Fayetteville school district outlines Rainey Junior High design, seeks rezoning for 16.6‑acre infill site amid drainage, canopy concerns

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Dr. John Mulford, superintendent of Fayetteville Public Schools, told the City of Fayetteville’s Environmental Action Committee on June 16 that the district has purchased a 16.6‑acre parcel and will seek rezoning to build a new Rainey Junior High School and related facilities.

The district presented schematic designs that it says prioritize a compact footprint, sustainability standards and reduced travel for students under a new feeder pattern. Mulford said the site design is currently “a 100% electric. No gas of any kind in the design,” and that the district is pursuing SITES and WELL certifications and will seek as much LEED credit as feasible.

The presentation matters because the chosen site is inside the city’s developed area and the district says it aligns with the city’s 2040 plan and 71B corridor goals; neighbors and committee members raised immediate concerns about drainage, how many trees can be preserved, and vehicle queuing on College Avenue.

District presentation and next steps Dr. Mulford and the project team, including Justin Keeney (director of sustainability for the district), architects from Craft & Tull and Lake|Flato, and Hunter Atkinson of Prism Design Studio, described why the district bought the parcel and what comes next. Mulford said the district met with city staff in May and understood the parcel would be allowable under the 71B rezoning; after the council’s December action the district learned the site had not been included and therefore plans to request rezoning now.

Mulford said the main site is 16.6 acres, with an additional three acres the district purchased to secure an egress. He noted the Arkansas Department of Education guidance that recommends roughly 30 acres plus one acre per 100 students for a junior high, and told the committee the district is taking a smaller, infill approach. “We’re building each of our junior highs for 900 students,” he said, and the design team said the proposed Rainey campus is being sized for that capacity but that projected enrollment at opening is expected to be lower under the new feeder pattern (the district estimated about 600 students for the new Rainey footprint once the third junior high comes online).

The district said the next formal step is to ask the city for rezoning of the purchased property and to bring schematic plans to planning staff and then to the planning commission; Mulford told the committee the earliest likely planning commission review would be in August if additional negotiations on adjacent land succeed.

Design, sustainability and site constraints The architects presented a multi‑story, compact plan that stacks parking beneath classrooms to reduce impervious surface and preserve open space. The design team said the district is aiming to preserve more tree canopy and open space than a typical RSF‑4 residential development would, but stressed physical constraints. The presenters described three certification priorities: SITES (site-focused sustainability), WELL (occupant health and wellbeing) and LEED (building performance), and said the site is being designed to be “solar ready” for up to roughly 500 kilowatts of rooftop PV.

Hunter Atkinson, the design team’s ecologist, summarized the site’s condition: “the site is almost entirely wooded,” and he described the existing tree canopy as dense and degraded in places, noting clusters of larger post‑oak trees on the eastern upslope that the team is prioritizing for preservation.

On stormwater, architect Greg Pappay (on Zoom) told the committee, “there’s never a one‑size‑fits‑all strategy for drainage,” and outlined a layered approach the team proposes: on‑site detention/retention (some above grade, some below grade), bioswales and vegetated surface management, targeted pervious pavers in high‑priority areas, and cisterns for roof capture and reuse. The team said those measures are intended to improve runoff conditions that currently affect businesses along College Avenue.

Traffic and operational features The team said the primary entrance and exit would be on College Avenue with a drive that accommodates stacked drop‑off lanes, a dedicated bus lane, and a bypass lane. The district said the queuing scheme is designed to accommodate multiple lanes of vehicle stacking and bus queuing so cars would not back into College Avenue. The architects emphasized there would be no stadium lights on practice fields and that tracks will be practice‑sized (300 meters) rather than regulation 400 meters.

Programmatic choices and reuse of existing campus Mulford said when the new Rainey opens, the existing Rainey campus would be repurposed as a conversion charter (district‑run choice) high school of about 800 students, which he said would benefit transportation and program alignment because the building sits close to the district’s transportation center and the high school campus.

Public concerns and committee response Residents and committee members questioned stormwater details, geotechnical uncertainty and tree preservation. Andrea Forney asked, “Can the kids walk to school from that neighborhood?” and residents repeatedly pressed for clear evidence on where springs and concentrated runoff originate on the parcel. Hunter and the project team said additional geotechnical borings and a full site survey are planned in schematic design; the team said they are avoiding borings that would unnecessarily disturb preserved canopy until a plan is advanced.

Keith Smith, a Fayetteville School Board member who spoke at the meeting, said the site supports broader goals: “this site can further those goals,” he said, describing infill, walkability and mixed‑use corridor objectives the board supports.

Formal action at the meeting At the start of the EAC meeting the committee approved the meeting agenda. Motion: “Approve meeting agenda.” Mover: Andrew Dominic; Second: Margaret Britton. Outcome: approved.

What remains unresolved The district and team acknowledged multiple open items that must be resolved before construction: the outcome of the rezoning request; the potential acquisition of a contiguous 7‑acre parcel (the owner has told the district that parcel remains privately owned and previously had tentative residential plans); a completed tree survey for the 7 acres; additional geotechnical borings to locate springs and assess soil; and final site grading and stormwater designs. The team also noted a projected premium for building on a constrained wooded slope; community attendees and some committee members pointed to an architect estimate that building on this site could cost significantly more than a flatter, undeveloped site (participants cited an estimated $10 million premium as a working figure), a district representative characterized that as an estimate rather than a settled number.

The district said it will continue community outreach and return to planning staff with a rezoning request once adjacent property negotiations are resolved; Mulford told the committee the district hopes to be before the planning commission by August if the southern parcel negotiations complete.

Ending The committee did not vote on rezoning or on any development approvals; the meeting concluded with the district offering to continue detailed, technical briefings for staff and residents and the EAC saying it will take the materials under further review before any formal city action.