HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-571 - Appeal: Large Scale Development-2024-0038: (151 W. Dickson St./Trinitas Ventures, 484) (4)
CityClerk
From:Sam Friday <fridaysam@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:23 AM
To:CityClerk; Williams, Kit
Subject:Fwd: Seven-Story Student-Focused Housing Complex -151 W Dickson St
Attachments:SetbackCode.png; TrafficStudyBlockSt1.png; TrafficStudyBlockSt2.png;
SetbackShown.png; SetbackElevation.png; TrafficStudyBlockSt3.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
Samuel Friday
520 East Maple St
Fayetteville, AR, 72701
479 283 4404
fridaysam@gmail.com
May 20th 2025
To: City Council
RE: Objection to Proposed Development at 151 W Dickson St.
Dear Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident to formally express opposition to the proposed development
located at 151 W Dickson St. While we are told the applicant's plans may technically conform to the
letter of the existing zoning and building codes (I question this), it is clear that the project undermines the
spirit and intent of those regulations and raises significant concerns for the surrounding community.
1. Exploitation of Outdated Code
The proposal relies on provisions that are widely acknowledged to be outdated and out of step with
current best practices for urban planning, environmental sustainability, and neighborhood cohesion.
These loopholes may permit the structure as designed, but they were never intended to allow the kind of
impact the applicant proposes. Where their sole focus is return on investment (ROI) and with no regard
to address the community's spoken concerns.
2. Adverse Community Impacts
The development poses disproportionate negative impacts, including but not limited to:
Decreased sunlight and privacy for adjacent properties;
Traffic congestion and insufficient parking (does not look at the area broadly or holistically);
Incompatible architectural scale and character (next to a building originally designed to be a
residence);
Risk of environmental degradation (e.g., runoff, tree removal, noise).
1
ROI focused Student housing vs actual housing to address the current housing crisis.
3. Violation of Comprehensive Plan / General Plan Objectives
Our city’s comprehensive plan (while focused on density) emphasizes preserving neighborhood
character, ensuring responsible growth, and protecting community resources. This proposal, though
said to be formally compliant, violates those core principles and should be evaluated accordingly.
4. Request for Discretionary Oversight
We respectfully urge the Council to exercise its discretion to:
Deny or condition the project approval;
Require a public review or independent impact assessment (who paid for that traffic study?);
Impose mitigating requirements to bring the proposal into line with community expectations and
long-term planning goals (long term resident housing IE. NOT students).
I am simply asking that this project be held to a standard that reflects both the letter and the spirit of the
law—and that it be evaluated with regard to current realities, not outdated code provisions. Below are
some facts that could be used as grounds for a legal and cost benefit analysis to reject this project as it
currently stands.
Fact 1: Our city code says the portion of the building that has a maximum height of 7 stories must be
"located GREATER THAN 15 feet from the master street plan right-of-way". Their drawings only show that
set back EQUALS 15 feet. Since this is not greater than 15 feet the building is NOT to code. See attached
images 'SetbackCode.png', 'Setbackshown.png' and 'SetbackElevation.png' respectively.
To resolve this we would need:
The city to clarify what they mean by "greater than" (I propose 6" to a foot 'greater than 15 feet')
Where their actual set back is on the elevations. (where can actually see the building setback)
Clarify if balconies are part of that setback or allowed in the setback?
Fact 2: The original traffic study that the proposed design was based off of has Block St. listed as a two
lane road with traffic flowing north and south. Block St. is a ONE lane road and a ONE way street. Since
the building design has not changed to accommodate this revelation (entrance AND exit still on Block
St.) the proposed design should be rejected. (See attached image "TrafficStudyBlockSt1.png")
Fact 3: The current traffic study is not a broad holistic view of this area (used for festivals and parades)
but localized to just immediate intersections and streets. This lack of information could cost the city
MILLIONS in alterations and upgrades due to the increased traffic and infrastructure. Here are some
relevant questions we need answers too: (See attached images "TrafficStudyBlockSt" 2.png and 3.png)
What intersections will need lights/roundabouts? (Example W Spring St. and College Ave.) What is
that cost to the city?
What streets will need to lose parking and be widened? What is that cost to the city? (Example:
Block St. at least from Dickson St. to W. Spring St. and ALL of W. Spring St.)
What city infrastructure will need to be upgraded (Sewer? Water? Storm Runoff?)
2
Fact 4: The building setback is 0 feet. (due to outdated code that the developer took advantage of) Does
this open the city up to litigation based on why setbacks are created? (Safety and Emergency Access,
Privacy and Quality of Life, Aesthetic and Community Character) These reasons:
Knowing creating a fire hazard to adjacent structures that depend on that set back for fire safety?
Knowing blocking historic views and not preserving uniform street appearances and
neighbourhood character (view to Old Main and scale of the builds compared to adjacent
buildings)?
Fact 5: Fayetteville has developed a brand (Fayettchill, Keep Fayetteville Funky, etc). What is that brand
name worth? How much does this building lower the worth of Fayetteville's brand?
So when weighing the potential cost of rejecting this building proposal and their unwillingness to change
their design that may impact their ROI please also weigh the long term costs the City and the long term
residents will need to pay, as well as, the message it sends to companies looking to take advantage of
our City.
Thank you for your attention and your service to the community. I am available to speak further on this
matter at your next public meeting or in any appropriate forum.
Sincerely,
Sam Friday
3