HomeMy WebLinkAbout36-20 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479)575-8323
Resolution: 36-20
File Number: 2019-0933
ADOPT REVISED FUTURE LAND USE MAP:
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT A REVISED FUTURE LAND USE MAP
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution 116-11 approving and adopting City
Plan 2030 and the Future Land Use Map as the comprehensive land use plan for the City of Fayetteville;
and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution 50-18 expressing its support for
an update to the comprehensive land use plan, including a new future land use map, master street plan,
and active transportation plan map, all of which have been developed by a wide-ranging, cross -
departmental group of City staff with extensive input from the Planning Commission, City Council
members, and residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves and adopts a
revised Future Land Use Map, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution.
PASSED and APPROVED on 1/21/2020
Page 1 Printed on 1/22/20
File Number. 2019-0933
Resolution 36-20
Attest:
GOER K / T'�
G,
Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treas • FAYErtEV •,
cn.�p
Page 2 Printed on 1/22/20
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
= Text File
File Number: 2019-0933
Agenda Date: 1/21/2020 Version: 1 Status: Passed
In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution
Agenda Number: B. 2
ADOPT REVISED FUTURE LAND USE MAP:
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT A REVISED FUTURE LAND USE MAP
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution 116-11 approving and adopting City
Plan 2030 and the Future Land Use Map as the comprehensive land use plan for the City of Fayetteville; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution 50-18 expressing its support for an
update to the comprehensive land use plan, including a new future land use map, master street plan, and active
transportation plan map, all of which have been developed by a wide-ranging, cross -departmental group of
City staff with extensive input from the Planning Commission, City Council members, and residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves and adopts a revised
Future Land Use Map, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution.
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 1/22/2020
Blake Pennington
Submitted By
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2019-0933
Legistar File ID
1/7/2020
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
N/A for Non -Agenda Item
1/6/2020 CITY ATTORNEY (021)
Submitted Date Division / Department
Action Recommendation:
City Council approval of the Future Land Use Map.
Budget Impact:
Account Number
Fund
Project Number
Project Title
Budgeted Item? NA
Current Budget
$ -
Funds Obligated
$ -
Current Balance
Does item have a cost? NA
Item Cost
Budget Adjustment Attached? NA
Budget Adjustment
Remaining Budget
$ -
V20180321
Purchase Order Number:
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Change Order Number:
Approval Date:
Original Contract Number:
Comments:
Ori-i.c of rrFtr
CrrY i-TORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor Jordan
City Council
FROM: Blake Pennington, Assistant City
DATE: January 6, 2020.
RE: Future Land Use Map update
Kit Williams
C'ity Attorney
Blake Pennington
Asslstaaat city Attorney
Jodi B atker
Paralegal
Atto
At the December 17, 2019 City Council meeting, the City Council approved
a motion separating City Plan .2040, the Future Land Use Map, the Master
Street Plan, and the Active Transportation Plan so each could be considered.
on its own. The Master Street Plan and Active Transportation Plan were
tabled until the January 7, 2020 meeting and City Plan 2040 and the Future.
Land Use Map were tabled until the. January 21, 2020 meeting.
Attached are the staff memo., alternative Future Land Use Map proposals,
and some additional comments and recommendations from the Planning
Commission.
CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 2020
TO: Mayor; Fayetteville City Council
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
THRU: Susan Norton, Communications Department Director, Interim Chief of Staff
Garner Stoll, Development Services Director
Andrew Garner, Long Range Planning/Special Projects Manager
Chris Brown, City Engineer
FROM: Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager
DATE: January 3, 2020
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommendation for the Future Land Use Map
RECOMMENDATION:
Following several meetings in 2018 and 2019 in which the Planning Commission functioned as a
steering committee for the update to City Plan 2030, the Future Land Use Map, and Master Street
Plan, complete draft documents were presented to Commissioners on May 13, 2019.
Commissioner feedback was requested on each of the three plan elements outlined above, with
comments, recommendations, and critiques provided over the following four weeks.
BACKGROUND:
The current Future Land Use map was adopted by Resolution 116-11 on July 5, 2011, following
the adoption of City Plan 2030. This map was itself an update of the Future Land Use Map
adopted in 2006 with City Plan 2025, which was developed to reflect the principles and goals of
City Plan. The maps adopted with City Plan 2025 and 2030 represented a fundamental change
in how the Future Land Use Map functioned. Where Future Land Use Map designations were
previously broken down by land uses that reflected conventional zoning principals of separate
areas for commercial, industrial, and residential activity, the new maps incorporated key elements
of the SmartCode framework, a development ordinance template intended to create context -
appropriate urban design that can meld varying uses and create compact, connected
neighborhoods.
Among these elements is the system of environments known as the Transect Zone, where
habitats are ordered from the most natural to the most urban. City Plan 2025 and 2030 took these
zones and translated them into appropriate development patterns as expressed in the
comprehensive plan to reflect the unique character of Fayetteville. These Future Land Use Map
designations are:
• Natural Areas (Dark Green) T-1
• Rural Areas (Light Green) T-2
• Residential Neighborhood Areas (Yellow) T-3
• City Neighborhood Areas (Blue) T-4
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
• Urban Center Areas (Purple) T-5
• Industrial Areas (Light Blue)
• Complete Neighborhood Plans (Red)
• Civic and Private Open Space Areas/Parks (Olive)
• Civic Institutional Areas (Brown)
• Non -municipal Government Areas (Tan)
• Industrial Areas (Light Blue)
UPDATES:
The Future Land Use Map and land use designations as proposed herein are still based
on the transect model, the SmartCode framework wherein habitats are ordered from the
most natural to the most urban. Staff's goal with this update is to use the existing land
use designations and provide multiple iterations of the Future Land Use Map as potential
scenarios for growth management. Each alternative poses a different strategy for
accommodating Fayetteville's anticipated population growth, from the current
discouragement of annexation for urban or suburban development to growth moderated
by zoning and annexation tools that moderate the City's expansion with respect to the
goals and principals of City Plan 2030.
Alternative #1 (Exhibit A) represents the existing Future Land Use Map as adopted
with City Plan 2030, and will be updated to reflect changes in existing land use since
the map's 2011 adoption. This iteration was created following the economic downturn
of the late 2000s and included a reduction of Residential Neighborhood Area at the
edge of the City to discourage urban sprawl and a reclassification of portions of north
Fayetteville to Urban Center Area to reflect its new "regional" description.
Alternative #2 (Exhibit `B) incorporates those changes outlined in Alternative #1 along
with reclassifying large areas within Fayetteville's Planning Area as Residential
Neighborhood Area. This is intended to reflect and accommodate the anticipated
population growth of Fayetteville in coming decades in a deliberate manner. Additionally,
adoption, application, and implementation of this Future Land Use Map is predicated on
the execution of several proposed action items within City Plan 2040. Foremost among
these are the development of a formal annexation policy to strategically and deliberately
plan for controlled growth and the adoption of zoning districts that can be utilized to
manage rural growth and maintain rural character at the City's outeredges. Significant
changes to the map include a broad expansion of land within the Planning Area
designated as Residential Neighborhood Area.
Alternative #3 (Exhibit 'C) acts as a middle road, to include those changes outlined in
Alternative #1 within the City's boundaries and a more moderated expansion of
Residential Neighborhood Area in to the Planning Area. While also predicated on
adopting a formal annexation policy and rural zoning districts, the additional areas
designated as Residential Neighborhood area are currently contiguous to City limits,
adjacent to City infrastructure, complimentary to the efficient provision of City services,
or a combination thereof.
DISCUSSION:
On July 8, 2019, the Planning Commission forwarded the draft Future Land Use Map,
recommending Alternative #1, noting that adoption of Alternatives #2 or #3 that encourage
annexation and peripheral development is not appropriate without an existing annexation policy
or growth management tools. Further, the Commission recommended revising the visual
Complete Neighborhood Area designation from a solid color to a border, inside which properties
will receive Future Land Use Map designations similar to other properties citywide. No public
comment was presented.
On December 17, 2019, staff also recommended in favor of Alternative #1 of the Future Land Use
Map, with an amendment proposed by elected officials ('Exhibit'D') to expand areas of northwest
Fayetteville designated as Residential Neighborhood Area, and deferring review, drafting, and
adoption of additional annexation policy and growth management tools to a later date.
Attachments:
• Exhibit A
• Exhibit B
• Exhibit C
• Exhibit D
• Planning Commissioner Recommendation
Z-4;;;j�
v6
Cl) r
N �
T-
O
O
-2 },
W Q
Z = y a
O ` R O V V r d
Z w� U� S 0 0 0 Z ri
J
t
O
O
0
O J
-2 },
W Q
Z = y a
O ` R O V V r d
Z w� U� S 0 0 0 Z ri
zQ
It ■
M r
Ni
•p
m
} LO
cq
Lq
CD
CD
I FL
• �. �. Nvit
"�•_r� ' n t7"."`
ep
J1
L
�\ 1 1. t r ,-• � � ;. '�'-'�t`�- ;
jj
-74
��°� `-• � r ::.fit_-- ,? d i �, .
i
�'1 ♦ ' F4 � y ' d $i O R
ALJ �6 ' . , ��, ;�' �4• _��� � � o c rn
. j R o o >
t O
41 .0 y w O -J
cc
i R R t C U
O? Z O t6
Z w w U= U 0 0 Z U.
WH Q a o0 ooa: o
rn
m
,
Tit
cl
Lo
LLF
IIW I,
S '•f ,1 t
'�=� err t':��t r` `•-�,�° � �s.��. � _ _� i
-
3
...............
CD alt
OL
J _ 1LN
rt+'CL
_.;
•r� 6. ..T O Q L Q �
J
J
LM L
d�
Im
m O p C)
- Q Q. i R IC = C Z CL
„Q =+ C i Z R U U d
�_
= tC 7 d � .O -p O > > O A
........................................................i .a Z� w i..i M C u u 0 Z U.
X X
W Q a as oao 0
E
E
Q
vI
O
Q
O
a.
C C
00
.2 a
a 0 L)
cFac
,F�a
0 cn
0 —
m U
m - c
m .>_
QU
a
QUO
CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2019
TO: Mayor; Fayetteville City Council
THRU: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Garner Stoll, Development Services Director
Andrew Garner, City Planning Director
Chris Brown, City Engineer
FROM: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner
DATE: November 15, 2019
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
SUBJECT:-EXHfBl•T-X�° - Planning Commission Recommendation for the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan, the Future Land Use Map, and the Master Street Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Following several meetings in 2018 and 2019 in which the Planning Commission functioned as a
steering committee for the update to City Plan 2030, the Future Land Use Map, and Master Street
Plan, complete draft documents were presented to Commissioners on May 13, 2019.
Commissioner feedback was requested on each of the three plan elements outlined above, with
comments, recommendations, and critiques provided over the following four weeks.
DISCUSSION:
Although staff agreed with and incorporated many of the Planning Commission's recommended
amendments to City Plan 2040, the Future Land Use Map, and the Master Street Plan, the
following represent substantive changes that either represent significant staff time to implement
or matters of policy upon which ultimate decision lay with the City Council.
City Plan 2040
• Infill Development Scoring Matrix:
o At the Planning Commission Retreat held on May 18, 2019, Commissioners
reviewed the proposed Infill Development Scoring Matrix and made
recommendations on weighting of the criteria. In addition to providing weights to
the proposed criteria, the Commission recommended substituting properties with
greater than 15% slope to properties with 100 -year floodplain as a negative
modifier.
o Commissioner Brown recommends the following additions or modifications to the
draft Infill Development Scoring Matrix:
■ Addition of the Enduring Green Network boundaries instead of Slopes
Greater than 15 Percent or 100 -year Floodplain. These elements are
encompassed within the Enduring Green Network and Commissioner
Brown proposed this be assigned the weight previously -proposed by
Commissioners for slope/floodplain; and
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
■ Incorporation of Growth Concept Map centers using a buffer of increasing
Growth Concept Map:
o Commissioner Brown recommends the following additions or modifications to the
draft Growth Concept Map:
■ Addition of the Enduring Green Network;
■ Addition of the Mayor's Box;
■ Highlighting of the Arkansas & Missouri railroad track running north -south
through Fayetteville; and
■ Reclassifying the Tier 3 center indicated above Evelyn Hills to a Tier 2
center.
o The current Growth Concept Map indicates the Evelyn Hills shopping center area
as a Tier 3 center. Commissioner Brown recommends this be revised to a Tier 2
center. Currently, all proposed iterations of the Future Land Use Map include a
designation of Complete Neighborhood Plan for areas associated with an
adopted, locally -targeted plan. Commissioner Brown recommends that this
designation be kept as an outline of the existing neighborhood plan areas, but
with appropriately delineated Future Land Use Map designations (Urban Center
Area, City Neighborhood Area, etc.) applied to the parcels within.
Chapter 3: Framework:
o Commissioner Brown recommends assigning a responsible department, division,
or committee to each of the proposed City Plan 2040 benchmarks.
o Commissioner Hoffman recommends maintaining the current language for Goal
#3: We will make traditional town form the standards, rather than re -write it as
"We will make compact, complete, and connected development the standard."
General Comment
o Commissioner Hoffman recommends inclusion of additional language related to
open space. Specifically, that shared public spaces ought to be more deliberate in
design, encouraging natural surveillance through "eyes on the street" that ensure
the safe use of parks, trails, and other spaces.
Future Land Use Map
• Currently, all proposed iterations of the Future Land Use Map include a designation of
Complete Neighborhood Plan for areas associated with an adopted, locally -targeted
plan. Commissioner Brown recommends that this designation be kept as an outline of
the existing neighborhood plan areas, but with appropriately delineated Future Land Use
Map designations (Urban Center Area, City Neighborhood Area, etc.) applied to the
parcels within.
Master Street Plan
• Commissioner Sharp recommends inclusion of a Parkway Boulevard street section.
Although a Parkway Boulevard street section does not exist among the streets in the
Master Street Plan or designations in the Master Street Plan Map, it could be done
voluntarily and would likely be a municipal project given the cost associated with a larger
street. A further consideration is that this section is not currently applied within the Master
Street Plan Map, and staff seeks guidance as to which existing or proposed streets, if any,
the Parkway Boulevard designation ought to be applied.
Attachments:
• Planning Commission Infill Development Scoring Matrix Weighting
CityClerk
From: Ethel C. Simpson <esimpson@uark.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2020 8:28 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: RE: Sang Avenue in the new City plan
Categories: Forwarded
Kindly forward this email to members of the Planning Commission, the Mayor, and the members of the City Council.
Thank you for your help.
John Williams, architect and University Heights resident, who died in 2008, once recalled to me and others that he (and
probably others) had successfully resisted an attempt from the city to extend Sang. He argued on the grounds of the
topography, that at both ends of Sang the grade was too steep for safety and for effective drainage, etc. He believed that
the Planners simply looked at a flat map and noticed that a straight line could connect the two thoroughfares, Wedington
and (what is now) Martin Luther King Boulevard. The map, he imagined, did not show the change in elevation.
I want to call the attention of City planners and government to this earlier episode (that seems to be one of my
responsibilities lately). The topography of that section of town has not changed since John's discussion more than 20
years ago. If it was not suitable for road construction then, how can it be now? There are other responses to traffic bound
eastward from the new developments west of the Interstate.
Now that Razorback Road is widened and improved, why shouldn't that become the connector to MILK? It doesn't seem to
me to be necessary to further disrupt the residential, wooded, quiet district where Sang now runs. If there is greater
density out west of the Interstate, how does that justify messing up an undense neighborhood for the convenience of
those residents? There are frontage roads on each side of the highway. Great sums will be spent to improve the overpass
at Wedington and 1-49, but why should that justify slicing the land to the south by another throughway? Wedington is a
wide, relatively flat highway all the way east to Garland, another wide north -south roadway. Why shouldn't that be the
preferred route for through traffic?
Density is.destiny (a lucky anagram). I was thinking the other day of the city planners' flexible, or inconsistent, attitudes
toward planning, especially density. Whenever I have to go to Emerald City, Fayetteville's medical campus, I think about
the medical centers in big cities, which are concentrated in a few skyscrapers. We could have had a lot of dense housing
in that section—with walkable access to amenities, shopping, the Interstate.. Now, that land has been undensely used,
and the planners seem desperate to look wherever they can for densifying projects. I wonder if they think people living on
Sang are going to trudge up and down that hill to MLK in order to eat at a drive-through burger place? Wait—that's
walkability. That's another story.
409 N. Oliver Avenue
Fayetteville AR 72701
(479) 442-2925
From: University Heights Neighborhood Association <UNIVERSITY-HEIGHTS-NA@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> On Behalf Of Lisa
Orton
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:07 PM
To: UNIVERSITY-HEIGHTS-NA@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: City's new master street plan
It looks like the City wants to make Sang continuous from Deane St to MLK as a neighborhood link connector which
allows for up to 6000 vehicles per day. Can the University Heights/Haskell Heights neighborhood protest and prevent the
City from sending a major street through quiet and secluded Haskell Heights? Can residential neighborhoods not protect
themselves from major traffic passing through them? Why not around them instead?
Lisa Orton
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
CityClerk
From: Amelia Burke <mimicburke@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 10:47 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang Avenue extension --PLEASE FORWARD TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
To the members of the City Council,
I am writing to voice my strong opinion AGAINST extending Sang Avenue. It seems so important to protect the peace
of residential areas, especially as the city grows. Neighborhoods should not be cut-throughs for traffic. Even though this
happens to be in my neighborhood, I am against extensions like this one in any neighborhood; two come to mind that I
spoke out against in the past ---extending Prospect by Wilson Park and Fletcher on Mt. Sequoyah. Wonderful that those
did not happen. And living on Cleveland St I am acutely aware of cut -though traffic, and its speed. Drivers will roar down
any new Sang hill in the same way. Let's don't let that happen. Thank you. Mimi Burke
To the city clerk --PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. Thank you.
CityClerk
From: Milton Burke <miltonburkel@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 4:03 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang extension
Dear Kara Paxton:
I'm writing to express opposition to the Sang Street extension proposal. Please forward my comments to the
Planning Commission and City Council members.
My fundamental question is financial. Who will pay for this extension? This question seems germane given the
traffic realities that exist on Sang at present. I am aware of present conditions since I live close by on Cleveland
Street and use Sang almost every day. Quite a bit of traffic from West Fayetteville and 1-49 routes itself down
Wedington, turns right (south) on Sang, and then left up Cleveland Hill to get to the University and maybe
downtown. But past Cleveland south on Sang there is little traffic. Commuters coming from the west who
want to get to MLK will naturally use 1-49 or its access road to do so. It is hard to see a need for extending Sang
up the north side of Markham Hill unless it is to serve the interests of the proposed development on Markham
Hill. The same is true of the south side of Markham. Patrons of Ramay and others on that side have better
routes to get to campus, downtown, 1-49 and points north and west. Again, that road would seem mainly to be
serving the interests of the developer.
Is he or she going to pay for this extension? If not, I find it hard to see how spending public money on it can be
justified. A survey of the proposed development will show that the developer has other options for short
connecting roads, south, west and north, that he or she could pay for. So if this proposal is based on public
funding, then I would encourage city officials to oppose it strongly.
Sincerely,
Milton Burke
1532 W. Cleveland
CityClerk
From: Michelle Price <dmichelleprice@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 6:33 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang Avenue
Dear City Council,
I am writing to you all about my opposition to using Sang Ave to connect Wedington and MILK. I purchased 1.4 acres and
built a home on the corner of Sang and Osage Bend at great expense. I also pay a lot in property taxes to the city. I did
that for it's location and the serenity of the location. I can't fathom putting a thoroughfare through the neighborhood to
connect those streets. Are you going over the mountain? Is this for easier access for the developers of Pratt Mountain?
There's access via Garland to Cleveland to Maple to Razorback. There's access via access road. Access via Rupple. Access
via Broyles. Please don't ruin our neighborhood. Not for some out of state developer, not for anyone. You're the most
restrictive city for building and preserving the character and green spaces of you city, Fayetteville. This decision of
creating access by going over a treasure of Pratt Mountain and ruining neighborhoods is directly counter to your Green
Wokeness.
I respectfully ask you all to reconsider this decision.
John Price
2053 W Osage Bend
Fayetteville, AR 72701
CityClerk
From: Michelle Price <dmichelleprice@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 6:33 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang Avenue Widening
Dear City Council,
I would like to voice my strong opposition to the widening of Sang Avenue from Wedington to MLK. We live on the
corner of Osage Bend and Sang in the Bois D' Arc Subdivision. Widening Sang to make it assessable from Wedington to
MLK would greatly impact the peace and serenity of our neighborhood. We did not build our home with any visions of it
being on the corner of a major thoroughfare. We built it because of the location to the University, the beauty of the
trees and wildlife, the quiet and peaceful upscale subdivision that is easily accessible from 1-49. There are many
different ways we can get to MLK from our home with little to no trouble.
Please put yourself in our place. You build a million dollar home only to have a major thoroughfare run right next to
you? Respectfully, I'm pretty positive none of you would vote to approve that.
Please do not vote for this expansion as it would be a detriment to the beauty that is Markham Hill as well as a terrible
invasion to a beautifully tree-scaped, very quiet and peaceful neighborhood.
Michelle Price
2053 W Osage Bend
Fayetteville, Ar
CityClerk
From: John Price <johnprice62@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 6:39 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang Avenue
Dear City Council,
I am writing to you all about my opposition to using Sang Ave to connect Wedington and MILK. I purchased 1.4 acres and
built a home on the corner of Sang and Osage Bend at great expense. I also pay a lot in property taxes to the city. I did
that for it's location and the serenity of the location. I can't fathom putting a thoroughfare through the neighborhood to
connect those streets. Are you going over the mountain? Is this for easier access for the developers of Pratt Mountain?
There's access via Garland to Cleveland to Maple to Razorback. There's access via access road. Access via Rupple. Access
via Broyles. Please don't ruin our neighborhood. Not for some out of state developer, not for anyone. You're the most
restrictive city for building and preserving the character and green spaces of you city, Fayetteville. This decision of
creating access by going over a treasure of Pratt Mountain and ruining neighborhoods is directly counter to your Green
Wokeness.
I respectfully ask you all to reconsider this decision.
John Price
2053 W Osage Bend
Fayetteville, AR 72701
CityClerk
From: Pam Earhart <jeffandpamearhart@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 6:53 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Extension of Sang Ave.
I Pamela Earhart of 2100 Loren Circle, Fayetteville am against the extension of Sang ave. to MLK Blvd.
Sent from my Whone
CityClerk
From: Joe Earhart <jearhart912@gmai1.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 6:58 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang to MLK
Dear city clerk, I felt the need to send this email in hopes that it will help stop the plans to connect MLK to Sang ave. I
have lived on the corner of Loren circle for my entire life. In no way do I approve connecting Sang ave. To MLK.
Please be advised.
Joe Earhart
Phone -
1 (479) 530-3822
E-mail-
josephearhart912@gmail.com
CityClerk
From: Pam Earhart <jeffandpamearhart@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 6:59 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang extension to MLK
Dear City Clerk,
I'm am completely against the extension of Sang Ave. to MLK! This will disrupt several neighborhoods with families and
increase traffic issues on MLK!
Sent from my Whone
CityClerk
From: Hameed Naseem <hanaseem@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:04 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Proposed development to widen Sang to connecT MLK and Wedington
Dear City Council
I am a resident of 2138 Loren Circle, Fayettevile, AR. I am currently out of town. It was brought to my attention that a
new master plan for development of our area streets include connecting MLK to Wedington Ave through widening Sang
Ave and connecting it between Halsell and Markham. This is going to create excessive traffic through Sang which is
adjacent to our peaceful Loren Circle. I strongly object to this development and vote to object against it.
Hameed Naseem
Resident of 2138 Loren Circle, Fayetteville, AR
CityClerk
From: Mubarka Naseem <mubarkanaseem@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:13 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Proposed development to widen Sang to connecT MILK and Wedington
Dear City Council
> I am a resident of 2138 Loren Circle, Fayettevile, AR. I am currently out of town. It was brought to my attention that a
new master plan for development of our area streets include connecting MILK to Wedington Ave through widening Sang
Ave and connecting it between Halsell and Markham. This is going to create excessive traffic through Sang which is
adjacent to our peaceful Loren Circle. I strongly object to this development and vote to object against it.
> Mubarka Naseem
> Resident of 2138 Loren Circle, Fayetteville, AR
CityClerk
From: Karen Banks <skyebriar@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:16 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Master Street Plan Proposals
Categories: Saved File, Forwarded
Dear City Council:
The proposed connection of Sang and MILK avenues, will increase traffic, noise pollution, and decrease property values
in our residential neighborhoods. It could conceivably present increased danger to both travelers, residents, and
children. Please consider going around these areas and leave our residential areas intact.
Karen Banks
Fayetteville Resident
Sent from my Whone
CityClerk
From: Amanda Ashworth <aashwor@uark.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:21 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Markham Hill development
Dear city Council,
As a homeowner in the Markham Hill area, I am concerned about the widening of Sang Ave. and the subsequent impact
on traffic and the environment (e.g., wildlife impact, hydrology, soil erosion, noise, and increased ambient temps due to
increased concrete). One of the exceptional things about Fayetteville is the natural spaces and conservation of natural
resources.
Thank you for hearing my concerns.
Best wishes,
Amanda Ashworth, PhD
Sent from my Whone
CityClerk
From: Karen Banks <skyebriar@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:23 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Street Plans
Dear City Council:
Plans to connect MLK and Sang are unacceptable. The connection of these streets will go through residential
neighborhoods increasing traffic, noise pollution, potential danger, decreasing property values, and reducing the quality
of life for area residents and their children. Go around these areas, no through.
Karen Banks
Fayetteville Resident
Sent from my Whone
CityClerk
From: Cassidy Lobaugh <cassidylobaugh@me.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:38 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Regarding Tuesdays meeting - Sang/Markham Hill project
Dear Mayor, City Council, Fayetteville Planning Commission,
I object to the development of Markham Hill and the Sang Street pass through.
I believe that the original intentions for that historic land should be preserved and celebrated as an asset to our city and
to the University. The landscape of Fayetteville is changing rapidly and we have had some wonderful, pleasing,
welcoming additions put in place.
However, I believe a Markham Hill development would be a mistake.
Already, our home on the corner of Sang and Osage Bend, takes on far too much water runoff. Our house is built on 69
piers to help keep it stabilized from the shifting, soft stone underneath. There are many springs on the mountain that I
believe should stay intact and preserved as well.
I would love see our city with a grand mountain full of history, parks, monuments, museums, etc for natural and cultural
exploration.
I am proud of Fayetteville and love my city. Please consider other usages for our precious Markham Hill.
Thank you,
Cassidy Lobaugh
2022 W Osage Bend
Fayetteville, AR
479-871-6800
Sent from my Whone
CityClerk
From: Stegall, Bob <bstegall@workrecords.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 10:14 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Connecting/extending Sage Avenue
Dear Mayor, City Council, Fayetteville Planning Commission,
We live on 1764 West Osage Bend in Fayetteville and this email is in regards to your meeting tomorrow on
extending Sang from Wedington to MILK. This would have a very negative effect on our neighborhood of Bois
D'Arc. We already have a problem with cars speeding down Cleveland HIII and this extension would add 6,000
cars worth of daily noise and traffic to our neighborhood and undoubtedly have many cars cutting through our
neighborhood to avoid traffic on Sang. The charm of our quiet neighborhood with children playing and
neighbors walking their dogs will be destroyed. This atmosphere is the very reason we built our dream home
there last year.
We do not understand how this single change can be recommended until the plans and ultimate impact for
the entire Markham Hill development has been studied and the results published for all to consider. We are
adamantly opposed to this extension and would be at the meeting in person tomorrow if we were not out of
town.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bob and Janet Stegall
Bob Stegall
214.402.6782
CityClerk
From: CAROL LIPSMEYER <tooter5@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 10:30 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang Street
Categories: Forwarded
Dear City Council,
I am Carol Lipsmeyer and I live on Archer Drive right off of Sang Ave! I Am Strongly Opposed to the widening of Sang
Avenue connecting it with MLK!
Carol Lipsmeyer
1907 W Archer Drive
Fayettville, AR
479-841-4431
Sent from my Whone
CityClerk
From: Kevin Hall <natnkevl@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 7:05 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Dear City Council --Please do not destroy our neighborhood!
Categories: Forwarded
Dear City Council,
I am writing to appeal to you to protect the Markham hill neighborhoods. Extending Sang Avenue through the hill will not
only destroy the beauty of the area but will endanger all of our lives. Several years ago you installed speed humps on
Sang to slow down traffic. This was done to protect those of us who walk through these neighborhoods. These speed
humps have been successful in slowing down traffic but pushing the road through will destroy these gains. Furthermore,
if Sang becomes an artery between Wedington and MLK Blvd my neighborhood in particular (Osage Bend) will become
an acceleration ramp as people will "cut through" our neighborhood to circumvent the intersection at Cleveland and Sang.
In addition, pushing a road across the mountain will deforest this area. The magnificent trees and the wildlife that we so
enjoy (we love our deer, foxes, and the owls that hoot at night) are endangered by this plan. Further, we have no
confidence that developers along the route will respect the unique attributes that make our neighborhoods great places to
live. It is appalling how developers on the south side of Markham have denuded beautiful forests only to put up town
houses with huge concrete "Parking lots". Pushing Sang through will only increase this eyesore while destroying valuable
wildlife and endangering everyone who lives in this area. Note too that it is these types of developments that have
created the drainage problems that you are asking us to pay for.
Responsible development and expansion in Fayetteville will take into consideration the natural beauty of the area and the
unique topography preserved over the past century that has made our city unique and most desirable among Northwest
Arkansas cities.
Please protect our city!
Natalie Hall
CityClerk
From: Theresa Delaplain <trdelaplain @gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 8:12 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang Ave
Dear City Council,
have just learned of a proposal to widen and extend Sang Avenue from Wedington to MILK.
I am greatly OPPOSED to this proposal, as it would adversely affect all the neighborhoods between Wedington and MILK.
The greatly increased traffic would create a lot of extra noise, and danger to us and our children who are out walking
and playing in the neighborhood daily.
The neighborhoods in this part of town are well-established, and in some cases historic, and are prime locations for
faculty, staff, and students from the university, as well as other looking for a neighborhood with mature trees, low
traffic, and close access to the university. The wooded area of Markham Hill is a landmark of Fayetteville. Extending Sang
Avenue would destroy all this, and for what purpose? The city could build major roads AROUND neighborhoods, not
THROUGH the middle of them. Why not make the frontage road on the east side of 49 between Wedington and MILK a
2 -way road instead of a 1 -way?? That would serve the same purpose in getting cars between Wedington and MILK
without disrupt our precious neighborhood that we love.
urge you to null this proposal and leave Sang Avenue as it is.
Sincerely,
Theresa Delaplain
Faculty, University of Arkansas
CityClerk
From: Caitlin Collier <collierlawoffice@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 9:59 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang extension
Categories: Forwarded
Dear City Council,
Please do not add an extension of Sang Avenue to
MLK. Please keep these streets quiet residential areas and stop cutting trees! You are contributing to climate warming
and acting against the advice and recommendations of climatologists who warn against creating urban heat sinks!
Sincerely,
Caitlin Collier
On behalf of the Collier family (not Collier Drug)
Sincerely,
Caitlin F. Collier
CityClerk
From: cbduty@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 10:30 AM
To: CityClerk
Categories: Forwarded
Dear City Council, I read with sorrow the suggestion of cutting a Sang Avenue connection through the UHN/Markham hill
residential neighborhood. This will alleviate nothing but will allow and encourage commercial development, high traffic
and loss of residential amenities The only people who would benefit would be developers. This seems to me to be a
move calculated to please and appease the developers wishing to destroy the last urban forest and historically important
area in Fayetteville. Ecological studies have not be sufficient or have been ignored in favor of profit for non
residents. Please listen to those who live here!
Carolyn Banks, resident on Sunset Drive
CityClerk
From: Charles Leflar <cleflar@uark.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 10:33 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang connection
Dear City Council,
I am a long time Fayetteville resident living at 1717 West Center Street.
I would like to ask that Sang NOT be connected over Markham Hill. It would disrupt my neighborhood and life, as well
as the wildlife and environment, while not benefitting Fayetteville. I feel this is very important.
Respectfully submitted, Dr. Charles Leflar
Get Outlook for iOS
CityClerk
From: Martha Sutherland <sutherlandmartha@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 10:37 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Master Street Plan
Dear City Council,
Please don't design a street plan that will destroy our neighborhood. Connecting Sang Ave. to MILK Blvd would do just
that. We have an artery already --Razorback Rd., newly upgraded. Keep through traffic in the arteries and out of
residential areas. Martha Sutherland
CityClerk
From: Sun Flower <sunflowerwiks@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 11:36 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang Avenue extension Please Forward
Categories: Forwarded
Dear Mayor and City Council Member,
I urge you to reconsider the proposed extension of Sang Avenue between Cleveland and MLK.
The 30 - 50% grade of the terrain not changed since the last time this proposal was withdrawn in earlier years. This
reality poses danger to drivers and creates the hazard of poorly controlled stormwater runoff.
In addition to previous considerations, the glut of traffic that now exists at the intersection of Sang and MLK would
become untenable with new traffic generated by the widened extension.
The historic neighborhood along Markham and Sang as it is today should not have to bear the brunt of a thoroughfare.
I urge you to remove this proposed extension permanently from the traffic planning for Sang Ave.
Margaret Holcomb
Sent from my Whone
CityClerk
From: april mitchell <apriljh@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 11:38 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Please do not connect Sang avenue & destroy Markham Hill
Categories: Forwarded
Dear City Council -
Please do not connect Sang avenue & destroy Markham Hill. I am a resident
of Loren Circle and my home backs up to Markham and then Markham
Hill. We have a beautiful quiet neighborhood where many children and
adults are jogging, walking & walking their dogs every day. Already on game
days (Football & Basketball), traffic backs up for hours before and after
games and we, as home owners simply deal with it for the love of our
Razorbacks and fans. We have adapted in that we know when we can leave
our homes and walk our dogs on game days so we do not fear getting run
over or simply STUCK when we can't turn right or left.
Please route traffic around us, not thru us.
CityClerk
From:
Kevin Kellams <kevinjkellams@att.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, January 07, 2020 11:53 AM
To:
CityClerk
Cc:
kellams@uark.edu; stacey@parkco.net
Subject:
Master Street Plan Involving Sang Avenue
Categories: Forwarded
Dear City Council,
It is my understanding that the council will be hearing an updated master street plan, which will include an extension and
widening of Sang Street. I live at the corner of West Stone and Sang (2108 W. Stone) in a house that's been there over
sixty years. We've been in the house for nineteen years.
It's my understanding that the intent is to connect MILK to Wedington via Markham Hill. As a long time owner of the
property at 2108 W. Stone I have the following concerns:
" What kind of right-of-way concessions will be required for the proposed widening of Sang, and how will that affect my
property?
' Will the current section of Sang be required to be "built up", to help offset the steepness of Markham Hill?
• Regarding the steepness of the slope on Markham Hill, what kind of drainage modifications would be made?
" What will be done to limit vehicle speeds? This is vitally important since Ramay Junior High borders Sang on the south
for an entire block. Is it possible to make the intersection of Sang and W. Stone a 4 -way stop? This is already a
dangerous intersection with many people running the stop signs on W. Stone Street. Increased vehicular traffic will only
make it worse.
Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns. I look forward to hearing more about the development of the
Markham Hill area.
Kevin Kellams
2108 W. Stone Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
CityClerk
From: landdyke@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 12:00 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: City Council Meeting
Categories: Forwarded
Dear Sarah and Sonia
I am writing to let you know I am opposed to trading or selling any of the property in question to any private developer
also support the idea the Housing Authority has proposed. I am tired of the only people being asked for input that only
represent a small portion of the public. My question is why aren't more local artist asked for their input? I am totally
opposed to building a parking deck which would destroy or cover up historical structures!
Sincerely
Kathy Benton
Ward 1 resident
Sent from my iPhone
CityClerk
From: Walt Eilers <walt@terrapinphilanthropy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 1:15 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang Avenue plans
Categories: Forwarded
Dear City Council:
I am concerned about the plans I have heard to extend Sang to MILK. I have also heard that it will be broadened. Both of
these seem unnecessary with the recent expansion and connection of Razorback and Rupple Roads to MLK.
Connecting Sand through the neighborhoods would significantly change the residential nature of the communities.
Walt Eilers
2044 West Archer Drive
479.283.2784
CityClerk
From: joel <joellthomas@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 2:21 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang extension project
Categories: Forwarded
Dear Mayor, City Council, Fayetteville Planning Commission:
Just learned of this so please excuse the format. I am 81 and live on W Osage Bend - Sang to Center To Markham to
Razorback and thru the campus is my preferred walking trail. We already have a service road from Wedington to MLK.
It connects at the interstate and is the service road. Use it. Also Garland to Razorback to Cato Springs. Use it.
Can you imagine the neighborhood traffic on a wider thoroughfare during football, basketball, etc - and the number of
cars taking a shortcut thru Osage Bend to avoid Razorback Road?
And we just recently built an extension on Rupple to MLK. Use it.
Please consider this my request to consider keeping as much of the neighborhood around the campus residential as you
can - it will save a lot of big city problems and safety/security issues for the future. And keep Fayetteville a great place to
live.
Joel L Thomas
1830 W Osage Bend
479.200.0212
Sent from my iPad
CityClerk
From: Annie Dowling <amdowling@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 2:26 PM
To: Ci tyC I erk
Categories: Forwarded
Dear City Council
Please consider my concerns as a Fayetteville resident in regard to the connection and the widening of Sang Avenue.
At this point in our city's physical history, recovering from so much development and not necessarily smart growth of
the 2010s, we need to protect our Fayetteville neighborhoods. This part of town maintains a quiet rural character that
contributes to Fayetteville. So many people come into our town each day driving fast, looking for shortcuts due to traffic
congestion that we should look first at other roads to widen and traffic calm. We cannot loose quiet neighborhoods to
increased development and detrimental road usage that extending Sang Avenue from Wedington Road to MLK
Boulevard will cause. Let's not destroy the community character of Fayetteville with its Master Street Plan. Let's plan
something smarter and better than destroying an existing neighborhood with a connecting road. -
Thank you for considering my concerns.
Annie Dowling
Fayetteville residence since 2008
CityClerk
From: Fran Alexander <fran@deane-alexander.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 1:40 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Dear City Council (please give to council members)
Categories: Forwarded
Dear City Council Members:
Please accept this written statement from me in place of comments tonight
at the meeting in regard to two issues. Because I am not feeling well and don't
want to expose anyone if I'm coming down with something, I am staying home
tonight.
#1: The Brooks -Hummel trail issue --
First: a transportation corridor is NOT a dirt path meandering through the woods,
it's a road. You know, and the conservation easement states, the reserve is to be
left in its natural state. A built trail is not a natural path. Transportation planning
should never have ever considered this land when planning getting from Point A to
Point B.
Second: The main reason humans have for going into nature reserves is for
discovery. Rarely do we have any places in urban areas where adults and children
both can be surrounded by enough wildness to feel "one with nature." That means
no roads, no lights, no prescribed activities. These are the only places we can go
where we can see the natural world being ---well, natural! Bikes, pavement, even
boardwalks disrupt any feelings of discovering something for yourself, and they
invade, yet again, the homes of wildlife. PLEASE do not let this transportation
corridor and its traffic invade the only nature preserve in this part of town.
#2: All the plans in the University Heights area of extending and widening
Sang Ave over the mountain to MLK, etc. will completely chew up the existing
neighborhoods. Is this the intent? Thousands of cars charging through this area
will change the entire sense of place, the reason people have lived and loved their
neighborhoods for decades. This is barbaric and not even needed except perhaps
for the private gain of large scale developers. PLEASE do NOT approve this traffic
plan.
Thank You,
Fran Alexander
z
CityClerk
From: Steve McBee <snmcbee@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 4:01 PM
To: CityClerk; Turk, Teresa; Petty, Matthew; Mayor; Marr, Don
Subject: Dear City Council
Categories: Forwarded
Dear Mayor, City Council, Fayetteville Planning Commission:
Just learned of this so please excuse the format. I live on W Osage Bend and own a small business in Fayetteville. Sang
to Haskell To Cross To Markham to Razorback and thru the campus is how I commute to work and my preferred cycling,
running and dog walking trail. We already have a service road from Wedington to MILK.
MILK to Weddington/North connects at the interstate and is the service road. Use it.
Garland to Razorback to Cato Springs we're all recently improved. Use them.
Sang does not need to be used to access the Specialized Real Estate Project on Markham Hill, nor does it need to be
used as a feeder to University of Arkansas parking lots. Can you imagine the neighborhood traffic on a wider
thoroughfare during the school year, football, basketball, etc - and the number of cars taking a shortcut thru Osage Bend
to avoid Razorback Road? Traffic speeds are already poorly managed on Cleveland and Sage. How will this be
addressed?
And we just recently built an extension on Rupple to MILK. Use it.
Please consider this my request to consider keeping as much of the neighborhood around the campus residential as you
can - it will save a lot of big city problems and safety/security issues for the future. And keep Fayetteville a great place to
live.
Steve McBee
1767 West Osage Bend
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479-283-6124
CityClerk
From: Katie Simon <katiasimono@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 4:23 PM
To: CityCl erk
Subject: Sang expansion/connection
Categories: Forwarded
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission,
I have lived in Fayetteville since 2006 and am opposed to the creation of a connection to make Sang Ave continuous with
Deane St to MLK and the resulting increase in traffic that this proposed link connector would make with upwards of 6000
cars per day through my neighborhood. I walk Sang Ave, Halsell and Markham Roads nearly daily with my dog and find
the existing traffic to be the limit of what is safe for pedestrians on these streets. The sporadic sidewalks require frequent
street crossings when I walk and the general walkability of the neighborhood as it is results people frequently enjoying
walks on the sidewalks and in the streets when required. We mostly feel safe with this lifestyle because the traffic is local
and we are careful to watch out for one another. Increased traffic from vehicle that do not care to watch out for us, our
children and our pets will present not only eminent danger, but change the lifestyle of the residents of our neighborhood
as we won't be as safe walking in our streets.
Infrequently we do have people speed through Sang and around the sharp turn onto Halsell, we know how dangerous
those sharp turns are to those who don't care to drive safely. These incidents will undoubtedly increase exponentially with
increased traffic. In addition to these dangers, the proposed road widening and expansion will do irreparable damage to
some of the last remaining intact urban forest in Fayetteville, and that which is closest to the university. The increase in
noise and damage to natural area will needlessly change the character of one of our cities believe seven hills forever.
Please build around our neighborhood, not through it. Please consider preserving the quiet, natural character of this
neighborhood that is representative of Fayetteville's character and that we as a community hold core to our identity and
cherish about the Natural State as a whole. Prior to my life here, I've watched the character of communities I have deeply
loved in the west be destroyed one road and development at a time. Very well intentioned city council and planning
commission members made short-sighted development decisions one after another neglecting to realize the cumulative
destruction of all the elements that made up the fabric of their beloved community identity and the unique character of
place until these places became nearly unrecognizable. It is only in hindsight that they saw the decisions that created this
path to destruction. Please do not make the same mistake. Convenience is nice and short term gain from development is
ice, conserving the parts of the town such as intact urban forests and quiet walkable neighborhoods for our children and
grand children is much better. Build connecting roads around our neighborhood, not through it! Keep our children and pets
safe. That is much more valuable to the citizens of this town than a quicker shortcut.
Thank you,
Katie Simon
817 N Sunset Dr
Fayetteville, AR
CityClerk
From: Rodney D. Williams <rdw@uark.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 7:23 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sang Avenue
Categories: Forwarded
Dear City Council,
I live just off Sang Avenue on Ora Drive. I am adamantly opposed to widening Sang and punching it through to
Markham. The traffic on Sang is already extremely dense from commuters to the U of A and is even worse on game
days. This is a residential neighborhood with lots of pedestrian traffic with limited sidewalks, lots of children on
bicycles. I am a civil engineer and I anticipate that the development will exacerbate the already overloaded drainage
infrastructure that causes flooding on my street as well as the neighboring streets. For the record I am also opposed to
further development of Markham Hill, but that is an issue I will address with the planning commission in a future
communication. Please take the drainage issues and quality of life for our neighborhood into consideration when
making decisions on this issue.
Rodney D Williams, PE, PS, PhD
CityClerk
From: Ethel C. Simpson <esimpson@uark.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 10:11 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: please forward
Categories: Forwarded
Please forward this post to members of the City Council and the Mayor. Many thanks for your help.
Thanks for your patience and congratulations on your endurance during that long council meeting
Monday evening,
Thinking about the discussions, of transportation, connectivity, density, and accessibility, I believe
that so many of these issues would be less contentious if we had an effective mass -transit system.
We would not need to violate nature preserves or people's front yards, we could accommodate those
"renters" who are now forced to drive their cars to work just like people who own their own homes,
and sorority members who have to get to meetings. I know there isn't a lot government can do to
effect mass transit, but surely it should be part of long-range study and planning.
I hadn't attended a public meeting in a while. It is always heartening to see our citizens standing up
and talking, even those who might not be the most effective orators. I think it is a positive reflection on
our political climate, that citizens have faith that their opinions count. Sometimes, not as much as I
would like, but at least we have the procedure in place.
Keep Fayetteville Fayetteville. (whatever that might mean at any given time. The old hippies are dying
off at an alarming rate.We will have to work harder on the Funky.)
Ethel C. Simpson
409 N. Oliver Avenue
Fayetteville AR 72701
(479) 442-2925