cityclerk0fayetteville-ar.gov); Mayor Lionel Jordan (Mayor @favetteviIIeqtr.gov); Kit Williams (Icwilliams(�fayetteyille ar.gov) Re: RZN 17-6052 - Application to Rezone Property East of Rolling Hills Road Drive and Old Missouri Road Dear City Council Members: I am writing to request that the City Council vote against the application to rezone approximately 23 acres of land located East of Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road from RSF-4 - Residential Single Family - 4 - to NC - Neighborhood Conservation at its April 17, 2018 meeting. First, the Planning Commission has not unanimously recommended the proposed rezoning. In fact, the vote was 4-3 with three Commissioners voting against recommending rezoning. As Commissioner Sloan Scroggins noted at the March 26 Planning Commission meeting when he cast his vote against rezoning, the proposed zoning is "form based in name only." Commissioner Zara Niederman voted against the proposed rezoning because of the conservation issues. He indicated he might be in favor of the rezoning if there was some type of conservation easement in place. Commissioner Matthew Johnson, who also voted against the rezoning, questioned why this property was not in the Hillside Overlay District. Each of these commissioners recognized that the proposed NC zoning is not appropriate for this property. Second, it is important that Council Members understand the totality of circumstances surrounding the current rezoning request. The 23 acres identified in the current NC rezoning request are part of a larger tract of land (43 acres) that is currently for sale. (See Picture 1 below). The land owner previously sought and obtained rezoning of 11 of the 43 acres from RSF-4 to NS -G in July 2017. (See Picture 2 below). Except for two astute neighbors who voiced their objection, the NS -G rezoning went virtually unnoticed by the Rolling Hills community. Having learned of that rezoning through the current process, the overwhelming majority of neighbors have expressed disapproval of the NS -G rezoning. After the NS -G rezoning was approved, the land owner sought to rezone the current 23 acres to NC. The land owner also placed his personal residence — which is adjacent to the 23 acres — for sale simultaneously with the request for INC rezoning, (See Picture 3 below). The landowner has also listed approximately five acres of the 43 acres for sale separately — which is still zoned RSF-4. (See Picture 4 below). The land owner has not sought to rezone these five acres or the remaining acres of the 43 acres. If the current NC rezoning request is approved, it is conceivable that the landowner will then seek to rezone the remaining land to an even higher density zoning using the NS and NC zoning to bootstrap "compatibility" of higher density zoning. This is exactly how the staff is justifying the current NC request — that it is "compatible" with NS. If the land owner has a plan in mind for the entire 43 acres, he should be required to disclose that plan to the city and the neighborhood. There is no assurance that higher density zoning will not be sought in a neighborhood that has traditionally been RSF-4. The application should be denied based on these factors alone. " -iiLLf r'.c1fk' Y5'' — Mach Wvigcl Mitch Weigel, Realtor ?:375• E 'wr l n , Fa etle v ill> :AR }; "oi).000 . ritrtr-il: ,i.: M.a .: .n .k.• Beautiful lacy; Arrno'd de Signed French Country ho'na located on four gated ,scrc,,ne ycros n? Fayettevile. chis r)ome has five i)edrGa:n;s; five fuil baths and tyro half baths. Explore 2375 East Farr Lane, L�*arn P. OL C Fayetteville, Arkansas in 3D Third, the City Council should deny the application because the application is stili deficient. Council Members will recall that this petition was originally scheduled to be heard at the March 6, 2018 City Council meeting. But because the application was deficient, it was pulled from the agenda and sent back to the Planning Commission with instructions for the applicant to provide the information required by the application and city ordinance. Despite being given another opportunity to provide the required information, the applicant failed to do so. Specifically, the application does not contain adequate responses to Section 5(d), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of the zoning application. In response to Section 5(d) regarding the "[a]vailability of water and sewer (state size of lines)", the applicant answered "[e]xisting water and sewer are on Old Missouri and Farr Lane." The applicant failed to state the size of the lines as required by the application, In response to Section 5(f) on whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed, the applicant answered, "NC zoning is the appropriate zoning for the intended use." The applicant has not given any explanation of why the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed — again - as required by the application. In response to Section 5(g) on "[w]hether the proposed zoning will create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion," the applicant answered, "[t]he adjacent streets have ample capacity to handle any additional traffic." The applicant has not answered the question of whether there will be an appreciable increase in traffic let alone whether there will be any increase in traffic as required by the application. Furthermore, there is no basis for the statement that the adjacent streets have capacity to handle increased traffic. The applicant makes a conclusory statement with no basis in fact. In response to Section 5(h) about "[w]hether the proposed zoning will alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities," the applicant answered, "[t]he potential to increase the population density in this area as a result of this rezoning would not undesirably increase load on public services." Again, the applicant makes a conclusory statement with no evidence to support its statement. These insufficient responses alone require that the application be rejected. Significantly, in response to Section 5(i) on "[w]hy it would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classification," the applicant concedes that "the current RSF-4 tonin is not impractical." The applicant states that NC zoning is "more practical," but — again — provides no evidence to support this conclusory statement. Even if NC zoning is "more practical," this is not a basis for rezoning property. See, e.g., Little Rock v. Breeding, 273 Ark. 437 (1981) ("It has been well-established that rezoning cannot be justified solely on the grounds that it is necessary to put a tract of land in its most remunerative use.") (citations omitted). The applicant's failure to provide the information required is fatal to its request. As City Attorney Kit Williams has recently opined, it is a requirement — not a suggestion - that Section 5 of the zoning application be completed since the application clearly states, "Please fill out this form completely, supplying all necessary information and documentation to support your request. Your application will not be placed on the Planning Commission agenda until this information is furnished." (emphasis in the original), Without the information required by the application, the rezoning ordinance cannot be passed. See February 28, 2018, Memorandum from Kit Williams to Mayor Lionel Jordan, p. 2. The City Council cannot choose to disregard the missing information and pass the rezoning ordinance. The City's disregard of the mandatory requirements of its own application would amount to unlawful procedure. See, e.g., Stueort v. Ark. State Police Comm'n, 329 Ark. 46, 51 ("A procedure is unlawful when an agency fails to follow that which it has prescribed.") See also Harrison v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2003 Ark. App. LEXIS 286 (holding agency's failure to follow own policy and procedures manual unlawful). Additionally, the City approved the current application in March 2014. Since then, other zoning applicants have provided the requested information based on the mandatory requirement set forth in the application. If the City Council treats this applicant differently than other applicants by not requiring this applicant to provide sufficient answers in the application, the City Council will be acting arbitrarily and capriciously. Fourth, even if the applicant is not required to provide this information, the staff and Planning Commission are required to analyze whether proposed rezoning is needed or justified. Instead, the staff indicates that "the applicant has requested the zoning changes to allow for development at a greater density...." See March 26, 2018 Planning Commission Memo, p. 4, no. 2. A landowner's request for rezoning alone is not a basis for rezoning. There is no evidence that development at a greater density is justified or needed. The staff avoids having to determine whether it would be impractical to use the land as currently zoned by concluding that there are no considerations which would warrant such an analysis. See March 26, 2018 Planning Commission Memo, p. 5, no. 5. But, as stated previously, the staff failed to determine that the rezoning was justified or needed. Therefore, the staff must analyze whether the land can be used under the current RSF-4 zoning which it failed to do. Additionally, the staff did absolutely no analysis on how the proposed zoning would impact Butterfield Trail Elementary School. The impact on a school that is close to the proposed zoning is reason enough to deny rezoning. See Little Rock v. Parker, 241 Ark. 381 (1966). The staff concedes there will be increased traffic which necessarily imposes additional risks to children traveling to and from school and playing outside at recess. It is my understanding that during the Council's tour of the property last summer, the Council witnessed a near accident, and the Mayor had to stop traffic in order for a child on a bike to cross the street. The safety of both students and residents will severely be impacted by increased traffic. Fifth, the proposed NC rezoning as well as the previously approved NS -G zoning are spot zoning which is clearly impermissible. Spot zoning "departs from the comprehensive treatment or privileges not in harmony with the other use classifications in the area and without any apparent circumstances which call for different treatment."' PH, LLC v. City of Conway, 344 S.W.3d 660, 668 (Ark 2009) (citation omitted) (emphasis in the original). There is absolutely no evidence that circumstances have changed which would warrant changing the current RSF-4 zoning to NC. Finally, the main reason the City Council should vote against the proposed rezoning is because of the overwhelming opposition to it voiced by the neighborhood. As City Attorney Kit Williams noted in his February 20, 2015 Memorandum to the City of Fayetteville Citizens, "'[o]pposition by a large majority of the citizens in the neighborhood"' is a basis for denying rezoning. (citing Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena, 310 Ark. 682 (1992)). Public opposition to this proposed rezoning is overwhelming. Over 200 people attended a neighborhood meeting on February 22, 2018 at Rolling Hills Baptist Church. Mayor Jordan stated he had never seen that large of an attendance at a public meeting in his career with the City. The consensus of everyone in attendance was that they were against rezoning. A significant number of neighbors attended the March 26 Planning Commission meeting and voiced their opposition to the proposed rezoning. Numerous neighbors have called the Planning Commissioners and City Council members voicing their opposition to the proposed rezoning. The record before the City Council is replete with letters and email voicing opposition to the proposed rezoning. The City has dedicated a section on its website to the Rolling Hills neighborhood as a result of the public interest and outcry against rezoning — something it has never done before. As elected officials, your obligation is to respect the opinions and desires of the people who elected you. It is obvious that this neighborhood is highly organized, highly educated about rezoning and city planning, and highly in opposition to rezoning. We will not stop until the proposed NC rezoning is defeated. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Leh Anbe''Yeargan L�'� CityClerk From: Nicole Claesen <nclaesen@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 6:09 PM To: Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle Cc: CityClerk Subject: Removal of the Rolling Hills Drive Extension and Downgrade of Rolling Hills Drive Good evening, Please find attached our petition for the removal of the proposed Rolling Hills Drive Extension and the downgrade of Rolling Hills Drive from an arterial to a collector. I am sure that you have received numerous emails and phone calls from residents stating their concern and their desire to have an ill-conceived road extension removed from any further consideration. The petition currently stands at over 1300 signatures. Please take the time to read the reasons why people signed it and I hope you will get a broader sense of why so many want Rolling Hills Drive downgraded and the extension removed. As Fayetteville continues to look toward the future and our growth, I want to make sure we are doing it responsibly and thoughtfully. Cities in the United States and around the world are going on a "road diet". They are no longer widening roads, or in some cases no longer building new ones. They have recognized that adding a lane or extending a road doesn't help traffic at all. It only creates induced traffic. Building new, or widening existing roads is extremely costly and the maintenance is equally costly. Unnecessary road construction realties are enormous... devastated neighborhoods, water problems, runoff, air & noise pollution and in this case it also negatively impacts an elementary school. Lowering speed limits, narrowing a street, simply re -striping a street, dedicated right hand turning lanes and sophisticated traffic signal timing are all far more effective and actually help the flow of traffic more than an induced traffic road ever could. Currently there are several East to West connections: • Huntsville Road/Highway 16 • Wyman Road • Mission • Township • Old Wire Road • Joyce • East Guy Terry Each of the above roads make an East to West connection to Crossover and/or College Avenue. Below is the distance between four of the current connections: • Joyce to Old Wire Road is 1 mile • Old Wire Road to Township is .8 mile • Township to Mission is .5 mile • Joyce to Zion is .7 mile That is 4 East to West connections in the span of 3 miles. From Rolling Hills Drive/Old Missouri to Old Wire Road is .3 mile. I do not think there is a great benefit to adding an extension by a school playground or through an existing neighborhood when Old Wire Road is already there. The funds to improve Old Wire Road would be far less expensive to tax payers. According to the Mobility Plan presented to you on March 20, one of the top findings was: "Most traffic flows north -south, and existing east -west connections are capable of absorbing all east -west traffic." The safety issue cannot be over stated or ignored. Rolling Hills Drive is already a raceway. It is already dangerously too wide and should be narrowed. Over the past three years, there have been almost 1600 citations along Rolling Hills Drive, Those citations include over 370 for speeding, over 100 for careless driving, and over 200 for running a stop sign. There have been 90 car accidents, including 1 fatality. The extension would absolutely erase our walkability and create a dangerous situation for pedestrians, especially the children that walk to/from school. If a person, certainly a child, is hit by a car going 40mph there is an 80% chance of serious injury or death. Cars regularly speed in excess of 40mph. It is still astonishing to me that the speed bumps were removed from Rolling Hills Drive because the city chose to listen to complaints from people who wanted to break the law instead of residents who only wanted to feel safe crossing the street or walking down the street. With that being said, to narrow Rolling Hills Drive with the use of a tree lined median would slow down traffic and help to keep and improve the walkability our city is trying to create. When a city places anything on any Master Plan that implies intent. The public can only presume it is what the city intends to do. It doesn't matter if it may not be for 2 years, 5 years or never. At the October 2017 meeting with the city held at Rolling Hills Drive, Mr. Stoll stated, " Rolling Hills Drive could absolutely be widened." If it is your home, your child's school, your neighborhood all you know is the city intends to do it and it hangs over your head. If the proposed Rolling Hills Drive extension is not scheduled to be part of a possible 2020 bond and if thee city states it may never happen or it may be 15-20 years before it happens, please vote to remove it from the Master Plan. I think most would agree that upon further reflection that Rolling Hills Drive should not have been designated arterial and the extension was/is ill-conceived and that the negatives far outweigh any minute gain. Thank you so much for your time and effort in these two important matters. Sincerely, Nicole Claesen CitxClerk From: Abigail Myers <abigailmmyers@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:07 AM To: Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk; Mayor Subject: Rolling Hills Drive and Keenan Property We are writing to express our concern about the current proposals affecting Rolling Hills Drive and the Rolling Hills Drive/Skillern Road extension. We are current residents of Huntingdon Neighborhood and our children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and McNair Middle School, so we travel Rolling Hills, Old Wire, and Highway 265 daily. Extending Rolling Hills through the Keenan Property and the Strawberry/Huntingdon Subdivisions will destroy wildlife, destroy homes and private land, and create a main thoroughfare of traffic through an established neighborhood and next to an elementary school. The amount of time saved by cutting through this area appears to be negligible and at the risk of increasing safety and traffic problems and decreasing home values. Wider streets with long stretches of road have been shown to affect driver behavior, causing them to increase speed. It is our concern that widening and extending Rolling Hills will have this affect next to our elementary school and in our neighborhood. In the March 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Autry stated that we shouldn't be worried about another main road next to Butterfield Trail Elementary, because it has been done at other schools. This was a troubling statement. Maybe there have not been any accidents that harmed students at this point, but I have heard first hand accounts from parents and teachers at these "other schools" (including Owl Creek and Holcomb). They can tell you of all the "near -misses", how students who used to be walkers, are now driven by car because the crosswalks and intersections have become to dangerous for parents to allow their children to walk across them. I would ask you to consider these other schools and follow up on the impact that new and increased traffic has had on walkability and traffic patterns. One of our main objectives is to prevent creating more traffic and decreased walkability problems around Butterfield Trail. It seems that adding an extension to Rolling Hills Drive would exacerbate these problems without any real benefit of improving traffic flow from East to West. Who is calling for a connection between College Ave and Hwy 265? In all recent public discussion and meetings about this road, I have not personally seen a push from anyone other than the city to have this road placed and kept on the Master 2030 plan. In so many ways, the connection does not logistically make sense (terrain, destroying houses/wildlife, very close proximity to existing roads). Has consideration been given to improve the existing infrastructure to address the traffic issues without the destructive measures being proposed? Old Wire is already in place and serves as a connection to get to Rolling Hills Drive (it also includes a 90 degree turn, similar to the 90 degree turn at Strawberry/Oak Bailey proposed by the city staff at the last planning commission). We also have concerns about the topography of the land that will be used in the building of this road. In recent public meetings, members of city staff and planning commission have acknowledged the presence of soil, terrain, and drainage issues with the land of the proposed road extension site. Have studies been done to address and approach these issues prudently? Another planning commissioner made the statement that the line on the 2030 Master Plan is "arbitrary," that it can be moved. If it is an arbitrary line, why is it on the Master Plan? That "arbitrary line" must be disclosed when my neighbors put their houses on the market to sell, that "arbitrary line" is beginning to make residents consider how permanent they want to make their time in their house because it would have to be destroyed for the RHD/Skillern Road extension to be complete. Overall, we have many concerns and we feel that they have not been addressed. What data suggests that the Rolling Hills expansion and extension will increase safety in our neighborhood and around Butterfield elementary, preserve wildlife and local water sources, and improve traffic flow and walkability? 1 With regards to the rezoning request East of Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road/ Keenan Property, we also have some concerns. In the last few weeks, we have come to understand some of the problems with the RSF-4 zoning code, We have also been able to consider the larger issues of affordable and attainable housing and the need for increased density in Fayetteville. We also realize that we do not personally own the Keenan property and respect that the owner has a right to plan/develop/sell what is theirs. The Keenan property is one of the last pieces of undeveloped land in this part of Fayetteville, and we hope that all consideration will be given to the composition and location of this property. The grade and composition of the land does not seem to lend it self to heavy development and it also contains tributaries to Mud Creek and wildlife that is unique to the area. Our hope is that if this land is developed, consideration would be given to these matters. In terms of the NC zoning that is proposed, increased density on this particular property concerns me for the reasons stated above. NC also would not include properties and businesses that would make the neighborhood more walkable for me and my family. We currently drive to work (healthcare facilities) and to the grocery stores (and we moved into this neighborhood, fully aware of this). I have not seen any NC developments around Fayetteville that include healthcare facilities and grocery stores. The planning commission and city staff have constantly said rezoning should meet the walkability and infill goals of the city. But does the NC zoning do that here? During its presentation to the planning commission in early March, city staff said this was "not an ideal infill site." Also, other current NC developments around town do not seem affordable, the homes being built are very expensive. So, would NC help Fayetteville's affordability and housing attainability issues? We really want to participate and help Fayetteville grow in a responsible way, and we appreciate your time and consideration of these two matters. Tristan and Abigail Myers CityClerk From: lisa <lisahriley@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:38 PM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Rolling Hills Drive Expansion Dear Mayor, City Council Members and City Clerk, am writing today to ask you to reconsider the expansion of Rolling Hills Drive past Old Missouri Road as per the 2030 Master Plan. I believe that the east west connectivity issue in this general vicinity is already satisfactorily answered by both Township Drive and Joyce Blvd. A traffic light at the intersection of Old Missouri and Old Wire Road would do much to alleviate traffic congestion. As for the rezoning question I believe all interested parties need more time to fully address the many ideas and pre-propossal plans that are still being discussed. Our neighborhood is being considered for plans and changes that will alter the very look and feel we all so much enjoy here. This is one of the most unique areas in Fayetteville. We have a diverse neighborhood with a variety of income levels, nationality, race, and religion represented. The housing styles are quite different as well. This is not a cookie cutter area. The green spaces we see also add value that is impossible to put a dollar amount on. Please help us preserve this with thoughtful and well planned ideas that will produce positive growth. Sincerely, Michael and Lisa Buerkett CityClerk From: Bosc, PhD, Kristin M. <kboscl@wregional.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:51 PM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Rolling Hills agenda Dear Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, and City Clerk, I am a resident of Huntingdon Neighborhood, a Butterfield parent, and a registered voter in Fayetteville. I know you have received considerable correspondence regarding the proposed Rolling Hills extension and rezoning of the Keenan property on tonight's agenda , so I will keep this brief. I attended the community meeting and have followed the media coverage, talked with neighbors, and watched the footage of the city planning meetings regarding the proposed changes. Some of the "ugly" comments made by city planning commission members have been condescending at best but have at least served to mobilize some of us who have previously simply trusted city officials to make decisions in all of our best interest. Please vote to remove the Rolling Hills extension from the master street plan and vote "No" on the proposed rezoning. When all of the data are considered, there is overwhelming evidence that increasing the population density and traffic in this area will be detrimental, not only to the students, neighborhood residents, and wildlife, but to Fayetteville as a whole. While development is inevitable in a growing area and ultimately, we may have to accept that there will be homes and streets replacing our wooded areas, opening that particular area to a major thoroughfare and 10 -unit per acre development would be a great disservice to your constituents. Thank you for your time. Kristin Bosc Kristin Bosc, PhD Neuropsychologist Clinic for Senior Health 12 East Appleby Rd, Suite 101 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Phone: 479.463.4442 Fax: 479.463.4499 wregional.com 9% "lashingtonRegional Fit.'-; s , €`•r �,f:� f r Attention: This email and any files transmitted with it are the property of Washington Regional Medical System. They are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This message and accompanying attachments may additionally contain proprietary or privileged material that is protected under applicable law. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system. CityClerk From: Leigh Anne Yeargan <leighanneyeargan@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:47 PM To: Petty, Matthew Cc: Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; Mayor; Williams, Kit; CityClerk Subject: Answer to Question Mr. Petty - You asked me why I was opposed to higher density zoning tonight. Below is a picture of two bedroom $600,000 plus townhouses being built best to two historical homes. This is just one example of why I am against the higher density zoning. V71F/ iii y CityClerk From: Nicole Claesen <nclaesen@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 12:35 PM To: Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle Cc: r CityClerk Subject: Re: Removal of the Rolling Hills Drive Extension and Downgrade of Rolling Hills Drive Attachments: April 16 Petition Signatures.pdf; April 16 Reasons for Signing.pdf; Written Petitions.pdf Good afternoon, I realized that I did not attach the petition and reasons for signing the petition to my original email. Thank you for your time Monday evening, it was a informative and I enjoyed the discussion regarding the rezoning request. Sincerely, Nicole Claesen From: William Claesen <nclaesen@hotmail.com> Date: Monday, April 16, 2018 at 6:09 PM To: <wardl_posl@fayetteville-ar.gov>, <wardl_pos2@fayetteville-ar.gov>, <ward2_posl@fayetteville- ar.gov>, <ward2_pos2@fayetteville-ar.gov>, <ward3_posl@fayetteville-ar.gov>, <ward3_pos2@fayetteville- ar.gov>, <ward4_posl@fayetteville-ar.gov>, <ward4_pos2@fayetteville-ar.gov> Cc: "cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov" <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Removal of the Rolling Hills Drive Extension and Downgrade of Rolling Hills Drive Good evening, Please find attached our petition for the removal of the proposed Rolling Hills Drive Extension and the downgrade of Rolling Hills Drive from an arterial to a collector. I am sure that you have received numerous emails and phone calls from residents stating their concern and their desire to have an ill-conceived road extension removed from any further consideration. The petition currently stands at over 1300 signatures. Please take the time to read the reasons why people signed it and I hope you will get a broader sense of why so many want Rolling Hills Drive downgraded and the extension removed. As Fayetteville continues to look toward the future and our growth, I want to make sure we are doing it responsibly and thoughtfully. Cities in the United States and around the world are going on a "road diet". They are no longer widening roads, or in some cases no longer building new ones. They have recognized that adding a lane or extending a road doesn't help traffic at all. It only creates induced traffic. Building new, or widening existing roads is extremely costly and the maintenance is equally costly. Unnecessary road construction realties are enormous... devastated neighborhoods, water problems, runoff, air & noise pollution and in this case it also negatively impacts an elementary school. Lowering speed limits, narrowing a street, simply re -striping a street, dedicated right hand turning lanes and sophisticated traffic signal timing are all far more effective and actually help the flow of traffic more than an induced traffic road ever could. Currently there are several East to West connections: Huntsville Road/Highway 16 • Wyman Road • Mission • Township • Old Wire Road ■ Joyce • East Guy Terry Each of the above roads make an East to West connection to Crossover and/or College Avenue. Below is the distance between four of the current connections: • Joyce to Old Wire Road is 1 mile • Old Wire Road to Township is .8 mile • Township to Mission is .5 mile • Joyce to Zion is .7 mile That is 4 East to West connections in the span of 3 miles. From Rolling Hills Drive/Old Missouri to Old Wire Road is .3 mile. I do not think there is a great benefit to adding an extension by a school playground or through an existing neighborhood when Old Wire Road is already there. The funds to improve Old Wire Road would be far less expensive to tax payers. According to the Mobility Plan presented to you on March 20t', one of the top findings was: "Most traffic flows north -south, and existing east -west connections are capable of absorbing all east -west traffic." The safety issue cannot be over stated or ignored. Rolling Hills Drive is already a raceway. It is already dangerously too wide and should be narrowed. Over the past three years, there have been almost 1600 citations along Rolling Hills Drive. Those citations include over 370 for speeding, over 100 for careless driving, and over 200 for running a stop sign. There have been 90 car accidents, including 1 fatality. The extension would absolutely erase our walkability and create a dangerous situation for pedestrians, especially the children that walk to/from school. If a person, certainly a child, is hit by a car going 40mph there is an 80% chance of serious injury or death. Cars regularly speed in excess of 40mph. It is still astonishing to me that the speed bumps were removed from Rolling Hills Drive because the city chose to listen to complaints from people who wanted to break the law instead of residents who only wanted to feel safe crossing the street or walking down the street. With that being said, to narrow Rolling Hills Drive with the use of a tree lined median would slow down traffic and help to keep and improve the walkability our city is trying to create. When a city places anything on any Master Plan that implies intent. The public can only presume it is what the city intends to do. It doesn't matter if it may not be for 2 years, 5 years or never. At the October 2017 meeting with the city held at Rolling Hills Drive, Mr. Stoll stated, " Rolling Hills Drive could absolutely be widened." If it is your home, your child's school, your neighborhood all you know is the city intends to do it and it hangs over your head. If the proposed Rolling Hills Drive extension is not scheduled to be part of a possible 2020 bond and if thee city states it may never happen or it may be 15-20 years before it happens, please vote to remove it from the Master Plan. I think most would agree that upon further reflection that Rolling Hills Drive should not have been designated arterial and the extension was/is ill-conceived and that the negatives far outweigh any minute gain. Thank you so much for your time and effort in these two important matters. Sincerely, Nicole Claesen Recipient: Fayetteville City Council & City Planning Commission Letter: Greetings, Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan Signatures Name Location Date Nicole Claesen Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Robert Stinson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Emily Brickman Alabama 2018-01-25 Helen Hamlin Selkirk, NY 2018-01-25 Rebecca Roark Springdale, AR 2018-01-25 Lori Leichner Springdale, AR 2018-01-25 Patrick Snodgrass Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Chris Clanton Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 William Claesen Texas 2018-01-25 Lisa Snyder Alabama 2018-01-25 Christina Sutton Alabama 2018-01-25 Mallory Britt Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Emily Field Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Jennifer Clayton Alabama 2018-01-25 Alexander Ha Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Ashley Lind Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Sarah Denison Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Heather Gomez Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Ben Owen springdale, AR 2018-01-25 Laura Camargo Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Name Location Date Stephen Ironside Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 H. Nicole Ledbetter Dallas, TX 2018-01-25 Amy Guthrie Alabama 2018-01-25 Cash Acrey Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Deanna Ford Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Justin Adamd Wheat Ridge, CO 2018-01-25 Shannon Servoss Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Jamie Frala Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Katherine Beebe Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Sarah Munstermann Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Jessica Robertson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 David Johnson Springdale, AR 2018-01-25 Peggy Rogers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Dane Munstermann Fort Smith, AR 2018-01-25 David Loudon Shawnee, OK 2018-01-25 Angel Vinson Alabama 2018-01-25 Marty Sutton California 2018-01-25 Bree Waymack Branch, AR 2018-01-25 Beth Bryan Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Amy Loudon Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Denise Roark us 2018-01-25 Kim Warren Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Name Location Date jason ayers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Renee Batara Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Adam Hedman Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Matt Pope Oklahoma 2018-01-25 Chris Hargis Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Michael Bollero Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Candace Scamardo-Green Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Christena Devlin us 2018-01-25 Bryan Meesey Rogers, AR 2018-01-25 Elizabeth Burns us 2018-01-25 Randy Wilburn Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Jessica Newcomb Texas 2018-01-25 John Waymack Alabama 2018-01-25 Julie Renee Newman Springdale, AR 2018-01-25 Derek Van Lynn Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Timothy Klinedinst Springdale, AR 2018-01-25 Kim Krummel Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 John Torres us 2018-01-25 Claire Reed Chicago, AR 2018-01-25 Angela Barbour Alabama 2018-01-25 Daniel Quin Texas 2018-01-25 Jennifer Condron Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Name Location Date Elizabeth Prenger Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 James Price Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Scharrelle Easley Arkansas 2018-01-25 Wendy Cathey Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Denis Dean us 2018-01-25 Chris Frala Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Amanda Grell North Little Rock, AR 2018-01-25 Lily Fretueg Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Sabrina's Snell Alabama 2018-01-25 Rebekah Litzinger Alabama 2018-01-25 Lori Rogers Alabama 2018-01-25 Jenna Evans Austell, GA 2018-01-25 catherine snyder Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Justin Beavers Alabama 2018-01-25 Sarah Maland Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Carleigh Phillips Alabama 2018-01-25 Eric Kvello Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Tommi Perkins Troy, NY 2018-01-25 Laura Kryzanowsky Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Sarah Miller Oklahoma City, OK 2018-01-25 Howard funkhouser Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 William Reed Durham, NC 2018-01-25 Name Location Date Wendi Lawless Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Abigail Myers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Mike Ford Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Chris Franke San Antonio, TX 2018-01-25 Annie Coker Great Barrington, MA 2018-01-25 Jamie Mondal Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Kristin Hammett Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Ryan Hickey US 2018-01-25 Jessica sneed US 2018-01-25 Amanda Andrews Fayetteville, US 2018-01-25 Adam Romero US 2018-01-25 Stefanie Kelley US 2018-01-25 maria cruz lopez US 2018-01-25 Yadira Talavera US 2018-01-25 Gilberto Gonzalez US 2018-01-25 Victoria Bruton US 2018-01-25 Jonathan Phillips Alabama 2018-01-25 Kelsey Felix Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Lindly Mikesch Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Amy Buff Conway, AR 2018-01-25 Todd Barbour Greenville, SC 2018-01-25 Ann Gearity Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Name Location Date Carolyn Williamson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Julie Wise Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Brandi ALEXANDER Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Brooke Russell Alabama 2018-01-25 Mark Kryzanowsky u5 2018-01-25 Dustin Hillyer Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Jenny Karsten Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Melissa Mitchell Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Lisa McClure Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Kristen Beavers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Corey Keen Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 William Bailey Alabama 2018-01-25 Mary Lack Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Tyrel Denison Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Sherri Watson North Little Rock, AR 2018-01-25 Anne Gresham Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Michelle Cartmill Edmond, OK 2018-01-25 Chelsea Cooper Lee's Summit, MO 2018-01-25 Maureen Grace us 2018-01-25 Jeffery Dean Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Heather Lee Holaway Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Patricia Leach Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Name Location Date Larry Phelps Siloam Springs, AR 2018-01-25 Missi Walker Alabama 2018-01-25 Taylor Johnson u5 2018-01-25 Amber Shepherd Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Angie Leek Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Jennifer Shepard Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Morgan Gray us 2018-01-25 Erin Cohen Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Jeremy Burns us 2018-01-25 Amy Clark Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Brittni Gunn Dedham, MA 2018-01-25 rosemary tacker North Little Rock, AR 2018-01-25 Sarah Jones us 2018-01-25 Chelsea Knox Alabama 2018-01-25 Amy Field FAyetteville, AR 2018-01-25 AshelyJoyner Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Aaron Weegens us 2018-01-25 Kaitlin Cox Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Laura SANDLIN Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Randy Green Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Alex Woods Alabama 2018-01-25 Matthew Bourdon Lowell, AR 2018-01-25 Name Location Date jason mcgill Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Jesse Smyers Oklahoma 2018-01-25 Melissa Atkinson Alabama 2018-01-25 Brenda Denton Miami, FL 2018-01-25 Ashley Hodson Bartlesville, OK 2018-01-25 Steffanie Delgado Alabama 2018-01-25 Amanda Gambill Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Kathy Hopson us 2018-01-25 Michelle Scouten Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Christine Myres Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Brad Nabors Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Alex Nichols Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Anna Nelson us 2018-01-25 courtney Barton fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Ashley Neumeier Dallas, TX 2018-01-25 Debra Holt Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Stephen DeNoon Alabama 2018-01-25 Michelle Musial Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Elissa Lenox Livingston, TX 2018-01-25 Wilma Bonds Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Leana Houston Groton, NY 2018-01-25 Kelly Mahan Springdale, AR 2018-01-25 Name Location Date Amanda Tieaskie Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Mary Wolf Dallas, TX 2018-01-25 Brittney Duke Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Mary Boyett Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Lucinda Summerlin Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Megan Smyers Texas 2018-01-25 Kathleen King Texas 2018-01-25 Megan Porter Albany, NY 2018-01-25 Henry Rankin Alabama 2018-01-25 Linda Mirphy Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Adrienne Kvello Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Breyanne Hoover Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Holly Karnes Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Lauren Sterling Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 James Vawter Miami, FL 2018-01-25 Corinna Dranow Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Lisa Hackert Bentonville, AR 2018-01-25 Candace Starling Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Katelin Whiddon Alabama 2018-01-25 Kevin Murphy Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Chris Lee Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Robert Eldridge Alabama 2018-01-25 Name Location Date Becky Babb Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 lynne michelle price North Little Rock, AR 2018-01-25 Mary Bollero Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Lucas Ardemagni Dedham, MA 2018-01-25 Jenny Lee Spokane, WA 2018-01-25 Kathryn Burgess Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Susan Jones Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Angie Burge Birmingham, AL 2018-01-25 Joanna Sites Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Lisa Mohney Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Jennifer McKeown Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Kelli Heflin us 2018-01-25 Meline Schaffer Springdale, AR 2018-01-25 Rebecca Sites Springdale, AR 2018-01-25 Stephanie Whitcomb Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 gary weeks Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Benjamin Houston Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Leslie Poynter Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Bronwen Henderson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 David Young Groton, NY 2018-01-25 Joyce Stanford Lexa, AR 2018-01-25 Jonathan Durham Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Name Location Date Michael Carey Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Julie Brannon us 2018-01-25 Katie Jackson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Jim Ragland Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Heidi Loften us 2018-01-26 Claire Bullard Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Autumn Tolbert Winchendon, MA 2018-01-26 Nick Musial Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Leisa Gebhart Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Linda Rogers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Laura Blaur Topeka, KS 2018-01-26 Sharon Franke Little Rock, AR 2018-01-26 Matthew Krauft Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Virginia Reed Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Sharon Valentin Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Miranda Weilert us 2018-01-26 Heather Tyler Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jennifer Ward Malvern, AR 2018-01-26 James Murie Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Nancy Klimczak Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Kimberly Harper us 2018-01-26 Penny Belt Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Russ Hutchison Troy, NY 2018-01-26 Kimberlee Harrison Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Brad Roberts Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Ellen Caveness Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Bradley Wallace Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Ruben Paulino Spokane, WA 2018-01-26 R L Gray Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Tracy Servy Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Anna Regnier Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Demetra Salisbury Overland Park, KS 2018-01-26 Bethany Hunt Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Laura Favorite Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Thomas Burger Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Shelby Heflin Texas 2018-01-26 Shannon Keever Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Tara Farlow Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Melinda Wallace Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lauren Stuart Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Ca ryn Ca i re Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Niki Reed Alabama 2018-01-26 Jennifer Paxton Alabama 2018-01-26 Sharla Grammer Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Lindsay Brown Alabama 2018-01-26 Michele Holloway Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jacob Beers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Kelly Bullington Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Donna Guy us 2018-01-26 Lisa Hearne Alabama 2018-01-26 Jimmy Ledbetter Bartlesville, OK 2018-01-26 Holland Durham Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Savannah Hurley conway, AR 2018-01-26 Matt Mccutcheon Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Sarah Cox Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lisa Johnson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jacob Br.ickman Alabama 2018-01-26 Mark Holaway Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jerry Penny Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Teresa Goad Kolb Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Matthew Hickman Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Kyle Estes Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Patty Harris Alabama 2018-01-26 Chelsea Smythe Spokane, WA 2018-01-26 Erica Powell us 2018-01-26 Robin Atkinson Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Nancy Smith Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Denny Kolb Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Wendy Roark Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Eleanor Townsley Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lucas Regnier Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lacie Jones Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Heather Paul Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Steve Petit Belfair, WA 2018-01-26 Patrick Geels Alabama 2018-01-26 Melissa Zabecki Alabama 2018-01-26 Katherine Petit Pittsfield, MA 2018-01-26 James Cox Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Sarah Keen Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Kelley Carey us 2018-01-26 Andrea Garcia Bentonville, AR 2018-01-26 Kevin White Rogers, AR 2018-01-26 Rebekah Phelan Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Kate Akins Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Nathan Bowers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Suzanne Sanford Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Shannon Bowers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Amy Weis Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Sally Davis Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Wendy Peters Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 J Mayo Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Carrie Rye Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lee Stewart Alabama 2018-01-26 Jennifer Braden Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Houston Files Cave Springs, AR 2018-01-26 Craig Stuard Bentonville, AR 2018-01-26 Elizabeth Vanzant Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Andrea Patitz Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Kristin Dietrich Glen Iris, Australia 2018-01-26 Jenny England Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 Christi Daniels Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Mary Moore us 2018-01-26 Robert Strange Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 Thomas Phillips Selkirk, NY 2018-01-26 casey sarkin Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Craig Curzon Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jessica Foreman Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Alma Schwartz Stillwater, OK 2018-01-26 Shelly Perry Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Diana Frieberg Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Harry Harris Alabama 2018-01-26 Hope Wages Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Anna Hutchison Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Suzanne Lewis US 2018-01-26 Sam King Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Elizabeth Patterson Farmington, AR 2018-01-26 Suzanne Wasiluk Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Rainey Lirette Bartlesville, OK 2018-01-26 Jennifer Mason Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Marie Riley Alabama 2018-01-26 Whitney Lloyd Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Carolyn Smith Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Bailey Payne Folsom, PA 2018-01-26 Anna Moore Springdale, US 2018-01-26 Robert Florida Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lisa Schilling Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Stefanie Hunt Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Regina Gentry Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Chandra brown Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Tamera Taft Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Tom Houston Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Joanne Patterson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Kristin Rossi Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Nathan Bell Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Cassie Walker Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Rachel Sherin Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Chris Farnet Alabama 2018-01-26 Chelsea Brewer Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Shauna Taylor Texas 2018-01-26 Katie Daniel Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Barbara McCleland Alabama 2018-01-26 Bryan Carr Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Delia Gorder Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lisabeth miller Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Kelly Williams Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Nicole Sizemore Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Tobi Walker Antioch, TN 2018-01-26 Kyle Frank Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Melissa Griggs Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Brent Houser Texas 2018-01-26 Ann Justiss Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lesa Moyer Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Angie Maxwell Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Josh Knight Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Rosie Rose Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jessica McClard Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 AmyJohnson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 William Wright Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 JoAnn D'Alisera Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Allison Tritt Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Stacey Hague Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Caitlin Krantz Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 David Lobb Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Kristin jones Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Tristan Myers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Beth McAnally Nashville, TN 2018-01-26 Jordan Workman Fayetteville, US 2018-01-26 Rorrmy Wallace Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Chelsea Miller US 2018-01-26 Mischia Johnston Bethal Hieghts, AR 2018-01-26 Corinne Power Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Mitch Weigel Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Megan Baureis Alabama 2018-01-26 Terri Dover Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jessica Sexton Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Brittany Glidewell Farmington, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Melissa Pruss Alabama 2018-01-26 Harris Nancy Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Aaron Randall Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Kristin Sexton Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 Sidney Burris Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Regina Eilerts US 2018-01-26 Bruce Schlegel Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Samantha Thurman Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Paige Crockett Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 Georgia Lance Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Nestor Camargo Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lisa Hinrichsen Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Abigail Bridges Prairie Grove, AR 2018-01-26 Lisa Summerford Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Tracy Nelson Springdale, US 2018-01-26 Stacey Robinson Alabama 2018-01-26 Bill Ragan Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jonathan Webb Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Liliana Carballal Argentina 2018-01-26 Cami English Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Bill Bartholomew Spokane, AR 2018-01-26 Keisha Richardson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Amanda Bernal us 2018-01-26 Kenny Dover Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 Jean Thompson Tulsa, OK 2018-01-26 Debbie Fauria Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jonathan Atha Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Chelsea Smythe Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Sarah E. Krauft Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Rebecca Ivey Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 cathy dalisera darien, CT 2018-01-26 Joshua Haliburton Alabama 2018-01-26 Claire Gist Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Drew Devenport Arkansas 2018-01-26 Mike Haney Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Rachel Eikenberry Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 annie lorton fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Keith Broyles Murfreesboro, TN 2018-01-26 Jon Moores Benton, AR 2018-01-26 Ben Holderby Wichita, KS 2018-01-26 Zachary Collins Alabama 2018-01-26 Kristin McDill Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Bonnie Faitak Alabama 2018-01-26 Lauren Perkins Wichita, KS 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Audra Ogden Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Kelly Alexander Lowell, AR 2018-01-26 Jim Coker Auburn, WA 2018-01-26 Ellen Weintraut Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Staci Smith Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Allison Weiss Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Laura Goodwin Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 Jacqueline Nagel Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Mandy Sams Little Rock, AR 2018-01-26 Kimberly Covington Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Robert Bridewell Alabama 2018-01-26 Sandra Lasey Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Anna Fielder Oklahoma 2018-01-26 Zeph'an Berg Rogers, AR 2018-01-26 Robin Nordin Fort Smith, AR 2018-01-26 Anna VanHorn Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jennifer Schwartz Arkansas 2018-01-26 Martin Jones Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Nicholas McKeown Alabama 2018-01-26 BJ Elkins Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Cindy Lewis Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Larry Ashley Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Hannah Moll Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 TIFFANY Meeks Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Sara Sawyer Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 crystal woodham Van Buren, AR 2018-01-26 Sharon Akers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Ann Vines Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Alexandria Peterson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Melissa Davis Alabama 2018-01-26 Jennifer Vaughn North Little Rock, AR 2018-01-26 Angela McCallie Alabama 2018-01-26 David Vandermark Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Mattie Boyett Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Mary Tune Texas 2018-01-26 Becky McCain Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Leslie Bandy Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lexi Kastner Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 Gavin Baleto Fort Smith, AR 2018-01-26 Rhonda Moore Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Chris Francis Corpus Christi, TX 2018-01-26 John Bass Little Rock, AR 2018-01-26 Dustin Edmonston Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Marilyn Kay Peterson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Jeff Starling Alabama 2018-01-26 Tim Henderson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Maria Grace Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Pam Kugel Alabama 2018-01-26 Ashley Carter Denver, CO 2018-01-26 Kathy Benton Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Bob Moses Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 ERICA G RAS E R Fayettevi I I e, AR 2018-01-26 Valerie Lynch Alabama 2018-01-26 Darrell Crow Paragould, AR 2018-01-26 Arlene Urquizu US 2018-01-26 Jandy Maher Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 misty simpson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Ciavash Zaifi Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lisa Woods Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 Molly Staeheli Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jeremy Gregory Alabama 2018-01-26 Jeff Boyett Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Grace Anne Odom Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Shanthi Steddum Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Julianne DeLong Corpus Christi, TX 2018-01-26 Matt Baxter Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Name Location Date Linda Jones us 2018-01-26 tonya landrum fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Coy Fagras Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Jack Avery Southbridge, MA 2018-01-26 alina kelley Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Ember Lanuti Prairie Grove, AR 2018-01-26 JoAnna Young Albany, NY 2018-01-26 Linda Connor Bridgeville, PA 2018-01-26 Julianne Brown Alabama 2018-01-26 Mary Alice Serafini Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Christie Summerford Alabama 2018-01-26 Ramie Parsons Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lance Leder Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Cheryl Scott Springdale, AR 2018-01-27 Trista Millar Alabama 2018-01-27 Carole Burgin Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Archibald Schaffer IV Alabama 2018-01-27 Lauren Crawley Bartlesville, OK 2018-01-27 Sarah Moore Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Stacey Banks Mcallen, TX 2018-01-27 Lisa Spears Oklahoma 2018-01-27 Kari Files Cave Springs, AR 2018-01-27 Name Location Date Betty McDowell Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Tracy Rogers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 David Higgins Texas 2018-01-27 Jacqueline Lobb Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Melinda Kisor Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Eddie Phillips Little Rock, AR 2018-01-27 Max Moore Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Kim Honchell Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Denise Airola us 2018-01-27 Leslie Ray Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Daniel Dickey Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Anna Gentry Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Payton Bridewell Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Marsha Sosa Paragould, AR 2018-01-27 EMILY SLEDGE Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Elaine Fischer Roanoke, VA 2018-01-27 Michael Walker Springdale, AR 2018-01-27 Suzanne Watson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Sarah Williamson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Suzanne Owens Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Amber Scott Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Carolyn Stephens Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Name Location Date adam buescher Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Zachary Hutchison Alabama 2018-01-27 Sue Payton Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 David Johnston Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 EDWARD MIKAN US 2018-01-27 Milton Caraballo US 2018-01-27 Rebecca Paquette US 2018-01-27 Jennifer Pacheco US 2018-01-27 Monica M US 2018-01-27 Justine McDuffie US 2018-01-27 Susann Crowell Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Sarah Paul Fayetteville, US 2018-01-27 Becky Shofner Antioch, TN 2018-01-27 Stephannie Baker Bentonville, AR 2018-01-27 Lee Kendrick Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Amanda Mhoon Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 JoHannah Goss Albany, NY 2018-01-27 sarah farnet Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 William Burch Alabama 2018-01-27 Betty Bartholomew Spokane, WA 2018-01-27 Alexandra Stanfill US 2018-01-27 jacob wilson US 2018-01-27 Name Location Kyle Temple Fayetteville, AR Cody Cochran Fayetteville, AR Anne Gibbs Murfreesboro, TN Lindsey Iversen us Cassandra Linton us Jenny Vanhook Fayetteville, AR Betty Lou Hamlin Little Rock, AR Leo Vighetti Pittsburgh, PA Christina Gibson Edgewood, TX Robert Campbell Dansville, NY Jessica Bagsby Alabama Leigh Anne Yeargan Fayetteville, AR Christian Randell us Patricia Kittell Fayetteville, AR Fiona Nieve us Twana r Cisse us Amanda Gonzales Fayetteville, AR Jolt The Wolf us Roberta Helling us Imani Woods us Thao Nguyen us kelly roulhac us Date 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 2018-01-27 Name Location Date chantal mullen us 2018-01-27 Jodie Kendall us 2018-01-27 Wanda Cornelius us 2018-01-27 Tulen Antrican us 2018-01-27 Amanda Stokes Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Stacy Keenan Alabama 2018-01-27 Adrienne Spurlock Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Katie Papasan Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Donna Daniels Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Rebecca Harrison Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Colton Knittig Alabama 2018-01-27 Steve Stephens Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Vida Jong Alabama 2018-01-27 Susan Bendure Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Clariss Goodwin -Harrison us 2018-01-27 Regina Bennett Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Tristen Wylde Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Brooke Cluck Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Tammye Dighero Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Mark Summerlin Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Julie Keys Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Jerri Ann Tindle Elkins, AR 2018-01-27 Name Location Date Courtney Cline Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Camille Gollon Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Rob Keys Troy, NY 2018-01-27 Terri Winfield -Story Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Jim Withrow Schwenksville, PA 2018-01-27 James Wardein Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Ashlynne Young Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Anna Pope Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Dana Thompson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Terry Smyers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 roman biernacki US 2018-01-27 barbara mcgrath US 2018-01-27 AMRUTA MESHRAM US 2018-01-27 GGeorgiana Wright US 2018-01-27 Adam Hoskins US 2018-01-27 Linda Brady US 2018-01-27 Katy Phelan US 2018-01-27 Martha Perry US 2018-01-27 brittany Simms US 2018-01-27 Gail Findley US 2018-01-27 david taggart Woodbridge, VA 2018-01-27 Jesus Hernandez US 2018-01-27 Name Location Date Crystal Ecker us 2018-01-27 Raymond Gradecki Woodstock, IL 2018-01-27 dorinda kelley us 2018-01-27 Karen Russell u5 2018-01-27 Kasey Hadd us 2018-01-27 Daniel Salguero us 2018-01-27 Ramone Mccrary us 2018-01-27 Martha Obando Hammond, LA 2018-01-27 Nancy Alonge us 2018-01-27 Danielle Davis us 2018-01-27 Jake Paul us 2018-01-27 Montu Singh us 2018-01-27 GusJokinen us 2018-01-27 Jennifer Jennings us 2018-01-27 Samuel Inabinet us 2018-01-27 Courtney Smith Mountain View, CA 2018-01-27 Tina Wrobel Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Alahna Blakeman Kansas City, KS 2018-01-27 Kaye Cox us 2018-01-27 NATHan Broome Springdale, AR 2018-01-27 Tasha Nelson us 2018-01-27 Elizabeth Wilson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Name Location Date Tammi Harris Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Shaun Adams Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Benjamin Sexton Dedham, MA 2018-01-27 Daniel Robertson Alabama 2018-01-27 Chloe Harris Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Timothy Humphries Fayetteville, TN 2018-01-27 Carla Torrijos Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Gregory Thomas Elkins, AR 2018-01-27 Helga Coleman Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Madison Forbes Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Forest Denger Springdale, AR 2018-01-27 Charis Lykins Alabama 2018-01-28 Bria Mounce Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 David Nicol Winslow, AR 2018-01-28 Sydney Trumbo Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Brooks Mathias Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Kelly Buckley Fayetteville, US 2018-01-28 Lisa Spurlin Tucson, AZ 2018-01-28 Ryan Coon Alabama 2018-01-28 adrienne shaunfield Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Hang Truong US 2018-01-28 Fadia Hassanain US 2018-01-28 Name Location Date Joseph Kiesznoski us 2018-01-28 Rhonda Harrill us 2018-01-28 Janice Luecke us 2018-01-28 Lauren Lawes us 2018-01-28 Raul Jaquez us 2018-01-28 yousif almontaser us 2018-01-28 Brian De Reza us 2018-01-28 Troy Doughty us 2018-01-28 Michael Swarts us 2018-01-28 Donna Burkett us 2018-01-28 Ryan Anderson us 2018-01-28 Debra Stendel Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Lauren Hogan Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 latasha kirkland fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Donald Harp Tucson, AZ 2018-01-28 David Means Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Brian Wilmeth Springfield, MO 2018-01-28 Kelle Wilkins Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Bobby Michael Middlebrook Alabama 2018-01-28 Kristi Owens Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Lisa Shelby Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 John Harris Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Name Location Date Chandra Means Alabama 2018-01-28 Alisa Corke Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Sheri Trimis Alabama 2018-01-28 Barbara Means Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Brooke Sisney Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Nicki Thornton Worcester, MA 2018-01-28 Ryan Mcanarney Alabama 2018-01-28 Malia Putman Bella Vista, US 2018-01-28 Kellie Lehr Los Angeles, CA 2018-01-28 Megan Chapman Edinburgh, Scotland, UK 2018-01-28 Brandon miller Macomb, MI 2018-01-28 Amanda Koopmam Rogers, AR 2018-01-28 Irene Adams Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Sandra Thompson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Raymond Plack Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 John Williams Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Michael Nygren Houston, TX 2018-01-28 Cinthia Sotelo Springdale, AR 2018-01-28 Isaac Turner Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Joann Moore Alabama 2018-01-28 Morgan Gramling Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Jill Gunderman Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Name Location Date Debra Walker Heber Springs, AR 2018-01-28 Melissa Young Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Alex Miller Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Katrina Younkin Lowell, AR 2018-01-28 Paul Lazenby Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Sandra Tedder Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Margaret Elkins Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Tracy Miller Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Sue Garland Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Debra DeGiso Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Cheyenne Shoup Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Terry Criner Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Jacqueline Lozano us 2018-01-28 Carlos ramirez us 2018-01-28 Victor Fields us 2018-01-28 Ryan Petty Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Sidney Swonger Dansville, NY 2018-01-28 Erin Scott Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Mary Anne Reilly Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Paula Cox Pearcy, AR 2018-01-28 Judie Kaczoroski Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Kaylee Smith Ann Arbor, MI 2018-01-28 Name Location Date Adam Schaffer Bentonville, AR 2018-01-28 Laura Rodgers Dansville, NY 2018-01-29 Elijah Arnette Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Julie Linzay Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Lee Linzay Alabama 2018-01-29 Kelly Holst Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Lea Anne Clayton Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Baylee White us 2018-01-29 Jessica Garcia Southbridge, MA 2018-01-29 Maureen McClung Conway, AR 2018-01-29 Christy Dean Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Donna Mclaughlin Springdale, AR 2018-01-29 Merrisa Purnomo Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Suzanne Hobbs Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 James Cohea Rogers, AR 2018-01-29 Kristina Watson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Melinda McIlroy Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Sarah Gentry Leawood, KS 2018-01-29 Caroline DeckerJohnson California 2018-01-29 Laura Ferrier Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Howard williams Springdale, AR 2018-01-29 Misty Ozturk Oakland, MD 2018-01-29 Name Location Date Martin Schoppmeyer Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Cosmo Denger Alabama 2018-01-29 Helen Chase Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 John Rodgers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Renee Tobin Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Sheryl Potter Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Christine Jordan Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Kelsey Ferguson Alabama 2018-01-29 Susan Samuels Alabama 2018-01-29 Brianna Warren Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 McDowell Karen Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Eric Pace Springdale, AR 2018-01-29 Sue McAlexander Texas 2018-01-29 William J. Etges Fayetteville, -AR 2018-01-29 Shawn House Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Joleen Torgerson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Judy Boyd Murfreesboro, TN 2018-01-29 Sherrill Johnson Fort smith, AR 2018-01-29 Sarah McKenna Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Brady Brooks Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Michael Brown Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Erin Hughes Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Name Location Date Gavin Braswell Springdale, AR 2018-01-29 Lori Kelsey Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Connie Brooks Alabama 2018-01-29 Hayley Hall Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Tiffany Yee Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Justin Suggs US 2018-01-29 Colleen Whitman Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 lewis randall watford, England, UK 2018-01-29 Steve Cox Bentonville, AR 2018-01-29 lexie rice Alabama 2018-01-29 Joan Reynolds Rogers, AR 2018-01-29 Terri Lane Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 J.A. Griffith Berryville, AR 2018-01-29 Allison Hammond Alabama 2018-01-29 Lavonne Polk Lewisville, TX 2018-01-30 anna Sills fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Burnetta Hinterthuer Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Andrew Hubbard Springdale, AR 2018-01-30 Samantha Foresee US 2018-01-30 Gregg Bryett US 2018-01-30 Elijah Wilbur US 2018-01-30 Nicole Laird US 2018-01-30 Name Location Date BARBARA NOFFKE US 2018-01-30 Chris Scholl Neptune, NJ 2018-01-30 Mary Forbes US 2018-01-30 Jonathan Boyne US 2018-01-30 Elizabeth Davis Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Craig Honchell Spokane, WA 2018-01-30 Sherry Melvin Rogers, AR 2018-01-30 Pauline Allen Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Cheryl Gilbert Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Courtney Hattabaugh Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Maxinne Palicio Russellville, AR 2018-01-30 Debi Lambeth Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Marie Erickson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Chad Clayton Alabama 2018-01-30 Joshua LeMasters Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Jan Phillips Gentry, US 2018-01-30 Abby Wise Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Kenny George Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Andrew Eaton Spiro, OK 2018-01-30 Joe Neal Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Erin Helf Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Dylan Ogden Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Name Location Date Amy Weaver Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Dollie McCratic Farmington, AR 2018-01-30 Ammen Jordan Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Kelly Linn Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Whitney Love Newport News, VA 2018-01-30 Debbie Nelson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Denice Nelson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Susan White Nassau, Bahamas 2018-01-30 sabrina Sutton us 2018-01-30 Shannon Mason Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Tyler Martin Alabama 2018-01-30 Clint Daniels Millington, TN 2018-01-30 Drew Baledge Alabama 2018-01-30 David Randle Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Mary Hicks Kingston, AR 2018-01-30 PeggyJames Fatetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Jack Williams West Fork, AR 2018-01-30 kerry hudson Harrison, AR 2018-01-30 Jeff Hodges Alabama 2018-01-30 Jennifer Minard Springdale, AR 2018-01-30 Larry Stout Springdale, AR 2018-01-30 Jennifer Keene Alabama 2018-01-30 Name Location Date Kate Reilly -Phillips Bentonville, AR 2018-01-30 Jason Christy Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Kristy Ray Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Meredith Hornberger Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Rachel Holt Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Christin Jones Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Emily Rappe Fisher Springdale, AR 2018-01-30 Amy Pi g us 2018-01-30 Beth Cowen Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Jesse Roberts Alabama 2018-01-30 David Kienzle Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Mark Keeran Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Madison Lineberger Oklahoma 2018-01-30 Kelli VanPelt Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Pamela Gudger us 2018-01-30 Necia Parker -Gibson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Don Cumbie Alabama 2018-01-30 Salvatore Grinceri Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Christopher Daily Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Nick Caccavo Paola, KS 2018-01-30 Mack Ivey Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Jessamyn Goodwin FAYETTEVILLE, AR 2018-01-30 Name Location Date Ginny Herrmann Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Curtis Cumbie Oklahoma 2018-01-30 Carla Hodges Springdale, AR 2018-01-30 Lindsay Ramsey Dansville, NY 2018-01-30 Audrey Briggs Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Tamara Ridout Alabama 2018-01-30 Donna Miller Alabama 2018-01-30 Rebekag Mathis Alabama 2018-01-30 Keely Spicer Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Chris Selby Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Amy Griffin Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Routh Ann Yarbrough Springdale, AR 2018-01-30 Julie Keeran Groton, NY 2018-01-30 Karen McClard Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Matt Ronan Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Glenn Siegel Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Kevin Chase us 2018-01-30 Gertrude Banahene us 2018-01-30 Janis Sakellis us 2018-01-30 Diana Helgert us 2018-01-30 Jacqueline Adames us 2018-01-30 teresa penix Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 t Name Location Date Brandy Wingo Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Nathan Trucks New York, NY 2018-01-30 Tiffany Griffin Alabama 2018-01-31 Max Mahler Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Lynette Curzon Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Samantha Manso us 2018-01-31 Chris Pena us 2018-01-31 Becky Wilhoite us 2018-01-31 Julia Reid us 2018-01-31 Nicole Benavides us 2018-01-31 Norman Nelson u5 2018-01-31 Elizabeth Freer us 2018-01-31 Jasmine Bruns us 2018-01-31 Brenda Sinchi us 2018-01-31 Joy Treacy us 2018-01-31 Pat Ridenhour u5 2018-01-31 Theresa Shore u5 2018-01-31 Orla McClure u5 2018-01-31 Kerry Little us 2018-01-31 Asia Ford us 2018-01-31 Preston Smith Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Todd Hollywood us 2018-01-31 Name Location Date Kaycee Zelkovsky US 2018-01-31 Gary Thaler US 2018-01-31 Cheryle Krause US 2018-01-31 Megan James Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 cathy hooper Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Jill Bivens Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Cheryl Yarber Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Jessica Kamilos Fayetteville, US 2018-01-31 Jim Giczkowski Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 John Hackmann Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Julie Moody Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Mary Jo Myers Springdale, AR 2018-01-31 Genoa Norris Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Andrew Hackmann Rogers, AR 2018-01-31 Elaine Becker Roanoke, VA 2018-01-31 Cindy Caudle Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Amber Stults Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Kerry Couch Summers, AR 2018-01-31 William Hellard Rogers, AR 2018-01-31 Steve West Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Maren Anderson Yukon, OK 2018-01-31 Brenda Smith Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Name Location Date Airie Kazery Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Melanie Murphy Alabama 2018-01-31 MICHAELLE JARNAGAN Winslow, AR 2018-01-31 Jodi Stengle Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Warren Robinette Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 WES BRADSHAW fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Sally Acosta Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Mary Sheridan Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Jennifer Shepard Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 Jesse Munoz Alabama 2018-01-31 Joan Holdorf Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-01 -Kennth G Kitts Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-01 Melody Moubarak Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-01 Bradley Giczkowski Alabama 2018-02-01 Dusty Pate Oakland, AR 2018-02-01 Jacob Green us 2018-02-01 Bilbo Baggins us 2018-02-01 Marie Teague Alabama 2018-02-01 Brittney Robison Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-01 Janet Morgan Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-01 Diane Aday Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-01 melissa gross Springdale, AR 2018-02-01 Name Location Date RUTH JOHNSTON Benton, AR 2018-02-01 Ricky Hanna Alabama 2018-02-01 Deborah Meng St. Louis, MO 2018-02-01 Katy Sager Fayetteville, US 2018-02-01 John Thorn Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-01 Zach Miller Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-02 Alexander Lopez Alabama 2018-02-02 Karen Ervin Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-02 Kelsey Johnson US 2018-02-02 Hannah Pasquinzo Alabama 2018-02-02 Jacob Smalley US 2018-02-02 Chad Fisher Tontitown, AR 2018-02-02 Carol Williamson US 2018-02-02 Trendel Herndon Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-02 Patricia Storey Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-02 Brittney Mohr Spokane, WA 2018-02-03 Jennie Thompson Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-03 Emily McWilliams Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-03 Ann Belt Alabama 2018-02-03 Haven Herndon Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-03 Artie Herndon Texas 2018-02-03 Cheryl Lindly Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-03 Name Location Date Katherine Schaffer Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-03 John Smith Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-03 Lindsay Watt Elkins, AR 2018-02-03 Tommie Hively Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-03 Candy Clark Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-03 Collin Wooten Bentonville, AR 2018-02-03 Starlyn Bote Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-04 Kyle Dupont Rogers, AR 2018-02-04 Kimberly Carnahan Bentonville, AR 2018-02-04 Eliana Martinez Shapasnikoff Escazu, Costa Rica 2018-02-04 Brian Berry Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-04 Jeff Potter Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-04 Joshua -Rapp us 2018-02-04 Elizabeth Reagan Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-04 Edgar Aleman us 2018-02-05 Tommy Saul us 2018-02-06 Kelsie McLeod Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-06 Sarah Dean Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-06 Nancy Martinez Springdale, AR 2018-02-06 Bridget Penrose Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-06 James Greenwood Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-06 Benjamin Cotter us 2018-02-06 Name Location Date Anthony Tenner us 2018-02-06 Kaylee Berggren us 2018-02-06 Casey Davitt Mount Holly, NJ 2018-02-06 Kyle Carrion us 2018-02-06 Lorry Clark us r 2018-02-06 Mark Penrose Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-06 Wade Winn Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-06 Vernon Tarver Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-07 Brian Garner Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-07 Noelle Danylchuk Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-07 Jacob Brimer Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-07 Abel Tomlinson Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-07 James Burke West Fork, AR 2018-02-07 Missey Lewis Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-07 Jan Townsley Mountain View, AR 2018-02-08 Bette Arnold Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-08 Lauren Nicodemus Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-09 Molly Johnson Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-09 Keep Northern Dane County us 2018-02-09 Rural Emily Parker Boulder, CO 2018-02-09 Ellen Parker springdale, AR 2018-02-09 Name Location Date Nicole Curry Elkins, AR 2018-02-09 Dustin Wardlow Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-10 Alyce Moore Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-11 Savannah Seals Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-11 Sunnie Barylski Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-11 Kathleen Nobel Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-12 Debbie Key us 2018-02-12 steven nelson fayetteville, AR 2018-02-12 Marlene Colmer us 2018-02-12 Matthew Dickhut Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-12 Brooks Swanquist Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-12 Lauren Bogan Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-12 Megan Scott Champaign, IL 2018-02-12 Ryan Billingsley Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-12 William Quinn Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-12 Jessica Billingsley Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-13 Sara Taylor Arlington, VA 2018-02-13 Daniel Wells Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-13 Kimberly Moore Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-13 Angelia Istre Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-13 Kenneth Istre Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-13 Suzanne Billings Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-13 Name Location Date Shay Hopper Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-13 John Warren Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-13 Wendy Ryver Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-14 Lori Keathley Tulsa, OK 2018-02-14 Tabitha Thompson Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-14 Candace McCabe Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-14 James Martin Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-14 Worth Sparkman Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-14 Kelsy Litchenburg Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-14 Ronie Sparkman Centerton, AR 2018-02-14 Susan McDonald Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-14 Matthew Owens Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-15 Fayetteville Ellis Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-15 Gaving Nelson Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-15 Judith Larsen Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-15 Dann Nobel us 2018-02-15 Charles Larsen Brownwood, TX 2018-02-15 Gerald Davis Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-16 Michelle Mason Arvada, CO 2018-02-17 Bobbie Hackler Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-17 Karen Byers Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-17 Krystal Faircloth Choctaw, OK 2018-02-17 Name Location Date Julie Huynh US 2018-02-18 Sarah Smith Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-18 Zack Asbury Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-18 Bonnie Johnson Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-18 Abra Morgan Fayetteville, US 2018-02-18 Louis Miller OLD MO RD. Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-19 Matthew Freeman Tahlequah, OK 2018-02-19 liz dyer Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-19 Billy Dyer Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-19 Marilyn Schoppmeyer Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-19 Bendure Robert Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-19 Gary Darnell Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-20 Robin Marsh Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-20 Stacy Boone US 2018-02-20 Kim Glenn Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-20 Terry Lawson Choctaw, OK 2018-02-20 Joyce Stafford Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-20 Joshua Campbell US 2018-02-20 Jon Willett Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-20 Brian Abel Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-20 Lorinda Church Bella Vista, AR 2018-02-20 Kimberly Canova Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-21 Name Location Date Dennis Cozine Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-21 Andy York Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-21 Jennifer O'Neal Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-22 Caitlin Kennedy Nashvil, TN 2018-02-22 Cecilia Tu Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-22 Rhonda Ellis Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-23 Terri Winfield -Story us 2018-02-23 Mathhew Atkinson Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-24 Natalie Atkinson Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-24 Valerie Wood Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-24 Elaine Gasper us 2018-02-25 Andrew Atkinson Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-25 4 Melanie Kelley Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-26 Leigh Parette Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-27 Madison Iiams Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-27 Chris Gunn Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-27 Joe Buss Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-28 reham shamseldin u5 2018-02-28 Charles Gorelik u5 2018-02-28 Coley Pitchford Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-02 Christina Dirkach Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-02 Jennifer Woodward us 2018-03-02 Name Location Date boyd ridings Palm Harbor, FL 2018-03-02 Brian Hart Cincinnati, OH 2018-03-02 Jeff Anschutz Tulsa, OK 2018-03-02 Kathleen Eubanks Springdale, AR 2018-03-02 Amy Evans Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-02 Laree treece Little rock, AR 2018-03-04 Brandon Banks Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-05 Fraser MacIver Dunoon, Scotland, UK 2018-03-05 Diane Fox Springdale, AR 2018-03-05 Meggi Wardein Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-06 Justin Williams Bentonville, AR 2018-03-06 Amber Anderson Jonesboro, AR 2018-03-06 Nancy Hairston Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-07 Brian Bailey Springdale, AR 2018-03-07 Lisa Buerkett Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-07 Martin Schoppmeyer Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Mike Eckles Fayetteville, TX 2018-03-09 Mike Owings Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Mike Wallner Houston, TX 2018-03-09 Samantha Butler Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Simon Gooch Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Kristin Bosc Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Name Location Date Carrie Wright Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Cherilyn McClure Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Angie Ellison Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Carol Gaetjens Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Sandra Vaughn Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Lynn Risser Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Stephanie Sawyer Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-09 Paula Haydar Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-10 Phyllis Lowry Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-10 Sherry Kribs Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-10 Anita Bukey Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-10 Suzie Huff Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-10 Holley Shinn Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-11 Jo Ann Kaminsky Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-11 Deja Glover Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-11 sarah killebrew Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-11 Sheri Garner Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-12 Angela Stevens Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-12 Claudia Pazmino us 2018-03-16 Karen Figueroa us 2018-03-16 Jaime Hernandez u5 2018-03-16 Daniela Pinero us 2018-03-16 Name Location Date Sharon Chasen us 2018-03-20 Carmen J Vazquez us 2018-03-20 Josephine Roca us 2018-03-20 LaDean Mitchell us 2018-03-22 Janie Hankins Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-23 Kathryn Roberts Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-24 Chris Nelson Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-25 Gracie Ziegler Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-25 Barbara Okimoto Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-26 Caroline Quin Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-31 Phillip Hankins Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-31 Taryn Dwan us 2018-04-05 Georgia Kunze Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 Mark Zweig Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 Kala Burks Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 Patti Morman Faywtteville, AR 2018-04-09 David Lencho Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 Spencer Shackelford Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 Candace Whitfield Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 Angie Nichols Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 Margaret Konert Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 Debra Miller Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 Name Location Date Sandra McCann Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 susan jenkins fayetteville, AR 2018-04-10 Elvio Gomez Dallas, AR 2018-04-10 William Mendenhall Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-10 Alma Gonzalez US 2018-04-10 Shannon Airola Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-10 Charles Wiles Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-11 Rhonda Crouch Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-11 virginia fletcher Springdale, AR 2018-04-11 andy fan US 2018-04-12 Lorraine Rush Rush Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-12 Christina Wang US 2018-04-12 Jaydu Ma US 2018-04-12 Liu Yang US 2018-04-12 melody fong US 2018-04-12 Michael Ewing Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-12 Stephanie Joyner Catonsville, MD 2018-04-15 Clariss Goodwin Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-15 V P US 2018-04-16 Lan Shen US 2018-04-16 Recipient: nt: Fayetteville City Council & City Planning Commission . ter: Greetings, Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan Comments Name Emily Brickman Ashley Lind Sarah Denison Heather Gomez Laura Camargo Beth Bryan Kim Warren Renee Batara Location Date Waxahachie, TX 2018-01-25 Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Fayetteville, AR Fayetteville, AR Fayetteville, AR Fayetteville, AR Fayetteville, AR Dane Munstermann Fort Smith, AR Michael Bollero Fayetteville, AR Elizabeth Burns u5 James Price Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Comment I can't thank you enough for giving the people and neighborhoods of Fayetteville to a united voice. I live behind Butterfield Elementary and have a child and do not want the extra traffic in our area. People already drive through the streets fast enough! I live in the Huntingdon neighborhood, and I am very invested in preserving the current state of our area. We do not want more traffic or multi -family housing. I and my family live in Huntingdon. I can see no benefit to this extension at all. It would cut a huge swath through one of the quietest neighborhoods in Fayetteville, adding traffic noise and danger for our kids. 2018-01-25 I live in Huntington neighborhood and do not want to see an increase of noise and traffic in our peaceful neighborhood. 2018-01-25 As a mother of 3, I am opposed to Rolling Hills being extended to Highway 265. We already have heavy traffic that has created safety issues for our children. More traffic would create more hazards for my children and all of the children and families in our neighborhood, 2018-01-25 We live behind Butterfield and have a child that goes to Butterfield. An extension to Rolling Hills/265 would bring an abundance of traffic through an area heavily populated by children between the elementary school and the neighborhoods behind it. We moved into this neighborhood because it was quiet and we felt safe letting our kids play in the neighborhood. An extension to the road would change this completely. 2018-01-25 I do not want a busy road next to my children's school 2018-01-25 My wife and I specifically chose Huntingdon so we could raise our family in a peaceful and quiet neighborhood. This extension would not only increase the noise and traffic significantly but also destroy much of the natural beauty this part of town has to offer. 2018-01-25 I do not support this expansion. 2018-01-25 I reside near Rolling Hills and frequently walk with my children to Butterfield Elementary. The proposed expansion increases safety risks for my family and hundreds of others. I am proud to live in an established Fayetteville community and I would hate to see that community diminished because of poor planning. 2018-01-25 This would negatively impact many neighborhoods from College to Oakland Zion Road and place demands on other parts of our infrastructure. Name Location Date Comment David Loudon Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 What the City of Fayetteville call a road, I call home. It's my home they are driving a road through. My yard. My boys touch football field, Their swing set, their trampoline. My morning coffee view and quiet evenings on the deck. It's your road. It's OUR life. Wendi Lawless Fayetteville, AR Amanda Andrews Fayetteville, US Kristin Hammett Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 I live in this neighborhood. One of the best things about this area is the number of people who walk, run, skate and ride bikes in this neighborhood. More traffic makes it more dangerous for families. 2018-01-25 Noise, traffic, and difficulty accessing/leaving my driveway on Old Missouri is already difficult enough during peak hours. 2018-01-25 I see no need to disrupt a wonderful peaceful neighborhood with a busy road expansion. There are too many children that walk through these neighborhoods to get to school to add traffic. Chris Franke Little Rock, AR 2018-01-25 The proposed extension for Rolling Hills would literally run through my backyard (I live at the end of the Quainton Ct cul-de-sac). My familyjust moved here in March 2017 specifically for the scenic beauty our neighborhood provides, in particular the farmland directly behind our home where this extension is planned. Had I known about this proposed development, I absolutely would have reconsidered living here. I do not care to have another thoroughfare from College to Crossover - there are more than sufficient connections as it is (Township and Joyce are right next door). Additionally, this would significantly impact the large number of kids walking around this area, both playing in the neighborhood and commuting to Butterfield Elementary. _ Katherine Beebe Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 I live off Stanton. One of the reasons I bought a house in this area is because of how quiet this place is ... and in the middle of town. The last thing I want is for the value of my home to go down all while getting more traffic and buildings through a beautiful wooded area by Butterfield. It's a lose/lose for me and the entire neighborhood. Deanna Ford Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 I have a child at Butterfield and younger children who will go to Butterfield in the coming years. We walk to and from school and it is already dangerous. I don't want their recess and outdoor learning environment to back up to a street and the noise. I don't want more traffic through my street and neighborhood. We love our neighborhood and wildlife, please don't ruin it. Chris Clanton Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 We bought a house on Rolling Hills Dr. 4 years ago and never would have done so had we known about this plan. RHD is busy enough already, with west -bound traffic getting backed up to Loxley during morning rush hour, and drivers speeding dangerously down the wide street when it is empty at night. This is an established residential neighborhood with lots of pedestrians and pets and not at all appropriate for a thoroughfare. Instead of this plan that will harm the citizens of this neighborhood in exchange for a small benefit to out-of-town drivers, the city should be considering how to treat RHD like the street it is --a residential street in an established neighborhood-- by adding a sidewalk to the south side of the street, narrowing the street to discourage speeding, and adding crosswalks so our pedestrians can safely cross the road. Name Location Date Comment Jenny Karsten Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 I do not want to see a dramatic increase in traffic on Rolling Hills. I think such an increase would greatly overload the stretch of College Ave from Rolling Hills to the light by Whole Foods daily. I also would not want to see that increase in traffic right next to our elementary school where kids play, walk, and ride their bikes. Tyrel Denison Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 I want to keep my neighborhood and the those around us safe for families and not overrun with traffic. A new extension would just bring more people driving quickly through established neighborhoods. Maureen Grace us 2018-01-25 I am concerned about the amount of traffic that this change would cause to flow through an area that is already very congested during the morning and evening high traffic periods. This area goes right through neighborhoods on either side and borders an elementary school. It doesn't seem like a great plan to increase the traffic through this established neighborhood. Heather Lee Holaway Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 I specifically chose this area when I bought my first home in 2011 because of how quiet and accessible this neighborhood was. Having the ability to walk my daughter to Butterfield was a key reason that we relocated from our home near Holt/Holcomb. An increase of traffic would make this area just as congested as the one I left to avoid, and will negatively impact property values in this area. Corey Keen Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 If the only benefit is easing traffic congestion, I'm curious why the Rolling Hills Boulevard Extension is still on the master plan as the benefits do not outweigh the negative ramifications of a project like this. Taylor Johnson us 2018-01-25 I live by butterfield elementary and this will severely negatively affect our neighborhood! Angie Leek -Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 I love N this area and don't want to see a major thoroughfare dissecting our natural land and peaceful neighborhood. I have young kids and we are one of the walker/bike riding families who's kids go to Butterfield. Jeremy Burns us 2018-01-25 The RHD extension will add unnecessary traffic in close proximity to Butterfield Trail Elementary, potentially increasing both safety and health risks forthe children who learn and play there. Through streets to Crossover are already available in the northern part of the city, including Joyce and Township. Please reconsider the current plans for expansion. Any potential benefits to people who live outside the city will be outweighed by the inconvenience and potential harm done to the families who live (and learn) near Rolling Hills. Lori Rogers Alabama 2018-01-25 We chose to live in this area because our children would be able to safely walk to school and ride their bikes with their friends, This proposal will negatively impact our neighborhoods and make the area less safe for our children. Amy Field FAyetteville, AR 2018-01-25 It is a waste of resources to solve a problem that does not exist. It will remove needed green space, make homeless countless deer, fox, rabbits, etc and plow through people's homes in orderto Name Location Date Comment parallel b by only a Few hundred feet, a road that already exists. Anyone who cares about a "carbon footprint" should be ashamed to consider this. Kaitlin Cox Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 For the sake of the children's lives and wellbeing, please do not consider this expansion. Randy Green Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Horrible idea. Joyce and township do just fine. If anything get a thoroughfare from college to the west side of town besides north st. jason mcgill Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 This seems to be a project where the benefits do not outweigh the harm and is not worth disrupting or damaging the residents lives and property. Christine Myres Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Tf there is still a valid reason for this proposal, someone please say what it might be. Don't build something just because it was on a plan. Anna Nelson us 2018-01-25 I'm signing because my kids walk to Butterfield. I already have cut through traffic on my street and this would just increase it. I love the character of east Fayetteville and purchased a home here because of the values. If a road goes through here it will decrease my home value and leave a poor taste of Fayetteville leadership in my mouth. Please do not let this extension go through. Wilma Bonds Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Thanks for adding me. Megan Porter Albany, NY 2018-01-25 I live in this area and my child attends Butterfield Elementary. Butterfield is a neighborhood school where children are able to walk to and from school. We are always out on our bikes cruising around the neighborhood. The extension would negatively affect this area and its homeowners. Corinna Dranow Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 I'm concerned for the safety and character of our neighborhood. Lisa Hackert Bentonville, AR 2018-01-25 For Renee Newman and her sons. Renee is a widow and raising her young sons. Please do not uproot this family. Michael Carey Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-25 Township and Zion are enough East/West options Heidi Loften u5 2018-01-26 Traffic is already a concern near Butterfield Elementary, and it seems this would add to the problem. Claire Bullard Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 The Rolling Hills neighborhood is a hidden gem full of families. I don't live in the neighborhood but I know many people who do. I use the roads in and around the neighborhood almost daily and have never thought there needed to be any kind of road expansion. Absolutely unnecessary. Very few Fayetteville tax payers would find this beneficial. Autumn Tolbert Winchendon, MA 2018-01-26 This would put a major street awfully close to the school. We need to promote walkability in our neighborhoods. Many children walk through this area. Joyce is already moving traffic East and West. Please do not put a major street through this neighborhood. Name Location Date Sharon Franke Little Rock, AR 2018-01-26 Jennifer Ward Malvern, AR 2018-01-26 Kimberly Harper US 2018-01-26 Russ Hutchison Troy, NY 2018-01-26 Brad Wallace Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 R L Gray Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Tracy Servy Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Robin Atkinson Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Lacie Jones Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Suzanne Sanford Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Wendy Peters Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 J Mayo Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Mary Moore US 2018-01-26 Lisa Schilling Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Chelsea Brewer Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Sidney Burris Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Regina Eilerts Us 2018-01-26 Georgia Lance Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Tracy Nelson Springdale, US 2018-01-26 Comment Our son's house backs up to this road. It will destroy his property value among many other things. My sister and her family live in the neighborhood around Rolling Hills and are opposed to the cut through because it would negatively impact the family with increased traffic and lower property values. Kimberly Harper Thanks, but not in my backyard. Listen or litigate. Your choice Council Members. For the safety of our school children, congestion and the devaluation of property values. Keep our neighborhoods safe and quiet for our valued community memebers. This extension would mostly likely demolish our house on Oak Bailey. We have only lived here two years, have poured thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of sweat equity into making it home. We would be devastated if they decide to demolish our first home. I live in this area We live in this neighborhood, and my children attend school there. We love the neighborhood as is, and do not want this disruption. Family Don't need this! Invading ppl property too ... go back to drawing board city of fay! I'm signing this petition because I grew up in the area, went to Butterfield Elementary, and this is a terrible idea. This will damage my neighborhood and negatively impact Butterfield Trail Elementary School. I understand the reason of increasing it, but do not agree to the proposed size. I do not feel that a responsible feasibility study for this project has been undertaken. This will affect large segments of our community that haven't even yet voiced their opinion on this development. I grew up in Fayetteville. We have been sold and destroyed. Stop Destroying neighborhoods to move traffic is bad planning. Don't do this. I'm signing because my children grew up on rolling hills and their elementary school just down the street is where my grandchildren Name Location Date Comment go to school and there is already a lot of traffic and this would devastate the cozy family subdivision. Please don't do this!!!! Bill Ragan Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Don't make a highway through their neighborhood. Debbie Fauria Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Terrible plan. Go back to the drawing board. Put a Little more thought to this plan and it would not havevto destroy a neighborhood. Sarah E. Krauft Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 The City's plan to "box in" Fayetteville isn't a bad one. What's bad about this plan, is that it proposes an extension of Rolling Hills as the northern section of the "box". Joyce Avenue already exists as the northern edge. Let's keep it that way. Further, this plan would decimate an entire neighborhood, and place a busy 4 lane road right next to a school (that my youngest is about to start attending). I'd rather see a stoplight installed at the intersection of Rolling Hills + Old Wire instead. Eminent domain is unjust, especially in this case. I urge everyone in Fayetteville to sign this petition. Maybe it doesn't affect you personally this time, but next time it could be your neighborhood in the crosshairs. Keith Broyles Murfreesboro, TN 2018-01-26 I live off of Rolling Hills. More traffic would be result of extension. That we don't want or need. Ellen Weintraut Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 I live near the proposed project and my son will soon start school at Butterfield. We moved here with the hope that we could walk to and from his school safely. I am afraid this project would make it more dangerous for the children of this area to walk or bike. Surely there are safer alternatives to this plan. Anna Fielder Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 The homeowners should be compensated generously if forced to move. I grew up in this neighborhood and went to Butterfield. Fayetteville is growing and that's great but if we grow so fast we can't take care of our people it won't be much of a place to live in the end. Leslie Bandy Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Our neighborhood and Butterf!ed school deserves to be preserved. This change in zoning will result in a litany of problems and dangers with no positive results. Sharon Akers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Unnecessary and would ruin our quiet neighborhood. Access to 265/Crossover is already available via Joyce and Zion. A waste of money, would destroy green space and lower our property values. Gavin Baleto Fort Smith, AR 2018-01-26 Just trying to keep a nice neighborhood in tact so people live a peaceful life Ashley Carter Denver, CO 2018-01-26 I'm originally from Fayetteville, AR. The town has changed enough. Please don't effect people's homes and the beauty. ERICA GRASER Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 I know how it feels! Ciavash Zaifi Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Grew up here. Don't ruin the surrounding neighborhoods with this!!! Name Location Date Lisa Woods Springdale, AR 2018-01-26 tonya landrum fayetteville, AR 2018-01-26 Linda Jones US 2018-01-26 Linda Connor Bridgeville, PA 2018-01-26 David Higgins Arkansas 2018-01-27 Leslie Ray Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Suzanne Owens Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Sue Payton Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Zachary Hutchison Jonesboro, AR 2018-01-27 David Johnston Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 EDWARD MIKAN De Motte, IN 2018-01-27 Justine McDuffie US 2018-01-27 Lindsey Iversen US 2018-01-27 Leo Vighetti Pittsburgh, PA 2018-01-27 Comment As a native of Fayetteville I believe this is not an improvement for the city. Widening Rolling Hills would and bisecting the city to Crossover would be the destruction of some of the best and oldest neighborhoods in Fayetteville. We do not want our city to become one of five lane highways and cookie -cutter homes. MARTIN tried to comment on the petition and got the message try again later. My backyard is adjacent to the proposed street and in fact would be part of any acquisition if the current planning proposal is used. The plan has existed for at least 10 years but certain activity recently has caused concern. The meeting at city hall last July 17, was the beginning of a series of actions that will support the master plan in the future. Next came a meeting on Oct 26th at the Rolling Hills Baptist Church sponsored by the city (to review and discuss the "unfunded" project. At this time I learned that what I had thought would be a street on property behind me would potentially take 45 ft. of my back yard. This was followed by a Planning Commision meeting Jan 22 to approve re -zoning from RSF-4 to NC . Residential to higher densety residential; the request was approved and the planning members were vocal on voicing their approval. This appears to be a "done deal" now and it went through the appr This expansion would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, the school, and the traffic. I agree that traffic backups happen twice daily at two intersections. Put in roundabouts at these two intersections. This would be much more cost effective and not ruin three neighborhoods plus. I do not wish to have this road come through my neighborhood. Please do not destroy our quiet, residential neighborhood. There are many elderly homeowners in this area. The proposal would destroy their homes. This is an unnecessary disruption. I have friends and family that would be deeply affected by this disruption I am s local resident with children in that school. NO CROSSOVER NEEDED!!!! U S ARMY VETERAN I live on Rolling Hills. There is already a traffic problem, not only because of the number of cars but also because of the number of drivers who speed. The extension will only make things worse. I'm signing because you can'tjust decide you're going to build a fucking road where houses that people LIVE IN are.. I am in. Leo Vighetti Name Location Date Comment Donna Daniels Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 We need protect our neighborhoods Rebecca Harrison Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 We need to preserve our neighborhoods. This would create too much traffic in an already overly crowded area and it's too near butterfield school. If we change fayetteville too much, we will lose all the things that make it so special. This is a change I feel is too much. Susan Bendure Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 Why ruin the best neighborhood in Fayetteville? Fayetteville has other ways of expanding! Clariss US 2018-01-27 This Rolling Hills expansion is a terrible idea! With Butterfield Trail Goodwin -Harrison Elementary School right there and the residential peacefulness, a big connector isjust too much and risky for our children and neighbors Tammye Dighero Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 I'm signing because we will lose what is unique to Fayetteville- quiet , safe , mature neighborhoods, located in walking distance of the elementary school. Many of us walk our children to school, or allow them to do so on their own. We will lose this if this goes as planned. Please protect one of Fayetteville 's older beautiful neighborhoods. Let's not turn into another city with sprawl and strip malls. I believe in growth, but let's plan smartly. jerri Ann Tindle Elkins, AR 2018-01-27 No to extension of Rolling Hills Dr to 265! Terry Smyers Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-27 This proposal is not in the best interest of current residents of this area. Our city needs to be more creative in management of traffic and stop encroaching upon our quality of life. Multiple unit housing brings a host of issues, problems that create a reduction in the quality of life and safety. Brooks Mathias Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 This will bring too much traffic and take land. Kelly Buckley Fayetteville, US 2018-01-28 I believe that our town deserves natural sanctuaries and green spaces not encumbered by additional traffic. While I certainly understand the desire to grow and get from point A to B more speedily, it might be more beneficial to invest in public transportation to reduce the negative impacts of automobiles. In keeping with the ideal of Fayetteville striving to be more "green," this seems an antithesis of those goals. Lisa Spurlin Tucson, AZ 2018-01-28 I own a house only 2 blocks from Rolling Hills and I know this would adversely affect the property value. As I plan to move back to Fayetteville I certainly don't want to have that expansion in my back yard! Debra Stendel Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 It's hard to believe the city is even thinking about such a destructive plan! David Means Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 I like that area of Fayetteville, leave it alone Brian Wilmeth Springfield, MO 2018-01-28 I do not think this expansion will have a positive impact on the residents in and around the proposed area Raymond Plack Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Will add to much traffic to Rolling Hills Dr, Name Location Date Comment Debra Walker Heber Springs, AR 2018-01-28 I don't know what they are thinking. It's next to an elementary school and run through a beautiful established neighborhood! Sandra Tedder Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 Please do not do this! Sue Garland Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-28 I agree that extending Rolling Hills eastward would be disruptive to the neighborhoods between its current boundary and Crossover. Elijah Arnette Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Property values will decrease. More importantly, the house my fiance and Ijust purchased to raise our soon to be born daughter will be a few hundred yards from a major artery(if this goes through). Instead of nestled in the neighborhood. People will lose their homes. For what? Elijah Arnette Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 A stoplight at old wire and old missouri would be more efficacious than this absurd plan. Laura Ferrier Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 I live in Huntingdon and do not support this expansion, Renee Tobin Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Thank you neighbors for creating and signing this petition. There is strength in numbers. Write your alderman, cc the mayor and write the entire City Council. One of our Ward 3 alderman, Sara Bunch, supports this catastrophe. Their new god is 'infill.' There has to be a limit. If the landowner wants to sell his land it should be for single family housing. They've already made a dent in that with a rezone. They want to make a bigger dent by rezoning more acreage. Then they will tell us 'they need that extension' to handle the traffic. Remember the Planning committee and the City Council allowed Whole Foods to be put in that spot. With one entrance and exit. They are responsible for the traffic back up on College. They are responsible for making Wedington a mess. We were told at the first rezoning meeting that the Strawberry Hills neighborhood was a 'classic example of suburban sprawl." Most homes were built in the 70's so no kidding. But what about McMansion land being built off Hwy 45? What Brianna Warren Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 This will affect someone in the area, would build right through their house Sarah McKenna Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 This impacts my neighborhood. Brady Brooks Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 This is so dumb!!!So much more traffic by the school and mud creek trail!I have 1 brother that goes there he's in first grade and I don't want him hearing busy traffic at recess.There are some safety concerns also.I also love to ride down by butterfield additionally walk dogs there also.When I go to school at McNair I see kids walking to butterfield, with this parents are not going to let them walk because it's so busy.There is also a very big car line for butterfield car pickup at 3.Adding this would make it harder for students to get home. Mike Brown Springdale, AR 2018-01-29 The infrastructure is already clogged. Bad plan. I am strongly against it. Name Location Date Comment Mary Reilly Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 This idea of an extension would do serious damage to this area of northeast Fayetteville from adding safety to our children to changing traffic patterns, to the value of homes, and the peaceful nature of our neighborhoods. PLEASE remove it from the master plan! Lori Kelsey Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 Please.... No. Connie Brooks Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 I have li bed in Huntingdon for 23 years.I know we all value the beauty of the natural surroindings. Visitors from many states have commented about the beauty. I am already alarmed by the new concrete look of my city. When did we decide development and tall buildings override the benefits of trees and neighborhoods? I'm deeply concerned how this!will impasct one of the most desirable neighborhoods in Faayetteville.,.more traffic, less ability to control run-off, risks to children playing and walking to school, loss of property value, more congestion... Connie Brooks Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-29 I have lived in Huntingdon for 23 years. I know we all value the beauty of the natural surroundings. Visitors from many states have commented about the beauty. I am already alarmed by the new concrete look of my city. When did we decide development and tall buildings override the benefits of trees and neighborhoods? I'm deeply concerned how this.will impact one of the most desirable neighborhoods in Faayetteville...more traffic, less ability to control run-off, risks to children playing and walking to school, lass of property value, more congestion... Joan Reynolds Rogers, AR 2018-01-29 Maintaining the neighborhood's integrity should be the number one priority for the city, not blazing new street shortcuts through existing neighborhoods. J.A. Griffith Berryville, AR 2018-01-29 Instead of more highways and noise, the children and residents of Fayetteville deserve Some quiet neighborhoods, birds, and natural areas. Tyrel Denison Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 I want my family neighborhood to remain that.. We don't need another fast way through town at the expense of having people drive quickly through where my children play! Samantha Foresee us 2018-01-30 My parents amd sister live directly on Rolling Hills on 2 different properties and this would directly impact both their front lawns and likely decrease their home values. The traffic along the road is heavy enough as is and widening it seems completely absurd. It's actually a pretty wide road with big shoulders as is and it needs to stay that way! My dad loves to run through the neighborhoods and my sister walks with her baby in a stroller up and down that street all the time. With increased traffic it would become a dangerous activity especially as my nephew gets older and wants to play outside. This is the street in Fayetteville that LEAST needs widening. I can think of higher priorities! Like Joyce Blvd! From College to Old Missouri so you can add a turn lane all the way down! That would be a much better use of tax money! Joshua LeMasters Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 I live and own a home on Rolling Hills. We recently moved to the neighborhood and we love it here. Talk of expanding and extending Name Location Date Comment Rolling Hills has us thinking about moving. Extending and widening Rolling Hills is a bad idea for this well established neighborhood and ultimately a very bad idea for the city. Joe Neal Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 Changes like the proposed extension are usually cut throughs requested by those who do not live in the impacted areas. In other words, homeowners are asked to get out of the way so others can have a faster commute. However, protecting the integrity of a neighborhood is a lot more important than speeding up someone's desire for a faster cut through. People who choose to live in northeast Fayetteville must recognize that older neighborhoods are not required to accept devastation to facilitate their travel. Improve the existing thoroughfares as possible, but otherwise leave the neighborhoods alone. It will not hurt us to go a little slower. Will help, in fact. Mark Keeran Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-30 We have lived on Strawberry for almost ten years now and we frequently walk through the Huntingdon neighborhood as well. This will cut our neighborhoods in two. We are strongly opposed to this extension because, as Joe pointed out, it is just for the convenience of others who DO NOT LIVE in our neighborhoods. Linda Jones US 2018-01-31 Already submitted my thoughts. And signed the petition. please don't destroy our neighborhoods Kerry Couch Summers, AR 2018-01-31 We are already college enough in the cities don't take away the quiet and peacefulness that property Owners barely have As it is Airie Kazery Fayetteville, AR 2018-01-31 I live in the Rolling Hills neighborhood. I was initially attracted to this area because it Felt like a settled, quiet, well established, and family oriented area. Kids play in the streets in these neighborhoods. Wildlife roam freely. There are many large century+ old trees throughout. It's a lovely place to live. We will lose that if this road is built. I had hoped my daughter would inherite this home, but I fear that the updates will depreciate the value and destroy the home town feel of the area. Likely, we would sell and move if this is built. Jacob Green US 2018-02-01 It's not an improvement Diane Aday Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-01 Established neighborhoods, especially in a school zone, need to be protected and not threatened. Deborah Meng St. Louis, MO 2018-02-01 I know this neighborhood and went to school in AR! Katy Sager Fayetteville, US 2018-02-01 As a local real estate attorney in Fayetteville the current plan doesn't seem to benefit near the amount of public service that it would cost so many homeowners. I fully support the need for an additional East/West corridor in Fayetteville but I can't agree that this is the solution. Mary Sheridan Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-02 Not worth it for what it would cost ... that includes the price tag and what it would do to the existing neighborhoods and school. It's just a terrible, terrible idea and I do not live in any of the affected neighborhoods. Name Location Date Comment Eliana Martinez Escazu, Costa Rica 2018-02-04 Don't put 600 children in risk. Don't destroy forest and wild life, Shapasnikoff Think in green. Atraffic light in Old Missouri and Old Wire will be much better for improving traffic in the area. Jeff Potter Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-04 This is a terrible and destructive idea. The traffic is not so heavy that we need this expense. Denise Airola Us 2018-02-09 A recent article in the NWA Times on the city planning commission's retreat on infill planning provides some good support for not doing the rezoning that is planned and support for permanently removing the Rolling HIlls extension. Specifically, the article talks about infill as a way to provide neighborhoods that have emerged from suburban sprawl closer amenities. When I spoke with our Alderman Marsh, she indicated that she considered Rolling Hills suburban sprawl. That is no longer the case. Rolling Hills neighborhood is already closely connected to amenities in Fiesta Square, Whole Foods, the Steele Blvd development and the mall. The only reason to put more amenities on Rolling Hills drive is to allow the landowner selling the land to make more money by allowing development of duplexes rather than single family homes. The other reason they would do this is to get that Rolling Hills extension so the current suburban sprawl in east Fayetteville (on the other side of 265) can access the amenities close to our Ryan Billingsley Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-12 This idea is absurd and I can't believe it's even an option in Fayetteville to do something so heartless like this. The wonderful city I've lived in my entire life and the very area of Fayetteville I grew up in. It is unfathomable that we are considering plowing through the woods and disturbing two very established neighborhoods for absolutely no legitimate purpose. Using Old Missouri and Old Wire to get to Crossover always has been and always will be fine. Using the word "need" to describe this road is more than simply incorrect - it is borderline immoral the way it affects lives. Changes like this are irreversible. It is tragic. Fayetteville does not need it. It is wrong to do it. It's not like our city to do something like this. Please don't let this happen. Please write the Mayor and City Council. If you are voting on rezoning please vote no. It breaks my heart to think of this destruction. And if you know more than I, please let me know what I can do to help. James Martin Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-14 Efficiency is good, but not at the expense of long-standing neighborhoods. Stacy Boone Us 2018-02-20 I vote yes to permanently remove this. Jon Willett Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-20 This has to stop Brian Abel Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-20 Keep our town beautiful, Kimberly Canova Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-21 This area of Fayetteville is one of the few where trees are treasured, deer are in your backyard in the morning and displays a diverse group of people who still walk on the sidewalks with their children. Much more "Norman Rockwell" than the cookie cutter, treeless McMansions too common on the Northeast side of Fayetteville, Name Location Date Comment This project would have a permanent, negative effect on one of Fayetteville's iconic areas. Ryan Billingsley Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-22 It hurts me to hear something like this described as a "need" or "necessary". This couldn't possibly be considered as a need by any rational person. How dare they. This is the very definition of a "want." And who wants it? And at what cost? This clearly does harm to people and families. This clearly does harm to the environment. This clearly does harm to wildlife. In no way does this make Fayetteville a better place to live or more beautiful. This is the very definition of doing unnecessary harm. There is no moral argument that can rationalize doing harm to others for a "want" or a "convenience". The planners themselves have given us all the ammunition we need to win any rational debate. By downgrading their plan to a two-lane street, they have all but admitted that this is a completely unnecessary project. I can throw a rock to Old Wire from the place where this two-lane street will come out of the woods through Huntingdon neighborhood on Oak Bailey. Why in t Nicole Claesen Fayetteville, AR 2018-02-22 Thankyou Ryan! Hope to see you atthe meeting tomorrow evening. Terri Winfield -Story US 2018-02-23 I have many concerns; traffic (adding to the already Whole Foods location, and the flyover nightmare), property values, (we don't need any more low rent housing) noise, and last, but certainly not least, the safety of the children. Oh oh, FLOOD issued. After the repairs on Old Wire Road, our house nearly flooded because they put run off drains into the creek. The creek can't handle it. Why not take the dollars and improve the sidewalks we have, handle noise issued (loud TVs in back yards), dogs barking, and cars parked in yards. After all, our "city government" passed laws but doesn't seem to follow through. Our City is changing from Funky to junkie!! No wonder everything is moving north. Chris Gunn Fayettevilfe, AR 2018-03-04 1. Unsafe. Too close to the school. 2. No need nor is their existing resident demand. 3. This will negatively impact wildlife (deer, hawks, owls, opossum, cardinals, mourning doves, etc.) who live in these neighborhoods. They will lose their homes too. 4. Residents, both young and old walk through this area daily.S. Too close to existing fire station/emergency services. 6. Additional pollution of Mud and Niokaska Creeks; harmful air and noise pollution. 7. Joyce is already moving traffic East and West. THERE IS NO NEED ! A shameful, willful suggestion and waste of money. It has MORE negative impacts than POSITIVE outcomes, for residents, children, animals, local ecology and the city as a broader whole.. Nancy Hairston Fayetteville, AR 2018-03-07 This will ruin our neighborhoods! Mark Zweig Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 Ijust don't think this is needed or a priority of any kind. There are plenty of other ways to get from point "A" to point "B." Patti Morman Faywtteville, AR 2018-04-09 Be careful, Fayetteville!! Our unique beauty and livability could be lost! just leave the house 1-2 minutes earlier, and be patient. Quality of lives affected by this proposed extension DO MATTER! Name Margaret Konert Thomas Burger Melissa Atkinson Location Date Comment Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-09 I want to keep Fayetteville neighborhoods small, quiet and intimate. That is why we pay higher prices to live here and raise our children. For nature, culture, diversity and a village family feeling. Thank you. Fort Smith, AR 2018-04-09 Do not need any more traffic close to school Fayetteville, AR 2018-04-10 This neighborhood has a quiet family vibe that we just love! This proposal would destroy home values, cause noise and safety concerns, and take away all of the character from a well established Fayetteville neighborhood. Please do not pass this extension! r. Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision, The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road, The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of doliars—some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that, qiqpzature- Printed Name, Address J StJ . S" t .fOfV OUt—z' ip of WSO F1 F 4,4r/ -i C re 61-4 Z CY e aJlp Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive, An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision, The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road, The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars- some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy, This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods;. there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. S nature Printed Name Address LA of Z' A4 (71'� AL Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive, An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road, The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars., some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Signature Printed Name Address -, br - Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover, We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive, An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hillis Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day, Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer.. our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars .. some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that, Sianature Printed Name Address A r'J t v� A f� 1 M ovt U Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Roiling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars ... some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods, there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. gii�nat�are 6�-� Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive, An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding 'through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess, The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars ... some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Signature Printed Name Address Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision, The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day, Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars—some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that, Printed Name Address 5033 N1 r,�, 0 Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars—some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Signature Printed Name AVa�d I/ Address 3665 --22-?03 Av,-- 11Z. zt15 e-c--l- -H A ell Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive, An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars- some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Si nature Printed Name Address 2 E-A 5 TW 0-0- D 4 Dn A- R2 NIV, 1\,) I g- Vz I(- A U-4VJ �k R:00 C-1(" at Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension'of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 166s, possibly 1 000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars—some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. SLqnature Printed Name Address L Zze Lz6T,- JUL( �-AAVX 11U Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive, An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars ... some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Signature Printed Name Address Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer. our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars—some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy, This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Sig-RaWrq Printed Name Address e �-k Aj t Vic- Arc r Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension Would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day, Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. -some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Signature Printed Name Address 'I AK 7 c-, Li tib- 02- L l0 - -� JC '`i' ,)'q' �/-- Fti A e �j rld "In Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars—some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. gjgtjature.- .to Printed Name Addres* WO-< V h (I r V � I f-'7 'In �k E Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover, We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butter -field Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars- sorne of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Si9pature Aa Address Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues, This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars—some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Sin_ gature Printed Name Address Lu"Vca' iq� Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 205/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road, The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 1 00s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars .. some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy, This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. SignaLure Printed Name Address C-- &4' f. -C, woe � � C-. -?--Y i- -J 00 Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road, The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars ... some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Suture, Printed Name Address Ko�vl Y\j Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars ... some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Si nature Printed Name Address Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street, We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision. The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic, The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars ... some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that, We demand better than that. Signature Printed Name Address Vl/k L L -77 e, -Avc SwtA 1cl�� N, A94\n Nvt � 6-t'a 1. UCL4,11 Crlliv r K 1, ( 1,�s CY,\ �'l '(�"' � � ri at-- -- 41+1'-a -u- AV Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover, We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision, The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 1 00s, possibly 1 000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer, our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess. The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars—some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this Would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods, there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that. Printed Name Address /I `- Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan We request the City of Fayetteville revise the Master Street Plan to remove Rolling Hills Drive as a proposed arterial street and designate it as a local street. We oppose any extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Highway 265/Crossover. We further oppose any widening of Rolling Hills Drive. An extension of Rolling Hills Drive from Old Missouri Rod to Highway 265/Crossover would devastate large portions of the Huntingdon subdivision, The extension would run through yards, some homes, and negatively impact this quiet, well established neighborhood with noise and heavy traffic. The homeowners along Rolling Hills Drive would be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in traffic and noise. Both neighborhoods would no doubt see a dramatic decrease in property values, quality of living, and an increase in safety issues. This proposed extension/expansion is unique as Butterfield Trail Elementary is located adjacent to the proposed extension. Approximately 600 children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and many children and families walk or ride their bikes to school along Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road. The heavy traffic would put our students and families at risk each and every day. Our quiet neighborhood school would be negatively impacted with 100s, possibly 1000s, more vehicles speeding through its crosswalks. Instead of birds and deer. our students will see and hear cars and trucks at recess, The proposed project would cost taxpayers millions of dollars—some of the very taxpayers whose established neighborhoods this would destroy. This proposed project would add more traffic to Rolling Hills Drive, more traffic directly onto College Avenue and the intersection at Whole Foods; there is simply no gain, yet an enormous cost. Our neighborhoods deserve better than that. We demand better than that, SigRature - Printed Name Address / r2oI-At I (-I PA i r 01 Ir—. .'e", <� r Ro ligH- i Garner Stoll Submitted By This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2018-0085 Legistar File ID 2/20/2018 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 2/2/2018 City Planning/ Development Services Department Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: RZN 17-6052: Rezone (EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD./KEENAN, 253-254): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATE, INC. for property EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 22.59 acres. The request is to rezone the property to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. Budget Impact: Account Number Project Number Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget Funds Obligated Current Balance Does item have a cost? No Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Original Contract Number: Comments: Fund Project Title $ _ Remaining Budget $ Approval Date: V20140710 This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 2018 TO: Mayor, Fayetteville City Council THRU: Garner Stoll, Development Services Director FROM: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner Andrew Garner, Planning Director DATE: February 2, 2018 SUBJECT: RZN 17-6052: Rezone (EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD./KEENAN, 253-254): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATE, INC. for property EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 22.59 acres. The request is to rezone the property to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. RECOMMENDATION: The City Planning staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of an ordinance to rezone the subject property to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, as shown in the attached Exhibits 'A' and 'B'. BACKGROUND: The proposed rezoning request is an approximately 22.59 -acre portion of a larger 50 -acre parcel to the east of Old Missouri Road, between Farr Lane to the north and portions of the Strawberry Hill subdivision to the south. The property is currently undeveloped and zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre. Along the southern extent of the proposed rezoning, the City's Master Street Plan indicates a Planned Principal Arterial link connecting Rolling Hills Drive in the west with Old Wire and Crossover Roads to the east. Although not identified as being within Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District, the property is heavily -vegetated with a significant downward grade from southeast to northwest. Request: The request is to rezone the property from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre, to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, in order prepare the parcel for development. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding land use patterns in this area, which includes a mixture of residential and non-residential development of generally low -intensity. Despite the greater density allowed under the proposed zoning district, staff finds that the single-family character of NC will complement the overwhelmingly detached dwelling development pattern of the area. Further bolstering staff's support of the request is the existing NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General, property to the west and the extension of Rolling Hills through the site. Although currently undeveloped, the property zoned NS -G allows low -intensity, This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet non-residential uses along with some attached residential building types. If developed, a logical transition would result from greater densities along Old Missouri Road in the west to the lower - density single-family to the north, south, and east. Another consideration is the terrain of the area proposed for rezoning as it relates to surrounding land uses. As noted, the subject property slopes downward significantly from southeast to northwest. This gradient creates a natural transition of elevation just as the zoning transitions from the greater density of the proposed NC zoning district to the lower densities of the adjacent RSF- 4 zoning districts. Land Use Plan Analysis: The proposed zoning is compatible with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and consistent with the Residential Neighborhood Area designation of the subject property and surrounding area. Along with the recently -rezoned NS -G land to the west, development under the NC zoning on the subject property will encourage traditional neighborhood development in a compact form that is both complemented by nonresidential development to the west and complimentary of existing, low-density single-family developments to the east. Among the goals in City Plan 2030, the proposed rezoning represents the potential for appropriate infill development, development in a traditional town form pattern, and a means of discouraging suburban sprawl. Although extensions of infrastructure are likely needed to facilitate development, adjacent City facilities and amenities are already in place and available for access, thereby reducing the strain on City infrastructure and amenities that would result from similar development in a sprawl location. Similarly, the requested NC zoning district and its associated build -to zone encourage patterns of development that result in realizing the City's goal of making traditional town form the standard. This includes the expectation that buildings be located at the street and on corners, thereby creating an environment appealing to pedestrians. DISCUSSION: On January 22, 2018, the Planning Commission forwarded the proposal to City Council with a recommendation for approval by a vote of 7-0-0. Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the request, citing concerns about the Master Street Plan extension of Rolling Hills from Old Missouri to Crossover and Old Wire, and how the site would be developed appropriately given the terrain. Additionally, opposition was expressed regarding the potential that development under the proposed zoning district may cause traffic congestion, unsafe traffic conditions, adverse stormwater runoff, and dangers to pedestrians and school children at the adjacent Butterfield Elementary. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: N/A Attachments: • Exhibit A • Exhibit B • Application ■ Planning Commission Staff Report RZN17-6052 I KEENAN I EXHIBIT W Close Up View ETON ST 17-6052 FARR LN NS -G R -O Legend Planning Area zzzs Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint Feet 0 112.5 225 450 675 1 inch = 300 feet A MW_ DE A& NORTH Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 Residential -Office Neighborhood Services - Gen 900 P-1 This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. EXHIBIT 613' 17-6052 LEGAL DIESCRIFTION - TO BE REZONED TO NC: A part of the NW1j4 of the NE1,,4, a part of the SW1/4 of the NEI/4, and a part of the SEIM of the NWIA, of Section 36, T17N, A30W in Washington Courly, Arkansas and being described as follo,,VS: Beginning at the SIE Corner of said NW1,14, NEIt4, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence S47'39'53"VV 239,26 feet, thence N65'30'44"W 202,53 feel. thence S47°30'13" W 83.43 feet, thence N4212914711W 120.00 foot, thence S471,0113"W 205.00 feet, thence N42'29147"W 10.00 feet, thence S47'30'1 3V 182,29 feet, thence N87'1 4'50"W 282.64 feet, thence NO2'45'10"E 59.37 feet, thence along a non tangent starve to the left 82.00 feet, said curve having a radius of 538.69 feet and chord bearing and distance of N20131118"E81.92 feet, thence NO2'4511011E 32,12 feet, thence N87'1 4'50"W 745.99 feet, thence N1 9'07'21"W 4,42 feet, thence N09'45'53"W 52.11 feet, thence NV'4710411E 115.12 feet, thence S87"11'51 11E 770.82 feet, thence N021,45146"E 416.18 feet, thence N27'12'39"E 204,31 feet, thence N30'53'35"W 152,48 feet, thence NO2'45'58"E 422,44 feet, thence S86"58'37"E 50.00 feet, thence SOZA515811W 407.09 feet, thence S30'53135"E 153.08 feet, theme S13710156111E 892.40 feel, thence 502'50127"W 617,45 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Containing 22,59 arses, more or less, subject to easements and right of ways of recorc. This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. CITY OF FAYE ` E IDLE, ARKA NSAS —R—EZONING FOR STAFF USE ONL Y FEF:x325.00 - Date Application Submitted, Sign F .s $5.00 Date Accepted as Complete: - - Case /Appeal Number: PPO,: Public Hearing Hate, zones Please fill out this form completely, supplying till necessary information and documentation to support your request. Your application will not beplaced on lire Planning Conansissioaa agenda until this information is,furnished. Apnlicat on: Indicate one contact person for this request: Applicant(person Making r�eq_ues{): Name' Applicant. V_�tepresentative Representative (engineer, surveyor, reallor, etc.). Name, Address: aZ)rS' ]A0 Address: . '51 a41 1') Phone: Fax: Site .Address 11 Location: f�L Current Zoning District: t E-mail :a � an.. - Phone: Fax: Requested Zoning District: % C, Assessor's Pat -cc] Nunther(s) for subject property: - b a — FINANCIAL IN TER ESTS The following entities and l or people have financial interest in this project: Alareh 20N Page I This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. 9!'111.1('.=1.1 fl REPRFSE 'TATIYE: 1 ccrti(lilldcr peualr> t)Clacs.j(11y drat the 1,0a-gc;1,o al,i laZl"clrt PElilt;C alt d:7i il, ral(N-rllYati(3r1, allil 1. E'Idzl`,"� hl rf',)�#ih °iUhn13(CCu :rd"C Ill 1ITS pcCIS_'-ci and £7c�3 '_ nue and iS r."C('t I U1l(lcfSlaftC; i�l'tl[ till[71t11Y[ ? i�1 ll1 [. laPl'i ::1 or lsl'se iri flo•rmali,)r, iti �+Cf�lali'S l(?i-;IlYkaliit;tE t€�?l of a,pph—ttlun coln{al;noness, dciernlinnlionl (li' alrhr:,t ul. I undermiwd dial the C i4e ,nipm no! nppi) iwi 1':,rr, or 11—lig)—it -,ct clan€lilions on rapprovaL Nanlc iprintecil `Zi;�•;��lul'e 1'htll'F_R73'f�lt_�'I:.flhij if.tTil(It(I L'I7.It;1;,�'7`- l WO c:ertil'� Ukdel' pcnalr) llwt i aim, ti4e ars lhi: _sunetts) of the pr;?l'aertti th,u is OW SUbjeca 01Lhls apt>licsation and Li -IM I cve laa� e re<ld dlis Irpplik 3tix,n allai ccln,.cn; (1) it; Mint,. tlf-si,qne(l hi' the uttthorizefl cgolt, tt letferRunt each Property oavner rriu.af hehrtat•iffed indicating Nuri tha v)lt rt, ualhoriz.eat to act r:tr llislher• behall:j Pr1peq,r Owners raf Record (ultuch adtili®Nul ii f) ifucc•esvurl•J: `,tulrc(print cit 'i7L�� 10.w. S CJlattt`[: \ i i I nr411t Ui i 1 1.1n aw 1.),if Rezoning .Checklist- lltuc'ir r`1 c' Jr?!t'ts;t'iltt� Merit,, 10 this- mi Iiccttion, i l I'aymcni it) Cull of applicable fe,s Vol-rvocus�,inL. thL ;�hl�tiultic:n: 325,00 application tcc .00 Public notitiattion siLlt l'- i"'i lu ttl ci%scrlptiola oftlle propmV to be rel.om2.d. A survey; mny hc required iltla property de5criptic,ta tail itch a euratGl�hs plau�d or it it is ciu5� rib ci t7� I u[crl at to otlac•r dc�crl;. I, 31 CD Cont"illitig, a Copy of the le'l-'al description its MS Word :ilid X111 rcgwrk:ci SUbmittal itrtaa-S ShOUld be .also in -.-I lded on n14, CD In 1'D [Ornt�it. t C9 cxap� a 1'tlte county parcel mapf`rc�.xt the l Washington C tau:ate' T1s:>ca,(sr°s (il'licc Or from the "astaitagt(HsCOMM 1i Cbf. .�;�1A.�C,!'.,.4`•If�I:S� i.:±€ :>}. Tilc ti Lit7i�('i propert\ and It[ adjacel)t P arculs should be idontitled on thk parc,:l nm€p. "t iic c>>vner's la< me., official madiia- addreti,�, amj the parcel number lbr every adj.tcellt Property z;t�ztll he t -dhows oil this t al.1. This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet, TO: City of Fayetteville Planning Commission THRU: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director FROM: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018 (Updated with Planning Commission Results) SUBJECT: RZN 17-6052: Rezone (EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD./KEENAN, 253-254): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATE, INC. for property EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR. & OLD MISSOURI RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 49.60 acres. The request is to rezone approximately 22.59 acres to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding RZN 17-6052 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, based on the findings herein. BACKGROUND: The proposed rezoning request is an approximately 22.59 -acre portion of a larger 50 -acre parcel to the east of Old Missouri Road, between Farr Lane to the north and portions of the Strawberry Hill subdivision to the south. The property is currently undeveloped and zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre. Along with 11,000 acres of other property on the periphery of the City's boundaries, the subject property was annexed in to Fayetteville in 1967. Along the southern extent of the proposed rezoning, the City's Master Street Plan indicates a Planned Principal Arterial link connecting Rolling Hills Drive in the west with Old Wire and Crossover Roads to the east. Although not identified as being within Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District, the property is heavily -vegetated with a significant downward grade from southeast to northwest. Surrounding land use and zoning is provided on Table 1. Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction Land Use Zoning North Butterfield Trail Elementary School; P-1, Institutional; Large Lot Single family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre South Undeveloped; NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General; Sinqle-family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre East Large Lot Single-family Residential RSF-4. Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre West Butterfield Trail Elementary School; P-1, Institutional Sinqle-family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. Request: The request is to rezone the property from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, in order prepare the parcel for development. Public Comment: Staff has been contacted by two individuals. One is considering buying a home in the area, but is concerned about prospective development and the planned extension of Rolling Hills Drive. The second individual inquired about the differences between the proposed and existing zoning districts, and expressed concerns that the NC zoning district will have a greater impact on the natural resources of the property. Additionally, the Development Services Department has held one neighborhood meeting to gain input on a potential downgrade of Rolling Hills from an Arterial to a Collector Street and to discuss the potential street alignment. This neighborhood meeting was not directly related to the zoning. INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The subject portion of this parcel has access to Farr Lane to the north and Old Missouri Road to the west, an improved Collector -classified street with full right- of-way, curb, and gutter. Sidewalk however, is not present along any portion of the subject property's frontage. Although any street improvements required in this area will be determined at the time of development proposal, the existing, un- built right-of-way for future Farr Lane extension will likely be included. Water: Public water is available to the site. A 36 -inch water main and associated easement bi-sects the property from north -to -south, and 6 -inch water mains are present on both the Farr Lane and Old Missouri Road frontages. The 36 -inch main is not available for service connections, but existing hydrants on this line may be used for main extension tie-in points. Sewer: Sanitary Sewer availability is limited for this property. There is an existing 6 -inch sanitary sewer main near the northwest corner of the intersection between Rolling Hills Boulevard, and Old Missouri Road. However, this connection would require a main extension, and given that it is only a 6 -inch diameter line, it may have limited capacity available. There is also an existing 8 -inch main to the north along the Farr Lane right-of-way. This would also require a main extension however, including relocation of service lines that connect to the manhole in this area. Drainage: No portion of this property is identified as containing FEMA regulated floodplain, nor are there any protected streams on site. Per the City's GIS Division data, Hydric Soils are likely present on site, therefore further wetlands evaluation may be required. The property lies outside the Hilltop -Hillside Overlay District (HHOD), but portions of the site include areas of 15% slope or greater, which may indicate further development restrictions. Any additional improvements, assessments, or requirements for drainage, slope, or other related issues will be determined at time of development. Fire: The Fire Department did not express any concerns with this request. Police: The Police Department did not express any concerns with this request. This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet CITY PLAN 2025 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2030 Future Land Use Plan designates the properties within the proposed rezone as Residential Neighborhood Area. Residential Neighborhood Areas are primarily residential in nature and support a variety of housing types of appropriate scale and context, including single family, multifamily and row - houses. Residential Neighborhood encourages highly connected, compact blocks with gridded street patterns and reduced setbacks. It also encourages traditional neighborhood development that incorporates low -intensity non-residential uses intended to serve the surrounding neighbor- hood, such as retail and offices, on corners and along connecting corridors. This designation recognizes existing conventional subdivision developments which may have large blocks with conventional setbacks and development patterns that respond to features in the natural envi- ronment. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: Land Use Compatibility: The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding land use patterns in this area, which includes a mixture of residential and non-residential development of generally low -intensity. Despite the greater density allowed under the proposed zoning district, staff finds that the single-family character of NC will complement the overwhelmingly detached dwelling development pattern of the area. Further bolstering staff's support of the request is the existing NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General, property to the west and the extension of Rolling Hills through the site. Although currently undeveloped, the property zoned NS -G allows low -intensity, non-residential uses along with some attached residential building types. If developed, a logical transition would result from greater densities along Old Missouri Road in the west to the lower -density single-family to the north, south, and east. Another consideration is the terrain of the area proposed for rezoning as it relates to surrounding land uses. As noted, the subject property slopes downward significantly from southeast to northwest. This gradient creates a natural transition of elevation just as the zoning transitions from the greater density of the proposed NC zoning district to the lower densities of the adjacent RSF-4 zoning districts. Land Use Plan Analysis: The proposed zoning is compatible with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and consistent with the Residential Neighborhood Area designation of the subject property and surrounding area. Along with the recently -rezoned NS -G land to the west, development under the NC zoning on the subject property will encourage traditional neighborhood development in a compact form that is both complemented by nonresidential development to the west and complimentary of existing, low-density single- family developments to the east. Among the goals in City Plan 2030, the proposed rezoning represents the potential for appropriate infill development, development in a traditional town form pattern, and a means of discouraging suburban sprawl. Although This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. a extensions of infrastructure are likely needed to facilitate development, adjacent City facilities and amenities are already in place and available for access, thereby reducing the strain on City infrastructure and amenities that would result from similar development in a sprawl location. Similarly, the requested NC zoning district and its associated build -to zone encourage patterns of development that result in realizing the City's goal of making traditional town form the standard. This includes the expectation that buildings be located at the street and on corners, thereby creating an environment appealing to pedestrians. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The applicant has requested the zoning change to allow for development at a greater density than that allowed under the existing RSF-4 zoning district. The proposed NC zoning will encourage appropriate density on a parcel with access to major connecting corridors. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The NC zoning district allows a residential density that is greater than that allowed under the current RSF-4 zoning district: 10 units per acre versus 4. Given the property's undeveloped state, any development would invariably create the potential for increased traffic in the area. That said, and as previously noted, the property is located with access to Old Missouri Road, a Collector -classified street, and in close proximity to Rolling Hills Drive and Old Wire Road, Arterial and Collector streets respectively. There are not currently any signalized intersections in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, but this may change and be required in association with a proposed development submittal. While there will be an appreciable increase in traffic with any development, direct access to Old Missouri Road will likely limit the intrusion of through traffic into adjacent neighborhoods. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: Due to the property being currently undeveloped, development under the current zoning or the proposed zoning will result in an increase in the load on public services. That said, this increase has the potential to be greater under NC than the existing RSF-4 zoning. NC allows for 10 units per acre, while RSF-4 allows 4 units per acre. Despite the potential for greater density, the subject property has access to existing infrastructure, and is an area where staff does not feel a development would have significant adverse impacts on public services or facilities. Additionally, neither the Police nor Fire Departments have expressed objections to the proposal. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding RZN 17-6052 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, based on the findings discussed throughout this report. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward RZN 17-6052 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Date: January 22, 2018 O Tabled ® Forwarded O Denied Motion: Quinlan JSecond: Scroggin (Vote: 7-0-0 ICITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES Date: February_ 20, 2018 (plannegD O Approved O Denied BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • Unified Development Code: o §161.07, RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre o §161.29, NC, Neighborhood Conservation Request letter ■ Rezone Exhibit • One Mile Map • Close -Up Map • Current Land Use Map • Future Land Use Map This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet,. 161.07 - District RSF-4, Residential Single -Family - Four (4) Units Per Acre (A) Purpose. The RSF-4 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted Uses. Unit 1 j City-wide uses by right Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 41 Accessory dwellings (2) Conditional Uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 _.i Government facilities Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 12a _ T Limited business Unit 24 _ _ T Home occupations j Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Unit 44 j Cluster. Housing Development (C) Density Single-family Two (2) family dwellings dwellings Units per acre 4 or less 7 or less (D) Bulk and Area Regulations. Single-family Two (2) family Hillside Overlay District Lot 60 feet 70 feet minimum width j Hillside Overlay District Lot 8,000 square 12,000 square area minimum feet feet dwellings dwellings Lot minimum 70 feet 80 feet width j Lot area 8,000 square 12,000 square minimum feet j feet Land area per 8,000 square 6,000 square dwelling unit feet feet Hillside Overlay District Lot 60 feet 70 feet minimum width j Hillside Overlay District Lot 8,000 square 12,000 square area minimum feet feet This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. Land area per 8,000 square 6,000 square dwelling unit feet feet (E) Setback Requirements. Front Side Rear 15 feet 5 feet 15 feet (F) Building Height Regulations. Building Height Maximum 45 feet Height Regulations. Structures in this District are limited to a building height of 45 feet. Existing structures that exceed 45 feet in height shall be grandfathered in, and not considered nonconforming uses. (G) Building Area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. 161.29 - Neighborhood Conservation (A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation zone has the least activity and a lower density than the other zones. Although Neighborhood Conservation is the most purely residential zone, it can have some mix of uses, such as civic buildings. Neighborhood Conservation serves to promote and protect neighborhood character. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Neighborhood Conservation district is a residential zone. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted Uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 41 Accessory dwellings (2) Conditional Uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 9 Two (2) family dwellings J Unit 10 Three (3) and four (4) family dwellings 1 Unit 12a Limited business* Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 25 Offices, studios, and related services Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials Unit 36 Wireless communication facilities Unit 44 Cluster Housing Development (C) Density. Ten (10) Units Per Acre. (D) Bulk and Area Regulations. (1) Lot Width Minimum. Single Family 40 feet Two Family 80 feet Three Family 90 feet (2) Lot Area Minimum. 4,000 square feet (E) Setback Regulations. A build -to zone that is located Front between the front property line and a line 25 feet from the front property line. This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. Side - 5 feet _ Rear 5 feet Rear, from center line of 12 feet an alley (F) Building Height Regulations. Building Height Maximum 45 feet This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. JORGENSEN +ASSOCIATES RZN 17-6052 Request Letter 12/11/17 City of Fayetteville 113 W Mountain Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Att: Planning Dept. Re: Rezoning part of Keenan Property 124 W Sunbridge Drive, Suite 5 Fayetteville, AF 7270:3 Office: 479.442.9127 Fax: 479.582.4807 Attached please find information pertaining to a rezoning request. This property extends from Farr Lane on the North to old Missouri Rd to the West. The current zoning is RSF-4 and the request is to rezone to NC neighborhood conservation. Butterfield Elementary School is to the North, RSF-4 to the West, NSG to the South and RSF-4 to the East. Access to this property will be from Old Missouri Rd to the West, Farr Lane to the North and eventually Rolling Hills Drive will connect to the East. City water and sewer service will be off of Farr Lane and told Missouri Rd. Please review and let me know of any questions you may have. Thank you. Sincerely, David L.Jorgensen, P.E. I S31VIDOSSV+ N3SN39dorqw Till MDA ONIN023H : 3uu -3roHa Of 0 2 3 m z N LLI X, (loo ij i nis pacret nas peen re iacea wnn an U Ua[E RZN 17-6052 KEE NAN One Mile View 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles NORTH [IN 11-.2.1 R-0 zoning EXTRAGTR]N . - RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY Legend gi¢oiwiai COMMERCIAL ® RSFeS Ar .lana CI<a E Planning Area RSFa .�•� 4 _ RSR FORM 9ASED MSTrdCTS Fayetteville City Limits RSFea ri w•,, RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY an tlaiq Gaya. — Shared Use Paved Trail W-126 Reveen mi Two a�q Tniee lamny w own General 'Oummumysarvv s Trail (Proposed) 1 A -------- 12 IM,Negnea, ;AMF < �ese,w e, NegnOoinooO Conzervalron PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS Planning Area R F O oammeoaamd-U.1RaameMai Building Footprint INDUSTRIAL a INSTITUTIONAL Fayetteville City Limits =� ,;N. „a�N�11ntl� RZN 17-6052 Close Up View ETON ST I nus 1124:44.►1:1►1 FARR LN N" R -O Legend Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint Feet 0 112.5 225 450 675 900 1 inch = 300 feet A& NORTH Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 Residential -Office Neighborhood Services Gen P-1 RZN 17-6052 Future Land Use BRIARCLIFF ST CORTLAND ST i ETON ST G FILLS DR NORTH WARWICK DR z J Legend 4 Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint Feet 0 145 290 580 870 1,160 1 inch = 400 feet FUTURE LAND USE 2030 Natural Area Residential Neighborhood Area Civic Institutional This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet CityClerk From: Mayor Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:18 AM To: City -Clerk -old Cc: Jordan, Lioneld; Marr, Don Subject: FW: RZN 17-6052 Application to Rezone Property East of Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road Attachments: image2018-02-19-115709.pdf fyi -----Original Message ----- From: Leigh Anne Yeargan [mailto:leighanneyeargan@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 12:58 PM To: Mayor <Mayor@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Gray, Adella <wardl_poll@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Marsh, Sarah <wardl_post@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Petty, Matthew <ward2_pos2@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Tennant, Justin <ward3_posl@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Bunch, Sarah <ward3_pos2@fayetteville-ar.gov>; ward4_posl@fauetteville-ar.gov; Smith, Kyle <ward4_pos2@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Kinion, Mark <ward2_posl@fayetteville-ar.gov> Cc: Williams, Kit <kwilliams@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Garner, Andrew <agarner@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RZN 17-6052 Application to Rezone Property East of Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road Dear Mayor and Council Members - Please see the attached letter regarding the above -referenced zoning application. I would appreciate it if this letter is included as part of the record. Thank you for your consideration. Leigh Anne Yeargan This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. Leigh Anne Yeargan 3349 Picadilly Lane Fayetteville, AR 72703 February 19, 2018 Mayor Lionel Jordan (ma or fa etteville-ar, ov Ms. Adella Grey (wardl poslQfavettevilte-ar ov) Ms. Sarah Marsh (wardl os2 Rfaetteville-ar. ov) Mr. Mark Kinion (ward2 posi fa etteville-ar, ov) Mr. Matthew Petty (ward2 Dost c(7fayetteyille-ar eov) Mr. Justin Tenant (ward3 os1 fa etteville-ar. ov) Ms. Sarah Bunch (ward3os2 fayettevi.11eAa . Mr. John LaTour (ward4 os1 fa etteville-ar, ov) Mr. Kyle Smith (ward4 os2 fa etteville-ar.gav) Re: RZN 17-6052 - Application to Rezone Property East of Rolling Hills Road Drive and Old Missouri Road Dear Mayor and Esteemed Council Members: I am writing to request that the City Council vote against the application to rezone approximately 23 acres of land located East of Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road from RSF-4 - Reside,ntial Single Family - 4 - to NC - Neighborhood Conservation. My parents built the first house on Stanton Avenue in 1970. Both my brother and I attended Butterfield Elementary School, and we rode our bikes to and from school. Even then, there was a crossing guard at the intersection of Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road to ensure that students traveling to and from school were safe when crossing that intersection because of the heavy traffic. When I had the opportunity to move back to Fayetteville in 2009, 1 bought a house on Tartan Way in Huntingdon because I love this area so much. I moved two years ago to another house in the neighborhood, again because of my love for this area, Many of the people who I grew up with have also bought houses in the same neighborhoods where they lived. I recently discovered that the City Council voted on July 18, 2017 to rezone approximately 11 acres adjacent to Butterfield Elementary School from RSF-4 to NS -G - Neighborhood Services - General. According to the July 18, 2017 City Council minutes, the City Council voted to do so because of the belief that the rezoning would benefit the neighborhood and make it more "walkable." Had I been aware of the application to rezone this area at the time, I would have requested that the City Council deny the application. Fortunately, I was made aware of the most recent petition prior to it being approved by the City Council. To my knowledge, the area in question has been zoned residential for at least fifty years. The area mainly consists of single family homes built on a quarter of an acre of land. If the proposed NC zoning is approved, as many as 230 single family residents or 230 four family dwellings (with a conditional use) could be built. This would allow for 920 families as opposed to 92 which is what is allowed under the current RSF-4 zoning. This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. Mayor and City Council Members February 19, 2018 The land in question is owned by one landowner, who also lives in a house adjacent to the property. The land owner recently placed his personal residence for sale in addition to the recently rezoned 11 acres. The landowner has also listed 43 acres of land for sale which includes the 11 NS -G acres and the proposed NC acres. Both the personal residence and other land are listed with the same realtor. A City Council vote to approve RZN 17-6052 would be arbitrary and capricious because the applicant has failed to provide the information required for rezoning approval. An applicant seeking rezoning must fill out the application provided by the Planning Commission. The application states, "'[y]our application will not be placed. on the Planning Commission agenda until this information is furnished." (emphasis in the original). Section five of the application requires the following: A written description of this request addressing the following issues: a. Current ownership information and any proposed or pending property sales. b. Reason (need) for requesting the rezoning change. C. Statement of how the proposed rezoning will relate to surrounding properties in terms of land use, traffic, appearance, and signage. d. Availability of water and sewer (state size of lines). This information is available from the City Engineering Division. e. The degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use, planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. f. Whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time of the request. g. Whether the proposed zoning will create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. h. Whether the proposed zoning will alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Why it would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classification. The applicant in question provided none of the information required above. When questioned about why the staff submitted for approval the proposed rezoning without the above information, the staff replied that the "written description portion of the rezoning application are [sic] not a requirement enshrined in code; those are points the applicant can make to support their This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet Mayor and City Council Members February 19, 2018 3 request before staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council." February 9, 2018 email from Jonathan Curth to Nicole Claesen. After additional inquiry, the staff explained that the staff does not have "backing in the city code" to require those items. However, the staff has the authority to recommend whether a rezoning application should be approved and, as part of that authority, has the authority to require the information necessary to make that decision. Even if the applicant is not required to provide this information, the staff and Planning Commission are required to analyze whether proposed rezoning is needed or justified. Instead of doing so, the staff indicates that "the applicant has requested the zoning changes to allow for development ..." See January 8, 2018 Planning Commission Memo, p. 4, no. 2. A landowner's request for rezoning alone is not a basis for rezoning. There must be some evidence that the change is justified or needed. Rezoning is not appropriate based on the staff and Planning Commission's own findings regarding increased danger and congestion and alterations in population density. The staff and Planning Commission concede that there will be an appreciable increase in traffic due to this development. They justify the rezoning, however, by stating that any development would result in increased traffic. This is not a basis for rezoning property. Furthermore, the staff did no analysis of how much traffic would increase with RSF-4 development as opposed to NC development. Similarly, the staff's own statements regarding the increase of population density and its effects further support a denial of rezoning. The staff recognizes that the increase in the load on public services has the potential to be greater under NC zoning rather than RSF-4, but falls back on the position that since any development will increase the load, rezoning should be approved. Again, there is no analysis of what impact development under RSF-4 versus NC zoning will have on public services. The staff recognizes that sewer availability for the property is limited regardless of the type of development allowed. The staff notes that the two existing sewer connections would have to be extended including "relocation of service lines that connect to the manhole in this area." I can speak from personal experiences that there are significant drainage and soil issues in the proposed rezoning area. When I first moved to Tartan Way — which is on the same terrain as the proposed development - I had to put in a French drain. When I placed my house on the market, I had to install 13 piers due to foundation shifting in order to sell the house. I can only assume that more housing units per property will increase the drainage and soil issues. The staff avoids having to determine whether it would be impractical to use the land as currently zoned by concluding that there are no considerations which would warrant such an analysis. But, as stated previously, the staff failed to determine that the rezoning was justified or needed. Therefore, the staff must analyze whether the land can be used under the current RSF-4 zoning which it failed to do. Additionally, the staff did absolutely no analysis on how the proposed zoning would impact Butterfield Elementary School. The impact on a school that is close to the proposed zoning is reason enough to deny rezoning. See Little Rock v. Parker, 241 Ark. 381 (1966). The staff concedes there will be increased traffic which necessarily imposes additional risks to children traveling to and from school and playing outside at recess. It is my understanding that during the Council's site visit this past summer, This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. Mayor and City Council Members February 19, 2018 4 the Mayor had to stop traffic in order to allow children on bikes to cross the intersection — and this was when school was not in session. "Walkability" for both students and residents will severely be impacted by increased traffic. There is also no analysis on how the proposed zoning would impact adjacent land owners and property values. Many residents bought their homes based on the current zoning and make-up of the neighborhood. The staff's findings are merely conclusory and not supported by any substantial evidence. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the purpose of the Neighborhood Conservation zoning district and the City's goals for growth and development. The zoning district Neighborhood Conservation was first proposed in the Fayetteville Downtown Master Plan adopted in 2004. It was adopted as part of the zoning code in 2006. It is also mentioned in the Walker Park Neighborhood Plan adopted in 2008. Both plans were adopted after significant public input. One of the fundamental goals of the Downtown Master Plan was Inclusionary Zoning. As defined by the Downtown Master Plan, Inclusionary Zoning "will set forth a minimum percentage of units to be provided in a specific development affordable to households at a particular income level, generally defined as a percentage of the median household income." The Downtown Master Plan recognizes that more residents are needed in the Downtown area, and that it is "important to encourage and provide more opportunities for people to live Downtown" and to revitalize Downtown Fayetteville so that it becomes "a primary, first -choice residential option." The Walker Park Neighborhood Plan recognizes that "[cjhanges over time have shaped the neighborhood's development plan as the area shifted from a predominantly rural area to a modest extension of downtown neighborhoods to an area zoned for multi -family housing." One of the guiding principles of the Walker Park Neighborhood Plan is to retain a balance of uses and housing emphasizing connectivity and walkability. In order to accomplish these goals, the City proposed rezoning a substantial portion of the Walker Park neighborhood as NC. It is clear from both the Downtown Master Plan and the Walker Park Neighborhood Plan that the NC zoning district is designed for the purpose of revitalizing areas in which residential options have declined or become unfavorable by providing additional housing options. The 2030 City Master Plan — also adopted after significant public input — while acknowledging the adoption of form based zoning districts, contemplates the future use of the Rolling Hills area solely as residential. No neighborhood plan has been developed for the Rolling Hills area because it is not an area similar to Downtown or the Walker Park neighborhood in need of revitalization to attract more residents. The housing in the area is in high demand because of the reasonable housing prices and proximity to Butterfield Elementary School. In fact, I recently received a blind letter from a realtor at Lindsey & Associates, Inc. representing a client looking for a homeowner in the Butterfield school district willing to sell her property, The staff and Planning Commission's recommendation to now approve NC zoning in the Rolling Hills area is inconsistent with the purpose of that zoning district as exemplified by the Downtown Master Plan and Walker Park Neighborhood Plan. It also circumvents public input regarding what is desired by the community as expressed in the 2030 City Master Plan. This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. Mayor and City Council Members February 19, 2018 5 One of the goals expressed by the City Council for development is to allow for infill to prevent sprawl and increase walkability. These goals can readily be accomplished by the current zoning — RSF-4. There is no evidence that they cannot be accomplished by the current zoning, or that NC zoning will better accomplish these goals. Significantly, the proposed NC rezoning as well as the previously approved NS -G zoning are spot zoning which is clearly impermissible. Spot zoning "departs from the comprehensive treatment or privileges not in harmony with the other use classifications in the area and without any apparent circumstances which call for different treatment."' PH, LLC v. City of Conway, 344 S.W.3d 660, 668 (Ark 2009) (citation omitted) (emphasis in the original). There is absolutely no evidence that circumstances have changed which would warrant changing the current RSF-4 zoning to NC. The 2030 Master Plan contemplates that the property shall remain zoned solely as residential. Finally, the circumstances surrounding the applications for rezoning of this land are extremely curious. Although there are 43 acres of undeveloped land for sale, the owner first sought to rezone only 11 acres as NS -G (shortly after the NS -G zoning district was adopted by the City Council). Once that was approved, the owner sought to rezone 23 acres as NC. The prior NS -G rezoning was a substantial reason cited by the staff in support of its finding that an NC zoning was compatible with the neighboring land. The staff is bootstrapping the NC zoning recommendation on the prior NS -G zoning approval. If both are compatible with the neighborhood, then why were two separate rezoning applications submitted at different times? Why was the applicant not required to provide the information in the application which must be provided before the staff will place the matter on the Planning Commission agenda? And; if the proposed rezoning is beneficial, why is the land owner selling his personal residence which is adjacent to the proposed rezoning? I am not opposed to development. Fayetteville's population has doubled since I grew up here, and I recognize the need for additional housing. I just do not want new development at the expense of existing neighborhoods that are the reason people move to Fayetteville to live. The current RSF-4 zoning is appropriate for future development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ir 4eh ne Year g an OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Mayor Jordan Kit Williams City Attorney Blake Pennington Assistant City Attorney Rhonda Lynch CC: City Council Paralegal Don Marr, Chief of Staff Garner Stoll, Development Services Director Andrew Garner, City Planning Director FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney -CA DATE: February 28, 2018 RE: Rezoning Applications from James Keenan You asked whether the landowner's rezoning application/ petition was sufficiently noncompliant with the Unified Development Code to require re -submittal before it could be approved by the City Council. The Rezoning Application states at the very top: "Please fill out this form completely, supplying all necessary information and documentation to support your request. Your application zoill not be placed on the Planning Commission agenda until this information is furnished." (emphasis in original) Even though "Please" is used, the form of this sentence is a clear command: "fill out this form completely.... " It is therefore a requirement rather than a suggestion. This is further strengthened by the second italicized sentence denying placement "on the Planning Commission agenda until this information is furnished." The short letter authored by David Jorgensen and supplied to me by Planning does not refer to many items or factors listed on page 3 of the application under the heading "A written description of this request addressing the following items:" Even with apparent defect in the rezoning application, the Planning Department unfortunately placed this on the Planning Commission Agenda which voted to forward it to the City Council with the recommendation to enact the rezoning requested. This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet. Can the City Council now pass this property owner's rezoning request despite the incomplete application for rezoning? I do not believe so. I base this not only on the zoning application itself, but upon the real law governing rezoning requests by landowners, the Unified Development Code and specifically § 154.03 Private Parties/Zoning Amendment. The City Council enacted § 154.03 to require certain things to be done by a landowner to rezone their property. "(A) Petition. Any private party... upon payment of the appropriate fee, shall submit to the Planning Commission a petition giving the following information: (1) Legal description of the property involved; (2) Zoning classification request for the property; and (3) Statement explaining why the proposed changes will not conflict with the surrounding land uses." The letter submitted with application certainly did not explain why the proposed change would not conflict with the surrounding uses (which were not mentioned in the letter). § 154.03 is mandatory ("shall submit") upon the petitioner (which is synonymous with applicant). Therefore, a proper rezoning petition or application was never submitted to the Planning Commission by the landowner which nullifies any consideration or vote concerning the rezoning petitions. Can the City Council just ignore § 154.03's requirements and pass the rezoning ordinance anyway? No. Fayetteville must follow and obey its own procedural and zoning ordinances until they are repealed or altered. _ "A city simply cannot pass procedural ordinances they expect to be followed by their residents and then conveniently ignore them themselves. A legislative body must substantially comply with its own procedural policies." Potocki v. City of Fort Smith, 279 Ark. 19, 648 S.W. 2d 462, (1983). (emphasis added) "(N)or does a city have to create a zoning ordinance or a land use plan or adopt planned use districts or planned commercial districts, but once it has done so it must follow the ordinance until it is repealed or altered." City of Little Rock v. Pfeifer, 318 Ark. 679, 887 S.W. 2d 296, 298 (1994). (emphasis added) 2 This packet has been replaced with an updated new agenda packet Recommendation I recommend that this rezoning petition be sent back to the Planning Commission to be heard once the landowner has fully complied with § 154.03 (A) Petition. I also recommend that the Planning Department amend its application to fully comply with § 154.03 (A). If the Planning Department would like to suggest that any rezoning petitioner submit additional information such as the items found in (5) of the application to assist the Planning Department in making its recommendation for or against the rezoning, the application needs to be clear such additional information is not required. However, a "(s)tatement explaining why the proposed change will not conflict with the surrounding land uses," is clearly required. Once the landowner's application (petition) complies with § 154.03 (A), both the Planning Commission and then the City Council can act on such rezoning request. /2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company COMPANY IM Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality February 07, 2018 Bain report By Karen Barris, Austin Kimson and Andrew Schwedel Executive summary Demographics, automation and inequality have the potential to dramatically reshape our world in the 2020s and beyond. Our analysis shows that the collision of these forces could trigger economic disruption far greater than we have experienced over the past 60 years (see Figure 1). The aim of this report by Bain's Macro Trends Group is to detail how the Impact of aging populations, the adoption of new automation technologies and rising inequality will likely combine to give rise to new business risks and opportunities. These gathering forces already pose challenges for businesses and investors. In the next decade, they will combine to create an economic climate of increasing extremes but may also trigger a decade -plus investment boom. In the US, a new wave of investment in automation could stimulate as much as $8 trillion in incremental investments and abruptly lift Interest rates. By the end of the 2020s. automation may eliminate 20% to 25 % of current jobs, hitting middle- to low-income workers the hardest. As investments peak and then decline —probably around the end of the 2020s to the start of the 2030s—anemic demand growth is likely to constrain economic expansion, and global interest rates may again test zero percent. Faced with market imbalances and growth -stifling levels of inequality, many societies may reset the government's role in the marketplace. The analysis and business Insights in this report can help leaders put these changes in context and consider the effects they will have on their companies, their industries and the global economy. , Chapter 1 explores the impact of aging populations and the end of plentiful labor. The baby boomer generation powered a long but temporary surge in labor force growth. Now this group is moving into retirement, and labor force growth is slowing. That, in turn, imperils growth. Chapter 2 examines how automation may solve one problem by increasing productivity and powering growth but creates another by potentially eliminating millions of jobs and suppressing wages for many workers. Chapter 3 looks at how rising inequality could threaten growth. Demographic shifts combined with the next phase of automation will increase income inequality from already high'leveis. Middle- and low -Income families are likely to be hit hardest, putting downward pressure on consumer spending and growth. Chapter 4 traces how developments are likely to unfold in the turbulent 2020s. Investment in new automation technologies should fuel a period of robust growth. When it tapers off —sometime around the end of the decade, based on our estimates —growth is likely to become severely demand constrained. Chapter 5 considers the outlook if governments Intervene more actively In the marketplace to address economic imbalances. Their options include tax, labor market and regulatory interventions. The manner and likelihood of such interventions will vary greatly from country to country. Chapter 6 focuses on the practical business implications of these trends for leadership teams, including the need to adjust to a macro environment that veers between extremes. We call the coming period of upheaval "the Great Transformation" and define it through 10 interlocking themes, including the changing ages and stages of life, the rise of platforms and post -globalization in geopolitics. Our research indicates that the depth and breadth of changes in the 2020s will set apart this transformation from many previous ones. NJ— i ® The collision of demographics, automation and inequality is likely to create decodes of disruption MMMEMEENIERIE Detnogrn h s;3 ' p, rruno'n 9 tin not 0` G a '.+r"s�';v�i$ reAs iaForkarcei; ayuss'Ilre r r-�.r"`r�A,. z Ir a ca �i fy'vl?t!Ytiuiaycaxs�Hm*oftntio potendatema d - - iffl�.,, --�f "tt Introduction http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 1 /32 4/17/2018 labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company By 2030--little more than a decade from now —the global economy will likely be in the midst of a major transformation. Companies and investors grapple with changing conditions constantly, but our research points to an unusual level of volatility in the decades ahead. To understand why, we look at the three major forces that will shape the 2020s: demographics, automation and inequality. These forces are already In motion and set to collide. The majority of the world's workforce is aging rapidly. We forecast US labor force growth, for instance, will stow to 0.4% per year in the 2020s (see Figure 2). That major demographic shift is bringing an end to the abundance of labor that has fueled economic growth since the 1970s. Thanks to longer and healthier lives, many people are working well into their 60s and beyond; but the trend toward later retirement is not likely to offset the negative effects of aging populations. syiw. a V US labor force growth will remoin low for the foreseeable future US lobor force average annuol growth, by decode ' �, rir`fifififff?tfffifffrrfffifffifffff 1.1% rvea iirtirifffffffftfffiiffrifffffitt#ffffftifftftfi 1,5% �To ffffifffifffffiffff#ifffffrif"tit'tiffstftftffirff4ffii4ftffiifii4tfffi_ftiif/fifiRiiiii 2b`k` w� ffftifiif#ffftffflffffffflffif4ff}tffffffflifftft4ifit'tft'fff 1,81Y. svw,' fififffiftftffffftt'iifftfffffffiifffffitff 1.3% zoo�rffiitrfiff€4ffffsfifffitiffffi#tffffif 1.290 20- ffffiiiff"fffiffffff 0.7% xza, i}}fiftfirii»i�04%'° za,w it#Iillfififtfft'A:5%" ' zxc..iftfiif#fitiif`Oil9o'�+'1 . -Bgtn`projes!on lr.ne.4. C.•.nrJ liaw 36�:n of C..... Prwe, Uw..Nm....-e, G..T m••'y:•. 1W 4 As the total size of the labor force stagnates or declines in many markets, the momentum for economic growth should slow. if it does, governments will face major challenges, including surging healthcare costs, old -age pensions and high debt levels. On the plus side, the lagging wages of mid. to tower -skilled workers in advanced economies should benefit from the simple economics of greater demand and lesser supply. But demographics is not the only force in motion. The next phase of automation has begun, and it will accelerate in the years ahead. Faced with a rising scarcity of labor, companies and investors are likely to draw increasingly on automation technologies, which, in turn, would boost productivity. But to grow, economies need demand to match rising output. Our analysis shows automation is likely to push output potential far ahead of demand potential. The rapid spread of automation may eliminate as many as 20% to 25% of current jobs —equivalent to 40 million displaced workers —and depress wage growth for many more workers. The benefits of automation will likely flow to about 20% of workers —primarily highly compensated, highly skilled workers —as well as to the owners of capital. The growing scarcity of highly skilled workers may push their incomes even higher relative to lesser -skilled workers. As a result, automation has the potential to significantly increase income inequality and, by extension, wealth inequality. For countries entering the 2020s with a relatively low level of income inequality, where demand growth does not already constrain supply growth, the widening divide may be easier to manage. But the two largest economies in the world —the US and China —have levels of income inequality at or near their historic peaks. Automation will likely further raise inequality. -if automation rolls out slowly, workers who lose their jobs will have more time to adjust, retrain or simply retire out of the workforce. A slow pace would avoid an abrupt spike in investments for newly automated capacity and create a relatively gentle push and. pull between the need for more output capacity (due to unfavorable demographics) and more output potential (due to increased automation). In this scenario, the world economy would muddle through the shift to a more automated economy with lackluster growth but also less disruption. But a slow transition flies in the face of data on the quickening pace of technological adoption over the past half century. it assumes a sluggish pace not seen for a hundred years or so, since farming automation triggered the industrialization of the workforce in the West. By contrast, a moderately more rapid rollout over 10 to 20 years would trigger a massive investment surge, up to an incremental $8 trillion in the US alone, based on our estimates (see Figure 3). Much of the added output potential would be directed back toward meeting investment demand, pushing overall growth rates back up to levels seen in the 1980s and 1990s. But rapid automation of the US service sector, for example, could eliminate jobs two to three times more rapidly than in previous transformations (see Figure 4). As the investment wave recedes, it may leave in its wake deeply unbalanced economies in which income is concentrated among those most likely to save and invest, not consume. Growth at that point would become deeply demand constrained, exposing the full magnitude of labor market disruption temporarily hidden from view by the investment boom. Over time, the interplay of these three major forces may produce an apparent contradiction —a dramatic surge in output potential that ultimately leads to stagnation. ' http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 2/32 417/2018 ' Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company rig.. g ® US companies could invest nearly $8 trillion in automation technologies by 2030 S, ^r F trlEllon1' Ntrillions Additional capitol stock required Cumulative additional investment to achieve 2030 productivity gains needed to oRoin capital stock w..,..w.:v�.Cwy.vlM'.wb.mt..Pb:.,.3weiL�p.M.u:dnL al,t:,ya,tvuim,w3.dgy.s}id..J ., e�w.l lww..w San:.: B.n r.o:m iaM,Gm,penalr,q'MIJ flu.,. A W US service sector automation could displace labor two to three times more rapidly than previous transformotions Aftroga onnual workers displaced, tooled to the size of the 2016 total labor force 3M Nearly 2.5M 2 -- t £Himatud i 12M 1900-1940 workeri 1 0 8M ' reohso 4.6M rats: around t 0.7M per 0 year Agriculture to Manufacturing: construction: She Great industry: 1970-1990 2007-2010 Transformation: 1900-1940 rueo:tr t 3X d bFA. N3yy asp d labs. 2420 onward Neirty 40%d b1 v fwc. d'uptx.d o.er lees d'nptoc.d owr 2o%_23% of M kbw ,w at,,6c.doe. needy 2e yeon newt:, tan Yam+ fwmdbpbmd ...Ay 4a ym — 10-V y.w. ' wr:e..4wp'u.w.a/.LldLu,.lmd'a,awlsw:p.am.ol,,.S.nvrendstar3z.d egx.ludvsJ.ea6an liCOn IOA What happens beyond that potential pivot is open to speculation. Optimists argue that the clear pattern of history is that creating more value with fewer resources has led to rising material wealth and prosperity for centuries. We see no reason to believe that this time will be different —eventually. But the time horizon for our analysis stretches only into the early 2030s, about 15 to 20 years from now. Relieving the imbalances causing the stagnation in that time period means changing the pattern of income distribution somehow, shifting income toward those inclined to spend rather than save. Many options exist, and different countries will choose different paths. But historically, governments confronted with serious economic imbalances often have opted for a more active role in reshaping market -based outcomes. Our base -case scenario points to a radically changed business environment in the 2020s and beyond. Many large forces will be moving at once. Interest rates, for example, may dart upward during one phase and then fall back toward zero hi the next Some household segments may do fine for a while and then rapidly slip into distress —similar to the experience of the US middle class in the years up to, and right after, the global financial crisis. The impact on any given country will differ based on its distinct economic, social and governmental structures. Similarly, industries will face a different array of challenges based on their particular value chains, labor forces and national governments. Business leaders, investors and heads of organizations and institutions will need to look beyond traditional targets and goals and develop the ability to adjust to a changing and volatile macroeconomic environment. That may require new performance metrics, planning techniques and even organizational structures. Adaptability requires agility and speed. But equally important will be the strength to absorb sudden shocks and resilience to missteps and unforeseeable challenges along the way. Leadership teams that start thinking now about shifting resources to build resilience will be better able to navigate the broad arc of the coming transformation and cope with increased volatility as the forces of demographics, automation and inequality collide. Some key implications follow. Be wary of following market momentum —volatility will Increase. The crosscurrents of multiple macroeconomic forces will ebb and flow at different times, making it dangerous to assume that signals indicate stable opportunities. Trends that had longer trajectories up until now, such as falling interest rates or even growth itself, may reverse course far more rapidly than in past decades. Companies can prepare for such shifts by making resiliency a high strategic priority and actively managing and monitoring macro risks. Middle-class markets are likely to erode. Many consumer -facing businesses design and market goods based on a three-tier household model, including a small upper -income tier, a small tower -income tier and a broad middle -income tier. Pressure on the middle class may favor a primarily two-tier structure, with upper -income households representing roughly 20 % and lower -income households making up the remaining 801/6. This change would trigger a dramatic shift in the way that companies segment goods and services markets within and across these tiers. http://www.bain.com/publications/articiesAabor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.as'px 3/32 4/1712018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company Expect an interest rate speed bump. Interest rates are likely to rebound upward (potentially rapidly) in the next decade before dropping back toward historical lows, making capital management for businesses and capital preservation for investors more challenging. Since the 1950s, interest rates have tended to rise or fall gradually with patterns in one direction or the other, lasting decades. An environment of volatile interest rates would expose companies and investors to a greater risk of being caught with exposures pointing in the wrong direction. Automation could fuel a 10. to 15-year boom followed by a bust. The next wave of automation investment will create many opportunities but will grow Increasingly perilous as it builds momentum. Companies may feet competitive pressure to invest in automation technologies, similar to the way they felt compelled to create global supply chains in the 1990s and 2000s. But to avoid being caught on the wrong side of the investment cycle, businesses and investors will need to pay greater attention to monitoring their risk exposure as the investment cycle progresses. Highly skilled, high -income labor will grow increasingly scarce. The pace at which displaced workers retrain and migrate toward higher -skilled jobs will likely be too slow to alleviate shortages. The challenge for companies will be attracting, growing and retaining highly skilled talent and maximizing worker's productivity by rethinking how their businesses are structured Baby boomer spending growth will peak in the 2020s before tapering. Compared with previous generations, baby boomers will extend the period of high -income eaming and spending by about 10 years. The sheer size of this generation means there are considerable market opportunities for most goods and services, including big -ticket items such as housing and transportation. But growth based on this demographic shift will become more concentrated among the top 20%of households. More government in more places is likely. Faced with rising inequality, governments are likely to become more interventionist, using higher taxes and regulation to manage market imbalances. Governments may expand their role in the marketplace, similar to what was seen in the West between the end of World War II and the eariy 1980s, by shifting resources as well as becoming a direct buyer of goods and services. Intergenerational conflicts will potentially rise, drawing in businesses. As retirees and the working -age population battle for resources, businesses may become indirectly involved. Businesses, management teams and even shareholders may add their voices to the conversation about government transfers as they grapple with existing pension obligations, the scarcity of highly skilled workers, social pressure to address job tosses and declining incomes among mid- to low -skilled workers. What follows in the body of this report is the extended narrative of the collision of demographics, automation and Inequality. How these major. macroeconomic trends play out depends on many variables, and their combination and interdependencies add to the complexity of forecasting a likely scenario. Based on deep analysis, Bain's Macro Trends Group constructed an integrated scenario —a base case —for how these many moving parts could come together. We also discuss some alternate possibilities in subsequent chapters, recognizing that technology and innovation have produced unexpected outcomes over the past century. Chapter 6 covers some practical implications for businesses and investors looking to adapt to the volatile macroeconomic environment ahead. Chapter 1: The era of plentiful labor is ending The majority of today's business leaders take abundant labor for granted. Their careers have spanned an era of rapidly expanding global labor pools —an anomaly that is now ending. Three temporary developments converged in the 1950s to create the fastest labor force growth in modem history., the coming of age of the baby boomer generation, women's entry into the workforce, and the integration of China and India into the global economy. But shifting demographics, combined with technological and social changes, point to dramatically different labor market conditions in the coming decade. Labor force growth and labor productivity growth form the two halves of the equation that determine overall economic output growth. Labor productivity growth without the kicker from labor force growth can create an overall macroeconomic climate of stagnation—Japan's lost decades are a good example of this phenomenon. Between 1960 and 2015, one-third of total output growth among OECD member nations was due to labor force growth (see Figure 5). In the US, labor force growth comprised half of ail output growth from 1950 to 2015 (see Figure 6). ryw. 5 V Labor force growth accounted for one-third of OECD GDP gains between 1960 and 2015 Caatributors to OECD annual GOP growth, 1960-2015 5».w •nyMbo.l: CftD. M'. xk,im fr� fnmYmdnj. 1U, http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 4/32 4117/2018 .Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company rfin.6 ® labor force growth accounted for 50% of US GDP gains between 1950 and 2015 Contributors to US annual GDP, gran,$, 1950-2015 3% 1.4 2.8 2 0.4 1.3 RM 1.4 1 -0.3 0 Population Female labor Mole labor Not labor tabor Tarot GDP ages 16 force force force growth Productivity growth and older participation participation growth •.4Sr.4n.pa.lk.:,:v...a�ebwE.ala., .eh'^3'6 ervbtn 110 ¢2 eu.6 'A ue k,Mr .e,dE¢nane A+d,+iv�3 MwNtabx StlVM :Bah Tlsa'w.c GaspardVi,. A)1 But the three factors that created this powerful lift to growth —women entering the workforce, the opening of China and India, and the baby boomer generation —are now largely mature, and their positive boost to macro conditions Is now fading. In 1950, for example, 35% of prime working -age women in the US were employed. That number increased to 50% by 1970 and 75% today. In OECD countries, about 43% of women were working in 1960, and that figure rose to about 73% by 2016. The early 1970s marked a major turning point in the development of the global labor market. Warming relations between the US and China set in motion the opening of China to the global economy. The Chinese labor force, along with Indla's, added 1.3 billion new workers to the global labor pool between 1970 and 1990 and powered the acceleration in the global trade of goods and services (see Figure 7). This phenomenon made the labor farces of China and India available to other countries through the export;of totally manufactured goods. Aging baby boomers The biggest force powering the decades -long expansion of labor pools was the entry of the baby boomer generation into the workforce. Born in the 19 years following the end of World War II (1946-1964), baby boomers came of age as the full effects of antibiotics and vaccinations led to plummeting childhood mortality rates but before the mass introduction of birth control led to the declining birth rates now prevalent in developed and developing countries. As baby boomers entered the workforce in the 1970s, nations around the world benefited from a demographic dividend. US labor force growth in the 1970s was 2.6% per year vs. 1.5%just one decade earlier. Advanced economies' growth rates rose to 1.2% per year in the 1970s and 1980s. China saw a near trebling of labor force growth rates, to 2.8% per year, in the 1970s and 1980s compared with 1.1% per year for the prior decades. However, the sheer number of baby boomers around the world entering the workforce at the same time started a dramatic swelling of the labor pool that is now ebbing as baby boomers age into retirement (see Figure 8). Only parts of south/southeast Asia and Africa don't share this generational pattern. But these regions face other challenges in attracting large inflows of foreign investment and are unlikely to cushion the coming demographic debt. item 7 F Global market entry of China and Indio more than tripled the size of the world's labor force Exports of goods and services as o porcentoge of GDP 40% 30 20 China Indio 10 0 - 1960 1970 1980`1990 2000 2010 Popololion by region, altos 15-64 38 2.b 1970-2010 annual growth 2 .. .,_,.._....._. .. 2.0 2.0% 1 im 1 2.4% �. 0.6% 0 1970 1990 2010 N»,: 4pon,meanvmlaN US de.we, aweenv..n,p.,..,,pe: ol.e•:d v.¢c.....nJ.6 ne 5.a5n.r,f�µe,!a,oSy .vnd'u wrrrsmd rtl Imn:Jr..ko•a.w.a.+»a:.cud.d rA„mnV/u. "u1:.81,e,. 4Are...K,.u."M b,F. U. £evue: Wt;'M+NO Haifle:.lnzrv. )..d,G perdri,.)Y./ http://www,bain.com/publications/articlestlabor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequatity.Lspx 5/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company Mi.. e W Baby boomers powered worldwide labor force growth in 1970s and 1980s, but this is slowing ArI gro%16 in population ages 25-54 chum:__ bye': ;3s ssa 2 c> e a,dro i cN m r. r• l CW_ -1 - 1950-1970 b`197o1990'"'. 1990-2010 2010-2030 9obr ., p=<..s:g..o<Sto«e � � Advancod oconamies ■ Doveioping ecanon -%I. Na+[AYa.ed.•4rMW iq WeeY W, wrun (erpe, CKY:4 �+NW.y N. rMmq aW Wpon; dewlyr tbwm'w<utivL eG e.a, <e:.].y uM<a !.a<M1Y.d <anlin o ddi=.d b nx tAt ' So..;a 4YL bp/ersn a.Si:s: teSn.lb.:e SmAC p�.'s i01J Longer and healthier life spans have convinced many baby boomers to defer retirement, helping offset slower labor force growth. Thirty years ago, life expectancy at birth among OECD nations was 73.5 years. By 2015, it had risen to 80.3 years. Already. effective retirement ages have started to rise, a trend we expect to continue (see the sidebar "Life span expansion will slow"). At the same time, however, the cohort in their late teens and 20s study longer and enter the workforce later. That trend offsets the effect of delayed retirement The reason is clear: The costs of economic adulthood, especially education and homeownership, have risen relative to incomes-65% to 70% higher in 2013 than in 1970, according to our estimates. We expect the slowdown in young people entering the workforce to continue for at least the next two decades (see the sidebar "The five ages and stages of life"). The net result of these trends —namely, older workers delaying retirement,'younger workers delaying entry into the workforce and baby boomers moving into retirement —does not alleviate much of the global deceleration in workforce growth or, by extension, the rate of sustainable global growth. to the coming decade, the population of those age 65 and older will grow faster than the working -age population In OECD countries for the first time in history, leading to overall dependency ratios falling below 1:1 in some markets (see Figure 9). Labor force growth will slaw to a crawl in the US, while Western Europe will experience outright shrinkage (see Figures 10 and 11). noer.9 V Despite longer work spans, the relative size of the workforce will shrink to less than one worker per dependent by 2030 0 S=r<d adaksasvI rteretimnent Baby boomer delI youth entry increasing work spon poputarian bulge m entering retuemem O 25 Sa 100 and older - ,;.Wiitiierto=dsc naenYr'aPio US , `'• �' `: �<.� MM :- . Ris:eg viork spans mn r waoaYie�Aho demo iapli rt+eodviind , . a t . nom.to W U$ labor force growth will remain low for the foreseeable future US labor force average annual growth, by decode tw.q! ffflfifitffitiffittitifilttiltlftfft 1.1% r9aa Yttliflt'fff4fPt4ttttttllfll'44941t4FTtifYfttYTtli4 1.5% lifltiiftfffftfffffiffffitffiffRfftitiiti9ttfffffilfftififfitiifitiffftfliiitiififi 2-6% t4�'` ffittifitffttiitittisiftftfif4tittftfftfiftfftflfffitfttti 1.$9b s9ro, ftT9tlYfff1994ifPTtit9111t'1}1'19111PPtfYi9tt 1.3% zuaY fffvi;ifiRttfttiiiitittYtifitit4ttiftfti 1.2% — fffffiffffftfffffitif 0.7% — lfffiilllff- O.4% zm� ;flfflflif��0.3i6 ` ' � .1 �ao< fffftf}it'ftffit 0,5%,l `' Bain p�ojei:tian ..I http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 6/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company nne I t V European labor force growth will shri 1k for the foreseeable future EU28 lobo force w rago onnuoi growth, by decode 1.546 , Bcrn.projecrion' 1.0 0.9 0 8 0.9 "' t .. 0.5 16 o.s 0.5 0.0 _ -0.1 -0.5 1950s 1960s 1970. 19803 1990. :-000s 2010, 2020s 2030s. 2040s'::"2050i:- Na•a: Gsv avxd m..d.r•«evcyc.v;efuaa•,!<d:G>vgoi4d•n�•s+xceJ,Aa:ary u•vd .vie lGB.p E'Rsagr.11..Od Mv1r.. pc.r,:ipci mw.mdly vl arw; wu.•. aa..ba'..sa ,o. pv,:,:mray.vr.vh•2+�I! S.,wx GfQ; YN: Bvi.rM.e n..d,Gwv m.ty:t }B1> $5 trillion GDP growth gap Bain Macro Trends Group analysis indicates the t deceleration in labor force growth in OECD countries could result in a $5.4 trillion GDP shortfall by 2030 (see Figure 12). Historic labor force growth rates would have contributed $8.6 trillion to GDP growth over that period, but slower labor force growth will produce only $2.3 trillion. Increased labor particpation of workers age 55 and older will add back $1.4 trillion, but that figure is offset by $1 trillion due to the declining participation rates of younger workers. In total, changes to labor force growth contribute $3 trillion, leaving a $5.4 trillion growth gap that can only be closed by a sharp increase in the productivi" growth rate. China's situation is even more imbalanced due to its one -child policy. The combination of a baby boom followed by a baby bust will abruptly- diminish China's labor pool and could aggravate labor scarcity - White the quantity of goods and services produced is likely to slow in the coming decade due to demographics, demand growth should remain robust. Older households generally consume more than they produce, making up the difference through financial savings. When we take into account off -the -books spending through public health systems such as the UK's NHS or Medicare in the US, households 75 years and older consume nearly as much as households headed by a 35-year-old, albeit in very different categories (see Figure 13). 1'p,. 12 V Workers delaying retirement will not ill labor force gap to maintain historical GDP growth Connibvtors to OECD onnuot GOP growth, 2015-2030 $651 60 55 2,3 1.4 50 48.8 t� 0_2 rmn Mgm _1.0 M 5.4 65.8 closing the gap would 8.6 reuire 5q 5 million odditional workers or 54% higher productivity growth vs. 1995-2015 S Gw.b, 6 —1M cow. Glffi -P`d° I.W- 166n W.— 6r... G• t" G°P ro 2nB0 k u+vumWrg GIY; 011, dyer l6 imc Par lace pa8 lasn Vv'6 r�Y• t:'VS-201S 1 nS a.l atria oyvr„n .k x.,. eoa:�•• 995.2e15 d7P op•• IS-29 a,d oxls •vW-Are o[>.. GOv.r max Nravle4l4.�®v..nny., yx ...L,:. w•+'u+ao,9'1R•+ s.x.—crra B.:• uo:A r..s c„Qs.,y:,. ;ov http://www. bain.com/publications/articies/la bor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-i nequality.aspx 7/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality = Bain & Company In addition, older households are spending more in absolute terms due to longer, healthier life spans. Between 1984 and 2015, households in the US headed by a person age 75 years or older increased spending by more than 50%. Out-of-pocket healthcare costs were.a major component of the increase, but so were housing and transportation, illustrating a much broader range of products and services consumed (see Figure 14). rypm id Household expenditures of people oges 75 and older have grown by more thon 50% since 1984 . Household expenditures (2015 US dollors), 75 and alder head of household $50K Nv.t i4eMron rWi.�emaeiancf�Ss, AwlAxwmu a.n:mx.^8F]A,md .vddd q/yha �oannar r. ya.. aim.d an ](d.]p19 a.o,n„ ntfanko A�.+.+iA, Cu.w� fy.,dlw waywi LLS Gmupace ien»I'y�ne SwerceS s,..endF M, SaiAY csaw.,fq.,dlw ww,;�SG.�.baa,fCm. Abw NN, Cn,ee,dr,:, ]0�] Risk to the financial system For capital markets, the increased spending by an aging population could spell trouble. As people retire. they will be liquidating savings en masse. Financial savings are only backed by the real output potential of the economy, so the practical consequence for capital markets is likely to be too much capital drawdown chasing too little real capacity. Until now, the dramatic inflation of financial assets vs. the size of the real economy has masked the coming challenge posed by insufficient real growth to meet future obligations (see the Bain report A World Awash in Money)_ But as baby boomers begin using assets and pensions, the large-scale liquidation of financial assets could lead to a drop in their value. One risk here is that guaranteed private or government pensions that similarly relied on financial asset inflation to meet future obligations will become highly strained or could break, especially at subnational levels of government. Countries will have limited policy options to alter demographics at a national level and increase output: These may include increasing the supply of labor through increased immigration, incentives for more female workforce participation and improving workers' skills to raise their productivity. But given the breadth and scale of the demographic imbalances, these levers are unlikely to meaningfully offset declining labor force growth at the global level. Good news for workers? A shrinking labor pool should be good news for younger workers —scarcity raises their market value. And in the near term, this may be true. The immediate challenge for business over the next few years will be attracting and retaining workers, especially highly skilled ones who already are scarce. Employers will need to enhance existing incentives with higher wages, flexible work arrangements and more attractive corporate cultures. The declining cost of distance — the cost of moving raw materials, labor and finished goods —will allow many companies to offer employees the option of working'remotety (see the Bain Brief "Spatial Economics: The Declining Cost of Distance"). Businesses that have not already done so may feel compelled to offer millennials a higher purpose to work --a sense of mission beyond shareholder value alone (see the Bain Brief "The Firm of the Future'). But the mid- and low -skilled workers that form the vast majority of the workforce —and the bulk of the middle class in most advanced economies —face at least a decade of disruption as new automation technologies begin to transform many industries and the world of work. Chapter 2: Rising productivity solves one problem but creates another Rising productivity offers the best hope for reversing the slowdown in global output growth resulting from demographics. But fully offsetting lower levels of labor force growth across the OECD will require productivity growth that is 54% higher than the 1995 to 2015 pace. Growth in labor productivity —measured as output per worker —was relatively stable in advanced economies from 1980 up until the mid-2000s. However, since 2008, it has steadily declined to nearly zero (see Figure 15). Across the entire OECD, the same basic pattern holds: stable labor productivity growth of about 2% per year from the early 1980s up until 2008 followed by a sharp deceleration to about 9.7% on average this decade. http://www.bain.conVpublications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 8/32 4/1712018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company RI 11 V Productivity growth trend has substantially declined over the course of this decade UK Idol output per worker (rolling 10-year mere9e) ' 3.0 % 2.5 ----------------.-- -- -- _---'....-----.--..__. 2.a f \� 1.5 ------------------------ ---- _...-_....... 1.0 0.s 0.0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 Some of the faster -growing emerging -market economies, especially China, have enjoyed extremely high growth in output per worker for several decades. Much of this impressive growth in productivity was a catch-up phase as emerging economies rapidly assimilated capital and global best practices. China's important contribution to global labor productivity growth will likely fade much as it did in Japan and South Korea when those economies moved past the catch-up phase. India remains a potential wild card for additional catch-up growth, although differences in its national governance and economic model make it unlikely to replicate the compressed growth that China experienced. Though there are many theories attempting to explain this productivity deceleration, labor productivity will tend to decline when labor is plentiful, making capital investments less necessary. Labor productivity will also decline if workers are shifting toward sectors in which fewer capital options are available to improve their productivity. both have been at work. After the global financial crisis, the amount of capital deployed per worker (capital stock) stopped growing, most notably in the US but also in other countries, including the UK and Germany (see Figure 16). Without an increase in capital per worker, worker productivity won't rise significantly. The very low level of growth we see today-0.7% per year in the OECD- 4s essentially the slow crawl of progress with no additional boost from capital. In addition, labor became even more abundant --double-digit to high -single -digit unemployment rates were the none across most large economies- But as labor becomes scarcer, companies will tend to invest more in labor-saving capital. The shift to a service -led economy moves a large percentage of workers out of high -productivity growth industries into low -productivity growth industries. Take two contrasting examples in the LI fast-growing healthcare industry and the auto manufacturing industry. Between 1993 and 2014, auto manufacturing output per worker increased by 128%. Over that same period, output per worker in hospitals Increased by just 16%. in contrast, employment increased 28% in hospitals, while it declined by about the same amount in auto manufacturing (see Figure 17). Capital investment in auto manufacturing supported high labor productivity growth. While the overall quality of medical care in hospitals may have increased over time, it remains a field in which human touch is highly intensive, with fewer options for capital investment to boost labor productivity. ryuu 16 V Growth in capital stock per worker has stalled US-ii—iad net mpital sock par person employed $275K 250 225 200 175 150 125 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 S- nu:m 4ro..W:m1n raw pW,:err http://www.bain.com/publications/articies/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 9/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company New technologies and innovation can create extraordinary jumps in material wealth and standards of living. They also generate surges in productivity growth. We expect the era of technological innovation in the coming decades to result in a sharp increase in productivity as automation replaces or extends human labor. The Bain Macro Trends Group has analyzed a range of technologies at or near commercialization, including humanoid service robots, collaborative robots (cobots), drones, artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms. These technologies will transform primarily the service sector of most advanced economies and some emerging economies. Based on our analysis, the rapid spread of automation will collide over the next decade with the demographic changes discussed in chapter 1, creating disruptive changes throughout the global economy. Waves of automation have reshaped the economy throughout history. Agricultural automation freed farmers to migrate to factories, and industrial automation allowed factory workers to move into the service sector. Each time, the impact of automation on workers played out in three steps. First, by boosting productivity, automation reduced the need for workers in a given sector. Second, the relative cost of.the goods produced by automation fell, increasing overall material standards of living. Third, as automation reduced the resources needed for producing one set of goods, those resources migrated elsewhere, increasing the production of other goods. This simple pattern has recurred many times, including the move from farm to factory and smaller instances such as the automation of bank teller services by ATMs. Despite some of the more dire predictions of "the end of work," over the long term, we see no reason to believe that automation of the service sector will depart from the historical pattern. We estimate that by 2030 these technologies could increase tabor productivity by an average of 30% compared with 2015, with rising Impact over time. This step -change improvement varies considerably by industry and ranges from relatively modest levels in healthcare and educational services to substantial impact in industries such as food service, retail, transportation and warehousing (see Figure 18). ryo,. re V Productivity gains from automation will vary broadly across industries by about 10% to 55% ul,-wnd"..Ir sue, 2015 — 2030 60% 40 20 a36°Iri . Iricrecse.iri ' 'diverage output .per worker due fo otutoniatiori.� G,a,p 2 a.d,.h pir , The impact of that change on annual growth rates depends on how quickly the change occurs. Productivity growth may range from as low as 0.6% per year to as much as 4.5%, averaging 2% to 3% per year. Even in a delayed scenario in which industries adopt automation more gradually through 2040, labor productivity gains from automation would still average more than 1% a year. That 1%growth would be more than enough to offset the demographic headwinds discussed in chapter 1 and possibly enough to push growth rates above those of the past two decades. The declining cost of robot dexterity will unleash the next round of manufacturing automation. Machines based on first -generation automation technology, including industrial robots, were massive, bulky and often dangerous. They were also unsuited to high -dexterity tasks such as assembling the tiny parts of a smartphone. In 2010, the estimated payback period in China for replacing workers was about 5.3 years. By 2016, the combination of falling prices of robots and the rising cost of human labor had dropped the payback period to 1.5 years. By the end of the decade, it may fall to less than one year (see Figure 19). The Taiwanese contract manufacturer Foxconn, China's largest employer with 1.3 million workers in sprawling plants, is a bellwether for the coming automation shift. The changing economics of automation has already led Foxconn and other Chinese manufacturers to heavily invest in next -generation robots. In one factory, Foxconn was able to replace 60,000 factory workers, or 55116 of the total workforce, with robots last year. http://www.train.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 10/32 4/17/2018 ` Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company The impact of manufacturing automation on different geographies depends on many factors and is not the direct focus of this study. But it is worth noting that advanced economies are investing in automation to close the labor cost gap with emerging markets. In 1997, the manufacturing value added per dollar of labor was twice as high in Mexico vs. the US. B,, 2013, that gap had shrunk to less than 15% (see Figure 20). qtm. 19 V Rising wages in China will stimulate iivestment in automation fcilbni capital costs and rising, labor. costs in chino ... N- of t�&vgf roh9is vs. k6w :. And prompt,tl.igtlB!' investment in outorn6tron _ .: An W aNp-. ?I u,dnMn(robos. w chino Book More than' , SOX growth. 660- ¢00, 400. 55' :.Jo. 2009.',..2011._ i2015 E. NJ-20 V Advanced economies using automation to close the cost gap with developing economies Total manufacturing output per dollor of labor cosr 3X 1997 2013 2.9 .dead IS h+eoen e.N mr..w:tEC..dltx+5a:wz; M.: �,3ad Sm:+ry ao,t.; 9<X 9oi Cc:t.:w,w 9.a=4. Q03; &ie AMe, Lr,d C.>.p hdu Klrr Cobots, which sit alongside humans to enhance labor productivity, in manufacturing, are an example of how companies are dosing the cost gap. These helper robots cost less than one -quarter the price of traditional robots, and by 2013, they were already cheaper than human workers in every advanced economy and most developing economies. By enhancing the productivity of their human counterparts, automation will likely make manufacturing costs attractive closer to home shores (see Figure 2-,). Cobots and other high -dexterity innovations are particularly disruptive because they also may be deployed in many parts of the service sector as yet untouched by major productivity -enhancing automation. Based on our research, humanoid robots are likely to reach commercialization early in the next . decade based primarily on the rapidly declining cost of robotic dexterity for service applications —the key obstacle to adoption today. Replicating the dexterity and precision of human hands is relatively expensive. In 2011, the Asino robot by Honda wowed audiences by being able to pick up a thermos, unscrew the lid, and pour tea into a paper cup without spillieg it or crushing the cup. The action was impressive though slow —barely matching the dexterity and speed or most five -year -olds. Today, a set of robotic arms can fully staff a bar and mix drinks to spec on a cruise ship full of thirsty guests. Within a few years, we expect continued cost reductions will make a strong business case for the automation of many tasks in restaurant kitchens and bars. Already, high -dexterity service robotics are being experimentally deployed in settings ranging from food preparation to assisting in hospitals and nursing homes. Even less -dexterous robots and drones are being used as hotel bellhops to escort guests to their rooms, as waiters shuttling food to tables and even delivering hot pizzas to a customer's doorstep. http:ilwww.bain.com/publications/articies/iabor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 11 /32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision'of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company r.J..2/ W Next -generation robots are becoming developing -economy workers Averoge selling price of a cobot (calloborati" robes) cost competitive against Average hourly cost of manufacturing workers 6y country vs, cobot, 2013 $30K ' Germany 7tlird-party Fmnce 25 forecast . us MOMENTUM -Japan 20 South Korea Mexico 15 M robot 02 China 10 a India 201213 14 1516 17 18 19202122232425 0 10 20 30 40 $50 5«,cr�Cn,fq.F9uMFa�:t>+>'^�8-ad:Fsb„+n+:bF:rd hbri�st'. M..rt. F...a.amymalpw Rll ' While engineers and companies are still experimenting with new automation technologies, they largely share a common set of hardware and software capabilities that will support a wide range of commercial uses. These capabilities include the range sensing required for an autonomous or assisted -driving car, spatial navigation used by camera -toting drones, image and voice recognition for online applications, and machine teaming and artificial intelligence for document analysis and fraud detection. Analytical, administrative or clerical service sector jobs with highly repetitive or rule -based tasks are surprisingly easy to automate. Artificial intelligence assistants can read and write emails and schedule meetings. Others can take in sports data and write riaturai-sounding articles to post on websites, doing at least the low-level creative work and freeing human writers to write more complex and interesting stories. Automation is also likely to eliminate some well -paid service sector jobs. Law firms already are deploying algorithms to scan legal documents in lieu of highly educated and highly paid junior lawyers. In financial services, start-ups are focusing on automating tasks that are labor intensive —and therefore expensive —such as mortgage loan processing. Financial services companies are rapidly automating investment analysis --a relatively well -paid occupation. In particular, hedge funds have been developing machine teaming systems that perform the work of thousands of analysts at inhumanly fast speeds. The migration to e-commerce is just automating retail services --replacing an entire suite of human functions from the floor salesperson or cashier with a web -based storefront and a payments -processing app. Higher productivity but fewer jobs While higher productivity is generally positive —it enables companies and economies to do more with less —any big jump in productivity can be highly disruptive and initially can take a heavy toll on employment. To analyze the potential scope of job losses in services, we built on the work of other researchers, especially the Oxford University study examining detailed job activities scored along a gradient as more easily automated vs. not easily automated. Because their research, in turn, was based on highly detailed US Bureau of Labor Statistics analyses, our quantitative estimates focus specifically on the US. However, the results are likely to hold true in most other advanced economies and some developing ones. ' Our analysis concludes that the coming phase of automation could eventually eliminate up to 50% of all current jobs. The job activity analysis only suggests the potential of technology to replace humans with hardware and software. It does not take into account the actual market conditions that would lead businesses to automate all work that could be automated. To arrive at an estimate of the likely Impact of automation, we looked at the market context within which it could happen, considering four major factors: job scarcity; the impact of automation on the overall cost of a product or service; whether companies were likely to redeploy cost savings into higher profits, higher wages or lower prices; and finally, the impact of lower costs and prices on demand growth. Using these four factors, we segmented the entire US labor force Into distinct categories. In all, we looked at more than 16,000 combinations of industries and jobs. We used a balanced sample of more than 130 individual industry and job categories in detailed case studies ranging from nursing assistants and flight attendants to insurance underwriters and management analysts. This method enabled us to calibrate our findings based on what level of automation is possible and probable given technological progress in the next decade and beyond. Labor market disruption By 2030, employers will need 20% to 25% fewer workers, equivalent to 30 million to 40 million jobs in the US (see Figure 22). Automation technologies will affect each industry and occupation differently. In some cases, lower costs resulting from automation combined with high demand for goods or services may add back jobs in a given industry. Many sectors will be able to lower operating costs by 10% or more, including some of the largest service sector employers such as retail trade and food service (see Figures 23, 24 and 25). At lower prices, we will see increased demand for some products, which will offset some displacement. Without it, the total reduction in employment would rise to nearly 30% of existing workers, or almost 50 million workers in the US. To put these numbers in context, during the Great Recession, US employment fell rapidly from its peak in January 2008 to its trough in February 2010 by nearly 9 million jobs, or 6.3% of total employment. http://www.bain.com/publications/articies/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 12/32 4/1712018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company rgara 22 c ® Automation could eliminate 40 million jobs in the US and depress wage growth Estimated number of US workers displaced due to outmation by around 2030 50M 40 f ' Nearly 40 million 30 Worker redmfian 20 offset by nearly 18alo due to increased demand 10 Gross number of Offseting impact of Net number of workers displaced increased .•eonomie demand workers displaeod sw, rww...a..yra.,,n•a d...d, w...e,...•.�:r.a e..::. ...v.. us en•.v<itd,. wb;. ea, Y� s..,a.uo.,, Pdr:a : sr revry 29 V Many industries could use automation technology to reduce operating costs by 10% to 15% Average projected operating cost savings from ow*ffc Lion technology, 20IS vs. 2030 - 0 5 10 15 20% "_ adr-,.e..>.d.nw. s:„ers y...ny e..Y,era,.t.,,-• 5•vcm 1n ree.d i Mr 9ub:o: &aF Nuw t..�}.Gs.p:d;+Ya iUl � rlsY .24 �- V In retail distribution, automation will create new job functions but fewer full-time jobs Retail distribution center case study automation's impact on full-time jobs e.+aae tu6tius egaidavr lis6 ndn Nea 170 FfEs _k7•:fr; ;.! ..;.;tc' ' .Cnoom «d.r.mrnt pYwWa 9`°NYI .�: - •an.�aa�„�rb ! s,� _ ;roi�r�Po;��t;ai<os5=° I •cf'joti i•oles�-:. M,, j cm;tra;aaaan,..btvand Noady40rrEs Iv —,-rasa isat Mldst',n..�+aory a • Podaga Yh'y�mm j•/Aon2ar •s:y,,n..-e hmml� . n.„:d,. avtm: � m•,�,`• pniammxodaw�Paa� {. rb/amrw4+vWNerown +•SanV 6e :na • ca7m' M� h•k�o..es,rr !• Nm'm Pak++^ana�, and pala:m,a.ric aavmrorm Currant rlula F, —store SeucnGon rbfm irmd,c yamdr::. .tllr http://www.bain.com/publications/articies/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 13/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation 'and Inequality _' Bain & Company r:ew.2s V in healthcare, automation will eliminate full-time jobs and change job functions Hoolth clink core study: automation's impact on full4ime jobs Near 60 FTEt Neo 4S FTfs ra:m. rdwm.�w>,ot,nttna rab, _ p' 3 - •6iting�dlr��nna viA pollen d•vvo-icdly-cawgeo¢v� alp ��•:�, ' - __ Ilou,yparau6 a.a:gMu,po.,ybnyuM ta„w:..dln;c `' r r. , •F,r ,.!• natinlmpr.,m `.w Co�•Y�^irWr'�'�d^i l� 'V •W>ir:rribTMke.oafm+rrsrclr ad etaixt d[,r:: :, ._.._'3,•: t.,}l!,� I '^�^'yea potethaiTlossp. I . nwa wnnra b:. tm• •nldm rtwk wppmrnd umeunloWuk,are6 I of job tales:. i a—w `I.vem•yoec In ih.dio^.._.__-.._.__.._............_..,' .. ianeal stole ful,ae state aw.:nr Avran Qo.m ad,d• irord tnao.ra!tldnnna W Mibred:•»Ir-ar wv, Sa.cv. /n'n ewa,e G•rt Greysmvf,•h 1a11 The full impact of automation likely won't play out until after 2030 because cheap labor will continue to be available in some sectors and some businesses will be slower to adopt automation. However, in some sectors, automation may put downward pressure on wages long before workers are displaced. For example, the introduction of self-service kiosks and smartphone-based ordering technology in quick -service restaurants is likely to place a ceiling on order - taking wages at the point which it becomes cheaper to automate than employ a human order taker. As long as wages remain below that point, employment levels will be unaffected by automation, but wages will be firmly capped. Our analysis shows approximately 80% of all workers will be affected in the coming decades by some level of wage stagnation, displacement or a combination of the two (see Figure 26). riym. 26 0 Automation will affect 80% of workers through wage suppression and job loss Automation impact an emphymem, 20IS vi. 2030 da'amna Arid P', " d�ao '. ..:.tniiaBotiai'niainJo�naori.. avl'ienoae....'oed'i•.vke ::., .i ;arid npbir_: ,.,i: 0:____ 20 Haclli�o Comypk. �d n>omufKel.l IoM i!Pat. :�. •:: .&n:nws'ond t&rondal�epi�� cwrom Adrrdnhha8+ri�� "r. Y,r,.. "AO ,... ?Fpa!:;1 .,: ..: �.: �. i:r:.,laC..:.'.: employm --P.adid'ron�- ��pp�ww�aa �'14diK � �p-,aestwimrs-�":��r ram\ mdmrdcng;`:'and kcM1picd - f J -60 :... - :...Troiiiparellon: -d 0 a 6% . Atttammian impact on v .9., 2015 vs. 2030 Hmn SeMnndivv.e^{lr/nwmryvra, <.nrcd nd,tw,rvo111.de+ryu. .mF U4 pAntd urd>W ,cu,cc; w+n^v,ty and exldw,+u: kgrA;at dr�gn mwvn 5< meta a,.•v.d L&er �uittu;... v ,l.+d,Cm,pL MF>ew,tliavlTnmr W. wY•'nwan+wgteHbYsv^esuv+Wt'+mM The impact of these effects is likely to vary even within the same job category. The combination of job type, industry and geography will determine the ultimate impact on wages and employment. While we have sought to model this set of factors with the available data, our projections are intended solely as a general framework to understand the scale and scope of potential changes. Many jobs have survived automation, despitepredictions that they would disappear. Banks still employ bank tellers, for instance, although their roles have been redefined away from just counting cash and checks. Finally, our analysis does not take into account additional third -order effects such as the introduction of new job categories. Social media marketing manager, for example, was hardly a job category 10 years ago: today it is among the fastest -growing fields. Automation will certainly create some new job categories --robot repair technician comes to mind —that will grow rapidly. However, given the magnitude of disruption in our base -case scenario, we do not believe new job categories will temper the degree of labor force disruption in the 2020s. The speed of change matters When seeking to gauge potential disruption, timing is everything. A large transformation that unfolds at a slower pace allows economies the time to adjust and grow to reabsorb unemployed workers back into the labor force. Under that scenario, the natural demographic cycle in the labor market —the entry of new workers and the exit of retiring workers —also helps rebalance the workforce toward new roles and away from declining occupations. While the pace of technological change is arguably accelerating, we have seen no evidence yet that the rate of human adaptation to jarring economic dislocations has improved. If anything, the experience of the two recent US recessions points in the opposite direction --an aging labor force is becoming less able to team new skills and find work. The demographic outlook for the next decades suggests that the labor forte's speed of adjustment to disruptions might actually worsen. Our analysis suggests that the pace of labor force displacement in the coming decade could be two to three times as fast as during other big transformational periods of labor automation in modern history (see Figure 27). in trying to estimate the coming dislocation, we looked at the peak movement from agriculture to industry and the movement out of manufacturing into services. http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 14132 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company r's1uro27 ® US service sector automation could displace labor two to three times more rapidly than previous transformations Average onnuol workers disploeed, xaled to the size of the 2016 total labor force 3M Nearly 2.5M 2 Estimatad i s 19000-1940 i t .2M ricer 1 0.6M ? reobsorption 0.6M i 0. erounrJ - -- { 0.71Js par yeor 0 ; Agriculture to Monufocturing: Construction: The Great industry: 1970-1990 2007-2010 Transformation: 1900-1940 tWa,ly 13 or fob w Neary 0.5-- d lobo, 2020 ommrd Weeny 40%a1 lobo, fa,ev dnplond owr Force dfeplaeed wer 20%.25%of the labor force i,plucod wv, eedy 20 yea» naay roar Yeon f— dbplx,d vaady ♦oyvan avw 10-20 Yvan Se,r..w�.4S rwa.exglE eu.+.didn, S',/fEq BdnAb Imm Gesp veyw,, 4QIT We expect the magnitude of workforce change in the 2020s to match that of the automation of agriculture from 1900 to 1940. However, the transition of farm workers into the industrial sector was spread out over four decades. In the case of the automation of manufacturing, the impact was over a shorter time period (roughly 20 years), -but the share of labor force in manufacturing jobs was relatively small in the US. Investment in automation is likely to proceed moderately faster than agricultural automation or manufacturing automation unless other forces act to impede its progress, and It will affect a larger percentage of the total workforce. The tension between the push to offset slowing labor force growth with automation and the pull to slow automation's rollout to prevent massive disruption will play out over the next 10 to 20 years. But once the first companies begin deploying new forms of automation, others are likely to follow suit rapidly to stay competitive. The base -case scenario Based on the magnitude and speed of change, our base -case scenario could result in about 2.5 million jobs per year lost or not created because of automation. Previous transformations provide an interesting comparison. The automation of agriculture transformed national economies and disrupted labor markets, culminating in the Great Depression. But if that event occurred today, scaled to the current population and labor force, it would displace 1.2 million workers per year. The rate of reabsorption from the automation of agriculture was about 700,000 workers a year. Contrary to popular notion, the absolute number of workers in agriculture actually changed very little during that period of automation. Rather, change happened slowly enough that younger entrants to the workforce were steered into new jobs —the children of farmers moved to cities to work In urban factories, to effect, employment in agriculture was frozen in place for a generation while the rest of the economy rapidly grew around it. Despite this fairy optimal scenario —one that mitigated the full disruptive force of agricultural automation —the historical record indicates that this period was tumultuous for those working the agricultural industry and other fields experiencing large-scale displacement. The automation of manufacturing in the 1970s concentrated on a narrower subset of industries, and the equivalent rate of jobs lost now plus those not created in the future would have been about 800,000 workers a year scaled to current population and labor force. Even today, the negative economic effects of this transition linger in the Rust Belt region of the US and areas of Western Europe. We also looked at the ability of the US construction sector to bounce back and reemploy laid -off workers after the housing bust of 2007 to 2010. The scope was relatively small, but the effect was highly accelerated: Employment in the sector shrank by an average of 600,000 workers a year over four years, and it has taken about seven years of economic growth to reabsorb those workers. Though this is arguably cyclical job loss rather than a secular transformation, it indicates the challenge of reabsorbing displaced workers in a short time span. Historical comparisons suggest tackling massive job loss from automation —including the eradication of entire job functions that are not replaced in the future —will be a serious macroeconomic and social challenge for most advanced economies. The common thread will be that disruption will have highly uneven impacts. Local market differences may mitigate or exacerbate the disruption. For example, economies that have a high focus on building automation should be able to benefit from the capital investment cycle that automation will trigger. Countries with rigid labor markets may experience a slower pace of change and less disruption, but they may suffer from tagging competitiveness and productivity. Countries with highly flexible tabor markets and effective mechanisms for shifting workers from one sector to another may be able to weather the transition with fewer ill effects. Fast-growing economies will likely have an easier time reemploying displaced workers. Across geographies, the decline in manufacturing costs due to the next level of industrial automation is likely to negatively impact large exporters that compete based on lower labor costs. In the industries hardest hit by automation, some of the remaining workers may be more productive and better off financially. For example, in food service, automation that reduces the number of waiters and waitresses in a restaurant by using machines to deliver food and clear tables could also increase the amount of tips per server of those who are not displaced (in markets where tipping is the norm). And as some elements of their work are automated, servers will be able to focus on providing customer intimacy and connection as part of an enhanced frontline role. Automation may also lower the cost barriers to entrepreneurship. online media has essentially automated away the newspaper delivery job and replaced it with a wireless or fiber-optic connection —just one of many changes in the migration from print to online media —but it also has lowered the cost of targeted advertising for local businesses that might otherwise have struggled for visibility. Now entrepreneurs can use social media postings, targeted search engine ads and email newsletters to launch businesses at a fraction of the marketing budget previously required. The industrialists, engineers, inventors and businesspeople who are creating automation technologies and investing in them will be among the many to benefit from the change. Some of the multibillion -dollar companies of 2030 may be forming today as pioneers in the coming wave of automation. htip://www.bain,com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality'.aspx 15/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company - Yet, the growing gap between the majority of workers who suffer automation's negative impact and the highly skilled few who benefit from it is likely to increase income inequality dramatically. Over time, an unchecked rise in income inequality risks choking off economic growth. Chapter 3: How inequality threatens growth Income and wealth inequality have been growing for decades and have now reached or exceeded historic highs in many countries. The rise has been most pronounced among the Anglo-American countries and China. But even in countries such as Japan and Sweden, the general direction of inequality has been up (see Figure 28). Demographics and automation are likely to exacerbate these trends. In the US, the share of pretax national income going to the top 10% of income earners stayed around 45% from the earliest records going back to 1913 until just before the start of World War 11. After the war, it dropped to.around 35%, until the 1980s, when it commenced the climb to its current level of 47% (see Figure 29). The UK followed a similar track, dropping from about 38 % before World War II to a low of 28% in 1978, followed by a run up to nearly 43% just before the global financial crisis. Sweden's Nordic model of democratic socialism shows the same pattem, albeit to a different degree. The top 10% received 22% of national income in 1982 before levels rose to nearly 31 %. Japan's data also illustrates the trend despite its reputation for relatively more equal distributions; data does not exist prior to World War 11, but the level of pretax income going to the top 10% is 41% to 43%, up from 30% to 35% in the 1950S through 1970s. Finally China, where no hard data exists prior to 1978, started the 1980s with about 27% of pretax income going to the top 10% and experienced a steady rise to a present level around 41 %. nmw 28 F Income and wealth inequality are on the rise in most major economies Gini index has been rising for rnost OECD economies Change in Gini inclex for OECD countrios, 1985-2008 0.50 0.45 IM 0.40 0.35 0.30 .25 0.20 .. -0.05 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 j I 1 I . I( I 1 1 1 1 W.td „ I us UK A—.%. I wrw C— aw+wd, . n t..�, ndwd e,ttpw. I N —r , raker —1 W., Nw rsmdu G—m F oun tb gmr 5—d— a .6 ewmwk ® 1985 Gini coefficients la Chan o from 1985 to 2008 Na.n:drQ.w Nd nmrdl.r.w;d,.G'e. t,du m.m.... t<. oLnb.fid�l.a 1Kand'ww,..N:uu.m,enr6.lox. Inn peldrryddM.'!Jin:o .b..dsw M+�•�wa�d.e.cd Amd IODr,p�sws Pd.s.%,nnnSM Sn.ev CEO;'nyddtssM W tn-an. - .. ; gon Nme Gwd, G.o-.p ewe ]Mr Fla.. 29 V Pretax income and wealth is already highly concentrated US income and woolth di,hibulion, 2014 Top 1% Population share income share Wealth share r ah: iWro o :iotol: o' Dern, NtA! W.vthvdtwn.v P+dm.: pafi Mmn4msS fiew.vl. cel,.4 AI) Data on the share of wealth for the top 1 % and 10% of households shows the same basic patterns. Taken at a global level, the top 1 % worldwide have increased 8 percentage points of share since the global financial crisis —from about 44% of global wealth to more than 50%. White there are obvious linkages between wealth inequality and income inequality —there is considerable overlap among those who are in the top brackets for wealth and tap brackets for income —our focus is primarily on the context and future for income inequality, since income (essentially cash flow) impacts the macro environment most directly. Inequality has many possible causes, including demographics, technological change and government policy. Our analysis focuses exclusively on the incremental impact of demographics and the next wave of automation and their potential consequences for the macro and business environment. Demographics' impact on inequality Aging populations typically increase wealth inequality because older households tend to have higher levels of accumulated wealth relative to a younger household at a similar socioeconomic level. Between 1983 and 2013, the peak years of household wealth advanced by about 10 years. Most of that shift came from the top 20% of income earners. While not directly tied to income inequality, shifting wealth inequality tends to shift income inequality in the same direction. http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 16/32 4/17/2016 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company This form of inequality is arguably a less pressing societal challenge because it is transient. The bulge of baby boomers in high -wealth and high -income years vs. millennials In low -wealth and low-income years creates the mathematical basis for rising inequality. By itself, it does not stem from a lack of social mobility, and it should pass over time. But other causes of rising income inequality can be problematic. People with higher incomes enjoy a longer period of wealth accumulation because they tend to live longer and healthier lives. Between 1990 and 2015, the life expectancy for a 25-year-old in the US with a college degree or higher increased from 79 years to 84 years; for a 25-year- old American with only a high school degree, it increased marginally from 76 years to 79 years; for those without a high school degree, it actually declined from 74 years to 73 years. By 2030, the life -expectancy gap between an American with a college degree or higher vs. one without a high school degree is expected to widen even further, to 16 years (see Figure 30). Living longer can lengthen the total span of working years and wealth accumulation. While overall hours worked are declining across the developed world (see Figure 31), the labor force participation rate for US men age 64 in 2012 was 21 percentage points higher for male college graduates vs. male high school graduates. Higher -income workers are more likely to be in occupations in which physical decline is less of an impediment to working into one's late 60s or early 70s. Those in the bottom three income quintiles face a 64% chance of suffering an age -related decline In ability to work, for example, while those in the top quintile of income face only a 25% chance (see Figure 32). This divergence has resulted in higher -income workers working 77% more hours in 2006 vs. 1979, while the bottom 20% of income eamers have seen a 39% decline over that same time period (see Figure 33). Because the main share of workforce growth will come from 55- to 74-year-olds over the next decade, the income inequality effect of demographics will become more pronounced. 119-3a V Life span growth is higher for those with higher levels of education Total life "pectoncy for populoson age 25 90 yean €W I9902015 O 20301 n.p mr4�b:0�r rs9-3t ® Total hours worked is falling across OECD Number of hours worked is declining in most OECD countries Avoroge annual hours worked par wa16r 2.3K ..>..,;;., 2.1 L9 1.9 1.9h7 1 9 1.7 1.5 1.5 - 1.3 OECD dec 66.in )apon France UK vs hours worked:' . 1 covntriei: . .l� 1975_tR20t51 http://Www.bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 17/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company NJ-32 .. V Work span expansion is concentrated among the wealthier and more educated Occupations with higher incomes are toss As a result, the mom highly educated susceptible to ago -related decline tend to work longer. Averog6 wsoeps60ty of aacupa4on m ogsrelawd US Iran , lobar turn pantdpoelm rme, by deduce, by annwl-W WWI. aduc 0.0 aaa1n ' 80% 100% 64 65 63' 80 80 60 60 68 62 40 41 60 20 25 40 4541 263042 20 0 0 Iola t Q 2nd 3rd 4th (dISM,d 60 64 6e g AS. M..n —...I was. qW.M. � 7per its may tt 2011 ng4 sd ed gent lmct ■ loll 4shdxa da3,aa yCPN Cd Nibu Nwrcp ua:pbltry uefwbdly a..eghPfa pew:i. ache! al aah asupaim. buwdml6. Peca Cdfq. I.dr htl,a,id dlRev,.�:m by ,mnCrtbrrc.w.elm.d+3Jna dda tmalm anmYm:drhad daP mma.ki was�.a awpmbee ieuea Pm>didxhifaa'USCmw.6.ws:t.d.elM..w fNA dCLYaga;Gn1.:f�.P.s,..an hw.et�bo.a C.t.�,: Pao M.n. S...d. fw...ry. 2 01) ' rigm.33 ly Higher -income workers are working longer hours U5 parcenlogo of men working more than 50 hours per week, by income gulnllle Although we have focused this analysis on the US, a study by the US National Institutes of Health looking at life expectancy at age 65 for various educational levels found a similar, albeit smaller, effect in 10 Western European countries. The least -educated cohorts of Western European males at age 65 had the same life expectancy as their American counterparts. As in the US, life expectancy among different segments of the population in Europe diverged between the 19?0s and 1990s primarily because life spans improved for the most advantaged. The cost of healthcare treatments that extend healthy life spans and working years (and access to that healthcare) change over time. While some cutting - edge treatments today may be limited to,the wealthy, broad access to antibiotics and vaccines in the middle of the last century (among other basic advances) had dramatic effects on early -age mortality. Infant mortality in the US declined 52% between 1930 and 1949 and helped give rise to the surge of baby boomers who continue to shape demographics today. We estimate that these technological advances In medical care resulted in approximately 23 million more baby boomers across the income spectrum being alive in 2012. But delivering broad access to new treatments can take years. And even modeling a rapid rate of convergence of life span improvement for the bottom 40a1. of the income spectrum to that of the top income bracket, the incremental impact on overall average life span after age 50 nets out to only slightly more than one year by 2030 (see Figure 34). figaa 34 V Income convergence not'likely to hove a major impact on projected life spans by 2030 Remaining life span oiler age 50 40 years 30 20 2010 2030 2030 2030 a+mYn, Mlr The trend toward longer, healthier lives is likely to continue to benefit higher -income individuals disproportionately since it extends the span of earring years and time to accumulate assets. While we can only speculate on the magnitude of those gains, ongoing medical advances are likely to continue increasing the life span of higher -income individuals faster than those at the lower end at least through the next decade, which in the short run could increase http://www.bain.comlpublications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 18132 4/17/201& . Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company inequality. - 1 ' Automation's impact on inequality The impact of automation on income is likely to vary. Our base -case scenario. in which automation displaces 20% to 25% of US workers, will hit the lowest end the hardest. Our analysis shows that workers currently making between $30,000 and $60,000 per year are likely to experience the greatest disruption from automation: Up to 30% could be displaced, and many will suffer depressed wage growth. The impact on workers making less than $30,000 a year should be comparable but with slightly lower levels of wage depression. We expect automation to have a lesser impact on those with Incomes between $60.000 and $120,000 a year and the least negative impact on those eaming more than $120,000 (see Figure 35). As we discussed in Chapter 2, rapid deployment of automation technologies is likely to exceed the pace at which economies can reabsorb and redeploy the millions of workers who may lose their jobs to automation. This type of structural dislocation often results in long-term unemployment. A study by the US Social Security Administration found that 20 years after losing a job, average eamings still tagged by 27%. Another study by an economist at the Federal. Reserve Bank of Boston found that a long period of unemployment reduced earnings by 67% immediately and 32% 10 years later. Even when workers simply changed industries, eamings remained 10% lower. This tendency of displacement and long-term unemployment to erode earnings may cast a shadow over income distributions for years after the economic shock of automation dissipates. As automation technologies spread, we expect employment and wage growth to be concentrated in jobs that require high social and analytical skills jobs that are already relatively highly compensated today. Workers in mid- to low -skill roles who rely on physical labor or analytical skills vulnerable to automation are at higher risk of losing their jobs or facing pressure on wages. If recent history is a guide, those who lose their jobs may face lower incomes throughout their career after being reabsorbed into the workforce, and some may choose to drop out entirely. In addition to job loss and wage suppression, automation may also increase income inequality by increasing the share of income going to profits vs. wages. The share of income produced by labor already is declining, and with automation, it likely will fall further (see Figure 36). By 2030, we estimate that operating costs at an industry level could decline by as much as 10% to 15%, depending on the industry's current cost structure (the share of costs that labor represents) and the level of automation expected in the base -case scenario time frame. Under those conditions, increased profitability would largely Row to owners of capital and further reduce the share of national Income allocated to labor. Raw. 35 ® Automation may create worse outcomes for lower -Income Warners Adomotun impost on employmoM, 2015 n. 2030 5% 3150K-41 ECK $90K4120K 11120K-515or; 30M -YS -4 ,... -3•.., •-2 -t M Aae manor Wpod on —9.,, 2015 .s. 2030 m... NrP./e�en .cw.bdwllarir.�si3.apD...e. b-ri,x ta.d en SB..r JEanv,i �dr:,..t...iav_..+a mia Lv,.s.l5l.,vrdreo.ev: Ndl.i; 45 D.++ardlm Sa41v: Doi. Are t,wd.Ge.P aidY.+.. YatJ n,p .56 V Laboes share of GDP is already declining; increased automation may accelerate this trend US labor shore of output US growth in prodvctivity vs. growth in compensation, indexed to 1948 Net productivity ® , ° 200 compcnsarion gap goes to a- owners of coprtol 100 Hoety compere lice, t 0 1948 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 wr. ttl tarn iw.W o: unwyec, murng da lvW..weax...nhm v�e,. nca xhr. r..l,,:M=.aM1Oarruarnr[h �.Du,:, ten ..s mb.d lM,ai.(4 i2rtt.�sr ,.I P�eJ..:Fh� Aal a., 13�et �.nu..en..bv.eCm Pr Aev �r1.J Capital ownership is already highly concentrated. In France, wealth inequality levels have been declining, but the top 10% of wealth holders still own 555/6 of wealth. In China, where income inequality has significantly increased in recent years, the top 10% own more than 67% of wealth. But the highest levels are seen in the US, where the wealthiest 10% own 73% of wealth, while the share for the next 40%—roughly corresponding to the middle class —has fatten from 36% in 1986 to just more than 27% today. Because capital ownership is tilted toward those already in higher -income brackets and also much more narrowly concentrated than income, this shift toward capital income is likely to contribute to rising income inequality. Inequality constrains growth http://www,bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 19/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company While inequality raises many social and ethical issues, our focus in this piece remains on what likely will happen, not what should happen. The primary macroeconomic consequence of higher inequality is to constrain growth by limiting the growth of effective demand vs. the growth in supply. Despite many technological innovations that will increase the rapacity for goods and services, the inability of effective demand to keep pace may ultimately reduce growth. Effective demand is consumption supported by income. Supply growth may be temporarily sustained by other forms of demand, such as that generated by capital investments or consumption supported by borrowing. But when the investment or credit cycle ends, demand can drop precipitously. We saw this phenomenon during the late 1990s to early 2000s as investments by technology companies followed by a sharp run-up In consumer borrowing in the US sustained a long expansion followed by the worst global recession since the Great Depression. Income inequality can create a larger pool of savings to finance capital investment booms or consumption from borrowing. However, this growth isn't based on effective demand and actually creates a misleading signal about how sustainable it is. As income shifts toward the top end of the spectrum, that group generally saves more rather than consuming more. Conversely, if income shifts toward the mid to lower end of the spectrum, then effective demand Is increased (see Figure 37) because that group continues to consume if given access to more income. So while higher savings can temporarily mask curtailed effective demand, eventually the return on the capital disappoints or the borrowing must (or rank) be repaid, and demand growth stops or reverses: fWw. m 7 A high level of inequality dampens consumption growth by shifting income to high savers US estimated wvtngs rote for diffomm income kvols, 2004 51.2% 23.6% 17.3% 61 11.1% 4 . 0.1%_ 0.1%.__.. Quintile i Quintile 2 Quinfile3 Quintile 4 Qwmle 5 %p 1% sa.e-J—ianett•<dr=mow 6.a U]Srv. 4,f.6e1— dm; W.Mmak,..d.rrvpmJ Z, A,I Our base -case scenario forecasts that aging populations will depress supply growth as workers move into retirement, but automation will more than compensate for the shortfall by generating higher productivity. Supply growth potential will therefore accelerate. But as automation displaces millions of workers and inequality grows, we will be faced with demand -constrained growth. Timing and sequence are critical. As labor becomes more scarce, it constrains supply, triggering inflation. But labor scarcity, in turn, should speed the adoption of automation and trigger an investment boom. Automation investments are likely to generate supply growth just as demographics and investment both spur demand growth, creating a reasonable balance (despite rising inequality). Once the investment boom ends, however, the negative effects of automation will become more visible ---namely, high levels of unemployment, wage suppression and slowing demand. Any change in the order or pace of this sequence, however, could lead to very different outcomes. A slower rollout of automation than our base case could produce stagflation as the supply constraint dominates, capping growth at around 2% in the US, while demand growth due to demographics would be closer to 3%. If automation is delayed by a decade but then spreads quickly in the 2030s, then a decade of supply -constrained growth, including higher wage inflation, would tend to reduce inequality so that it would act as less of a drag on demand growth. What could derail this scenario? The cash -flow needs of baby boomer retirees may eventually provoke a pension crisis or a government finance crisis. Countries using the euro are particularly vulnerable to such a scenario since they lack full sovereign monetary freedom. By contrast, in countries with fiscal and monetary levers such as Japan, pension shortfalls are more likely to become a low-grade chronic issue rather than a market -jarring crisis. While the US and China both have high overall levels of national debt (when including households and private corporations), their monetary independence is likely to provide enough breathing room to prevent a full-blown crisis. The US demonstrated the power of monetary policy to alleviate economic dislocation In the immediate wake of the global financial crisis of 2008, A scenario of delayed rollout of automation due to a finance or debt crisis is therefore higher in the eurozone, while it is significantly lower for the US and China. Another challenge to our base -case scenario is the potential for geopolitical conflicts that disrupt the macroeconomic environment and slow the rollout of automation technologies. Though, eventually, automation may shorten supply chains and relocate production back to home markets, those shifts are nascent, and many multinationals remain dependent on international relationships. Tariffs or other trade barriers have the potential to generate enough disruptions over short periods of time to delay or defer the adoption of automation. However, geopolitical risk may also have the opposite effect, hastening the spread of automation technologies. Manufacturers that suffer a rapid deterioration in a trade relationship will have a powerful incentive to replace that capacity as quickly as possible, which may speed the adoption of automation. Social and.govemmental acceptance is another factor that could affect the speed at which industry invests in automation. Concerns about the impact of automation on employment may trigger a general social backlash. Alternately, specific industries or labor groups may resist change, just as dock workers sought to delay shipping containerization or automated port management. The concern for public safety in the face of risks (perceived or actual) may lead to regulatory or other governmental actions that stop or slow the pace of automation. The US and other countries already restrict the commercial usage of drones out of concern for public safety and the need to reconfigure airspace usage and rights. Autonomous vehicles have also come under Increasing scrutiny. http://www.bain.com/publications/articies/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 20/32 4/17/2016 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company From a safety standpoint, it is important to draw a distinction between more physical -based automation such as autonomous vehicles for long-distance trucking and more information -based automation such as algorithmic fraud detection in insurance. One could Imagine autonomous 18-wheeler trucks on . freeways suffering glitches that lead to highly visible failures and rapid pullback in deployment. On the other hand, information -based automation is less visible and so less likely to trigger public resistance. Public reaction is likely to vary substantially from country to country, as with other technologies. For example, the city of London and cities in China deploy video surveillance as security technology. In other countries, including the US, adoption has been relatively slower due to concerns for civil liberties. EU information privacy laws, on the other hand, are currently more extensive than in the US. Labor laws also vary tremendously across national jurisdictions, and they may accelerate or,decelerate the adoption of automation technologies. Differences in policies toward automation may be harder to sustain where the good or service can be traded. For example, if London were to permit more generous automation of tradable goods or services than New York, then competitive forces are likely to put greater pressure toward parity. in contrast, if London were to permit coffee shops more generous automation leeway than New York, the differences are more likely to remain localized. The social and governmental acceptance of automation depends on a variety of factors linked to location, industry and technology. in developing our industry and job analysis, we took a conservative approach to capture more obvious examples in which acceptance was likely to bring down the level of automation potential within the time frame of the analysis. However, we by no means addressed the potential variation for every industry orjob in every market. We acknowledge a material risk that social and governmental resistance delay extensive adoption of automation technologies. It is impossible to handicap that risk as the response across different countries is unlikely to be uniform. However, we believe that our base -case scenario of rapid deployment is more likely. Chapter4: Tracing the arc of the turbulent 2020s The early 2020s are likely to be a time of economic upheaval, the beginning of a major transformation that will play out over several decades. As detailed in previous chapters, the key forces at work are demographic change, the rapid spread of automation technologies and rising inequality. Because these forces are likely to combine in different ways --sometimes reinforcing each other, sometimes offsetting each other —our effort to trace the economic developments throughout the 2020s is a rough sketch. That said, businesses and investors who understand the broad forces at work will be in a better position to adjust to the changes ahead. We expect the 2020s to be a period of greater macro turbulence and volatility than seen in decades. It is also likely to be a period in which extremes become more extreme. Technological innovations will give rise to new corporate powerhouses, but at the same time, pervasive insecurity may haunt ordinary families and global enterprises alike. In our base -case scenario, paradoxes abound: High unemployment coexists with labor shortages; rapid inflation affects some sectors, and rapid deflation hits others. To some, this may seem a continuation of the current decade. But the speed and magnitude of changes, spurred by the maturation of a broad set of automation technologies poised to transform the service sector, are likely to be qualitatively different Over the past four decades, economies around the world have increasingly struggled with weak demand growth. An economy firing on all cylinders should grow faster, but a persistent lack of demand growth has restrained overall growth. intermittent bouts of debt -fueled investment and consumption have temporarily boosted demand only to be followed by a crash and a time of readjustment. The best example of this was the global financial crisis and the Great Recession, the impacts of which are only now subsiding in many countries. Societal aging is bringing an end to plentiful labor growth, but older populations will continue to fuel steady demand. In Isolation, this trend should create the potential for relatively balanced demand growth vs. supply growth and a generally more sustainable, B lackluster, economy. However, the rapid spread of automation and worsening income inequality push in the opposite direction. Automation, In particular, has the potential to significantly increase supply growth, but the job losses and wage pressures it triggers should act to restrain demand growth likely from the middle of the 2020s on. The magnitude of automation we anticipate would require a significant surge of capital investment, similar to the earlier waves of investment required to build information and communications technology in the mid- to late 1990s and the real estate investment surge seen more recently in the US, Ireland, Spain and China. An even better comparison might be to the period 100 years earlier —the Roaring Twenties —when robust investment in the automotive, radio and petrochemicals industries, along with associated infrastructure spending on roads, electrical grids, telephone lines and the consequent urbanization, created a period of increased labor productivity and increased economic growth. In this type of investment boom, supply growth creates the demand for more supply —a virtuous cycle of growth. However, as investment saturation sets in, financial capital ebbs, and new machinery and equipment is left without sufficient demand. Much of the analysis below focuses on the US for several reasons: The US economy is pivotal in setting overall global macroeconomic conditions, income and wealth inequality are especially high, and the US is at or near the forefront of the oncoming automation wave. But other advanced and developing economies are likely to mirror many of the changes we expect in the US economy. Rising interest rates and the $8 trillion capital investment boom Based on our demographic projections, automation analysis and macroeconomic modeling of the US economy, we estimate that approximately $8 trillion of incremental capital investment may be required during the 2020s to achieve the level of automation that we project by the end of that decade. This translates to about $5 trillion in net accumulation to the US capital stock, increasing capital per worker to a net figure nearly 1.5 times higher than today. (Ail figures are expressed in constant dollar terms.) In this scenario, the economys full growth potential would average neady 4% a year between 2015 and 2030. Job losses and other negative tabor effects due to automation would reduce growth to 2%, while the additional direct and indirect investment to enable automation would add back 1 percentage point, resulting in average annual growth of about 3% and roughly 60% more economic output in 2030 than in 2015 (see Figure 38). hltp://www.bain.com/publications/articies/tabor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 21 /32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation. and Inequality - Bain & Company np'.3a V Demand constraints will reduce full potential GDP growth to about 3% per year Contributors to US annual GDP gmwih, 2015-2030 J2015 US dollor price levels) S60T Nearly 4% growth Nearly 3% at. 9 $32i b S337 4 td S growth 30 W..d h S28T to $307 3106 _ 24 is -zro-a a!n^ol¢gT to =I 2015 GDP to — forces L h., 2030 GDP, 1. I ¢f G .h Fn 2030 GDP, 8^+tt' a�ed^a;.ry F¢i!p ¢no�r¢hed be^a _ hrhndy dd. gran+R+ .ruircrn¢ rrload joy hsa r .1z conao ¢^,¢nA o^ d¢mard 9mwrfi ¢um¢ro anm.eadglv.d.,rlq... EOSfw}w.Ghr..1,:.eF,e4m M..aw.w+.e.n.A.d.<.a..;,.a#:Sw«.,n,c.,i<....., u:,..,mc,..ieJsi'•.:Je.r. !w<.e ttbklBo.1:456wuJlmsv,k An/r,s BonMm,u An6Gw.apvul,.i ]¢ir Those overall growth rates are robust compared with recent history. The US economy grew at an average annual rate of 1.8% from 2000 to 2015. The increase in investment would initially offset a little more than half the negative impact of automation on employment, easing the demand constraint on growth and potentially mitigating immediate displacement of millions of workers. The demand for workers to build the automation tools of the future is already growing, and not only in fields such as engineering and software development. For example, the customer service agents at online test -prep company Magoosh use software from D igitalGenius, which passively monitors and learns from customer -agent interactions. In effect, their work is being harnessed to teach machine learning algorithms to do theirjobs. Other new jobs focus on simple tasks such as tagging or categorizing images that eventually go into massive photo databases that are used to train automated image recognition. This process of teaching machines is a critical part of the investment to deploy automation, particularly in the service sector, where the number of distinctive jobs is larger than in the industrial sector. The convergence of demographics, automation and inequality may also lead to the first major turnaround in global interest rates after 30 years of steady declines and 10 years at or near zero. Decades of sluggish, demand -constrained growth worldwide have put d6wnward pressure on prices and nominal interest rates. The initial surge of automation investment and productivity growth will reverse the trend and may lead to a rapid upward readjustment of rates. Historical analogies show that movement away from depressed interest rate environments can happen quickly, as outlined in a recent working paper published by the Bank of England. In looking at an 800-year history, its analysis found upward adjustments after long periods of real rate stagnation averaged 315 basis points within two years of the trough of the cycle. Aftermath of the boom As the investment surge comes to an end (likely around the end of the next decade), a newly automated economy will likely slip back into demand - constrained conditions. Many of the companies that invested heavily in automation may be saddled with assets that are out of step with the level of demand needed to utilize them fully. At the same time, millions of consumers who have last their jobs to automation are likely to curb their spending. Unemployment and wage pressures may exceed levels following the Great Recession in 2009. Income inequality, having grown steadily throughout the 2020s, could approach or exceed historical peaks. interest rates will again be pushed toward the floor. Resolving protracted demand -constrained growth presents a steep challenge. The experience of Japan over its nearly three lost decades since the early 1990s demonstrates one potential path, which is deflation, write-offs and stagnation over a long period to rebalance the economy. Another potential path is using government spending to offset sagging demand. This second option may be particularly challenging and costly in the upcoming cycle due to the high levels of income inequality following the end of the automation boom, especially with displaced workers and depressed wage growth concentrated toward the lower end of the income scale, in which consumption rates are highest. Demographic aging trends could help restore the balance between supply growth and demand growth. But a higher overall proportion of retirees may create a secondary financial problem due to the share of income they derive from financial assets as opposed to labor. in principle, retirees could trigger a virtuous cycle by spending accumulated assets to buy goods and services. But high levels of wealth inequality mean that circle would hold true for only a small portion of retirees. According to recent data from Vanguard, as of 2017, fewer than half of Americans age 55 to 64 have at least $70,000 in their retirement accounts. Another survey in 2016 by GoBankingRates.com found only 26%¢ of those age 55 to 65 had retirement savings greater than $200,000, while 56% had less than $50,000. Most retirees likely will require government transfers if they are to sustain their consumption. Governments, in turn, will require a pool of income to tax in order to fund the transfers. Resolving the emerging demand constraint in the 2030s and rebalancing economies will require a change in the pattern of income distribution. The challenge will be similar to what China faces today: After more than a decade of rapid investment, the government now needs to rebalance Income distribution and put more money in the hands of consumers. This change is not easy and will be even harder in the 2030s, when most of the largest economies in the world are simultaneously dealing with the same problem. Flexibility vs. security Automation technologies are likely to play out differently country by country, based on national economic models and labor market conditions. Advanced economies such as the US and the UK, with large, highly educated working -age populations, are more likely to adapt faster. They may be quick to invest in new industrial sectors and occupations and develop new tools to accelerate productivity growth. Jobless workers may become entrepreneurs. But the trade- off is that this flexibility, including a weaker social safety net, may increase income and wealth inequality and ultimately undercut growth if demand constraints are not addressed. in other Western European countries such as the Nordic countries. Germany and France, as well as in Japan, a stronger social safety net and relatively more rigid labor markets could result in slower investment in automation and greater immediate focus on addressing demographic challenges. The main challenge for these countries may be addressing their supply constraints. http://www.bain.com/publications/articies/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 22132 4,117/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company There is no best approach for managing through economic dislocations of the magnitude we foresee, but we believe that countries blending elements from these two models may enjoy more options for navigating the disruptive decades ahead. Emerging markets hoping to copy the export -led growth model of Japan, the Asian Tigers (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong) and China are likely to face shrinking global demand. As automation spreads, large pools of undifferentiated labor should become less valuable as labor becomes a smaller proportion of overall costs. At the same time, new technologies are poised to make smaller -scale manufacturing more cost efficient, allowing advanced economies to rely more on domestic production. Among the larger developing economies, China faces some of the most challenging demographics, accentuated by its one -child policy, but it now also has vast resources to deal with an aging society and the effects of automation. It is likely to be a major user of automation technologies and may also become a major producer of them. Brazil faces one of the steeper decelerations in labor force growth due to its demographic position, which is almost as bad as that of the US. India enjoys a relatively favorable position with a more youthful population and will not hit the demographic transition that the rest of the world is facing until about 2050. Though the tumultuous transition creates serious challenges for businesses and investors, they are not unprecedented. Advanced economies achieved their present level of material welfare and development by working through major dislocations. One lesson history teaches is that severe economic disruption can prompt countries to rethink the role of government in the marketplace. Most developed. economies have some form of progressive income taxation originating from the middle of the last century. Nearly all developed economies and many developing economies also rely on the government to play a significant role in the financing and delivery of services such as healthcare and education. Few governments played that role at the start of the last century. We suspect that history may repeat itself in the next decade. Chapter 5: Will governments assume a greater role in the market? History yields many examples of governments intervening to combat stagnant or depressed economies, most recently in the aftermath ofthe global financial crisis. Governments are unique actors, sitting outside the marketplace and setting the rules while also able to act within markets, individual governments will come from different starting points in facing the economic challenges of the coming decades. But as the custodians of market governance and social policy, many governments may reset their role in the marketplace when faced with economic and social turmoil. If history Is a guide, governments will not only discern a need to intervene, their societies will demand it. Anticipating a larger role for government 15 years from now may seem highly speculative. Since the early 1980s, governments around the world have steadily reduced their role in the marketplace. The trend has been toward freer markets, less regulation and lower taxation in both developed and developing markets such as China and India. OECD top corporate tax rates have dropped from an average of 47% to about 25 % over the past 30 years. Most current business leaders rose through the ranks of management and developed their professional instincts during this period of market ascendency. The era of professional management, which peaked in the 1960s, gave way to the shareholder primacy ere from the 1970s onwards, which greatly elevated the role and prestige of markets as efficient and self-regulating coordinators of value creation (see the Bain Brief 'The Firm of the Future'). The collision of demographics, automation and inequality will shape a new era. Populations suffering severe economic dislocation could view jarring levels of income and wealth inequality as a form of social failure --- s failure to provide the vast majority of the population with the chance to earn a decent living despite the nation's technological and economic wherewithal. Today s level of inequality already has prompted growing public concern and debate. It seems reasonable to expect that at significantly higher levels, popular criticism would intensity and increase pressure for social policies to address it. The generational turnover from baby boomers to millennials may add to the pressure on governments to act. Research from the World Values Survey indicates that support for authoritarian alternatives to democracies is notably higher for millennials in the US and Western Europe than for other recently surveyed generations, even when adjusting for comparable ages at the time of survey. In the US, one in six agree it would be better for the army to rule vs. just one in sixteen in 1995. Similar upward trends are seen in Germany, Sweden and the UK. The sharpest rise has come from younger, more affluent millennials. in our context, this suggests that with millennials increasingly at the helm, societies may be more willing to embrace an increased role of government in the marketplace. History shows that states can move quickly in response to economic crises. On the eve of the Great Depression, the US government's share of GDP was just less than 5%. Only 15 years later, it had more than tripled and has remained between 15 % and 20% ever since. in 2007, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet was just under $900 billion. Ten years later, following the global financial crisis, it is $4.5 trillion. A more interventionist government would affect the business environment in multiple ways. Stimulating demand could reinvigorate growth. From 1930 to 1960, the governments of advanced economies intervened to reverse the economic decline and inequality brought about by the Great Depression and World War 11. Major capital projects supported the business environment, including the US interstate highway system and space program, coordinated industrial policy (especially in Japan), and the reconstruction of society and support for worker education (particularly in West Germany and Japan). By the 1970s and 1980s, however, the social consensus in much of Western Europe and the US turned critical of interventionist governments, and a wave of deregulation and lower taxes followed. Even state -centric China moved ahead with reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping to lessen government's role in the marketplace. Businesses have managed to thrive and prosper in all of these eras. What might a reset government rote in the marketplace look like? We highlight several plausible changes, noting that these are neither predictions nor prescriptions and that individual countries will respond differently. Income and wealth transfers Governments may rely on income and wealth transfers to directly reduce income inequality. Many Western European countries, especially the Nordic countries, use their tax and transfer systems to reduce posttax inequalities far more explicitly than the US or China. The relative progressivity of the US income tax system has varied over time considerably, with top rates since Word War 11 as high as 92% and around 70% until the 1980s. If wealth and income inequality become increasingly acute, some nations may use wealth or asset taxation as a tool for redistribution. The relative share of income apportioned to capital vs. labor has increased, particularly in recent decades across the G7 countries, from a trough in the 1970s. Our base -case scenario anticipates that increased automation would extend this trend and raise the focus on the role of capital ownership as a cause of rising inequality that constrains demand growth. http://www.bain.com/publications/articies/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 23/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company Govemments may also expand entitlement programs, particularly in healthcare and family benefit spending. Already, as birth rates have fallen, many countries have attempted to ease burdens on families, particularly working mothers (see the sidebar 'Birth rates are higher among top eamers'). Germany for example, provides a parental allowance (Elterngeld) to parents who take a leave from work to care for their own children, and France provides allowances and state -run childcare to families with three or more children. Some countries may expand unemployment safety nets designed for short-term transitional unemployment to address the tong -term unemployment caused by automation or even provide universal basic income. Labor -income Interventions Governments could provide incentives to employers to retain human workers by lowering the total cost of an employee —for example, by reducing or eliminating employer -paid payroll taxes or even directly subsidizing employment. Alternatively, governments may consider imposing a robot tax on companies that invest in automation and displace workers. To address labor market imbalances, governments could invest in retraining programs. Most countries provide free education through high school. Some may expand this basic framework to make retraining a form of gainful employment. Along these same lines, governments may subsidize apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs. Changing the definition of full-time employment could help reemploy jobless workers. While today the definition of full-time work ranges from 35 to 40 hours In Europe, under the Affordable Care Act, it is already only 30 hours in the US. The number of hours actually worked has not been static. For example, in 1919, an average US manufacturing worker worked 50 hours per week. This number has dropped steadily over the past 100 years, and today, US workers clock an average 34 Hours a week. Reducing that number to 25 to 27 hours, matching the 26 hours per week worked on average in Germany, would effectively fully offset unemployment from higher productivity due to increased automation, though incomes might not fully keep pace. Some countries may consider limiting immigration, but that action would also make it harder to address tabor market shortages for highly skilled workers. Alternately, countries might compete fiercely across borders for highly skilled talent even as they shut the main doors of immigration to lower -skilled immigrants. They may recalibrate Immigration policies to emphasize particular skills similar to the Canadian model. Regulatory policy authority Governments could expand monetary policy further, using it to create negative real interest rates as a form of social policy targeted directly toward households (rather than businesses), providing zero to negative interest rates for consumers in categories such as automobiles, student loans and lower mortgage rates. They could also wield business and antitrust regulation either to exert more direct control over economic means and outcomes or to benefit new entrants over incumbents. Each country's approach and philosophy to regulation varies, but many may use regulation to slow the adoption of automation technology and improve economic conditions for mid- to low-income households, especially during the transition toward a more highly automated workplace. Governments may use global trade and open market agreements to protect scarce domestic demand and, in some cases, to reduce the spillover effects from other countries. Changes in the geopolitical environment toward what we call post globalization may facilitate the general movement away from the high volume of traded goods (see Figure 39). AN of these potential forms of Intervention require resources, but they will have to compete with other priorities. By 2030, state and local governments in the US and other regional and national entities globally will be grappling with pension obligations that outstrip pension resources. The underfunding of the US's Social Security and Medicare programs is well known, but the government should face its first real cash -flow dilemma in the 2020s as the baby boomer generation retires and the US population in these programs rises by 50% in 2030 vs. 2015 levels (see Figure 40). The step change in life expectancy that started with the baby boomers means about double the number of boomers drawing on social insurance and late -age medical plans than expected when these plans were devised. Absent other changes, tax increases required to offset changing demographics and inequality could reach 15% to 251% per US worker by 2030 (see Figure 41). no.. JV V Countries with lower growth ore generally more wary of globalization Annual per coprio GDP growth (purchasing power portly), 2000-2015 15% 25 50 75 100% 571" 27 GOP i t, t2arsj r Percentage of respondents who believe )hot giobolizorion 'is o Force for good,* 2016 GeOywFkn.deu in.mac+aip:d.uFy w-. W'%1dab.;C:wd.ta4rn'f_: ttiim:ryn:.y;yt6Js[cn.n..y4d�:'O,.:ct: da ta.RNA EleLii,a S.Fne�nIu pehen d.w ner„j�...iw.c-dpai.aP.dI..+n:M-:.niwbside kadlv,l...c.kt' ..c�n..ivo,,.:t NbM SSE ctu::..nA: d:n tMvo b.:.3.Gmroe,drw >Or> . http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 24/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company nee„ ao V Aging populations will likely increase government transfers through existing programs US number of employees vs. population age 65 and older, indoxod to 1960 5X Actual Bain prviection 65 and q older population 3 Employees` 2 1 1960 70 60 90 0o 10 20 30 Total US population on Medicare 2015 2030 Projected Medicate and Social Security expenditures per employee, in 2015 US•dollors F_+d0 e 2015 2030 ;c'a_n.,mui`i_e'irmen: ossa^eS. rmnN:i Nxu: enoSrnwe4nirR awuru utiauxanpb>n.N,e4,; Yzd asvyagannv., xl>*xN.lanb tad d:ilrw nv.d wd.n ndd.pv�u,a ddldw4.Jaad,v. endadnc::.ewaad, wa t6 i.w..d Idea Skdrwv UYC.,m. Mna., No•kbd; Swl Sr.at) W.w:od>P: Re.ln,�are:�df:a-: {.wan 1. rbd.... aadae.r,dd l..k.v Roiw fon'dr iN,oe,.a: Haw Mvaa t�.,d.L.wH a.ddf.:, >ar> riav+a1 p Higher government transfers may prompt higher taxes Actual and hypothetical US federal taxes per worker, In 2015 US dallom 7Sio-25%a — Around $1K $20K $20K-$22K $2K-$3K Around $17K 2015 taxes per worker .Increase to support Increose to maintain 2030 Foxes requited aging population inequality at current lovels per worker Nm,�bssp.r ww4, hWbr Hanr,...v.aN.nprcy�,a.eu.;..apeyn H..e,....,:w.d.<.,w•a4 m.., ;... n. m..r m..a,�a,a�ae aH`reandara^ 4:4bla,na¢Nl nvw,N tomxci Hacvl c—ill a,vl Nil. ek wase'm«vraalWativ pcpda'aw w,arJwn, dvwlrero:,y f,.yagwnar La,Hdoa fisn> 4HNp M rW0a4l:m+d l0i54we H+..,� OELa; aEHa. d Ma,aH.a.a�dHadJ.H US H.....fA tde. Simcd: 45 C.n... Hvaaltt+td BmkSae%l Swnry WW.ai./.t.: Ra,nm<n Fev.brea: Cw,fab145ux. aMAl.eimdY.n4a� Rn'an fvn:� fandbtienl Haw Maoo I,wtd, C+xp n:dra AI> In most European countries, the cost of unfunded pension liabilities is more than twice as large as the published national debt. In China, the shrinking workforce is already forcing choices between critical items of expenditures; what Mark Haas, a Duquesne University political scientist, called "guns and canes." Even today, after wages, increased pension costs are the biggest cause of increased Chinese military spending. Governments facing serious economic and social challenges and shrinking coffers may see no alternative to stepping into the breach and expanding the role of the government in the marketplace. In the final chapter of this report, we outline the implications for businesses and investors of this collision of demographics, automation and inequality, and the potential return to a more interventionist state. Chapter 6: Searching for implications How can companies begin to anticipate disruptive change a decade from now? Many already confront talent shortages and rapidly evolving automation, along with pressure to make the right investments now or risk being left behind. On the ground, it seems harder than ever to come up with clear answers. This report focuses on the economic developments that, in our judgment, are the most likely to occur. No question, the broad scenario we have laid out in this report is one possible future among many. At the end of this chapter, we explore some of the alternative scenarios. Any meaningful scenario, however, must reflect large and fundamental shifts ahead in the global macro environment. Our base -case scenario also assumes a soft start, a boom, a bust and then a second period of readjustment, similar to other periods of substantial change, which do not happen smoothly or in a straight line in spite of ever -rising technological sophistication. Whether or not our view ultimately proves the correct one, business leaders and investors who assume that the macroeconomic climate in the coming decades will be little changed do so at their own peril. The forces of demographics, automation and income inequality already are in motion. Below are the practical business implications that fallow from our base -case scenario, including options and no -regrets moves that companies can start discussing and implementing now. Be wary of following market momentum —volatility will increase Businesses and investors are likely to face an unstable macro climate in the coming decades. Growth rates, inflation, interest rates and unemployment may swing up or down rapidly and unexpectedly. Betting on any given macro trend in a turbulent macro environment without hedging would carry much bigger risk. Think of the many banks and homebuilders that chased soaring housing demand and invested right up until it collapsed and went down with the market in the 2007-2009 US recession. While such risks have always existed, our analysis shows the forces of demographics and automation should increase their magnitude and scope. How can leadership teams prepare for a more turbulent business climate? By making resilience a higher strategic priority than it has been in recent years. Long periods of stability tend to reward focus on shorter management horizons over long-term investments in growth and innovation, especially when combined with pressure from activist investors. But increasing financial efficiency at the expense of future competitiveness is dangerous when companies http://www.bain.comlpublicationslarticlesliabor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 25/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation`and Inequality - Bain & Company face this much change. Resilient businesses invest in their ability to quickly recover from disruptions and regain momentum. Leadership teams can start by posing a simple question: Are initiatives to improve efficiency making the company more or less resilient? Any action that improves efficiency while also increasing resilience is a no -regrets move. Examples include changes that lead to faster decision making, greater customer intimacy and a more engaged workforce. The first step in improving resilience is assessing the macroeconomic exposures implicit in a company's (or fund's) business model. Those exposures will vary substantially from business to business. Consumer businesses, for example, should stay alert to any force that hits some customer segments harder than others, such as unemployment, which often affects some segments while leaving others untouched, or failing asset prices, which have a larger impact on the affluent. Business -to -business companies, by contrast, are vulnerable to pressures on downstream demand. Capital -intensive businesses can develop dynamic models showing how their cost of capital and access to capital will shift over time, while businesses with many physical assets can track forces affecting financial and operational utilization. Finally, businesses highly dependent on.intellectual property QP) andrelationship assets, such as professional services firms, can carefully watch the forces that may accelerate the pace of IP and relationship depreciation. Most companies face only a half dozen or so critical first -level exposures to macroeconomic forces. Highly complex enterprises with multiple lines of business can have more, however, as well as overlapping and offsetting exposures. Mapping out the grid of exposures is a time-consuming but necessary first step toward developing a consolidated view. Investors can begin by seeking this information from the management teams of their holdings. The challenge of developing a consolidated view of macro exposures increases exponentially as holdings and sectoral or geographical exposures broaden. With a consolidated assessment in hand, leadership teams can address exposures based on their appetite for risk. They may retain exposures as an acceptable business risk, reduce volatility by hedging, buy options that bet on potential inflections in the macro environment or double down on exposures. Financial instruments offer another set of potential tools, particularly for investors. Those with portfolios of holdings can use them to adjust their exposures more easily. For business management teams, the current availability of financial instruments for managing macro risks is more limited. However, adjustments to business strategy can markedly improve macro exposures to align with management's macro thesis and risk appetite. For example, consumer businesses that focus on value -oriented consumers may enjoy fair tailwinds if the boom in automation investments fuels overall growth. But a second engine of growth aimed at roughly the top 20% of consumers may become a smart hedge when the automation boom ends, eroding the value oriented segment. Increased volatility also raises the value of having multiple options. The right to fix the value of an asset, liability, cash flow or some other part of a business can act as a vital anchor that provides stability during tumultuous times. For businesses and investors in relatively stronger positions, the ability to absorb volatility becomes an increasingly valuable hidden asset. Though not for everyone, some leadership teams may gain a strategic advantage by doubling down early on an upcoming macro tailwind before others spot the trend. Institutional Investors and large asset managers have increasingly turned to macro thematic investing as sources of differentiation. Some large, diversified companies also focus their growth strategies using a macrothematic lens. A high -conviction macro thesis can create an opportunity to pull ahead of competitors when it Is done well —aligned with overall business strategy, tailored to strengths, directed away from overcrowded first -order implications, and pushed to the second- and third -order implications where untapped value exists. The argument for expanding options and hedges does not imply that the importance of one's core business will be any less critical in the coming decades. Strength in the core will become even more important. But Increased volatility means core businesses may shift more frequently. Companies that increase their resilience will have a better chance of surviving unexpected change. Middle-class markets are likely to erode Our ongoing analysis of US households shows the core of the middle class is now located between the 50th and 80th percentiles of household income — what we term aspirational consumers. Rising inequality is likely over time to shrink the middle class, favoring a shift from a three-tier household model (upper, middle and lower income) to a primarily two-tier structure —the affluent would account for roughly the top 20%, and the remaining 80% would earn a lower average real income level than the current middle class. The erosion of the aspirational consumer group may be less extreme in markets where income distribution is more balanced. Consumer goods and services businesses will need to carefully stake out their ground across the socioeconomic spectrum because the landscape is likely to change midway through the coming decade as investments in auto-mation begin to decline. The timing of the changes and their impact on customer tiers will vary significantly by market, creating complexity for multinationals. Focusing on the affluent segment is one broad strategic option as this group will gain the most ground early on as automation fuels growth. This group may also face increasingly heavy taxation, especially from the end of the 2020s into the 2030s. The risk of overcommitting to the affluent segment will increase overtime for higher -priced items such as housing and autos. Our base -case scenario shows that competition in the affluent tier will grow more intense. Today, the business model of many retail companies in advanced economies focuses on premium goods and services —a model based on high margins, a high degree of customization, a special experience and high intimacy. But as the middle tier shrinks, these offerings may no longer be affordable to many consumers, and companies may shift their focus to the affluent tier. On the other hand, companies that adapt their business models to the tower -income tier of the population may find new opportunities and a less crowded competitive space as long as they can use automation and targeting to lower their cost structures. As important as automation will be for businesses selling across the socioeconomic spectrum, it will become even more crucial for those focusing on the nonaffiuenl 80% in which outright price deflation is likely to become most intense. Customers struggling to afford goods aimed at the affluent may be increasingly receptive to lower -priced alternatives. This implies both the continued expansion of private -label goods and rising pressure on brand premiums for those that fail to clearly pick one market or the other, upper or lower. Cost models developed in emerging markets such as China and India will provide important lessons for companies competing for the broad lower tier. Emerging players with international ambitions may also find growing opportunities to sell "good enough" products and services to this tier. As automation undermines export -led growth strategies based on labor costs, developing economy champions may use this strategy to access advanced economy markets. http://www.bain,comlpublicationsfarticies/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 26/32 4/17/2016 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and inequality - Bain & Company The erosion of the middle class will have major ramifications for those selling big -ticket items, especially housing and autos. Consumers may tap their credit as they strive to maintain their standard of living. A surge in credit purchases would make it increasingly difficult to judge where the affluent tier begins. One particular danger will be overestimating the size of the affluent market as an increasingly volatile interest rate environment will likely curtail credit availability and sustainability, eroding the purchasing power of the nonaffluent (see the section below on interest rates). Many consumer businesses have not had to grapple with major changes in the socioeconomic status of their customer base, especially when that base has been largely middle class. Leadership teams may see their middle-class customer base split in half, creating the opportunity for more tightly focused offerings on the upper and lower ends of the base. The pressure to automate will differ at the upper and lower ends of the market. Premium goods manufacturers will tap automation technologies to offer customers a better experience, higher customer intimacy and greater personalization. In short, companies will use technology to make their products even more premium. Companies producing goods for the lower tier of the market will use automation to bring down costs and align their offerings with the reduced purchasing power of mid- and lower -income consumers. At this end of the spectrum, consumers are likely to be more willing to accept automation trade-offs such as self -ordering kiosks at fast food restaurants vs. at a higher -priced, full -service dining experience or machine -based financial advisory services vs. a human financial adviser. Expect an interest rate speed bump Our base -case scenario forecasts a higher cost of capital starling in the first half of the 2020s that peaks before interest rates drop back to historic lows as automation investment peaks and ebbs. We have discussed the impact of demand -constrained growth and demographics on interest rates in a previous report (see the Bain report A World Awash in Money). The demand for capital to support automation in the next decade, combined with shifting demographics, could temporarily tip some economies into supply -constrained growth and cause a rise in interest rates. The magnitude and timing of interest rate movements may differ significantly by market. Local exchange rate management policies also will influence local interest rate volatility. A recent working paper published by the Bank of England analyzes how quickly tow interest rates can rise. Based on an analysis of 800 years of interest rate movements, its analysis found upward adjustments after long periods of real rate stagnation averaged more than 315 basis points within two years of the trough of the cycle. The most recent trough in 1948 was followed by a rise of more than 200 basis points within two years. Business leaders and investors thinking of taking a wait -and -see approach may find there will be very little time to react. For capital -intensive businesses, a swing toward a higher interest rate environment will make it increasingly important to manage the cost of funding. Although our base case does not anticipate the magnitude of the interest rate swing that occurred during the 1970s to 1980s. for example, companies likely will need to set funding horizons longer at the earlier part of the automation investment cycle and shorter toward its end to avoid locking in just before the peak of the cycle. The inverse is true for any assets sensitive to interest rates. Businesses with products that are heavily reliant on financing, including large equipment and aerospace, need to consider how rising interest rates could affect their customers. For example, a rising rate environment will make a cheaper, less reliable piece of equipment more attractive than a more expensive but more reliable piece of equipment. In general, companies will become increasingly sensitive to upfront costs when considering investment decisions for most capital equipment --except when other factors intercede, such as the need to install automation. For asset managers, the balance sheet implication is exactly reversed, shifting to shorter duration up front and longer duration toward the end. Asset managers with extremely long duration liabilities, such as life insurers and pension funds, will benefit from the opportunity to reshuffle exposures and prepare for the long drawdown of baby boomer assets. Automation could fuel a 10- to 15-year boom followed by a bust In our base -case scenario, we expect investment in new automation technologies starting in the next decade to follow the same pattern as all major capital Investment waves. Typically, investment builds momentum gradually. Eventually, it peaks and then overshoots demand, leading to a cyclical bust. We expect the magnitude of investment in the coming decade to be greater in scale than in previous periods because it will affect a wider array of industries and sectors (not just manufacturing), and it will spread through advanced economies as well as parts of the developing world at the same time. For businesses and investors, the early part of this investment wave will create four major opportunities. First, core platform providers will provide the essential enabling technologies for the next phase of automation. These are the main building blocks for more general automation technologies. We divide this group into the physical building blocks, such as high -dexterity robotic hands, and the analytical or control building blocks, such as machine learning systems and the application program interfaces that go with them. Second, systems integrators will combine the various building blocks to create functional systems —for instance, a drone that can drop off packages —by assembling various sophisticated hardware and software components in one integrated package. The third opportunity is for businesses that figure out how to lake various automated systems and adapt them to discrete uses, such as delivering a package to a customer's house. The bulk of innovation will likely be in augmenting or replacing existing products or services with automation. Breakthrough innovation focused on new uses rather than replacement functions could grow over time and eventually become the main focus of automated systems as overall capability continues to advance. A fourth and easy -to -overtook category is the collateral infrastructure that enables new automation systems, which, by our accounting, may be nearly half the total investment that the next phase of automation will require. For example, a highly automated restaurant kitchen will generally require extensive remodeling to make the best use of automated food preparation systems. The new setup may require less floor space devoted to cooking and preparation, but it will need new electrical and track systems for robots. Systems will vary widely. Some will make use of vertical space —for instance, robotic prep chefs stacked vertically —but will also require modifications to appliances and storage. In some cases, the investment in this fourth category could come from the reclamation and repurposing of existing infrastructure. Urban planners already envision repurposing vast tracts of parking lot space in prime locations once autonomous vehicles become widespread. Instead of parking close to the user's final destination, for example, self -driving cars could drop off their passengers and drive themselves away to park on the outskirts of a city center, returning when needed --something similar to a built-in valet. Office spaces could be reconfigured from large tracts of cubicle farms —ideal for doing individualized repetitive work —to more collaborative and creative space for doing work that is far beyond the purview of automation, at least for the next 20 years. http://www,bain.comlpublicationslarticies/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 27/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company Only two of the four broad opportunities linked to the next phase of automation are technology based. For investors, the thematic opportunities from greater automation will include sectors such as energy, healthcare, aerospace, retail and infrastructure. Within each of those areas, businesses at the forefront will be experimenting with how to make use of automation directly or how to support those who are developing new uses. The "Amazon effect' in retail is usually ascribed to the disruptive innovations flowing from one specific company, but more generally, it is a soft preview of how a more highly automated company can become a powerful disruptive force in a wide variety of industries. Investors involved in real estate will need to be especially attentive to the pace of disruption due to automation, which already has contributed to shifting and declining demand for retail space, especially in places such as the US, Canada and the UK. Automation also is likely to lead to a drop in demand for office space, especially when it is tied to largely back -office functions that are more highly susceptible to automation but also to customer -facing ones such as contact centers. On the other hand, it is likely to further fuel the need for warehouse and logistics space, as well as increasing demand for small flex space for manufacturing using highly automated factories. We expect rising investment in physical infrastructure, particularly in the electrical grid and telecommunications. Retail businesses will demand more electricity as automation enables more of them to remain open 24 hours and meet customers' growing demand for always -on retail service. Highly automated businesses will also require improved service -level agreements and reliability guarantees similar to today's data centers, Utilities will be able to add new value-added services to a staid service mix. Automation will contribute to the declining cost of distance, triggering additional investment to deliver highly reliable power and telecommunications to lower -density developments along the furthest exurban edges of metropolitan reaches (see the Bain Brief "Spatial Economics: The Declining Cost of Distance"). Road planners and those Involved in the construction of roads and other transport infrastructure will face two separate but related disruptions. As robots replace humans by the millions, a shrinking workforce could create a temporary, multiyear lull in demand for commuter transit projects. Longer tens, the increasing use of autonomous assistance in transportation, including for long -haul trucking, will enable higher transit density across longer distances without congestion, which may reduce overall lane usage. Highly skilled, high -income labor will grow increasingly scarce Our base -case scenario forecasts an acute shortage of highly skilled, high -income workers in the 2020s as investment in automation technologies takes off. Over time, workers will acquire new skills and migrate toward the jobs in demand. However; shifts of this nature take a considerable amount of time. Consider the highest -skilled and highest -paying jobs today, such as physicians, data architects, strategy managers, and research and development managers. These professions typically require at least four to eight years of tertiary education. To develop the skills and experience necessary fora midlevel or top position, graduates will need 10 years of work experience. Even assuming that those making the upward migration from midskilled to highly skilled roles had all the necessary education and started working toward that goal in the early 2020s, they would not be eligible to fill highly skilled positions until nearly the start of the 2030s. More likely, the reskilling and retraining transition will require several decades, making the scarcity of highly skilled workers a long-term challenge for employers. As competition grows for scarce talent, leading companies will invest more to attract, grow and retain scarcer high -end talent and ensure that their workforce is as productive as possible. To increase their allure, employers may enhance existing incentives with monetary benefits, culture and flexible work arrangements. Businesses that have not already done so may need to offer millennlais a higher sense of purpose in their work —a sense of mission that moves beyond delivering maximum value to shareholders (see the Bain Brief "The Firm of the Future'). Baby boomers will, however, remain an important pool of talent through 2030, when the youngest cohort of that generation will only be 66. Companies that seek to retain highly skilled workers from the tail end of the boomer generation may need to adopt more flexible work arrangements, including shorter hours. In fact, as competition for talent increases, standard employment offers may disappear. The labor force of the 2020s and beyond witt include three generations, and companies that offer an identical package to all three would be vulnerable to poaching from employers willing to make more focused offers. To secure top talent, employers are likely to offer different segments of the labor force a custom blend of compensation, benefits and hours. For businesses and investors, labor scarcity at the high end and labor abundance among mid- to low -skilled workers could create an opportunity to support the migration of workers toward new higher -skilled roles. Such efforts would likely receive support not only from talent -starved private employers but also from governmental entities looking for solutions to rising unemployment, stagnating wages and growing income inequality. One alternative is for -profit educational systems and corporate training programs. Another is new forms of professional certification similar to the Microsoft Certified Solutions Expert or Automotive Service Excellence programs for computer technicians and automotive technicians, respectively. By establishing objective and marketable credentials for the wide variety of service sector roles, these programs can improve the focus of training and increase labor market flexibility. For example, given the large percentage of the workforce employed in food service and retail, a certification program for a "master customer experience specialist" would create clear skill and performance measures to help employers screen candidates and allow certified workers to command a premium. Baby boomer spending growth will peak in the 2020s before tapering off Baby boomer spending in retirement years will reach its peak in the coming decade before beginning to taper off in the 2030s. While the actual peak of baby boomer spending has already passed —spending per household peaks when the head of household is in his or her mid-40s—the long transitional period of preretirement also marks a substantial shift in spending patterns. For example, peak homeownership rates are 10 years later than they were in 1982. Homeownership now peaks in the preretirement years (ages 55-74). In the US between 1984 and 2015, the growth in housing expenditures for preretirees was more than double that of those in the core productive and reproductive stage of life (ages 30-54). For homebuilders and businesses providing goods and services for the home, baby boomers will be a large consumer pool for years to come. Expenditures per household will also be higher among boomers vs. previous generations at the same age, thanks to the higher incomes of affluent boomers. Just as with many of the other trends, businesses will have to carefully assess the changing demographics and income patterns. Only about the top 20% of older households are likely to have enough savings to support a traditional retirement, while the bottom 401/6 have negligible retirement savings and may see their income and workforce participation decline due to health reasons. hftp://www.bain.com/publications/articiesAabor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 28/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company Wealthier and older baby boomers will likely be willing to spend on an increasing array of convenience and support services that enable them to stay in their homes as they age. In some cases, this may include relocating to active adult lifestyle communities, where stores, restaurants and personal services are available within walking distance from owner -occupied single-family homes or condos and townhouses. But for the many who will choose to remain in their existing homes, there is likely to be an ample market for retrofitting for safety and convenience --everything from in -home elevators and walk-in tubs to home health —monitoring devices with reminders to take medications. Financial services that help millions of less well-off baby boomers cope with limited resources may grow, although the margins will be low. Two financial products that will likely please aging boomers are reverse mortgages that allow homeowners to extract equity from their homes and repay out of the eventual sale proceeds of the, home and lump -sum annuities that transfer longevity risk away from the individual. Online self-service delivery models may become increasingly viable for the mass market segment since this generation is more comfortable with technology. . Boomers lacking sufficient financial savings for retirement may spur increasing demand for multigenerational homes. There has been some uptick in demand for homes with mother-in-law suites, but it is likely to grow rapidly as the majority of baby boomers start to confront the financial realities of retirement. Aging baby boomers also will create a sharp spike in demand for healthcare goods and services in the coming decade. Our analysis shows that demand for healthcare in the US is likely to approximately double by 2025 vs. 2015 levels based on demographics alone. Other advanced economies, including Western Europe and ,japan, will see comparable increases. The relative growth in healthcare spending in China will be even greater given the general investment needed to improve the level of care. However, many countries do not have the resources to meet the rising demand for increased spending in healthcare. Particularly for investors, privately funded health and wellness goods and services --a wide market including everything from nutritional supplements to dental implants —may be a safer investment focus since cost containment is less likely than with publicly funded healthcare. About the only major category of spending that actually appears to decline for the baby boomer cohort moving into preretirement is apparel. Though some of this decline is part of a more general downward trend in the real cost of apparel manufacturing, the increased workforce participation of older baby boomers is likely to partly offset this decline as working tends to increase spending on apparel. Toward the end of the next decade, spending by boomers will start to abate. That shift coincides with the potential decline in automation investment. Businesses and investors need to be mindful of the potential flattening of demand growth toward the end of the decade, in combination with other risk factors that could start to emerge from other parts of the macroeconomic landscape. More government in more places is likely Government involvement in the economy is likely to increase in response to rising inequality and market imbalances, particularly toward the end of the next decade or the early 2030s, with variations based on local market conditions. Already a number of governments, including Finland and Switzerland, are considering forms of universal basic income, for example. Consequently, we expect a general reversal of the falling tax rate trend that businesses have enjoyed since the 1980s. Businesses and investors may want to carefully consider the potential impact of higher overall taxation starting next decade, including higher taxes at multiple levels of government. Over the longer tens, governments may turn to adjusting income tax rates for higher income levels, potentially introducing another challenge for attracting and retaining highly skilled and highly paid workers. Governments are likely to increase public spending over the long term in social services and public infrastructure. The erosion of capital infrastructure throughout many advanced economies is well documented (see the Bain Brief "The Great Eight: Trillion -Dollar Growth Trends to 2020"). Renewed investment in infrastructure is limited mainly by a lack of public sector resources. A larger government role in the marketplace would alleviate that constraint while potentially creating jobs for workers displaced by automation. Security infrastructure spending may also rise substantially, diverting resources away from private consumption and expanding the role of the government as a customer. In their effort to redress market imbalances, governments also may seek to regulate competition, particularly among consumer goods and services firms. Such intervention is most likely in sectors facing high inflation, such as healthcare, but also potentially in any large, highly concentrated industry or sector. It is not a new trend but one that is somewhat cyclical. The formation of conglomerate structures in the middle part of the last century was partly a response by businesses to antitrust law enforcement. For businesses and active investors, stronger regulation or antitrust enforcement may make it more difficult to gain scale and force limited diversification, especially when partial overlaps can still reinforce a strong core_ in particular, large-scale tech businesses will face continued scrutiny due to their size and competitive power despite the significant value they have created for consumers. Intergenerational conflicts may rise The combination of rising income and wealth inequality may raise questions about how resources are divided between baby boomer retirees and working - age millenniais. Public pension and healthcare systems may be stretched to the breaking point in the coming decade. With growing income and wealth inequality, the shrinking base of middle-class workers to tax to support the growing pool of transfer -dependent retirees will be insufficient to fully fund the needs of all nonaffluent retirees. If and when governments need to make difficult trade-offs, transfers to support one group or another may materially Impact their spending capacity. For businesses and investors, government transfers may signal rising or failing spending patterns and business opportunities. For example, increasing transfers to retirees will likely trigger greater spending by retirees. By contrast, a shift in the balance of transfers to working -age households may diminish opportunities for senior -focused goods and services. Businesses, management teams and even shareholders may be drawn into the conversation about government transfers as they grapple with existing pension obligations, the scarcity of highly skilled workers, social pressure to address job losses and declining incomes among mid- to low -skilled workers. Where we could be wrong: Alternative scenarios Projecting the impact of macroeconomic forces a decade or more into the future is not easy. The timing, sequence and magnitude of each force could lead to a different scenario. For example, a substantially slower commercial rollout of automation than the base -case scenario outlined could lead to stagfiation— growing demand from an aging, nonworking population throttled by shrinking productive capacity and an insufficient productivity boost from automation. http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 29/32 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company Alternatively, we may have underestimated the flexibility and fluidity of labor markets around the world to adjust to a stepped -up pace of transformation, enabling societies and economies to arrive quickly at a more prosperous balance of higher productivity and employment enabled by a smooth adaptation to incredible new labor-saving tools. This outcome echoes the more bullish technology -as -solution viewpoints with which we largely agree --but only over a much longer time horizon, past the end of the horizon discussed in this report. The balance of historical experience, including experience watching recent adjustments to far more modest market disruptions than contemplated here, such as the recent global financial crisis and recovery, suggests that labor market adaptations are sluggish and will be made even more sluggish by an aging demographic profile. Potentially the most controversial element of our base -case scenario is the expectation that the government will assume a larger role in the marketplace. The opposite reaction might occur —namely, yet another retreat of government from the marketplace —but that scenario implies accepting the possibility that the demand constraint to growth due to income inequality becomes a near -permanent fixture and an irreconcilable problem. Unfortunately, there is no data set to rely on when analyzing the possible outcomes beyond the pattern of history. In our judgment, the weight of the data suggests that governments are likely to play a more active role addressing market imbalances. Conclusion The coming transformation will test leadership teams profoundly. Automation will reshape national economies, throw labor markets into turmoil and change the rules of the game in many industries. Aging populations will strain social systems as never before. But the 2020s will be a period of growth and . innovation, too. Eventually, beyond the time horizon of this report, the global economy will recover from the temporary imbalances created by demographics, automation and inequality. As the labor force develops new skills, productivity gains will benefit a broader segment of the population, and new industries will flourish. Getting there is the challenge. How should leadership teams set targets or goals if longtime assumptions are no longer valid? Clearly, there is no set formula for managing through significant macroeconomic upheaval. But there are many practical steps companies can take to assess how a vastly changed macroeconomic landscape might affect their business and how to position themselves for change. In our view. the most important one is building resilience. Organizations that can absorb shocks and change course quickly will have the best chance of thriving in the turbulent 2020s and beyond. Life span expansion will stow Historically, life spans have increased very consistently —roughly five years every two decades in advanced economies. Much of that increase has occurred because of falling infant and midlife mortality rates. However, over the next several decades, life span expansion will slow in advanced economies. Even if science develops cures for heart disease and cancer by 2040, a host of late -life diseases will slow growth in both life expectancy and the span of healthy years. Advancements in treating aging as a disease would have a major impact on living longer, healthier lives and working longer. initially, however, only the wealthy would likely benefit from these treatments (see the figure, "Life span growth will slow unless doctors start treating aging as a disease"). F Life span growth will stow unless doctors start treating aging as a disease 1980 2010 The five ages and stages of life Two new stages of life have emerged in the 21st century: second adolescence and preretirement (see the figure, "The five ages and stages of life"), Second adolescence: The rising cost of adulthood and higher college enrollment have created a transition phase between childhood and adulthood (ages 18-29). The rise of second adolescence is delaying key life events such as work, marriage, having children and buying a home. Preretirement: Longer and healthier life spans are enabling people to work longer, creating a new transitionary stage of life between work and retirement (ages 55-74). This stage is continuing to expand, leading to increasing labor force participation rates, incomes and consumption among those age 55 and older. http://www.bain.com/publications/articies/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality,aspx 30132 4/17/201$ tabor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company F The five ages and stages of life Nn,: UtA I.htw tw P+6x1.'aMwad sev:v W C�vr 0.was W Iamd� S.ivtw lssd al(ya"a�atlM IwJN eunw ip"u: &i" nlvrn InvA W._ay a,u{� ipli Birth rates are higher among top earners Many people assume that birth rates continue to fall as incomes increase. Historically, this has been the case—weafter countries have far lower birth rates than developing economies. However, for those with the highest incomes, birth rates actually begin to rise again. This indicates that the decision about how many children to have is at least partially driven by economics: People may opt to have more children if they have no economic constraints (see the figure, "Birth rates generally fall as incomes increase but rise again for highest earners"). ® Birth rates generally fall as incomes increase but rise again for highest earners US total fertility rate, by annual household income lin 2015 US dollars) Number of children declines Upword inflection with increasing income occvrs at 3 2.9 around $200K 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2 om2. 1 2—Ot 2& 1.9 1.9 am Around Amend Around Around Around Around Around Around Around Around Around Around $165 $3K $6K $9K $12K SISK $30K $60K $LOOK $200K $300K WOK Nwr:"vtd fadt N"wq,Mabtll"kr"ta+rcUN il.Unr; nr"bnrtl UUn--.-bm!m e.pvrcrnOM roal"rngl,w Mnr D_I. US se.auW 4n+_i @vwv, .a,: Nairn Gad.amapad,iq .il/ Karen Harris is managing director of Bain & Company's Macro Trends Group and is based in the firm's New York office_ Austin Kfmson is director of Bains Macro Trends Group and is based in the Dallas office. Andrew Schwedel is a partner with Bain in the New York office. Please direct questions and comments about this report to Bain-Macro-Trends-Group@bain.com Acknowledgments The authors express their appreciation to the many members of Bain & Company who provided insights for this report, including James Allen, Jennifer Binder -Le Pape, Chris Brahm, Paul Cichocki, Dale Cottrell, Tamar Dor-Net, Aaron Cheris, Herbert Blum, George Cogan, David Crawford, Orit Gadiesh, Mark Gottrredson, Weiwen Han, Mike McKay, Henrik Naujoks, Raj Pherwani, Darrell Rigby, James Root, Tom Shannon, Velu Sinha, Joao Soares. Tim van Biesen, Suzanne Tager and Gary Turner. The authors express theirgrafitude for research support provided by our team composed of Nathan Rogg, Taher Ezzi, Winston Riddick, Alec Renfroe and Sam Carlson. They also thank Gail Edmondson and Paul Judge for their tireless editorial support. This work is based on secondary market research, analysis of financial information available or provided to Bain & Company and a range of interviews with industry participants. Bain & Company has not independently verified any such information provided or available to Bain and makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, that such information is accurate or complete. Projected market and financial information, analyses and conclusions contained herein are based on the information described above and on Bain & Company's judgment, and should not be construed as definitive forecasts or guarantees of future performance or results. The information and analysis herein does not constitute advice of any kind, is not intended to be used for investment purposes, and neither Bain & Company nor any of its subsidiaries or their respective officers, directors, shareholders, employees or agents accept any http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 31132 4/17/2018 Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality - Bain & Company j 1_ responsibility or liability with respect to the use of or reliance on any information or analysis contained in this document. This work is copyright Bain & Company and may not be published, transmitted, broadcast, copied, reproduced or reprinted in whole or in part without the explicit written permission of Bain & Company. 0 ti 1. hop://www.bain.com/publications/articles/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality.aspx 32/32 CityClerk From: Chris Gunn <chrisgunn@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 1:25 PM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: April 17 2018 The Rolling Hills Drive extension, Rolling Hills Downgrade and the Rezoning Request With due respect to my neighbors and the City of Fayetteville: I am perturbed by 'developers' and 'planning commissions' dangling 'affordable housing', 'greenways', 'trailways', 'infill', walkability', and 'urban sprawl' as socially responsible carrots, coupled with, as politely as I can put it, a plethora of long-term, blind -eyed, incapacity for bold imagination, by the majority of the collective tasked as The City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. Whilst I sense, from reported instances, a 'beating stick' of contempt, the presumption of ignorance, the goad of NIMBY-ism, a 'build it and they will come' disregard and'pushback' of citizen's valid concerns for their homes, their schools, their safety, their established neighborhood. and their environment. I expect much MORE future -sight and imagination from and for Fayetteville, than what I have heard debated. Calling it necessity. Progress. Growth. I call it asinine. Walk The Keenan Towerhouse (TKT) woods, walk the north side of the Joyce Boulevard/Zion woods. Take a ramble through the east side of our oldest road 265-Crossover AKA The Great Osage Trail woods. You might be amazed at the richness of the eco-system, geography and Fayetteville history there -in. Follow the Butterfield Coach trail from Mudtown. Put your billy boots on and walk Mud Creek. Fayetteville is not Bella Vista, Bentonville, Rogers, Springdale, Lowell, Johnson, Siloam, Cave nor Elm Springs, Farmington nor Elkins. Why aspire to more of that 'tired and mundane'? Why present such blinkered arguments of potential growth and short-sighted vision in terms of forecast growth and necessity ? Except for the most obvious and oldest of reasons. We have the University and environs, the historic Downtown, the so-called up and coming Uptown. Why not designate The Keenan Towerhouse and all nearby acreage, Joyce, Zion, Mud Creek, Old Missouri, Old Wire, Gulley Park and 265-Crossover as a living, learning eco-system ? To include Lake Fayetteville and The Botanical Gardens ? We can't ever grow land. Can we find funds, grants, matching grants, block grants, donations to purchase, maintain and sustain such endeavors ? Why not create an environment that matches the architectural art, artistry and purpose (and commerce) of a Crystal Bridges, within an educational, liveable and living eco-system and community ? The Keenan Towerhouse itself, the key structure, already exists. That structure and environs has been lauded locally, nationally and internationally. The University of Arkansas itself, recognizing the architect, Marlon Blackwell, his architecture and Fayetteville's unique Ozark heritage. As well as TKT's inclusion within architectural curriculums worldwide. NB: only ONE tree was removed for the construction of this "sanctuary tower" it... aligned on the cardinal points." ... that is The Keenan Towerhouse. Let Elkins build its sub -divisions, improving access to them by expanding *existing* west-east/east-west access, allow appropriate and reasonable commercialization and affordable housing along 265 and 71 b. Build smarter AND better! Maintain this established neighborhood as the gem it is to so many, for all who live in this city and all who want to live in this city and all who visit this city. Today. Tomorrow. And for the future. Malce it safe. Keep it smart. Make it smarter. Create, preserve and sustain this locale with BRIGHTER AND BETTER: A LIVING, LEARNING ECO-AID AND COMMUNITY. City of Fayetteville City Council, in the best current and future interests of Fayetteville: Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Dr. to Crossover/265 extension from any master plan. Toss the entire master plan as it exists for this area and start over. Respectfully, Chris Gunn. PS: City Clerk, please include and record this e-mail in the City's official records and the Planning Commission's records, as it pertains to the April 17 2018 The Rolling Hills Drive extension, Rolling Hills Downgrade and the Rezoning Request. Thank you. -CG: 91 CityClerk From: Michael <ewingm@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:43 PM To: Mayor, Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Cc: Michael Subject: The Rolling Hills Drive Extension, Rolling Hills Downgrade and Rezoning Request April 17 2018 With respect, City of Fayetteville, City of Fayetteville Council, City of Fayetteville Planning Commission: Permanently remove the Rolling Hills Drive to Crossover-265 extension from any master plan. Re -think alternatives particularly the expansion of existing east -west -west -east. Respect the safety, security, property value and infrastructure of this established neighborhood and community. Thank you. City Clerk, please record this e-mail in the City Records. Sincerely, Mike Ewing Sr. CityClerk From: Ryan Billingsley <ryan.billingsley@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:53 PM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Rolling Hill Extension - Tuesday night meeting Attachments: Plan D - Rolling Hills jpg Dear City Council Members and Mayor Jordan, I will see you all Tuesday night, but I wanted to let you know my feelings about the two issues surrounding the neighborhoods around Rolling Hills that will be voted on since I am sure you are all thinking hard about the vote in advance. First of all, here is what I hope: I hope that the council votes "no" on the recommendation from the planning commission concerning the Rolling Hills extension on the master plan. I realize that the recommendation is to downgrade Rolling Hills and the extension from an arterial street to a collector street, and that is clearly better than having it arterial, but my ultimate hope (and clearly the hope of many in this area) is that the extension be removed from the mater plan entirely. If we voted yes on this recommendation now, I find it unlikely that we would ever return to the topic of removing the extension from the master plan before development occurs and the city asks the future developer of Mr. Keenan's woods to build the road the way it is in the master plan. Speaking of the city asking the developer to build the road the way it is, I wanted to tell you all about one of the planning commission meetings and a conversation I had with city engineer Mr. Chris Brown afterwards. During the planning commission meeting he tried to clarify that the location of the road on the master plan is important. He stated that the city will ask for the road to be built by developers in the case it is developed and there is a road on the master plan. He also pointed out that there is a big difference in the city claiming eminent domain if the street is on the master plan to ensure a cut -through is accomplished. This is all important to me and others because the city presented us with an "Option D" (I will attach it to this letter) in which the extension was removed and any development was interconnected through winding, small, neighborhood streets. After this statement during the meeting from Mr. Chris Brown, and shortly before the vote, planning commission member Mr. Hoffman stated, falsely, that the location of the road on the master plan doesn't matter. His argument was that maybe developers would ask for permission to build a different road so we don't need to change the master plan. I hope you agree that this is a backwards argument, and if the city prefers "Plan D" we should put it on the master plan and not simply hope "that the developer asks to build a different type of road". I bring this up because no less than 3 planning commission members were vocally in favor of "plan D" before Mr. Hoffman stated this statement "it doesn't matter where we put the road on the master plan" as if it was a fact. At least one of the members asked for further clarification of "does it matter where we put the road on the master plan?" It is my opinion that their votes were swayed by this misstatement and the recommendation was passed. I immediately voiced my concern with Mr. Chris Brown after the meeting in the hallway. At that time he shared my opinion that a few of the commissioners were confused. He reiterated that it does matter where roads are on the master plan. The city can claim eminent domain to build roads where they are on master plans, and they ask developers to build the roads on the master plan. It matters. Several commissioners clearly voiced that "plan D" was their favored option before the vote took place. Local residents were OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of plan D at the city -hosted neighborhood meeting where they presented the possible alternatives a couple months ago. You were in attendance there Mayor Jordan and you did a wonderful job letting it known that you heard our opinion on the matter. The rezone is less of a concern for me in theory. Although I sincerely wish we could wait until a developer purchased the land and actually proposed what they might build before we rezoned it. I don't see a need to put the cart before the horse there and finding out what the plans are should be the priority, not trying to make it easier to sell. It will break my heart to have it developed at all as I have lived around those woods my entire life. BUT unfortunately I don't own them, and if the city can not purchase the land, and the owner/developer do what they are legally allowed to do and develop it as zoned, I hope that the city does what is in their power to make it as right as possible for the citizens of this city and these neighborhoods. People who have lived here right in this spot their entire life. I hope we make the decision that encourages the roads to be used mostly by people going to their homes in the neighborhoods - Plan D. My neighbors and I are tremendously concerned about the possibility of a road being used as an East/West cut -through through our quiet, established neighborhoods where our children walk and play. We are talking about a convenience of a few minutes difference compared to taking Old Missouri to Old Wire to get to Crossover. This is simply fact. That route works. All it needs is a stoplight at the top of Old Missouri. Please help us prevent the possibility of our neighborhood being an unnecessary cut -through by removing the straight extension/cut-through from the master street plan. Please take the time to look closer at "Option D" from the city, a plan several planning commissioners said they liked during the planning commission meeting. Thank you very much for taking the time to read my letter, and I'll see you all on Tuesday. Thank You, Ryan Billingsley oPosEo I 0 1- CityClerk From: Chrissie Gibson <chrisnstubby@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:46 AM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Rolling Hills Extension My name is Christina and I live on Martin Ave ...... I am writing to you today regarding my concerns about the possibility of the Rolling Hills to,Crossover/265 extension and the possible rezoning of a number of acres in that area. Due to having a surgery I will not be able to attend this next meeting in person . Since I can not be there to speak in person I am writing to you instead. I may not be the most eloquent writer, but know I write from both my head and my heart. do understand that things change, some for the better and some for the worse..... Fayetteville has been listed as one of the top places to live for a number of years, and living in this area of Fayetteville, I can sure understand why. I own my own home. I purchased a house in this area mainly because of the established neighborhoods, ease of getting around (1 can walk anywhere I wish in this area and feel safe doing it), and the simple fact that people own their homes and take pride in their neighborhood. Traffic has increased in this area, but that is to be expected as more people move to the Fayetteville area. One of the worse changes that Fayetteville has approved in this area, in my view, was adding the stoplight where Whole Foods built their new building. That backs traffic up tremendously and if you allow this extension to proceed , the backup on Rolling Hills from the cars trying to pull out on 71 B will be horrible. In the last meeting one of the Planning Commissioners stated something like: not to worry traffic will not increase tremendously on your streets, it will be 71 B where traffic will increase the most ... well in my opinion that is bad too.... (and how are the cars getting to 71 B... down our streets -right?). There are times in the day now that it is hard to pull out on 71B and if this extension is approved increased traffic will happen. I look at the south end of town by Martin Luther King Ave and see how that area has grown with all those apartments and duplexes (renters not home owners). That is not the Fayetteville I moved into and I am hoping/praying you do not allow this area of Fayetteville to turn into something like that. I know you do not want Urban Sprawl.... however, i do not want the older inner city to turn into some kind of over populated area that will in -turn turn into run-down dwellings like other inner cities do. We have something special in this area... homes with yards....homes that people own and not just rent... homes/areas that people like me can be proud to live. Rezoning and allowing homes/duplexes to be built closer and closer together will ruin the atmosphere/feel of the neighborhoods. One of the Planning Commissioners talked about there being more and more renters in Fayetteville and how they want more home owners instead. Well as things get rezoned and the areas change, not always for the better, people will rent instead of own homes, and there is no commitment no buy -in from renters. Here is another example of a change, not for the good....in my area, when I bought my home, this was a quiet area to live (weird as that sounds and as close to the main arteries as I live). I made sure there were no bars or clubs in the area. Then Nibbles moved out and numerous other venues have moved into that building. The music playing so loud and the drunk karaoke singers singing is absolutely maddening. There are times I have had to leave the TV on to try and drown it all out. If that would have been happening when I was looking to buy a home, I would have thought twice about buying this house. But change happens and like I said before not always for the better. I do, however, love where I live and love my neighbors..... so I deal with the noise from that building (however awful it is), hoping one day it will go back the way it was..... although 1 have felt like calling the noise police numerous times. Back to this rezoning, some of the Planning Commissioners want to allow more denseness in this area, so more new people have the right and ability to move in, the denser it is the more renters you have, not homeowners. And what about our (the homeowners already living here) rights to continue to live in an area that we love, that makes this one of the best places to live, and one that is not over populated. Another one of the Planning Commissioners said rezoning will allow that acreage to have more dense building here and less dense building there..... Builders Build.. ...they build as absolute much as they can in as small a space as they can so they can make as much money as they can... they will not build more over here so there is less over there. Look at the streets now that have been rezoned for more and more developments. Mud running into the streets and going into the drainage system. Water running down the hills to flood the yards of existing homeowner homes. We have all seen these effects, growth can be a good thing, but growth in the wrong way is not good for the city or our neighborhoods. I feel the reason people move to Fayetteville is getting over shadowed by the city just wanting to move more people in (make the intercity denser is what was said). People at some point will not want to live here. Can you not refresh /revitalize what we already have...... rezone or give developers incentives to revitalize areas that already have homes that are falling down. There are areas of Fayetteville that are more like slums than one of the greatest places to live. Redoing those areas would get more people to live here than tearing down this green space will. Fayetteville is know for having green space, good air quality, and being a tree friendly place to live. The city even gets awards for that. Goodness, I even have an arborist come and look at/prune all my trees to make sure they are healthy and in as good a shape as they -can be in. My wish would be that the Parks Department would purchase part of that land and leave it as green space. One of the Planning Commissioners said the wildlife (deer and such) does not live in that area they just passes thru, but I am not so sure about that. If green space/parks is what brings people to Fayetteville to live, why not add some of this area as protected for the parks where people can go on nature walks and such. My other wish would be that if it is developed, it is developed with single family homes on large lots (not denser with as many people as you can fit into a small space). I do also fear for the safety of the children that go to Butterfield schools. There are a lot of kids that walk/ride bikes to that school. This is an established neighborhood where it is, at this point safe to do that. Increasing the flow of traffic will make it more dangerous for them on a daily basis and lets face it kids have enough danger these days. One of the Planning Commissioners even said something like.... Changes we make now will not really matter because most of us will not be here in 20 years anyway. Well, I plan on being here in 20 years and I do care about what changes are made to this city. We have seen candidates run on a more business type platform growing the city, building more, etc ... and they have lost by a landslide ...... which means the Fayetteville residents as a whole are happy with our hometown feel. —including green space, parks, and neighborhoods. Changing the city away from what makes Fayetteville great is a mistake... rezoning this acreage is a mistake.... extending Rolling Hills is also a mistake. Thank you very much for reading my letter, I appreciate the time you spent to do so. Sincerely, Christina Gibson CityClerk From: Cassandra Walker <bishopmom@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 9:23 AM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Planned Rolling Hills Extension Good Morning, My name is Cassie Walker and I live on North Elizabeth Avenue. I have written and rewritten this letter hundreds of times over in my head. Trying to find the right wording, the most impactfull phrase but you all know everything already. The disruption that this extension would cause to our peaceful little part of our great city. The disruption to the school, the wildlife, the traffic for the people that live in our neighborhoods. I am not against developing the property, if it is developed in a manner that fits the surrounding neighborhoods. I haven't been involved much with the politics of our city. I assumed that our city government would always do the best thing for its residents. That's why so much business growth has gone north of us, we, the residents, don't want to be a big city. We have the University and all that entails. This being said, I went to my first ever planning commission meeting, more for information than anything else. I don't know the names of any of the members, I was just there to listen and what I heard was deafening. The two gentlemen that did the most speaking would have rather been getting a root canal. The eye rolls and slumping posture and head shakes - I have never felt so embarrassed to be a resident before. This meeting was a means to an end, something they had to sit through just as formality because their minds were already made up no matter what anyone had to say. The lady actually said none of us would be around in 20 years so it didn't really matter what happened now. Is this who is really making our decisions for us? I'm not sure about anyone else, but I plan on still being here in 20 years. have been around the mayor a couple of times and various events and he at least acts like he wants to do right by our. city and its residents, but the planning commission did extremely little to boost my confidence in their ability interact with the residents and make decisions best for the residents and not best for business. It's kind of like when you have been a long term customer of something like the phone company and they want to give great deals to the new customers but forget about the satisfaction of their long term customers. We are long term customers and will still be here after the businesses have come and gone. I was looking at a CitiScapes recently and noticed one glaring difference between our city and the other surrounding cities, our green space. Springdale had one park highlighted, Rogers had three, Bentonville had two, and Fayetteville had four. We love our scenery, our green space, our environment.. We don't want our side of the city turned into Weddington, with all the apartments and traffic. We want to keep our quiet residential. neighborhoods. Why do we think we are voted a top place to live? We need to remember who we are and why we are this special place. Remember that our neighbors and neighborhoods matter. Please vote to permanently remove the Rolling Hills expansion from the plan and please vote against the rezoning of the Keenan property. Respectfully, Cassie Walker CityClerk From: Leigh Anne Yeargan^bighanneyeargan@yahoomom' Sent: Monday, April B6,20lDl2:I7PK4 To: Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; Marsh, Sarah; Smith, Kyle; La Tour, John; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Gray,Ade||a Co: OtyC|erk; Mayor, Williams, Kit Subject: RZNl7-6O52Rezoning nfProperty inRolling Hills Attachments: innage20I8-04-I6-106419.pdf Dear Council Members: Please see the attached letter which sets forth the following reasons why the above -referenced request for rezoning should bedenied: 1. Three out ofseven Planning Commissioners voted against it. 2. The petition taken into context with all of the property for sale warrants denial. 3. The application isstill deficient. 4. The proposed zoning isspot zoning. 5. The overwhelming majority of people in the neighborhood are against the proposed rezoning. Thank you for your time and consideration. Leigh Anne Yeargan 1 Leigh Anne Yeargan 3349 Picadilly Lane Fayetteville, AR 72703 April 16, 2018 Ms. Adella Gray (wardl posl@favetteville-ar.gov) Ms. Sarah Marsh (wardl post@favetteville-ar.gov) Mr. Mark Kinion (ward2 posl@favetteville-ar.gov) Mr. Matthew Petty (ward2 pos2@favetteville-ar.eov) Mr. Justin Tennant (ward3 post@favetteville-ar.eov) Ms. Sarah Bunch (ward3 pos2 favetteville-ar.gov) Mr. John LaTour (ward4 post favetteville-ar.eov) Mr. Kyle Smith (ward4 pos2@favetteville-ar.eov), cc: Lisa Smith (cityclerk@favetteville-ar.eov); Mayor Lionel Jordan (Mayor@favetteville-ar.eov); Kit - Williams (kwilliams@favetteville-ar.eov) Re: RZN 17-6052 - Application to Rezone Property East of Rolling Hills Road Drive and Old Missouri Road Dear City Council Members: I am writing to request that the City Council vote against the application to rezone approximately 23 acres of land located East of Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road from RSF-4 - Residential Single Family- 4 - to NC - Neighborhood Conservation at its April 17, 2018 meeting. First, the Planning Commission has not unanimously recommended the proposed rezoning. .In fact, the vote was 4-3 with three 'Commissioners voting against recommending rezoning. As Commissioner Sloan Scroggins noted at: the March 26 Planning Commission meeting when he cast his vote against rezoning, the proposed zoning is "form based in name only." Commissioner Zara Niederman voted, against. the proposed rezoning because of the conservation issues. He indicated he might be in favor of the rezoning if there was some type of conservation easement in place. Commissioner Matthew Johnson, who also voted against the rezoning, questioned why this property was not in the Hillside Overlay District. Each ofthese commissioners recognized that the proposed NC zoning is not appropriate for this property. Second, it is important that Council Members understand the totality of circumstances surrounding the current rezoning request. The 23 acres identified in the current NC rezoning request are part of a larger tract of land (43 acres) that is currently for sale. (See Picture 1 below). The land owner previously sought and obtained rezoning of 11' of the 43 acres from RSF-4 to NS-G in July 2017. (See Picture 2 below). Except for two astute neighbors who voiced their objection, the NS-G rezoning went virtually unnoticed by the Rolling Hills community. Having learned of that rezoning through the current process, the overwhelming majority of neighbors have expressed disapproval of the NS-G rezoning. After the NS-G rezoning was approved, the land owner sought to rezone the current 23 acres to NC. The land owner also placed his personal residence — which is adjacent to the 23 acres — for sale simultaneously with the request for NC rezoning. (See Picture 3 below). The landowner has also listed approximately five acres of the 43 acres for sale separately — which is still zoned RSF-4. (See Picture 4 below). The land owner has not sought to rezone these five acres or the remaining acres of the 43 acres. if the current NC rezoning request is approved, it is conceivable that the landowner will then seek to rezone the remaining land to an even higher density zoning using the NS and NC zoning to bootstrap "compatibility" of higher density zoning. This is exactly how the staff is justifying the current NC request — that it is "compatible" with NS. If the land owner has a plan in mind for the entire 43 acres, he should be required to disclose that plan to the city and the neighborhood. There is no assurance that higher density zoning will not be sought in a neighborhood that has traditionally been RSF-4. The application should be denied based on these factors alone. $MiP55,000 ,,O, gt: —mv k, AR :2�0? R.,rr ta'$C t+Jt A in tlxr i.?+y vi Gay -'+;ride :vitb numerrnn never«pm'nt cppeutunitei. Parcel «s zcnu+n aGwox+matenr <3 acres a,:er tc? .p.a3 wn- d Mitch Weigel, Realtor W/ Qer_embe 15 • 0 2375 E Farr Ln., Fayetteville AR MLS# 1066437 Mitch 44'CigCl A<�y n $1,400.000 eras e• - K++, GAyeitEWee. AR Yx?03 O:•. On<5 ac�t:zx '•;rive 8.08of prole devetop-ent land tolled NS-G P—nc,es a watkatAe. owestran<ontntee nrtgAbO:huod oevetoomeot form Mtn suscainah!e b cu!nplimentary• nP.tg... 2200 warvvick< 1=ayetteville, AR 72703 $500,000 ..See f-w4 Beautiful Jack Arnold designed French Country home located on four gated ,serene acres in Fayetteville. This home has five bedrooms, five full baths and two half baths. MY.MATTERPORT.COM _ __..... Explore 2375 East Farr Lane, Leam More l Fayetteville, Arkansas in 30 ................ Third, the City Council should deny the application because the application is still deficient. Council Members will recall that this petition was originally scheduled to be heard at the March 6, 2018 City Council meeting. But because the application was deficient, it was pulled from the agenda and sent back to the Planning Commission with instructions for the applicant to provide the information required by the application and city ordinance. Despite being given another opportunity to provide the required information, the applicant failed to do so. Specifically, the application does not contain adequate responses to Section 5(d), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of the zoning application. In response to Section 5(d) regarding the "[a]vailability of water and sewer (state size of lines)", the applicant answered "[e]xisting water and sewer are on Old Missouri and Farr Lane." The applicant failed to state the size of the lines as required by the application. In response to Section 5(f) on whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed, the applicant answered, "NC zoning is the appropriate zoning for the intended use." The applicant has not given any explanation of why the proposed zoning is 'usti fed and or needed — again - as required by the application. In response to Section 5(g) on "[w]hether the proposed zoning will create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion," the applicant answered, "[t]he adjacent streets have ample capacity to handle any additional traffic." The applicant has not answered the question of whether there will be an appreciable increase in traffic let alone whether there will be any increase in traffic as required by the application. Furthermore, there is no basis for the statement that the adjacent streets have capacity to handle increased traffic. The applicant makes a conclusory statement with no basis in fact. In response to Section 5(h) about "[w]hether the proposed zoning will alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities," the applicant answered,, "[t].he potential to. increase the population density in this area as a result of this rezoning would not undesirably increase load on public services." Again, the applicant makes a conclusory statement with no evidence to support its statement. These insufficient responses alone require that the application,be rejected. Significantly; in response to Section 5(i) on "[w]hy it would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classification," the applicant concedes that "the current RSF-4 zoning is not impractical:'" The applicant states that NC zoning is "more practical," but — again — provides no evidence to support this conclusory statement. Even if NC zoning is "more practical," this is not a basis for rezoning property. See, e;g., Little Rock v. Breeding, 273 Ark. 437 (1981) ("it has been well -established that rezoning cannot be justified solely on the grounds that it is necessary to put a tract of land in its most remunerative use.") (citations omitted). The applicant's failure to provide the information required .is fatal to its request. As City Attorney Kit Williams has recently opined, it is a requirement — not a suggestion - that Section 5 of the zoning application be completed since the application clearly states, "Please fill out this form completely, supplying all necessary information and documentation to support your request. Your application will not be placed on the Planning Commission agenda until this information is furnished." (emphasis in the original). Without the information required by the application, the rezoning ordinance cannot be passed. See February 28, 2018, Memorandum from Kit Williams to Mayor Lionel Jordan, p. 2. The City Council cannot choose to disregard the missing information and pass the rezoning ordinance. The City's disregard of the mandatory requirements of its own application would amount to unlawful procedure. See, e.g., Stueart v. Ark. State Police Comm'n, 329 Ark. 45, 51 ("A procedure is unlawful when an agency fails to follow that which it has prescribed.") See also Harrison v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2003 Ark, App. LEXIS 286 (holding agency's failure to follow own policy and procedures manual unlawful). Additionally, the City approved the current application in March 2014. Since then, other zoning applicants have provided the requested information based on the mandatory requirement set forth in the application. If the City Council treats this applicant differently than other applicants by not requiring this applicant to provide sufficient answers in the application, the City Council will be acting arbitrarily and capriciously. Fourth, even if the applicant is not required to provide this information, the staff and Planning Commission are required to analyze whether proposed rezoning is needed or justified. Instead, the staff indicates that "the applicant has requested the zoning changes to allow for development at a greater density...." See March 26, 2018 Planning Commission Memo, p. 4, no. 2. A landowner's request for rezoning alone is not a basis for rezoning. There is no evidence that development at a greater density is justified or needed. The staff avoids having to determine whether it would be impractical to use the land as currently zoned by concluding that there are no considerations which would warrant such an analysis. See March 26, 2018 Planning Commission Memo, p. 5, no. 5. But, as stated previously, the staff failed to determine that. the rezoning was justified or needed. Therefore, the staff must analyze whether the land can be used under the current RSF-4 zoning which it failed to do. Additionally, the staff did absolutely no analysis on how the proposed zoning would impact Butterfield Trail Elementary School. `The impact on a school that is close to the proposed zoning. is reason enough to deny rezoning.. See Little Rock v. Parker, 241 Ark. 381 (1966). The staff concedes there will be increased traffic which necessarily imposes additional risks to children traveling to and from school and playing outside at recess. It is my understanding that during the Council's tour of the property last summer, the Council witnessed a near accident, and the Mayor had to stop traffic in order for a child on a bike to cross the street. The safety of both students and residents will severely be impacted by increased traffic. Fifth, the proposed NC rezoning as well as the previously approved NS-6 zoning are spot zoning which is clearly impermissible. Spot zoning "departs from the comprehensive treatment or privileges not in harmony with the other use classifications in the area and without any apparent circumstances which call for different treatment." PH, LLC v. City of Conway, 344 S.W.3d 660, 668 (Ark 2009) (citation omitted) (emphasis in the original). There is absolutely no evidence that circumstances have changed which would warrant changing the current RSF-4 zoning to NC. Finally, the main reason the City Council should vote against the proposed rezoning is because of the overwhelming opposition to it voiced by the neighborhood. As City Attorney Kit Williams noted in his February 20, 2015 Memorandum to the City of Fayetteville Citizens, "[o]pposition by a large majority of the citizens in the neighborhood"' is a basis for denying rezoning. (citing Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena, 310 Ark. 682 (1992)). Public opposition to this proposed rezoning is overwhelming. Over 200 people attended a neighborhood meeting on February 22, 2018 at Rolling Hills Baptist Church. Mayor Jordan stated he had never seen that large of an attendance at a public meeting in his career with the City. The consensus of everyone in attendance was that they were against rezoning. A significant number of neighbors :attended the March 26 Planning Commission meeting and. voiced their opposition to the. proposed rezoning. Numerous neighbors have called the Planning Commissioners and City Council members voicing their opposition to -the .proposed rezoning. The record before the City :Council is replete with letters and elroa'il. voicing opposition to the proposed rezoning. The City has dedicated a section on itswebsite to the Rolling Hills neighborhood as a result of the.public interest and outcry against rezoning.— something_ it has never done before. As elected officials,your obligation is `to. respect the. opinions and desires of the people who elected you. It. is .obvious that This neighborhood is highly, organized, highly educated about rezoning and city planning,: and highly in opposition to rezo.nin&. We will. not stop until the proposed NC rezoning, is defeated. Thank you'for- your consideration. :Sincerely, i t 4eli An Yeargan CityClerk From: Nicole Claesen <nclaesen@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 6:09 PM To: Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle Cc: CityClerk Subject: Removal of the Rolling Hills Drive Extension and Downgrade of Rolling Hills Drive Good evening, Please find attached our petition for the removal of the proposed Rolling Hills Drive Extension and the downgrade of Rolling Hills Drive from an arterial to a collector. I am sure that you have received numerous emails and phone calls from residents stating their concern and their desire to have an ill-conceived road extension removed from any further consideration. The petition currently stands at over 1300 signatures. Please take the time to read the reasons why people signed it and I hope you will get a broader sense of why so many want Rolling Hills Drive downgraded and the extension removed. As Fayetteville continues to look toward the future and our growth, I want to make sure we are doing it responsibly and thoughtfully. Cities in the United States and around the world are going on a "road diet". They are no longer widening roads, or in some cases no longer building new ones. They have recognized that adding a lane or extending a road doesn't help traffic at all. It only creates induced traffic. Building new, or widening existing roads is extremely costly and the maintenance is equally costly. Unnecessary road construction realties are enormous... devastated neighborhoods, water problems, runoff, air & noise pollution and in this case it also negatively impacts an elementary school. Lowering speed limits, narrowing a street, simply re -striping a street, dedicated right hand turning lanes and sophisticated traffic signal timing are all far more effective and actually help the flow of traffic more than an induced traffic road ever could. Currently there are several East to West connections: • Huntsville Road/Highway 16 • Wyman Road • Mission • Township • Old Wire Road • Joyce • East Guy Terry Each of the above roads make an East to West connection to Crossover and/or College Avenue. Below is the distance between four of the current connections: • Joyce to Old Wire Road is 1 mile • Old Wire Road to Township is .8 mile • Township to Mission is .5 mile • Joyce to Zion is .7 mile That is 4 East to West connections in the span of 3 miles. From Rolling Hills Drive/Old Missouri to Old Wire Road is .3 mile. I do not think there is a great benefit to adding an extension by a school playground or through an existing neighborhood when Old Wire Road is already there. The funds to improve Old Wire Road would be far less expensive to tax payers. According to the Mobility Plan presented to you on March 20`h, one of the.top findings was: "Most traffic flows north -south, and existing east -west connections are capable of absorbing all east -west traffic." The safety issue cannot be over stated or ignored. Rolling Hills Drive is already a raceway. It is already dangerously too wide and should be narrowed. Over the past three years, there have been almost 1600 citations along Rolling Hills Drive. Those citations include over 370 for speeding, over 100 for careless driving, and over 200 for running a stop sign. There have been 90 car accidents, including 1 fatality. The extension would absolutely erase our walkability and create a dangerous situation for pedestrians, especially the children that walk to/from school. If a person, certainly a child, is hit by a car going 40mph there is an 80% chance of serious injury or death. Cars regularly speed in excess of 40mph. It is still astonishing to me that the speed bumps were removed from Rolling Hills Drive because the city chose to listen to complaints from people who wanted to break the law instead of residents who only wanted to feel safe crossing the street or walking down the street. With that being said, to narrow Rolling Hills Drive with the use of a tree lined median would slow down traffic and help to keep and improve the walkability our city is trying to create. When a city places anything on any Master Plan that implies intent. The public can only presume it is what the city intends to do. It doesn't matter if it may not be for 2 years, 5 years or never. At the October 2017 meeting with the city held at Rolling Hills Drive, Mr. Stoll stated, " Rolling Hills Drive could absolutely be widened." If it is your home, your child's school, your neighborhood all you know is the city intends to do it and it hangs over your head. if the proposed Rolling Hills Drive extension is not scheduled to be part of a possible 2020 bond and if thee city states it may never happen or it may be 15-20 years before it happens, please vote to remove it from the Master Plan. I think most would agree that upon further reflection that Rolling Hills Drive should not have been designated arterial and the extension was/is ill-conceived and that the negatives far outweigh any minute gain. Thank you so much for your time and effort in these two important matters. Sincerely, Nicole Claesen CityClerk From: Abigail Myers <abigailmmyers@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:07 AM To: Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk; Mayor Subject: Rolling Hills Drive and Keenan Property We are writing to express our concern about the current proposals affecting Rolling Hills Drive and the Rolling Hills Drive/Skillern Road extension. We are current residents of Huntingdon Neighborhood and our children attend Butterfield Trail Elementary and McNair Middle School, so we travel Rolling Hills, Old Wire, and Highway 265 daily. Extending Rolling Hills through the Keenan Property and the Strawberry/Huntingdon Subdivisions will destroy wildlife, destroy homes and private land, and create a main thoroughfare of traffic through an established neighborhood and next to an elementary school. The amount of time saved by cutting through this area appears to be negligible and at the risk of increasing safety and traffic problems and decreasing home values. Wider streets with long stretches of road have been shown to affect driver behavior, causing them to increase speed. It is our concern that widening and extending Rolling Hills will have this affect next to our elementary school and in our neighborhood. In the March 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Autry stated that we shouldn't be worried about another main road next to Butterfield Trail Elementary, because it has been done at other schools. This was a troubling statement. Maybe there have not been any accidents that harmed students at this point, but I have heard first hand accounts from parents and teachers at these "other schools" (including Owl Creek and Holcomb). They can tell you of all the "near -misses", how students who used to be walkers, are now driven by car because the crosswalks and intersections have become to dangerous for parents to allow their children to walk across them. I would ask you to consider these other schools and follow up on the impact that new and increased traffic has had on walkability and traffic patterns. One of our main objectives is to prevent creating more traffic and decreased walkability problems around Butterfield Trail. It seems that adding an extension to Rolling Hills Drive would exacerbate these problems without any real benefit of improving traffic flow from East to West. Who is calling for a connection between College Ave and Hwy 265? In all recent public discussion and meetings about this road, I have not personally seen a push from anyone other than the city to have this road placed and kept on the Master 2030 plan. In so many ways, the connection does not logistically make sense (terrain, destroying houses/wildlife, very close proximity to existing roads). Has consideration been given to improve the existing infrastructure to address the traffic issues without the destructive measures being proposed? Old Wire is already in place and serves as a connection to get to Rolling Hills Drive (it also includes a 90 degree turn, similar to the 90 degree turn at Strawberry/Oak Bailey proposed by the city staff at the last planning commission). We also have concerns about the topography of the land that will be used in the building of this road. In recent public meetings, members of city staff and planning commission have acknowledged the presence of soil, terrain, and drainage issues with the land of the proposed road extension site. Have studies been done to address and approach these issues prudently? Another planning commissioner made the statement that the line on the 2030 Master Plan is "arbitrary," that it can be moved. If it is an arbitrary line, why is it on the Master Plan? That "arbitrary line" must be disclosed when my neighbors put their houses on the market to sell, that "arbitrary line" is beginning to make residents consider how permanent they want to make their time in their house because it would have to be destroyed for the RHD/Skillern Road extension to be complete. Overall, we have many concerns and we feel that they have not been addressed. What data suggests that the Rolling Hills expansion and extension will increase safety in our neighborhood and around Butterfield elementary, preserve wildlife and local water sources, and improve traffic flow and walkability? With regards to the rezoning request East of Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road/ Keenan Property, we also have some concerns. In the last few weeks, we have come to understand some of the problems with the RSF-4 zoning code. We have also been able to consider the larger -issues of affordable and attainable housing and the need for increased density in Fayetteville. We also realize that we do not personally own the Keenan property and respect that the owner has a right to plan/develop/sell what is theirs. The Keenan property is one of the last pieces of undeveloped land in this part of Fayetteville, and we hope that all consideration will be given to the composition and location of this property. The grade and composition of the land does not seem to lend it self to heavy development and it also contains tributaries to Mud Creek and wildlife that is unique to the area. Our hope is that if this land is developed, consideration would be given to these matters. In terms of the NC zoning that is proposed, increased density on this particular property concerns me for the reasons stated above. NC also would not include properties and businesses that would make the neighborhood more walkable for me and my family. We currently drive to work (healthcare facilities) and to the grocery stores (and we moved into this neighborhood, fully aware of this). I have not seen any NC developments around Fayetteville that include healthcare facilities and grocery stores. The planning commission and city staff have constantly said rezoning should meet the walkability and infill goals of the city. But does the NC zoning do that here? During its presentation to the planning commission in early March, city staff said this was "not an ideal infill site." Also, other current NC developments around town do not seem affordable, the homes being built are very expensive. So, would NC help Fayetteville's affordability and housing attainability issues? We really want to participate and help Fayetteville grow in a responsible way, and we appreciate your time and consideration of these two matters. Tristan and Abigail Myers 19 CityClerk From: lisa <lisahriley@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:38 PM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Rolling Hills Drive Expansion Dear Mayor, City Council Members and City Clerk, I am writing today to ask you to reconsider the expansion of Rolling Hills Drive past Old Missouri Road as per the 2030 Master Plan. I believe that the east west connectivity issue in this general vicinity is already satisfactorily answered by both Township Drive and Joyce Blvd. A traffic light at the intersection of Old Missouri and Old Wire Road would do much to alleviate traffic congestion. As for the rezoning question I believe all interested parties need more time to fully address the many ideas and pre-propossal plans that are still being discussed. Our neighborhood is being considered for plans and changes that will alter the very look and feel we all so much enjoy here. This is one of the most unique areas in Fayetteville. We have a diverse neighborhood with a variety of income levels, nationality, race, and religion represented. The housing styles are quite different as well. This is not a cookie cutter area. The green spaces we see also add value that is impossible to put a dollar amount on. Please help us preserve this with thoughtful and well planned ideas that will produce positive growth. Sincerely, Michael and Lisa Buerkett CityClerk From: Bosc, PhD, Kristin M. <kboscl@wregional.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:51 PM To: Mayor; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Petty, Matthew; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; CityClerk Subject: Rolling Hills agenda Dear Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, and City Clerk, am a resident of Huntingdon Neighborhood, a Butterfield parent, and a registered voter in Fayetteville. I know you have received considerable correspondence regarding the proposed Rolling Hills extension and rezoning of the Keenan property on tonight's agenda, so I will keep this brief. I attended the community meeting and have followed the media coverage, talked with neighbors, and watched the footage of the city planning meetings regarding the proposed changes. Some of the "ugly" comments made by city planning commission members have been condescending at best but have at least served to mobilize some of us who have previously simply trusted city officials to make decisions in all of our best interest. Please vote to remove the Rolling Hills extension from the master street plan and vote "No" on the proposed rezoning. When all of the data are considered, there is overwhelming evidence that increasing the population density and traffic in this area will be detrimental, not only to the students, neighborhood residents, and wildlife, but to Fayetteville as a whole. While development is inevitable in a growing area and ultimately, we may have to accept that there will be homes and streets replacing our wooded areas, opening that particular area to a major thoroughfare and 10-unit per acre development would be a great disservice to your constituents. Thank you for your time. Kristin Bose Kristin Bose, PhD Neuropsychologist Clinic for Senior Health 12 East Appleby Rd, Suite 101 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Phone: 479.463.4442 Fax: 479.463.4499 wregional.com Wash inatonRe ional Attention: This email and any files transmitted with it are the property of Washington Regional Medical System. They are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This message and accompanying attachments may additionally contain proprietary or privileged material that is protected under applicable law. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system. CityClerk From: Leigh Anne Yeargan <leighanneyeargan@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:47 PM To: Petty, Matthew Cc: Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Smith, Kyle; Mayor, Williams, Kit; CityClerk Subject: Answer to Question Mr. Petty - You asked me why I was opposed to higher density zoning tonight. Below is a picture of two bedroom $600,000 plus townhouses being built best to two historical homes. This is just one example of why I am against the higher density zoning. r -,r w .T � +• s#.'Yy erg+ ` Y" a May ram`. y..�t�� }.f'•r+1 �µ _.+it. _"�'X jpfe•' r .'� F . ��.' + _'+ . �� _ �'�"�: fir• - 1p 4 �� ... � �':r,.4`�r-i. r •�. n't�"i iq P��.h � - � +•a s� �` '` � ~' r ^_"-t ^, ��`.. 'l" ref ^E� ,pt. � ,.M t�- �� y �'• ��r��M y�' �'~ j,� . �f'rt�ir+. �r .'�i's 4� ;. try+',,, is . + ` *"i i �. ,�. 3) j,„'�". _ i .. `"�".�_,.:. - •4 i +,+�,'� + ^ ^ ,,, ,�.► 7� s ak... •� :+'...' .. a ara /f �. y s E� ro r Y a •� E i is +. � , E u t i + s 1W M �#i..^��+�r�� NORTHWEST ARKA ISAS De, moc t *`Oazefte ^.o. BOX 1=.607: FAY='T VJ LE,.AR, 72702.479-442 0C t FAX::479-695-M8. 4t )MJ V:NWAbG.CQ�i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I Cathy Wiles, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat -Gazette, printed and published in Washington County and Benton County, Arkansas, and of bona fide circulation, that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of - CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE Ord, 6062 Was inserted in the Regular Edition on: May 10, 2018 Publication Charges: $ 71.50 (�a A_ Cathy Wiles Subscribed and sworn to before me This z--1 day of-W� , 2018. jo/m , (Z.), Notary Public My Commission Expires: Z1(2/ Z'3 TAA:1tv1Y RUSHER Notat~/ Public - Arkansas Washington County Commission n 12703120 h1,, Ccmrnissicn Expires Feb 12. 2028 **NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent. RECEIVED QUI`t , 6062 File Number: 2018-0085 CITY OF Ff WIV( EVQD5E (EAST OF ROLLING CITY CLE M4ffi.lOfF4C5CEENAN): AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETIT[ON RZN 37-6052 FOR APPROXIMATELY 22.59 ACRES LOCATED AT EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DRIVE AND OLD MISSOURI ROAD FROM RSF4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE TO NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION 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 the property shown on the map (Exhibit A) and the legal description (Exhibit B) both attached to the Planning Department's Agenda Memo from RSF4, Residential Single Family, 4 Units per Acre to NC, Neighborhood Conservation. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1. PASSED and APPROVED on 5/I/2018 Approved: Lioneld Jordan, Mayor Attest: Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer 74524177 May 10, 2018 RECEIVED NORTHWEST ARKANSAS CITY OF CITY Cl vemocrat : 0.BO .6��. SS=T�_kl....., f. e._•..:G .!ca/.b_Z v.. 'SAk 7 6'9S ".18 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I Cathy Wiles, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat -Gazette, printed and published in Washington County and Benton County, Arkansas, and of bona fide circulation, that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE Ord, 6062 Was inserted in the Regular Edition on: May 10, 2018 Publication Charges: $ 71.50 / t / VV�VWJ Cathy Wiles Subscribed and sworn to before me This �9 day of , 2018. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 2 y1 ZQ TA,�1ti1Y RUSHER Notary Public—Arkarsas Washington County Ccmmissior. n 12703120 My L'.C ommissicr Expires Feb 12,2028 **NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent. 2018 Ordinance: 6062 li&?il&ffiber: 2018-0085 W§4a1-6052 (EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DR./KEENAN): AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 17-6052 FOR APPROXIMATELY 22.59 ACRES LOCATED AT EAST OF ROLLING HILLS DRIVE AND OLD MISSOURI ROAD FROM RSF4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE TO NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION 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 the 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 Single Family, 4 Units per Acre to NC, Neighborhood Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1. PASSED and APPROVED on 5/1/2018 Approved: Lioneld Jordan, Mayor Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer 74524177 May 10, 2018