HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-29 - Agendas - Final
100 W. Rock St. Suite 246
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Transportation Committee Agenda
(Immediately Following City Council Agenda Session)
Rock St. Meeting Room / Virtual Meeting Via Zoom
Tuesday, July 29, 2025
5:30 PM
Members
Council Member Sarah Moore, Chair
Council Member Robert "Bob" Stafford
Council Member Sarah Bunch
Council Member Min. Monique Jones
City Staff
Public Works Director / City Engineer Chris Brown
Assistant Public Works / Transportation Services Director Terry Gulley
Transportation Committee
Meeting
Agenda July 29, 2025
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas page 2
Zoom Information
Webinar ID: July 2025 Transportation Agenda
Registration Link: https://fayetteville-
ar.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_q9fr3D1XTGaqt8IdmaaF0A
Call to Order
Roll Call
New Business
1. SAFE STREETS FOR ALL PROJECT DESIGN AGREEMENT - COLLEGE
AVE.
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH GARVER, LLC FOR
DESIGN PHASE SERVICES FOR THE NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE
(SYCAMORE TO TOWNSHIP) SAFE STREETS FOR ALL PROJECT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $787,660.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
(2025-1290)
2. SAFE STREETS FOR ALL PROJECT DESIGN AGREEMENT - S. SCHOOL
AVE.
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE AN AGREEMENT WITH I & S GROUP, INC.
FOR DESIGN PHASE SERVICES FOR THE SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE SAFE
STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$287,000.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT (2025-1291)
3. SAFE STREETS FOR ALL PROJECT DESIGN AGREEMENT - E. JOYCE
BLVD.
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR STUDY AND DESIGN PHASE SERVICES FOR THE
EAST JOYCE BOULEVARD SAFE STREETS FOR ALL PROJECT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $287,000.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
(2025-1288)
4. TRANSIT STOP IMPROVEMENTS GRANT ACCEPTANCE
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION TO
RECOGNIZE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $203,317.25 FOR TRANSIT
STOP IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVAL OF A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.
(2025-1295)
Reports and Presentations
Transportation Committee
Meeting
Agenda July 29, 2025
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas page 3
1. TRANSPORTATION WORK PLAN STATUS UPDATE
2. MAPLE STREET IMPROVEMENTS UPDATE
Informational Items
Adjournment
NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
www.fayetteville-ar.gov
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
2025-1290
MEETING OF JULY 29, 2025
TO: Mayor Rawn and City Council
THRU: Chris Brown, Public Works Director
Keith Macedo, Chief of Staff
FROM: Kenneth Patterson, Federal Aid Project Manager
SUBJECT: SS4A College Ave – Design Agreement with Garver, LLC
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the agreement with Garver, LLC in the amount of $787,660 for design
phase services for the N. College Ave. (Sycamore to Township), a Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
project and approval of a budget adjustment, pursuant to RFQ 25-01, Selection #8.
BACKGROUND:
The School Avenue and College Avenue corridors serve as the major north-south route through the central
part of the City and are major commercial and retail destinations. Maintaining and improving the corridors will
allow them to continue to serve mobility needs and to continue to develop/redevelop as commercial corridors.
Improvements to these corridors will include striping, widening and/or narrowing of the roadway, utility
relocation, sidewalk/trail installation, accommodations for transit systems, elimination or reconfiguration of
driveways, additional traffic signals, medians, plazas, art installations, lighting, wayfinding, protected
intersections, parking, and other corridor improvements to be identified in the design process.
The starting point for this corridor design is the 71B Corridor Plan that was completed by RDG Planning. The
goals and aspirations of the Plan continue to be implemented to the greatest extent possible through the limits
of project segments selected for design and construction which include N. College Ave. between North St. and
Township St., and S. School Ave. between Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and Cato Springs Road. As stated
above, this recommendation regards the segment from Sycamore St. to Township St.
On July 7, 2020, the City Council approved a contract with Garver, LLC for the programming phase of this
project. The programming phase included meetings with stakeholders and City staff to review the plan goals
and make decisions about how and where to include project elements identified in the 71B Corridor Plan.
On December 4, 2024, Resolution 301-24 was approved to accept federal-aid funding in the amount of
$25,000,000 from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration through the Safe
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program. This funding supports five construction projects with a focus on
safety, and this project is among them.
On April 17, 2025, a selection committee composed of City of Fayetteville staff and City Council member Mike
Wiederkehr selected Garver, LLC for design phase services for this segment of N. College Ave, pursuant to
RFQ 25-01, Selection #8.
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
www.fayetteville-ar.gov
DISCUSSION:
Generally, the scope of services includes surveying, environmental, design, water and sewer upgrade design,
preparation of property acquisition documents, and bidding services for improvements to College Ave. between
Sycamore St. and Township St. Improvements will consist primarily of enhancements to pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure, landscaping, signalization, drainage improvements as necessary, utility relocations, and access
control improvements for approximately 3,700-ft. of the College Ave. corridor and the portion of Poplar St. from
College Ave. to Green Acres Rd. Improvements to the corridor will be consistent with the items identified in the
2021 Programming The Street: S School & College Avenues document.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
The City has been awarded federal funding for this project through the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
Program, as approved by Resolution 301-24. Matching funds for the SS4A grant funds will come from the 2019
Bond Program. Funding for the water and sewer design will be from the Water and Sewer Fund. The funding
breakdown for the contract amount is as follows:
Account # Project # Amount
2235.900.9221-5860.02 32401.9221 $439,537.34
4702.860.7235-5860.02 46020.7235.9221 $149,442.66
5400.860.5600-5860.02 11011.7235.9221 $198,680.00
TOTAL $787,660.00
ATTACHMENTS: 3. Staff Review Form, 4. Budget Adjustment, 5. Design Services Agreement, 6. Final 71B
Corridor Plan, 7. Programming The Street: S School & College Avenues
Page 1
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
Legislation Text
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
File #: 2025-1290
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH GARVER, LLC FOR DESIGN
PHASE SERVICES FOR THE NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE (SYCAMORE TO TOWNSHIP)
SAFE STREETS FOR ALL PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $787,660.00, AND TO APPROVE
A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, the School Avenue and College Avenue Corridors serve as the major north-south route
through the central part of the city and are major commercial and retail destinations; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2024, City Council approved Resolution 301-24 to accept federal aid
funding in the amount of $25,000,000.00 from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal
Highway Administration through the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program to fund improvements to
these corridors; and
WHEREAS, the scope of services for this phase of the project includes survey, environmental review,
design, water and sewer upgrade design, preparation of property acquisition documents, and bidding
services for improvements to a segment of College Avenue between Sycamore Street and Township
Street.
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 authorizes Mayor Rawn to
sign a professional engineering services agreement with Garver, LLC for design phase services for the
North College Avenue (Sycamore to Township) Safe Streets and Roads for All Project in the amount of
$787,660.00 pursuant to RFQ 25-01, Selection 8.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget
adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution.
7/15/2025
Submitted Date
Yes
19,817,999.80$
787,660.00$
V20221130
Budgeted Item?
Does item have a direct cost?
Is a Budget Adjustment attached?
Total Amended Budget
Expenses (Actual+Encum)
Available Budget
Item Cost
Budget Adjustment
Remaining Budget
29,871,920.00$
10,053,920.20$
Yes
Yes -$
19,030,339.80$
32401.9221
46020.7235.9221
11011.7235.9221
Project Number
Budget Impact:
Safe Streets & Roads Grant - College Ave
Street Bond Projects - SS4A - College Ave
W&S Reloc - Safe Streets & Roads - College Ave
Fund
Safe Streets and Roads Grant
Streets Projects 2022 Bonds
Water & Sewer
2235.900.9221-5860.02
4702.860.7235-5860.02
5400.860.5600-5860.02
Account Number
Project Title
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2025-1010
Item ID
8/5/2025
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
Staff recommends approval of the agreement with Garver,LLC in the amount of $787,660 for design phase services
for the N. College Avenue (Sycamore to Township), a Safe Streets and Roads for All project, and approval of a
budget adjustment. This will be split between the Safe Streets & Roads Grant ($439,537.34), the Street Bond funds
($149,442.66), and the Water & Sewer fund ($198,680).
N/A for Non-Agenda Item
Action Recommendation:
Submitted By
Kenneth Patterson ENGINEERING (621)
Division / Department
Comments:
Purchase Order Number:
Change Order Number:
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #301-24
Approval Date:
Original Contract Number:
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Budget Adjustment (Agenda)
Budget Year
Requestor:
8/5/2025
2025-1010
D - (City Council)
/
TOTAL - -
Account Number Expense Revenue Project Sub.Detl AT Account NameGLACCOUNTEXPENSEREVENUEPROJECTSUBATDESCRIPTION X
2235.900.9220-5899.00 (439,538) - 32401 9220 EX Unallocated - Budget
2235.900.9221-5860.02 439,538 - 32401 9221 EX Capital Prof Svcs - Engineering/Architectural
2235.900.9220-4309.00 - (439,538) 32401 9220 RE Federal Grants - Capital
2235.900.9221-4309.00 - 439,538 32401 9221 RE Federal Grants - Capital
4702.860.7999-5899.00 (149,443) - 46020 7999 EX Unallocated - Budget
4702.860.7235-5860.02 149,443 - 46020 7235.9221 EX Capital Prof Svcs - Engineering/Architectural
5400.720.5600-5808.00 (198,680) - 11011 1 EX Improvements - Water Line
5400.860.5600-5860.02 198,680 - 11011 7235.9221 EX Capital Prof Svcs - Engineering/Architectural
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
GLDATE:
Budget Division Date
Holly Black
7/15/2025 9:26 AM
TYPE:
JOURNAL #:
Adjustment Number
2025 Kenneth Patterson
ENGINEERING (621)Division
/Org2
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION:
v.2025617
RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE
Increase / (Decrease)Project.Sub#
Staff recommends approval of the agreement with Garver,LLC in the amount of $787,660 for design phase services for
the N. College Avenue (Sycamore to Township) Safe Streets and Roads for All project. This will be split between the Safe
Streets & Roads Grant ($439,537.34), the Street Bond funds ($149,442.66), and the Water & Sewer fund ($198,680).
COUNCIL DATE:
CHKD/POSTED:
ITEM ID#:
G:\Divs\Engineering\Engineering Design Services\Projects\Safe Streets & Roads for All Grant\5 Projects\College Ave (SS4A)\Council
and Mayor Items\Garver Design Contract\2025-1010 BA SS4A College Ave - Garver design 1 of 1
Rates Rates
Engineers / Architects Resource Specialists
E-1 141.00$ RS-1 113.00$
E-2 164.00$ RS-2 149.00$
E-3 188.00$ RS-3 211.00$
E-4 220.00$ RS-4 290.00$
E-5 268.00$ RS-5 362.00$
E-6 329.00$ RS-6 446.00$
E-7 457.00$ RS-7 498.00$
Planners Environmental Specialists
P-1 170.00$ ES-1 113.00$
P-2 213.00$ ES-2 142.00$
P-3 265.00$ ES-3 181.00$
P-4 296.00$ ES-4 214.00$
P-5 333.00$ ES-5 269.00$
ES-6 345.00$
Designers ES-7 431.00$
D-1 128.00$ ES-8 487.00$
D-2 146.00$
D-3 174.00$ Project Controls
D-4 208.00$ PC-1 115.00$
D-5 256.00$ PC-2 152.00$
PC-3 194.00$
Technicians PC-4 248.00$
T-1 103.00$ PC-5 303.00$
T-2 124.00$ PC-6 392.00$
T-3 151.00$ PC-7 491.00$
T-4 195.00$
Management / Administration
Surveyors AM-1 82.00$
S-1 63.00$ AM-2 104.00$
S-2 84.00$ AM-3 145.00$
S-3 113.00$ AM-4 186.00$
S-4 161.00$ AM-5 227.00$
S-5 203.00$ AM-6 295.00$
S-6 237.00$ AM-7 378.00$
S-7 280.00$ M-1 552.00$
S-8 353.00$
2-Man Crew (Survey) 244.00$
3-Man Crew (Survey) 305.00$
2-Man Crew (GPS Survey) 301.00$
3-Man Crew (GPS Survey) 374.00$
Construction Observation
C-1 122.00$
C-2 152.00$
C-3 186.00$
C-4 240.00$
C-5 289.00$
Agreement for Professional Services
College Avenue Phase 2 Garver Project No. 2501052
Garver Hourly Rate Schedule: July 2025 - June 2026
Classification Classification
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
FEE SUMMARY
Title I Service - College Ave. - Sycamore St. to Township St.
Surveying - College Ave. Subtotal $ 122,920.00
Project Management 4,739.00$
Topographic Survey 22,778.00$
Property Survey 71,300.00$
Expenses 1,403.00$
Utility Locates (ARKUPS) $ 4,700.00
Property Title (WACO) $ 18,000.00
Environmental Services Subtotal $ 66,400.00
NEPA Permitting (Garver) $ 53,257.00
Expenses $ 3,993.00
Cultural Resources (Flat Earth Archeology, LLC) $ 9,150.00
Public Involvement/Design Meetings Subtotal $ 40,500.00
Garver $ 34,725.00
RDG $ 5,775.00
Conceptual Design Subtotal $ 32,930.00
Civil Engineering (Garver) $ 19,500.00
Landscape Architecture (RDG) $ 13,430.00
Preliminary Design Subtotal $ 103,645.00
Civil Engineering (Garver) $ 59,700.00
Landscape Architecture, Structural for Placemaking Features (RDG) $ 43,945.00
Final Design Subtotal $ 91,020.00
Civil Engineering (Garver) $ 60,500.00
Landscape Architecture, Structural for Placemaking Features (RDG) $ 30,520.00
Signalization Design Subtotal $ 38,700.00
Electrical/Lighting Design Subtotal $ 35,300.00
Conceptual Design 7,341.00$
Preliminary Design $ 19,335.00
Final Design $ 8,556.00
Expenses $ 68.00
Property Acquisition Subtotal $ 48,000.00
Bidding Services Subtotal $ 9,565.00
Garver $ 5,700.00
RDG $ 3,865.00
Subtotal for College Ave. - Sycamore St. to Township St.588,980.00$
Title I Service - Water and Sewer Design
Project Management 13,045.00$
Conceptual Design 42,772.00$
Preliminary Design $ 66,902.00
Final Design $ 39,638.00
Bidding $ 6,164.00
Topographic Survey $ -
Property Survey $ -
Property Acquisition $ 23,752.00
Property Title (WACO) $ -
Permitting $ 6,108.00
Expenses $ 299.00
Subtotal for Water and Sewer Design 198,680.00$
Total for Title I Services 787,660.00$
Estimated Fees
Estimated Fees
L:\2025\T21-2501052 - College Ave Phase 2\Contracts\Client\Draft\2025-07-10 Exhibit B - Garver Fee Spreadsheet - Lump Sum or Hourly
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
SURVEYS
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION S-5 S-4 S-3 2-Man Crew (Survey)
$203.00 $161.00 $113.00 $244.00
hr hr hr hr
1. Project Management
Administration and Coordination 16
Quality Control Review 8
Submittals to Client 1
Subtotal - Project Management 17 8 0 0
2. Topographic Survey
Establish Horizontal and Vertical Control Points 2 8
Utility Locates (New Utilities not in MCE Survey) 30
Topographic Surveys 20
Data Processing/Preparation 30 30
Subtotal - Topographic Survey 2 30 30 58
3. Property Surveys
Dilligence and Research 8
Establish Existing Right of way 4 20
Property Surveys (60 Max)20 160
Data Processing/Preparation 20 100 40
Subtotal - Property Surveys 24 128 60 160
Hours 43 166 90 218
Salary Costs $8,729.00 $26,726.00 $10,170.00 $53,192.00
SUBTOTAL - SALARIES: $98,817.00
DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES
Travel Costs $1,403.00
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES: $1,403.00
SUBTOTAL: $100,220.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE (Waco Title Research): $18,000.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE (ARKUPS): $4,700.00
TOTAL FEE: $122,920.00
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION ES-3 ES-1 ES-4 ES-2 ES-4 ES-1 E-2 ES-6
$181.00 $113.00 $214.00 $142.00 $214.00 $113.00 $164.00 $345.00
hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr
1. Environmental Data Collection
1. Air Quality 1
2. Archeological and Historic Sites 2
3. Civil Rights/Title VI 1
4. Community 1
5. Economic 1
6. Federally Endangered/Threatened Spp 1
7. Floodplains 2 1
8. HazMat and USTs 2 2 1
9. Land Use 1
10. Migratory Birds 2
11. Recreational Areas 1
12. Relocations 2
13. Secondary and Reasonably Foreseeable 2
14. Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties 1 2
15. Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities 2
16. Traffic Noise Levels 1
17. Visual 1
18. Water Quality and Drinking Supplies 1
19. Wetlands and Streams 1 1
Coordination Letters to 3 Agencies (DEQ NEPA, Parks, ADH)1 4
Project Map for Agency Coordination 4 1
Subtotal - Environmental Data Collection 8 31 1 3 0 0 0 0
2.Cultural Resources and Historic Properties
Subconsultant coordination and contracting 4
Phase I Arch. Report QC 1
Historic Structures Report QC 2
FHWA Coordination & Sec 106 Clearance 4
Initial Tribal Coordination Letters & Map 1 8 1 4
Properties 12 8 1 4 0 0 0 0
3 Biological Investigations
Wetland and Stream Delineation Fieldwork 2 6
Delineation Report and QC (txt, maps, DPs, pics,
weather)1 29
Delineation Report QC & Revisions 2 4 2
PJD Request 1 2
ANHC Data Coordination 1 2
USFWS IPaC List 1
Section 7 Consultation Pkg (txt, Keys, & QC)2 8
Subtotal - Biological Investigations 9 52 2 0 0 0 0 0
4.Hazardous Materials Investigations
RST Coordination Letter and Follow Up 6 2
Database Review and Field Check 2 6
Subtotal - Hazardous Materials Investigations 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.Public Involvement
Coordination with PI Team 4 4 24
Prepare meeting materials 2 26
Coordination for NEPA Public Meeting 2 40
NEPA Public Meeting 3 9
Synopsis 2 8
QA/QC 4 8
Subtotal - Public Involvement 7 0 0 0 14 106 9 0
6.Environmental Document
Draft Tier 3 CE and Attachments 20 2 1
Internal QC 1 2
Preparation of Environmental Checklist 1 2
Preparation of Roadway Design Form 1 3 2
Addressing FHWA Comments (2 rounds)6 2 1
Subtotal - Environmental Document 29 9 0 0 0 0 2 4
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION ES-3 ES-1 ES-4 ES-2 ES-4 ES-1 E-2 ES-6
$181.00 $113.00 $214.00 $142.00 $214.00 $113.00 $164.00 $345.00
hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr
7.Environmental Permits and Special Provisions
USACE Section 404 NWP 2 16 1
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)1 16
2 Short Term Activity Authorizations (STAAs)1 8
Special Provisions 5 5 1 2
Provisions 9 45 2 0 0 0 0 2
Hours 82 153 6 7 14 106 11 6
Salary Costs $14,842.00 $17,289.00 $1,284.00 $994.00 $2,996.00 $11,978.00 $1,804.00 $2,070.00
SUBTOTAL - SALARIES: $53,257.00
DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES
Meeting exhibit boards $500.00
Printing (8 1/2 x 11 B&W) $194.00
Postcards direct mailing/EDDM (2 mi. radius) $2,000.00
Mailings $25.00
PSA (La Zeta 95.7 FM) $200.00
Roll Plot $500.00
SWPPP Fee ($200 each) $200.00
GPS Equipment $80.00
STAA Fee (1 max at $150 each) $150.00
ANHC Data Request Fee $50.00
Bio. Field Supplies (water, meal, bug spray; 2 people) $66.00
Bio. Travel Costs (40 miles roundtrip) $28.00
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES: $3,993.00
SUBTOTAL: $57,250.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE (FEA Cultural Resources Survey):$9,150.00
TOTAL FEE: $66,400.00
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/DESIGN MEETINGS
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION E-4 E-2 E-1 T-2 P-2 ES-4 ES-1
$220.00 $164.00 $141.00 $124.00 $213.00 $214.00 $113.00
hr hr hr hr hr hr hr
1.Design Meetings
Kick-Off Meeting 1 1 1
Progress Meetings 4 4
Stakeholder Meetings (N College 41 property owner contacts)8 40 40
Review Meetings 4 4
Transportation Committee Meetings (2 each)2 2
Arts Council Meetings (1 each)2 1 2
Active Transportation Committee Meeting (1 each)2 1
Subtotal - Design Meetings 23 4 49 0 43 0 0
2.Public Involvement
Coordination with PI Team 1 2 12
Prepare Exhibits 8 8 12
Synopsis 2 16
QA/QC 2 8
Public Involvement Meeting (1 Non-NEPA)3 3 3 3
Subtotal - Public Involvement 6 3 15 8 3 8 40
Hours 29 7 64 8 46 8 40
Salary Costs $6,380.00 $1,148.00 $9,024.00 $992.00 $9,798.00 $1,712.00 $4,520.00
SUBTOTAL - SALARIES: $33,574.00
DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES
Meeting exhibit boards $500.00
Printing (8 1/2 x 11 B&W) $60.00
Roll Plot $489.00
Hand-delivered flyers = 300 mi at a 0.70 rate $0.00
Travel Costs $102.00
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES: $1,151.00
SUBTOTAL: $34,725.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE: $0.00
TOTAL FEE: $34,725.00
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION E-4 E-2 E-1 T-2
$220.00 $164.00 $141.00 $124.00
hr hr hr hr
1. Project Management
Administration and Coordination 2
Quality Control Review 6
Submittals to Client 1
Subtotal - Project Management 9 0 0 0
2. Civil Engineering
Cover Sheet 1 1
General Notes, Index, and Legend 1 1
Typical Sections 8 4
General Site Layout and Survey Control 2 6
Plan & Profile Sheets 4 30 24
Intersection Improvements 4 8 4
Driveway/Parking Lot Improvements 8 8
Utility Coordination 2
Quantities 1 6
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 1 4
Subtotal - Civil Engineering 0 10 70 48
Hours 9 10 70 48
Salary Costs $1,980.00 $1,640.00 $9,870.00 $5,952.00
SUBTOTAL - SALARIES: $19,442.00
DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES
Travel Costs $58.00
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES: $58.00
SUBTOTAL: $19,500.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE: $0.00
TOTAL FEE: $19,500.00
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION E-4 E-2 E-1 T-2
$220.00 $164.00 $141.00 $124.00
hr hr hr hr
1. Project Management
Administration and Coordination 4
Quality Control Review 12
Submittals to Client 2
Subtotal - Project Management 18 0 0 0
2. Civil Engineering
Cover Sheet 1 1
General Notes, Index, and Legend 1 1
Typical Sections 4 4
General Site Layout and Survey Control 2 2
Miscellaneous Details 1 4 12 12
Demolition Plans 8 4
College Ave. Plan & Profile Sheets 12 40 40
Green Acres Rd. Plan & Profile Sheets 2 8 4
Poplar St. Plan & Profile Sheets 4 4 4
Drainage Plan & Profile Sheets 4 24 16
Driveway Profiles 2 8 4
Grading and Layout Plans 4 40 16
Pavement Marking and Signage Plans 2 8 8
Cross Sections 2 24 16
Coordination with Utility Companies 4 4
Coordination and Meetings with Owner 4 4 4
Quantities 2 8
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 2 4
Subtotal - Civil Engineering 5 48 204 132
3.Structural Engineering
Retaining Wall Layout 4 4
Subtotal - Structural Engineering 4 0 4 0
Hours 27 48 208 132
Salary Costs $5,940.00 $7,872.00 $29,328.00 $16,368.00
SUBTOTAL - SALARIES: $59,508.00
DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES
Travel Costs $192.00
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES: $192.00
SUBTOTAL: $59,700.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE: $0.00
TOTAL FEE: $59,700.00
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
FINAL DESIGN
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION E-4 E-2 E-1 T-2
$220.00 $164.00 $141.00 $124.00
hr hr hr hr
1. Project Management
Administration and Coordination 4
Quality Control Review 8
Submittals to Client 1
Subtotal - Project Management 13 0 0 0
2. Civil Engineering
Cover Sheet 1
General Notes, Index, and Legend 2
Typical Sections 4 4
General Site Layout and Survey Control 1 1
Micellaneous Details 8 8
Erosion Control Plans 6 4
Maintenance of Traffic Plans 1 2 24 16
Demolition Plan 8 4
College Ave. Plan & Profile Sheets 8 40 40
Green Acres Rd. Plan & Profile Sheets 2 8 4
Poplar St. Plan & Profile Sheets 4 8 8
Drainage Plan & Profile Sheets 8 24 12
Driveway Profiles 4 4
Grading and Layout Plans 4 24 12
Pavement Marking and Signage Plans 2 4 4
Cross Sections 2 12 8
Coordination with Utility Companies 4 4
Coordination and Meetings with Owner 4 4
Quantities 2 8
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 1 2 4
Specifications/Contract Documents 12 8
Subtotal - Civil Engineering 6 56 199 132
3.Structural Engineering
Retaining Wall Layout/Elevations 4 8 4
Subtotal - Structural Engineering 4 0 8 4
Hours 23 56 207 136
Salary Costs $5,060.00 $9,184.00 $29,187.00 $16,864.00
SUBTOTAL - SALARIES: $60,295.00
DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES
Document Printing/Reproduction/Assembly $105.00
Travel Costs $100.00
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES: $205.00
SUBTOTAL: $60,500.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE: $0.00
TOTAL FEE: $60,500.00
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
ELECTRICAL/LIGHTING DESIGN
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION E-6 E-5 E-4 E-3 E-1 T-2 AM-3
$329.00 $268.00 $220.00 $188.00 $141.00 $124.00 $145.00
hr hr hr hr hr hr hr
1. Conceptual
Coordinate Lighting Standards 2 2 2
Electrical Infrastructure Design 1 2
Lighting Layout Plans (4 Sheets)1 2 4 8
Quantity Calculations 1 2
Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost 2 2
Internal Meetings 1 1 1
External Meetings 1 1 1
QA/QC 1 1 2 4
Subtotal - Conceptual 1 1 11 0 16 12 4
2.Preliminary
Site Visit 3 3
Utility Coordination 2 4
Electrical Infrastructure Design 2 4
Voltage Drop Calculations 1 4
Lighting Legend Sheet (1 Sheet)1 2 4
Lighting Installation Plans (4 Sheets)1 2 8 12
Lighting Details (4 Sheets)1 2 8
Lighting One-Line Diagrams (1 Sheet)1 4 2
Conflict Coordination 2 2
Quantity Calculation Updates 1 4
Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost Updates 2 2
Internal Meetings 1 2 2 2
External Meetings 2 2 2
Special Provision/Specifications 1 4
QA/QC 2 2 4 8 2
Subtotal - Preliminary 2 3 28 0 47 34 6
3.Final
Utility Coordination 1 2
Electrical Infrastructure Design 1 2
Voltage Drop Calculations 2
Lighting Legend Sheet (1 Sheet)1 2
Lighting Installation Plans (4 Sheets)1 1 4 8
Lighting Details (4 Sheets)1 4
Lighting One-Line Diagrams (1 Sheet)1 2
Conflict Coordination 1 1
Quantity Calculation Updates 2
Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost Updates 2
Internal Meetings 1 1
Special Provision/Specifications Updates 2
QA/QC 2 1 2 4
Subtotal - Final 2 1 13 0 18 18 0
Hours 5 5 52 0 81 64 10
Salary Costs $1,645.00 $1,340.00 $11,440.00 $0.00 $11,421.00 $7,936.00 $1,450.00
SUBTOTAL - SALARIES: $35,232.00
DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES
Document Printing/Reproduction/Assembly $18.00
Postage/Freight/Courier
Travel Costs $50.00
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES: $68.00
SUBTOTAL: $35,300.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE: $0.00
TOTAL FEE: $35,300.00
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
SIGNALIZATION DESIGN
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION E-6 E-5 E-3 E-1
$329.00 $268.00 $188.00 $141.00
hr hr hr hr
1. Preliminary (1 Signal, 1 RRFB)
Site Visit 4
Traffic Signal Notes 0.5 1 1
Signal Detail Sheets 0.5 1 4
Signal Plan Sheets 2 4 60
Wiring Diagram Sheet 1 2 4
Charts Sheet 1 2 4
Summary of Quantities 1 2 6
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 1 2 2
RRFB Design 4 8 12
Evaluation of Traffic Study 1 8 8
QA/QC 8
Subtotal - Preliminary (1 Signal, 1 RRFB)9 11 34 101
2. Final (1 Signal, 1 RRFB)
Signal Plan Updates 0.5 4 36
RRFB Updates 0.5 4 8
Quantity Updates 0.5 2 4
Standards and Specifications 1 2 4
Update OPCC 0.5 1 1
QA/QC 4
Subtotal - Final (1 Signal, 1 RRFB)4 3 13 53
Hours 13 14 47 154
Salary Costs $4,277.00 $3,752.00 $8,836.00 $21,714.00
SUBTOTAL - SALARIES: $38,579.00
DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES
Travel Costs $121.00
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES: $121.00
SUBTOTAL: $38,700.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE: $0.00
TOTAL FEE: $38,700.00
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
BIDDING SERVICES
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION E-4 E-2 E-1 T-2
$220.00 $164.00 $141.00 $124.00
hr hr hr hr
2. Civil Engineering
Coordinate with City Purchasing Division 4
Addendums/Inquiries 8 2 4
Pre-Bid Meeting 2 2 2
Bid Opening 1
Prepare bid tabulation - Not Applicable
Evaluate bids and recommend award 2
Prepare construction contracts 2
Notice to Proceed 1
Subtotal - Civil Engineering 2 20 4 4
Hours 2 20 4 4
Salary Costs $440.00 $3,280.00 $564.00 $496.00
SUBTOTAL - SALARIES: $4,780.00
DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES
Document Printing/Reproduction/Assembly $850.00
Travel Costs $70.00
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES: $920.00
SUBTOTAL: $5,700.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE: $0.00
TOTAL FEE: $5,700.00
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
WATER AND SEWER DESIGN
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION E-5 E-4 E-1 S-5 S-4 S-3
2-Man Crew
(Survey)D-1
$268.00 $220.00 $141.00 $203.00 $161.00 $113.00 $244.00 $128.00
1. Project Management
Kickoff Meeting 3 4 1 0
Client Coordination (emails, non-progress
meetings)8 24 16 0
Site Visit 2 2 4 0
Subtotal - Project Management 13 30 21 0
2. Conceptual Design
General Sheets 0 1 4 8
Water Line Layout 0 8 32 60
Sewer Line Layout 0 8 32 60
Details 0 0 0 0
OPCC Class III 1 2 8 4
Record Drawing Research 2 16 24 0
Quality Control Review 8 8 0
Subtotal - Conceptual Design 11 35 108 132
3. Preliminary Design
General Sheets 0 2 4 8
Water P&P 2 12 60 120
Sewer P&P 2 12 60 120
Specifications 0 0 0 0
Details 0 1 2 4
OPCC Class II 1 2 8 4
Quality Control Review 12 16 16
Subtotal - Preliminary Design 17 29 150 272
4. Final Design
General Sheets 0 1 8 12
Water P&P 0 2 40 60
Sewer P&P 0 2 16 40
Specifications 1 4 8 0
Details 1 1 2 2
OPCC Class I 1 2 8 4
ADH & ArDOT Coordination 0 4 8 16
Quality Control Review 12 16 0
Subtotal - Final Design 15 16 106 134
5. Bidding
Addenda/Inquiries 1 6 6 4
Pre-Bid Meeting 0 4 4 0
Bid Opening 0 2 2 0
Bid Tabulation and Recommendations 1 1 4 0
Subtotal - Bidding 2 13 16 4
6. Topographic Survey - N/A
Establish Horizontal and Vertical Control Points
Utility Locates (New Utilities not in MCE Survey)
Topographic Surveys
Data Processing/Preparation
Subtotal - Topographic Survey - N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
WATER AND SEWER DESIGN
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION E-5 E-4 E-1 S-5 S-4 S-3
2-Man Crew
(Survey)D-1
$268.00 $220.00 $141.00 $203.00 $161.00 $113.00 $244.00 $128.00
7. Property Survey - N/A
Dilligence and Research
Establish Existing Right of way
Property Surveys
Data Processing/Preparation
Subtotal - Property Survey - N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8. Property Acquistion
Survey Project Management 30
Permanent Right-of-Way Acquisition Documents 25 25
Temporary Construction Easements 20 20
Staking for owner and agents 4 20
Subtotal - Property Acquistion 0 0 0 30 45 49 20 0
9. Permitting
Arkansas Dept of Health 8 8 12 4
Subtotal - Permitting 8 8 12 0 0 0 0 4
Hours 66 131 413 30 45 49 20 546
Salary Costs $17,688.00 $28,820.00 $58,233.00 $6,090.00 $7,245.00 $5,537.00 $4,880.00 $69,888.00
SUBTOTAL - SALARIES: $198,381.00
DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES
Document Printing/Reproduction/Assembly $103.00
Travel Costs $196.00
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES: $299.00
SUBTOTAL: $198,680.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE (Waco Title Research): $0.00
TOTAL FEE: $198,680.00
Appendix B
City of Fayetteville
College Avenue Phase 2
PROPERTY ACQUISITION DOCUMENTS
WORK TASK DESCRIPTION S-5 S-4 S-3 2-Man Crew (Survey)
$203.00 $161.00 $113.00 $244.00
hr hr hr hr
1. Project Management
Administration and Coordination 13
Quality Control Review 44
Submittals to Client 8
Subtotal - Project Management 57 0 8 0
2. Acquisition Documents College (40 Max)
Permanent Right-of-Way Acquisition Documents 50 50
Temporary Construction Easements 40 40
Staking for owner and agents 6 40
Subtotal - Acquisition Documents College (40 Max)0 90 96 40
Hours 57 90 104 40
Salary Costs $11,571.00 $14,490.00 $11,752.00 $9,760.00
SUBTOTAL - SALARIES: $47,573.00
DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES
Document Printing/Reproduction/Assembly $200.00
Postage/Freight/Courier $0.00
Office Supplies/Equipment $0.00
Communications $0.00
Survey Supplies $100.00
Aerial Photography $0.00
GPS Equipment $0.00
Computer Modeling/Software Use $0.00
Traffic Counting Equipment $0.00
Locator/Tracer/Thermal Imager Equipment $0.00
Travel Costs $127.00
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT NON-LABOR EXPENSES: $427.00
SUBTOTAL: $48,000.00
SUBCONSULTANTS FEE: $0.00
TOTAL FEE: $48,000.00
TOMORROW’S CORRIDORTOMORROW’S CORRIDOR
RETHINKING 71B
CONTENTS
1/A Brief History of 71B 5
2/An Atlas of Key Conditions 11
3/Community Engagement 35
4/Markets for 71B 57
5/Corridor Urbanism and 71B 65
6/The Framework Plan 75
7/The Regulating Plan 119
8/Implementing the Plan 139
A Concluding Note 143
1/A BRIEF HISTORY OF 71B
Historical information in this section is based on On the Avenue:
An Illustrated History of Fayetteville’s US Highway 71B by Anthony
Wappel with Douglas Garrison (2015). Historical photographs are also
from On the Avenue and are used with permission.
1830
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
0
1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890
One of the routes of the
Trails of Tears, over which
Native Americans were
forced to travel from
ancestral homelands to
Oklahoma
Part of the Butterfield
Overland Mail route, first
stopping in Arkansas in
1858
Arkansas College is founded
by Rev, Robert Graham of First
Christian Church in 1852. First
buildings were destroyed during
the Civil War. College Avenue is
named for this college rather than
the University of Arkansas.
Road north of Downtown is
known as Fayetteville and
Springfield Road and south
as Fayetteville and West Fork
Road. Both ends brought
people to resorts in town.
Fayetteville’s portion of the
trail would be known as
part of the Old Wire Road
between St Louis and Fort
Smith
1890 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Jefferson Highway built
between Winnipeg
and New Orleans but
bypasses Arkansas,
probably because of
difficulty in roadbuilding
through the Ozarks
US 71 established in
1926 after passage of
the Federal Highway
Act identified highways
by numbers
Jefferson Highway Association
reroutes highway designation
through Fayetteville, helping to
increase area tourism. North part
of the road is now called North
College Avenue and south part
is Greenland Road and School
Avenue.
Fayetteville Veterans
Administration Hospital is
developed at its College Avenue
site in 1934. In 1949, it sold a part
of the site for the construction
of a new county hospital, which
became the Washington Regional
Health Center.
Walter and Myrtle Miller buid a
house on South School in 1919.
The house is now occupied by the
Farmer’s Table Cafe.
Municipal Airport, renamed Drake
Field in 1947, is built during the
1930s. Commercial air service
begins in 1940, ending with the
opening of Northwest Arkansas
Regional Airport in 1999.
Motel Row begins to
develop along North
College in the late
1940s and 1950s
US 71 routed
through the
Square on a
sometimes
shifting route,
using School
Avenue and
Mountain,
71 Drive-In Theater,
now the site of Fiesta
Square shopping
center, opens in 1949
Lake Fayetteville is
developed, built initially
as a drinking water
reservoir, 1948-1950
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
20,000
10,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Archibald Yell
Blvd built to
bypass the
Downtown
Square in 1952
City Liquor, one
of the oldest
continuous retailers
on 71B, opens,
First leg of Fulbright
Expressway built
between Skelton and
Millsap in 1971
New sign ordinance
passed, placing tighter
restrictions on neon
and other types of
large signs, 1972
Northwest Arkansas
Mall opens in 1972.
Evelyn Hills Shopping
Center, city’s first
large center outside of
Downtown, opens in
1960
First building at
University of Arkansas
Research Park opens
in 1986
Nelson’s Crossing
shopping center is
developed, 2006,
one of the largest
multi-tenant retail
developments in the
Mall District
Mud
Creek Trail
opens,
2002
Iconic Gator Golf
miniature golf course
opens, 1988
Redevelopment of the former
Campbell’s Soup Mill, built in
1957, begins in 1999, creating
the Mill District.
Southgate Shopping
Center is developed
at 15th and South
School, 1965. Wal-Mart
is one of the original
occupants
Land acquired
and development
begins for Fulbright
Expressway and
College interchange
1967
Highway 71 widening
projects executed,
producing current road
section, 1970s.
Traffic growth causes
Planning Commission
Chair Alguire to suggest a
flyover to solve congestion
problems on North College
Highway 71 widening
projects executed,
producing current road
section, 1970s.
Fiesta Square develops on
former drive-in theater site,
1981-85
2010 2020 2030 2040 1930 1940 1950
80,000
70,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
The Flyover,
carrying
northbound
to westbound
traffic from
College Avenue
to the Fulbright
Expressway, is
completed, 2014
2040 Comprehensive Plan is
adopted, projecting a 2040
population of over 140,000
people. Voters approve a
major transportation and
community enhancement
bond issue, including
significant funding for 71B
improvements. Tomorrow’s
Corridor: Rethinking 71B study
is completed to help guide this
implementation program.
Specific information about the use and key elements of a corridor are
fundamental to analysis and development of solutions. This chapter provides a
visual presentation of vital information addressing land and building use, and
transportation and access factors.
2/AN ATLAS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
12
CURRENT LAND USE: Cato Springs to Rock Street
- Tax-exempt public and institutional
uses, most notably the University of
Arkansas Research Park, Walker Park,
the National Cemetery, and the Public
Library are dominant land uses in the
southern part of the study area.
- Most of the immediate South School
Avenue frontage is assessed as
commercial land, although significant
parts of it are in industrial, salvage, or
other non-retail uses. Some of these
include long-standing Fayetteville
businesses. Others provide significant
redevelopment opportunities.
- Residential uses are beginning
to be introduced to the South
School area, with Mill District
redevelopment and university-oriented
multifamily development. The Co-
op redevelopment project at MLK
and School will include a substantial
residential component.
- Land use along Archibald Yell is
primarily residential, with some
commercial and multi-family uses along
the path of this 1952-vintage bypass.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
13
CURRENT LAND USE: North to Township
- A strip commercial use pattern
dominates the College Avenue corridor
from North Street to Township Road.
On the east side, commercial sites are
relatively shallow, with the exception
of the historic Evelyn Hills site.
Commercial coverage extends farther
off the main corridor west side, along
Green Acres Road and into the Colt
Square/Township cluster of commercial
and office development. Topography
limits the depth of commercial sites
between Sycamore and Township.
- Major public and institutional uses
include the VA Medical/NAMS complex
between North and Sycamore, Gregory
Park, Lake Lucille, and Woodland
School.
- Residential uses predominate on
the eastern side of the corridor. While
somewhat separated from the the strip
by topography, these neighborhoods
will be sensitive to the nature of future
development to the west. New small
lot single-family has been developed
immediately east of Evelyn Hills.
14
CURRENT LAND USE: Township to Millsap
- As with other parts of the study area,
most the frontage along 71B is located
within and assessed as commercial
use. The east side of the commercial
strip is limited by topography between
Township and Rolling Hills. The area
and depth of commercial use off the
main corridor increase to the north with
multi-tenant centers like Fiesta Square,
new care dealerships, and other space
intensive commercial.
- Topography limits commercial
depth on the east side of the corridor
between Sunbridge and Rolling Hills,
and effectively buffers commercial
from residential uses.
- South of Rolling Hills, neighborhoods
to the east of the corridor are largely
low-density single-family, while
higher single-family density, notably
Sunbridge Villas, prevails to the west.
- Office uses dominate the Millsap
corridor to the west toward
Washington Regional Medical Center.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
15
CURRENT LAND USE: Millsap to City Limits
- Large format commercial dominates
land use in this segment, Most retail
uses are west of the 71B corridor. Office
development is concentrated along
Joyce Boulevard east of the corridor.
- A substantial amount of land is
in floodplains and will remain as
permanent open space. This includes
the Mud Creek and Scull Creek
greenways, both of which are served by
regional trails.
- Parking lots in this area are so large
that they emerge as a dominant land
use in themselves.
- Significant public and institutional
uses include University of Arkansas
holdings and Lake Fayetteville.
16
BUILDING USE AND COVERAGE: Cato Springs to Rock
LAND COVERAGE
Coverage Area (A)%
Buildings 18.76 8.51
Parking 29.46 13.36
Roads 21.37 9.69
Open 150.87 68.43
Total 220.45 100.00
- City edge character with low building
coverage and extensive open space
(including Town Branch Creek flood
plain, Walker Park, and wooded slopes)
as well as low-coverage industrial uses
such as salvage).
- Planned development of Co-op site
and continued growth of Mill District
and future build-out of the University
of Arkansas Research Park will increase
development density.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
17
BUILDING USE AND COVERAGE: North to Township
LAND COVERAGE
Coverage Area (A)%
Buildings 22.43 16.08
Parking 44.34 31.79
Roads 13.94 9.99
Open 58.77 42.13
Total 139.49 100.00
- Highest building coverage of the
four study segments, although still a
relatively low density strip pattern.
With the exception of the Evelyn Hills
shopping center and a few larger
footprint commercial buildings, small
free-standing structures predominate.
- Parking is the largest developed
use, occupying twice as much area as
buildings.
18
BUILDING USE AND COVERAGE: Township to Millsap
LAND COVERAGE
Coverage Area (A)%
Buildings 34.78 16.05
Parking 90.53 41.77
Roads 18.91 8.72
Open 72.51 33.46
Total 216.73 100.00
- Pattern of free-standing commercial
buildings continues north of
Township, with footprints increasing
to the north. Commercial building use
dominates.
- Parking is by far the largest
consumer of land in this segment,
accounting for over 70% of developed
private land. The largest single paved
area is Fiesta Square’s parking lot, but
smaller commercial boxes and strip
centers also have large parking lots.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
19
BUILDING USE AND COVERAGE: Millsap to City Limits
LAND COVERAGE
Coverage Area (A)%
Buildings 26.08 10.38
Parking 66.29 26.37
Roads 55.13 21.93
Open 103.89 41.33
Total 251.38 100.00
- Very large footprint commercial
buildings, including big boxes, the
Northwest Arkansas Mall, and multi-
tenant strips and power centers,
dominate this segment’s built
environment.
- Consistent with the Township to
Millsap segment, parking occupies
about 70% of developed private land.
The percentage of parking occupancy
appears less in this segment than
others because of the large area used
for transportation, specifically the
Fulbright Expressway interchange.
Flood plains also boost the amount of
open land.
20
REGIONAL FUNCTIONAL STREET CLASSIFICATION
- The 71B system (highlighted
with the thicker line) remains
the only continuous north-south
transportation corridor between
I-49 and Crossover Road. Gregg
Avenue to the west and Old Wire/
Missouri to the east provide
parallel minor arterial routes
through parts of the corridor, but
do not serve local destinations
along 71B.
- Continuous east-west links
to I-49 occur at three places:
Fulbright Expressway, Wedington
Road/North Street, and Martin
Luther King Boulevard.
- East-west collectors crossing 71B
are scarce between the study areas
of Cato Springs and Rock Street
and North Street to the north city
limits. This,combined with the
lack of close, parallel north-south
routes forces both traffic headed
for local destinations and through
traffic to use 71B.
- In 2019, the State and City
executed an agreement to take the
71B route from the north and south
Fulbright Expressway interchanges
off the state network and transfer
jurisdiction to the City. This
provides great flexibility to the City
on street design.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
21
REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION - Existing trails and potential
connections are important
development assets along the 71B
corridor. The Razorback Greenway
parallels the corridor and crosses
it near Lake Fayetteville on the
north and MLK Boulevard on the
south. In addition, the Mud Creek
and Town Branch Trails connect
the Greenway to 71B, and the
Cato Springs and Tsa-La-Gi Trails
also lead to the corridor. On-
street bikeway connections from
the Razorback Greenway include
Sycamore, Poplar, and Appleby.
- A parallel bikeway system is
developing east of College Avenue
along Old Missouri Road and Old
Wire Road. Currently, this connects
to College with Rolling Hills Drive’s
protected bike lane pilot project.
A future trail along Sublett Creek
will run from Mission and North to
College and Poplar.
- Ozark Regional Transit operates
local bus service along much of the
study area corridor, and upgraded
that service in 2019 with more
frequent headways. The Northwest
Arkansas region is contemplating
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) between
Fayetteville and Bentonville,
and it is likely that such a line, if
implemented, would follow 71B.
22
REGIONAL AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC
- Average daily traffic (ADT) on
71B increases from south to north.
South of MLK, the ADT ranges
from 12,000 to 15,000 vehicles
per day (vpd), generally within the
capacity of a three-lane section.
The Archibald Yell section is in
the 18,000-19,000 vpd range, still
serviceable for three lanes, but
gradually increases to the north
from the middle 20,000’s through
Downtown and peaking at about
37,000 at Joyce Boulevard.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
23
24
CRASH
FREQUENCY,
2015-17
Cato Springs to Rock
North to Township
- Unsurprisingly, crashes on the
South School and Archibald Yell
segments clustered around (but
not always at) intersections. An
unexpected group of incidents
occurred at the unsignalized 11th
Street intersection.
- Between North and Township
with relatively frequent curb
cuts, crashes were distributed
throughout the segment. However,
the most severe incidents
clustered at intersections,
especially Sycamore and Township.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
25
Township to Millsap
Millsap to City Limits
- Between Township and Millsap,
a five-lane section with many
curb cuts, crashes again string
out with more serious incidents
at intersections. However, the
greatest density of crashes occurs
between Longview and Millsap,
- Access control north of Millsap
causes crashes to cluster at
principal intersections, with the
largest number taking place at
the very busy Joyce Boulevard
crossing. The crash cluster at the
eastbound to southbound ramp
from the Fulbright Expressway is
probably the result of the abrupt
merge and short stopping distance
of traffic transitioning from the
expressway to local city traffic
environment.
26
CURB CUTS: Cato Springs to RockCURB CUTS: Cato Springs to Rock
- Curb cuts are abundant and
relatively uncontrolled in the
five lane sections of the street,
and generally correlate to crash
incidents.
- The four-lane Archibald Yell
section has relatively few curb
cuts because of land use and
topography. Once again, the
clustering of access points at
intersections tends to correlate to
crashes.
- Access north of Millsap on the
divided section of 71B is mostly
limited to intersections.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
27
CURB CUTS: North to TownshipCURB CUTS: North to Township
28
CURB CUTS: Township to Millsap
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
29
CURB CUTS: Millsap to City Limits
30
CURB CUTS: Cato Springs to RockSIDEWALKS: Cato Springs to Rock
Despite the relatively rural or city
edge character of the of the south
stretches of the 71B study area,
sidewalk continuity is fairly good
if not entirely comfortable for
users on the ground. Major gaps or
issues include:
- Condition issues between
Research Center Blvd. and 15th
Street.
- Periodic condition issues on the
east side between 15th and 13th
Streets.
- A major gap on the west side
south of 11th Street, adjacent to
a busy commercial strip center.
This segment also has a significant
number of crashes.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
31
SIDEWALKS: North to Township
The North to Township segment
lacks sidewalk servicxe in most
places. Existing sidewalks
generally are adjacent to sites
with relatively recent commercial
development, or along the VA
frontage between North and
Memorial Drive.
32
SIDEWALKS: Township to Millsap
This segment resembles the
pattern along the North to
Township segment – sidewalks
only along relatively recent
development, specifically near
Township, adjacent to Fiesta
Square, and immediately south of
Millsap.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
33
SIDEWALKS: Millsap to City Limits
In this higher speed, six-lane
divided environment, sidewalks are
rarely provided along the main line
or even frontage roads. Exceptions
are developed sites along Shiloh
Drive, the west side service road
and short segments adjacent to a
relatively new strip center on the
east side.
The recommendations in this plan grow from intense community interest in the
71B Corridor. Undoubtedly, those that live and work on and near the corridor
know area the best. Beginning the strategic planning process by going to
the people gives life to a real vision for the future of the street. The public
engagement process began in July 2018 and concluded in Summer 2019.
This section reviews some of the findings and opinions recorded during that
process.
3/COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
36
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
The recommendations of this plan capitalized on the wide community interest in the 71B Corridor. The knowledge and insight
of people who shop, work, do business and live on or near the corridor help produce a plan that creates a realistic vision of the
the future for this major functional and economic part of Fayetteville. The public engagement process began in July, 2018
and concluded in Summer, 2019, and was designed to maximize continued community engagement The process provided a
variety of on-site and on-line opportunities to participate in the planning process. Central to this process were four multi-day
collaborative planning workshops, focusing on a specific part of the corridor study area. This approach recognized the individual
character of each part of this long corridor.
The first step of the process established an education and outreach program with a kickoff event that discussed the history of the 71B
corridor and the merits and state of the art in corridor planning in America. This initial program also set up the the project’s on-line
presence, with tools that could be accessed from home, office, or elsewhere. The city managed the on-line public engagement portal,
SpeakUp Fayetteville. The site hosted regular updates of the process including notifications, questionnaire, and potential concepts.
Summary of Public Engagement Activities
›Steering Committee
›Technical Committee
›Online Survey and Website. Results are shown following event descriptions.
›Focus Groups
›Farmers Market
›Kick-off Meeting and Seminar
›Planning Workshops
›Open House
›Approval
July Committee Kick-off
August Farmers Market Event and Survey Launch
September Kick-off Event
October Focus Group Discussions
November Planning Workshop #1: Overall Vision
December Planning Workshop #2: Subarea
January Planning Workshop #3: Subarea
February Planning Workshop #4: Subarea
March-April Initial Draft Preparation
May Public Open House, Planning Commission, and
City Council Transportation Committee
Presentation
June-August Revisions/Regulating Plan Draft
October South School Focus Area Design Workshop
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EVENTS2018
2019
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
37
Steering Committee Meetings. The steering committee met regularly
to discuss ideas for the corridor’s future, provide feedback on emerging
concepts, and direct the project’s recommendations.
Technical Committee Meetings. Throughout the planning process,
the consultant team met with the technical committee bi-weekly by
video conference and while on-site. Discussions ranged from sharing
background information of the corridor, next steps, and emerging new
information.
Focus Groups. In September 2018, the project team conducted a multi-
day program of stakeholder group discussions to address the project
area, its dynamics, potential, and future directions. The team met with
developers, investors, residents, business owners/operators, healthcare,
city departments, Planning Commission, and other various stakeholders.
38
Farmers Market Booth. In August 2018, the City hosted a booth at the
Farmers Market. The event brought awareness to the launch of the project
and online survey. Participants received sticky dots to vote on their
preferred images for the corridor. These images were also used in the
online visual listening survey.
Kick-off Meeting and Seminar. In September 2018, the project began
with a public kick-off meeting to share background information about the
corridor, the process for preparing the plan, and best practices in corridor
planning in the country. Separate events were scheduled and located
north and south of the downtown area.
Planning Workshops 1-4. Four onsite planning workshops, located
throughout the stretch of the corridor, occurred in November, December,
January, and February. The first three workshops lasted for four days and
included multiple open hours for the public to share input, ideas, and even
illustrate their own concepts.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
39
Planning Workshops 1-4. Each planning workshop built on the previous
over the months, starting with an overall system-wide concept and moving
towards the details of each segment of the corridor. Quick results and high
energy were features of these workshops.
Open House. In May, 2019, the City held an Open House to present
the plan’s recommendations. The open house gave participants an
opportunity to identify their opinions of various actions and proposals, and
their relative priority.
40
WEBSITE VISITOR ACTIVITY
AWARE PARTICIPANTS 1,190
ENGAGED PARTICIPANTS 229
INFORMED PARTICIPANTS 631
Downloaded the Input Opportunities Flyer 26
Visited the Key Dates page 91
Visited multiple project pages 455
Contributed to a tool (engaged)229
TYPE OF RESPONDENTS AGE OF RESPONDENTSSpeak Up Fayetteville Portal Activity
LOCATION OF RESPONDENT’S RESIDENCE
While much of the real work on developing a new, attainable vision
for the 71B corridor was done on-site, the Speak Up Fayetteville portal
reached the largest number of people of all engagement elements
and helped define both community perspectives and priorities for the
detailed process. Some of the key results of the on-line survey and other
features are displayed on these pages.
23%
23%
6%
7%
41%
Under 18
18-24
25-34
45-54
55-64
65-74
75 and over
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
41
ASSESSMENT: NORTH OF NORTH STREET
Physical Environment Economic Environment
Feel and character
of the street
Adequacy of street
lighting
“Curb appeal” of
the street and its
businesses
Experience of
traveling along
College Ave
Condition of
surrounding
neighborhoods
Safety and
security Health of
businesses
Business
variety and
quality
New
investment
and trends
Availability
of goods and
services that I
need
Opportunities
for new business
and development
Job creation
42
Ease of access
to businesses Traffic flow Pedestrian
environment,
walkability, and
access
Public
transportation
service
Bicycle
accommodation Traffic Safety Overall image of N.
College Ave
Property
maintenance
and upkeep
Quality between
North Street and
Fulbright Expwy
Quality between
Fulbright Expwy to
city limits
Parking lot
appearance Signs and
landscape
ASSESSMENT: NORTH OF NORTH STREET
Transportation Environment Aesthetic/Visual Environment
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
43
ASSESSMENT: SOUTH OF NORTH STREET
Physical Environment Economic Environment
Feel and character
of the street
Adequacy of street
lighting
“Curb appeal” of
the street and its
businesses
Experience of
traveling along
College Ave
Condition of
surrounding
neighborhoods
Safety and
security Health of
businesses
Business
variety and
quality
New
investment
and trends
Availability
of goods and
services that I
need
Opportunities
for new business
and development
Job creation
44
ASSESSMENT: SOUTH OF NORTH STREET
Transportation Environment Aesthetic/Visual Environment
Ease of access
to businesses Traffic flow Pedestrian
environment,
walkability, and
access
Public
transportation
service
Bicycle
accommodation Traffic Safety Safety and
security
Property
upkeep
Overall quality
of Archibald
Yell Blvd.
section
Overall
quality of
Mill District
Overall
quality south
of MLK Jr.
Blvd
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
45
North of North Street
South of Rock Street
FREQUENCY OF BUSINESS VISITS
3 or more/week
1-2/week
About 2/month
About1/month
Occasional < 1/month
Never
PURPOSES OF VISITS TO 71B STUDY AREA
46
MOST IMPORTANT ASSETS FOR BUILDING 71B FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR A BETTER 71B
Image and Services
Redevelopment
of vacant and
deteriorating buildings
Reconstruction or
improvement of
infrastructure
Better linkage to Lake
Fayetteville
Relocation or burial of
overhead utilities
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
47
Green space/
landscape
buffers/trees
along the street
Better roadway
lighting
Comfortable,
continuous
sidewalks
Better lighting
at pedestrian
level
Better street
appearance
Relocation of
parking away
from the streets
More new
housing on
and around
the corridor
Reuse or
development
of large
parking lots
New
neighborhood
commercial
development
along 71B
Major
redevelopment
of obsolete uses
and buildings
More walkable
development
with gradual
change away
from auto-
oriented
patterns
Reuse of
underused
property for
new mixed
uses
Redevelopment
of Northwest
Arkansas Mall
IMPROVEMENTS FOR A BETTER 71B
Development and Land Use Street Environment
Very important
Somewhat
important
Neutral
Somewhat
unimportant
Very
unimportant
48
Continuous,
comfortable
pedestrian
access, including
improved
pedestrian
crossings
Better bicycle
access
including
specific space
for bikes on or
off the street
Better
connections
to the trail
system
Better pedestrian
connections
from the street
to business
entrances
Bus rapid transit More
frequent
bus service
Modify travel
lanes through
Midtown and
Uptown to
accommodate all
users
Modify travel
lanes south of
Downtown to
accomodate all
users
Major revision to
traffic patterns,
including a new
street network to
serve the study
area
Reducing
traffic
speeds
Redesign of
intersections
like Rolling
Hills, Sycamore,
and Fulbright
Expressway to
function better
for all users
More traffic
signals to
allow for
additional
pedestrian
crossing
and vehicle
access
Increasing
through traffic
capacity
IMPROVEMENTS FOR A BETTER 71B
Traffic Transportation Choice
Very important
Somewhat
important
Neutral
Somewhat
unimportant
Very
unimportant
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
49
VISUAL
PREFERENCE
SURVEY
This idea does not apply to 71B
This could be a very good idea for parts of 71B.
This idea might have some merit.
I find this interesting by I’m not sure.More apartment
development along
and adjacent to the
corridor
More owner-occupied
housing along or
adjacent to the
corridor (attached
homes, townhomes,
condominum settings)
Housing
development that
meets the needs of
seniors and empty
nesters
Housing
development that
meets the needs of
young families
New housing
accommodations for
homeless people
Housing
Very important
Somewhat
important
Neutral
Somewhat
unimportant
Very
unimportant
The Visual Preference section of
the survey presented a series of
photographs of good design and
corridor planning practices from
around the country and asked
respondents to rate them for their
relevance to the 71B corridor.
50
This idea does not apply to
71B
This could be a very
good idea for parts
of 71B.
This idea might
have some
merit.
I find this interesting
but I’m not sure.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
51
This idea does not apply to
71B
This could be a very
good idea for parts
of 71B.
This idea might
have some
merit.
I find this interesting
but I’m not sure.
52
This idea does not apply to
71B
This could be a very
good idea for parts
of 71B.
This idea might
have some
merit.
I find this interesting
but I’m not sure.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
53
This idea does not apply to
71B
This could be a very
good idea for parts
of 71B.
This idea might
have some
merit.
I find this interesting
but I’m not sure.
54
This idea does not apply to
71B
This could be a very
good idea for parts
of 71B.
This idea might
have some
merit.
I find this interesting
but I’m not sure.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
55
This idea does not apply to
71B
This could be a very
good idea for parts
of 71B.
This idea might
have some
merit.
I find this interesting
but I’m not sure.
A successful corridor concept must take markets into account and propose changes and
concepts that are consistent with economic potential and reality.We are in a period where
economics, consumer preferences, and behaviors are producing dramatic changes in retail
markets and demand for space. Transportation changes also have a significant impact in project
design, parking requirements, and community access. Chapter Four summarizes a market
analysis completed to inform the design, transportation, and policy recommendations of this
plan for the 71B corridor. The full report is included in an Appendix to the plan. The analysis
addresses the entire corridor, but places special emphasis on the future of Northwest Arkansas
Mall. This comes in a period when regional malls are experiencing uncertain futures. Many
traditional malls are experiencing declining sales and occupancy. On the other hand, others
are finding other productive uses to fill vacated space and some indications exist that younger
shoppers are again finding malls to be attractive for social interaction.
4/MARKETS FOR 71B
58
MARKETS AND STRATEGIES FOR
THE 71B CORRIDOR
This chapter summarizes the assessment that Gruen Gruen + Associates
(“GG+A”) conducted of the market for retail uses on the College
Avenue/71B corridor and the Northwest Arkansas Mall. It includes both the
south section of the study area, South School Avenue and Archibald Yell
Boulevard from Cato Springs Road to Rock Street, and the north section,
College Avenue from North Street to the city limits. The center section
covers Downtown Fayetteville, which is not technically part of the physical
study area but has an impact on overall demand. In addition to evaluating
potential market demands for retail uses and identifying potential additional
market opportunities that could be captured within the corridor, this
chapter also identifies strategic actions and policy recommendations
that will advance the economic vitality and enhancement of the College
Avenue/71B corridor and Northwest Arkansas Mall.
WORK ELEMENTS AND METHODOLOGY
To accomplish the study objectives, GG+A analyzed a variety of data sources
and conducted primary research and:
1. Inspected the College Avenue/71B corridor and Pinnacle Hills Promenade
activity center in Rogers and conducted interviews with property
owners, developers, and real estate brokers including representatives
of CBRE, Inc., Colliers, High Street Real Estate Development, Mark
Zweig, Inc., Mathias Properties, Newmark Moses Tucker Partners, Sage
Partners, and Specialized Real Estate Group as well as staff with the City
of Fayetteville and University of Arkansas Technology Development
Foundation. GG+A also obtained information from the General Manager
of the Pinnacle Hills Promenade;
2. Analyzed land use, real estate market, and population, sales tax,
and employment data. Local sources consulted included the Center
for Business and Economic Research of the University of Arkansas,
Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission, and Washington
County Assessor’s Office;
3. Analyzed demographic and income characteristics of households, and
prepared purchasing power estimates for retail goods and services for
two primary market areas: the “South 71B” corridor and the “North 71B”
corridor;
4. Converted estimates of purchasing power or retail demand into
estimates of the supportable amount of on-the-ground retail space for
the two primary market areas;
5. Obtained estimates of the supply of retail space and identified the
relationship between estimated retail space demand and supply for the
two primary market areas; and
6. Synthesized the results of the primary and secondary research and
analysis and field inspections in order to reach conclusions about the
potential opportunities and constraints affecting demand for retail
space and to identify strategic action recommendations for subsequent
planning, marketing, and enhancement implementation.
FINDINGS
Retail
• From the opening in 1972, through its initial expansion in 1978, its second
expansion in 1986, and its final expansion over 1997-99 and until 2006,
the Northwest Arkansas Mall was the only mall in Northwest Arkansas
region. In 2006, the Mall was sold. In the same year Pinnacle Hills
Promenade opened (slightly less than 12 miles northwest, in Rogers)
creating the first regional-serving competition to the Mall. Situated on
152-acres, this 934,000-square-foot open-air center is now anchored
by a Dillard’s, JCPenney, and a 12-screen Malco Pinnacle Theatre and
high-volume Fresh Market. According to the General Manager of the
Pinnacle Hills Promenade, Fresh Market replaced Border Books. Pinnacle
Hills Promenade had the same three anchor tenants when it opened as
did the older Mall (Sears has closed at both properties). Pinnacle Hills
Promenade, however, has a more contemporary format and better mix
of retailers currently including Williams-Sonoma, Banana Republic,
Lululemon, Pottery Barn, and restaurants such as P.F. Chang’s China
Bistro. The Promenade is also the location of the first Cabela’s World’s
Foremost Outfitter /Bass Pro in Arkansas, and a “green” Target store.
Adjacent to the Pinnacle Hills Promenade is a big-box power center
including Bed Bath & Beyond, Old Navy, Ulta, PetSmart, and DSW. The
trade area served by the Pinnacle Hills Promenade retail agglomeration
is reported to include Fayetteville and a great deal of the metropolitan
area and extends to southern Missouri.
• The retail agglomeration in Rogers provides a relatively complete supply
of regional-, community- and value-oriented retail shopping alternatives.
The development of the Pinnacle Hills Promenade retail agglomeration
has caused a decline in the trade area served by the Northwest Arkansas
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
59
Mall and a decline in the sales spillover the Mall generates for nearby
retail uses. As a consequence of supply additions in Benton County
and along Interstate 49 in locations with visibility and even better
accessibility to freeways and shifts in the geographic distribution of
population and employment bases, the strength and magnetism of the
Northwest Arkansas Mall and retail agglomeration in the corridor has
declined.
• In addition, the Pinnacle Hills Promenade tends to be the preferred
location for out-of-region retailers to enter the market (Whole Foods,
which selected a location in the northern portion of the corridor is a
notable exception to this site location tendency). The area around the
Pinnacle Hills Promenade has experienced significant office, hotel,
and residential development, which has reinforced the location as the
regional hub. According to real estate brokers, the Great Recession and
growing competitive impact of etailing caused some retailers to retrench
and reduce store counts. Some retailers which had stores in both the
Pinnacle Hills Promenade and Northwest Arkansas Mall areas chose to
close the Northwest Arkansas Mall locations.
• The northern portions of the College Avenue/71B corridor, however, are
surrounded by desirable residential neighborhoods, are situated on or
near roadways connecting to Interstate 49 and a large employment base
and are near Springdale which has experienced population growth but
does not have a compete supply of retail uses.
• The southern part of the College Avenue/71B corridor is characterized
by proximity to the campus of the University of Arkansas, the Arkansas
Research and Technology Park, and student housing. Household
incomes are lower, on average, in southern parts of Fayetteville and
nearby communities such as Elkins and West Fork.
• The Fayetteville area contains approximately 3.6 million square feet of
shopping center space according to CoStar. Current availability rates
(percent of space currently available for lease) exceed 11 percent for
community, neighborhood, and strip centers. The total inventory of retail
space in Fayetteville, including “general” freestanding retail uses such as
restaurants, service, and automotive-related, is reported by CoStar to
encompass more than 9.0 million square feet of rentable space.
• The College Avenue/71B corridor is estimated to contain approximately
2.9 million square feet of shopping center space and major freestanding
stores. Almost all the existing retail space in the corridor study area is
located north of the Downtown, but for the freestanding Walgreen’s
and Walmart Neighborhood Market stores located at the intersection
of School Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard just south of
Downtown.
• Based on a synthesis of interviews and a review of competing supply
locations, and consideration of advantages and disadvantages and
geographic and transportation access factors that apply to the corridor,
the primary trade area from which the northern portion of the corridor
attracts or could attract shoppers includes most of Washington County.
Retail brokers and developers uniformly indicate that U.S. Highway 412,
just north of Fayetteville’s border, represents a dividing line within the
regional retailing market. Households located north of Highway 412 do
not tend to shop within the northern portions of the corridor.
• The primary trade area from which the southern portion of the corridor
attracts or could attract shoppers includes southeast Fayetteville and
nearby communities to the south and east of Fayetteville. The primary
trade area extends approximately 15 minutes south and east along US-71
and Highway 16, to the smaller communities of Greenland, West Fork,
and Elkins. The primary trade area generally includes the University
of Arkansas campus, but does not extend north past Archibald Yell
Boulevard into the Downtown area. Interstate 49 to the west represents
a physical and psychological barrier limiting the primary trade area to
the west.
• Households and workers within the primary trade area for the northern
portion of the corridor currently generate approximately 3.9 million
square feet of retail space demand. Due to projected growth in the
household base within the primary trade area, demand is estimated to
increase to about 4.2 million square feet in 2023. These findings are
based on a total combined expenditure potential of local market area
households, non-resident workers and on-campus students of nearly
$1.3 billion in 2018 and nearly $1.4 billion in 2023 and an estimate that
high quality retail space must generate at least $325 per square foot in
order to be viable. The existing retail supply within the primary trade
area is estimated to total approximately 4.9 million square feet. Most
of this space, about 2.9 million square feet, is located within the 71B
corridor. Thus, an existing supply “surplus” of at least 808,000 square
feet of retail space is estimated to exist. Future household growth over
the next five years is estimated to reduce the retail supply surplus,
although existing supply will still exceed estimated potential demand by
60
an estimated 490,000 square feet of retail space by 2023.
• The total combined expenditure potential of local market area
households, non-resident workers and on-campus students within the
southern portion of the corridor is estimated at approximately $111 million.
Based on an annual sales per-square-foot threshold requirement of $375
per square foot for necessity- and convenience-oriented neighborhood
retail space, the expenditure potential can support approximately
300,000 square feet of retail space. Due to projected growth in the
household base within the primary trade area, demand is estimated to
increase to about 320,000 square feet in 2023.
• The existing retail supply within the primary trade area served by
southern portions of the corridor is estimated to total at least 272,000
square feet. Almost all of this space is comprised by freestanding grocery
and drug stores and restaurants. The comparison between estimated
demand and supply results in a small amount of “unmet” demand at
25,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail space, which could
grow to approximately 50,000 square feet of space by 2023.
• While the mathematical model of supply and demand is not a precise
tool, the results of the quantitative analysis are consistent with interview
findings. Based on our interviews with multiple real estate brokers and
local owners or leasing agents, the retail markets are highly competitive.
The larger centers and concentrated nodes of retail uses are better
positioned to siphon off sales from strip centers and smaller buildings
along the College Avenue/71B corridor which lack the size and tenant
mix to effectively compete for users and sales from shoppers.
• The Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission forecasts
that about 50,200 households will be added within the regional
trade area (northern portion of the corridor) by 2040, and that nearly
6,700 households will be added within the smaller primary trade area
identified for the southern portion of the corridor by 2040. In the
longer-run, demand may support additional commercial space in the
corridor. Occupancy rates, rental rates and household and employment
growth and supply additions within the trade areas should be monitored.
Such monitoring will facilitate evaluating retail development and
redevelopment proposals and opportunities.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Retail Planning Policy Strategy
Those merchants and retail centers unable to adapt to the constantly changing
retail environment and unable to respond to contemporary consumer
preferences will lose sales. This is part of the natural evolution and inherent
creative destruction and reinvention of the retailing and retail real estate
sectors. The primary strategic retail use implication is that the City should
encourage the reduction in the amount of smaller, older, obsolete centers,
especially those without strong grocery and drug store anchors that by
their very nature serve limited trade areas, do not encourage multi-purpose
trips, do not generate significant sales spillover for adjoining tenancies, and
are not positioned to create dynamic shopping and dining environments
through size, tenant mix, and physical improvements. Retail Planning
Policy Strategy should be directed to encouraging smaller obsolete retail
centers to either be combined with adjoining property to create larger and
stronger retail developments and/or converted to higher density residential
and office uses. Residential and office uses will augment demand for retail
goods and services.
The interviews suggest that apartment uses would replace some obsolete
commercial uses if the regulatory uncertainty about obtaining development
approvals is reduced. Relatively higher density apartment uses would support
higher land values and investment returns than thrift shops, churches, tattoo
parlors, and other users only able to pay low rents for older, relatively obsolete
retail spaces and which do not tend to generate positive sales spillover for
other businesses.
Gen-Yers, who tend to marry later and have fewer children, households
moving to the area for jobs, or educational or healthcare service opportunities,
and empty-nester household are primary sources of demand for apartment
units. Two apartment projects – the 308-unit Uptown Fayetteville
Apartments+Shops and 306-unit Watermark at Steele Crossing -, each
completed in 2017, leased up quickly at above market rents. The interviews
suggest demand attributable to job growth, shortage of housing for
University of Arkansas graduate students, and presence of major medical
facilities, will support continued multi-family development, which in turn,
would help support local restaurants, services, and retailers.
Vacant big-box retail space in older centers may have more potential to
be reused for office space. According to the University of Arkansas Skyline
Report, office space vacancy rates in Fayetteville have declined from 6.7
percent in the second half of 2016 to 3.9 percent in the first half of 2018.
CoStar estimates the office vacancy rate in Fayetteville is currently below
three percent, down from about 15 percent vacancy as recently as 2012. The
interviews and review of tenanting trends suggest continued demand from
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
61
office space users in the 10,000- to 30,000-square-foot range seeking lower
cost space than available in Class A office buildings in Benton County and
which do not need to be very close to Wal-Mart’s headquarters. These call
center, administrative processing, and other support users benefit from the
labor produced by the University and proximity to a diverse housing stock and
transportation accessibility. The users can pay more than retail users for the
vacant big-box retail space. The cost of remodeling such buildings is typically
lower than new office space construction and the space can be moved into
sooner. The proximity to retail services and amenities and plentiful parking
are advantages to office space users offering convenience and efficient use
of time for their workers and visitors.
Development of locations within the corridor as destinations for ethnic and
other unique, authentic restaurants and restaurant/entertainment rows
should be encouraged. The accessibility of the College Avenue corridor
to not only local households and students and faculty associated with the
University of Arkansas but also to residents living in other parts of the region
and to nonresident employees is an advantage. Low building space costs also
provide advantages to unique ethnic and other restaurants. Bocca Italian
Eatery and Pizzeria replaced at the end of 2015 Backyard Hamburgers, a
Nashville-based chain that closed the midtown College Fayetteville location
but kept open a unit in Rogers. Conway-based Tacos 4 Life opened its
restaurant at the Eveyln Hills shopping center in Fall 2015. The restaurant
remodeled a space formerly occupied by a USA Drug store.
One strategy to explore is a restaurant row, which needs to be placed in
a highly-visible location such as along frontage of the Mall property with
landscaping and signage techniques that serve to attract residents and
workers as well as travelers through the College Avenue/71B corridor. We
use the term restaurant row because one restaurant by itself cannot serve
to attract a significant number of patrons from an extended area. A cluster
of restaurants, however, can typically penetrate a deeper area because
consumers have the added confidence that if they cannot get into one
restaurant, other options will be available. A cluster of restaurants can also
engage in greater promotional activity.
The food preferences of Generation Ys are changing the culinary landscape
— stimulating the proliferation of ethnic restaurants, food trucks, and farmers
markets. Perhaps Generation Y’s fascination with food is one of the defining
characteristics of this eat-and-tweet generation. As part of making the Mall
property relevant and to take advantage of the ample parking availability,
expansion of the Farmer’s Market and regular food truck gatherings to the
Mall property should be planned, organized, and implemented. This will
help create the type of social environment and amenity package appealing
to Generation Yers looking for authenticity and a place to congregate as well
as appeal to area employees and family households.
A consumer shopping pattern shift from the purchase of goods to the
purchase of services and experiences has occurred. Food and service-
related uses, including medical services, are driving demand growth for
neighborhood and community shopping center space. The optimal tenant
mix for the College Avenue/71B corridor will continue to evolve in favor of
retailers, restaurants, and service providers that do not directly compete
with the Internet. Consistent with this consumer shopping pattern shift,
the interviews suggest that an LA Fitness may be searching for sites in
the broader market. LA Fitness has chosen second generation, vacant big-
box stores and junior anchor locations in regional mall sites that are close
to residential neighborhoods and employment centers. Fitness One has
located in a 41,000-square-foot facility near Interstate 49 and Wedington
Drive, west of the corridor, and is reported to be performing much better
than anticipated. This suggests potential support for an additional fitness
facility that if located at the Mall property would help generate daily traffic
to the site.
In 2016, the owner of JJ’s Grill opened a restaurant, beer garden, and concert
venue in Uptown near Target and Kohl’s and a new apartment development.
The 12,000-square-foot facility located at the corner of Van Asche Drive and
Steele Boulevard includes a brewery, and the corporate offices of JJ’s Grill.
It is reported to be performing well and is an example of an entertainment,
experiential use that cannot be duplicated by the Internet and has an
extensive draw.
The interviews suggest that other food/bar entertainment-oriented concepts
(e.g., Walk-On’s Bistreaux & Bar, which locates in “college towns”) not yet
in the Northwest Arkansas region are considering entering the market and
while the interviews also suggest the first units are likely to be located in the
Pinnacle Mall Promenade submarket, Fayetteville would be the next logical
location for expansion. This finding suggests it would be beneficial to pro-
actively position and market sites on the Mall property or in or near the
older Evelyn Hills or Fiesta Square centers with ample parking as location
for these kind of destination venues that could help rebrand and enhance
the quality and appeal of these centers to space users and patrons.
In places where the demographics and local real estate market conditions are
supportive, mall owners and asset managers are sometimes able to replace
closed department stores by transforming the tenant mix to other retail,
including non-traditional mall anchors. Dick’s Sporting Goods, which has
located in other regional malls, has a store in Fort Smith but not yet in either
Benton County or Fayetteville, could be a candidate for the Mall property
if it expands into the regional market. Off-price retailing is still growing
and a leading operator in this sector, Burlington, would also be new to the
market. Its store prototype consists of 40,000 to 50,000 square feet. The
demographics of the northern 71B corridor primary market area would fit
with the site selection criteria of Burlington.1
Closed or poorly performing mall retailers will need to be replaced with off-
price retailers like Burlington or experiential tenants including sports related
such as Dick’s Sporting Goods– those that cannot readily be replaced by the
internet. Entertainment, food and beverage, and services will be potential
replacement solutions. For example, tenants providing organic takeout
meals, high-grade services like health spas, and facilities for pets such as
dog hotels illustrate retailers not easily replaced online, and which benefit
from (and contribute to) mall or corridor traffic. As a local example last year,
Hounds Lounge Pet Resort & Spa replaced a resale shop as the occupant
of the former Big 8 Tire building of 8,868 square feet at the intersection of
62
College and East Township Road. The purchaser of the building also operates
a pet resort in Little Rock. The site was chosen because the location has high
traffic volume and adjoins the east-west commuter gateway to I-49 near
residential neighborhoods and was available for a relatively low price.
The key is both to provide the type of experience and convenience that a
shopper cannot get from sitting at home, and to eliminate the sameness that
fails to differentiate from the competition. To become and stay relevant,
malls and commercial corridors will become much more mixed and not just
a place for retail consumption. Instead, the relevant mall, for example, will
be where people go for dining, entertainment and education (concerts,
art shows, plays, movies, farmer markets, and classes), health, fitness,
and beauty, and stay overnight at a hotel – or to work and/or live. By this
standard, the current Northwest Arkansas Mall is not relevant.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY ACTIONS
Reduce the amount of retail zoning along the College Avenue/71B
corridor.
Like many communities, Fayetteville has designated most of the land along
its College Avenue arterial/71B corridor for commercial uses. By reducing
the amount of property zoned for retail uses or permitting multi-family and
office uses on currently retail zoned property, the City will stimulate stronger
performance within its focused, designated retail areas. Focus the highest
intensity of uses at key intersections and nodes.
Residential development is crucial to corridor revitalization and enhancement
in two fundamental ways. First, it is the basic component that will reduce the
amount of property available for commercial uses. Second, more housing will
provide a larger local market to support the commercial and entertainment
uses that remain or are added. Therefore, rezone obsolete uses, including
smaller, older, currently less successful retail centers and commercial buildings
for relatively higher density residential uses. Zoning changes accompanied by
appropriate design and other regulatory revisions to encourage assemblage
of older obsolete retail or other property into multi-family housing will bring
in more residents who will provide both the employment base for offices,
healthcare, and research and development activities in the corridor as well as
patrons for stores and restaurants.
Provide for Fewer but Larger Retailing-Mixed Use Nodes
Retail agglomerations succeed because they contain a variety of proximate
shopping opportunities whose synergy attracts more customers. It would
be advantageous if the corridor has fewer, but larger, well-integrated
and linked shopping nodes than numerous smaller strip centers and free-
standing buildings with excessive numbers of curb cuts that siphon off
relatively small sales dollars so as to make more difficult the development
of larger projects with greater trade areas and more frequent visitation, or
higher per visit expenditures.
Identify opportunities to make new amenities and services available along
College Avenue such as parks and recreational offerings, including bicycle
and jogging paths that link with nodes of denser development. Ideally,
implementation of such opportunities should be in conjunction with the
removal of obsolete building space and assembly of smaller parcels into
larger cohesive redevelopment sites.
Assist with Development and Implementation of Business Plans
The City should encourage property owners and managers to develop
business plans for the revitalization or adaptive reuse of commercial
properties such as the Northwest Arkansas Mall characterized as functionally
(competitively), but not locationally obsolete. The challenge will be to
identify feasible physical, tenanting and marketing enhancements and
implementation procedures to reposition and strengthen their performance.
The City can assist in this process by, for example:
• Streamline and make more predictable the development process; and
• Provide information on the goals and objectives for development/
redevelopment, and how the City may assist owners and developers
seeking to implement development/redevelopment consistent with
City priorities (such as municipal policy action or facilitation of the
entitlement process or where appropriate with financial assistance to
bridge feasibility gaps).
Area or property specific feasibility studies should be conducted or required
before any specific re-zoning, changes in design parameters or other land use
regulations, capital budget authorizations, or public programs to implement
the business plan or economic action should be approved. Municipal
assistance should be directed toward retaining and expanding uses or
attracting new businesses that can reasonably be expected to serve to expand
the trade area from which customers are attracted and serve to induce more
frequent visitation from households and workers within the existing trade
area. In some cases, for example, rather than accept a standard development
that meets planning and other regulations, it may be more beneficial to
encourage through municipal assistance enhanced design or added services
or uses to facilitate the long-run competitiveness and tax-generating ability
of a development. As another example, the City should provide for flexibility
in its land use regulations to allow for the orderly transition of former retail
uses to alternative uses.
Northwest Arkansas Mall
Vision: The place where people go for more than shopping; for dining,
entertainment and education (concerts, art shows, plays, movies, farmer
markets, and classes), health, fitness, and beauty, and stay overnight at a
hotel or to work and/or live.
Course of Public Action: Encourage Northwest Arkansas Mall to develop
business plan to reuse and enhance property. Market and feasibility
studies should be conducted or required before any specific re-zoning,
changes in design parameters or other land use regulations, capital budget
authorizations, or public programs to implement the business plan or
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
63
FIGURE 4.1: Strategic Imperatives for Northwest Arkansas Mall
Potential Use Opportunity Public Policy/Property Benefits Needed Actions
Multi-family development Contributes support for local restaurants, services, and restaurants; helps
local employers attract and retain talent
Market/survey research to identify scale and type of preferred product;
financial feasibility analysis; site planning and due diligence; implement
needed zoning/regulatory process and approvals; developer solicitation,
evaluation, and selection
Reuse vacant anchor/big-box buildings for office space Contributes support for local restaurants, services, and retailers; provide
job and income opportunities; contributes to demand for multi-family
development; and occupies vacant space
Implementation needed zoning/regulatory process and approvals, market
space for office use; be prepared to respond to incentive requests- to do so,
evaluate economic and fiscal impacts and feasibility gap
Restaurant row in a highly-visible location such as long frontage of the Mall
property with landscaping and signage
Generates day- and evening- traffic for Mall occupants; appeals to and
supports office workers and multi-family households (and visitors)
Site planning, due diligence, marketing/user solicitation, evaluation,
negotiation, selection; implement needed zoning/regulatory process and
approvals
Expand Farmer’s Market and food truck gatherings on excess parking area Generates day- and evening- traffic for Mall occupants; appeals to and
supports office workers and multi-family households (and visitors)
Plan/research, organize, and implement; identify if public funding may be
needed to facilitate feasible launch and ramp up
Proactively position and market sites on the Mall property for destination
entertainment venues
Generates day- and evening- traffic for Mall occupants; appeals to and
supports office workers and multi-family households (and visitors); rebrand
and enhance the quality and appeal of the Mall to space users and patrons
Site planning, due diligence, marketing/user solicitation, evaluation,
negotiation, selection; implement needed zoning/regulatory process and
approvals
Fitness Facility Generates day- and evening- traffic for Mall occupants; appeals to and
supports office workers and multi-family households (and visit
Identify options for re-tenanting existing space and new development;
marketing/user solicitation, evaluation, negotiation, selection; implement
needed zoning/regulatory process and approvals
Replace closed and closing retailers with off-price retailers like Burlington or
experiential tenants including sports related such as Dick’s Sporting Goods–
those that cannot readily be replaced by the internet. Entertainment, food
and beverage, and services will also be potential replacement solutions (see
pages 6/7)
Improve competitive strength and market responsiveness, reinforce other
businesses and uses; replace some of the sales-tax lost from competitive
obsolescence
Marketing/user solicitation, evaluation, negotiation, selection; implement
needed zoning/regulatory process and approvals; be prepared to respond
to incentive requests- to do so, evaluate economic and fiscal impacts and
feasibility gap
Educational and cultural programming and uses and healthcare uses (see
page 7)
Generates day- and evening- traffic for Mall occupants; appeals to and
supports office workers and multi-family households (and visitors) as well as
community as a whole
Confer with institutional stakeholders; Plan/research, organize, and
implement; identify if public funding may be needed to facilitate feasible
launch and ramp up
Hotel Use (see page 7)Supports and reinforces office, retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses;
generates tax revenue
Market research, feasibility analysis; site planning, due diligence, marketing/
user solicitation, evaluation, negotiation, selection; implementation needed
zoning/regulatory process and approvals; likely to be residual use, later in
sequence of redevelopment and reuse
economic action should be approved.
The City can assist accomplishing the reuse and enhancement of the
property by the following:
• Streamline and make more predictable the development process; and
• Provide information on the goals and objectives for development/
redevelopment, and how the City may assist with the implementation
of the business plan consistent with City priorities.
• Adapting land use regulations to various markets associated with
different parts of the site. For example, logical uses for the part of the
site immediately adjacent to College Avenue (such as free-standing
restaurants) will be different from those appropriate for the west edge
of the site, where residential and mixed use urban development can
take advantage of Greenway access and scenic qualities.
Citizens of Fayetteville have different visions for the 71B corridor. The concepts of New Urbanism,
advocating higher densities, mixed uses, human-scale,street orientation, and connectivity are
deeply engrained in the city’s urban development and design philosophy. Some people envision
a transformed corridor that eventually produces a high-density, transit-oriented mixed use
environment capable of accommodating a significant part of Fayetteville’s projected residential
growth. Other people believe that 71B should be improved physically and functionally, but will
always remain a regional, auto-oriented arterial dominated by commercial uses. This section
introduces a third approach – “corridor urbanism “ – that grows from and respects the character
and economy of the corridor, but integrates the quality of place and urban interaction that mark
Fayetteville’s development aspirations.
5/CORRIDOR URBANISM AND 71B
66
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
67
TOWARD CORRIDOR URBANISM
Various philosophies of urban development have emerged during the
last 150 years to guide the nature and growth of American Cities. Most of
these grew out of reform movements, designed to change the natural or
technological directions that cities had moved in. For example, the City
Beautiful movement of the nineteenth century sought to bring a sense
of order and aesthetic beauty to the clutter of the industrial city of that
era. The Garden City movement of the same era and extending into the
1920s, combined the priorities of social and public health reformers with
landscape architecture to create an ideal suburban alternative to the
conditions of big cities struggling to accommodate both industrialization
and waves of immigration. The concept of Euclidean or single-use zoning,
also grew out of these same reform movements, designed to remedy the
health and safety threats presented by locating industrial and residential
uses in the same areas and inadequate light, sanitation, and ventilation.
In our own era, different philosophies of community design have also
grown in an attempt to redirect a prevailing pattern of urban development.
New Urbanism developed “to offer alternatives to the sprawling, single-
use, low-density patterns typical of post-World War II development, which
have been shown to inflict negative economic, health, and environmental
impacts on communities.” A competing philosophy, “Landscape
Urbanism,” was presented as a response to New Urbanism’s largely
architectural approach by emphasizing landscape and open space as
the desirable central organizing elements of cities and towns. Debates
between these two philosophies have largely focused on density: New
Urbanists contending that high density is critical to urban interaction and
Landscape Urbanists making something of the same claim for open space.
These urban philosophies and others have been very influential, even when
not fully implemented. For example, contemporary “life style centers” like
the Pinnacle Hills Promenade in Rogers draw from New Urbanist principles,
replacing the traditional regional mall with a crossroads of pedestrian-
oriented, open-air “main streets.” But the primary forces that shape urban
form still tend to be transportation, technology, and markets. The dense
forms of the traditional cities and towns were generated by walking and
public transportation as primary modes of travel. In metropolitan areas,
commuter railroads and rail rapid transit made the suburbs that became
the antecedents of “traditional neighborhood development” possible.
And ultimately, the technology and enormous market success of the
automobile created the low-density development patterns and commercial
corridors that New Urbanism sought to replace. The Promenade is
a walkable regional shopping center, but it is still a shopping center
surrounded by large amounts of surface parking – the same model as
Northwest Arkansas Mall.
Ultimately, many physical philosophies of urbanism tend to be utopian.
When properly executed, they provide environments that are a delight
and demonstrate principles of good design. Places like Riverside, Illinois
and Radburn, New Jersey demonstrate the beauty of the garden cities and
landscape urbanism philosophies (even when they preceded the theory);
Seaside and Celebration, as well as numerous other developments across
the country, illustrate the effectiveness of New Urbanism in creating great
places. But low-density development and the commercial strip remain
dominant, and these forms and their establishments generate other
uses and service requirements that our current ideas of urbanism fail to
address. The strip continues to challenge – specifically, how can we apply
the compelling principles of contemporary if sometimes conflicting urban
design and land use philosophies to these ubiquitous cityscapes in general
and to the 71B corridor in particular.
New Urbanism is a planning and
development approach based on the
principles of how cities and towns had been
built for the last several centuries: walkable
blocks and streets, housing and shopping
in close proximity, and accessible public
spaces. In other words: New Urbanism
focuses on human-scaled urban design.
Landscape urbanism involves “an
understanding the fluid or changing nature
of any environment and the processes that
affect change over time. A respect for natural
processes (Ecology) - the idea that our lives
intertwine with the environment around us,
and we should therefore respect this when
creating an urban environment. Landscape
Urbanism is concerned with a working
surface over time – a type of urbanism that
anticipates change, open endedness and
negotiation.
- Congress for the New Urbanism
- James Corner
New Urbanism. From top: Bethesda Crescent,
Bethesda, MD; The Boulevard, Saint Louis, MO;
Landscape Urbanism, New and Old. From top: 606
Trail, Chicago; Central Park, New York City
We find considerable insight in the iconic 1972 volume Learning from Las
Vegas by Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour:
The commercial strip challenges the architect to take a
positive, non chip-on-the-shoulder view. Architects are out
of the habit of looking non-judgmentally at the environment
because orthodox Modern Architecture is progressive, if
not revolutionary, utopian and puristic; it is dissatisfied with
existing conditions. Modern architecture has been anything
but permissive. Architects have preferred to change the
existing environment rather than enhance what is there.
Venturi (1925-2018) developed the idea of post-modern architecture,
incorporating cultural allusion, symbol, and humor into buildings. In
Learning from Las Vegas, the authors take on the Las Vegas strip and other
commercial corridors on their own terms, as environments that are “almost
all right” rather than impositions on the environment that should be either
transformed or rejected. This leads to an integrative approach when
applied to 71B – the challenge to respect the corridor and its history, often
rich in memory and very much a part of Fayetteville, and “enhance what is
there” rather than trying to make it something else. We call this approach
Corridor Urbanism.
THE STRIP AS AN OPPORTUNITY
Corridor Urbanism considers some of the intrinsic characteristics of the
strip as the keys to making it a successful and sustainable environment.
The 71B study area, like most other long commercial corridors, uses land
inefficiently, and the amount of its total area that is actually in its intended
primary use (that is housing human enterprise and activity rather than the
movement and storage of cars) is actually very small. On the other hand,
the environmental footprint of the corridor is very high. Its current single-
use zoning and transportation access are completely dependent on motor
vehicles. Some of the operational aspects of the corridor, such as traffic
delays at intersections and a lack of landmarks that often causes even local
users to miss their destinations and double back through parking lots at
slow speeds, also place cars in their least efficient mode. And large paved
areas increase the volume and speed of urban runoff and increase impacts
on the flow and water quality of the creeks and greenways that cross and
parallel the corridor.
Two poles of addressing the 71B environment. Top: Incremental improvements with
sidewalks, landscaping, and monument signage along North College Avenue. Above:
Transit City Scenario, 2030, University of Arkansas Community Design Center. Both
solutions have individual merits. Corridor Urbanism is designed to synthesize the
realism of the former with the vision of the latter.
Yet the corridor’s features and even some of its problems can also help
evolve it into an urban environment with greater vitality and lower impact.
Specifically:
• Business and destination mix. Even if they are dispersed and
separated from one another, the eating and drinking places, shops,
churches, schools, service businesses, medical facilities, and offices
are precisely the destinations that people want to live near.
• Underused land. The unnecessarily large parking lots, unused spaces
between free-standing buildings, obsolete structures, vacant land,
and underutilzed sites, grouped together, present major opportunities
for new and different development and connections.
• Integral open space. Flood-prone areas that cross the corridor and
the major greenways, parks, and trails around it provide create unique
possibilities for using large and small urban open spaces to catalyze
new, higher-density growth.
• Street width and area. The wide street right-of-ways and space-
intensive intersections and interchanges that now tend to separate
parts of the corridor from each other can be re-imagined as bridges
rather than barriers.
CORRIDOR URBANISM AS AN APPROACH
The idea of Corridor Urbanism synthesizes different points of view and
alternative futures that were expressed during the 71B planning process
to take advantage of these opportunities. At one end of a continuum were
ideas related to the visionary 2030 Transit City Scenario by the University
of Arkansas Community Design Center. This scenario was based on
accommodating up to 80% of Fayetteville’s projected growth along and
immediately adjacent to the 71B corridor, served by a light rail rapid transit
line. At the other were people, including existing businesses, who saw the
future role of the street as a continuation of its current role as a regional
arterial and commercial corridor. These groups were largely interested
in functional improvements at intersections, a better visual environment
for motorists and customers, more reliable infrastructure, and possible
burial of power lines. Other stakeholders advocated intermediate types of
change: residential development, more efficient use of land, right-sizing of
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
69
The 71B corridor will
always be a regional
highway and that is
its main function.
Development along
it will be oriented to
automobile travel.
Improvements along the
corridor should reduce
or eliminate congestion,
increase safety, and
improve the motorist
experience.
The 71B corridor should
be a high density, high-
rise, primarily mixed use
development, designed
primarily for movement
by active modes: walking,
biking, transit. It should
be totally re-imagined
as a high-density urban
environment served by
a web of local streets,
absorbing a substantial
percentage of the city’s
projected growth.
CORRIDOR URBANISM
A pragmatic synthesis
large, marginally used parking lots to provide redevelopment possibilities,
access management to reduce the number of curb cuts, continuous
sidewalks, better connections to the city’s bikeway and trail system,
improved streetscape, and incorporation of bus rapid transit.
Corridor Urbanism applied to the 71B corridor synthesizes these points
of view. It should ultimately incorporate the mixed use, connectivity,
street quality, density, and civic life components of New Urbanism; the
structuring green space and greenway elements of Landscape Urbanism
and its progenitors; and the Venturi/Scott Brown concept idea of
understanding and planning/building within a community context and
economy. Corridor Urbanism then constructs a model of principles, born
from and guiding the more detailed elements of the plan for Fayetteville,
but also exportable to other cities and towns.
Five broad categories of guiding principles include:
• Reality and Respect
• Resident Population
• Opportunities
• Transportation Function and Choice
• Urban Environment
REALITY AND
RESPECT
Respect existing businesses and
build on the historic character of
the corridor
The 71B corridor is a strong
economic entity and preserving
that economic life is a primary
project objective. The corridor has
provided further ground for new
enterprises and has retained a
high degree of dynamism. A good
example of that is the recycling of
restaurants originally built by or
for fast-food chains that have now
recycled for use by locally-owned
restaurants, many of which have
an international character.
We also know that 71B has deep
historical memories for many
people and those memories are
very important. Few corridors
warrant a document like Tony
Wappel’s On the Avenue, and
few such books would sell out as
quickly.
View change as evolutionary and
generally market driven.
Cities and corridors are long-
term processes. 71B is made
up of hundreds of owners and
businesses, all making individual
decisions. Thus, the term “master
plan,” which implies a controlling
presence, does not apply well
to such a diverse urban district.
In such an environment, a plan
that wills things to be done in
the face of economic and market
drivers rarely succeeds. Change
when it comes is and should be
incremental and occurs over a long
period of time.
Use this plan as a tool to guide
that evolution.
71B, like other corridors, is not
a site under unified ownership
and actual change will take place
through individual decisions
responding to markets, trends, and
goals at the time. A plan provides
a unifying framework for these
individual decisions. Its concepts
on private property illustrate
general site and use guidelines;
possibilities rather than specific
redevelopment proposals; and
proposed relationships between
buildings and sites. The plan
becomes somewhat more specific
when it addresses public realm
investments and the interface
between the public and private
environment. But this and other
corridor plans should be viewed
as organic and flexible, rather than
static and “designed.”
70
RESIDENT
POPULATION
Gradually increase the number of
people living in and immediately
around the corridor.
Residential development has
been fundamental to downtown
redevelopment and has the
same relevance to commercial
corridors. The easy availability of
retail assets, eating and drinking
places, and transportation support
housing of various densities,
and housing adds neighborhood
character generally lacking in
single-use commercial strips.
Further, when demand for
brick and mortar commercial
is declining, residential growth
provides a great potential for
reuse of surplus commercial sites.
Finally, commercial corridors avoid
the neighborhood opposition
often faced by projects with
higher residential densities. In
Fayetteville, planning initiatives
like the Transit City 2030 concept
clearly recognize the role of
residential development in the
future of the 71B corridor.
Work toward an environment
where a growing population can
comfortably walk, bike, or use
other active modes to travel to
corridor destinations
While commercial corridors lack
the intimacy of “traditional”
business districts, mixing
residential, commercial, office,
and employment uses can create
highly walkable and bikeable
environments with supporting
infrastructure such as good quality
and comfortable walking and
shared use paths. The corridor’s
character can generate a large
number of potential trips under
one mile, making low-cost
alternative modes feasible. We
often think of corridors in terms of
long-distance linear modes: traffic
arterials and rapid transit. But the
short local trip is also a significant
component and diverting more of
these trips to active modes creates
real benefits.
Include a variety of housing types
attainable by a range of people.
The concept of “attainable”
housing, a principal goal of
Fayetteville’s comprehensive plan,
requires diverse housing types that
meet the needs of different people
and household types. Housing in
and around the 71B corridor should
not be a housing “monoculture.”
It should have the capacity to
accommodate households with
people of all ages, including the
emerging market of families with
young children.
OPPORTUNITY AND
ORIENTATION
Take advantage of opportunities
such as underused parking lots,
vacant sites, obsolete buildings,
and marginal uses.
Evolutionary change should
occur naturally through voluntary
action rather than disruption.
But opportunity sites along
71B are abundant and can be
used in ways that reinforce the
existing commercial structure.
For example, parking lots at large
shopping centers responded to
zoning or tenant demands based
on a few peak days that are no
longer reached. In addition to their
unproductive use of land, these
sites also maximize environmental
impact. More efficient site design
and shared access can open
other development possibilities,
and some uses are economically
viable because of low land costs or
rents. When buildings account for
less than 15% of land coverage, a
significant amount of land existing
for increasing the use density of
the corridor.
TRANSPORTATION
FUNCTION AND
CHOICE
Fix functional transportation
problems, addressing capacity,
access, and parking needs that
exist today.
Most people travel to and through
71B and similar corridors by car,
and are likely to do so in the future,
despite plans for alternatives.
Conflicts between local and
through traffic, disorientation, lack
of alternative links, intersection
delays, and issues at the Fulbright/
College half-interchange can
reduce safety, increase frustration,
and ultimately hurt business.
Addressing these issues creatively
and continuing to provide an
adequate supply of convenient and
easy-to-use parking are critical,
even as other modes of travel are
introduced.
In addition, this also means
maintaining or “right-sizing” street
capacity to actual and probable
future traffic volume. Therefore,
where traffic volume demands a
multi-lane section, as on North
Develop new projects that fill
gaps.
Low building coverage, oversized
parking lots, lack of relationships
between buildings, and lack of
connectedness create gaps in the
continuity of a corridor. These
disconnected destinations fail to
reinforce each other, But gaps also
create opportunities, where new
commercial, office, or residential
development can connect
otherwise separated businesses.
This helps create the sense of
a mutually reinforcing district
where one stop can serve multiple
destinations.
Increase the number of
intersections and decrease
the length of undifferentiated
stretches of road and land use.
Corridors like 71B are disorienting.
Intersections relatively few
and hard to read unless they
are signalized. These corridors
often lack landmarks or nodes
of different densities. Even local
residents report that they often
miss their destinations or don’t
know exactly where they are.
Increasing street connections
to the primary strip reduces
frequency on individual curb cuts,
improves wayfinding, and provides
opportunities for landmarks and
higher-density development
nodes.
College, it will be important to
preserve capacity. On the other
hand, where volumes are low or
declining, as on South School,
an effective strategy will change
street design to maintain smooth
traffic flow at desirable speeds.
Create a web of streets and
alternative routes.
One consistent problem with
commercial corridors (and 71B
is certainly no exception) is a
lack of local street connectivity
and alternative routes. The
result is a mix of local and
through movements, frequent
and sometime eccentric turning
movements, and motorists
traveling at a variety of speeds
for a variety of purposes. The
topography of Fayetteville creates
special challenges, as 71B becomes
the only direct through route from
north to south and through the
center of the city. A lack of local
connectivity also separates the
corridor from other neighborhoods
and prevents development
of adjacent development, like
medium-density residential, that
may not be appropriate along the
strip but benefits from adjacency.
A web of local streets that includes
parallel circulators and cross-
connections dramatically helps
function and safety along the
mainline by minimizing conflicts
between through and local traffic
streams, and provide routes to
major locations that avoid the main
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
71
corridor entirely. As important,
it helps provide adjacent
development possibilities that can
reduce the need for auto travel and
increase use of active modes.
Provide sidewalk and off-road,
shared use path continuity to link
present and future residents with
each other and corridor stores,
restaurants, workplaces, schools,
and public space.
An important benefit of corridor
urbanism is the ability to use
alternative means (walking,
biking, or “scootering”) to travel
from living places to other
destinations within the corridor,
or from other parts of the city to
corridor destinations. Most of
these internal trips will be less
than two miles. This requires a
robust, and barrier- and stress-
free path network. Clearly sidewalk
continuity along the corridor
is a minimum requirement,
but a continuous off-street or
protected element that provides
direct access to destinations is
critical. This is especially true in
Fayetteville, with shared use paths
are fundamental parts of the
transportation system.
In Fayetteville’s trail system, east-
west connections to the corridor
network from surrounding
neighborhoods, using facilities like
the Razorback Greenway and the
future Sublett Creek Trail or on-
street bikeways like the Rolling
Hills protected bike lanes, will
also be very important. Active
transportation access to the
corridor is as much a priority as
along the corridor.
Integrate public transportation
into the corridor when
appropriate.
Transit should be considered
as an important component
of mixed use planning of long
urban corridors. Trip categories
for transit and active modes
are analogous. They include
relatively short trips between
origin points and destinations
within the corridor and trips
to corridor destinations from
outside. However, regional public
transportation adds another
potential trip type – the commuter
trip originating from residents on
or near the corridor to outside
destinations such as workplaces or
other regional centers. In a transit
world, this market builds mixed use
density potential around stations:
a rapid transit model.
In Fayetteville, the 2030 Transit
City scenario was based on
building density along a fixed rail
transit line. On a long corridor that
generates high-density mixed use
development, this can serve both
an internal market, connecting
nodes or destinations several miles
apart within the corridor, and an
external market, connecting the
corridor to destinations in the
broader city or region.
Implementing a new rail start on
a corridor like 71B would require
a very large capital investment
and, equally challenging, a major
change in street sections, vehicular
capacity, and overall behavior
patterns and preferences by the
general public. As a result, major
rail projects in auto-oriented
corridors, when proposed, have
been extremely controversial and,
as in the case of Columbia Pike in
Arlington, Virginia, discontinued
in the planning stages. Bus rapid
transit (BRT), with lower cost
and disruptions to existing travel
patterns and land uses, has
emerged as a more acceptable
option and should be designed
into the 71B concept.
Ultimately, though, integration
of public transportation into a
corridor should address three
types of trips:
- Internal travel between points
along the corridor.
- Inbound trips from outside to
destinations within the corridor.
- Outbound trips from points
within the corridor to destinations
(including employment centers)
outside.
URBAN
ENVIRONMENT
Build a quality environment that
is rewarding to people traveling
at different speeds, from 3 to 50
mph.
People experience urban corridors
at different speeds and our
visual perception of the physical
environment changes with those
speeds. Most corridors (and 71B
is no exception) are scaled to
motorist speeds, which lack the
detail and quality necessary to
engage pedestrians. Even an
unattractive streetscape can be
tolerable to drivers who have a
relatively narrow cone of vision
and will not be spending much
time in any one location. The
street environment then should
be engaging at three basic speed
levels: pedestrians (3 mph),
scooters and bicycles (12 mph),
and motorists. However, people at
all speeds require nodes and visual
rhythm that provide both interest
and orientation along the street.
Be certain that the environment
responds to the needs of both
The residential/commercial interface. These homes, in Bloomington, Indiana, face a trail and shire service
access (including garages) with a shopping center drive aisle on their rear elevation.
A commercial corridor that engages. Ventura Boulevard in Los Angeles with its iconic palm tress.
72
Secondary street network
Access management
Integrated shared use path
Viable existing development
Higher density nodes with transit
New mixed use infill in-
cluding substantial resi-
dential development with
a range of densities.
Improved street
environment with
sidewalks
residents and businesses, and
establishes a fabric based on
connectedness.
Clearly, introduction of residential
uses into what once was a
commercial environment is
essential to the concept of corridor
urbanism. Residential use fills in
the gaps in commercial strips,
provides interest and continuity,
and furnishes a customer base
for businesses. Yet, business
and residents have individual
requirements that are sometimes
in conflict. Businesses need
parking, exposure, identification
signs, lighting, and service areas,
while residents need urban
fabric, calmer streets, landscape,
walkways, and, for many, a
reasonable level of peace. These
conflicting needs lead to the
physical separation and buffering
of uses that are typical of single-
use zoning districts. And this
physical separation can defeat the
idea of corridor urbanism.
Careful site planning and a
sensitive regulating plan can
address these different needs
and avoid both extremes of
injecting apartment buildings
unceremoniously into parking
lots and separating adjacent
uses by walls and buffers. These
techniques and regulations should
provide connectedness without
conflict through such techniques
as:
- Using public environments like
public open space, interior streets
or drive aisles with a residential
street character, and trail and
greenway corridors to separate
residential and commercial uses.
- Creating neighborhoods that
cluster buildings that relate
to surrounding commercial
development but provide enough
critical mass and common space to
form an interior residential refuge.
- Orienting commercial and
residential service areas toward
each other, or locate commercial
service areas in places that avoid
impact on neighboring residential
development.
- Placing lower-density residential
farther away from the main
street and close to pre-existing
neighborhoods.
- Managing the size and visibility
of commercial signage, focusing
signage toward the main corridor.
Create personality, texture, and
social space.
Traditional commercial strips
developed as corridors to drive
through or to a single destination.
A few, like the Las Vegas strip or
Ventura and Sunset Boulevard in
Los Angeles, do create a unique
image and sense of space, but
most corridors are generic.
Consequently, they rarely include
public space or human-scaled
elements. Corridor urbanism
envisions the strip itself as a place,
and part of that is achieved by
creating individual character and
amenity areas along the way.
On 71B, logical locations for these
special places include trail access
points, drainageways and flood
zones, intersections, and right-
of-way that is vacated by street
realignments.
Corridor Urbanism on 71B. This
diagram describes how the major
principles of Corridor Urbanism
combine to create a more
economically and environmentally
sustainable 71B. Components
include mixed use infill with a
major residential component on
underused land and excessively
large parking lots; a network of
secondary circulators and access
roads to serve local traffic and
expand points of orientation;
access management; high density
nodes at key intersections;
an improved functional and
aesthetic street environment; and
a continuous system of shared
use paths connecting everything
together.
It bears repeating the building
a resident population is a key
unifying priority of this plan. A
major avenue toward commercial
revitalization is building a
customer base with easy auto-
free access to businesses. And,
conversely, active and diverse
retail, service, and hospitality
businesses, combined with quality
residential development, can
transform College and South
School into great neighborhoods.
The illustrative plans displayed
in the next chapter envisions
development of up to 3,000 new
residential units along the 71B
study corridor.
The principles of Corridor Urbanism are derived from the contexts and
opportunities presented by the 71B corridor and its three constituent segments
– South School Street, Archibald Yell Boulevard, and College Avenue– but
provide a model that is relevant to other corridors seeking redirection in a
dramatically changing commercial economy. This chapter applies the principles
more specifically to the 71B corridor and addresses three interacting framework:
access, development, and urban. The access framework considers transportation
and connectivity; the development framework addresses possibilities and
patterns for land use and new development; and the urban environment
describes community and public space and all the three frameworks interact to
create a unified but multi-nucleated urban corridor.
Note:
This Plan is intended to illustrate transportation con-
cepts, street design, and other public improvements and
how general plan principles might be applied to private
sites along the corridor. While it suggests potential pri-
vate development possibilities to private property own-
ers and developers, it in no way is intended to propose
redevelopment of specific sites.
6/THE FRAMEWORK PLAN
76
this part of the corridor still depends on College for both local and regional
circulation.
New Circulator/Collector Streets
New street segments can complete new routes to reduce local and turning
traffic on College. Some of these new connections would also serve
new development areas. The most important and promising of these is
combining Appleby Drive and an extended Plainview Avenue to create
a north-south parallel route. This new route establishes a new public
street through the existing Fiesta Square parking lot and would ultimately
connect across the Fulbright Expressway to Mall Avenue. Rolling Hills Drive
would intersect to this new street with a roundabout within the current
Fiesta Square site. Connections of Longview, Masonic, and Harold west to
the new Plainview connection completes an effective circulation grid to
relieve local traffic on College. Realignments of Masonic and relocation of
the traffic signal to the south can provide a better western access for the
Whole Foods center, and increase the distance between signals at Millsap
and Masonic. Extending North Front south to Harold Street with future
redevelopment relieves the lack of an outlet for Millsap east of College and
provide a circulator route for businesses and development on the east side
of College Avenue.
Major Intersection Redesign
Some major intersections in the 71B study area present chronic problems
for all users and warrant special consideration. These include the Archibald
Yell/Rock/and College intersection and the North College/Fulbright
Expressway interchange. Both were addressed in the Mobility Plan, and
refined concepts are provided later in this plan.
Private Connected Circulation Routes
These are drives or parking aisles that either are or can be connected to
provide better access between individual properties. They can help reduce
the number of curb cuts along the street, again reducing traffic conflicts.
When two-way turn lanes are used on parts of College, these curb cuts
should line up across from each other wherever possible.
Off-Street Trail Network
The Access Framework and street sections propose continuous sidewalks
on both sides of South School and College Avenue, and upgrading the
existing sidewalk on at least one side of Archibald Yell. Beyond sidewalks
THE ACCESS FRAMEWORK
Route 71B and its predecessor facilities developed as the primary
transportation route through Northwest Arkansas, connecting
its communities and becoming its primary artery for commerce.
Appropriately, concepts for a future multi-modal, urban corridor start
with the supporting transportation structure. The transportation system
analysis in Chapter Two suggested that many of the functional and safety
problems along 71B, and primarily the College Avenue segment, stem
from a dependence on this single corridor for regional, intra-city, and
local movements. This is largely caused by the lack of a web of connecting
streets to provide alternatives for moving to, through, and around the
corridor.
OVERALL STRATEGIES
The overall Transportation Framework, then, proposes the following
strategies:
• Developing a street network that complements North College
Avenue and to a lesser degree South School Avenue. This provides
alternative routes for local circulation, helping to reduce congestion,
traffic conflicts, and potentially crashes along the street and at major
intersections.
• Managing access along the corridor and reducing the number of
driveway cuts and turning conflicts. Techniques to retain good local
access include building alternative routes, providing more public
street intersections to replace curb cuts and improve user orientation,
and establishing shared access points with better interconnections
among existing parking lots and driveways.
• Modifying street sections along 71B itself to improve pedestrian and in
some cases bicycle access, calming traffic where needed, and “right-
sizing” segments of the corridor to be more consistent with actual
traffic volume.
• Improving major points of congestion and clusters of crashes.
• Improving pedestrian and bicycle crossings of the corridor.
• Developing a parallel shared use path system that provided access to
most of the corridor’s present and future destinations and connects to
the regional trail system, including the Razorback Greenway and the
planned Sublett Creek Trail.
• Enhancing public transportation for local access and accommodating
a future regional bus rapid transit (BRT) line with specific station
stops.
• Using the above features to open land for future mixed-density
development with a major residential component.
ACCESS FRAMEWORK COMPONENTS
The Access Framework is built on the following components, illustrated in
the Access Framework Maps on successive pages.
71B Main Line
This is the main South School/Archibald Yell/College Avenue route
between Cato Springs and the north city limits. Starting from the south,
South School with its high capacity and relatively low volume would be
converted to three-lane section (two direct and a center two-way turn
lane) with protected bicycle lanes and continuous sidewalks on both sides.
The Fayetteville Mobility Plan proposes a three-lane section with a shared
use path and sidewalk for the Archibald Yell segment. The North College
segment between North and Millsap would retain four through lanes with
a raised median or a two-way center turn lane, depending on specific
contexts and access needs.
Where techniques like interconnected parking lots, shared driveways, “slip
lanes,” redesigned parking lot circulation are feasible without adverse
impact to businesses, medians would be used to reduce traffic conflicts,
increase safety and pedestrian access, and improve visual quality. Where
land use patterns make this impossible, two-way turn lanes will be used,
using patterned pavement to provide better definition and appearance.
Existing Circulator and Collector Streets
These existing streets either complement College and South School or
provide east-west access to provide alternative routes to the main corridor.
They are the foundation of the local street network and can provide routes
for local traffic with better connectivity. For example, Villa Boulevard
and Plainview parallel College could help relieve local traffic on College.
But Villa’s angle of intersection with College is very acute and is currently
closed and Plainview is discontinuous. Sunbridge, Drake, Appleby, Rolling
Hills, Harold, Longview, and Millsap all connect to the College corridor
from the west and east. However, these streets sometimes have offset
intersections or lack connections to other functional streets. As a result,
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
77
on the main line itself, the framework includes an off-street shared use
trail network that approximately parallels North College on both sides
and accommodates pedestrians, bikes and other human powered modes,
and other low-impact personal mobility devices. These paths run behind
existing buildings, through or along potential development sites, along
local or collector streets, and occasionally in front of existing development
or parking lots. They also connect the corridor and proposed development
to the regional Razorback Greenway and the Mud Creek, Town Branch,
Cato Springs, and future Sublett Creek Trails. Ultimately, these links will
produce continuous paths that connect future residents along the corridor
to its commercial and community destinations..
On-Street Bikeways
On-street facilities are proposed as part of the right-sizing of South School
from Cato Springs to MLK Drive, linking the Cato Springs Trail, Razorback
Greenway, and Town Branch Trails, all of which intersect the corridor.
Other key on-street facilities this segment include the Appleby/Rolling
Hills system, using standard and protected bike lanes to link North College
to the Razorback Greenway on the west and the Old Missouri/Old Wire
Road system on the east. Experimental protected bike lanes through
Fiesta Square and along Rolling Hills were installed in 2018 and their
performance is being evaluated. The east-west Poplar Bikeway is currently
a signed, shared roadway connecting the Razorback Greenway, College
Avenue, and the future Sublett Creek Trail.
Urban Intersections
The plan increases the number of clear street intersections to 1) reduce
the need for mid-block driveway cuts and 2) improve people’s orientation
and sense of where they are relative to the destinations they are trying to
reach. These intersections also provide opportunities for placemaking and
higher-density development. Potential nodes include Cato Springs, 15th
Street, MLK Drive, and South Street along the South School/Archibald Yell
segment; and Memorial Drive, Sycamore, Poplar, Green Acres, Colt Drive,
Township, Sunbridge, Golden Eagle, Drake, Rolling Hills, Harold, Longview,
relocated Masonic, and Millsap. These are further categorized as signalized
and non-signalized intersections on the Framework maps.
Transit (BRT) Stations
Depending on feasibility, a regional Bus Rapid Transit line would operate
along the 71B corridor from Fayetteville to Bentonville, serving stations
in Fayetteville, Springdale, Rogers, and Bentonville. College Avenue also
has local bus service through Ozark Regional Transit, which has recently
been enhanced with new vehicles and more frequent service. A concept
for BRT stations on the corridor anticipates a turnout bus and right-turn
only lane at station stops, combined with a signal control that allows the
bus operator to hold a green light. This technique, combined with far side
stops, allows the bus to bypass a queued traffic at these intersections. BRT
stations may also include such features as high amenity shelters, protected
bike storage, Internet hot spots, digital arrival information, and high-level
loading. Possible College Avenue stops include the VA (North Street),
BRT station planned for construction on Omaha’s central Dodge Street
corridor. This system is scheduled to begin service in 2020.
Township, Millsap, Rolling Hills, and Zion Road. These stops should also
include trail connections for people using active modes to connect to the
rapid line.
78
FIGURE 6.1: South School/Archibald Yell Framework Components
South School Avenue to 3 lanes, protected bike lanes, and
continuous sidewalks
Upgraded pedestrian crossing with redevelopment at Cato
Springs
Loop drive with redevelopment connecting Cato Springs
and Research Center Blvd.
Trail connection with redevelopment between Cato Springs
and Town Branch Trails
New circulator street with redevelopment between Salva-
tion Drive and 13th Street
Interconnected alleys and drives between 11th and 15th
Streets
Upgraded pedestrian crossing with refuge median at 11th
Trail connection and creek crossing with redevelopment
between 7th and 11th
Street connection with redevelopment between Church and
S. School
Improved street definition of 7th Street
Modification of Archibald Yell with shared use path on one
side
Signalized South Street intersection with pedestrian cross-
ing
Redesign of College and Archibald Yell intersection
Second Research Center access as shown in campus plan
South School to Walker Park trail connection with new
creek crossing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
SOUTH CORRIDOR FRAMEWORK: CATO
SPRINGS TO ROCK STREET
71B Main Line
• Converting South School Avenue to a three-lane section (two direct
and a center two-way turn lane) with protected bicycle lanes and
continuous sidewalks on both sides. On-street parking may be
included as required by adjacent redevelopment.
• Implementing the recommendations of the Fayetteville Mobility Plan,
which suggest converting Archibald Yell to a three-lane section with
improved pedestrian and bicycle access. Installing a traffic signal at
the South Street.
Circulator/Collector Streets
• Better connection and definition of 7th Street between Locust and
School as a public street rather than private driveway.
• New short street connections to serve redevelopment that may
include new research center access to South School, an access loop
between Salvation Drive and 13th Street, a continuation of 13th Street
east of South School, and an 8th Street connection between Church
and School.
Intersections
• Improved pedestrian crossings at Cato Springs Road and 11th Street,
including a refuge median at 11th to complement existing trail
crossings and provide direct access to the existing commercial strip
center..
• Installing a signal at South Street and Archibald Yell.
• Redesigning the Archibald Yell/College/Rock intersection to separate
conflicting movements and create a safer pedestrian environment.
Private Connected Circulation
• Loop on east side of School for redevelopment, aligning with Research
Center Blvd. and Cato Springs Road.
• Interconnected parking lot and alley to improve links between existing
uses, including a busy strip center, between 11th and 15th.
Active Transportation Features
• Continuous sidewalks or sidepaths on South School.
Archibald Yell and College Intersection Concept
This concept is designed to separate traffic conflicts while respecting the difficult to-
pography of this site. Westbound Rock is realigned slightly to the north. Northbound
traffic from South College and Archibald Yell merge into College north of Rock in
distinct lanes. Southbound College movements have a continuous dedicated left-
turn lane to both Rock and South College. Pedestrians on the favored north side of
Archibald Yell and east side of College have clear and easily define paths through the
intersection.
Shaded rows indicate projects that require redevelopment
• Trail on east side with new development to connect the Town Branch
and Cato Springs Trails. Trail link on east side through potential
development areas linking 7th and 11th Streets.
• Improved access with trail connections and creek bridges to connect
South School with Walker Park and the Razorback Greenway.
• Protected bike lanes as part of South School lane reallocation.
15
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
79
Ca
t
o
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
R
d
13
t
h
S
t
7t
h
S
t
11
t
h
S
t
T
o
w
n
B
r
a
n
c
h
T
r
Razorback Greenway
Walker Park
Razorback Greenway
Ts
a
-
H
a
-
G
i
T
r
a
i
l
15
t
h
S
t
ML
K
B
l
v
d
S. College Ave
S. Block Ave
S W Ave
3
4 15
14
6
9 10
8
1
7
11
12
13
2
College Avenue “Mainline”
Other Major Streets
Existing Circulator/Collector Streets
Proposed Collector Links
Future Links Requiring Redevelopment
Private Connected Circulation
Regional Shared Use Trails
Proposed Corridor Trail Network
Protected Bike Lanes
Signalized Intersections
Unsignalized intersections
Transit Stops
5
80
6’ 6’ 36’ 6’ 6’ 6’ 6’ 4’ 40’ 4’ 6’
South School section
South School currently provides two lanes in each direction with a continuous two-way turn lane within two sections: a 60-foot
width north of Town Branch Creek, increasing to 64 feet south of the creek. Traffic volume on this part of the corridor can be
accommodated by a three-lane section and both this plan and the Mobility Plan recommend this lane reallocation. Several alter-
natives exist for using the balance of this street channel. These alternatives include 7-foot directional protected bike (or mobility)
lanes with a 5-foot buffer (illustrated above) and a 10-foot two-way protected mobility track with a 6-foot buffer and an 8-foot
shoulder on the opposite side (illustrated at right). This shoulder could be used for for right turns or even on-street parking if the
need emerged with adjacent redevelopment. The 64-foot section can accommodate on-street parking on both sides with a reduc-
tion in the buffer to an acceptable 3-feet. The mobility track in both options is adjacent to the west side curb. The separation be-
tween travel lanes and the bicycle facility may be accomplished by parking, a painted buffer, bollards, planters, or a raised median.
The concept section also includes a desirable 6-foot sidewalk with a typical 6-foot sidewalk on the west side with an 8 to 10-foot
sidepath on the east side for best access to Walker Park and adjacent regional trails.
60-foot Road Channel with Protected Directional Bicycle (Mobility) Lanes 60-foot Road Channel with Protected Two-Way Bicycle (Mobility) Track
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
81
64-foot Road Channel with Protected Two-Way Bicycle (Mobility) Track and 2-Sided Parking
South School perspectives
Right: Rendering of section with bufered directional bike (mobility)
lanes. Far right: Preferred concept with two-way cycle track on west
side of street and parking shoulder, with sidepath on east side. The
separation between travel lanes and the bicycle facility may be ac-
complished by parking, a painted buffer, bollards, planters, or a raised
median.
82
NORTH TO TOWNSHIPL FRAMEWORK COMPONENTS
North College Ave with 4 travel lanes, median with protect-
ed left turns or two-way turning lane where necessary, ac-
cess management, and continuous sidewalks on both sides.
Upgraded pedestrian crossing and potential BRT station.
Interior street with Evelyn Hills redesign.
Extension of Memorial Drive as rear service street with fu-
ture redevelopment.
Continuous shared use path, serving residential redevelop-
ment and connecting to Poplar Bikeway.
Path connection to Gregory Park.
Connecting street between Evelyn Hills north service road
and Sycamore Street with future redevelopment.
Proposed Sublett Creek Trail
Sycamore Street node. Redevelopment possibilities on
northeast and southwest quadrants.
Redesign of Green Acres intersection to 90-degree align-
ment, green space, and possible redevelopment.
Extension of Sublett Creek Trail to connect to Poplar Bike-
way and extend north to Township behind existing and fu-
ture development.
Upgrade and signal installation at Poplar Street.
Shared use path and greenway along drainage to Colt
Square, connecting back to Township.
Colt Square Drive connection to College
Colt Drive connection to College
Township intersection node with upgraded pedestrian
crossing and potential BRT station.
Improved Poplar Bikeway to Razorback Greenway
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Shaded rows indicate projects that require redevelopment
MIDTOWN FRAMEWORK: NORTH TO
TOWNSHIP
71B Main Line
• Maintenance of two travel lanes in each direction with either medians
or two-way center turn lane. Potential new intersections at Poplar,
Green Acres, Colt Square, and Colt, and access management to
reduce and align driveway cuts make medians with protected left turn
pockets feasible through most of this segment. In some segments
where medians would deny reasonable access to property from either
direction, two-way turn lanes are used with patterned pavement to
provide better definition and appearance.
• Continuous six-foot sidewalks behind a typical six- to eight-foot
tree lawn/sidewalk setback. Sidewalk setback may vary with local
topography and property lines.
Existing Circulator/Collector Streets
• Improved use of Green Acres Drive as a local service street by
realigning the intersection at College to 90 degrees from its current
sharp acute angle. This permits turns to and from Green Acres in
both directions and, along with a median break and shared driveway
connections, provides access to the “restaurant row” on the west
side of College, providing an alternative for local customers. Vacated
Green Acres segment becomes a green space and potential catalyst
for new development.
• Signalized intersection at Poplar, with better pedestrian/bicycle
crossing and link to Sublett Creek Trail. Poplar links the corridor to the
Razorback Greenway.
New Circulator/Collector Streets
• Extension of Colt and Colt Square Drives between College and Green
Acres to improve local circulation function of Green Acres.
• Street segment between Fiesta Square north service road and
Sycamore, serving a potential development site.
Private Connected Circulation
• Redesign of Evelyn Hills parking lot, envisioning circulation drive along
building front as an interior street with continuous pedestrian access.
• Interconnection of interior drives between Poplar and Colt Drive to
reduce individual curb cuts and connect restaurants into a district.
Private connection of these drives to Green Acres to provide
alternative access to the district. This also helps connect Elm Street to
the corridor.
Regional Shared Use Trail Connections/On-Street Bikeways
• Path extension would connect Sublett Creek Trail and eastside
neighborhoods to College Avenue corridor, continuing to Poplar
intersection.
• Upgraded Poplar Bikeway. Poplar is the most direct and comfortable
route from the Midtown segment of College to the Razorback
Greenway. It is currently a shared roadway with street sections
varying from 27 to 35 feet and discontinuous sidewalks. Best long-
term solution is a shared use sidepath; short term action would
use advisory bike lanes, more visible than the current shared lane
markings.
College Avenue Trail Network
• Shared use path network would parallel College on both sides and
would accommodate pedestrians, bikes and other human powered
modes, e-bikes, scooters, and other low-speed conveyances.
• Initial phase to connect Sycamore and Colt Square Drive, serving
Woodland Junior High.
• East side corridor path extends Sublett Creek Trail to Township Street.
Urban Intersection Nodes
Increased number of clear street intersections to 1) reduce the need for
mid-block driveway cuts and 2) improve people’s orientation and sense
of where they are relative to the destinations they are trying to reach.
Includes new or redesigned intersections at Green Acres, Colt Drive, and
Colt Square Drive,
High visibility crosswalks with refuge medians if possible at signalized
intersections. These include Memorial Drive, Sycamore, Poplar, and
Township. Signal installation at Poplar.
A pedestrian refuge median between Poplar and Township in the
“restaurant district.”
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
83
Sy
c
a
m
o
r
e
S
t
Gregory Park
Sublett Creek Tr (propose
d
)
Po
p
l
a
r
S
t
To
w
n
s
h
i
p
S
t
Co
l
t
D
r
Green Acres Rd
College Avenue “Mainline”
Other Major Streets
Existing Circulator/Collector Streets
Proposed Collector Links
Future Links Requiring Redevelopment
Private Connected Circulation
Regional Shared Use Trails
Proposed Corridor Trail Network
On-Street Bikeway
Signalized Intersections
Unsignalized intersections
Transit Stops
Pedestrian Refuge Median
3
9
6
5
13
8
7
4
14 15
10
11
16
12
17
1
2
1P
P
84
Transit (BRT) Stations
Two potential locations for transit stations in the North to Township
segment: Memorial Drive and Township Street.
• Memorial Drive’s signalized intersection provides relatively good
pedestrian access to the VA Campus. A high visibility crosswalk would
provide a safer connection to Evelyn Hills. Memorial Drive also has less
turning traffic than North Street, the other primary station location
candidate for this general area.
• Township Road is a central location and a intensely developed and
College Avenue Concept.
Plan at left provides a section with 2 direct lanes in each
direction and a center median with left-turn pockets at
intersections and aligned curb cuts were possible, or a
two-way turn lane where required to provide reasonable
access to property. Access management techniques
include interconnected drives or parking lots, which in
some cases have the continuity of slip lanes, parking lot
redesign to align curb cuts on opposite sides of the street,
and extension of streets to form new intersections. A pe-
destrian refuge median with a “ceiling” of lights is used in
this segment, with its grouping of restaurants, to create a
distinctive Restaurant District.
Median landscaping is important and is shown here for
illustrative purposes. Actual landscape materials should
be selected for both visual impact and durability in a rela-
tively inhospitable center of the street environment. Tree
cover and shade should also be incorporated into median
landscape design.Midtown Street Section
The typical right-of-way width in the Midtown segment is 80 feet
Ceiling of lights. These lights are installed over a major
street connection in the traditional city center of Wauwa-
tosa, WI
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
85
VILLA
BLVD
COLLEGE AVE
JANE AVE
TOWNSHIPST
TOWNSHIP ST
COLLEGE AVE
COLLEGE AVE
1310
1300
1
300
12
9
0
1300
1300
1300
1320
1310
1300
1302
1284
1302
1
2
8
8
1294
1304
1314
1298
128 4
1302
1312
1
2
9
6
1
2
9
4
1296
12981314
1294
1286
12
8
6
1316
1302
1 2 8 8
1 2 8 6
1294
1286
1294
1298
1292
12
9
6
1 3 1 2
1318
1306
1308
1304 1302
2017 Imagery
FAYETTEVILLE, AR - TOWNSHIP AND 71B
010205Feet
1/14/2019
011419_Extended .mxd
NAD 1983 StatePlane Arkansas North FIPS 0301 Feet
1 inch = 20 feetNorth
College Avenue Concept.
From left: Sketch of an initial North to Township segment of the street; close-up plan of the Township intersection, illustrating bus rapid transit (BRT) and right turn only turnout lanes; and a ren-
dering of the Township intersection. A bus turnout lane can provide room for transit to bypass a traffic queue and to control the signal at this location. This provides the BRT with a distinct time
advantage over automobiles at busy intersections. Intermediate medians and a wide nose at the center median provide pedestrian refuges that break up the width of the street. A greater orienta-
tion toward transit, substantial residential development along and adjacent to the corridor, and increased use of active transportation modes could lead to a future reconsideration of the nature of
College Avenue that could ultimately include enhanced transit such as light rail and more intensive development at intersections like this one. An alternative concept would place the transit stop in
the outer travel lane. This avoids the increase in pedestrian crossing distance but places the BRT in the line of regular traffic, eliminating its potential time advantage at intersections.
86
NORTH TO TOWNSHIP FRAMEWORK COMPONENTS
Interior street continuity with redesign of office and retail
developments north of Rolling Hills, with connection to fu-
ture Market-Lee-Hemlock collector
Shared front driveways/slip lane with access consolidation
Plainview connection to provide continuous local collector
on west side to Millsap and eventually to Mall.
New Harold Street connection linking Plainview collector
and College corridor.
Street segment to fill Longview Street gap to west side de-
velopment areas
New Masonic alignment between Whole Foods and Lewis
Ford to provide alternative local access to shopping center
Relocation of Masonic Street signal to south; existing Whole
Foods shopping center access is retained
New alignment for Masonic Street on south side of Superior
Nissan or north side of shopping center lot. Possible land
trade with auto dealership involving existing Masonic Street
right-of-way.
Connection of Market Avenue and shopping center service
drive and/or Sara Lane into a unified route between Rolling
Hills and Harold, aligning with Lee Avenue north.
Shopping center redevelopment that includes continuation
of the east-side collector using a continuation of Lee Avenue
and connection to a Hemlock Avenue extension.
Extension of Hemlock south of Millsap to Masonic, complet-
ing the east side collector south to Rolling Hills.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Shaded rows indicate projects that require redevelopment
NORTH TO TOWNSHIPL FRAMEWORK COMPONENTS
North College Ave with 4 travel lanes, median with protect-
ed left turns or two-way turning lane where necessary, ac-
cess management, and continuous sidewalks on both sides.
Villa Blvd intersection redesign
Continuous shared use path on west side of corridor
Drake Street right-sizing with bike lane/shoulders
Rear collector connection to serve potential redevelopment.
linking Township with Sunbridge intersection
Continuous shared use path on east side of corridor
Aligned shared curb cuts on opposite sides of College
Appleby bike lanes with connection to Razorback Greenway
Appleby-Plainview connection and roundabout to Rolling
Hills with possible Fiesta Square parking redesign and new
development
Rolling Hills protected bike lanes to Old Missouri/Old Wire
path system.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UPTOWN FRAMEWORK: TOWNSHIP TO MILLSAP
71B Main Line
• Maintenance of two travel lanes in each direction with either medians
or two-way center turn lane. Potential new or redesigned intersections
with cross-access at Villa, Drake, Golden Eagle Drive, Harold, and
revised Masonic with access management to reduce and align driveway
cuts and make medians with protected left turn pockets feasible
through most of this segment. As with other segments, when medians
would deny reasonable access to property from either direction, two-
way turn lanes are used with patterned pavement to provide better
definition and appearance.
• Continuous six-foot sidewalks behind a typical six- to eight-foot
tree lawn/sidewalk setback. Sidewalk setback may vary with local
topography and property lines.
Existing Circulator/Collector Streets
• Realignment of the now closed Villa Boulevard intersection, analogous
to the realignment of the Green Acres intersection. This provides
better access for all modes of travel to College Avenue from densely-
populated residential areas between College and Gregg.
• Longview Street segment, completing a connection between the
medical district and the College corridor with continued connection
across College to the Market-Lee-Hemlock collector described below.
• Plainview Avenue gap-filling segment between Fiesta Square and
Millsap, providing a local access reliever on a particularly congested
part of the main corridor.
• Direct linkage of Appleby to the Plainview extension, with a connection
to Rolling Hills at a roundabout within the Fiesta Square property, as
discussed below.
New Circulator/Collector Streets
• Major element of the transportation strategy for this part of the
corridor.
• West-side relief collector, created by connecting Appleby to a
Plainview extension with redesign of the Fiesta Square site and
redevelopment of the shopping center’s frontage. This collector
would be developed as a public street through the eastern edge of
the redesigned Fiesta Square parking lot. Rolling Hills Drive would
be connected across the existing signalized intersection, and would
intersect the Appleby-Plainview collector in a roundabout, creating
a connected system. This collector can be extended across the
Fulbright Expressway, linking to Mall Avenue and the center of the
Mall District. This key connection, combined with the Longview gap-
filling segment and other projects described below, provides more
comfortable access alternatives from areas west of College to major
corridor destinations.
• East side collector, created by connecting Market Avenue, Sara Lane,
Lee Avenue, Hemlock Avenue with future redevelopment of the
existing shopping center at College and Longview and revised site
design of existing development between Rolling Hills and Harold. This
can then connect to a realignment of the North Front intersection at
Millsap, extending the collector system to Joyce Boulevard, discussed
in the Mall District section.
• New Masonic Drive route and connection between proposed east-
side collector, College, and Plainview. Between College and Plainview,
this would follow a relatively flat route on the north side of the Lewis
Ford lot. Options east of College to an extended Hemlock Avenue
include using the south edge of the Superior Nissan site, compensated
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
87
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
20 21
1
6
6
6
8
9
23
3
4
7
7
5
5
P
13
10
19
To
w
n
s
h
i
p
R
d
Ro
l
l
i
n
g
H
i
l
l
s
D
r
Dr
a
k
e
S
t
Ap
p
l
e
b
y
R
d
Lee
Ha
r
o
l
d
S
t
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
S
t
Plainview
A
v
e
Villa Blvd
M
i
l
l
s
a
p
R
d
88
by a land swap for the existing Masonic right-of-way, or use of the
north drive of the existing shopping center. A new access would be
developed from the new Masonic alignment to College Marketplace,
and the existing traffic signal at Masonic would be relocated to the
south, providing more separation from the Millsap intersection.
• With redevelopment, a circulator link between Township Road and
the Sunbridge and College intersection, extending Shiley Drive north
of Township. This would provide a bypass for some eastside traffic
around the Township intersection.
Private Connected Circulation
• Redesign of Fiesta Square parking lot, envisioning circulation drive
along building front as an interior street with continuous pedestrian
access.
• Aligned and shared driveway cuts, connecting the proposed eastside
and westside collectors and College, effectively creating a web of
local access ways around the main line.
• Maximum interconnection of interior drives to form slip lanes and
incorporation of large rear service and drive areas into the overall
circulation system across property lines.
Regional Shared Use Trail Connections/On-Street Bikeways
• New development and access configuration at Fiesta Square
will maintain the connection (now a pilot project) to connect the
Razorback Greenway and Old Missouri/Old Wire bicycle facilities.
This bridges the gap between the Appleby bike lanes and Rolling Hills
protected bike lanes.
• An extended bike route west is available by using the Scull Creek Trail
portion of the Greenway to Drake Street.
College Avenue Trail Network
• Shared use path network parallelling College on both sides and to
accommodate pedestrians, bikes, e-bikes, scooters, and other low-
impact mobility conveyances.
• East side route generally follows the base of the hills and uses surplus
space through or adjacent to service areas behind buildings and new
routes through potential redevelopment projects.
• West side corridor follows rear property lines and available existing
separations between buildings to connect back to College between
Township and Rolling Hills. It continues along the Fiesta Square
bikeway connection and then north as a sidepath along the Plainview
connection.
Urban Intersection Nodes
• High visibility crosswalks with streetscape elements and refuge
medians if possible at signalized intersections. These include
Sunbridge, Rolling Hills, Masonic, and Millsap.
• Protected pedestrian crossings with refuge median at or near Golden
Eagle and Harold.
Transit (BRT) Stations
• Potential BRT stop at either Rolling Hills or relocated Masonic,
depending on development objectives. Only one stop is needed in this
segment, and choice may depend on timing of redevelopment.
Diagram displaying the Appleby/Rolling Hills/
Plainview link at Fiesta Square (highlighted in red)
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
89
Trail continuity. The transportation concept assembles a continuous shared use
path on both sides of 71B that connects proposed housing to commercial, enter-
tainment, and recreation destinations. This path uses a number of different routes
and settings for facilities, winding through new projects that should be designed
to accommodate then and existing and new roadways proposed in the project.
Above: Pilot cycle track project through the Fiesta Square parking lot. Left: Diagram
of trail route (highlighted in green) through existing and proposed development.
90
MALL DISTRICT: Millsap to Lake Fayetteville Components
Alignment of North Front and Frontage Road intersections
with Joyce Boulevard.
Possible redesign of Joyce Boulevard intersection with
grade separated through lanes and slip lanes for local access
from College to Joyce.
Mall Avenue with shared use sidepath to NW Arkansas Mall
Redesigned peripheral street at Mall site with urban section,
street landscaping, and sidewalks with future Mall mixed use
redevelopment.
BRT stop at Zion Road. The Joyce Boulevard intersection
may be considered as an alternate location.
Consolidation of College Avenue lanes on west side of trav-
elway, reducing paved area and improving entrance to Lake
Fayetteville.
East side College Avenue trail connection to Mud Creek Trail
Existing Mud Creek Trail, with new shared use path connec-
tion to trail legs along N. Front.
Local path along drainage corridor and Remington Court to
Shepherd Lane
Peripheral shared use path and walkways along redeveloped
periphery of Mall.
Direct trail connection from Mall trailhead to Mall building
Existing Razorback Greenway underpass to Lake Fayetteville
Connection to existing path link to Lake Fayetteville and
Greenway via Zion Drive shared use path
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Shaded rows indicate projects that require redevelopment
MALL DISTRICT: Millsap to Lake Fayetteville Components
Realignment of North Front to align with east-side Mar-
ket-Lee-Hemlock connector route
Possible additional or alternate route from Sain Street to
Millsap
Planned Sain/Vantage connection to Joyce Boulevard
Roundabout intersection of planned Vantage-Sain connec-
tion with North Front
Realignment of northbound College Avenue lanes to pair
with southbound lanes
New T intersection replacing ramp of eastbound Fulbright
Expressway lanes. Vacated ramps integrated into a shared
use path system connecting the west-side College Avenue
path network back to College and Millsap and to the Mud
Creek Trail.
Existing flyover for northbound to westbound movement
from College to Fulbright Expressway, also maintaining
southbound to westbound merge
Continuation of Plainview collector, with connection to Mall
Avenue.
New signalized grade level intersection on the Fulbright Ex-
pressway with the extended Plainview/Mall collector.
Roundabout intersection north of Fulbright Expressway, re-
solving Shiloh Drive and Mall Avenue circulation.
Van Asche/Shiloh connection with bridge over Mud Creek.
New connection between Van Asche/Shiloh and North Front
north of Mud Creek and under College Avenue.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MALL DISTRICT FRAMEWORK: MILLSAP TO
LAKE FAYETTEVILLE
71B and Fulbright Expressway Main Lines and Interchange
• Re-envisioning the urban interface of the College and Fulbright
Expressway interchange by replacing some of its “freeway” aspects
with greatly enhanced local access. Key components of the concept
presented here, which is subject to further study and operational
modeling, are described here below.
• Relocation of northbound lanes on College Avenue, pairing them
more closely with southbound lanes. Benefits of this change include:
1) replacing the existing left lane access to the flyover with a more
intuitive and safer right lane access, and reducing queuing issues on
College Avenue’s northbound inner lane resulting from closely spaced
left-turn movements; 2) opening a significant development site on the
former northbound lanes; and 3) improving pedestrian and bicycle
connections now effectively blocked by the interchange.
• Replacement of Fulbright exit ramps to College Avenue with a new
signalized T-intersection. This eliminates significant traffic conflict
problems at the transition between a freeway environment and the
College and Millsap intersection.
• Fulbright and Plainview/Mall at-grade intersection. In this concept,
the Fulbright Expressway transitions from expressway to urban
boulevard, with the limited access portion beginning and ending at
an intersection with the Plainview/Mall westside collector. Plainview
extends north from its current terminus at Millsap, and continues
across the Fulbright as Mall Avenue. This increases use of the collector
as a north-south traffic distributor, relieving College and opening a
second significant development corridor.
• Resolution of the Shiloh/Mall Avenue intersection with a roundabout.
This can resolve a conflict with an at-grade Fulbright intersection
and adjacent Shiloh Drive that provides access to Target and other
retail destinations. This three-point roundabout would be fed in part
by a dedicated right turn lane exiting the westbound flyover. The
intersection with proper refuge medians can also connect a proposed
shared use sidepath along Plainview with a similar facility on Mall
Avenue.
• Possible grade separation of the Joyce and College intersection.
This concept would take through lanes of College Avenue over
Joyce Boulevard, with local slip lanes providing for turns and local
movements into adjacent properties.
• Consolidation of travel lanes to the west side of the road channel
north of the Clear Creek bridge, with a five-lane or four-lane divided
section with a standard width median with left-turn pockets. This
eliminates the ambiguity of the current 40-foot center turn lane
and permits a properly landscaped and attractive access to Lake
Fayetteville Park, a major regional asset whose connection to the 71B
corridor should be emphasized.
Existing Circulator/Collector Streets
• The local circulation network, both using existing and new facilities,
is a key element of the interchange reconfiguration. Adjustments and
modifications of existing facilities are described below.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
91
3
5
6
5
15
16
17
18
19
20
20 21
22
23
24
4
8
9
7
10
13
1412
11
2
1
19
25
Va
n
A
s
c
h
e
D
r
N. Front St
Mall Ave
Jo
y
c
e
B
l
v
d
Zi
o
n
R
d
S
h
i
l
o
h
D
r
92
• Realignment of the north and south ends of North Front. The
intersection of North Front, which operates as an east frontage road
for College, with Millsap would be relocated to the east, providing
more distance from the College and Millsap intersection and lining up
with the proposed eastside connector. On the north, the street could
be relocated to align with Frontage Road, possible with removal of the
existing exit ramp from northbound College either with slip lanes or
intersection redesign.
• Sain-Vantage connector. The two existing streets are interrupted
by Mud Creek. The successful March, 2019 bond issue includes
funding to connect Sain and Vantage, linking North Front north to
Joyce Boulevard and Zion Road. This concept provides a short- to
medium-term termination of the Sain-Vantage connector with a
roundabout at North Front, with better local street connectivity and
intersection relocation. Should a future Fulbright connection be
considered necessary, the eastbound movement off the Fulbright
could extend under the flyover ramp and into the roundabout, while
westbound movement from the connector could potentially merge
into the flyover, given the additional space provided by relocating the
northbound College Avenue lanes.
• Van Asche/Shiloh Drive connection. Connecting these stub streets
would provide continuous service access on the northwest quadrant
of the interchange. This logical connection has been stymied to date
by the need for a Mud Creek crossing. This proposed link continues
into the Mall site and is integrated into the Mall’s internal street
system.
New Circulator/Collector Streets
• Most new collectors in this segment fill gaps in the existing network
and are described above.
• New connection linking North Front and Shiloh Drive under the
elevated section of College. At present, traffic bound from the east
side of College to retail destinations on the west side must use the
flyover. This link provides an alternative east-west link to businesses
and development on both sides.
Private Connected Circulation
• Private drives using right-of-ways vacated by North Front intersection
relocation.
• Upgrade of the peripheral drive around Northwest Arkansas Mall to an
interior urban street as part of a redevelopment program to develop
surplus parking area with mixed use development.
• Upgrade of the Shepherd Lane access between the Mall and Barnes
and Noble shopping center, integrated into Mall drive redesign. This is
especially important if through lanes on College are elevated at Joyce
Boulevard.
Regional Shared Use Trail Connections
• Connection of proposed trails, some of which use vacated portions
of the interchange, linking the College/71B corridor to the Razorback
Greenway and Mud Creek Trails. Components are described below.
• Plainview/Mall shared use sidepath continues the trail on the west side
of College, connecting directly to the Mud Creek Trail and, through the
redesigned Mall site, the existing Greenway trailhead at the Mall.
• Trail from Plainview and Fulbright connects to Mud Creek Trail east
of the corridor and to the northwest corner of College and Millsap,
largely using vacated expressway ramps following redesign. Trail
could continue west along Futrall Drive to connect to the Greenway
tunnel near Gregg, serving the Washington Regional Medical Center
district.
• Reuse of existing bridge for northbound College Avenue lanes over
Mud Creek as a park related to adjacent development and a link
between the east and west segments of the Mud Creek Trail.
College Avenue Trail Network
• East side system continues north along North Front corridor to
Mud Creek Trail, continuing north along tributary drainageway and
Frontage Road to Zion Drive.
• East side connection continues with a path along Zion Drive to
existing trail link to Lake Fayetteville and Greenway at Venetian Lane.
• West side route follows Mall Avenue and peripheral street to existing
trailhead, and continues loop to Zion Drive entrance to the Mall.
• Zion Drive link across College connects the east and west side
systems.
Urban Intersection Nodes
• High visibility crosswalks with streetscape elements and refuge
medians at signalized intersections. These include Joyce Boulevard,
Shepherd Lane, and Zion Drive.
• Zion Drive intersection to be redesigned to reduce high speed
character of right turn bypass lanes.
Transit (BRT) Stations
• Potential BRT stop at Shepherd Lane or Zion Drive. Scale of
intersections and amount of space permits full turnout stops on one
side of the intersection: probably south at Zion or north at Shepherd.
Bridge Park
With relocation of northbound lanes, this bridge could be converted to a park that
would be a resource for an adjacent high-density development and a connection be-
tween the two legs of the Mud Creek Trail.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
93
Conceptual Sketches
Design sketch at left highlights shared
use path connectivity through the
concept for the College and Fulbright
interchange. Sketch above illustrates
grade levels and possible development
of vacated northbound right-of-way.
94
THE DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK
Development along the 71B corridor has been and will continue to be an
incremental process. This section establishes a guide for that continued
evolution that gradually, through market forces and individual, voluntary
actions can lead to a new kind of connected, mixed use 71B corridor. The
framework is based on an overall assessment of the long-term viability of
different types of occupancy, the conditions of sites and buildings, and
the effects of changing market forces on different types of land uses and
demands for them. This assessment is in turn based on several overriding
trends:
1. The growth projections and policies contained in Fayetteville’s
comprehensive plan and other planning documents, including the
ULI’s healthy corridor assessment and the Fayetteville Mobility Plan.
The comprehensive plan projects a population growth of 50,000 for
Fayetteville, corresponding to approximately 20,000 housing units. A
substantial amount of this housing will be in medium to high-density
settings, including small-lot single family, attached units like townhouses,
low- and mid-rise multi-family apartments, and innovative residential
settings.
2. The market analysis presented in Chapter Four indicates a declining
medium- and long-term demand for commercial land and square footage,
partially but not totally offset by population growth. This decline in the
immediate corridor market has a number of causes, including competition
from regional retail destinations such as the Promenade and the larger
Rogers commercial area, the increasing prevalence of on-line retailing, and
the declining market for traditional retail malls like the Northwest Arkansas
Mall and older strip centers. This, coupled with substantial housing
demand during the next two decades, suggests a significant probability of
converting some current commercial land to residential occupancy during
this period.
3. The analysis of Chapter Two shows that building coverage percentage
throughout the 71B corridor is very low and parking and impervious
coverage are very high. Larger commercial developments, including
existing strip development, were designed with parking ratios that were
based on highly seasonal loads and are rarely achieved, today around
Christmas. Other smaller developments paved their sites as a low-
maintenance default option, inefficiencies caused by lack of connection
to neighboring sites, and/or inefficient site design. All of these provide
opportunities for more efficient use of real estate.
4. Transportation preferences in Fayetteville and elsewhere are likely to
evolve during the next twenty years. Bicycle transportation, already a
significant travel mode in the city, may increase with the introduction of
e-bikes, bringing cycling within the physical capabilities of more people.
Ozark Regional Transit has increased service on the 71B corridor with
positive results and the introduction of bus rapid transit is being seriously
contemplated. Electric scooters and other personal mobility devices have
become significant forces in peer cities like Bloomington, Indiana, while
the effect of electric and autonomous vehicles on urban land needs is
uncertain. Finally, personal preferences and legislative mandates that
respond to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change may also have
a profound effect on transportation in future years. One common trend is
likely though – the amount of land devoted to the circulation and storage
of personal vehicles is likely to decrease significantly. And many alternative
modes are especially well-suited to shorter trips and greater adjacency
of residential uses, entertainment venues, and commercial and office
services.
5. These collective forces increase demand for greater land efficiency,
higher densities, and higher value to land area ratios. The resulting
market forces will tend to increase pressure on space intensive lower-
yield land uses such as small single-level strip centers, free-standing
offices and retail, and some automotive uses to convert to higher intensity
development.
6. These trends must be balanced strategically by the city of Fayetteville’s
revenue structure, which places a significant reliance on sales tax
revenues. This translates to a strong public policy imperative to maintain
and strengthen the corridor’s retail environment, which remains highly
auto-oriented, while increasing the local customer and property value
base through policies that encourage residential development, higher land
efficiency, and mixed uses.
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
The following pages display diagrams and strategies for each segment of
the 71B study area. They are overlaid on the Transportation Framework
and include general policy objectives and more specific guidance for
potential strategy sites. These are followed by illustrative plans that show
how these guidelines could be implemented. The site-specific guidelines
use terms that require further elaboration, presented here:
• Small lot single-family residential. Single-family detached units on
lots less than 5,000 square feet, or a net average density of about
8 units per acre, or single-family semi-attached or attached units,
typically on individually described lots and connected by garages
or a common wall, with an average net density of about 12 units per
acre. In the 71B area, this development is used on the edge of the main
corridor as a transition to lower-density residential areas, on sites that
can be buffered from higher intensity surrounding uses, and as a way
to introduce affordable single-family homeownership opportunities.
However, higher intensity uses and residential densities are more
prevalent in the development framework.
• Medium-density residential. Attached units, including townhomes
and small multi-family buildings, with net densities in the range
of 16 to 24 units per acre. This form of development can appeal to
households of a variety of ages but with small yards and shared
covered parking, can provide an attainable option for households with
young children, a growing demographic at this specific point. These
units can help fill the so-called “missing middle” gap in contemporary
housing markets. The development framework proposes this concept
on sites that provide enough area for self-contained clusters and
linkages to other community features, including schools, commercial
development, and parks and playgrounds.
• Multifamily residential. Multi-level residential buildings, which in
Fayetteville are most commonly two or three levels of living units
with net densities in the range of 20 to 40 units per acre. This is also
the most common multifamily form proposed for the study area. In
order to minimize surface parking and because of rocky subsurface
conditions, the typical multifamily building will provide three levels
over at-grade parking, with parking exposure hidden by landscaping,
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
95
berming, or finished elevation treatment. As a general rule, one level
of parking that extends for the full building footprint supports three
residential levels. Single-use multi-family is proposed as a single use
on redevelopment sites that are on the edge of the corridor area and
lack direct exposure to South School or College. On sites along or near
the street corridors, multi-family should be integrated into mixed use
projects (see below).
• Mixed use development. Mixed use projects are typically shown on
sites that include 1) redevelopment of excessively large parking lots,
2) future redevelopment of low-intensity, high vacancy or obsolete
commercial buildings or projects, or 3) vacant buildings or sites.
Typically, mixed use buildings involve retail, restaurant, office, and
residential uses, usually with residential over a commercial grade
level. However, requirements that the entire footprint be reserved for
retail, restaurants, or similar uses often create more commercial than
the market supports and require either additional surface parking or
a separate parking structure. Another option, appropriate along the
71B corridor, locates parking at grade under residential levels and
screened by commercial extensions appropriate to the market. Some
locations have characteristics such as views, surrounding activities
and assets, or urban design qualities that make taller buildings
appropriate.
• Contemporary retail or commercial. Relatively recent (typically post
2000) development with landscaping and site design standards that
do not require short-term change.
• Commercial infill. Generally applies to areas where existing uses are
likely to remain but where space exists for additional, single-level
commercial development with more efficient site design; or sites
within an existing project intended for commercial development but
not yet used for that purpose.
• Commercial enhancement. Generally applies to areas where existing
uses are likely to remain but where access management, cooperative
parking and site development, improved landscaping and pedestrian
connections to front doors from trails or sidewalks are needed to help
realize the corridor vision.
• Shopping center upgrades. Improved parking and site design,
possible facade and pedestrian improvements, and reducing
unnecessary parking to be more consistent with normal demand
rather than extremes.
• Internal streets. Driveways within projects such as shopping centers
and large mixed use projects designed to have the character of streets
with sidewalks, street landscaping and furniture, and limited driveway
or drive aisle interruptions.
• Iconic commercial. Properties to be maintained by virtue of the
memories and stories that they produce or because of their special
place in the historic development of the 71B corridor.
Iconic commercial. Gator Golf, Fayetteville
Small lot single family. Florida Way, Fayetteville
Mixed use concept. Wauwatosa, WI Interior street. Detroit Lakes, MN
Medium-density residential. Gray’s Station, De Moines Medium-density residential. Huron Street, Culver City
Commercial preservation. City Liquor, Fayetteville
96
FIGURE 6.X: South Fayetteville Development Framework: Cato Springs
to Rock Street
Site enhancements and access management of existing in-
dustrial use
Multifamily with existing commercial/restaurant frontage on
School, improved parking
Mixed use redevelopment of the Co-op site. Future site en-
hancement with infill commercial on corner.
Commercial maintenance and infill on School frontage, me-
dium-density residential on Locust St infill sites
Contemporary retail. Improved site plan with upgraded pe-
destrian access from street.
Mill District buildings. Infill street-oriented commercial
along School frontage or maintenance as a public space
Contemporary medium-density residential, commercial
adaptive reuse possible at corner
Existing neighborhood commercial with shared site access
and coordinated parking plan.
Medium density residential, with gradual redevelopment
continuing development precedent along 5th Street
Medium density residential infill and spot redevelopment
on open or distressed sites along Archibald Yell. Focus on
southeast corner of South Street
Single-family conservation and infill, continuing current de-
velopment patterns
Existing multifamily
Key neighborhood business with improved pedestrian ac-
cess to and through the site
SOUTH FAYETTEVILLE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: Cato Springs to
Rock Street
University of Arkansas Research campus master plan imple-
mentation, with future expansion to South School
Multifamily residential to support research campus
Cottage or “tiny house” housing for temporarily homeless
households/families near 7hills service center
Ozark Steel with improved buffering and access
Shopping center site redevelopment, maintaining viable ex-
isting businesses
Commercial infill, maintaining key neighborhood retail
Commercial maintenance and infill on South School front-
age, medium density residential adjacent to trail and Walker
Park
Commercial enhancement
City Lumber site enhancements and buffer landscaping
Medium-density residential infill development
Mixed use with multifamily emphasis
Commercial infill and site improvements, including land-
scape and reduction of paved area
Existing contemporary multifamily residential (Varsity
House)
Total Corridor
• Reconfiguration of South School with three lanes, continuous
sidewalks, protected bike lanes, two-way turn lanes, strategic
pedestrian refuge medians, and possibility of future on-street
parking as required by redevelopment.
Research Segment: Cato Springs to Town Branch
• Execution of Research Park master plan
• Village concept for temporary housing around 7hills Center.
• New multifamily development.
• Trail link between Cato Springs Trail and Town Branch Trail
Walker Park District: Town Branch to 11th
• Southgate redevelopment including commercial and resi-
dential redevelopment on shopping center and surrounding
blocks.
• Future mixed density development between 13th and 15th
• Preservation and enhancement of key commercial assets
• Trail spur connection to Walker Park
Mill District: 11th to Prairie
• New mixed use and infill commercial development, including
planned redevelopment of the Co-op property.
• Locust Street infill
• Trail-related townhomes
• Improved 7th and 9th Street cross access
• Right-turn only lanes at MLK
• Preservation of key commercial assets
Archibald Yell Segment: Prairie to Rock
• Residential infill of different types along Archibald Yell
• Commercial enhancements of neighborhood commercial on
north side.
• Revised Archibald Yell design
• Signal and pedestrian crossing and Arts Cluster at South
Street
• Redesigned College and Rock intersection
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
14
15
16
17
RESEARCH DISTRICT
SOUTH FAYETTEVILLE
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
97
32 4
1
5
6 8
9
107
16
12
13 14 15
11 17 18
21
19
23
24
22
20
24
24
26
25
Ca
t
o
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
15
t
h
S
t
11
t
h
S
t
So
u
t
h
S
t
Ma
r
t
i
n
L
u
t
h
e
r
K
i
n
g
D
r
Urban Nodes with higher permitted
density
Intersection amenities and placemaking
improvements
98
Existing Buildings and Establishments
New mixed use/commercial/high-density residential
Medium Density Residential
Small lot single family
Future Research Center Buildings
Ca
t
o
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
15
t
h
S
t
13
t
h
S
t
11
t
h
S
t
So
u
t
h
S
t
Ma
r
t
i
n
L
u
t
h
e
r
K
i
n
g
D
r
Ozark Steel City Lumber
A “tiny house” concept pro-
viding housing for temporarily
homeless households or house-
holds in need of a permanent
supportive setting. This could
benefit from a location adjacent
to 7hills Center. Improved buffer-
ing should be developed around
Ozark Steel, with trail connection
running through buffer.
Southgate rede-
velopment area.
Includes trail con-
nection to Razor-
back Greenway.
New Walker Park neighbor-
hood redevelopment. Com-
mercial services along South
School, with interior access
street and medium-density,
family oriented townhomes be-
hind, adjacent to Greenway and
directly connected to Walker
Park. Reinforces and comple-
ments new residential develop-
ment in the Walker Park area.
Small-lot single-family. Neigh-
borhood cluster connects to
Razorback Greenway and is
compatible with adjacent resi-
dential.
Path connection. A path and
new creek bridge could con-
nect the South School corridor
to the Razorback Greenway
and Walker Park.
New multifamily with
trail connection to
Town Branch Trail.
Loop access street
connects Research
Center Boulevard and
Cato Springs Road.
At-grade parking un-
der residential levels
supports three floors.
Supplemental surface
parking can support
additional housing.
Market is strength-
ened by research
campus and overall
university-related
demand. Trail connec-
tion links Cato Springs
Trail to Town Branch
Trail.
New Be-
ginnings.
Bridge hous-
ing project
to serve
unsheltered
people, de-
veloped by
Serve NWA.
Research Campus Expansion.
Campus plan calls for extension
to South School. Research Cen-
ter Blvd transitions to a shared
street and plaza at the campus
core. Internal trails and green-
ways connect to Town Branch
Trail.
Commercial enhancement.
Redesign of busy neighborhood
commercial center to provide
internal pedestrian link to Dollar
General, controlled curb cuts,
and continuous walks along
School. Shared parking and ac-
cess increases parking efficiency.
Co-op site. Comprehensive
mixed use redevelopment with
multifamily and commercial
components, including adaptive
reuse of some existing buildings
and site plan features that allude
to the project’s history. Con-
nections provided to adjacent
regional trails.
See inset of this
development area
on pages 99 and
100.
Mill Building. Illustrative plan
includes retail or mixed use
development along School Av-
enue frontage. Site could also
be retained as a neighborhood
green space with historic inter-
pretation.
Neighborhood
commercial. Shared
access and parking lot
redesign for existing
commercial uses on
north side of Ar-
chibald Yell.
“Arts” cluster. Im-
proved parking, sig-
nalized South Street
intersection, and revi-
sion of Archibald Yell
section.
Infill townhomes. Medium
density townhomes and
small-lot single family on
infill sites along or near
Archibald Yell. Major re-
development of 4th and
Block triangle
Infill townhomes. Locust
Street townhomes, with
infill on residential street.
Commercial infill on
School Avenue frontage.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
99
Food and Shelter Village, Norman, OK
Housing “Village” for Temporarily Homeless Households
Homelessness is a significant challenge in the South Fayetteville part of the
study corridor, but it encompasses different people with different needs.
The interfaith 7hills has established a Day Center along South School that
provides support services including job assistance, transportation, meals,
counseling, and other basic human services. It is also developing the
Walker Community, a transitional housing environment that will provide 36
units for individuals and families in townhouse and efficiency apartments
Serve NWA’s New Beginnings project, under development in 2019,
addresses the needs of unsheltered people by providing bridge housing
with supportive services to help them on the path to permanent settings.
But others, including households with children, are temporarily homeless
because of financial emergencies, domestic abuse, gentrification, and
increasing housing costs. An interesting physical development model to
address these needs is a “tiny house” community, providing individual
detached units around common space with access to 7hills support
services through its service center. This approach was pioneered by
Norman, Oklahoma’s Food and Shelter program and appears highly
relevant to this need in Fayetteville. It also provides a place for families
to live on a short-term basis while other, more permanent housing is
developed.
Focus on Southgate
The Southgate area, between Town Branch Creek
and approximately 11th Street, merits a special
focus because of the substantial new development
opportunity that it presents. While most of the 71B
corridor involves evolutionary change on opportunity
sites, this area’s underutilized or vacant land
encourages a more aggressive, redevelopment-oriented
approach. Such an approach also complements
the major changes taking place in the Mill District,
improvement efforts in the Walker Park neighborhood,
and the continued growth of the University of Arkansas
research campus. A key early initiative would be
redevelopment of the under-occupied Southgate
shopping center. In the concept, the vacant IGA
grocery store, most of which is in the Town Branch
Creek floodplain, would be demolished and replaced
by a multi-family building with parking at grade (or
floodplain) level. The iconic Mountain Man store would
remain with improved parking and overall environment.
A contemporary but vacant bank building would be
reused, with a new mixed use building defining the 15th
Street corner and more residentially scaled apartments
lining the east side of the site.
The following pages illustrate the continuation of this
redevelopment approach toward the Mill District.
New development focuses on sites with low use and
the concept maintains and enhances many existing
buildings and business establishments. Existing salvage
yards north of 15th Street would gradually be replaced
with new commercial development and a medium-
density townhome community with access to the
Razorback Greenway and Walker Park. On the west side
of School north of 15th, a mixed use project with two
commercial spaces and multifamily buildings would
replace vacant uses or distressed buildings. Parking and
pedestrian access are improved to important existing
neighborhood businesses.
100
Southgate Development Area Concept: Town Branch Creek to 11th Street
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
101
Southgate Redevelopment
Existing
Mountain
Man
Store
Bank building
reuse
New multi-family over
at-grade parking.
The parts of the
existing IGA building
in the floodway and
floodplain would be
demolished.
Three-story walk-
up multi-family
oriented toward
entryways
Parking lot redesign
Walker Park
New mixed-use
building with
corner orientation
Residential over parking.
Some street level retail
may be included.
South School redesign. Includes cycle
track on west side, parking lane on east
side in 60-foot section.
Detached townhomes
Residential over parking.
Some street level retail may be
included.
Razorback Greenway
To
w
n
B
r
a
n
c
h
T
r
a
i
l
To
w
n
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
r
e
e
k
Vaughn Recycling. Improved
screening and building
upgrades
13th Street Greenway.
New creek bridge and trail
connection to South School
City Lumber. Site
and circulation
improvements
New circulation
drive. Includes
path bridge and
connection to
Greenway
Commercial
Office or trade
commercial
Improved pedestrian
crossing and intersection
alignment
Office or trade
commercial
Commercial
Townhomes with
family-oriented
features including
yards
Townhomes with
family-oriented
features including yards
15
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
13
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
11
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Southgate Plan Elements
102
Aerial perspective looking northeast. View illustrates scale of potential buildings with their relationship to surrounding neighborhoods, Walker Park, and existing development.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
103
View looking south with City Lumber and existing commercial center (including Rick’s
Iron Skillet) in foreground.
Internal street through Southgate multi-family and townhome community includes
a path that would link these new residential areas to Walker Park over a new creek
bridge and to the Walker Park Trail.
Looking toward possible redevelopment of the existing Southgate shopping center.
Looking north from north edge of City Liquor site.
104
FIGURE 6.X: South Fayetteville Development Framework: Cato Springs
to Rock Street
Existing primarily single-family residential neighborhoods
Existing contemporary commercial with possible infill
Multifamily with existing commercial/restaurant frontage on
College, improved parking
Commercial maintenance and occasional infill, including
preservation of historically important mid-century motel on
College
Mixed use development with multifamily emphasis on Pop-
lar node
Possible street-oriented commercial with potential for up-
per level residential or maintenance of existing commercial
using surplus parking in place of street yard parking.
Restaurant District segment, maintaining individual build-
ings and providing shared pedestrian and driveway access,
thematic streetscape, interconnected drives, and shared
parking where possible
Commercial maintenance, with potential reuse of excess
surface parking.
Neighborhood greenway and park along drainage corridor
Mixed use residential, with residential over parking and re-
tail
Township Node, maintaining existing contemporary com-
mercial with improved links to future BRT station
FIGURE 6.X: South Fayetteville Development Framework: Cato Springs
to Rock Street
VA Hospital campus with improved pedestrian access to
College
Adaptive reuse of iconic motel by the Fayetteville Housing
Authority to provide affordable housing for veterans. Possi-
ble commercial infill at corner
Existing commercial/office uses
Gregory Park with path links to College and surrounding
uses
Evelyn Hills upgrade with improved parking and circulation
design. Possible future higher-density mixed use develop-
ment on College and on north side of lot
Contemporary commercial
Medium density residential along internal street
Medium density or small-lot single family
Mixed use with multifamily emphasis, commercial on direct
College frontage
Existing contemporary commercial
Mixed use development with street-level commercial em-
phasis at intersection, high-density residential away from
the street
Existing medium density residential
11
12
131
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
18
19
20
21
22
23
14
15
16
17
Total Corridor
• College Avenue upgrade with access management
VA/Evelyn Hills Segment: North to Sycamore
• College Avenue upgrade with access management
• Redesign of Evelyn Hills parking lot, with future development
possibilities
• Future extension of Memorial Drive to serve new development
• Path connection to Gregory Park
• Local path and sidewalk continuity
• Urban family residential on “farm” and storage sites, tied to
local streets
• Transit (BRT) station at Memorial Drive
Green Acres Segment: Sycamore to Poplar
• High-density node at Sycamore intersection, focusing on north-
east quadrant
• Green Acres realignment and replacement with central green
space
• Sublett Creek trail connection to Poplar, with upgraded Poplar
bikeway to Razorback Greenway
• Intersection nodes at Sycamore, Green Acres, Poplar
• Infill mixed-use and multi-family
• Family- and trail-oriented townhomes using back parts of deep
commercial lots and adjacent to Woodland Junior High
Restaurant District:
• Theming as a center of international, locally-owned restaurants
• Interconnection of parking and driveways with pedestrian
connections between businesses
• Intersection nodes at Colt Square Drive, and Township
• Infill mixed use development as opportunities emerge
• Local access grid to west side using Green Acres and Colt Drive
extensions
• Greenway and neighborhood park along floodplain
• Parallel, separated shared use paths paralleling both sides of
College
Township Node
• Transit (BRT) station at Township
MIDTOWN DISTRICT SOUTH:
NORTH TO TOWNSHIP
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
105
5
2
6 7
3
9
8 10
11
14 157101213
16
17
18 21 19
22
23
1
4
16
20
19
No
r
t
h
S
t
Sy
c
a
m
o
r
e
S
t
Po
p
l
a
t
S
t
To
w
n
s
h
i
p
R
d
Green Acres Dr
Urban Nodes with higher permitted
density
Intersection amenities and placemaking
improvements
106
Hi-Way Inn. Redevelop-
ment of mid-century motel
for affordable housing for
veterans by the Fayetteville
Housing Authroity. With
modification of street,
sidewalk continuity to
North Street. Possible infill
commercial at North Street
intersection, with access co-
ordinated with Hi-Way Inn
affordable housing project.
Evelyn Hills. Major site redesign
providing an urban interior street
adjacent to building, clear park-
ing lot circulation, and mixed use
building over parking on north side
of site. Parking is accessed from
lower level drive (formerly “Nature
Drive”) adjacent to the site. Future
redevelopment of College Avenue
frontage with higher-intensity mixed
use buildings is feasible with site
redesign.
Residential community. Develop-
ment of “vest-pocket” farm and
mini-storage facility and free-stand-
ing commercial with mixed density
residential community. Local access
uses new residential street between
Nature Drive and Sycamore Street.
Townhouses developed on “farm”
site with small-lot single family, anal-
ogous to units behind Evelyn Hills,
adjacent to single family on the stor-
age site. Residential over parking on
College Avenue frontage, with retail
extension along the street.
Memorial Drive. High visibility
crosswalk with adequate crossing
time for pedestrians and future bus
rapid transit station.
Mixed use redevelopment. Possi-
ble redevelopment of single office
and automotive uses with row of
mixed use, residential over parking/
commercial structures. Access from
extension of Memorial Drive to align
with “Nature Drive” and continue to
Sycamore Street. Shared use path
parallels the rear drive with access
to Gregory Park.
Townhouse rows. Development of
back side of deep commercial lots
with townhomes and access drive,
adjacent to Woodland Junior High.
Shared use trail extended along
school/townhouse boundary.
Green Acres Common. Realignment of Green
Acres Drive intersection opens opportunity for
neighborhood common space on vacated street.
This becomes a central green for surrounding
new residential. Site design should include an
amenity that also expands stormwater manage-
ment capacity.
Sycamore node. Rede-
velopment of northeast
corner. Commercial/
retail building on cor-
ner with public space
in front and parking
behind with Sycamore
access. Mixed use build-
ings with multifamily
emphasis on back of
site and adjacent to
planned Sublett Creek
Trail. Resident parking
provided at grade under
residential buildings.
Poplar node. Mixed used
building with retail extension,
with parking provided behind
and accessed from extension
of Poplar. This extension also
connects the Poplar bike
route to the planned Sublett
Creek Trail, with east-side
trail continuing north. Build-
ing site is dictated by 100-
year floodplain line.
Restaurant District. Special thematic
district that defines a grouping of local-
ly owned, largely free-standing eating
places with culinary diversity. District
gateway and graphic features would be
located at the Poplar and Township in-
tersections, and special graphics along
the way. District elements include direct
pedestrian connections between estab-
lishments, interconnected and, where
possible, joint parking lots, and com-
mon landscaping and street furnishings.
Mixed use development. Possible
multi-family redevelopment near Town-
ship node, with restaurant storefronts
and off-street surface parking behind
buildings. Connected by path to bowl-
ing alley.
Township node. Contemporary retail
development on four corners. Corner
features should be included to define
the urban intersection, including a BRT
station.
Poplar node. Mixed use pos-
sibility on northwest corner
with shared parking provided
by large lot between Poplar
frontage and multi-tenant
commercial building to the
north.
Neighborhood green. Neighborhood and
green space in 100 year floodplain area, with
west-side trail, playground, and other passive
recreational features. Connection to Restau-
rant District businesses. Design of this space
should provide improved stormwater manage-
ment along an existing drainage corridor.
Existing Buildings and Establishments
New mixed use/commercial/high-density residential
Medium Density Residential
Small lot single family
Future Research Center Buildings
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
107
Evelyn Hills development concept in phases. An initial development phase
(above left) would include redesign of the parking lot for greater efficiency,
clearly circulation, and much better pedestrian connections between the
College and Memorial Drive intersection and the main shopping center. Ex-
isting free-standing pad buildings would remain in place, while a new mixed
use building with parking accessed from below would anchor the north end
of the strip. A later phase (above right) anticipates reduced parking demand
and increased emphasis on transit-oriented, street-defining mixed use
development. New mixed use residential/commercial buildings with up to
three residential stories over retail and parking would line the street, with an
additional structure defining a proposed public green closer to the historic
center. A pass-through gateway through this new building would emphasize
a direct connection to the street.
Evelyn Hills shopping center today.
108
Sycamore Node. Massing diagram
looks northeast, showing potential
mixed use development on the
northeast corner, completing a
higher intensity node at the inter-
section. Townhouses and a green
space made possible by relocating
the Green Acres intersection.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
109
Green Acre Commons. Relocating
the Green Acres intersection to a 90
degree angle with College produces
a neighborhood commons that can
encourage adjacent residential de-
velopment. It also provide an oppor-
tunity for a neighborhood amenity
that can address stormwater man-
agement.
Restaurant District. Interconnection
of parking lots and connections be-
tween restaurants can help this col-
lection of unique restaurants gel into
a special district. Thematic graphics,
common areas for outdoor dining,
and cooperative marketing can fur-
ther define the district’s identity and
brand recognition.
110
FIGURE 6.X: South Fayetteville Development Framework: Cato Springs
to Rock Street
Site and circulation enhancement of multi-building retail
and office building group
Site and circulation enhancement with commercial infill
Medium density residential
Commercial enhancement with increased public exposure of
auto dealership with Plainview extension
Multifamily residential group
Commercial enhancement with access management
Commercial enhancement with possible expansion across
Longview Street. Buffering against residential uses
Commercial enhancement through common site design
Redevelopment of under-occupied commercial center with
mixed use development, with residential/commercial bal-
ance
Small lot single-family buffer
Contemporary commercial center (Whole Foods), enhanced
with site design and alternative preferred access with Col-
lege and Plainview routes
Office/commercial infill
Contemporary commercial/office development, site design
enhancements
FIGURE 6.X: Midtown Development Framework: Cato Springs to Rock
Street
Existing contemporary commercial
Commercial infill
High-density mixed use, typically residential over parking
with limited commercial
Medium density and small lot single-family residential
Commercial maintenance and enhancement
Existing trade commercial and light industrial, infill possibili-
ties and conversions to maker-space
High-density mixed use, typically residential over parking
with limited commercial; preserves iconic miniature golf \
Commercial enhancement with access management and
landscape
Commercial enhancement with mixed use infill
Commercial enhancement with improved coordinated site
design
Fiesta Square upgrades with parking lot redesign and
“right-sizing” and increasing efficiency of parking
Mixed use development along Fiesta Square frontage along
College, including Appleby to Plainview connection
Medium density residential
Commercial enhancement and infill
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
16
17
25
26
27
Total Corridor
• College Avenue upgrade with access management
Township Urban Node: Township to Sunbridge
• Future new urban family and mixed use development center north of
Township to Sunbridge Drive with land use evolution, with a range of
densities and supporting retail development
• Transit (BRT) station at Township
Drake Segment: Sunbridge to south of Appleby
• Interconnection of parking lots where possible
• Parallel access drives or streets with redevelopment
• Continuous shared use paths separated from College
• Realignment of Villa Blvd and Drake Street to 90 degree intersec-
tions
• Urban node at Sunbridge
• Drake Street enterprise/innovation district
Fiesta Square Segment: South of Appleby to Harold
• Connection of Appleby and Parkview with T-roundabout with Rolling
Hills to create parallel collector street on west side of College
• Urban node at Rolling Hills and College with high-density mixed use
development and placemaking features
• Possible transit station (BRT) at Rolling Hills
• Bikeway connections using Appleby, Rolling Hills, and shared use
path on extended Parkview
• “Right-sizing” and simplifying Fiesta Square parking lot, with mixed
use development between College and Appleby/Parkview
Uptown Segment: Harold to Millsap
• Local street grid created by Parkview and Lee/Front Street
connections north and south; and Harold, Longview, Masonic,
and Millsap connections east and west
• Masonic realignment to relocate Masonic Drive signal south
and providing a west access from Whole Foods
• Major mixed use development opportunities at Parkview and
Harold extension and on under-occupied shopping center
south of Masonic
MIDTOWN DISTRICT NORTH:
TOWNSHIP TO MILLSAP
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
111
61
2
4
13
4
3
3
1
7 8
10 11
12
14
15 16
17
18
19
9
5
20
21 25
27
27
27
26
22 23
24
To
w
n
s
h
i
p
R
d
Dr
a
k
e
S
t
Ap
p
l
e
b
y
R
d
Ha
r
o
l
d
S
t
Ma
s
o
n
i
c
D
r
M
i
l
l
s
a
p
R
d
Villa Blvd
Urban Nodes with higher permitted
density
Intersection amenities and placemaking
improvements
Hi-Way Inn. Redevelopment
of mid-century motel for
affordable housing. With
modification of street,
sidewalk continuity to
North Street. Possible infill
commercial at North Street
intersection, with access
coordinated with Hi-Way
Inn project.
112
Residential street. Small lot
single-family and townhouses
along a new street connecting
Township with Sunbridge, pro-
viding some local relief for the
current Township intersection.
Townhome units are on lanes
perpendicular to new street.
Mixed use buildings with resi-
dential over at-grade parking,
with commercial spaces ex-
tending from building ends.
Commercial is supported by
appropriately sized surface
parking.
Gator Golf. Preservation of
iconic miniature golf course,
potentially flanked by two mul-
tifamily mixed use or residential
buildings. Trail extends to front
entrance of golf, and parking is
redesigned in terraces to detain
runoff and avoid steep side
slope on parking lot. Possibility
of townhomes at base of the
hill, served by loop drive serv-
ing Gator Golf and connecting
to Drake Street intersection.
Interconnected commercial.
Connected parking lots to pro-
vide equivalent of a slip lane
serving existing commercial
and office uses. Mixed use/com-
mercial with rear parking on site
north of Golden Eagle.
Infill townhouses. Redevelopment of un-
derused commercial site with townhouse
group with internal greenways. If adjacent
motel becomes available, project could also
incorporate that site, with retail use at Rolling
Hills intersection.Market Avenue/Hobby Lobby Center. Defining Market Avenue
and drive aisles clarifies circulation, parking, and path continuity.
Improved connection between Market Avenue and drive adjacent
to main building begins east-side collector system. Providing a
clear access to College from Sara Lane, opens a site on the north
side of Trinity Fellowship site for church-related senior housing or
other development.
Villa Boulevard. New 90 degree alignment re-
opens Villa Blvd intersection and provides sites
for small-lot single-family. Two mixed use build-
ings possible, with residential over parking and a
commercial space
Drake innovation zone. New 90 degree align-
ment creates an open space gateway to a Drake
Street subdistrict. Improved design of Potter’s
House parking and infill workshop/makerspace
buildings along Drake. Lane reconfiguration and
bike lanes along Drake leading to Village Lake
area.
Fiesta Square renewal. New street
alignment connects Appleby and Pla-
inview into critical west-side collector
that maintains connection to Rolling
Hills. Provides framework for a re-
newal of Fiesta Square, described on
the opposite page.
Plainview Connection. Plainview connection
north and grid of east-west streets (Harold,
Longview, Masonic) north opens potential
multifamily sites east of the collector and
lower density residential west. New quad-
rangle layout creates interior parking and
open space with street-defining buildings.
Shopping center redevelopment. Longview
and east-side collector provide framework
for redevelopment, with mixed use buildings
along extended Longview, leading to Lee
Avenue alignment through the site. Mixed
density housing includes small-lot single
family along the Lee Avenue link, which
continues north to Millsap using platted
Hemlock Avenue. Shared use path generally
follows new streets.Masonic is relocated as
part of the project, providing continuous
route between the two collectors.
Commercial enhancement. Access management
with adjacent parking, with reduction and land-
scaping of existing parking in street yard. Also
includes a commercial infill site.
College Marketplace. Collector sys-
tem and a new alignment for Masonic
provides a badly needed alternative
access for this busy shopping center
anchored by Whole Foods. Walkways
and a continuous shared use path
along Plainview provide better bike/
pedestrian access to interior of center.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
113
Fiesta Square renewal. These views, looking to the northeast over the main Fiesta Square building, illustrate differ-
ent phases of the property’s potential development. An initial phase (above left) shows the new connection of Ap-
pleby Road and Plainview Avenue, the south end of a west-side collector that follows Plainview north to Millsap and
eventually across the Fulbright Expressway to the Mall. In addition to improving circulation, this new street creates
an opportunity for mixed use development at town center scale. It in turn frames the entrance to Fiesta Square and
produces a more efficient and appropriately sized parking for the main center. A greenway along the Rolling Hills axis
creates a strong visual and functional connection to College, extending walkways along the existing center to Col-
lege. Street oriented buildings would be developed in this initial stage between College and the Appleby-Plainview
connection. Development may provide space for a future BRT stop with station at Rolling Hills entrance.
A later phase (above right) adds a row of mixed use buildings along the west side of the new street,
giving it the two-sided enclosure and feel of a major urban street while maintaining substantial sur-
face parking to serve Fiesta Square. The Plainview connection north opens up other sites to pri-
marily office and residential development, improving access to Washington Regional Hospital
and providing land to satisfy a larger part of regional housing demand in or near the 71B corridor.
114
FIGURE 6.X: Mall District Development Framework: Millsap to Lake
Fayetteville
With relocation of northbound lanes, residential point tow-
ers with parking structure and townhomes on upper deck.
Parks and trail corridor along North Front.
Office development with parking structure
Existing contemporary commercial
Existing contemporary commercial
Infill commercial, possibility of additional hospitality use
Mall redevelopment with evolution of existing mall building
with new uses, commercial pads with street exposure, and
major mid-rise, high-density housing
Consolidation of College Avenue lanes to west side of right-
of-way, providing greenway on vacated roadway
Upgraded Lake Fayetteville entrance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Interchange: Millsap to Joyce
• Major interchange reconfiguration, including relocation of
northbound lanes to pair with southbound
• Continuation of east- and west-side collector streets and improved
local connections to create new development possibilities
• Redevelopment of vacated right-of-way with mixed use residential
and office development with some support commercial
• Extensive new greenway and trail connectivity
Mall Area; Joyce to Lake Fayetteville
• Mall redevelopment program, maintaining existing building and
adding new, market-driven uses and development on surplus parking
area
• Improved visibility and connection to Lake Fayetteville from College
corridor
• Modification of North College, consolidating travel lanes on west side
of highway, converting east side from roadway to greenway
MALL DISTRICT
MILLSAP TO LAKE FAYETTEVILLE
Google Earth aerial image
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
115
6
1 2
3
4
5
7
8 9
Urban Nodes with higher permitted
density
Intersection amenities and placemaking
improvements
116
Collector connections. Freeway section ends with an
at-grade intersection at Plainview. West-side collector
and shared use path are continued to Mall using Mall
Avenue, Shiloh Drive intersection is managed with a
roundabout, and Van Asche is continued with a bridge
over Mud Creek and extension into Mall’s circulation
system. This system increases multi-modal connec-
tivity and opens several new development sites by
removing dead ends.
North Front alignment.
Realignment of North
Front to align with the
proposed east-side
collector reduces traffic
conflicts and provides
alternative route for
uses along East Millsap,
including Christian Life
Cathedral.
Trail and greenway connections.
T-intersection of Fulbright east-
bound lanes at signalized intersec-
tion with College, with resulting
speed reduction, opens land for
potential park and open space use.
Portion of vacant ramp would be
used for a trail connecting Mud
Creek directly to the medical com-
plex and offices along Millsap.This
area also provides a significant
stormwater management oppor-
tunity
Point Towers. Relocation of northbound lanes to
the west opens significant sites for high density
development outside of the Mud Creek floodplain.
Illustrative concept suggests two point towers with
panoramic views on either side of a parking struc-
ture with townhouses and private open space above
the parking levels. The bridge over Mud Creek, now
opened for reuse by the lane relocation, would be a
park and possible dining deck over the creek, as well
as a connector for the now separated east and west
legs of the Mud Creek Trail.
Joyce Boulevard and Office Tower. The concept
shows a grade separation with elevated through
lanes and slip lanes for local access. With or without
grade separation, the lane relocation opens a stra-
tegic development site on the southeast corner. A
potential (but not exclusive) use is an office tower
with parking structure to the south. The flood plain
area between this and the point tower site would be
used as public greenway with trail connection.
Mall redevelopment. Major redevelopment project for the Mall site
features maintenance of the mall building with introducing new
uses, including office and entertainment, into space no longer used
for retail. Parking lot would be downsized and configured into sep-
arate blocks. The plan capitalizes on views from the hilltop site with
mid-rise multi-family buildings, providing up to six living levels over
two parking levels. Parking ramp would be provided on outside fa-
cade of parking levels. The peripheral drive would be moved inward
and designed as an interior urban street, with some retail frontage.
The street is part of a pedestrian and trail loop around the outside
of the center, linking to the existing trailhead. Common greenspaces
are integrated into the parking lot and project redesign, connecting
the housing into the Mall building. BRT station at Zion Rd..
Restaurant Row. The southeast part of the Mall site has the
best street exposure and provides pad sites, likely locations for
free-standing restaurants. These are served both by the front pe-
ripheral street and a parking lot drive aisle, accommodating drive-
up windows.
Lake Fayetteville Greenway on College
Avenue. Consolidation of all College Av-
enue travel lanes on the west side of the
roadway allows use of the balance of the
existing road for a greenway with shared
use trail, providing a direct trail link to the
lake from the Mall District and the west-
side collector trail. It also provides an up-
graded visual and street connection from
the Mall to the lake, for mutual economic
benefit. An upgraded, ceremonial entrance
to Lake Fayetteville Road from College
would reinforce this visual and functional
connection.
Parking ramp
Mid-rise residential
Peripheral street
Park and connection to Greenway
trailhead
Retail area
Razorback Greenway
Parking blocks
Restaurant Row
Mall redevelopment concept. In this concept, the Mall’s peripheral drive would be moved
inward toward the main building and redesigned as a city street. The drive relocation opens
sites for residential buildings with some street level retailing. Parking would be provided on
the lower levels, served by ramps on the back side of the apartment blocks. The site affords
excellent views of the forested hills and creek to the west, and has direct access to the
Razorback Greenway.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
117
118
Me
m
o
r
i
a
l
Ca
t
o
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
15
t
h
11
t
h
ML
K
i
n
g
So
u
t
h
Sy
c
a
m
o
r
e
Po
p
l
a
r
Ap
p
l
e
b
e
e
Ma
s
o
n
i
c
Mi
l
l
s
a
p
Plainview
Ro
l
l
i
n
g
H
i
l
l
s
Drake
Subdistrict Gateway
Urban Intersection Installation
Major Pedestrian Crossing
Major Free-Standing Art
Functional Installation (e.g. bus shelter/station)
Sculpture Trail Installation
PLACEMAKING AND PUBLIC ART
As stated earlier, creating distinctive urban places along the 71B corridor is important to the overall concept. This
strategy has important environmental, economic, functional, and image-building dimensions. A high-quality
physical environment helps transform a commercial corridor into an attractive place to live, while an improved
image builds the corridor as a destination that attracts customers and builds business. Placemaking improvements
also help users orient themselves along the street, improving its user experience and overall ease of use. Public art
has a proven role to play in the process of creating places and should be a major part of the development of this
corridor. The adjacency of the corridor to both the developing Arts Corridor and the University of Arkansas art
department facilities provides the special opportunity to bring environmental art into a high-traffic public realm.
This section is by no means a comprehensive plan for public art but is intended to open discussion on the value of
a unified, contextual program for this highly public corridor. It identifies six specific types of art installations:
Subdistrict gateways. These define the edges and themes of identifiable districts along the the street, such as the
research campus and Mill District along South School and the Restaurant District along College north of Township.
Urban intersections. These installations would help define major intersections along the way, including such
locations as the MLK and Rolling Hills intersections. At special intersections such as bus rapid transit stops, art and
function can be combined with thematically designed shelters or stations.
Pedestrian crossings. Major pedestrian intersections such as the Greenway and Town Branch Trail crossings can be
marked by placemaking elements that also increase safety and visibility.
Sculpture Trail. Popular trails can become linear art galleries that attract users and enrich the experience of using
Cato Springs to Rock
Memorial to Millsap
To
w
n
s
h
i
p
Ro
c
k
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
119
Subdistrict Gateway
Urban Intersection Installation
Major Pedestrian Crossing
Major Free-Standing Art
Functional Installation (e.g. bus shelter/station)
Sculpture Trail Installation
the trail. Skokie, Illinois’ North Branch Trail segment demonstrates the
popularity of art installations along trails.
Free-Standing Art. Major open spaces such as those envisioned with a
redesign of the Fulbright interchange, the redirection of Green Acres Drive,
and the center of roundabouts provide possibilities for major landmark
installation.
Smaller, repetitive installations along the way can also be used to interpret
local history, bring attention to specific sites, and even incorporate
community art, including the art of young people, into the streetscape.
The maps on these pages provides a starting point for directing the
locations of various installations along the corridor.
Fulbright to Lake Fayetteville
District Gateway Features. From left: Tree of Life in South Omaha, NE*; Old Town and Lincoln Square Districts, Chicago
Functionality: Bus Shelters as Art. From left: Kansas City, MO* and Rochester, MN*
Art along the Way. From top: Millennium Park
(art by Jun Kaneko), North Branch sculpture trail,
Skokie, IL
Free-Standing Installation. Paragon Prairie Tower, Des Moines*
Community History and Art. From left: Historical postcards, Council Bluffs, IA,* Kids Art, Shenandoah,
IA,* Interpretation, Springfield, IL*
120
ENERGY ACTION PLAN GOALS AND FRAMEWORK 71B CORRIDOR PLAN RESPONSE
CROSS SECTOR
• Reduce total housing and transportation costs to 45% of
area median income
• Develop and expand Fayetteville’s reputation as a
hub for socially and economically responsible business
development, entrepreneurship, and green jobs
• Build local support for national carbon emission reduction
and carbon capture strategies
The 71B Corridor Plan (the Plan) includes housing as a major component and helps achieve
this goal by integrating approximately 3,000 new housing units into the study area. By placing
housing in direct proximity to this major transportation corridor and associated employment
centers, residents’ ratio of transportation to housing costs will be reduced.
The plan provides for diverse housing types, but emphasizes higher-density multi-family
development, attached units, and small-lot single family development, types of housing cur-
rently grouped together as the “missing middle.” While the plan does not mandate specific in-
come mixes, these densities generally realize economies of scale, improved energy efficiency
because of less exterior wall per unit, and greater support for public and active transportation
modes.
The plan embodies placemaking throughout with identification of distinctive districts, and
calls for preservation and adaptive reuse of structures and the existing built environment
where feasible. This results in a fiscally responsible development pattern by utilizing existing
buildings and the built environment as an asset. This in turn advances the City’s reputation
for socially and economically responsible business development. Extending the life of older
commercial buildings can also result in lower rents, providing a fertile environment for entre-
preneurship and start-up businesses.
As described in response to some of the other goals, the Plan directly combats climate change
and reduction of carbon dioxide by increasing the percentage of non-vehicle and transit trips
compared to single occupancy vehicle trips.
BUILDINGS
• Complete periodic feasibility analyses of building
energy code updates
• Achieve 3% annual reduction in overall energy usage
by total building stock
• Achieve 40% tree canopy coverage by 2030
One of the five broad principles the Plan is “Reality and Respect”. This principle is expressed
by the preservation and adaptive reuse of buildings when possible. Demolishing existing
building and re-building new buildings has a substantial environmental cost that includes a
larger consumption of energy and materials over renovation. The plan encourages reuse of
existing building stock, maintenance of structures and businesses with special significance to
Fayetteville, and in some cases introduction of new uses into existing buildings, a pattern al-
ready evidenced in the Mill District.
This does not imply that existing buildings should never be replaced. Free-standing commer-
cial buildings built during an earlier period can be very inefficient, and the plan also proposes
replacement and redevelopment of inefficient or uneconomic buildings with new development
at higher density and, under current city codes, higher efficiency.
Other significant plan recommendations and illustrations include redesigning parking lots to
increase efficiency and reduce impermeable area, rethinking intersections and interchanges
to reduce pavement and introduce a variety of functional green spaces from neighborhood
squares, accessible large-scale spaces at the Fulbright interchange, and greenways along
trails and drainage corridors. All of these create important opportunities for both stormwater
management and increasing tree cover. The plan’s street design guides for 71B and associated
streets also envision extensive use of street trees and landscaping.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE
The process of developing Fayetteville’s Energy Action Plan began in
early 2017 with a City Council approval of a resolution supporting the
study. City staff enlisted a group of stakeholders with expertise in the
fields of energy conservation, energy efficiency/green building design
and retrofit, renewable energy design and installation, electric and gas
utilities, and facilities management to work with elected officials to
develop the framework for this plan. Staff and stakeholders used the
STAR (Sustainable Tools for Assessing and Rating Communities) system,
combined with peer city research, international best practices, and public
input as the foundation for the document. The plan was adopted by the
City Council in January, 2018.
The basic goal of the EAP is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
for activities occurring in the city. The plan’s target is a reduction of 80%
in GHG emissions by 2050 from a 2010 baseline. But a major insight of
the plan that actions that reduce GHG emissions also help create a better,
healthier, and economically efficient city.
The plan operationalizes this goal by establishing overall goals at “sector”
levels - cross-sector addressing all primary issue areas, buildings, energy
supply, transportation, and waste. The plan then establishes strategies
and action items designed to accomplish these goals. A document like
this 71B Plan, addressing a corridor that is sprawling, low-density, and
auto dependent, is an element of a strategy to transform a problem into a
solution – and to do this through a non-disruptive, evolutionary process.
The table in this section reviews the overall sector goals of the Energy
Action Plan and addresses how this document’s directions, policies, and
recommendations are relevant to the urgent local and global challenges
that we face in addressing climate change.
ENERGY ACTION PLAN GOALS AND FRAMEWORK 71B CORRIDOR PLAN RESPONSE
ENERGY SUPPLY
• Achieve 100% local government clean energy by 2030
• Achieve 50% community-wide clean energy by 2030
• Achieve 50% community-wide clean energy by 2030
While sources of energy are somewhat beyond the scope of a plan, some of the form-based recommendations of the
Regulating Plan such as step-downs in scale and building height help move toward preserving solar access. The Plan
emphasizes active and zero- and low-emission modes as the principal means of internal travel. It incorporates a con-
nected series of multi-use trail systems paralleling the 71B Corridor, often on both sides of the roadway. This will help
the city increase its ratio of community-wide clean energy as the trail system will accommodate clean micro-transit
such as e-scooters and e-bikes. Finally, accommodation of transit modes like local circulators and bus rapid transit
increase the efficacy of electric vehicles. A gradual increase in density may eventually make light rail or other fixed
guideway, high capacity systems feasible.
TRANSPORTATION
• Reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled to 2010 levels by 2030
• Achieve 25% bike/walk/transit mode share by 2030
The vision of corridor urbanism ultimately is to show a practical way to achieve mixed use urban corridors that uses
the land use inefficiency inherent in commercial strips as a resource to build quality living environments, placing
residents within easy walking or biking distance from the goods, services, and attractions offered by these corridors.
If achieved, this concept reduces the number of short- and medium-distance auto trips that people now make by de-
fault.
To achieve this strategic vision, the Plan envisions and includes implementation steps that ultimately invest millions
of dollars in creating a multi-modal transportation system. This program will include miles of sidewalks, trails, and a
transit-ready corridor. This framework is intended to directly reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled and achieve a
substantial increase in routine trips now made by automobile, thus increasing the mode share of active transporta-
tion. in bike/walk mode share.
Another plan focus that will reduce VMT and GHG emissions is its supplementary street system, which increases ori-
entation for people using the corridor and provides alternative routes with less local/through traffic friction. This in-
creases efficiency by reducing the common practice of doubling back to reach a destination and idling at congestion
points like major intersections. More direct and clearer local routes to destinations decrease VMT and reduce pollu-
tion, even by internal combustion engines.
WASTE
• Achieve 40% total waste diversion from the landfill by 2027 As stated in the response to the ‘Building’ goal, the Plan takes an evolutionary approach, balancing preservation and
adaptive reuse of existing buildings in productive use with new development on underused or inefficiently developed
sites, including excessively large parking lots. It also increases productive building area, walkability, and street orien-
tation by proposing interior streets in large parking lots and creating secondary collectors. This contrasts with an ap-
proach that aggressively demolishes buildings along the corridor, sometimes with insufficient market to support re-
placement. The Plan both promotes a fiscally responsible development pattern consistent with markets and advances
the City’s waste diversion goals. Demolition results in obvious waste to the landfill. Reuse and interior rehabilitation
generally results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than new construction.
Land development regulations are arguably the most frequently used,
day-to-day tool in implementing a plan such as this one. Project decisions
are made incrementally and on an individual basis. Aside from capital
investments, though, the regulating plan provides the essential framework for
implementation. This chapter provides a general guide for that framework
for future zoning, site development, and future policy decisions on the 71B
corridor. It refers to and corresponds directly with the Illustrative Plan and
Transportation Framework Plan which are part of this overall plan document.
7/THE REGULATING PLAN
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
123
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION
This chapter establishes principles and recommendations for a regulatory
program that will help move toward the mixed-use corridor urbanism
envisioned by this plan. It is organized in three parts:
• A brief review of current zoning in the 71B study areas and an overall
zoning concept that will encourage long-term implementation of the
land use and development components of this plan.
• Recommendations for form-based and site design regulations that
apply throughout the study corridor.
• Recommendations and directions that are specially adapted to each
of the four character segments of the study corridor.
EXISTING ZONING AND POSSIBLE
MODIFICATIONS
Overall Zoning Structure
Fayetteville’s unified development code (UDC) includes traditional use
and intensity-based zoning districts, categories that reflect specific urban
contexts, and a flexible, project-specific planned zoning district. Many of
these districts have mixed use features that permit both residential and
non-residential uses under appropriate conditions. The code also includes
form-based elements that focus on establishing build-to lines to require
strong street orientation, relate permitted heights to streets designated
in the transportation master plan. In addition, two districts, the UT Urban
Thoroughfare and DC Downtown Core districts are largely designed as
form-based districts within specific geographic areas. The mixed use UT
district, largely located in spots along College Avenue north of Maple
Street to North Street, may be of special interest for other segments along
71B.
The zoning maps on page 113 illustrate zoning district categories in the
study area, discussed in more detail below.
South School Segment, Cato Springs to Archibald Yell
The South School segment falls into several primary categories. The
University of Arkansas Research Park and other land south of Town Branch
Creek is typically in the I-1 zone, oriented toward intensive commercial and
general industrial use. Some parcels along the street south of the creek
are zoned C-2 (thoroughfare commercial) and CS (community services).
I-1 and C-2 do not permit the medium- and high-density residential uses
recommended for parts of this area in the illustrative plan.
The mixed use clusters at the 15th Street and MLK intersections are
appropriately zoned MSC (Main Street Center). These two intersections
areas include the Mill District, the proposed redevelopment of the Co-op
site on the southwest corner of MLK and South School, and the potential
redevelopment of the 15th and South School intersection. The MSC
category is consistent with the concepts introduced by the illustrative plan.
The balance of the South School portion of the study area is in the DG
Downtown General category, a broad category that accommodates the
mix of uses anticipated by the illustrative plan. However, some of the
salvage, industrial, and heavy commercial uses currently in these areas
appear to be nonconforming uses.
Archibald Yell: South School to Rock
This segment, adjacent to and south of the Downtown Core, is currently
zoned MSC from Locust Avenue (both sides), a contiguous extension of the
MLK and South School intersection; and DG north to Rock Street. Both are
consistent with both existing uses and recommendations of the illustrative
plan.
North College, North to Fulbright Interchange
Nearly all of the parcels fronting North College between North and the
Fulbright Expressway interchange are currently zoned C-2 (Thoroughfare
Commercial). This is a district largely designed for high traffic commercial
corridors that have regional markets. As such, it is clearly appropriate to
the North College status quo, but less compatible with the concept of
a mixed use corridor concept, integrating residential with commercial,
service, and employment uses. The R-O and higher-density RSF-24- and
RSF-40 districts are transitional categories current and recommended use
patterns.
Similarly, most private parcels and developments north of the interchange,
including large format retail centers are also zoned C-2. While this would
remain appropriate for most of the area’s long-term development, it does
not accommodate potential mixed use redevelopment at the Northwest
Arkansas Mall. Of existing zoniong districts, C-3 zoning, used for mixed
use buildings in the Uptown development along Steele Boulevard, is
more consistent with the illustrative plan concept. However, C-3 does not
necessarily generate the more nuanced and inter-related development
forms envisioned by the development framework and illustrative plans
shown in Chapter Six.
Overall Zoning Strategy
While some of the study area’s zoning districts are consistent with the
illustrative plan’s connected mixed use concept, others – most notably
the C-2 district predominant along North College – do not provide the
requisite flexibility. In addition, the existing form-based provisions in the
Fayetteville UDC may not be complete enough to execute the corridor
urbanism concept fully. For example, the different character and scale
of subdistricts is not reflected in existing zoning tools. A revised zoning
regime to consider includes:
• A general base zone that covers the entire corridor and applies a
limited number of strategic corridor-wide guidelines. This could be
done under the UT Urban Thoroughfare category, augmented with
form-based and site design guidelines that apply throughout the 71B
study corridor. The UT district could have additional designators – UT-
1, UT-2, and so forth – that apply to other major mixed use streets with
different characteristics. Assume for purposes of this regulating plan
that the current 71B study area is designated as UT-1.
• Within a future UT-1 category, individual requirements or guidelines
would be established for each of the four character-based subdistricts
identified in the illustrative plan.
CORRIDOR-WIDE GUIDELINES
The following items address policies and criteria that lead to the
outcomes envisioned by the overall corridor plan. They are divided
into two categories: on-corridor development, focused on elements
that specifically affect the visual and development environment along
the street; and transitional areas, considering the boundary conditions
between and interaction between the corridor and its adjacent neighbors.
These recommendations fall within three categories:
Policies are general guidelines that public and private decision-makers
apply within development design and review processes, but can be
difficult to quantify with specific numerical regulators.
Comprehensive Plan refers to policies, maps, and other specific measures
that are incorporated as comprehensive plan elements and are typically
implemented through capital investments.
124
Existing Zoning: South School Avenue and Archibald Yell Segments, Cato Springs to Rock
Existing Zoning: North College Segment,
North Street to Fulbright Interchange
I-1
I-1
C-2
MSC
MSC
MSC
MSC
CS
DG DG
DG
RMF-24
C-2
C-2
CS
C-2
RSF-8 RSF-4
P-1
C-2
R-O
R-OCS
NC
C-2
C-2RSF-40
RSF-24
C-2
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
125
Regulatory are specific required items to be drafted as part of a UT-1 or
similar district, adding special requirements and standards that apply to all
parts of the 71B planning corridor.
ON-CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT
• Each subdistrict within the corridor (as identified on the illustrative
plan) defines and communicates its own character within the context
of the larger 71B corridor. (Policy: Implementation by city and corridor
organization)
• Adjacent subdistricts, and development within subdistricts, connect
to each other through shared use paths, sidewalks, collector streets,
and drives. These connecting points, identified in the Transportation
Framework Plan, are respected with redevelopment or major retrofit
projects. (Regulatory: Implementation by City)
Vehicular
• The City’s Master Street Plan should be updated to reference the
planned connections shown within the Transportation Framework
Plan. (Comprehensive Plan: Implementation by City)
• The connections shown rely on forming a quality network of both
public and private dedications/connections. (Policy: Implementation
by City)
• Secondary connecting roads and drives may be built to current
standard street sections shown in the Master Street Plan. Updates
to the Master Street Plan should consider the nature and function of
these local connections and apply sections specific to their contexts.
(Policy and Regulatory: Implementation by City)
• For purposes of a future full regulating plan, private slip lanes and
collector links may be considered as public street frontage for the
purpose of placing buildings within build-to zones (Regulatory:
Implementation by City)
• Multi-family parking may be addressed differently from that serving
other types of development, reflecting differences in land planning,
functions and adjacency, and specific contexts. (Regulatory:
Implementation by City)
Active Transportation
• The City should update the Master Trail Plan to reflect proposed
shared use path connections. (Comprehensive Plan: Implementation
Example of minimum built street frontage for a corner lot taken from
Chapter 164.06 of the City of Fayetteville’s UDC
Preferred Urban layout for fueling station as shown in the City of Fayetteville’s UDC, 164.06
by City)
• New development projects should accommodate the proposed
shared use trail network along the 71B corridor. Actual alignments
may be adjusted to the design of the project, but must maintain
continuity. (Comprehensive Plan and Regulatory: Implementation by
City)
• All projects should provide direct, safe, and protected pedestrian
connections to and from public sidewalks along the corridor. Projects
should also provide direct connections when they are served by an
adjacent trail segment. (Regulatory: Implementation by City)
Open Space
• Project design should locate, design, and manage stormwater
management features (including retention and detention basins,
swales, surface drainageways, constructed wetlands, and greenways)
to both meet functional requirements and provide visual amenities,
entryway features, or opportunities for passive recreation.
(Regulatory: Implementation by City)
• Minimize development within 100-year floodplains. When
development occurs within these areas, require that development
includes:
• Features that prevent any impact including displacement,
additional flows, or expansion of flood boundary lines on any
property outside of the subject site and
• A design that minimizes potential damage or impact to any
habitable portion of any off-site building.
• Provide functional open spaces internal to developments that are
defined by buildings, are observable to residents and workers in
surrounding spaces, and have features and spaces that encourage
activity and passive enjoyment by adjacent users. Follow CPED (Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design) standards to ensure both
security and active, productive use. Avoid undefined open spaces that
do not have specific functions or goals for use by people.
126
Internalized parking within a multi-family development, New Orleans, LA
Built Character
Build-to or setback lines
• When possible, projects should maintain a close relationship with
and orientation to adjacent streets and public ways. Form-based
standards contained within recent hybrid zoning districts should be
implemented with new developments and retrofits along the corridor.
(Regulatory: Implementation by City)
• Because of 71B’s large number of existing buildings with deep
setbacks, it may not be possible or appropriate for all new buildings
to be placed on build-to lines adjacent to or near streets. Where bulk,
scale, internal drive connections, or other issues intervene, flexible
methods in building siting should be applied, but deeper setbacks
should be remediated by clear relationships to adjacent streets, public
open spaces, and pathways. Surface parking between the 71B right-
of-way line and facades facing 71B should be minimized. (Regulatory:
Implementation by City)
Parking and vehicular accommodation within development
• The City of Fayetteville’s UDC currently has progressive parking and
vehicular accommodation requirements that will serve the corridor
well as it redevelops. Parking should be located behind and to the
sides of buildings with build-to zone requirements. Parking standards
as currently covered in Chapter 172 of the UDC should be utilized.
(Regulatory: Implementation by City)
• Auto-oriented businesses such as fuel stations or drive-through
establishments should adhere to the urban layout guidelines set forth
in UDC Section 164.06 (E) to minimize their impact on 71B and other
public streets. (Regulatory: Implementation by City)
Number of Stories
• The typical maximum height for buildings along the 71B corridor
should be three to four stories. This may increase in specially
designated areas. (Regulatory: Implementation by City)
• In selected urban nodes or sites within subdistricts, free-standing
buildings up to seven stories (consistent with existing UT district
standards) may be considered for compatibility with surrounding
design character and impact on residential areas. Individual,
isolated sites may tolerate up to ten stories. Examples of these nodes
include Fiesta Square or the corridor segment between Millsap and
the northern city limits. Most existing office buildings, hotels, and
structures in this area do not exceed 5 stories in height. (Regulatory:
Implementation by City).
Signage
• New development or redevelopment along the corridor should use
wall or monument signage. (Regulatory: Implementation by City)
TRANSITION AREAS
Transitions between intensive corridor development and surrounding,
lower-intensity neighborhoods and uses can present significant issues.
These issues include noise, light, traffic, and building scale. Internal use
and intensity transitions within mixed use (such as proximate commercial
and residential uses) also must be managed. Typically, the most intensive
and public settings are directly adjacent to the corridor. Properties farther
from the 71B “main line” transition to a smaller scale residential pattern,
particularly in the southern and middle subdistricts of the corridor.
A variety of planning tools are available to address use and intensity
transitions within and outside of the mixed use corridors and a proposed
UT-1 district should include requirements for managing these potential
conflicts. Examples of transitional area treatments include:
• Near residential areas, prohibiting parking lots between public streets
and buildings to reflect development patterns of adjacent residential
development. (Regulatory: Implementation by City)
• Provide most parking within multi-family residential projects rather
than between buildings and the street, thereby defining the street
edge with residential buildings. (Regulatory through site plan review:
Implementation by City)
• Design lighting of commercial and industrial signage to minimize
impact on adjacent residential areas. (Regulatory: Implementation by
City)
• Avoid channeling traffic generated by higher-intensity uses to low
traffic streets except as part of comprehensively planned, mixed use
projects. (Regulatory through site plan review: Implementation by
City)
• Make maximum use of internal cross-easements and shared
access points between or within individual projects when possible.
(Regulatory: Implementation by City)
• Use traffic calming techniques to reduce speeds between adjacent
properties. (Policy: Implementation by City)
• Connect buildings on the site with internal streets, drives, and
pedestrian connections and pathways to prevent unnecessary traffic
in adjacent areas. (Policy and Regulatory: Implementation by City)
Transition tools such as landscaped buffers and step-downs in height and
scale of buildings are already included in the UDC. Techniques to connect
corridor development to surrounding areas should also be considered and
include:
• In retrofits of larger-scale existing buildings or new construction,
providing public spaces for interaction. (Policy: Implementation by
City and property owners/developers)
• Using liner buildings along blank walls of commercial “boxes” with
office, small-scale storefronts, or multifamily, possibly serviced
by interior service alleys. (Policy: Implementation by City and
developers)
But transitions are not just about managing and minimizing conflicts.
Connectivity and mutual reinforcement of urban environments are
fundamental values of the 71B concept. A successful corridor responds to
the needs of both residents and businesses, and establishes a fabric based
on connectedness. To this end, the plan advocates a circulation network
that both improves internal links and connects the corridor to the rest of
the city. Good transition techniques that provide connectedness without
conflict include:
• Using public environments like public open space, interior streets or
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
127
drive aisles with a residential street character, and trail and greenway
corridors to provide positive common ground between residential and
commercial uses.
• Creating residential clusters and neighborhoods that connect to
surrounding commercial development but have sufficient critical mass
and common space to form an interior residential environment.
• Orienting commercial and residential service areas toward each other
or locating commercial service areas to avoid impacts on residential
neighbors.
• Establishing a gradient scale on projects adjacent to pre-existing
single-family residential neighborhoods, stepping residential density
or project intensity down from highest along the 71B corridor itself to
lowest adjacent to low-density development. An approach to consider
might be limiting new residential density to a specific increment (for
example 200%) within 100 feet (or a typical lot depth) of pre-existing
developed residential blocks.
• Managing the size and visibility of commercial signage, focusing
signage toward the main corridor.
The City of Fayetteville’s implementation of good planning policies, strong
site development design standards for multifamily and non-residential
uses, and zoning districts with form-based components have addressed
land use transitions along 71B. These districts and standards, paired with
the transportation framework and illustrative plans within this study, will
help ensure that the evolution of the 71B corridor also benefits surrounding
parts of the city.
REGULATORY DIRECTIONS
Many of the regulatory items noted above will ultimately be incorporated
into Fayetteville’s UDC as design standards or form-based elements
within a possible UT or other format. This section presents more detailed
approaches, implementing corridor-wide guidelines. It identifies objectives
and provide sample language and quantitative factors that can provide a
starting point for discussion and negotiation.
PARKING
Objective: Minimize amount and visibility of surface parking from 71B.
Potential approach:
• In new development, surface parking should avoid or minimize a
location between the street facade of a building and the 71B corridor.
If permitted, surface parking should not cover more than 25% of the
area of the streetyard along 71B (the area of a rectangle between the
street facing facade and the right-of-way line).
Objective: Minimize the amount and visibility of parking serving multi-
story structures. Potential approaches:
• Multi-story buildings, typically with residential and office uses on
upper levels, should maximize opportunities to locate their parking
within the building footprint or a parking structure.
• At least 50% of the exterior of parking along and visible from 71B or
intersecting streets included in the city’s Master Street Plan should
be screened at street level by another building (such as a retail
storefront), earthwork with landscaping (such as a landscaped berm),
or a facade similar in design to the rest of the building.
• Maintain flexibility to modify parking standards on an individual basis
when a project demonstrates that its potential density, special urban
design features, or building and site design quality provide benefits
that compensate for reduced screening or landscaping.
Objective: Reduce the scale and impact of lots, minimize heat island
effects, and provide more effective interior storm water management.
Potential approaches:
• In surface parking lots, provide a landscaped corridor of at least 20
feet for every three contiguous parking bays. A parking bay is defined
as one or two strips of perpendicular or diagonal parking and the
drive aisle that serves them. The landscaped corridor should include
stormwater management techniques such as rain gardens.
• For surface parking lots with a capacity of 50 or more spaces, provide
permeable pavement for at least 50% of paved area.
• Divide parking lots with a capacity of 150 or more spaces into parking
blocks of not more than 75 stalls, separated by landscaped corridors.
• For parking lots with 100 or more stalls, provide deciduous tree cover
that shades a minimum of 25% of the paved area of the lot. Specific
crown diameters for acceptable trees will be established in the UDC.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Objective: Minimize number of curb and driveway cuts along 71B to
reduce conflict points and traffic friction along the corridor and improve
connectivity for pedestrians and personal mobility modes. Potential
approaches:
The design of existing surface parking lots should be modified as follows:
• Replace existing direct access from parking facilities to 71B with
access from available intersecting streets whenever possible,
provided connections to these streets have full access in both
directions.
• When intersecting streets are not available, provide shared,
Parking within a building footprint.
Parking contained at or half a level below
grade within the walls of the building
support three levels of apartments
above with minimal surface parking.
(Wauwatosa, WI)
Screening parking with projecting
storefronts. This concept on a significant
street permits both at-grade parking and
street-facing retail. (Iowa City, IA)
Parking bays separated by landscaped corridors. Requiring a landscaped separation
between each three contiguous parking bays breaks up large expanses of parking when
they occur. (Derby, KS)
128
continuous drive aisles, slip lanes, and other techniques to connect
parking lots serving different properties to minimize points of direct
access to 71B.
• In order to provide full access, mid-block direct driveway accesses
to 71B on opposite sides must be aligned with each other. These
accesses may be provided at median cuts with protected left turns
or at least 150 feet from intersections on sections with two way turn
lanes.
CONTEXT-SPECIFIC BUILDING SCALE
Objective: Establish building scale and form appropriate to different
settings along the 71B corridor. Potential approaches:
• Establish a maximum, uninterrupted building length of 200 feet along
the North College Avenue segment between North Street and the
north city limits; 100 feet along the Archibald Yell segment between
Rock Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard; and 150 feet along the
South School Avenue segment from the MLK Boulevard intersection
to Cato Springs Road. Provide flexibility to waive or expand these
maximums for comprehensively planned projects on large sites in
excess of five acres. These projects should demonstrate features that
reduce the impact of larger buildings and increase their facade variety
and quality.
• Establish a typical maximum height of four stories over grade level
along South School Avenue between Cato Springs Road and MLK
Boulevard and along North College Avenue from North Street
to the north city limits. Establish a three-level maximum for any
development along Archibald Yell between MLK Boulevard and Rock
Street.
• Reduce the typical maximum height by one story for any building
within 150 feet of any RSF or NC District. However, no reduction under
this guideline should establish a maximum height less than three
stories above grade level for any building.
• Increase scale and height levels at strategic locations including
the Fiesta Square area, the Northwest Arkansas Mall site, potential
development areas opened up as part of a modification of the
Fulbright Expressway interchange, the former Co-op site, and key
intersection nodes. Potential maximum building heights should be
consistent with those of the UT District, with the exception of up to ten
stories on any sites that would be made available by modifications of
the Fulbright Expressway intersection. Node locations are identified in
the subdistrict recommendations shown in the following section.
PLACEMAKING AT URBAN NODES
Objective: Define Urban Place Intersections at key locations, where
higher densities are established for new projects and a context-specific
street definition is required. Potential approaches:
• Define key urban place intersections along the 71B corridor. Candidate
urban places include intersections of 71B with 15th Street, MLK,
Sycamore, Township, Rolling Hills, and Millsap.
• For new development at urban places, establish a build-to zone that
defines the corner while providing room for amenities, including a
corner place and transit accommodations. A reasonable build-to zone
would include a maximum setback of 25 feet from the curb line of 71B
and intersecting major streets.
• For new urban place intersections, require a three-story minimum
height and up to a maximum as provided by the UT Urban
Thoroughfare district. A step-back building is permitted with a two-
story component on the build-to line, stepping up to a higher building
block behind (see accompanying illustration).
2
s
t
m
i
n
5-
7
s
t
m
a
x
Step-back building concept at Urban Place nodes. The possible regulation permits a
two (rather than three)-story minimum height at the building line, provided that the
project includes a higher building,consistent with UT requirements, behind.
Private street prtoviding connected, multi-modal access through a major mixed use
complex (Boulder, CO)
• New development should provide space for an urban corner amenity,
incorporating landscaping, street furniture, special lighting, or other
features. Site design at potential BRT station stops should provide
adequate space to accommodate pedestrian circulation, a transit
station or shelter, and related amenities.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIVITY/ORIENTATION
Objective: Provide connectivity and utility for pedestrian, bicycle, and
personal mobility devices. Potential approaches:
• Site plans for new development projects should provide access and
easements as required for shared use paths and roadways, generally
as provided in Transportation Framework. Flexibility in routing
through a site should be permitted, provided that overall performance
standards for directness, safety, and experience are met.
• Developments with frontage along 71B should provide front facades
with direct, safe, and secure pedestrian connections from the public
sidewalk to the building entrances.
• Buildings adjacent to a shared-use path identified in this plan should
provide a finished facade to the path and a direct, safe, and secure
connection from the path to the adjacent building.
• New developments should include construction of a six-foot sidewalk
segment along 71B, consistent with city standards and overall street
design concepts.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
129
View looking east toward 71B Street from the location of a residential lot on the
north side of East Harold Street.
This office building, an adaptive reuse of a former fire station, is highly
compatible with the surrounding residential area. Contributing factors
include scale of the building, relationship of the structure to the street,
mature vegetation, an attractive and transparent building façade, and
parking orientation.
Hobby Lobby Shopping Center/Harold and Lee Street Area along the
eastern side of the corridor
The above image illustrates a service and delivery area behind a
commercial development adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods
across a street. The view and feel of this transition area could be
upgraded by adding landscaping, re-orienting the service area, and other
design techniques.
Classic motel in Midtown segment of North College Avenue
Topographic changes along the east side of 71B in the midtown area
provide a substantive natural transition zone with vertical separation
between the commercial and residential areas. However, this same
topography also impedes traffic and pedestrian connectivity between
North College and neighboring residential areas.
Daisy Exchange retail store at the Northwest corner of East Sycamore and
North College Avenue.
Recent development along the corridor is more street- and pedestrian-
oriented than older developments along the corridor.
Car wash and service on North Lee Avenue
Mature trees, pedestrian elements, and the orientation of an auto-
oriented business help create an acceptable transition environment from
commercial to residential.
Zoning Transition on the Northwest Corner of College and Sycamore
Over the past 5 years, the City has implemented hybrid zoning districts
with form-based components that help ease transirtions from more to
less intensive uses. In the example of East Sycamore shown above, the
C-2 district prevalent along College Avenue transitions through the CS
Community Services mixed use zone and the medium-density residential
RI-12 Residential Intermediate-12 (12 units/acre) district.
Google Image Google Image Google Image
Google Image
CORRIDOR CONTEXTS WITH COMMENTARY
C-2
CS
RI-12
130
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center (above left), the city’s first major multi-tenant center displays a number of significant issues that a retrofit consistent with the
guidelines addressed in this section would address. These include the lack of a continuous pedestrian connection between the College Avenue crosswalk
and the center’s pedestrian way; lack of clear circulation through in the parking lot, and lack of relationship to new residential development on the east.
Recent multi-tenant commercial building at Sycamore and College, while still a single-use project, displays much better pedestrian access and provides
an urban place at the corner.
The Varsity House Apartment complex along 71B in south Fayetteville
addresses the pedestrian environment and street edge along South
School, transitioning to a more typical apartment layout to the west. This
development is also in the mixed use Community Services (CS) zoning
district, which permits a range of residential densities and low-intensity
commercial along with some form-based components.
The Mill District is evolving as a strong mixed use node, consistent with
the concept behind its form-based, mixed use MSC Main Street Center
district. This district provides the flexibility for innovative projects like the
Mill adaptive reuse and the planned redevelopment of the Co-op shown
in the background of the above photograph. MSC sets up the concept of
concentrated, strategic nodes at major points along the corridor.
Much of the North Fayetteville area is dominated by large format
retail buildings, deep setbacks, extensive surface parking lots, and
disengagement from the street environment. These are permitted
within the prevalent C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district.
However, other models in and around this part of the study area provide
components useful for types of different development. Nelson’s Crossing,
illustrated above, breaks up parking, provides a good pedestrian
environment, articulates its building, and includes interior streets. While
outside of the immediate study area, the Uptown development along
Steele Boulevard, zoned C-3, provides a vertical mixed use model that can
be adapted to the Mall site with its oversized parking lots. Uptown presents
to the street, follows a build-to line, includes both on- and off-street
parking, and enhances the street environment with human-scale elements.
South Fayetteville
Midtown North Fayetteville/Mall District
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
131
DISTRICT SPECIFIC REGULATING FRAMEWORK
The previous section describes an urban design framework that generally
applies throughout the 71B corridor. A central principle of this framework
recognizes the individual character of different parts of the corridor, and
a successful regulating program should also reflect these differences.
The framework plan presented in Chapter Six views the study area as
four related but distinct segments: Research Center/South Fayetteville
from Cato Springs to Rock; North to Township; Township to Millsap; and
Millsap to the northern city limits. The 71B segments outside the scope of
this study – the Downtown segment from Rock to Dickson and the central
segment from Dickson to North – also follow this pattern of distinctive
districts along the long corridor.
The 71B regulating plan recognizes how individual segments divide into
subdistricts with characteristics that define them. The intention of this
plan is to address these distinctions and provide a framework that both
guides the drafting of a context-sensitive, flexible regulating program
and practical land use and development designs that remain true to the
unifying principles of the 71B corridor plan.
For each of the four segments, then, this section includes:
• A list of the distinguishing features and relationships that draft
regulations and private and public developers should address.
• Regulatory guidelines that apply to the entire segment.
• A regulating program for each subdistrict within the segment.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER
• Lower in-line traffic counts along 71B than other corridor areas.
Heavy traffic at the Martin Luther King intersection with significant
congestion on the north leg.
• Town Branch Trail intersection with South School.
• Frisco Trail intersection with South School and MLK.
• Relatively high pedestrian use along the corridor, including a
significant population without access to personal vehicles.
• Proximity to 7-Hills Homeless Shelter.
• Well-utilized public transportation area.
• Proximity to Walker Park.
• Redevelopment potential at intersections and along sections of the
corridor, most notably from 15th Street to MLK. Need for a detailed
study in this section.
Research
Walker
Park
South School
Special
Development
Area
Mill
Archibald Yell
Research Center/South Fayetteville
Development Subdistricts
• Rapidly transitioning district in both residential and commercial
markets.
• Institutional and industrial presence, with substantial truck traffic.
• Proximity to Downtown, University and private student housing.
• Redevelopment potential at southern quadrants of School Avenue
and 15th Street Intersection and along sections of the corridor
• Pending major redevelopment of former Co-op site at southwest
quadrant of MLK intersection.
• South Fayetteville reputation for eclectic nature, wooded landscapes,
and housing variety.
GENERAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
• Include retail, restaurants, and other types of commercial and
mixed use that support urban nodes. Large projects may include a
requirement for at least a modest amount of non-residential street
level use.
Subdistrict edges Urban place intersections Special Development Area Intensity Nodes
RESEARCH CENTER/SOUTH FAYETTEVILLE: Cato Springs to Rock Street
132
RESEARCH PARK SUBDISTRICT (Cato Springs Road to Town
Branch Creek and Trail)
• Allow mixed use and relatively high-density residential by right.
Consider a requirement for predominately residential projects of more
than three acres in site area to include retail or commercial uses within
a minimum of 20% of their street-level floor area.
• Preserve existing key commercial establishments and encourage new
projects to incorporate existing destination retail businesses.
• Execute the University of Arkansas’ Research Park master plan. Work
with the University to maximize an urban building edge along its
South School frontage.
• Require that development in this section include alternative
transportation connectivity consistent with the illustrative plan,
connecting new development areas with the Razorback Greenway
and Town Branch Trail.
• Typically follow a build-to zone of 10 to 25 feet from the back of the
proposed continuous sidewalk, sidepath, or Master Street Plan right-
of-way along South School Avenue.
• Encourage civic/Institutional uses such as schools, community
centers, and others to keep new development consistent with the
distinct character of the South Fayetteville District.
• Respect scale and maximize compatibility with existing single-family
development east and west of the corridor in redevelopment and infill
projects.
• Provide local bicycle and pedestrian connections to the existing
regional trail system, concentrating on connections on the eastern
side of the corridor and along and pedestrian access on and across
Archibald Yell.
• Incorporate access management plans into new projects and potential
retrofits.
• Update the Walker Park Neighborhood Plan and incorporate it into
future area planning and implementation.
• In general, make extensive use of small and medium-sized
structures that respect the relatively fine scale of South Fayetteville
neighborhoods. Direct larger scale buildings to the Mill and Coop
areas, where larger, industrial-type structures predominate, or to
areas without an existing smaller-scale residential context.
• Encourage moderate density, family-oriented housing types through
incentives on both the production and finance sides.
• Develop a detailed master plan for redevelopment of the corridor
sector between and including 15th Street and Martin Luther King Blvd,
the area with the most significant major redevelopment opportunities
and needs.
•
•
WALKER PARK SUBDISTRICT (Town Branch Creek to 11th Street)
• Continue implementation of the Walker Park Neighborhood Plan.
• Develop an urban intensity node at 15th and South School. On the
southeast corner, provide strong corner definition and compliance
with height, density, and placement regulation for nodes. Southwest
corner should provide an urban place with landscape and street
furniture. Any intensification or redevelopment of this site for another
use should similarly provide a street-defining building.
On northeast corner with surrounding development, provide a
corner place with landscape and street furniture, incorporating
improved circulation and off-street parking for the iconic City Liquor
store. Similar treatment should be applied to the northwest corner
incorporating Nomad’s restaurant and music venue.
• Move toward transition of existing salvage and industrial uses to
mixed use and moderate- to high-density residential development.
Within proposed residential areas, include high-density, single-family
forms, including small lot detached , single-family attached, and
townhome configurations. In large projects, consider incorporating
a requirement for a minimum percentage of a site to be devoted to
these family-friendly urban housing forms.
• Maintain and enhance locally significant retail and food and drink-
oriented businesses that help define the identity of the subdistrict.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
133
• Establish requirements for pedestrian connectivity between existing
retail businesses and centers, and between existing commercial and
new mixed use developments.
• Eliminate encroachments of private circulation and parking on public
right-of-way. Provide technical and limited financial assistance for site
redesign that complies with these requirements.
• With redevelopment of the east side of the subdistrict, provide at
least one additional connection across Spout Spring Branch to the
existing Walker Park and regional trail system.
• For new buildings, follow a typical build-to zone of 10 to 25 feet from
the back of the proposed continuous sidewalk, sidepath, or Master
Street Plan right-of-way along South School Avenue.
• Establish at least one new high-visibility, signal-protected pedestrian
and bicycle crossing in this subdistrict, located near the 11th Street
intersection.
MILL SUBDISTRICT (11th Street to Prairie)
• Establish an urban intensity urban node at MLK and South School,
permitting mixed uses and higher densities. Redevelopment of the
southwest corner should follow urban node standards with street
defining buildings at appropriate scale with corner place features.
Similar standards should apply to new infill development on the
northwest corner. Urban place intersection standards should apply
to existing commercial on the southeast corner. Existing landscaping
on the northeast corner satisfies one element of an “urban place”
consistent with these guidelines.
• Preserve existing destination-defining, commercial uses with
expansion of commercial buildings with build-to zones that provide
street definition and better pedestrian connection to sidewalks and
sidepaths.
• Razorback Greenway provides a protected crossing of South School.
Require continuous sidewalk and sidepath along the street.
• Require continuous sidewalks and sidepaths along South School with
new development, connecting to the Razorback Greenway and its
protected pedestrian crossing of South School.
• Eliminate encroachments of private circulation and parking on public
right-of-way. Provide technical and limited financial assistance for site
redesign that complies with these requirements.
• With adjacent properties, establish a continuous sidewalk to Prairie,
which continues north along Archibald Yell.
• Reinforce 11th Street as a pedestrian connection to the National
Cemetery. Accomplish this in partnership with adjacent properties
at the 11th Street intersection by providing pedestrian routes and an
improved street section.
• Establish a commercial/residential edge between South School and
adjacent residential uses along Locust. In a regulating plan, define
infill sites along Locust for moderate-density, attainable urban family
housing
ARCHIBALD YELL SUBDISTRICT (Prairie to Rock Street)
• Use regulations to encourage small-lot single-family homes, built as
detached, attached, or townhome units on potential redevelopment
sites. Infill should be consistent in scale and density with the
surrounding, largely single-family neighborhood. Density may
increase on properties abutting Archibald Yell.
• Regulating plans should identify two commercial/non-residential or
mixed use clusters on the north side between School to Locust; and
the south side between South and Block. Include shared parking,
vehicular access, and complete pedestrian accessibility within these
clusters. One-story commercial is consistent with the scale and quality
of these existing areas.
• Preserve other destination-defining commercial development,
allowing growth and infill for additional single-family and small multi-
family.
• With modifications to Archibald Yell, require dedicated space for
planned pedestrian or bicycle access, with primary focus on the north
side of the corridor. Dedications may require site modifications to
avoid impact on existing businesses.
• Adjust build-to requirement to topography, but generally remain
within 10 to 25 feet of the edge of roadway (where sidewalks are
missing) or the back of the sidewalk/sidepath to maintain urban
character.
134
FACTORS TO CONSIDER
• Transition from a small block grid to mid-century development
patterns with longer blocks and less street continuity. Topography
reinforces this transition and works against connectivity
• Scull Creek Trail (Razorback Greenway) parallels 71B about 3/4 mile
west, but not strongly connected to College Avenue corridor.
• Future destination of proposed Sublett Creek Trail.
• Large institutional presences of UAMS and VA Campuses.
• Evelyn Hills Shopping Center and neighborhood connections. Evelyn
Hills is Fayetteville’s original large multi-tenant retail center.
• City owned natural area north of Lake Lucille and future trail
connection.
• Proximity to parks and schools, including Gregory Park. Wilson Parks,
and Woodland Junior High
• Influence of University community and related housing.
• Redevelopment and infill potential along this section of the corridor.
• Drainage and related flood zone on western side of corridor.
GENERAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
• Recognize roles of local businesses, restaurants, and key medical/
institutional uses. Provide a regulatory framework that recognizes
their need for identity and access.
• Encourage visual and pedestrian linkages and parking lot cross-access
to help fuse similar uses, such as locally-owned restaurants, into a
unified “district.”
• Apply urban density node requirements and standards to the
Sycamore, Poplar, and Township intersections to the degree permitted
by existing viable uses.
• Provide step-downs in use intensity, scale, and height in transition
areas between the College Avenue corridor and adjacent, largely
single-family development to the east and west.
• Require new development dedications or existing development
retrofits to provide sidewalk continuity along College and the shared
use path network proposed in this plan. Identify and establish right-
of-way for major regional trail connections, notably connecting the
Sublett Creek and Razorback Greenway via Poplar.
• Dedicate right-of-way to establish a fine-grained collector system.
VA/Evelyn Hills
Subdistrict edge
Urban nodes
“Restaurant Square”
that diverts some local traffic from College. When dedications have
an impact on private businesses, provide technical design and limited
financial assistance to modify existing site design.
• In cooperation with corridor businesses and coordinated with a 71B
enhancement project, implement an access management program
consistent with this plan and overall regulatory recommendations
presented earlier in this chapter. Use the city’s ability to manage
full two-way access to properties to encourage a partnership that
benefits businesses, customers, and the general public.
• Implement zoning modifications with a special district in the current
UDC to establish build-to zones, reduce setback requirements, require
pedestrian access from public corridors, and provide height, scale,
and buffer transitions to lower-density, peripheral development.
VA/MIDTOWN SOUTH: North to Township
Subdistrict edges Urban place intersections Special Development Area Intensity Nodes
VA/EVELYN HILLS SUBDISTRICT (North Street to Green Acres
Drive)
• Implement a redesign plan for Evelyn Hills through a combination
of a regulatory framework and public/private partnership. Basic
regulatory components informing a redesign (illustrated in Chapter
6) include a protected pedestrian connection from College Avenue
crosswalks, sidewalks, or other paths; division of large surface lots
into defined parking blocks; interior streets with pedestrian access;
and increased capacity for future high-density ,mixed-use peripheral
development.
• Incorporate a range of residential densities generally stepping down
in density toward lower density adjacent development. Include
provisions for semi-attached or townhome type development with
access to common open space within or near the development.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
135
• Educate and encourage business owners to utilize use unit 45, small-
scale production, which allows non-retail boutique manufacturing and
makerspace within commercial building shells.
• Address topographic barriers to pedestrian connectivity between
developments by preparing and implementing a specific pedestrian
access plan with alternatives to traditional street sidewalks.
Require dedications or easements necessary to execute the active
transportation connections proposed by the 71B plan.
• Establish new build-to zones that establish a maximum setback for
buildings oriented to College Avenue, probably consistent with those
of the UT district.
• Encourage both vertical and horizontal mixed-use in new
development projects. Regulations for development forms and
vertical mixed use should encourage a market-realistic minimum for
street level commercial use. Development forms may allow single-
level commercial components in the build-to zone as part of common
developments, with adjacent or attached multi-story residential
blocks set farther back from the street.
• Incorporate shared-use path connections to Woodland Junior High
and Gregory Park in the site plans of projects adjacent to these
facilities.
• Encourage a urban density node at Sycamore intersection.
Contemporary development at three corners should provide corner
places with landscape and streetscape features. Redevelopment
of strip center site on northeast corner should provide strong
corner definition and should comply with node height, density, and
placement regulations.
• Use public right-of-way created by redesigning the Green Acres
intersection to provide a central open space for adjacent residential
and mixed use development. Regulations for developing surrounding
properties should provide orientation and connection to this future
community amenity.
RESTAURANT/TOWNSHIP SUBDISTRICT (Green Acres Drive to
Township Street)
• Modify use regulations to phase out commercial uses with open
displays such as vehicular sales and emphasize restaurants/food
service, office, retail, and residential use.
• In this subdistrict, recognize patterns of single-level, free-standing
restaurants in existing buildings. Specific regulations and guidelines
for the subdistrict should:
• Permit setbacks consistent with existing establishments for infill
or replacement development in this segment; and
• Require site plan modifications coordinated with future College
Avenue improvements that provide shared access, parking lot
cross-access using common drives and slip lanes, and pedestrian
connectivity between buildings and to public sidewalks.
• Encourage and assist private site modifications with technical and
limited financial assistance.
• Develop a public realm and branding program using tactical methods
such as graphics, streetscape, and street section amenities such as
landscaped medians and special lighting. Incorporate a protected
midblock pedestrian crossing into a College Avenue improvement
project to unify the subdistrict at a location between Poplar and
Township.
• Require redevelopment between the terminus of the proposed and
Poplar Street to dedicate a route to continue the Sublett Creek Trail to
the Poplar Bikeway.
• Designate the floodplain west of College Avenue for public open
space use. Development on the east side should not place buildings
on the floodplain. Other development such as supporting parking
must be designed to detain any stormwater flows that it generates.
• Develop primary urban intensity nodes at the Poplar and Township
intersections. Develop urban places at Poplar’s southeast and
northwest corners with landscape and streetscape features.
• Design buildings with strong corner definition, compliant with node
height, density, and placement regulations. Existing development
at Township is relatively recent, although any future redevelopment
should similarly comply with node regulations. Minor site
modifications may be required to accommodate future corner place
enhancements and station stops for a bus rapid transit.
Divergence of Green Acres and North College. Redesign of this intersection to
provide a 90 degree angle will both improve safety and create an open space
“triangle,” a central commons that can serve neighboring residential development.
North College Avenue looking north from Harold Street. Management
of open auto display areas while respecting business needs will be an
important challenge for the regulating plan.
136
FACTORS TO CONSIDER
• All four corners of Township have recent development with substantial
opportunity for redevelopment north of the intersection.
• Key business environment for local businesses of different scales.
• Importance of and potential for connections to the Razorback
Greenway (Scull Creek Trail) to the west.
• Relative proximity to Gulley Park and near adjacency to The New
School.
• Major possibilities for infill development on vacant ground, marginally
occupied older shopping centers (east side from Harold to Masonic),
or underused large parking lots (Fiesta Square).
• Importance of access management and secondary local circulation
system.
• Overall a transitioning area with high redevelopment potential, but as
of today, primarily commercial in use.
• Challenging topography establishes a development edge on east side
of the corridor along Rolling Hills.
• Sensitivity of adjacent neighborhoods north of Sunbridge on the west
and Rolling Hills on the east
• Proximity to many office and work environments on/near Millsap.
GENERAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
• Recognize roles of local businesses and provide a regulatory
framework accommodating their need for identity and access.
• Provide step-downs in use intensity, scale, and height in transition
areas between the College Avenue corridor and adjacent, largely
single-family development to the east and west. Use local street
patterns, shared use paths, and greenways to help reinforce
compatibility between large scale new development and low- and
medium-density residential areas.
• Establish regulations and potential future actions that improve
compatibility of automobile dealerships and large outdoor displays
with other commercial uses and potential new uses, including
residential and mixed-use development.
• Establish a multi-dimensional local access system that includes a local
access grid, continuous shared use path paralleling but separate from
the main corridor, and continuous sidewalks along College Avenue.
Through regulation and negotiation, ensure dedication of necessary
right-of-way, including possibility of land trades for signal relocation
and alignment of the local grid. Link the system to local streets,
reducing exclusive reliance on College Avenue for access.
• Execute an access management program consistent with this plan and
the overall regulation proposed earlier in this chapter.
• Ensure that ultimate zoning strategy accommodates residential and
mixed-use development, improves street definition and increases
development density by establishing a clear building line zone, and
reduces the visibility and impact of parking and outdoor display areas.
• Apply intensity node requirements and standards to the Township,
Sunbridge, Appleby/Rolling Hills, and Millsap intersections to the
degree permitted by stable use patterns. Consider Longview for this
status, depending on development demand.
Sunbridge Fiesta Square
Subdistrict edges Urban place
intersections
Drake Enterprise
Area
Fiesta Square
District
Transitional ResidentialIntensity Nodes
MIDTOWN NORTH: Township to Millsap
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
137
FIESTA SQUARE SUBDISTRICT (Appleby to Millsap)
• Establish a Fiesta Square Special District with flexible regulations
developed cooperatively with the property owner to produce a
cohesive multi-building center. Provide flexible height regulations
to provide both minimum scale and greater than normal maximums.
Fashion the actual regulating framework around an adopted master
plan.
• Include dedication of right-of-way that to connect Appleby with
Plainview and a continuation of Rolling Hills through the site.
• Design new streets with a safe, protected path for bicycles,
electric scooters, and other low-impact mobility devices.
Integrate transit, including future bus rapid transit.
• Develop urban streetscapes and sidewalk width along new
streets.
• Provide front entrance exposures to both College Avenue and
the new Appleby/Plainview connection for new buildings with
dual frontages. Develop urban corner places at the Rolling Hills
entrance with build-to zones at or near property lines.
• Require a minimum percentage of street level commercial use;
and an adjustment of typical parking requirements.
SUNBRIDGE SUBDISTRICT (Township to Appleby)
• Modify use regulations to phase out commercial uses with outdoor
displays on small lots such as vehicular sales, instead emphasizing
restaurants/food service, office, retail, and residential use. This can
be accomplished by establishing these as legal, non-conforming
uses, with rights extended only to current owners and prohibiting
expansion; or exploring the possibility of an amortization period
allowing the use to continue for a set number of years (such as ten
years).
• Use regulations and redesign of the Villa Boulevard intersection
to help create a cohesive mixed-density, mixed use neighborhood
between Township and Sunbridge, linking back to the Sunbridge Villas
neighborhood. Establish transitional density residential zoning on the
outside edges of the corridor development area and adjacent to or
influencing the character of surrounding single family neighborhoods.
Primary transitional areas, permitting small lot single-family and
attached housing, are between Township and Sunbridge and
southeast of the Rolling Hills intersection.
• Encourage both vertical and horizontal mixed-use in new
development projects. Regulations for development forms and
vertical mixed use should encourage a market-realistic minimum for
street level commercial use. Development forms may allow single-
level commercial components in the build-to zone as part of common
developments, with adjacent or attached multi-story residential
blocks set farther back from the street.
• In new development projects, require dedication of easements or
right-of-way for secondary collector and drive connections that
supplement College Avenue for local access; and for the continuous
shared use off-street path generally as proposed in Chapter Six.
• Incorporate access management, landscaping and public space,
and redesign of parking lots to provide cross access into future
improvements of College Avenue. Establish a regulatory framework
that requires cross access, becoming effective in coordination with
the adjacent street project.
• Create regulations for a Drake Street enterprise neighborhood,
maintaining current permitted uses but also permitting workshops,
custom fabrication, and other types of “makerspace” establishments.
Define initial boundaries of the neighborhood as College to residential
property lines along the east side of Sunbridge Villas and the Redbud,
Mimosa, and Evergreen Lane cul-de-sacs, from Sunbridge to Golden
Eagle Drive, Incude a sufficient residential buffer along the western
edge of the enterprise area.
• Establish build-to zones that establish a maximum setback for new
buildings oriented to College Avenue. In addition to defining the
street, this will make some sites on the east side of the street more
developable.
• Establish Sunbridge as an urban intensity node, with mixed use
development and corner places focusing on the southeast and
southwest quadrants of the T-intersection. Encourage higher
residential densities and building scale at this node. Establish a
secondary node around protected mid-block pedestrian crossing at a
point between Sunbridge and Rolling Hills.
Pilot cycle track in Fiesta Square parking lot. A pedestrian and bicycle
link along a new Plainview-Appleby connector is a critical part of the
transportation network.
Auto dealerships. Dealerships are an important part of the 71B local
economy. New regulations should improve compatibility with other
commercial uses and nearby mixed-use development.
Sidewalk in the Fiesta Square subdistrict. More recent commercial
development has included College Avenue walkways.
Mixed use regulations. A flexible regulatory plan can encourage
redevelopment of the “Liquor World” shopping center and integrate the
site into the surrounding neighborhood.
138
corridor urbanism. These include improving the visual character of
street frontage consistent with the need to display products outdoors;
improving circulation and customer access; encouraging low-impact
expansions that create contiguous sites and avoid using public right-
of-way for internal circulation; and promoting possible right-of-
way trades to improve site function and implement transportation
recommendations in this plan.
• Require dedication of easements or right-of-way for secondary
collector and drive connections that supplement College Avenue
for local access; and for the continuous shared use off-street path
generally as proposed in Chapter Six.
• Incorporate access management, landscaping and public space,
and redesign of parking lots to provide cross access into future
improvements of College Avenue. Establish a regulatory framework
that requires cross access, becoming effective in coordination with
the adjacent street project.
• Encourage higher residential densities and building scale at the
Longview node with a protected pedestrian crossing (such as a refuge
median with HAWK signal) of College at a point between Longview
and Harold. Establish corner places and a potential transit station
stop at Millsap if required.
• Establish street-defining build-to zones for new development with
height limits up to four levels over parking along College and on major
east-west connector streets, specifically an extended Harold Street
from College to Parkview and Longview between a Lee/Hemlock east-
side connection and Plainview. (see diagram above)
• Regulations for development forms and vertical mixed use should
encourage a market-realistic minimum for street level commercial use.
Development forms may allow single-level commercial components
in the build-to zone as part of common developments, with adjacent
or attached multi-story residential blocks set farther back from the
street.
• Require a step-down of building scale adjacent to existing single-
family neighborhoods. Typical intensity in such areas would be single-
family attached or townhome configurations at minimum gross
densities capable of supporting transit, typically in the range of 12 to
15 units per acre.
• In cooperation with existing auto dealerships, develop new standards
and initiatives that increase their compatibility with the concepts of
Ha
r
o
l
d
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
View toward Mall and 71B from the north.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
139
FACTORS TO CONSIDER
• Dramatic changes in scale, speed, and access of the 71B environment,
with urban corridor transitioning to the Fulbright Expressway
interchange and ultimately to a six-lane, controlled access suburban
arterial.
• Extensive use of parallel frontage and circulator streets for both local
and limited pedestrian/bicycle access.
• Interchange breaks north-south local street continuity north of
Millsap, to be improved on east side by proposed Sain-Vantage
connection.
• Major point of regional trail access with grade-separated crossings of
Mud Creek and Clear Creek Trails and nearby Scull Creek segment of
the Razorback Greenway to the west.
• Direct trail spur from Razorback Greenway to Northwest Arkansas
Mall.
• Proximity to the Washington Regional Medical Center Campus and
University of Arkansas Uptown Campus, with major medical and
general offices along Millsap/Futrall and Joyce Boulevard corridors.
• Large-format retail boxes and centers on the west side of corridor
from Mud Creek to and including Joyce, with new multifamily
residential developments along the west side of Steele Boulevard.
• Northwest Arkansas Mall is in transition, with relatively high vacancy
and excessive parking, experiencing the market forces similar to those
affecting other older regional malls.
• Surrounding single-family suburban residential in Fayetteville,
Johnson, and Springdale.
• Major regional recreation resource at Lake Fayetteville, with excellent
trail access, but relatively poor access and visibility from the main
corridor.
GENERAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
• Adapt zoning categories to changes in the retail economy,
encouraging uses that previously were not common in major
commercial areas.
• Attune public policy to the realities of city finances. Because
Fayetteville is highly dependent on sales tax revenues and faces
substantial competition from other regional retail centers, guidelines
that enhance the retail environment are important for economic
sustainability.
• Implement major public (federal, state, and local) investments
in transportation to improve access, safety, and the consumer
experience in this area.
MALL/UPTOWN: Millsap to City Limits
Subdistrict edges Urban place
intersections Interchange Development Area Mall Development AreaIntensity Nodes
Vacant Sears store at the Mall. Large vacancies like this both reflect the
changing retail environment and open possibilities for introducing new
uses, as identified in Chapter Four.
140
• Establish new regulatory and design guides to incorporate some of
the features of newer “life-style” centers into this built environment
including street definition; redesigned and upgraded parking with
enhancements such as internal streets, parking blocks, and shade; and
articulation and detail of buildings to provide human scale,
• Encourage integration of multifamily development and mixed use
development.
• If an interchange redesign is implemented and opens redevelopment
possibilities on former right-of-way, encourage high-rise development
with appropriate regulations where projects can provide visual
landmarks and high development yield with minimal impact on
existing residential areas.
• Maintain existing access limitations on the main line and increase
north-south collector connections on both the east and west sides
north of Millsap. Provide for necessary dedications of right-of-way
to accomplish connectivity, while avoiding negative impact on
properties.
• Apply either a new zoning category such as the UT-1 concept
described above or expanding more flexible C-3 zoning within this
district.
• Improve the active transportation environment along the corridor,
with special additional emphasis on the east side of 71B.
• Envision the Mall site as a mixed use environment, departing from
its current configuration as a massive central commercial building
surrounded by large quantities of surface parking. With property
owners, develop a regulating regime that right-sizes parking, reworks
circulation, and recognizes the value of both the eastern and western
edges of the property.
• Upgrade access, visibility and land use Lake Fayetteville’s frontage
along College Avenue.
UPTOWN/MALL SUBDISTRICT (Millsap to Zion Road)
• Create a Northwest Arkansas Mall Special District with flexible
regulations developed cooperatively with the property owner to
produce a cohesive mixed-use, multi-building project that may
incorporate mid- and high-density residential and new commercial
entertainment, food services, hospitality, and retail uses. Special
district regulations may include:
• Dedication of peripheral right-of-way to serve development
around the edges of the Mall site;
• Street design that provides a safe, protected path for bicycles,
electric scooters, and similar modes;
• Integration of transit, including future bus rapid transit;
• Guidelines for street facades and commercial street level use
along new streets;
• Flexible height regulations to provide both minimum scale and
greater than normal maximums, typically up to six to eight
stories;
• Urban streetscape and sidewalk width along new streets;
• Parking lot redesign and landscaping;
• A minimum percentage target of street level commercial use;
• An adjustment of Mall surface parking requirements.
• The actual regulating framework should be fashioned around an
adopted master plan. However, a logical land use plan includes
mixed use retail and residential on the west side of the district and a
“restaurant row” permitting free-standing buildings on the southeast.
• Establish regulations to permit high-rise, mixed use development
on land opened to private development by a future redesign of the
Fulbright interchange, with permitted heights of up to ten stories with
a minimum separation of 1,000 feet from any single-family zoned
area. Maintain flexibility to accommodate a greater height limit with
exceptional design.
• With substantial new development, require connections to adjacent
trails, sidepaths, and sidewalks.
• Apply proposed regulations for large parking lot design that create
distinct parking blocks of a maximum size (potentially no more than
25% of the total number of stalls provided in the lot) separated by
interior streets or continuous landscaping.
• Establish an urban place at Zion Road. Because this environment does
not have adjacent building entrances and is not scaled to pedestrians,
its design will include elements different from other more urban
intersections along 71B.
• If a transit stop or station is established at Zion Road, require adjacent
properties to partner with the City to provide a direct and safe
pedestrian connection from the stop to commercial buildings.
LAKE SUBDISTRICT (Zion Road to City Limits)
• In coordination with developing an upgraded entrance from
College Avenue to the lake, modify use and setback regulations
along Lakeview between Main Drive and Lake Fayetteville Road
to encourage uses consistent with outdoor recreation and the
lake environment. Mobile and temporary uses such as food trucks
and vendors are consistent with this concept, subject to permit
requirements.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
141
142
Tomorrow’s Corridor is largely intended as a framework for private and public
decision making, leading to a new vision for this important urban corridor. To
this end, it’s approach is evolutionary, and is likely to be executed through
many incremental decisions made by individuals – public officials, builders,
developers, businesses, investors, and present and future residents. Although
many of these decisions will be private, initiatives by the City of Fayetteville
and community agencies and organizations can create the environment that
helps realize the vision of Corridor Urbanism along 71B. This chapter addresses
those initiatives.
8/IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
143
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
The 71B corridor will inevitably change substantially during the next
twenty years and Tomorrow’s Corridor is designed to help provide unity
and order to the large and small decisions that will accomplish that
change. Most of those decisions will be private. But initiatives taken by city
and state government, public agencies, existing and proposed community
organizations, and the citizens of Fayetteville can both address important
corridor issues and catalyze desirable private development.
During the year of this planning process, several important events and
initiatives have taken place. In March, 2019, the citizens of Fayetteville
approved a major public improvement bond issue that includes significant
funding for the College Avenue corridor. During the summer, 2019, the
City of Fayetteville and the Arkansas Department of Transportation
successfully negotiated a transfer of jurisdiction of the existing 71B
corridor between the north and south Fulbright Expressway interchanges.
This provides the City with the complete authority to modify the affected
South School, Archibald Yell, and College segments of the corridor. Finally,
development in the Mill District around MLK and South School took a major
leap forward with announcement of redevelopment of the Co-op site on
the southwest corner as a mixed use residential/commercial project. These
are all important steps toward realizing the Tomorrow’s Corridor concepts.
Looking ahead, the public and community implementation program
of initiatives for 71B resolves into six specific categories: Street
Transportation, Trails and Pathways, Regulating Environment,
Development Focuses, Attainable Housing, and Organizational
Infrastructure. The following program divides these elements into Short-
Term (0-5 years), Medium-Term (5-10 years), and Long-Term components.
This breakdown is advisory only and should be viewed as flexible and
able to accommodate and substitute other opportunities as they arise,
including private development projects.
SHORT-TERM (0-5 YEARS)
STREET TRANSPORTATION
• Design and construction of the Phase 1 improvement program
for 71B. Phase 1 is primarily funded by proceeds of the 2019 bond
issue and funds from the negotiated transfer of the corridor to city
responsibility. Specific priorities recommended by this plan include:
• The College Avenue segment from North Street to Township Street,
including the proposed street channel, sidewalks, the upgraded
Township intersection node, the Memorial Drive pedestrian
crossing, new lighting and streetscape features,and redesign of the
Green Acres intersection with the Green Acres common on vacated
right-of-way. This project will demonstrate the quality of the street
design and set the stage for future phases.
• Redesign of South School Street to three lanes with cycle/mobility
track and continuous sidewalk/sidepath between Cato Springs and
the Mill District. This should be accomplished within the existing
street section. This project should also include an upgraded
pedestrian crossing with pedestrian refuge median at or near 11th
Street.
• Reconfiguration of Archibald Yell with better pedestrian
accommodation and a signal at the South Street intersection.
• Redesign of the Archibald Yell/South College/Rock Street
intersection.
• Completion of the Appleby-Plainview collector between Fiesta Square
and Millsap.
• Completion of the Vantage-Sain connection between North Front
Street and Joyce Boulevard.
• Negotiation with SWEPCO on alternatives and responsibilities
for distribution system upgrades, coordinated with the corridor
improvement project. Options include burial of distribution lines;
relocation of overhead lines off the main corridor, possibly using
the route of the future shared use path or adjacent streets; or pole
replacement and other aesthetic improvements to the existing
overhead system in place.
• Execute a comprehensive transit planning effort as described in
Exhibit “A” of the Fayetteville City Council’s 71B resolution.
• Complete detailed feasibility study, project design, and funding for
bus rapid transit (BRT) along the 71B corridor.
TRAILS AND PATHWAYS
• Upgrade of the on-street Poplar Street Bikeway between College
Avenue and the Razorback Greenway.
• Sidepath, probably on the east side of South School, between Cato
Springs Road and MLK Boulevard.
• Greenway and trail connection, including a new creek crossing, to link
the South School corridor directly to Walker Park and the Greenway.
• Reservation of right-of-way for parallel off-street paths with
development along College Avenue between North and Millsap.
REGULATING ENVIRONMENT
• Implement the recommendations of the Regulating Plan in Chapter 7,
including converting to ordinance language as appropriate.
DEVELOPMENT FOCUSES
• Work with owners of Evelyn Hills, Fiesta Square, and Northwest
Arkansas Mall to implement parking lot improvements, street
dedications where required, land use entitlements, and other actions
necessary to increase utilization of these properties.
• Incorporate shared access, design assistance, and streetscape
improvements into the College Avenue improvement project to
support emergence of the Restaurant District between Sycamore and
Township.
• Assist owner with redevelopment of the Southgate site at 15th and
South School.
ATTAINABLE HOUSING
• Partner with the Fayetteville Housing Authority (FHA) to increase
capacity with staff and capitalization to build both ownership and
rental housing designed for affordability to households with incomes
in the 60% to 100% of median household income range. Ensure that
the FHA also has the ability to partner with developers to incorporate
affordable housing into mixed income developments.
• Explore methods to implement NWA Housing Report Action Item #4,
permitting the use of publicly owned land for housing production.
• Assist with the acquisition and reuse of the “farm” north of the Evelyn
Hills shopping center as a residential development geared toward
moderate income urban families. Development may be an initial
project for the proposed CDC.
• Work with FHA to develop the first phase of a residential “village”
Family-oriented townhomes in Richmond, CA
144
east of 7hills Homeless Center, targeted toward households who
are temporarily homeless and/or people and households in need of
permanent supported housing . Such a project may adapt the “tiny
house” model utilized by Food and Shelter, Inc. in Norman, Oklahoma
and similar projects. This project would serve a constituency different
from Serve NWA’s New Beginnings project, which broke ground in
April, 2019 and is designed for unsheltered people.
• Develop an incentive structure to encourage private development of
mixed income developments that could include financial incentives
like TIF, assistance with site acquisition and development, density
bonuses, and accelerated processing.
ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
• Form a 71B business organization funded by a business improvement
district that forms policy, executes marketing programs, and
maintains public realm improvements.
MEDIUM-TERM (5-10 YEARS)
STREET TRANSPORTATION
• Design and construction of the Phase 2 improvement program for 71B,
with funding provided by proceeds of a new bond issue or allocation
of other capital funds. Specific priorities recommended by this plan
include:
• The College Avenue segment from Township Street to Millsap
Street, including the proposed street channel, sidewalks, the
upgraded intersection nodes, and new lighting and streetscape
features.
• Possible incorporation of on-street parking as required by adjacent
redevelopment along the South School corridor.
• If required, permanent reconfiguration of Archibald Yell Boulevard,
assuming that the initial redesign was constructed as a pilot project.
• Construction of east-west connections between College Avenue and
parallel collectors. These potentially include Longview, Harold, and
Masonic. This includes possible land exchanges with North College
auto dealerships to provide contiguous sites for the businesses and
better cross street connectivity.
• Construction of additional east-west connections between College
and Green Acres Drive, including Colt and Colt Square.
• Execution of a detailed transportation study and conceptual redesign
of the north Fulbright interchange in cooperation with ArDOT and
development of a conceptual design for funding in future phases.
Initial studies are underway in 2019. A detailed study should evaluate
performance of redesign alternatives with a full secondary circulation
network in place, and should consider factors in addition to Level of
Service in the analysis.
• Funding and construction document completion for redesign of the
north Fulbright/College access system.
• Consolidate North College roadway on the west side of the current
corridor north of the Scull Creek Bridge
• Place a bus rapid transit (BRT) service in operation along the 71B
corridor.
TRAILS AND PATHWAYS
• Completion of the first phase of the path system between North and
Township.
• Continued reservation of right-of-way for parallel off-street paths with
development along College Avenue between North and Millsap.
• Completion of Sublett Creek Trail to Poplar Street.
DEVELOPMENT FOCUSES
• Work with owners of City Lumber, Vaughn Recycling, and Ozark Steel
on site redesign to improve compatibility with redeveloping adjacent
uses.
• Incorporate shared access, design assistance, and streetscape
improvements into the College Avenue improvement project between
Township and Millsap.
• Complete full development of the University of Arkansas research
campus to South School and multi-family, campus related housing on
the Cato Springs site on the east side of the corridor.
ATTAINABLE HOUSING
• Continued development activities by the 71B Development
Corporation, with possible focuses on the “Sunbridge” site north of
Township Street on the east side of College and proposed medium-
density residential sites in the South School corridor.
• Encourage eligible nonprofits to apply for state and federal grants to
increase supportive housing assistance.
• Implement recommendations of the NWA Housing Report, including
creating a local finance program for new homes, enacting anti-
displacement and housing preservation policies, and developing
housing partnerships with major employers and key institutions to
promote affordable development.
LONG-TERM (OVER 10 YEARS)
• Redesign and funding for the Fulbright interchange and surroundig
area.
• Evaluate the results of this plan and update it for what is inevitably a
new development and transportation environment.
• Complete other aspects of the transportation and trail development
programs.
TOMORROW’S CORRIDOR: RETHINKING 71B
145
Short Medium Long
TRANSPORTATION
AND STREET
ENVIRONMENT
•College Ave redesign, North to
Township
•South School reconfiguration
•Pilot Archibald Yell reconfiguration
•College and Rock intersection
•Appleby-Plainview collector
•Vantage-Sain connection
•Resolution of overhead
relocation/burial options and timing
•Execute a comprehensive transit
planning effort as described in Exhibit
“A” to the 71B Resolution
•College Ave redesign, Township to
Millsap
•Continued South Scholl upgrade with
redevelopment
•Permanent Archibald Yell reconfiguration
•East -west grid on North College
•Fulbright interchange alternatives study
•North College lane consolidation and
greenway near Lake
•Operational BRT
•Complete Fulbright interchange and
regional access plan, with connection
to Mall Avenue.
•Complete other aspects of
transportation program.
•Consider future transit needs and
options in view of higher density
development.
•Redesign and funding for Fulbright
interchange area
TRAILS/PATHS •Poplar Bikeway upgrade
•South School sidepath
•South School to Walker Park
connection
•Phase one of North to Township
connecting paths
•ROW reservations with development,
Township to Millsap
•Sublett Creek Trail
•Complete shared use system of
parallel connecting paths along
College Avenue
REGULATORY •Discuss recommendations/convert to
ordinance language
•Evaluate and modify
DEVELOPMENT
FOCUSES
•Major retail centers first stage
modifications
•Restaurant District
•Southgate redevelopment
•Site upgrades to major South School
businesses and industries
•Research Center area
•Continued major centers development
•Evaluate and modify land use and
development concepts relative to
changing context and conditions.
ATTAINABLE
HOUSING
•Fayetteville Housing Authority as major
development entity
•Moderate-income family housing on
“farm” site
•Transitional village to the east of Seven
Hills Homeless Center
•Incentive structure for “missing middle”
housing
•Sunbridge development area
•Continued transitional development
•Continue and improve development
programs and make necessary
adjustments
IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY
A CONCLUDING NOTE
We would like to begin this note with a word of thanks to
everyone who has been involved in this planning process:
Fayetteville’s superb city staff, the Mayor, City Council,
and Planning Commission; our Plan Advisory Committee
members; and members of the community who came to
meetings and workshops. completed surveys, talked to
us, and contributed to this document with their insights,
support, and sometimes withering criticism, all of which
made this plan better. Mostly, we thank all of you for your
complete dedication to the good and welfare of this great
community. We hope that you find this document worthy of
your trust.
We knew this plan would be both a challenge and an
opportunity to create something new – something that
would advance the future of Fayetteville and generate
an idea that could be applied in other cities. Unlike many
planning projects, we had no preconceived idea or formula
about what this plan would look like in the end – or even if
there was an end in the sense that we normally think about
planning documents. Like many of you, though, we believe
that climate change presents an existential threat to us, our
children, and our grandchildren. For us, it is an overriding
mission to grapple with practical solutions in our cities that
can help move the needle in ways that respect the ways in
which people live, work, pray, and interact with their city.
We know that the ubiquitous commercial strip has an
enormously high environmental footprint because of its
exclusive reliance on motor vehicles, its dispersed and
inefficient single-use development pattern, its low ratio of
land actually used for human activity, and its high impact
on urban runoff and the quality of our streams. Yet, strip
also has features that are indispensable to our daily lives
and economic health. This plan is all about recognizing the
importance of the 71B corridor and many of its existing
features to the community while gradually making it more
economically and environmentally sustainable.
People have developed inspiring visions for the long-term
future of this corridor that we find compelling and inspiring.
We hope that aspects of these visions can be realized
some day. We also know that some people have criticized
this plan as looking like only a first phase rather than a
completed vision. To this, we plead guilty. In these times,
we have little idea of what the city and world might look like
in thirty years. Our goal here is to take the things that we
do know about and move them in a different and hopefully
more productive and achievable direction that will provide
a stronger foundation for people who will plan even more
ambitious ideas in the future.
On this 50th year of humankind’s first landing on the Moon,
we turn to that analogy. For many decades before 1969,
people developed visions, wrote books, and produced
movies and shows about landing and settling on the Moon.
But these visions were unrealized until we took the small
steps necessary to create the foundation for Apollo 11 – the
Mercury and Gemini missions that made the “giant leap”
possible. If this document will be seen as something like the
Mercury and Gemini missions that make ideas like the Transit
City scenario and other visions more possible, we will have
achieved our goal.
In conclusion, thank you for your trust in us and for your
partnership, support, criticism, and friendship. We are
grateful to have the chance to think with you about the
future of Fayetteville and the contribution that 71B, with its
memories and significance to the community, can make to
that future.
- Martin Shukert
PROGRAMMING THE STREET
SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
2
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE
•Make minimal improvements to the road section south of South 15th Street
•Adjust curbs in certain areas north of 15th Street to allow for streetscape
improvements
•Reflect final plans for the Southyards apartment project at 7th and School
•Consider extension of 7th Street to South School
•Preference for a shared use path over bike lanes. Budget constraints may
require retaining curbs in their present location.
•Lane diet is appropriate along School but preferred north of 15th Street
•Openness to acquire R.O.W. to make certain areas “work”
•Add a curb to separate bikes and vehicles if a protected cycl;e track becomes
the most economically feasible option
COLLEGE AVENUE
•The City is open to planting trees within sidewalk where there are constraints
inside the R.O.W.
•Adjust curbs as necessary along College Avenue.
•Concentrate transit structures/facilities at Poplar and College. Potential of
acquiring property to make this happen, if needed.
•Make bus stops more visible along the route without inhibiting flexibility.
•Improve crosswalk timing all along the College Avenue corridor.
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
After meeting with City staff the RDG/Garver team conducted stakeholder
interviews with property owners along the corridor. The interviews included:
1. Review by the team of overarching concepts from the master planning phase.
2. Introduction of the current project.
3. Consultation with stakeholders of potential program ideas for the streetscape
project. See list at the end of this document.
4. Addressing and receiving input on a variety of issues including shared
access, parking consolidation, amenities, outdoor dining spaces, and theming
opportunities.
Stakeholders also provided information on their current parking, access and other
issues presented by the current street configurations. In general, stakeholders
were positive about the project and supported improvements to the street and
sidewalk environments. Some key takeaways from the stakeholder meetings are
listed below:
COLLEGE AVENUE
•Walkability and micro-mobility should be the priority
•Currently College prevents pulling any bike/ped/scooter traffic from the east to
the Woodland Junior High School.
•Dr. Slocum of Fayetteville Public Schools would prefer a trail and bicycle access
on the south side of the track if possible to a Poplar alignment. School district is
interested in providing a trail easement over that part of its property.
•The new streetscape should provide a safer place for walking and add more public
transportation amenity
•Questions about location and overall use of medians
•Safety concerns for pedestrians crossing from the VA at Memorial Drive to Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center. Concerns over short pedestrian signal cycles and visibility
•General concerns regarding the timing of the light at E Memorial Drive and College
•Concerned about and general opposition to zoning changes
•Overarching issue of College Avenue infrastructure. Necessary repairs or
replacement of water lines should be coordinated with the streetscape project.
•Both interest and skepticism regarding branding that corridor of College
•The design should be flexible.
•Support for flexible outdoor seating, with special interest in one centralized larger
area. Could also be a series of outdoor spaces.
•Considerable sign pollution
•Relocate overhead wires as feasible
•Need to develop ideas to encourage easy pedestrian access between businesses
•Dickson Street and entertainment district have traditionally been the focus of
branding. It would be wonderful to have some focus on branding/beautification
in this part of town. The area has been called Midtown in the past- not sure if
that is a good branding or not. Would be great to have nice lights and decorative
street banners as well as larger investment/draw to the area
•This area is an emerging district
•Maintaining accessibility during construction is very important
•Connect a drive from Green Acres to College Avenue along Colt Drive
or north of Mermaids
•Desire for an area for community style outdoor seating
•Fewer driveways/curb cuts would improve trafficflow and safety
•Enhance lighting along College Avenue
SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE
•Do not change access
•The apartments planned for South Yard anticipates future on-street parking
•Poor lighting is an issue on this street
•Intersection of 11th and South School is crash-prone
•Cars run into the tree at the Farmer’s Table with some frequency
•Look for opportunities for interfaces between bike/micro mobility network.
•ORT is not married to specific bus stop locations. Open to shifting things - but
major boarding points are Seven Hills, the Research Park, and major intersections.
A transit center with turnaround loop is desirable.
•Ozark Regional Transit would determine bus stop design. Far side installation is
safest
•Build in flexibility for evolution to BRT. Eugene, OR is an example of such an
evolution
•South School Corridor-specific
•Any on-street bike facility should be carefully coordinated for safe operation with
buses
•Preference for a multi-use a side path if possible – but open to the idea of either
protected directional bike lanes or two-way cycle track on one side
•This could be the beginning of a more regional vision that extends the bike
infrastructure to West Fork and Greenland
The RDG/Garver team was selected by the City of Fayetteville
to design the South School and College Avenues streetscape
project based on the 71B corridor plan completed by the same
team. The streetscape project stretches from Cato Springs Rd
to Martin Luther King Boulevard on South School Avenue and
from North Street to Township Street along College Avenue.
The RDG/Garver team kicked off this phase of the project by
conducting a walking tour along South School and College
Avenues with City staff to review existing conditions.
Comments from City staff from this walk follow:
3
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
PROGRAM
SOUTH SCHOOL
Roadway
•Reallocation of right of way in certain locations
•Road section: Three 11-12’ travel lanes with two-way cycle
track on west side
•On-street parking: located as needed along South School
•Access management – driveway containment, identify
parking areas for modification and general approach
•Pedestrian refuge medians at high demand crossings
•Possible enhancement or higher visibility of entrance to
Reserach Park
Active Transportation
•Bicycle facility: Two-way separated bicycle track on west side
•Sidewalks: Five 6’ sidewalk behind the curb separated by
pavers or a minimum of six feet distance away from curb to
allow for tree plantings. Back of curb sidewalks without edge
buffer are acceptable adjacent to cycle track.
•Colored concrete crosswalks at pedestrian crossings
•11th Street and South School – Modify alignment of 11th
Street and South School and modify parking to allow for safer
vehicular traffic, pedestrian and bicycle mobility.
•Redesign of 11th Street strip center parking lot for improved
safety and sidewalk continuity
•Transit- Locate bus shelters where appropriate.
Environment
•Stormwater management – Locate stormwater management
BMP’s where appropriate
•Use long lasting materials and LED lighting along South
School
•Plant native and adaptive species of street trees
Enhancements
•Denote districts along South School with integrated art
•Integrate art to denote bicycle and pedestrian crossings.
•New lighting and poles
•Provide new street trees and landscaping along the corridor
where space allows.
•Provide decorative fencing where there is no buffer between
sidewalk and parking lots.
NORTH COLLEGE
Roadway
•Road section: Five 11’ travel lanes with 6’ tree lawn
and 6’ sidewalk. In constrained area between North
to Memorial, 5’ concrete sidewalk and 1.5’ paver
edge adjacent to the curb to help separate cars from
pedestrians.
•Access management – driveway containment, identify
parking areas for modification and general approach.
•Medians in locations where they do not impede turns into
businesses
•Intersection realignment at Green Acres Drive to create
90 degree intersection and green space; Colt Drive
connection between Green Acres and College
•Intersection redesign – Poplar and College
•Utilities: Bury or move above ground utilities to reduce
visual clutter
Active Transportation
•Sidewalks: Five 6’ sidewalk behind the curb separated by
pavers or a minimum of six feet of distance away from
curb to allow for tree plantings.
•Connection of Poplar Bikeway and future Sublett Creek Trail
•Colored concrete crosswalks at pedestrian crossings
Environment/Sustainability
•Green Acres greenspace – reuse of vacated
right-of-way for stormwater BMP’s and open space
•Daylight Sublett Creek east of College and Poplar
to allow for stormwater management.
•Use long lasting materials and LED lighting along
South School
•Plant native and adaptive species of street trees
Districts
•Restaurant District: district organization with shared
access, interconnected parking and pedestrian access,
branding, graphics, amenities, outdoor eating
Enhancements
•Public Spaces: Green Acres, Sublett Drainage, Poplar Trailhead
•Provide opportunities for art in public spaces
•Denote restaurant district along College Avenue with
integrated art and branding. Parking lot interconnection
where possible
•New Lighting and Poles
•Provide new street trees and landscaping along the
corridor where space allows.
•Provide decorative fencing where there is no buffer
between sidewalk and parking lots.
LIGHTING
RETAINING WALLS
DISTRICT BRANDINGDECORATIVE FENCING
EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES
STREET TREES
COLORED CONCRETE SIDEWALKS
4
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
INTEGRATING ART ALONG THE CORRIDOR
The 71B corridor master plan discussed the proven role that public art can play in
creating meaningful places along the street. Consequently, it should be a major
part of the 71B development program. Potential art installations along the South
School and College Avenue streetscapes include:
•District gateways. These define the edges and themes of identifiable districts
along the street, such as the University of Arkansas research campus and the
emerging Mill District along South School and the Restaurant District along
College north of Township. Integrated public art could be used to reflect local
history, bring attention to specific sites and highlight local artists.
•Bus shelters. At special intersections such as transit stops, art and function can
be combined with thematically designed shelters.
•Pedestrian and Trail crossings. Major pedestrian intersections such as
the Greenway and Town Branch Trail crossings can be marked by placemaking
elements that also increase safety and visibility. Similar treatments can be used to
enhance safety at defined pedestrian crossings away from street intersections.
•Open spaces such as those envisioned with a redesign of the Green Acres
drive intersection, the gathering space at Poplar and College Avenue provide
possibilities for major art installations.
DISTRICT GATEWAY
DISTRICT GATEWAY MAJOR ART INSTALLATION
DISTRICT GATEWAY
DISTRICT GATEWAY MAJOR ART INSTALLATION
MAJOR ART INSTALLATIONBUS SHELTERBUS SHELTER
DISTRICT GATEWAY
DISTRICT GATEWAY
DISTRICT GATEWAY
5
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BMP’S
There will be opportunities along the corridors to incorporate stormwater management best management practices (BMP’s).
BMPS are structural, vegetative or managerial practices used to treat, prevent or reduce water pollution. This adds another
layer of sustainability to the corridor. Some of the BMP’s would include bioretention gardens, raingardens, porous pavements
or water quality inlets.
GATHERING SPACES AND TRAILHEADS
There may be an opportunity to create gathering spaces and a trail head at the Poplar and College Avenue intersection. The
gathering space could serve as an area for people to bring there take out meals from the restaurant district or serve as a space
for community or district events. The trailhead would be associated with the proposed Sublett creek trail. This would include
a parking lot and open space with picnic tables, benches and other amenities. The gathering space and trail head would also
be areas to incorporate public art.
6
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE –PARKING
The illustration above shows the buffer modified to provide on-street parking. This section pertains to areas with
demonstrated demand for on-street parking. The wider buffer can be modified over time to provide on-street parking
that supports future rredevelopment projects.
EXISTING SOUTH SCHOOL CONDITION
Five-lane configuration looking north from Town Branch Creek bridge
SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE –TYPICAL SECTION
The desirable typical section provides a three-lane section with two-way protected cycle track on the west side, separated
by a buffer delineated with surface mounted rumble strips and raised pavement markers, consistemnt with the treatment
planned for Archibald Yell. The buffer ranges from 4’ to 14’ with the ability to accommodate on-street parking where the
demand exists. Sidewalk with is 5’ minimum (6’ preferred), set back 5 to 6’ from the back of curb.
SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE - CONSTRAINED SECTION
In some sections, a constrained right of way or topography makes a sidewalk setback difficult. In these situations, a back of
curb sidewalk is most acceptable adjacent to the cycle track. Other options include adjustment of the curb line with reduction
of the buffer between the cycletrack and travel lanes; or acquisition of a strip of right of way to permit a sidewalk setback.
SOUTH SCHOOL SECTIONS
7
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
W. 22N
D
S
T
.
W. 19TH S
T
.
W. 15TH ST
.
W. 11TH ST
.
W. 13TH ST
.
W. 15TH ST
.
W. RESEAR
C
H
C
E
N
T
E
R
B
L
V
D
.
MLK JR. B
L
V
D
.
QUADRA
N
T
0
1
QUADRA
N
T
0
2
QUADR
A
N
T
0
3
QUAD
R
A
N
T
0
4
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER
WALKER PARK
FAYETTEVILLE
NATIONAL CEMETERY
S. SCHOOL AVENUE - DIAGRAM QUADRANT OVERVIEW NORTH
8
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
W. CA
T
O
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
D
.
W. 22
N
D
S
T
.
W. 19TH
S
T
.
NONNA
M
A
K
E
R
D
R
.
W. RESE
A
R
C
H
C
E
N
T
E
R
B
L
V
D
.
ROADWAY
REALIGNMENT
STREET TREES
PLANTED MEDIAN +
INTEGRATED ART
MID-BLOCK
CROSSWALK
TWO-WAY CYCLE
TRACK W/ BUFFER
PLANTED MEDIAN
+ INTEGRATED ART
CYCLE TRACK TO
MERGE W/ TRAIL
COLORED CONC.
CROSSWALK
COLORED CONC.
CROSSWALKS
S. SCHOOL AVENUE - QUADRANT 01 NORTHROADWAY
ADJUSTMENTS
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION
TWO-WAY
CYCLE TRACK
BUFFER AND/OR
ON-STREET PARKING
9
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
W. 19TH
S
T
.
W. 15TH
S
T
.
SALVATI
O
N
L
N
.
TOWN BRANCH
CREEK
STREET TREES
EXISTING TOWN
BRANCH TRAIL
EXISTING TOWN
BRANCH TRAIL
ON-STREET
PARKING W/ BUFFER
ON-STREET
PARKING W/ BUFFER
MODIFIED
STREET SECTION
CYCLE TRACK
AND BUFFER
INTEGRATED ART
OPPORTUNITY
INTEGRATED ART
OPPORTUNITY
COLORED CONC.
CROSSWALKS
PEDESTRIAN
REFUGE MEDIAN
S. SCHOOL AVENUE - QUADRANT 02 NORTHROADWAY
ADJUSTMENTS
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION
TWO-WAY
CYCLE TRACK
BUFFER AND/OR
ON-STREET PARKING
10
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
W. 15TH
S
T
.
W. 13TH
S
T
.
W. 11TH
S
T
.
S W A
V
E
DUNN
A
V
E
STREET TREESON-STREET
PARKING W/ BUFFER
CYCLE TRACK MERGES
WITH CROSSWALK
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
ON-STREET
PARKING W/ BUFFER
MODIFIED
STREET SECTION
CYCLE TRACK
AND BUFFER
PARKING LOT
IMPROVEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN
REFUGE MEDIAN
S. SCHOOL AVENUE - QUADRANT 03 NORTHROADWAY
ADJUSTMENTS
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION
TWO-WAY
CYCLE TRACK
BUFFER AND/OR
ON-STREET PARKING
11
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
MLK JR.
B
L
V
D
W. 7TH S
T
.
S. LO
C
U
S
T
A
V
E
.
W. 9TH S
T
.
TANGLEWOOD
BRANCH CREEK
STREET TREES
ON-STREET PARKING AND
BUFFER AT CYCLE TRACK
MODIFIED
STREET SECTION
TWO-WAY CYCLE
TRACK W/ BUFFER
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
EXISTING
FRISCO TRAIL FUTURE
HOUSING
PEDESTRIAN
REFUGE MEDIAN
EXISTING TRAIL
CROSSING
S. SCHOOL AVENUE - QUADRANT 04 NORTHROADWAY
ADJUSTMENTS
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
TWO-WAY
CYCLE TRACK
BUFFER AND/OR
ON-STREET PARKING
12
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
COLLEGE AVENUE –EXISTING
Illustration shows existing five-lane section with back of curb sidewalk.
Sidewalks are intermittent and vary in width and setback.
COLLEGE AVENUE - NORTH TO MEMORIAL DRIVE
College Avenue travel lanes are reduced to 11 feet, providing extra width between curb and property line. Topographic
limitations require back of curb sidewalks, with a 1.5’ paver buffer and 5.5’ sidewalk width. Medians can be prov ided in some
locations along this segment.
COLLEGE AVENUE –MEMORIAL DRIVE TO TOWNSHIP
Typical College Avenue section provides 5 11’ lanes, with a desirable 6’ sidewalk setback (4’ minimum for short distances) and
6’ to 6.5’ sidewalk width. Wider sidewalk setback provides adequate space for street trees.
COLLEGE AVENUE SECTIONS
13
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
E. NORTH S
T
R
E
E
T
E. ABSHIER
D
R
I
V
E
E. SYCAMO
R
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
E. POPLAR S
T
R
E
E
T
E. TOWNSHI
P
S
T
.
GRE
E
N
A
C
R
E
S
R
O
A
D
QUAD
R
A
N
T
0
1
QUADR
A
N
T
0
2
QUADR
A
N
T
0
3
QUADR
A
N
T
0
4
VA MEDICAL
CENTER
EVELYN HILLS
SHOPPING MALL
COLLEGE AVENUE - DIAGRAM QUADRANT OVERVIEW NORTH
1
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
E. NORTH ST.
N. W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
.
E. OAKW
O
O
D
S
T
.
E. ABSHIER DR.
E. MEMORIA
L
D
R
.
COLLEGE AVENUE - QUADRANT 01 NORTHROADWAY
ADJUSTMENTS
PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION
PROPOSED
GREENSPACE
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
PLANTED MEDIAN
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
STREET TREES
STREET TREES
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
PLANTED MEDIAN
MODIFIED
STREET SECTION
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
2
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
E. MEMORIA
L
D
R
.
E. NATURAL WA
Y
E. SYCAMORE S
T
.
PLANTED MEDIAN
+ INTEGRATED ART
STREET TREES
MODIFIED
STREET SECTION
COLLEGE AVENUE - QUADRANT 02 NORTHROADWAY
ADJUSTMENTS
PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION
PROPOSED
GREENSPACE
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
3
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
E. POPLAR ST.
GRE
E
N
A
C
R
E
S
R
D
.
TRAILHEAD
PARKING LOT
ROADWAY
REALIGNMENT
POTENTIAL
GATHERING SPACE
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
PLANTED MEDIAN
+ INTEGRATED ART
PLANTED MEDIAN
+ INTEGRATED ART
POTENTIAL
GATHERING SPACE INTEGRATED ART
OPPORTUNITY
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT +
ART OPPORTUNITY
COLLEGE AVENUE - QUADRANT 03 NORTHROADWAY
ADJUSTMENTS
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION
PROPOSED
GREENSPACE
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
4
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
E. COLT DR.
E. TOWNSHIP S
T
.
GR
E
E
N
A
C
R
E
S
R
D
.
PLANTED MEDIAN
+ INTEGRATED ART
STREET TREES
E. COLT DR.
EXTENSION
MODIFIED
STREET SECTION
COLLEGE AVENUE - QUADRANT 04 NORTHROADWAY
ADJUSTMENTS
PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION
PROPOSED
GREENSPACE
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
COLORED CONCRETE
CROSSWALKS
5
PROGRAMMING THE STREET: SOUTH SCHOOL & COLLEGE AVENUES
PROGRAMMING COST OPINION
COLLEGE AVENUE
Streetscape - Within ROW
Utilities - Bury or Relocate Utility Lines $5,068,210 or $1,900,562
Lighting $648,000
Roadway - including removals $6,388,000
Hardscape - sidewalks, pavers behind curbs, retaining walls, color concrete crosswalks $707,000
Landscaping $435,500
Site Amenities - Bus Shelters, Benches, Trash Receptacles, Bike Racks $453,000
10% General Conditions, 20% Contingency, Design and Survey $3,935,964
STREETSCAPE WITHIN ROW TOTAL:$12,567,464 Utility burial or relocation costs not included
Streetscape - Outside of ROW
Parking Lot Improvements $2,462,300
E Colt Dr. Extension $805,700
Public Spaces at Poplar and College $642,700
Integrated Art $500,000
10% General Conditions, 20% Contingency, and Design $2,261,043
STREETSCAPE - OUTSIDE OF ROW TOTAL:$6,671,743
SOUTH SCHOOL
Streetscape - Within ROW
Utilities - Bury or Relocate Utility Lines $4,010,723 or $1,455,961
Lighting $544,000
Roadway - including removals $1,817,000
Hardscape - sidewalks, pavers behind curbs, retaining walls, color concrete crosswalks $413,800
Landscaping $131,800
Site Amenities - Bus Shelters, Benches, Trash Receptacles, Bike Racks $390,200
General Conditions, Contingency, and Design $1,503,341
STREETSCAPE WITHIN ROW TOTAL:$4,800,141 Utility burial or relocation costs not included
Streetscape - Outside of ROW
Parking Lot Improvements $327,600
7th St. Extension $258,800
Integrated Art $200,000
10% General Conditions, 20% Contingency, and Design $402,637
STREETSCAPE - OUTSIDE OF ROW TOTAL:$1,189,037
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
www.fayetteville-ar.gov
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
2025-1291
MEETING OF JULY 29, 2025
TO: Mayor Rawn and City Council
THRU: Chris Brown, Public Works Director
Keith Macedo, Chief of Staff
FROM: Kenneth Patterson, Federal Aid Project Manager
SUBJECT: S. School Ave. - Design Agreement with I & S Group, Inc. (ISG)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the agreement with ISG in the amount of $287,000 for design phase services
(Conceptual) for the S. School Ave. (15th St. to MLK Blvd.) Safe Streets and Roads for All Project and approval
of a budget adjustment, pursuant to RFQ 25-01, Selection #9.
BACKGROUND:
The School Avenue and College Avenue Corridors serve as the major north-south route through the central
part of the city and are major commercial and retail destinations. Maintaining and improving the corridors will
allow them to continue to serve mobility needs, and to continue to develop/redevelop as commercial corridors.
Improvements to these corridors will include striping, widening and/or narrowing of the roadway, utility
relocation (including burial of overhead utilities), sidewalk/trail installation, accommodations for transit systems,
elimination or reconfiguration of driveways, additional traffic signals, medians, plazas, art installations, lighting,
wayfinding, protected intersections, parking, and other corridor improvements to be identified in the design
process.
The starting point for corridor designs is the 71B Corridor Plan that was completed by RDG Planning. The
goals and aspirations of the Plan continue to be implemented to the greatest extent possible through the limits
of project segments selected for design and construction, which includes S. School Ave. between Cato Springs
Rd. and Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. As stated above, this recommendation regards the segment from 15th St.
to Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
On December 4, 2024, Resolution 301-24 was approved to accept federal aid funding in the amount of
$25,000,000 from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration through the Safe
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program. This funding supports five construction projects with a focus on
safety, and this project is among them.
On May 6, 2025, a selection committee composed of City of Fayetteville staff selected ISG, Inc., for design
phase services for this segment of S. School Ave, pursuant to RFQ 25-01, Selection 9.
DISCUSSION:
The scope of services for this phase of design includes survey, environmental review, traffic study, and
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
www.fayetteville-ar.gov
conceptual design. The project limits are S. School Ave. from W. 15th St. to W. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.,
including the functional areas of the intersections. The reconstruction may include enhancements to pedestrian
infrastructure, bicycle infrastructure, landscaping, hardscaping, streets, intersections, drainage systems, water
systems, sanitary sewer systems, and access control. A subsequent contract will be negotiated after the scope
of the improvements is developed in the study and conceptual design phase.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
The City has been awarded federal funding for this project through the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
Program, as approved by Resolution 301-24. The $287,000 cost in this proposal is for conceptual design
services. The final design process and budget will be submitted for the City’s review and approval at a future
date. Funding for the contract amount is as follows:
SS4A Program: $214,179
Transportation Bond Program: $72,821
ATTACHMENTS: 3. Staff Review Form, 4 Budget Adjustment, 5. Agreement, 6. Appendix B Supplement, 7.
School Ave Fee by Unit
Page 1
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
Legislation Text
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
File #: 2025-1291
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE AN AGREEMENT WITH I & S GROUP, INC. FOR
DESIGN PHASE SERVICES FOR THE SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE SAFE STREETS AND
ROADS FOR ALL PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $287,000.00, AND TO APPROVE A
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, the School Avenue and College Avenue Corridors serve as the major north-south route
through the central part of the city and are major commercial and retail destinations; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2024, City Council approved Resolution 301-24 to accept federal aid
funding in the amount of $25,000,000.00 from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal
Highway Administration through the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program to fund improvements to
these corridors; and
WHEREAS, the scope of services for this phase of design includes survey, environmental review,
traffic study, and conceptual design for improvements to a segment of South School Avenue.
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 authorizes Mayor Rawn to
sign an agreement with I & S Group, Inc. for design phase services for the South School Avenue Safe
Streets and Roads for All Project in the amount of $287,000.00 pursuant to RFQ 25-01, Selection 9.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget
adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution.
7/11/2025
Submitted Date
Yes
23,141,528.00$
287,000.00$
V20221130
Budgeted Item?
Does item have a direct cost?
Is a Budget Adjustment attached?
Total Amended Budget
Expenses (Actual+Encum)
Available Budget
Item Cost
Budget Adjustment
Remaining Budget
34,500,000.00$
11,358,472.00$
Yes
Yes -$
22,854,528.00$
32401.9222
46020.7235.9222
Project Number
Budget Impact:
Safe Streets & Roads Grant
Street Bonds - Safe Streets & Roads - School St
Fund
Safe Streets & Roads Grant
Streets Project (2019/2022/2024 Bonds)
2235.900.9222-5860.02
4702.860.7235-5860.02
Account Number
Project Title
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2025-1188
Item ID
8/5/2025
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
Staff recommends approval of the agreement with I & S Group, Inc. (ISG) in the amount of $287,000 for design
phase services (Conceptual) for the S. School Ave. (15th St. to MLK Blvd.) Safe Streets and Roads for All Project and
approval of a budget adjustment.
N/A for Non-Agenda Item
Action Recommendation:
Submitted By
Kenneth Patterson ENGINEERING (621)
Division / Department
Comments:
Purchase Order Number:
Change Order Number:
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #301-24
Approval Date:
Original Contract Number:
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Budget Adjustment (Agenda)
Budget Year
Requestor:
8/5/2025
2025-1188
D - (City Council)
/
TOTAL - -
Account Number Expense Revenue Project Sub.Detl AT Account NameGLACCOUNTEXPENSEREVENUEPROJECTSUBATDESCRIPTION X
2235.900.9220-5899.00 (214,179) - 32401 9220 EX Unallocated - Budget
2235.900.9222-5860.02 214,179 - 32401 9222 EX Capital Prof Svcs - Engineering/Architectural
2235.900.9220-4309.00 - (214,179) 32401 9220 RE Federal Grants - Capital
2235.900.9222-4309.00 - 214,179 32401 9222 RE Federal Grants - Capital
4702.860.7999-5899.00 (72,821) - 46020 7999 EX Unallocated - Budget
4702.860.7235-5860.02 72,821 - 46020 7235.9222 EX Capital Prof Svcs - Engineering/Architectural
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
GLDATE:
Budget Division Date
Holly Black
7/11/2025 3:27 PM
TYPE:
JOURNAL #:
Adjustment Number
2025 Kenneth Patterson
ENGINEERING (621)Division
/Org2
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION:
v.2025617
RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE
Increase / (Decrease)Project.Sub#
Staff recommends approval of the agreement with I & S Group, Inc. (ISG) in the amount of $287,000 for design phase
services (Conceptual) for the S. School Ave. (15th St. to MLK Blvd.) Safe Streets and Roads for All Project and approval
of a budget adjustment.
COUNCIL DATE:
CHKD/POSTED:
ITEM ID#:
C:\Users\sdotson\Desktop\New folder (2)\4 Budget Adjustment 1 of 1
ISG Contract – Professional Engineering Services 1 6/24/2025
AGREEMENT
For
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Between
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
And
I & S Group, Inc.
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of , 2025, by and between City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas, acting by and through its Mayor (hereinafter called CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE) and I & S
Group, Inc. (hereinafter called ENGINEER).
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE from time to time requires professional engineering services in connection
with the evaluation, design, and/or construction supervision of capital improvement projects. Therefore,
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER in consideration of their mutual covenants agree as follows:
ENGINEER shall serve as CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s professional engineering consultant in those
assignments to which this Agreement applies, and shall give consultation and advice to CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE during the performance of ENGINEER’s services. All services shall be performed under
the direction of a professional engineer registered in the State of Arkansas and qualified in the particular
field.
SECTION 1 - AUTHORIZATION OF SERVICES
1.1 Services on any assignment shall be undertaken only upon written Authorization of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE and agreement of ENGINEER
1.2 Assignments may include services described hereafter as Basic Services or as Additional
Services of ENGINEER.
1.3 Changes, modifications or amendments in scope, price or fees to this contract shall not be
allowed without a formal contract amendment approved by the Mayor and the City Council in
advance of the change in scope, costs, fees, or delivery schedule.
SECTION 2 - BASIC SERVICES OF ENGINEER
2.1 Perform professional services in connection with the Project as hereinafter stated.
2.1.1 The Scope of Services to be furnished by ENGINEER during the Project is included in
Appendix A attached hereto and made part of this Agreement.
2.2 ENGINEER shall coordinate their activities and services with the CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE. ENGINEER and CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE agree that ENGINEER
has full responsibility for the engineering services.
SECTION 3 - RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
3.1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE shall, within a reasonable time, so as not to delay the services of
ENGINEER:
ISG Contract – Professional Engineering Services 2 6/24/2025
3.1.1 Provide full information as to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s requirements for the Project.
3.1.2 Assist ENGINEER by placing at ENGINEER’s disposal all available information
pertinent to the assignment including previous reports and any other data relative thereto.
3.1.3 Assist ENGINEER in obtaining access to property reasonably necessary for ENGINEER
to perform his services under this Agreement.
3.1.4 Examine all studies, reports, sketches, cost opinions, proposals, and other documents
presented by ENGINEER and render in writing decisions pertaining thereto.
3.1.5 Provide such professional legal, accounting, financial, and insurance counseling services
as may be required for the Project.
3.1.6 The City Engineer is the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s project representative with respect
to the services to be performed under this Agreement. The City Engineer shall have
complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment,
elements and systems to be used in the Project, and other matters pertinent to the services
covered by this Agreement.
3.1.7 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and/or its representative will review all documents and
provide written comments to ENGINEER in a timely manner.
SECTION 4 - PERIOD OF SERVICE
4.1 This Agreement will become effective upon the first written notice by CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE authorizing services hereunder.
4.2 The provisions of this Agreement have been agreed to in anticipation of the orderly progress
of the Project through completion of the services stated in the Agreement. ENGINEER will
proceed with providing the authorized services immediately upon receipt of written
authorization from CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. Said authorization shall include the scope of
the services authorized and the time in which the services are to be completed. The anticipated
schedule for this project is included as Appendix A.
SECTION 5 - PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER
5.1 The maximum not-to-exceed amount authorized for this Agreement shall be based upon on
an Hourly basis as described in Appendix B.
5.2 Statements
5.2.1 Monthly statements for each calendar month shall be submitted to CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE or such parties as CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may designate for
professional services consistent with ENGINEER’S normal billing schedule. Once
established, the billing schedule shall be maintained throughout the duration of the
Project.
Applications for payment shall be made in accordance with a format to be developed by
ENGINEER and as approved by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. Applications for payment shall
be accompanied each month by the updated project schedule as the basis for determining the
ISG Contract – Professional Engineering Services 3 6/24/2025
value earned as the work is accomplished. Final payment for professional services shall be
made upon CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s approval and acceptance with the satisfactory
completion of the study and report for the Project.
5.3 Payments
5.3.1 All statements are payable upon receipt and due within thirty (30) days. If a portion of
ENGINEER’s statement is disputed by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, the undisputed
portion shall be paid by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE by the due date. CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE shall advise ENGINEER in writing of the basis for any disputed
portion of any statement. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE will make reasonable effort to pay
invoices within 30 days of date the invoice is approved, however, payment within 30 days
is not guaranteed.
5.4 Final Payment
5.4.1 Upon satisfactory completion of the work performed under this Agreement, as a condition
before final payment under this Agreement, or as a termination settlement under this
Agreement, ENGINEER shall execute and deliver to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE a
release of all claims against CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE arising under or by virtue of this
Agreement, except claims which are specifically exempted by ENGINEER to be set forth
therein. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by State law or otherwise
expressly agreed to by the parties to this Agreement, final payment under this Agreement
or settlement upon termination of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE’s claims against ENGINEER or his sureties under this Agreement
or applicable performance and payment bonds, if any.
SECTION 6 - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Insurance
6.1.1 During the course of performance of these services, ENGINEER will maintain (in
United States Dollars) the following minimum insurance coverages:
Type of Coverage Limits of Liability
Workers’ Compensation Statutory
Employers’ Liability $500,000 Each Accident
Commercial General Liability
Bodily Injury and $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit
Property Damage
Automobile Liability:
Bodily Injury and $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit
Property Damage
Professional Liability Insurance $1,000,000 Each Claim
ENGINEER will provide to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE certificates as evidence of the
specified insurance within ten days of the date of this Agreement and upon each renewal
of coverage.
ISG Contract – Professional Engineering Services 4 6/24/2025
6.1.2 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER waive all rights against each other and their
officers, directors, agents, or employees for damage covered by property insurance during
and after the completion of ENGINEER’s services.
6.2 Professional Responsibility
6.2.1 ENGINEER will exercise reasonable skill, care, and diligence in the performance of
ENGINEER’s services and will carry out its responsibilities in accordance with
customarily accepted professional engineering practices. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
will promptly report to ENGINEER any defects or suspected defects in ENGINEER’s
services of which CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE becomes aware, so that ENGINEER can
take measures to minimize the consequences of such a defect. CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE retains all remedies to recover for its damages caused by any
negligence of ENGINEER.
6.3 Cost Opinions and Projections
6.3.1 Cost opinions and projections prepared by ENGINEER relating to construction costs and
schedules, operation and maintenance costs, equipment characteristics and performance,
and operating results are based on ENGINEER’s experience, qualifications, and judgment
as a design professional. Since ENGINEER has no control over weather, cost and
availability of labor, material and equipment, labor productivity, construction
Contractors’ procedures and methods, unavoidable delays, construction Contractors’
methods of determining prices, economic conditions, competitive bidding or market
conditions, and other factors affecting such cost opinions or projections, ENGINEER does
not guarantee that actual rates, costs, performance, schedules, and related items will not
vary from cost opinions and projections prepared by ENGINEER.
6.4 Changes
6.4.1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE shall have the right to make changes within the general scope
of ENGINEER’s services, with an appropriate change in compensation and schedule only
after Fayetteville City Council approval of such proposed changes and, upon execution of
a mutually acceptable amendment or change order signed by the Mayor of the CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE and the duly authorized officer of ENGINEER.
6.5 Termination
6.5.1 This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part in writing by either party in the
event of substantial failure by the other party to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement
through no fault of the terminating party, provided that no termination may be effected
unless the other party is given:
6.5.1.1 Not less than ten (10) calendar days written notice (delivered by certified mail, return
receipt requested) of intent to terminate,
6.5.1.2 An opportunity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination.
6.5.2 This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part in writing by CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE for its convenience, provided that ENGINEER is given:
6.5.2.1 Not less than ten (10) calendar days written notice (delivered by certified mail, return
ISG Contract – Professional Engineering Services 5 6/24/2025
receipt requested) of intent to terminate,
6.5.2.2 An opportunity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination.
6.5.3 If termination for default is effected by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, an equitable
adjustment in the price provided for in this Agreement shall be made, but
6.5.3.1 No amount shall be allowed for anticipated profit on unperformed services or other
work,
6.5.3.2 Any payment due to ENGINEER at the time of termination may be adjusted to cover
any additional costs to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE because of ENGINEER’s default.
6.5.4 If termination for default is effected by ENGINEER, or if termination for convenience is
effected by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, the equitable adjustment shall include a
reasonable profit for services or other work performed. The equitable adjustment for any
termination shall provide for payment to ENGINEER for services rendered and expenses
incurred prior to the termination, in addition to termination settlement costs reasonably
incurred by ENGINEER relating to commitments which had become firm prior to the
termination.
6.5.5 Upon receipt of a termination action under Paragraphs 6.5.1 or 6.5.2 above, ENGINEER
shall:
6.5.5.1 Promptly discontinue all affected work (unless the notice directs otherwise),
6.5.5.2 Deliver or otherwise make available to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE all data, drawings,
specifications, reports, estimates, summaries and such other information and materials
as may have been accumulated by ENGINEER in performing this Agreement, whether
completed or in process.
6.5.6 Upon termination under Paragraphs 6.5.1 or 6.5.2 above CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may
take over the work and may award another party an agreement to complete the work under
this Agreement.
6.5.7 If, after termination for failure of ENGINEER to fulfill contractual obligations, it is
determined that ENGINEER had not failed to fulfill contractual obligations, the
termination shall be deemed to have been for the convenience of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE. In such event, adjustments of the agreement price shall be made as
provided in Paragraph 6.5.4 of this clause.
6.6 Delays
6.6.1 In the event the services of ENGINEER are suspended or delayed by CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE or by other events beyond ENGINEER’s reasonable control,
ENGINEER shall be entitled to additional compensation and time for reasonable costs
incurred by ENGINEER in temporarily closing down or delaying the Project.
6.7 Rights and Benefits
6.7.1 ENGINEER’s services will be performed solely for the benefit of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE and not for the benefit of any other persons or entities.
ISG Contract – Professional Engineering Services 6 6/24/2025
6.8 Dispute Resolution
6.8.1 Scope of Paragraph: The procedures of this Paragraph shall apply to any and all disputes
between CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER which arise from, or in any way are
related to, this Agreement, including, but not limited to the interpretation of this
Agreement, the enforcement of its terms, any acts, errors, or omissions of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE or ENGINEER in the performance of this Agreement, and disputes
concerning payment.
6.8.2 Exhaustion of Remedies Required: No action may be filed unless the parties first negotiate.
If timely Notice is given under Paragraph 6.8.3, but an action is initiated prior to exhaustion
of these procedures, such action shall be stayed, upon application by either party to a court
of proper jurisdiction, until the procedures in Paragraphs 6.8.3 and 6.8.4 have been
complied with.
6.8.3 Notice of Dispute
6.8.3.1 For disputes arising prior to the making of final payment promptly after the occurrence
of any incident, action, or failure to act upon which a claim is based, the party seeking
relief shall serve the other party with a written Notice;
6.8.3.2 For disputes arising within one year after the making of final payment, CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE shall give ENGINEER written Notice at the address listed in
Paragraph 6.14 within thirty (30) days after occurrence of any incident, accident, or
first observance of defect or damage. In both instances, the Notice shall specify the
nature and amount of relief sought, the reason relief should be granted, and the
appropriate portions of this Agreement that authorize the relief requested.
6.8.4 Negotiation: Within seven days of receipt of the Notice, the Project Managers for CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER shall confer in an effort to resolve the dispute. If
the dispute cannot be resolved at that level, then, upon written request of either side, the
matter shall be referred to the President of ENGINEER and the Mayor of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE or his designee. These officers shall meet at the Project Site or such
other location as is agreed upon within 30 days of the written request to resolve the dispute.
6.9 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE represents that it has sufficient funds or the means of obtaining
funds to remit payment to ENGINEER for services rendered by ENGINEER.
6.10 Publications
6.10.1 Recognizing the importance of professional development on the part of ENGINEER’s
employees and the importance of ENGINEER’s public relations, ENGINEER may prepare
publications, such as technical papers, articles for periodicals, and press releases, pertaining
to ENGINEER’s services for the Project. Such publications will be provided to CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE in draft form for CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s advance review. CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE shall review such drafts promptly and provide CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE’s comments to ENGINEER. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
may require deletion of proprietary data or confidential information from such publications,
but otherwise CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE will not unreasonably withhold approval. The
cost of ENGINEER’s activities pertaining to any such publication shall be for
ENGINEER’s account.
ISG Contract – Professional Engineering Services 7 6/24/2025
6.11 Indemnification
6.11.1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE agrees that it will require all construction Contractors to
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER from
and against any and all loss where loss is caused or incurred or alleged to be caused or
incurred in whole or in part as a result of the negligence or other actionable fault of the
Contractors, or their employees, agents, Subcontractors, and Suppliers.
6.12 Ownership of Documents
6.12.1 All documents provided by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE including original drawings, disks
of CADD drawings and cross sections, estimates, specification field notes, and data are and
remain the property of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ENGINEER may retain reproduced
copies of drawings and copies of other documents.
6.12.2 Engineering documents, drawings, and specifications prepared by ENGINEER as part of
the Services shall become the property of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE when ENGINEER
has been compensated for all Services rendered, provided, however, that ENGINEER shall
have the unrestricted right to their use. ENGINEER shall, however, retain its rights in its
standard drawings details, specifications, databases, computer software, and other
proprietary property. Rights to intellectual property developed, utilized, or modified in the
performance of the Services shall remain the property of ENGINEER.
6.12.3 Any files delivered in electronic medium may not work on systems and software different
than those with which they were originally produced. ENGINEER makes no warranty as
to the compatibility of these files with any other system or software. Because of the
potential degradation of electronic medium over time, in the event of a conflict between
the sealed original drawings/hard copies and the electronic files, the sealed drawings/hard
copies will govern.
6.13 Notices
6.13.1 Any Notice required under this Agreement will be in writing, addressed to the appropriate
party at the following addresses:
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s address:
125 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
ENGINEER’s address:
3100 Market Street
Suite 106
Rogers, Arkansas 72758
6.14 Successor and Assigns
6.14.1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER each binds himself and his successors,
executors, administrators, and assigns to the other party of this Agreement and to the
successors, executors, administrators, and assigns of such other party, in respect to all
covenants of this Agreement; except as above, neither CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE nor
ISG Contract – Professional Engineering Services 8 6/24/2025
ENGINEER shall assign, sublet, or transfer his interest in the Agreement without the
written consent of the other.
6.15 Controlling Law
6.15.1 This Agreement shall be subject to, interpreted and enforced according to the laws of the
State of Arkansas without regard to any conflicts of law provisions.
6.16 Entire Agreement
6.16.1 This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between ENGINEER and CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE relative to the Scope of Services herein. Since terms contained in
purchase orders do not generally apply to professional services, in the event CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE issues to ENGINEER a purchase order, no preprinted terms thereon
shall become a part of this Agreement. Said purchase order document, whether or not
signed by ENGINEER, shall be considered as a document for CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE’s internal management of its operations.
SECTION 7 - SPECIAL CONDITIONS
7.1 Additional Responsibilities of ENGINEER
7.1.1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s review, approval, or acceptance of design drawings,
specifications, reports and other services furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve
ENGINEER of responsibility for the technical adequacy of the work. Neither CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE’s review, approval or acceptance of, nor payment for any of the services
shall be construed as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action
arising out of the performance of this Agreement.
7.1.2 ENGINEER shall be and shall remain liable, in accordance with applicable law, for all
damages to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE caused by ENGINEER’s negligent performance
of any of the services furnished under this Agreement except for errors, omissions or other
deficiencies to the extent attributable to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE or CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE-furnished data.
7.1.3 ENGINEER’s obligations under this clause are in addition to ENGINEER’s other express
or implied assurances under this Agreement or State law and in no way diminish any other
rights that CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may have against ENGINEER for faulty materials,
equipment, or work.
7.2 Remedies
7.2.1 Except as may be otherwise provided in this Agreement, all claims, counter-claims,
disputes and other matters in question between CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and
ENGINEER arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof will be
decided in a court of competent jurisdiction within Arkansas.
7.3 Audit: Access to Records
7.3.1 ENGINEER shall maintain books, records, documents and other evidence directly
pertinent to performance on work under this Agreement in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and practices consistently applied in effect on the date of
ISG Contract – Professional Engineering Services 9 6/24/2025
execution of this Agreement. ENGINEER shall also maintain the financial information and
data used by ENGINEER in the preparation of support of the cost submission required for
any negotiated agreement or change order and send to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE a copy
of the cost summary submitted. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, the State or any of their
authorized representatives shall have access to all such books, records, documents and
other evidence for the purpose of inspection, audit and copying during normal business
hours. ENGINEER will provide proper facilities for such access and inspection.
7.3.2 Records under Paragraph 7.3.1 above shall be maintained and made available during
performance on assisted work under this Agreement and until three years from the date of
final payment for the project. In addition, those records which relate to any controversy
arising out of such performance, or to costs or items to which an audit exception has been
taken, shall be maintained and made available until three years after the date of resolution
of such appeal, litigation, claim or exception.
7.3.3 This right of access clause (with respect to financial records) applies to:
7.3.3.1 Negotiated prime agreements:
7.3.3.2 Negotiated change orders or agreement amendments in excess of $10,000 affecting
the price of any formally advertised, competitively awarded, fixed price agreement:
7.3.3.3 Agreements or purchase orders under any agreement other than a formally advertised,
competitively awarded, fixed price agreement. However, this right of access does not
apply to a prime agreement, lower tier subagreement or purchase order awarded after
effective price competition, except:
7.3.3.3.1 With respect to record pertaining directly to subagreement performance,
excluding any financial records of ENGINEER;
7.3.3.3.2 If there is any indication that fraud, gross abuse or corrupt practices may be
involved;
7.3.3.3.3 If the subagreement is terminated for default or for convenience.
7.4 Covenant Against Contingent Fees
7.4.1 ENGINEER warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to
solicit or secure this Agreement upon an agreement of understanding for a commission,
percentage, brokerage or continent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide
established commercial or selling agencies maintained by ENGINEER for the purpose of
securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or at its discretion, to deduct
from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such
commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee.
7.5 Gratuities
7.5.1 If CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE finds after a notice and hearing that ENGINEER or any of
ENGINEER’s agents or representatives, offered or gave gratuities (in the form of
entertainment, gifts or otherwise) to any official, employee or agent of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, in an attempt to secure an agreement or favorable treatment in
ISG Contract – Professional Engineering Services 10 6/24/2025
awarding, amending or making any determinations related to the performance of this
Agreement, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may, by written notice to ENGINEER terminate
this Agreement. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may also pursue other rights and remedies
that the law or this Agreement provides. However, the existence of the facts on which CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE bases such finding shall be in issue and may be reviewed in
proceedings under the Remedies clause of this Agreement.
7.5.2 In the event this Agreement is terminated as provided in Paragraph 7.5.1, CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE may pursue the same remedies against ENGINEER as it could pursue
in the event of a breach of the Agreement by ENGINEER As a penalty, in addition to any
other damages to which it may be entitled by law, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may pursue
exemplary damages in an amount (as determined by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE) which
shall be not less than three nor more than ten times the costs ENGINEER incurs in
providing any such gratuities to any such officer or employee.
7.6 Arkansas Freedom of Information Act
7.6.1 City contracts and documents, including internal documents and documents of
subcontractors and sub-consultants, prepared while performing City contractual work are
subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). If a Freedom of Information
Act request is presented to the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ENGINEER will do
everything possible to provide the documents in a prompt and timely manner as prescribed
in the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (A.C.A. §25-19-101 et seq.). Only legally
authorized photocopying costs pursuant to the FOIA may be assessed for this compliance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS by and through its Mayor, and
ENGINEER, by its authorized officer have made and executed this Agreement as of the day and year first
above written.
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ENGINEER
By: By:
Mayor, Molly Rawn Business Unit Leader, William A. Kratt
ATTEST:
By: By:
City Clerk Project Engineer, TJ Wells
END OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
June 24, 2025
Chris Brown, PE
Public Works Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
I & S Group, Inc. | 3100 Market Street + Suite 106 + Rogers, AR 72758 + 479.974.1601 1
RE: South School Avenue – Safe Streets For All Proposal
Mr. Brown,
As the City of Fayetteville (City) looks to reconstruct School Avenue from W 15th St to W Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard, I & S
Group, Inc. (ISG) stands eager and ready to assist.
ISG is committed to delivering excellence through the collective expertise of our multi-disciplinary team. With this collaborative
approach, we will provide the following scope of services to meet your project needs. It is our understanding that this initial
proposal is for the Conceptual Design Phase; Survey, Preliminary Environmental Services, Traffic Study, Preliminary Utility
Coordination, Alternative Design Analysis (Roadway, Intersections, Utilities), and anticipated one (1) public engagement meeting
and one (1) transportation committee meeting. Future Phases consisting of but not limited to Preliminary Design, Final Design,
Bidding Assistance, and Construction Phase services will be addressed as an amendment(s) to this agreement in the future.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Project
The scope of services generally includes survey, environmental review, street design, water utility design, sanitary sewer utility
design, platting, real estate acquisition documents, and bidding support. The project limits are School Avenue from W 15th St to
W Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard, including the functional areas of the intersections. The project is being funded through a
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant from the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and local funding.
The reconstruction will include enhancements to pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle infrastructure, landscaping, hardscaping,
streets, intersections, drainage systems, water systems, sanitary sewer systems, and access control.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE
ISG will complete a conceptual design based on the project scope, prior plans and studies, discussions with City staff and other
stakeholders. Prior to beginning work, ISG will coordinate a kickoff meeting with the City. The purpose of the conceptual design
plans will be to confirm project scope, compare to the budget level cost estimate, and begin coordinating with agencies, utilities,
and other stakeholders
Surveys
Corridor Survey
ISG will search Washington County records to obtain pertinent additional information for the subject project, including relevant
surveys of record, section corner reference ties, and underlying plat information, supplementing the title documentation
provided by the City. Researching the adjoining property descriptions may be necessary to identify overlaps or gaps caused by
incorrect or ambiguous legal descriptions. If a current title commitment is not provided, the services of an abstractor may be
used to perform a thorough search for recorded easements and encumbrances that could affect the parcel.
APPENDIX "A"
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 2
After the record search, ISG will conduct a field investigation to gather physical evidence, including but not limited to property
pins, fences, or other lines of apparent occupation. The field data will be analyzed and compared with the written record and
prior surveys. A determination will be made to reconcile the written description with the evidence gathered. The area of focus
will be limited to the immediate area associated with design activity. If the site survey reveals unforeseen issues, we will notify
the City before proceeding. Any necessary additional work may incur extra fees, which will be discussed and approved in
advance.
ISG will visit the site to perform a topographic site survey, which includes locating significant corridor features such as fences,
improvements, impervious areas, and landscaping, as well as visible evidence of underground utilities. Prior to the site visit, ISG
will place an Arkansas One Call utility locate request to have underground utilities marked. Any resulting markings will be
documented during our site visit.
The topographic ground shots will be gathered on an approximate 50-foot grid. Elevations will be referenced to a published
benchmark datum. Topographic information will extend to approximately 25 feet beyond the property lines. The topographic
survey information gathered at the site will be analyzed and summarized in a sketch of survey. This topographic information will
be used to generate one-foot contours for the site, sufficient to facilitate design and planning activity
Right-of-Way and Easement Exhibit Preparation
ISG will draft right-of-way and easement descriptions along with associated exhibits as necessary, to assist with any anticipated
land acquisition adjacent to existing City of Fayetteville right-of-way or easements. These exhibits will be draft in nature to be
utilized initially for negotiation with land owners by the City of Fayetteville’s internal land agents. These documents will be
finalized in future phases as the design limits are fully understood.
Geotechnical
Geotechnical services are not anticipated for this project.
Environmental
Agency Coordination
ISG will provide initial coordination with the following agencies for regulatory requirements, if required:
• Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
• Arkansas Department of Health
• Division of Arkansas Heritage
• United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Cultural Resources
ISG will provide a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey through a subconsultant, utilizing records research and on-site surveys to
evaluate cultural resources in the study area for potential effects. A Cultural Resources Survey Report will be prepared and
submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for a single, build alternative. The report will request concurrence
with the findings for Section 106 clearance, and revisions will be made based on comments from SHPO, if necessary.
ISG will prepare draft notification documents and maps for the area of potential effect for initial coordination with tribes for
FHWA to review and distribute.
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 3
Hazardous Materials
ISG will conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and coordinate with ADEQ for their review and comment. The City
acknowledges that ISG is not the owner or generator of waste materials generated because of the Hazardous
Materials/Contamination Assessments services performed by ISG under this contract.
Environmental Document
ISG will begin preparing the environmental document, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) standards. The subject project is assumed to require a Tier 3 Categorical Exclusion (CE). This
document will be completed an finalized in the Preliminary Design Phase.
Traffic Study
ISG will perform a traffic study to evaluate capacity, safety, and control of School Avenue and the School Avenue intersections
with W 15th St and W Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard. The purpose of the traffic study will be to determine and analyze design
alternatives for the street layout of School Avenue and the intersection configurations and control at the School Avenue
intersections with W 15th St and W Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard.
Up to three (3) alternatives for each intersection as part of the traffic study and Conceptual Design Phase of the project.
Once a build alternative is selected for the School Avenue street layout and the intersections, ISG will carry those alternatives
into the Preliminary Design Phase.
Franchise Utility Coordination
After field survey is complete ISG will notify utilities of the project scope, ask them to provide utility mapping, and provide them
with their surveyed locations in order for them to confirm the correct and complete location of their facilities.
Conceptual Plans
ISG will prepare based on data collected in previous sections a conceptual plan set that will encompass the proposed
Alternative Design Solutions. This will include opinions of probable cost, conceptual plans/exhibits for typical roadway sections,
intersections, and city owned utilities. ISG will coordinate a conceptual plan review meeting with the City, then followed by public
engagement meetings, and transportation committee meeting as described in the Public Engagement scope. Once feedback
has been obtained ISG will finalize the conceptual plan to identify the preferred alternative.
Public Engagement
ISG will provide the City with written content, graphics, and project documentation for the City’s use on the City’s website, social
media, and other communication methods. In addition, the following meetings are anticipated:
• Up to One (1) public involvement meetings
• Up to One (1) Transportation Committee meetings
• Meetings with residents, businesses, property owners, and other stakeholders, as necessary
ISG will coordinate the public meetings, with assistance from the City. ISG will keep a public engagement log of comments and
interactions with public stakeholders and will provide the log to the City.
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 4
PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE
Once the City approves the conceptual plans, ISG will begin the preliminary design phase and incorporate remaining comments
from the conceptual design phase. The preliminary design phase will document design decisions and will be used to complete
the NEPA documentation, and continue coordinating with agencies, utilities, and other stakeholders. A preliminary scope of
services is provided below that may be included in the Preliminary Design Phase, however, this is subject to modification and
revisions based on the findings during the Conceptual Design Phase and the preferred selected alternative.
Surveys
Right-of-Way and Easement Exhibit Preparation
ISG will finalize the right-of-way and easement descriptions along with associated exhibits as necessary, to assist with any
anticipated land acquisition adjacent to existing City of Fayetteville right-of-way or easements. These exhibits will be based upon
the final negotiated property acquisition agreements between the land owners and the City of Fayetteville and will be utilized for
recordation.
Utility Coordination
Once preliminary plans and right-of-way and easement documents are prepared, ISG will provide these documents to utilities in
order for them to confirm any conflicts their facilities have with the reconstruction. Utilities will be asked to provide a work plan
for any removals, relocations, or additions to their facilities. The work plan will include drawings and a proposed schedule for
any work on their facilities. ISG will coordinate with utilities to encourage the relocation of any conflicts prior to the
reconstruction of School Avenue. Any conflicts that must be resolved during reconstruction of School Avenue will be coordinated
and information will be provided in the contract documents for the City’s contractor to continue coordination through the
reconstruction of School Avenue.
Environmental
Agency Coordination
ISG will provide preliminary and final plans to the following agencies for regulatory approvals, if required:
• Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
• Arkansas Department of Health
• Division of Arkansas Heritage
• United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Environmental Document
ISG will finalize the environmental document, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) standards. The subject project is assumed to require a Tier 3 Categorical Exclusion (CE). Once complete,
ISG will furnish the City and the FHWA original copies for review. ISG will incorporate comments into a revised document. ISG
assumes up to two rounds of comments. ISG will submit the final document to FHWA for its approval.
Public Engagement
ISG will provide the City with written content, graphics, and project documentation for the City’s use on the City’s website, social
media, and other communication methods. In addition, the following meetings are anticipated:
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 5
• Up to One (1) public involvement meetings, one prior to preliminary design, and one during final design and prior to
bidding
• Up to One (1) Transportation Committee meetings
• Up to One (1) Active Transportation Committee meetings
• Up to One (1) Arts Council meetings
• Meetings with residents, businesses, property owners, and other stakeholders, as necessary
ISG will coordinate the public meetings, with assistance from the City. ISG will keep a public engagement log of comments and
interactions with public stakeholders and will provide the log to the City.
Preliminary Plans
ISG will prepare a Preliminary Plan set that will take the preferred alternative to approximately 60% of completed construction
documents. An updated opinion of probable cost will be provided. ISG will coordinate a preliminary plan review meeting with the
City. The preliminary plan set will include:
• Title Sheet
• Typical Sections
• Construction Details
• Removal Plans
• Utility Plans and Profiles
• Intersection Details
• Street Plans and Profiles
• Pavement Marking and Signing Plans
• Maintenance of Traffic Conceptual Plans
• Cross Sections
Landscape Architecture
ISG will design streetscape amenities. These amenities could include plantings, planters, benches, bus shelters, refuse
receptacles, placemaking features, gateway features, and other amenities. Streetscape amenities will be coordinated with
green infrastructure, lighting, and street reconstruction designs.
Electrical Design
ISG will design street lighting. Lighting spacing will according to City standards. If none exist, spacing will match typical
installations. A photometric analysis will be provided, if requested.
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 6
FINAL DESIGN
A preliminary scope of services is provided below that may be included in the Final Design Phase, however, this is subject to
modification and revisions based on the findings during the Conceptual Design Phase and the preferred selected alternative.
Once the City approves the preliminary plans, ISG will begin the final design phase and incorporate remaining comments from
the preliminary design phase. The final design phase will provide construction plans, specifications, and estimates for the
purpose of bidding and construction. Plans and specifications will be used to continue coordinating with agencies, utilities, and
other stakeholders. ISG will coordinate a final plan review meeting with the City. After comments from the final plan review
meeting are received and incorporated, a plan-in-hand walkthrough will be conducted with the City, and final changes will be
incorporated into the final construction documents prior to bidding. An updated opinion of probable cost will be provided. The
final plan set will include:
• Title Sheet
• Project notes
• Typical Sections
• Construction Details
• Removal Plans
• Erosion Control Plans
• Utility Plans and Profiles
• Intersection Details
• Street Plans and Profiles
• Pavement Marking and Signing Plans
• Maintenance of Traffic Plans
• Cross Sections
Utility Coordination
ISG will provide utilities with final plans and right-of-way and easement exhibits and will continue to coordinate with utilities prior
to reconstruction of School Avenue as needed.
Environmental
Permitting
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
ISG will prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the scope of this proposed construction work. A stormwater
pollution prevention plan will be prepared that incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs). This plan will include the
necessary erosion control measures to meet local and state requirements.
Bidding Assistance
ISG will assist in the preparation of an advertisement for bids to assist with solicitation of competitive general contractor bids.
We are prepared to respond to contractor questions and issue clarifications via addendum if necessary. We will also provide
assistance with bid evaluation, issuance of a recommendation of award, and preparation of the Notice to Proceed and
Agreement between the City and Contractor.
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 7
Survey
Monumentation
Based on the boundary survey and the recorded right-of-way and easement documents, ISG will install iron monuments at the
new property corners. It is anticipated that temporary monumentation will be set prior to construction and that after
construction is completed final monumentation will be installed. This will include subsurface installation of ½-inch diameter, 20-
inch-long solid iron rods, or other permanent monuments where applicable, at each of the new property corners. The locations
will also be identified on the surface by wooden lath.
ASSUMPTIONS + EXCLUSIONS
The following assumptions were used to develop the scope of services in this proposal:
• The City will provide ISG with the following:
o Available survey control
o As-built Plans
o Water and Sewer System Information
o Traffic Forecasts
The following items are excluded from the scope of services in this proposal:
• Geotechnical Services
• Public Hearings
• Cultural Resources Surveys beyond Phase I
• Wetland Delineation
• Biological Assessments
• Hazardous Material Surveys beyond Phase I
• Section 4(f) Evaluations
• Conceptual Stage Relocation Report
• Visual Impact Memo
• Noise Screening Analysis
• A NEPA Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, or Environmental Impact Statement
• Section 404 Permit
• Stream Modeling
• LOMR
• Coordination with FEMA
• Structural Engineering
• Construction Phase Services
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 8
SCHEDULE
ISG proposes the following schedule if a notice to proceed is received by August 1, 2015.
COMPENSATION
ISG proposes to provide the scope of work described within this proposal for compensation in accordance with the following
schedule. Anticipated reimbursable expenses such as travel time, mileage expenses, and printing costs are included.
Phase Date
Conceptual Plans (30%) February 1, 2026
NEPA Document April 1, 2026
Preliminary Plans (60%) June 1, 2026
Right-of-way and Easement Documents September 1, 2026
Final Plans and Specifications for City Review (90%) February 1, 2027
Final Construction Documents April 1, 2027
Conceptual Design Phase Compensation
Surveys $75,000.00
Environmental $18,000.00
Traffic Study $30,000.00
Franchise Utility Coordination $5,000.00
Conceptual Plans $88,500.00
Public Engagement $25,500.00
Total $242,000.00
Conceptual Design Phase - Utilities Compensation
Surveys $10,000.00
Alternative Design Analysis $35,000.00
Total $45,000.00
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 9
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
ISG’s goal for this proposal, like its services, is to be flexible in meeting the requirements of this project. Upon request, ISG can
provide a subsequent proposal to assist with additional professional design and construction phase services needed to support
this project as it moves forward.
ISG appreciates the opportunity to provide a solution tailored to the needs of the City of Fayetteville. Upon acceptance, please
sign the acknowledgment box and return a copy of the proposal to our office. We look forward to providing you with responsive
service, a collaborative experience, and timely delivery.
Sincerely,
TJ Wells, PE
Civil Engineer
TJ.Wells@ISGInc.com
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 1
2025 Standard Hourly Rates
Rates are effective as of January 1, 2025 and are subject to change.
Job Type Hourly Rate
Administrative I $80
Administrative II $100
Administrative III $120
Administrative IV $150
Applied Technology
Specialist I $110
Applied Technology
Specialist II $125
Applied Technology
Specialist III $140
Applied Technology
Specialist IV $160
Architect I $130
Architect II $150
Architect III $170
Architect IV $200
Architectural Designer I $120
Architectural Designer II $130
Architectural Designer III $140
Architectural Designer IV $160
Business Developer I $150
Business Developer II $170
Business Developer III $190
Business Developer IV $220
Business Writer $120
Civil Designer I $120
Civil Designer II $130
Civil Designer III $140
Civil Designer IV $160
Civil Engineer I $150
Civil Engineer II $160
Civil Engineer III $180
Civil Engineer IV $200
Commissioning Technician I $130
Commissioning Technician II $140
Commissioning Technician III $150
Job Type Hourly Rate
Commissioning Technician IV $170
Construction
Administrator I $120
Construction
Administrator II $130
Construction
Administrator III $140
Construction
Administrator IV $155
Development Services
Coordinator I $130
Development Services
Coordinator II $145
Development Services
Coordinator III $160
Development Services
Coordinator IV $180
Drone Specialist I $120
Drone Specialist II $130
Drone Specialist III $140
Drone Specialist IV $160
Electrical Controls
Designer IV $210
Electrical Designer I $130
Electrical Designer II $140
Electrical Designer III $150
Electrical Designer IV $170
Electrical Engineer I $160
Electrical Engineer II $170
Electrical Engineer III $190
Electrical Engineer IV $220
Environmental
Scientist/Engineer I $130
Environmental
Scientist/Engineer II $145
Environmental
Scientist/Engineer III $160
Environmental
Scientist/Engineer IV $190
Job Type Hourly Rate
General Counsel $370
GIS Specialist I $130
GIS Specialist II $150
GIS Specialist III $170
GIS Specialist IV $190
Graphic Designer $110
Interior Designer I $130
Interior Designer II $140
Interior Designer III $155
Interior Designer IV $170
IT Specialist $130
Land Survey Specialist I $105
Land Survey Specialist II $120
Land Survey Specialist III $130
Land Survey Specialist IV $140
Land Surveyor I $120
Land Surveyor II $130
Land Surveyor III $150
Land Surveyor IV $185
Landscape Architect I $140
Landscape Architect II $150
Landscape Architect III $170
Landscape Architect IV $190
Landscape Designer I $120
Landscape Designer II $130
Landscape Designer III $140
Landscape Designer IV $160
Marketing Specialist $130
Mechanical Designer I $130
Mechanical Designer II $140
Mechanical Designer III $150
Mechanical Designer IV $170
Mechanical Engineer I $160
APPENDIX "B"
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 2
Job Type Hourly Rate
Senior Electrical
Controls Designer $220
Senior Electrical Designer $190
Senior Electrical Engineer $250
Senior Environmental
Scientist $215
Senior Finance Consultant $200
Senior GIS Specialist $205
Senior Graphic Designer $130
Senior Interior Designer $195
Senior IT Specialist $200
Senior Land
Survey Specialist $150
Senior Land Surveyor $205
Senior Landscape Architect $215
Senior Landscape Designer $170
Senior Marketing Consultant $200
Senior Marketing Specialist $150
Senior Mechanical Designer $190
Senior Mechanical Engineer $250
Senior Planner $210
Senior Process Engineer $230
Senior Project Executive $290
Senior Project Manager $230
Senior Refrigeration
Designer $205
Senior Refrigeration
Engineer $285
Senior Structural Designer $185
Senior Structural Engineer $240
Senior Technical Writer $170
Senior Technology Designer $210
Senior Technology Engineer $220
Senior Telecommunications
Designer $150
Senior Telecommunications
Engineer $240
Senior Telecommunications
Project Manager $230
Senior Visualization
Specialist $220
Job Type Hourly Rate
Mechanical Engineer II $170
Mechanical Engineer III $190
Mechanical Engineer IV $220
Planner I $130
Planner II $145
Planner III $160
Planner IV $180
Project Coordinator I $130
Project Coordinator II $145
Project Coordinator III $160
Project Coordinator IV $180
Project Manager I $140
Project Manager II $160
Project Manager III $180
Project Manager IV $200
Refrigeration Designer I $140
Refrigeration Designer II $150
Refrigeration Designer III $165
Refrigeration Designer IV $180
Refrigeration Engineer I $180
Refrigeration Engineer II $195
Refrigeration Engineer III $215
Refrigeration Engineer IV $235
Senior Applied
Technology Specialist $170
Senior Architect $235
Senior
Architectural Designer $180
Senior Business Developer $230
Senior Business Writer $140
Senior Civil Designer $180
Senior Civil Engineer $235
Senior Commissioning
Technician $190
Senior Construction
Administrator $170
Senior Development
Services Coordinator $200
Senior Drone Specialist $170
Job Type Hourly Rate
Senior Water/
Wastewater Designer $190
Senior Water/
Wastewater Engineer $250
Senior Water/Wastewater
Project Manager $240
Structural Designer I $120
Structural Designer II $130
Structural Designer III $145
Structural Designer IV $170
Structural Engineer I $150
Structural Engineer II $170
Structural Engineer III $190
Structural Engineer IV $210
Technical Writer $150
Technology Designer I $120
Technology Designer II $130
Technology Designer III $150
Technology Designer IV $170
Technology Engineer I $140
Technology Engineer II $150
Technology Engineer III $170
Technology Engineer IV $190
Telecommunications
Designer I $95
Telecommunications
Designer II $105
Telecommunications
Designer III $115
Telecommunications
Designer IV $125
Telecommunications
Engineer I $160
Telecommunications
Field Designer 1 $115
Telecommunications
Field Designer 1I $125
Telecommunications
Field Designer 1II $135
Telecommunications
Field Designer 1V $145
Telecommunications
Project Manager I $140
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 3
Job Type Hourly Rate
Telecommunications
Project Manager II $160
Telecommunications
Project Manager III $180
Telecommunications
Project Manager IV $200
Videographer $155
Visualization Specialist I $170
Visualization Specialist II $180
Visualization Specialist III $190
Visualization Specialist IV $200
Water/Wastewater
Designer I $130
Water/Wastewater
Designer II $140
Water/Wastewater
Designer III $150
Water/Wastewater
Designer IV $170
Water/Wastewater
Engineer I $160
Water/Wastewater
Engineer II $170
Water/Wastewater
Engineer III $190
Water/Wastewater
Engineer IV $220
Water/Wastewater
Operator I $115
Water/Wastewater
Operator II $120
Water/Wastewater
Operator III $125
Water/Wastewater
Operator IV $130
Water/Wastewater
Project Manager I $140
Water/Wastewater
Project Manager II $160
Water/Wastewater
Project Manager III $180
Water/Wastewater
Project Manager IV $200
Equipment Hourly Rate
Survey Grade GPS/Robotics $62
Mapping Grade GPS $22
3D Laser Scanner $80
Manhole Scanner $75
Mobile Scanner**Varies
R/C Boat +
Sounding Equipment $58
Surveillance Drone $60
Photogrammetry Drone $150
Thermal Imaging Drone $193
LiDAR Drone**Varies
All-Terrain Vehicle $30
Traffic Counter $15
Pipe Crawler** Varies
Mileage reimbursement is
at the IRS standard rate.
Outside services are
billed at cost plus 10%.
**Project specific rates—call for pricing.
City of Fayetteville, AR
S. School Ave. (MLK to 15th)
ISG Project #32858
July 8, 2025
2025-2027 Rates with 2.7% Escalation Rate
Classification 2025 Rate
2025 %
of Work 2026 Rate
2026 %
of Work 2027 Rate
2027 %
of Work Base Rate
Civil Designer I 120.00$ 20%123.24$ 60%126.57$ 20%123.26$
Civil Designer II 130.00$ 20%133.51$ 60%137.11$ 20%133.53$
Civil Designer III 140.00$ 20%143.78$ 60%147.66$ 20%143.80$
Civil Designer IV 160.00$ 20%164.32$ 60%168.76$ 20%164.34$
Civil Engineer I 150.00$ 20%154.05$ 60%158.21$ 20%154.07$
Civil Engineer II 160.00$ 20%164.32$ 60%168.76$ 20%164.34$
Civil Engineer III 180.00$ 20%184.86$ 60%189.85$ 20%184.89$
Civil Engineer IV 200.00$ 20%205.40$ 60%210.95$ 20%205.43$
Electrical Designer I $130 130.00$ 20%133.51$ 60%137.11$ 20%133.53$
Electrical Designer II $140 140.00$ 20%143.78$ 60%147.66$ 20%143.80$
Electrical Designer III $150 150.00$ 20%154.05$ 60%158.21$ 20%154.07$
Electrical Designer IV $170 170.00$ 20%174.59$ 60%179.30$ 20%174.61$
Electrical Engineer I $160 160.00$ 20%164.32$ 60%168.76$ 20%164.34$
Electrical Engineer II $170 170.00$ 20%174.59$ 60%179.30$ 20%174.61$
Electrical Engineer III $190 190.00$ 20%195.13$ 60%200.40$ 20%195.16$
Electrical Engineer IV $220 220.00$ 20%225.94$ 60%232.04$ 20%225.97$
Environmental Scientist/Engineer I 130.00$ 20%133.51$ 60%137.11$ 20%133.53$
Environmental Scientist/Engineer II 145.00$ 20%148.92$ 60%152.94$ 20%148.94$
Environmental Scientist/Engineer III 160.00$ 20%164.32$ 60%168.76$ 20%164.34$
Environmental Scientist/Engineer IV 190.00$ 20%195.13$ 60%200.40$ 20%195.16$
Administrative I 80.00$ 20%82.16$ 60%84.38$ 20%82.17$
Administrative II 100.00$ 20%102.70$ 60%105.47$ 20%102.71$
Administrative III 120.00$ 20%123.24$ 60%126.57$ 20%123.26$
Administrative IV 150.00$ 20%154.05$ 60%158.21$ 20%154.07$
Geospatial Specialist I 105.00$ 20%107.84$ 60%110.75$ 20%107.85$
Geospatial Specialist II 120.00$ 20%123.24$ 60%126.57$ 20%123.26$
Geospatial Specialist III 130.00$ 20%133.51$ 60%137.11$ 20%133.53$
Geospatial Specialist IV 140.00$ 20%143.78$ 60%147.66$ 20%143.80$
GIS Specialist I 130.00$ 20%133.51$ 60%137.11$ 20%133.53$
GIS Specialist II 150.00$ 20%154.05$ 60%158.21$ 20%154.07$
GIS Specialist III 170.00$ 20%174.59$ 60%179.30$ 20%174.61$
GIS Specialist IV 190.00$ 20%195.13$ 60%200.40$ 20%195.16$
Land Surveyor I 120.00$ 20%123.24$ 60%126.57$ 20%123.26$
Land Surveyor II 130.00$ 20%133.51$ 60%137.11$ 20%133.53$
Land Surveyor III 150.00$ 20%154.05$ 60%158.21$ 20%154.07$
Land Surveyor IV 185.00$ 20%190.00$ 60%195.12$ 20%190.02$
Landscape Architect I 140.00$ 20%143.78$ 60%147.66$ 20%143.80$
Landscape Architect II 150.00$ 20%154.05$ 60%158.21$ 20%154.07$
Landscape Architect III 170.00$ 20%174.59$ 60%179.30$ 20%174.61$
Landscape Architect IV 190.00$ 20%195.13$ 60%200.40$ 20%195.16$
Landscape Designer I 120.00$ 20%123.24$ 60%126.57$ 20%123.26$
Landscape Designer II 130.00$ 20%133.51$ 60%137.11$ 20%133.53$
Landscape Designer III 140.00$ 20%143.78$ 60%147.66$ 20%143.80$
Landscape Designer IV 160.00$ 20%164.32$ 60%168.76$ 20%164.34$
Planner I 130.00$ 20%133.51$ 60%137.11$ 20%133.53$
Planner II 145.00$ 20%148.92$ 60%152.94$ 20%148.94$
Planner III 160.00$ 20%164.32$ 60%168.76$ 20%164.34$
Planner IV 180.00$ 20%184.86$ 60%189.85$ 20%184.89$
Project Manager I 140.00$ 20%143.78$ 60%147.66$ 20%143.80$
Project Manager II 160.00$ 20%164.32$ 60%168.76$ 20%164.34$
Project Manager III 180.00$ 20%184.86$ 60%189.85$ 20%184.89$
Project Manager IV 200.00$ 20%205.40$ 60%210.95$ 20%205.43$
Senior Civil Designer 180.00$ 20%184.86$ 60%189.85$ 20%184.89$
Senior Civil Engineer 235.00$ 20%241.35$ 60%247.86$ 20%241.38$
Senior Electrical Designer 190.00$ 20%195.13$ 60%200.40$ 20%195.16$
Senior Electrical Engineer 250.00$ 20%256.75$ 60%263.68$ 20%256.79$
Senior Environmental Scientist 215.00$ 20%220.81$ 60%226.77$ 20%220.84$
Senior Geospatial Specialist 160.00$ 20%164.32$ 60%168.76$ 20%164.34$
Senior GIS Specialist 205.00$ 20%210.54$ 60%216.22$ 20%210.56$
Senior Land Surveyor 205.00$ 20%210.54$ 60%216.22$ 20%210.56$
Senior Landscape Architect 215.00$ 20%220.81$ 60%226.77$ 20%220.84$
Senior Landscape Designer 170.00$ 20%174.59$ 60%179.30$ 20%174.61$
Senior Planner 210.00$ 20%215.67$ 60%221.49$ 20%215.70$
Senior Project Manager 230.00$ 20%236.21$ 60%242.59$ 20%236.24$
Senior Structural Designer 185.00$ 20%190.00$ 60%195.12$ 20%190.02$
Senior Structural Engineer 240.00$ 20%246.48$ 60%253.13$ 20%246.51$
Senior Visualization Specialist 220.00$ 20%225.94$ 60%232.04$ 20%225.97$
Senior Water/Wastewater Designer 190.00$ 20%195.13$ 60%200.40$ 20%195.16$
Senior Water/Wastewater Engineer 250.00$ 20%256.75$ 60%263.68$ 20%256.79$
Senior Water/Wastewater PM 240.00$ 20%246.48$ 60%253.13$ 20%246.51$
Structural Designer I 120.00$ 20%123.24$ 60%126.57$ 20%123.26$
Structural Designer II 130.00$ 20%133.51$ 60%137.11$ 20%133.53$
Structural Designer III 145.00$ 20%148.92$ 60%152.94$ 20%148.94$
Structural Designer IV 170.00$ 20%174.59$ 60%179.30$ 20%174.61$
Structural Engineer I 150.00$ 20%154.05$ 60%158.21$ 20%154.07$
Structural Engineer II 170.00$ 20%174.59$ 60%179.30$ 20%174.61$
Structural Engineer III 190.00$ 20%195.13$ 60%200.40$ 20%195.16$
Structural Engineer IV 210.00$ 20%215.67$ 60%221.49$ 20%215.70$
Technical Writer 150.00$ 20%154.05$ 60%158.21$ 20%154.07$
Senior Technical Writer 170.00$ 20%174.59$ 60%179.30$ 20%174.61$
Senior Graphic Designer 130.00$ 20%133.51$ 60%137.11$ 20%133.53$
Graphic Designer 110.00$ 20%112.97$ 60%116.02$ 20%112.99$
Visualization Specialist I 170.00$ 20%174.59$ 60%179.30$ 20%174.61$
Visualization Specialist II 180.00$ 20%184.86$ 60%189.85$ 20%184.89$
Visualization Specialist III 190.00$ 20%195.13$ 60%200.40$ 20%195.16$
Visualization Specialist IV 200.00$ 20%205.40$ 60%210.95$ 20%205.43$
Water/Wastewater Designer I 130.00$ 20%133.51$ 60%137.11$ 20%133.53$
Water/Wastewater Designer II 140.00$ 20%143.78$ 60%147.66$ 20%143.80$
Water/Wastewater Designer III 150.00$ 20%154.05$ 60%158.21$ 20%154.07$
Water/Wastewater Designer IV 170.00$ 20%174.59$ 60%179.30$ 20%174.61$
Water/Wastewater Engineer I 160.00$ 20%164.32$ 60%168.76$ 20%164.34$
Water/Wastewater Engineer II 170.00$ 20%174.59$ 60%179.30$ 20%174.61$
Water/Wastewater Engineer III 190.00$ 20%195.13$ 60%200.40$ 20%195.16$
Water/Wastewater Engineer IV 220.00$ 20%225.94$ 60%232.04$ 20%225.97$
Water/Wastewater Project Manager I 140.00$ 20%143.78$ 60%147.66$ 20%143.80$
Water/Wastewater Project Manager II 160.00$ 20%164.32$ 60%168.76$ 20%164.34$
Water/Wastewater Project Manager III 180.00$ 20%184.86$ 60%189.85$ 20%184.89$
Water/Wastewater Project Manager IV 200.00$ 20%205.40$ 60%210.95$ 20%205.43$
Fee Summary
City of Fayetteville, AR
S. School Ave. (MLK to 15th)
ISG Project #32858
July 8, 2025
FAYETTEVILLE, AR (SS4) S. SCHOOL AVE PROJECT
Senior Civil
Engineer
Civil
Engineer IV
Civil
Engineer II
Civil
Engineer I
Civil
Designer IV
Civil
Designer III
Civil
Designer II
Landscape
Architect IV
Landscape
Architect II
Senior Environmental
Scientist
Environmental
Scientist/Engineer III
Senior Land
Surveyor
Geospatial
Specialist III
Geospatial
Specialist II Total
241.38$ 205.43$ 164.34$ 154.07$ 164.34$ 143.80$ 133.53$ 195.16$ 154.07$ 220.84$ 164.34$ 210.56$ 133.53$ 123.26$
SURVEY
Project Management 6 1,232.57$
Corridor Survey 1 90 95 23,932.50$
Boundary Survey 1 60 59 15,489.36$
Right-of-way and Easement Exhibits 1 16 40 8,504.77$
Subconsultants(Title Search, Locates)18,500.00$
Expenses 8,445.00$
TASK TOTAL 76,104.20$
ENVIRONMENTAL
Project Management 3 4 1,607.48$
Agency Coordination 2 3 2 10 3,184.15$
Archaeology and History 3 2 5 1,879.68$
Hazardous Materials 2 9 1,920.76$
Environmental Document 3 3 8 2,701.39$
Subconsultants(Arch./History)6,900.00$
TASK TOTAL 18,193.47$
TRAFFIC STUDY
Traffic Study 4 45 90 25,000.73$
Subconsultants(Counts)5,000.00$
TASK TOTAL 30,000.73$
FRANCHISE UTILITY COORDINATION
Initial Coordination 2 14 14 TASK TOTAL 4,940.57$
CONCEPTUAL PLANS
Project Management 6 1,448.28$
Civil Design 8 46 9,203.23$
Landscape Architecture 8 40 7,724.14$
Plan Production 34 4,889.21$
Cost Opinion 2 4 1,068.23$
Intersection Design 8 16 150 200 58,629.48$
RRFB Design 1 4 12 18 5,623.62$
TASK TOTAL 88,586.19$
Fee Summary
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Project Management 1 3 1 1,078.50$
Prepare Materials 18 30 2 23 12,541.45$
Coordinate Public Meetings 3 18 18 7,195.16$
Public Engagement Log 2 6 1,715.33$
Expenses 3,000.00$
TASK TOTAL 25,530.44$
SUBTOTAL 243,355.60$
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Survey/Esmt Exhibits 10 25 36 9,881.14$
Project Management 8 20 6,039.62$
Conceptual Design 6 20 75 90 29,129.85$
TASK TOTAL 45,050.61$
GRAND TOTAL 288,406.21$
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
www.fayetteville-ar.gov
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
2025-1288
MEETING OF JULY 29, 2025
TO: Mayor Rawn and City Council
THRU: Chris Brown, Public Works Director
Keith Macedo, Chief of Staff
FROM: Kenneth Patterson, Federal Aid Project Manager
SUBJECT: SS4A E Joyce Blvd - Design Agreement with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the agreement with Kimley-Horn in the amount of $287,000 for study and
conceptual design phase services for the E. Joyce Blvd. (71B to Crossover Rd.), a Safe Streets and Roads for
All project and approval of a budget adjustment, pursuant to RFQ 25-01, Selection #10.
BACKGROUND:
E. Joyce Blvd serves as the primary east/west connection between Highway 265 (Crossover Rd.) and Highway
71B in north Fayetteville. This 1.6-mile corridor is an Ozark Regional Transit Route and is heavily developed
with mixed land uses, including apartment complexes, single-family homes, restaurants, banks, schools,
offices, parks and senior housing. E. Joyce Blvd has been identified on Fayetteville’s High Injury Network (HIN)
map with 667 total crashes, including eight crashes that resulted in fatalities or serious injuries from 2017 to
2021. Key needs for this stretch of E. Joyce Blvd. are reductions in overall operating speeds and
improvements in access management to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. Priority needs that will
be incorporated into the design will include, but not limited to, the addition of medians and other traffic control
infrastructure (i.e., roundabouts, crosswalks, protected intersections, street lighting, dedicated turn lanes, and
Leading Pedestrian Intervals at all signalized crossings.
On December 4, 2024, Resolution 301-24 was approved to accept federal aid funding in the amount of
$25,000,000 from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration through the Safe
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program. This funding supports five construction projects with a focus on
safety, and this project is among them.
On May 5, 2025, a selection committee composed of City of Fayetteville staff and Council member Mike
Wiederkehr selected Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for design phase services for safety improvements to E.
Joyce Blvd, pursuant to RFQ 25-01, Selection #10.
DISCUSSION:
The scope of services includes traffic study, sidewalk and pavement condition assessment, lighting study,
intersection evaluation, corridor safety study, and conceptual design on E. Joyce Blvd. from 71B to Crossover
Rd. Specific types of improvements to be studied and potentially part of the completed design include
enhancements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, landscaping, signalization, utility relocations, and
access control improvements. The fee for this phase of work is $287,000. This phase of work will identify the
safety measures to be implemented in the corridor. A subsequent contract will be negotiated for detailed
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
www.fayetteville-ar.gov
design of the safety improvements.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
The City has been awarded federal funding for this project through the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
Grant, as approved by Resolution 301-24. Matching funds for the SS4A grant funds will come from the 2019
Bond Program. The funding breakdown for the contract amount is as follows:
Account # Project # Amount
2235.900.9224-5860.02 32401.9224 $214,179.12
4702.860.7235-5860.02 46020.7235.9224 $72,820.88
TOTAL $287,000.00
ATTACHMENTS: 3. Staff Review Form, 4. Budget Adjustment, 5. Agreement
Page 1
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
Legislation Text
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
File #: 2025-1288
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR STUDY AND DESIGN PHASE SERVICES FOR THE EAST JOYCE
BOULEVARD SAFE STREETS FOR ALL PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $287,000.00, AND
TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, East Joyce Boulevard serves as the primary east/west connection between Crossover Road
and Highway 71B, which is heavily developed with mixed land uses and has been identified as part of
Fayetteville’s High Injury Network; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2024, City Council approved Resolution 301-24 to accept federal aid
funding in the amount of $25,000,000.00 from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal
Highway Administration through the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program to fund safety
improvements to important corridors; and
WHEREAS, key needs for this stretch of East Joyce Boulevard are reductions in overall operating
speeds and improvements in access management to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes, and
priority needs that will be incorporated into the design will include, but not limited to, the addition of
medians and other traffic control infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the scope of services for this phase of the project includes traffic study, sidewalk and
pavement condition assessment, lighting study, intersection evaluation, corridor safety study, and
conceptual design for improvements to a segment of East Joyce Boulevard from Highway 71B to
Crossover Road.
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 authorizes Mayor Rawn to
sign a professional engineering services agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for study and
design phase services for the East Joyce Boulevard Safe Streets and Roads for All Project in the amount
of $287,000.00 pursuant to RFQ 25-01, Selection 10.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget
adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution.
Comments:
Purchase Order Number:
Change Order Number:
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #301-24
Approval Date:
Original Contract Number:
32401.9224
46020.7235.9224
Project Number
Budget Impact:
Safe Streets & Roads Grant - Joyce Blvd
Street Bond Projects - SS4A - Joyce Blvd
Fund
Safe Streets and Roads Grant
Streets Projects 2022 Bonds
2235.900.9224-5860.02
4702.860.7235-5860.02
Account Number
Project Title
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2025-1224
Item ID
8/5/2025
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
Staff recommends approval of the agreement with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc in the amount of $287,000 for
design phase services for the E. Joyce Blvd. (71B to Crossover Rd), a Safe Streets and Roads for All project, and
approval of a budget adjustment. This will be split between the Safe Streets & Roads Grant ($214,179.12), the
Street Bond funds ($72,820.88).
N/A for Non-Agenda Item
Action Recommendation:
Submitted By
Kenneth Patterson ENGINEERING (621)
Division / Department
7/15/2025
Submitted Date
Yes
18,575,179.80$
287,000.00$
V20221130
Budgeted Item?
Does item have a direct cost?
Is a Budget Adjustment attached?
Total Amended Budget
Expenses (Actual+Encum)
Available Budget
Item Cost
Budget Adjustment
Remaining Budget
28,629,100.00$
10,053,920.20$
Yes
Yes -$
18,288,179.80$
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Budget Adjustment (Agenda)
Budget Year
Requestor:
8/5/2025
2025-1224
D - (City Council)
/
TOTAL - -
Account Number Expense Revenue Project Sub.Detl AT Account NameGLACCOUNTEXPENSEREVENUEPROJECTSUBATDESCRIPTION X
2235.900.9220-5899.00 (214,180) - 32401 9220 EX Unallocated - Budget
2235.900.9224-5860.02 214,180 - 32401 9224 EX Capital Prof Svcs - Engineering/Architectural
2235.900.9220-4309.00 - (214,180) 32401 9220 RE Federal Grants - Capital
2235.900.9224-4309.00 - 214,180 32401 9224 RE Federal Grants - Capital
4702.860.7999-5899.00 (72,821) - 46020 7999 EX Unallocated - Budget
4702.860.7235-5860.02 72,821 - 46020 7235.9224 EX Capital Prof Svcs - Engineering/Architectural
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION:
v.2025617
RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE
Increase / (Decrease)Project.Sub#
Staff recommends approval of the agreement with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc in the amount of $287,000 for design
phase services for the E. Joyce Blvd. (71B to Crossover Rd), a Safe Streets and Roads for All project, and approval of a
budget adjustment. This will be split between the Safe Streets & Roads Grant ($214,179.12), the Street Bond funds
($72,820.88).
COUNCIL DATE:
CHKD/POSTED:
ITEM ID#:
Adjustment Number
2025 Kenneth Patterson
ENGINEERING (621)Division
/Org2
GLDATE:
Budget Division Date
Holly Black
7/16/2025 8:23 AM
TYPE:
JOURNAL #:
G:\Divs\Engineering\Engineering Design Services\Projects\Safe Streets & Roads for All Grant\5 Projects\E Joyce Blvd (SS4A)\Council
and Mayor Items\Kimley-Horn Design Contract\2025-1224 BA SS4A Joyce Blvd - Kimley-Horn design 1 of 1
Kimley-Horn Contract – Professional Engineering Services 1 7/16/2025
AGREEMENT
For
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Between
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
And
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of , 2025, by and between City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas, acting by and through its Mayor (hereinafter called CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE) and Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc. (hereinafter called ENGINEER).
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE from time to time requires professional engineering services in connection
with the evaluation, design, and/or construction supervision of capital improvement projects. Therefore,
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER in consideration of their mutual covenants agree as follows:
ENGINEER shall serve as CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s professional engineering consultant in those
assignments related to the E JOYCE BLVD (SS4A) project (hereinafter called PROJECT) to which this
Agreement applies, and shall give consultation and advice to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE during the
performance of ENGINEER’s services. All services shall be performed under the direction of a professional
engineer registered in the State of Arkansas and qualified in the particular field.
SECTION 1 - AUTHORIZATION OF SERVICES
1.1 Services on any assignment shall be undertaken only upon written Authorization of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE and agreement of ENGINEER
1.2 Assignments may include services described hereafter as Basic Services or as Additional
Services of ENGINEER.
1.3 Changes, modifications or amendments in scope, price or fees to this contract shall not be
allowed without a formal contract amendment approved by the Mayor and the City Council in
advance of the change in scope, costs, fees, or delivery schedule.
SECTION 2 - BASIC SERVICES OF ENGINEER
2.1 Perform professional services in connection with the Project as hereinafter stated.
2.1.1 The Scope of Services to be furnished by ENGINEER during the Project is included in
Appendix A attached hereto and made part of this Agreement.
2.2 ENGINEER shall coordinate their activities and services with the CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE. ENGINEER and CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE agree that ENGINEER
has full responsibility for the engineering services.
SECTION 3 - RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
3.1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE shall, within a reasonable time, so as not to delay the services of
ENGINEER:
Kimley-Horn Contract – Professional Engineering Services 2 7/16/2025
3.1.1 Provide full information as to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s requirements for the Project.
3.1.2 Assist ENGINEER by placing at ENGINEER’s disposal all available information
pertinent to the assignment including previous reports and any other data relative thereto.
3.1.3 Assist ENGINEER in obtaining access to property reasonably necessary for ENGINEER
to perform his services under this Agreement.
3.1.4 Examine all studies, reports, sketches, cost opinions, proposals, and other documents
presented by ENGINEER and render in writing decisions pertaining thereto.
3.1.5 Provide such professional legal, accounting, financial, and insurance counseling services
as may be required for the Project.
3.1.6 The City Engineer is the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s project representative with respect
to the services to be performed under this Agreement. The City Engineer shall have
complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment,
elements and systems to be used in the Project, and other matters pertinent to the services
covered by this Agreement.
3.1.7 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and/or its representative will review all documents and
provide written comments to ENGINEER in a timely manner.
SECTION 4 - PERIOD OF SERVICE
4.1 This Agreement will become effective upon the first written notice by CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE authorizing services hereunder.
4.2 The provisions of this Agreement have been agreed to in anticipation of the orderly progress
of the Project through completion of the services stated in the Agreement. ENGINEER will
proceed with providing the authorized services immediately upon receipt of written
authorization from CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. Said authorization shall include the Scope of
Services authorized and the time in which the services are to be completed. The anticipated
Scope of Services and the Schedule for this project are included as Appendix A.
SECTION 5 - PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER
5.1 The maximum not-to-exceed amount authorized for this Agreement shall be based upon on
an Hourly Rate Schedule per employee classification and detailed Justification of Costs and
Fees as described in Appendix B.
5.2 Statements
5.2.1 Monthly statements for each calendar month shall be submitted to CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE or such parties as CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may designate for
professional services consistent with ENGINEER’S normal billing schedule. Once
established, the billing schedule shall be maintained throughout the duration of the
Project.
Applications for payment shall be made in accordance with a format to be developed by
ENGINEER and as approved by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. Applications for payment shall
Kimley-Horn Contract – Professional Engineering Services 3 7/16/2025
be accompanied each month by the updated project schedule as the basis for determining the
value earned as the work is accomplished. Final payment for professional services shall be
made upon CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s approval and acceptance with the satisfactory
completion of the study and report for the Project.
5.3 Payments
5.3.1 All statements are payable upon receipt and due within thirty (30) days. If a portion of
ENGINEER’s statement is disputed by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, the undisputed
portion shall be paid by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE by the due date. CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE shall advise ENGINEER in writing of the basis for any disputed
portion of any statement. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE will make reasonable effort to pay
invoices within 30 days of date the invoice is approved, however, payment within 30 days
is not guaranteed.
5.4 Final Payment
5.4.1 Upon satisfactory completion of the work performed under this Agreement, as a condition
before final payment under this Agreement, or as a termination settlement under this
Agreement, ENGINEER shall execute and deliver to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE a
release of all claims against CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE arising under or by virtue of this
Agreement, except claims which are specifically exempted by ENGINEER to be set forth
therein. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by State law or otherwise
expressly agreed to by the parties to this Agreement, final payment under this Agreement
or settlement upon termination of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE’s claims against ENGINEER or his sureties under this Agreement
or applicable performance and payment bonds, if any.
SECTION 6 - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Insurance
6.1.1 During the course of performance of these services, ENGINEER will maintain (in
United States Dollars) the following minimum insurance coverages:
Type of Coverage Limits of Liability
Workers’ Compensation Statutory
Employers’ Liability $500,000 Each Accident
Commercial General Liability
Bodily Injury and $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit
Property Damage
Automobile Liability:
Bodily Injury and $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit
Property Damage
Professional Liability Insurance $1,000,000 Each Claim
ENGINEER will provide to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE certificates as evidence of the
specified insurance within ten days of the date of this Agreement and upon each renewal
of coverage.
Kimley-Horn Contract – Professional Engineering Services 4 7/16/2025
6.1.2 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER waive all rights against each other and their
officers, directors, agents, or employees for damage covered by property insurance during
and after the completion of ENGINEER’s services.
6.2 Professional Responsibility
6.2.1 ENGINEER will exercise reasonable skill, care, and diligence in the performance of
ENGINEER’s services and will carry out its responsibilities in accordance with
customarily accepted professional engineering practices. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
will promptly report to ENGINEER any defects or suspected defects in ENGINEER’s
services of which CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE becomes aware, so that ENGINEER can
take measures to minimize the consequences of such a defect. CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE retains all remedies to recover for its damages caused by any
negligence of ENGINEER.
6.3 Cost Opinions and Projections
6.3.1 Cost opinions and projections prepared by ENGINEER relating to construction costs and
schedules, operation and maintenance costs, equipment characteristics and performance,
and operating results are based on ENGINEER’s experience, qualifications, and judgment
as a design professional. Since ENGINEER has no control over weather, cost and
availability of labor, material and equipment, labor productivity, construction
Contractors’ procedures and methods, unavoidable delays, construction Contractors’
methods of determining prices, economic conditions, competitive bidding or market
conditions, and other factors affecting such cost opinions or projections, ENGINEER does
not guarantee that actual rates, costs, performance, schedules, and related items will not
vary from cost opinions and projections prepared by ENGINEER.
6.4 Changes
6.4.1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE shall have the right to make changes within the general scope
of ENGINEER’s services, with an appropriate change in compensation and schedule only
after Fayetteville City Council approval of such proposed changes and, upon execution of
a mutually acceptable amendment or change order signed by the Mayor of the CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE and the duly authorized officer of ENGINEER.
6.5 Termination
6.5.1 This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part in writing by either party in the
event of substantial failure by the other party to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement
through no fault of the terminating party, provided that no termination may be effected
unless the other party is given:
6.5.1.1 Not less than ten (10) calendar days written notice (delivered by certified mail, return
receipt requested) of intent to terminate,
6.5.1.2 An opportunity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination.
6.5.2 This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part in writing by CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE for its convenience, provided that ENGINEER is given:
6.5.2.1 Not less than ten (10) calendar days written notice (delivered by certified mail, return
Kimley-Horn Contract – Professional Engineering Services 5 7/16/2025
receipt requested) of intent to terminate,
6.5.2.2 An opportunity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination.
6.5.3 If termination for default is effected by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, an equitable
adjustment in the price provided for in this Agreement shall be made, but
6.5.3.1 No amount shall be allowed for anticipated profit on unperformed services or other
work,
6.5.3.2 Any payment due to ENGINEER at the time of termination may be adjusted to cover
any additional costs to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE because of ENGINEER’s default.
6.5.4 If termination for default is effected by ENGINEER, or if termination for convenience is
effected by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, the equitable adjustment shall include a
reasonable profit for services or other work performed. The equitable adjustment for any
termination shall provide for payment to ENGINEER for services rendered and expenses
incurred prior to the termination, in addition to termination settlement costs reasonably
incurred by ENGINEER relating to commitments which had become firm prior to the
termination.
6.5.5 Upon receipt of a termination action under Paragraphs 6.5.1 or 6.5.2 above, ENGINEER
shall:
6.5.5.1 Promptly discontinue all affected work (unless the notice directs otherwise),
6.5.5.2 Deliver or otherwise make available to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE all data, drawings,
specifications, reports, estimates, summaries and such other information and materials
as may have been accumulated by ENGINEER in performing this Agreement, whether
completed or in process.
6.5.6 Upon termination under Paragraphs 6.5.1 or 6.5.2 above CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may
take over the work and may award another party an agreement to complete the work under
this Agreement.
6.5.7 If, after termination for failure of ENGINEER to fulfill contractual obligations, it is
determined that ENGINEER had not failed to fulfill contractual obligations, the
termination shall be deemed to have been for the convenience of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE. In such event, adjustments of the agreement price shall be made as
provided in Paragraph 6.5.4 of this clause.
6.6 Delays
6.6.1 In the event the services of ENGINEER are suspended or delayed by CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE or by other events beyond ENGINEER’s reasonable control,
ENGINEER shall be entitled to additional compensation and time for reasonable costs
incurred by ENGINEER in temporarily closing down or delaying the Project.
6.7 Rights and Benefits
6.7.1 ENGINEER’s services will be performed solely for the benefit of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE and not for the benefit of any other persons or entities.
Kimley-Horn Contract – Professional Engineering Services 6 7/16/2025
6.8 Dispute Resolution
6.8.1 Scope of Paragraph: The procedures of this Paragraph shall apply to any and all disputes
between CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER which arise from, or in any way are
related to, this Agreement, including, but not limited to the interpretation of this
Agreement, the enforcement of its terms, any acts, errors, or omissions of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE or ENGINEER in the performance of this Agreement, and disputes
concerning payment.
6.8.2 Exhaustion of Remedies Required: No action may be filed unless the parties first negotiate.
If timely Notice is given under Paragraph 6.8.3, but an action is initiated prior to exhaustion
of these procedures, such action shall be stayed, upon application by either party to a court
of proper jurisdiction, until the procedures in Paragraphs 6.8.3 and 6.8.4 have been
complied with.
6.8.3 Notice of Dispute
6.8.3.1 For disputes arising prior to the making of final payment promptly after the occurrence
of any incident, action, or failure to act upon which a claim is based, the party seeking
relief shall serve the other party with a written Notice;
6.8.3.2 For disputes arising within one year after the making of final payment, CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE shall give ENGINEER written Notice at the address listed in
Paragraph 6.14 within thirty (30) days after occurrence of any incident, accident, or
first observance of defect or damage. In both instances, the Notice shall specify the
nature and amount of relief sought, the reason relief should be granted, and the
appropriate portions of this Agreement that authorize the relief requested.
6.8.4 Negotiation: Within seven days of receipt of the Notice, the Project Managers for CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER shall confer in an effort to resolve the dispute. If
the dispute cannot be resolved at that level, then, upon written request of either side, the
matter shall be referred to the President of ENGINEER and the Mayor of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE or his designee. These officers shall meet at the Project Site or such
other location as is agreed upon within 30 days of the written request to resolve the dispute.
6.9 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE represents that it has sufficient funds or the means of obtaining
funds to remit payment to ENGINEER for services rendered by ENGINEER.
6.10 Publications
6.10.1 Recognizing the importance of professional development on the part of ENGINEER’s
employees and the importance of ENGINEER’s public relations, ENGINEER may prepare
publications, such as technical papers, articles for periodicals, and press releases, pertaining
to ENGINEER’s services for the Project. Such publications will be provided to CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE in draft form for CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s advance review. CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE shall review such drafts promptly and provide CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE’s comments to ENGINEER. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
may require deletion of proprietary data or confidential information from such publications,
but otherwise CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE will not unreasonably withhold approval. The
cost of ENGINEER’s activities pertaining to any such publication shall be for
ENGINEER’s account.
Kimley-Horn Contract – Professional Engineering Services 7 7/16/2025
6.11 Indemnification
6.11.1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE agrees that it will require all construction Contractors to
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER from
and against any and all loss where loss is caused or incurred or alleged to be caused or
incurred in whole or in part as a result of the negligence or other actionable fault of the
Contractors, or their employees, agents, Subcontractors, and Suppliers.
6.12 Ownership of Documents
6.12.1 All documents provided by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE including original drawings, disks
of CADD drawings and cross sections, estimates, specification field notes, and data are and
remain the property of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ENGINEER may retain reproduced
copies of drawings and copies of other documents.
6.12.2 Engineering documents, drawings, and specifications prepared by ENGINEER as part of
the Services shall become the property of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE when ENGINEER
has been compensated for all Services rendered, provided, however, that ENGINEER shall
have the unrestricted right to their use. ENGINEER shall, however, retain its rights in its
standard drawings details, specifications, databases, computer software, and other
proprietary property. Rights to intellectual property developed, utilized, or modified in the
performance of the Services shall remain the property of ENGINEER.
6.12.3 Any files delivered in electronic medium may not work on systems and software different
than those with which they were originally produced. ENGINEER makes no warranty as
to the compatibility of these files with any other system or software. Because of the
potential degradation of electronic medium over time, in the event of a conflict between
the sealed original drawings/hard copies and the electronic files, the sealed drawings/hard
copies will govern.
6.13 Notices
6.13.1 Any Notice required under this Agreement will be in writing, addressed to the appropriate
party at the following addresses:
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s address:
125 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
ENGINEER’s address:
805 South Walton Boulevard
Suite 520
Bentonville, AR 72712
6.14 Successor and Assigns
6.14.1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and ENGINEER each binds himself and his successors,
executors, administrators, and assigns to the other party of this Agreement and to the
successors, executors, administrators, and assigns of such other party, in respect to all
covenants of this Agreement; except as above, neither CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE nor
Kimley-Horn Contract – Professional Engineering Services 8 7/16/2025
ENGINEER shall assign, sublet, or transfer his interest in the Agreement without the
written consent of the other.
6.15 Controlling Law
6.15.1 This Agreement shall be subject to, interpreted and enforced according to the laws of the
State of Arkansas without regard to any conflicts of law provisions.
6.16 Entire Agreement
6.16.1 This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between ENGINEER and CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE relative to the Scope of Services herein. Since terms contained in
purchase orders do not generally apply to professional services, in the event CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE issues to ENGINEER a purchase order, no preprinted terms thereon
shall become a part of this Agreement. Said purchase order document, whether or not
signed by ENGINEER, shall be considered as a document for CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE’s internal management of its operations.
SECTION 7 - SPECIAL CONDITIONS
7.1 Additional Responsibilities of ENGINEER
7.1.1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE’s review, approval, or acceptance of design drawings,
specifications, reports and other services furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve
ENGINEER of responsibility for the technical adequacy of the work. Neither CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE’s review, approval or acceptance of, nor payment for any of the services
shall be construed as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action
arising out of the performance of this Agreement.
7.1.2 ENGINEER shall be and shall remain liable, in accordance with applicable law, for all
damages to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE to the extent caused by ENGINEER’s negligent
performance of any of the services furnished under this Agreement except for errors,
omissions or other deficiencies to the extent attributable to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE or
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE-furnished data.
7.1.3 ENGINEER’s obligations under this clause are in addition to ENGINEER’s other express
or implied assurances under this Agreement or State law and in no way diminish any other
rights that CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may have against ENGINEER for faulty materials,
equipment, or work.
7.2 Remedies
7.2.1 Except as may be otherwise provided in this Agreement, all claims, counter-claims,
disputes and other matters in question between CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and
ENGINEER arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof will be
decided in a court of competent jurisdiction within Arkansas.
7.3 Audit: Access to Records
7.3.1 ENGINEER shall maintain books, records, documents and other evidence directly
pertinent to performance on work under this Agreement in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and practices consistently applied in effect on the date of
Kimley-Horn Contract – Professional Engineering Services 9 7/16/2025
execution of this Agreement. ENGINEER shall also maintain the financial information and
data used by ENGINEER in the preparation of support of the cost submission required for
any negotiated agreement or change order and send to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE a copy
of the cost summary submitted. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, the State or any of their
authorized representatives shall have access to all such books, records, documents and
other evidence for the purpose of inspection, audit and copying during normal business
hours. ENGINEER will provide proper facilities for such access and inspection.
7.3.2 Records under Paragraph 7.3.1 above shall be maintained and made available during
performance on assisted work under this Agreement and until three years from the date of
final payment for the project. In addition, those records which relate to any controversy
arising out of such performance, or to costs or items to which an audit exception has been
taken, shall be maintained and made available until three years after the date of resolution
of such appeal, litigation, claim or exception.
7.3.3 This right of access clause (with respect to financial records) applies to:
7.3.3.1 Negotiated prime agreements:
7.3.3.2 Negotiated change orders or agreement amendments in excess of $10,000 affecting
the price of any formally advertised, competitively awarded, fixed price agreement:
7.3.3.3 Agreements or purchase orders under any agreement other than a formally advertised,
competitively awarded, fixed price agreement. However, this right of access does not
apply to a prime agreement, lower tier subagreement or purchase order awarded after
effective price competition, except:
7.3.3.3.1 With respect to record pertaining directly to subagreement performance,
excluding any financial records of ENGINEER;
7.3.3.3.2 If there is any indication that fraud, gross abuse or corrupt practices may be
involved;
7.3.3.3.3 If the subagreement is terminated for default or for convenience.
7.4 Covenant Against Contingent Fees
7.4.1 ENGINEER warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to
solicit or secure this Agreement upon an agreement of understanding for a commission,
percentage, brokerage or continent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide
established commercial or selling agencies maintained by ENGINEER for the purpose of
securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or at its discretion, to deduct
from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such
commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee.
7.5 Gratuities
7.5.1 If CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE finds after a notice and hearing that ENGINEER or any of
ENGINEER’s agents or representatives, offered or gave gratuities (in the form of
entertainment, gifts or otherwise) to any official, employee or agent of CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, in an attempt to secure an agreement or favorable treatment in
Kimley-Horn Contract – Professional Engineering Services 10 7/16/2025
awarding, amending or making any determinations related to the performance of this
Agreement, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may, by written notice to ENGINEER terminate
this Agreement. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may also pursue other rights and remedies
that the law or this Agreement provides. However, the existence of the facts on which CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE bases such finding shall be in issue and may be reviewed in
proceedings under the Remedies clause of this Agreement.
7.5.2 In the event this Agreement is terminated as provided in Paragraph 7.5.1, CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE may pursue the same remedies against ENGINEER as it could pursue
in the event of a breach of the Agreement by ENGINEER As a penalty, in addition to any
other damages to which it may be entitled by law, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may pursue
exemplary damages in an amount (as determined by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE) which
shall be not less than three nor more than ten times the costs ENGINEER incurs in
providing any such gratuities to any such officer or employee.
7.6 Arkansas Freedom of Information Act
7.6.1 City contracts and documents, including internal documents and documents of
subcontractors and sub-consultants, prepared while performing City contractual work are
subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). If a Freedom of Information
Act request is presented to the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ENGINEER will do
everything possible to provide the documents in a prompt and timely manner as prescribed
in the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (A.C.A. §25-19-101 et seq.). Only legally
authorized photocopying costs pursuant to the FOIA may be assessed for this compliance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS by and through its Mayor, and
ENGINEER, by its authorized officer have made and executed this Agreement as of the day and year first
above written.
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ENGINEER
By:By:
Mayor, Molly Rawn Vice President, Scott R Arnold
ATTEST:
By:By:
City Clerk Vice President, Luke A. Schmidt
END OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
APPENDIX A
Scope for Transportation Planning and Engineering Services for Joyce Boulevard SS4A
Implementation Project – Phase 1
The scope set forth herein defines the work to be performed by Kimely-Horn and Associates, Inc.
(“Kimley-Horn” or “Consultant”) in completing phase 1 of the project. Both the City of Fayetteville
(“Client”) and Consultant have attempted to clearly define the work to be performed and address the
needs of this phase of the overall project.
Project Understanding
The overview of this project is to determine proper and effective safety countermeasures to incorporate
into design improvements via the completion of various planning level assessments. The
recommendations will include safety countermeasures to be incorporated along the Joyce Boulevard
corridor from 71B to Crossover Road. This will also be utilized in preparation for the phase 2 contract
which shall include engineering design services.
Assumptions
Kimley-Horn’s scope and fee are based on the following assumptions:
a. All services outlined below are to be performed by Kimley-Horn except for the traffic count data
collection services.
If any of these assumptions are not correct, then the scope and fee will change.
Scope of Services
Kimley-Horn will provide the services set forth below.
Task 1: Project Administration
A. Project Management
a. The Consultant will maintain project records, budgets, and communications for the
duration of the project. The Consultant anticipates bi-weekly calls and monthly
progress reports via e-mail between the Consultant’s Project Manager and the Client
staff to review the status of tasks and to keep the schedule current.
b. A project kickoff meeting will be conducted via conference call between the Consultant
team and Client based on tasks that are authorized by the Client. This meeting will be
facilitated by the Consultant Project Manager to discuss the following:
i. Preliminary schedule;
ii. Goals and objectives;
iii. Request for information (RFI), which could consist of:
1. Existing roadway / structures as-built plans, Client provided;
2. Roadway functional classification(s), Client provided;
3. FEMA floodplain maps (if applicable);
4. Existing Right-of-Way information;
5. Ownership mapping;
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
6. Existing bicycle facilities from Client in GIS format, if applicable;
7. Sidewalk inventory to be completed under Task 4: Pavement and
Sidewalk Conditions Assessment;
8. Existing and proposed transit ridership data, current transit service,
and facility planning data, to include any revised service plans, if
applicable;
9. Most current transportation plans from Client to include committed
improved and travel forecasts;
10. Most recent digital aerial orthophotography of the project study area
from Client, if available;
11. Pertinent data on existing and planned major utilities; and
12. Vehicle crash data and analysis from the Client in GIS format.
iv. Data collection; and
v. Other coordination items.
B. Team Management
a. Lead, manage, and direct team activities including subconsultants (as needed)
b. Provide Quality Control / Quality Assurance (QC/QA) practices as part of the
performance of the work.
c. Communicate internally among team members.
d. Task and allocate team resources.
C. Communications and Reporting
a. Prepare and submit monthly invoices in the format requested by the Client.
b. Prepare and submit monthly project status updates.
c. Prepare and submit baseline project schedule initially, and project schedule updates
monthly.
D. Status Meetings
a. Attend up to 16 bi-weekly progress meetings with the Client to review progress, provide
updates, and receive feedback on the work. A tentative schedule will be provided as
an attachment based on an agreed upon scope of services.
b. Progress meetings will be held internally as needed throughout the length of the project
to coordinate production, key decisions, sub-consultant coordination, and project
analysis / design. Also, the Consultant will prepare contracts for any sub-consultant(s),
monitor sub-consultant staff activities, ensure sub-consultant(s) adhere to the project
schedule, and review and recommend approval of sub-consultant invoices.
c. Schedule, provide logistics, conduct, and prepare meeting summaries for progress
meetings. Consultant will provide materials needing review up to three (3) business
days ahead of time for the Client to review.
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
E. Deliverables
a. Meeting summaries with action items.
b. Baseline project schedule.
c. Monthly schedule updates with schedule narrative describing any current or
anticipated schedule changes.
d. Monthly project status reports.
e. Monthly project invoices.
Task 2: Traffic Study
A.Data Collection. The Consultant will collect the following information:
a. 6-hour weekday turning movement counts at the following intersections (including
bicycle/pedestrians) from 7AM – 9AM (AM peak hour) and 3PM – 7PM (PM peak hour):
i. Joyce Blvd at 71B (College Avenue)
ii. Joyce Blvd at North Vantage Drive
iii. Joyce Blvd at Parkview Drive
iv. Joyce Blvd at Old Missouri Road
v. Joyce Blvd at North Crossover Road (bicycle and pedestrian only)
b. Weekday turning movement counts at up to ten (10) locations agreed upon with the
Client. Counts shall be collected during the AM peak hour (7AM – 9AM) and PM peak
hour (3PM – 7PM).
c. Up to three (3) 24-hour speed and vehicular counts along Joyce Boulevard at agreed
upon locations with the Client.
d. During one (1) peak hour, the Consultant will perform field observations along the study
corridor to determine existing lane use and traffic control, posted speed limits, and
geometric features.
e. The Consultant will review existing available crash data, review areas with increased
crash experience, and further review high severity crashes / locations.
f. Based on the data collection, an existing volume, crash, and observations exhibit will
be created for the study area noting the findings.
B.Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment. Traffic volumes and trip generation, distribution,
and assignment for the corridor will be analyzed using collected traffic data as well as projected
traffic data for the short-range horizon (2030) and long-range horizon (2045). The traffic growth
rate from year 2025 to 2045 will be determined based on a review of the Client’s historic counts
and the Arkansas Department of Transportation Average Daily Traffic Maps. A traffic growth
rate will be provided by the Consultant to the Client for review prior to the Consultant
proceeding with the capacity analysis.
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
C.Intersection Capacity Analysis. Intersection capacity analysis for the AM and PM peak periods
will be performed for the study intersections:
a. Joyce Boulevard at Highway 71B (College Avenue)
b. Joyce Boulevard at North Vantage Drive
c. Joyce Boulevard at Parkview Drive
d. Joyce Boulevard at Old Missouri Road
e. Joyce Boulevard at North Crossover Road (AR-265)
D.Thoroughfare Capacity Analysis. Kimley-Horn will conduct a thoroughfare capacity analysis
based on the conceptual alternative for Joyce Boulevard as outlined in Task 6: Corridor Study.
E.Turn Lane Assessment. Kimley-Horn will evaluate the need and length for turn lanes at all
study intersections.
F.Sight Distance Analysis. Intersection sight distance at each study intersection will be reviewed
based on field observations. A photolog will be included in the documentation.
G.Traffic Mitigation. If the results of the analysis indicate that improvements are necessary from
a capacity and/or safety standpoint, the Consultant will identify the types of improvements
recommended to improve vehicle and pedestrian safety along the corridor.
H.Review Existing Traffic Signal Controller Settings and Coordination. Existing traffic signal
operations will be reviewed and any recommendations to optimize traffic capacity and overall
safety will be provided, and may include clearance intervals, coordinated speeds, leading
pedestrian interval (LPI), and sufficient clearance intervals for pedestrian phases.
I.Document Study Results and Project Coordination. An electronic (PDF) draft report that
documents the study methodology, traffic volumes, analysis results, and recommendations for
ingress/egress improvements (if necessary) will be prepared and submitted to the Client for
review and comment. Kimley-Horn will incorporate one round of internal review comments and
submit an electronic sealed report to the City for review. If necessary, Kimley-Horn will respond
to one (1) round of comments from the City and submit the final revised report.
Task 3: Lighting Study
A. The Consultant will perform a field evaluation to confirm existing street light locations and
configurations. The Consultant will confirm with the Client on the street light fixture type(s).
B. The Consultant will prepare a photometric analysis model for the corridor and signalized
intersections within the project limits in accordance with City requirements. The photometric
analysis will involve modeling existing and proposed fixtures to meet the roadway illumination
level requirements. The Consultant assumes the light fixtures are to be selected by the City. A
photometric exhibit and one sheet for fixture cut sheets will be provided.
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
C. The Consultant will prepare a technical memorandum that documents key findings from the
field evaluation, summarizes the photometric analysis, and provides recommendations for
proposed street light locations as an effective safety countermeasure.
D. Deliverables
a. Draft Technical Memorandum with Photometric Analysis Exhibit
The Consultant will address up to one (1) round of reasonable comments.
b. Final Technical Memorandum with Photometric Analysis Exhibit
Task 4: Pavement and Sidewalk Conditions Assessment
A.Pavement Conditions Assessment. The Consultant will perform a visual inspection of the
corridor pavement along Joyce Boulevard. Significant pavement deterioration (cracks,
potholes, depressions, swelling, etc.) will be evaluated and pavement rehabilitation options
may be provided, if necessary. A geotechnical investigation will not be performed under this
task. A technical memorandum and an opinion of probable construction cost will be prepared
and submitted to the Client. The Consultant will address up to one (1) round of reasonable
comments.
B.Sidewalk Conditions Assessment. The Consultant will perform a visual inspection of all
sidewalk and pedestrian ramp conditions within the Right-of-Way. Existing curb ramp slopes,
locations and geometry will be evaluated for ADA compliance and overall pedestrian safety.
Existing driveways and intersection crosswalk pavement will also be evaluated for ADA
compliance. A technical memorandum and an opinion of probable construction cost will be
prepared and submitted to the client. The Consultant will address up to one (1) round of
reasonable comments.
Task 5: Intersection Control Evaluation
One (1) Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) report in total will be prepared for the project corridor.
This will consist of a Stage 1 evaluation for the following intersections along the corridor. The Stage 1
evaluation will identify three (3) intersections to further analyze in Stage 2.
-Joyce Boulevard at Highway 71B (College Avenue)
-Joyce Boulevard at North Vantage Drive
-Joyce Boulevard at Parkview Drive
-Joyce Boulevard at Old Missouri Road
-Joyce Boulevard North Crossover Road (AR-265) (Pedestrian / Bicyclists Only)
Stage 1 establishes a list of viable intersection configurations for the study location by applying
engineering judgement and conducting limited analysis. The ICE Report Stage 1 task shall consist of
the following per intersection:
A. The Consultant will determine the feasibility of potential intersection control methods at the
study intersections listed above.
B. Collect crash history data and perform a safety review.
Page 6
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
C. Using traffic data collected in Task 2: Traffic Study, analyze existing and projected traffic
volumes for preliminary operational analysis using FHWA’s CAP-X tool.
D. Conclude and identify three (3) intersections to further analyze in Stage 2.
Stage 2 is where most analysis activities occur, ranging from quantitative analyses of traffic operations
and safety performance measures to qualitative analyses of performance measures focused on
community values. The ICE Report Stage 2 task shall consist of the following per intersection:
E. Prepare an operational analysis for the existing intersection lane configuration, and the
alternative intersection control methods identified in Stage 1 of the ICE process using collected
data from Task 2: Traffic Study as well as projected traffic data for the short-range horizon
(2030) and long-range horizon (2045).
a. Stop-controlled and signalized intersections will be analyzed using Synchro 12,
employing Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies and HCM 6th Edition LOS
thresholds. The proposed cycle length will be determined by the Consultant for each
peak period analyzed (AM and PM peak). A proposed roundabout will be analyzed in
Junctions 11/Arcady software or SIDRA 9.1 using the US HCM 7th Edition roundabout
capacity equations and parameters.
F. Prepare CAD sketches of the existing and proposed alternatives to create plan view exhibits
to display the existing conditions and the proposed improvements within and directly adjacent
to the intersection. Conceptual-level sketches of the proposed conditions will be created to
represent the anticipated lane configurations and geometries for each intersection control
method studied in Stage 2 of the ICE process.
a. As part of the roundabout sketch, the following performance checks will be performed
and provided to the client in CAD format:
i. Fastest Path
ii. Truck Paths
iii. Sight Distance Envelopes
G. Prepare a collision prediction model for the proposed intersection control methods using
industry accepted prediction models to account for costs related to crashes (economic costs)
for a 20-year life cycle. FHWA’s Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation
(SPICE) tool will be sourced for crash prediction modeling of the proposed traffic signal and
the proposed roundabout.
H. Prepare opinion of probable construction costs (OPCCs) for each proposed alternative
intersection control. The Consultant has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment,
or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market
conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to
the Consultant at this time and represent only the Consultant's judgment as a design
professional familiar with the construction industry. The Consultant cannot and does not
guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of
probable costs.
I. Prepare a predicted 20-year maintenance cost for the intersection control alternatives to
compare life cycle costs.
Page 7
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
J. Compile the Intersection Control Evaluation Report incorporating the various analyses and
results. The ICE Report will consist of the engineer’s recommended intersection control
alternative based on a review of the quantitative and qualitative analysis results.
K.Deliverables. The Consultant deliverables will consist of electronic CAD (.dwg) and PDF files
shared between the Consultant and the Client.
a. A draft ICE Report will be provided by the Consultant to the Client for initial review and
comments. The ICE Report will include Appendices that contain the data collection
documents, operational analyses, roundabout design criteria and assumptions, crash
prediction model calculations, and OPCC pay items and unit prices.
b. Synchro, SIDRA, and/or ARCADY Output
c. CAD files that contain the roundabout performance checks
d. 11”x17” exhibits for each of the intersection control options analyzed.
Task 6: Corridor Study
A. Data Collection and Analysis of Existing Conditions
a.Reconnaissance. It is assumed this will completed under Task 1: Project
Administration.
b.Traffic Data Collection. It is assumed this will be completed under Task 2: Traffic Study.
c.Prepare Mapping of Collected Data. The Consultant, in coordination with the Client,
will identify and quantify influences and safety concerns based on current conditions.
This determination will serve to identify key issues throughout the project study area.
B. Develop Alternatives
a.Team Strategy Meeting. The Consultant team to regroup to review work performed to
date, ongoing coordination, critical assumptions going forward, and update the project
schedule.
b.Develop Corridor Concept. Using the collected data and existing conditions analysis,
the Consultant will develop intersection / corridor opportunities consistent with the
existing / future traffic projections, geometric constraints, and goals / objectives of the
Client. The purpose of the alternative is to enhance multi-modal safety via the
implementation of various FHWA safety countermeasures. The Consultant will also
prepare planning level opinions of probable construction costs for the alternative.
C. Conceptual Analysis. The Consultant will identify and define reasonable short and
intermediate-term improvements within the project study area. The proposed improvements
will be informed by planned local and regional transportation improvements, projected
population changes, future land uses, and travel demands. The Consultant will prepare an
initial list of improvements to develop a corridor concept. Possible improvement
recommendations may consist of:
Page 8
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
a. Installation of new traffic signals;
b. Traffic signal modifications (including removals);
c. Incorporation of Street Light recommendations covered under Task 3: Lighting Study.
d. Incorporation of Intersection Control Evaluation recommendations covered under Task
5: Intersection Control Evaluation.
e. Median construction or opening modifications;
f. Access control modifications;
g. Multi-modal improvements and / or modifications;
h. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements; and
i. Regulatory changes and / or proposals.
The recommended improvements will receive feedback from the Client and Public /
Stakeholders to finalize the short and intermediate-term improvements. The Consultant may
also utilize previous mobility data, evaluations, traffic signal warrant studies, traffic impact
studies, and access management studies, so long as they are less than three (3) years of age.
The Consultant will evaluate the identified improvements based on the project study area goals
and objectives developed in the previous task. The improvements that do not suitably address
the goals and objectives will be eliminated from further consideration.
a.Develop Measures of Effectiveness (MOE). The Consultant, in cooperation with the
Client, will confirm the study goals and objectives based on the existing conditions and
corridor enhancement needs. Goals will include identifying short-term and long-term
transportation improvements, access management, parking accommodations, land
use, and physical characteristics. The defined goals will be used to develop the
Measures of Effectiveness (MOE).
b.Determine Utility Conflicts. The Consultant will use Client provided record drawings to
review existing corridor utilities and potential impacts of the proposed corridor
improvements related to existing utilities. These conflicts will be summarized/noted in
the study findings.
c.Determine Right-of-Way Needs. The Consultant will use Client provided record
drawings and available property/parcel information to review the existing corridor
Right-of-Way and potential impacts of the proposed corridor improvements related to
Right-of-Way. Anticipated Right-of-Way needs will be summarized/notes in the study
findings.
d.Evaluate for MOEs. The Consultant will review relevant City Ordinances and State
Statutes regarding planning and/or land development which may impact the study
area.
The Consultant will identify and summarize existing or proposed planning/development
related ordinances, rules, or practices of the political entities in the project study area
Page 9
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
with respect to roadway configuration, driveway access, parking, sidewalk
construction/maintenance, and other non-motorized transportation facilities. This
summary should be compared to current best practices and City of Fayetteville rules,
guidelines, and standards – noting inconsistencies, conflicts, or omissions.
e.Team Strategy Meeting. The Consultant team to regroup to review work performed to
date, ongoing coordination, critical assumptions going forward, and update the project
schedule.
D. Conceptual Design Report Submittal
a.Evaluate Potential for Environmental Impacts. The Consultant will list possible impacts
of the proposed corridor improvement concept to existing blue line streams or
floodplains in the design report.
b.Determine Sequence of Construction. With input from the Client, the Consultant will
provide initial considerations for a possible phasing of the proposed improvements and
short / long term priorities.
c. Prepare Preliminary Cost Estimates. The Consultant will develop and refine a planning
level opinion of probable construction cost based for each of the corridor improvement
concepts.
d.Complete Draft Report. The Consultant will prepare and deliver both draft and final
printed reports reflecting the recommended improvement concepts and
enhancements. The reports should include a summary of recommended projects along
with project descriptions, costs, benefits, and potential funding sources for each of the
political entities. The list of recommended projects should be prioritized in cooperation
with the Client and the Steering Committee. The reports should also include a summary
of recommended long-tern access management action strategies and projects (if
applicable) for each of the political entities in the corridor.
e.Team Strategy Meeting. The Consultant team to regroup to review work performed to
date, ongoing coordination, critical assumptions going forward, and update the project
schedule.
f.Stakeholders Meeting (1st Project Meeting). The Consultant will attend and facilitate
the public meeting. The Consultant will be responsible for the following tasks:
i. Content development and production of meeting handouts and agendas;
ii. Prepare / submit meeting summaries within seven (7) business days of the
meeting;
iii. Conceptualize, develop, and deliver appropriate agendas, exhibits, and / or
displays needed for meetings requiring handouts / materials;
iv. Development of all meeting summaries, questionnaires, name tags, sign-in
sheets, and comment forms;
v. Work with the Client to determine mutually agreed upon location for the Public
Meetings; and
vi. Debrief the Client on the outcome of the Public Meetings.
Page 10
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
The Client will be responsible for the following:
vii. Provide it’s own personnel to staff Public Meeting;
viii. Manage publicity and site logistics for the Public Meeting;
ix. Print and mail Consultant developed announcements to the General Public
and / or Business Owners along the corridor (if required);
x. Determine mutually agreed upon location of the Public Meeting;
xi. Create and send invitations for Public Meetings; and
xii. Create notices to post on Client website, news media outlets, etc.
g.Team Strategy Meeting. The Consultant team to regroup to review work performed to
date, ongoing coordination, critical assumptions going forward, and update the project
schedule.
h.Develop Preliminary Footprint. The Consultant will develop a corridor improvement
concept to define the planning level extents of the proposed corridor improvements.
i.Revise Draft Report to Incorporate Stakeholder Comments. The Consultant will revise
the initial report to incorporate one (1) round of reasonable comments to incorporate
Public / Stakeholder comments.
j.Meeting with Property Owners (2nd Project Meeting). The Consultant will attend and
facilitate the property owner’s meeting. The Consultant will be responsible for the
following tasks:
i. Content development and production of meeting handouts and agendas;
ii. Prepare / submit meeting summaries within seven (7) business days of the
meeting;
iii. Conceptualize, develop, and deliver appropriate agendas, exhibits, and / or
displays needed for meetings requiring handouts / materials;
iv. Development of all meeting summaries, questionnaires, name tags, sign-in
sheets, and comment forms;
v. Work with the Client to determine mutually agreed upon location for the Public
Meetings; and
vi. Debrief the Client on the outcome of the Public Meetings.
The Client will be responsible for the following:
vii. Provide it’s own personnel to staff Public Meeting;
viii. Manage publicity and site logistics for the Public Meeting;
ix. Print and mail Consultant developed announcements to the General Public
and / or Business Owners along the corridor (if required);
x. Determine mutually agreed upon location of the Public Meeting;
xi. Create and send invitations for Public Meetings; and
xii. Create notices to post on Client website, news media outlets, etc.
k.Print Final Report. The Consultant will finalize the report and submit a digital copy, and
up to ten (10) hard copies to the Client, as requested.
l.Presentation to Transportation Committee. The Consultant will present the final report
and recommendations to the City Council Transportation Committee.
Page 11
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
Task 7: SMARTS
Kimley-Horn’s project and program management solution, SMARTS™, is a dynamic web-based
platform to assist the Client’s with input, organization, and project tracking / program information to give
team members and contractors a single source of up-to-date information. This platform shall be used
for up to five (5) project sites as part of the Fayetteville SS4A Implementation Program under a one-
time fee.
Additional Services
Any services not specifically provided for in the above scope will be billed as additional services and
performed at Kimley-Horn’s then-current hourly rates. Additional services Kimley-Horn can provide
include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Negotiation of easements or property acquisition.
b. Services related to development of the Client’s project financing and/or budget.
c. Engineering design services not outlined in the scope of services.
d. Topographic survey.
e. Subsurface utility engineering.
f. Bidding and Construction Phase Services.
g. Performance of miscellaneous and supplemental services related to the project
requested by the Client.
Information Provided By Client
Kimley-Horn shall be entitled to rely on the completeness and accuracy of all information provided by
the Client or the Client’s consultants or representatives. The Client shall provide all information
requested by Kimley-Horn during the project, including but not limited to the following:
A. Project Administration
a. Existing roadway / structures as-built plans.
b. Roadway functional classification(s).
c. FEMA floodplain maps (if applicable).
d. Existing Right-of-Way information.
e. Ownership mapping.
f. Existing bicycle facilities in GIS format, if applicable.
g. Existing and proposed transit ridership data, current transit service, and facility
planning data, to include any revised service plans, if applicable;
h. Most current transportation plans that include improved and travel forecasts.
i. Most recent digital aerial orthophotography of the project study area, if available.
j. Pertinent data on existing and planned major utilities.
k. Vehicle crash data and analysis in GIS format (preferred).
Page 12
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
B. Traffic Study
a. Traffic signal timing operation information.
b.Any crash reporting information from the previous five (5) years.
C. Lighting Study
a. Street light fixture types along the corridor and at signalized intersections.
b. Street light level requirements (if any).
c. Street light pole assembly information (pole, luminaire arm, fixture, etc.).
D. Pavement and Sidewalk Conditions Assessment
a. Record drawings along the corridor.
b. Pavement maintenance record information.
E. Intersection Control Evaluation
a. None
F. Corridor Study
a. None.
G. SMARTS
a. Goals/preferences for project site creation based on project demonstration meeting.
Schedule
Kimley-Horn will perform the services as expeditiously as practicable with the goal of meeting a mutually
agreed upon schedule as shown in this Appendix.
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Project NTP 0 days Wed 8/6/25 Wed 8/6/25
2 1. Project Administration 175 days Wed 8/6/25 Tue 4/7/26
3 Team Management, Communications and Reporting, and Status Meetings 175 days Wed 8/6/25 Tue 4/7/26
4 2. Traffic Study 72 days Wed 8/6/25 Fri 11/14/25
5 Traffic Study NTP 0 days Wed 8/6/25 Wed 8/6/25
6 Data Collection and Traffic Counts 10 days Mon 9/1/25 Fri 9/12/25
7 Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment 2 days Mon 9/15/25 Tue 9/16/25
8 Intersection Capacity Analysis 2 days Wed 9/17/25 Thu 9/18/25
9 Thoroughfare Capacity Analysis 2 days Fri 9/19/25 Mon 9/22/25
10 Turn Lane Assessment 2 days Tue 9/23/25 Wed 9/24/25
11 Sight Distance Analysis 2 days Thu 9/25/25 Fri 9/26/25
12 Traffic Mitigation 2 days Mon 9/29/25 Tue 9/30/25
13 Review Traffic Signal Settings and Coordination 2 days Wed 10/1/25 Thu 10/2/25
14 Prepare Draft Study Results 10 days Fri 10/3/25 Thu 10/16/25
15 Submit Draft Study Results to City 0 days Thu 10/16/25 Thu 10/16/25
16 Review Period 14 days Fri 10/17/25 Wed 11/5/25
17 Comment Review Meeting 0 days Wed 11/5/25 Wed 11/5/25
18 Address City Comments 6 days Thu 11/6/25 Thu 11/13/25
19 Submit Final Study Results to City 0 days Fri 11/14/25 Fri 11/14/25
20 3. Lighting Study 51 days Wed 8/6/25 Wed 10/15/25
21 Lighting Study NTP 0 days Wed 8/6/25 Wed 8/6/25
22 Lighting Study Kickoff Meeting w/City 0 days Mon 8/11/25 Mon 8/11/25
23 Field Evaluation 2 days Wed 8/13/25 Thu 8/14/25
24 Photometric Analysis and Modeling 5 days Mon 8/18/25 Fri 8/22/25
25 Prepare Draft Technical Memorandum 14 days Mon 8/25/25 Thu 9/11/25
26 Submit Draft Technical Memorandum to City 0 days Fri 9/12/25 Fri 9/12/25
27 Review Period 14 days Mon 9/15/25 Thu 10/2/25
28 Comment Review Meeting 0 days Mon 10/6/25 Mon 10/6/25
29 Address City Comments 6 days Tue 10/7/25 Tue 10/14/25
30 Submit Final Technical Memorandum to City 0 days Wed 10/15/25 Wed 10/15/25
31 4. Pavement & Sidewalk Conditions Assessment 34 days Wed 8/6/25 Tue 9/23/25
32 Pavement & Sidewalk Conditions Assessment NTP 0 days Wed 8/6/25 Wed 8/6/25
33 Prepare Field Evaluation Materials 2 days Wed 8/6/25 Thu 8/7/25
34 Field Evaluations 2 days Fri 8/8/25 Mon 8/11/25
35 Prepare Draft Technical Memos & Costing 10 days Tue 8/12/25 Mon 8/25/25
36 Submit Draft Technical Memos & Costing 0 days Mon 8/25/25 Mon 8/25/25
37 Review Period 14 days Tue 8/26/25 Fri 9/12/25
38 Comment Review Meeting 0 days Fri 9/12/25 Fri 9/12/25
39 Address City Comments 6 days Mon 9/15/25 Mon 9/22/25
40 Submit Final Technical Memos & Costing 0 days Tue 9/23/25 Tue 9/23/25
41 5. Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE)68 days Tue 9/16/25 Mon 12/22/25
42 Intersection Control Evaluation NTP 0 days Tue 9/16/25 Tue 9/16/25
43 Stage 1: Cap-X, Safety Reporting, Design Vehicle 10 days Wed 9/17/25 Tue 9/30/25
44 Stage 2: Alternative Selections 30 days Wed 10/1/25 Tue 11/11/25
45 Safety Performance 5 days Wed 10/1/25 Tue 10/7/25
46 Operational Analysis 5 days Wed 10/1/25 Tue 10/7/25
47 Intersection Sketching 15 days Wed 10/8/25 Tue 10/28/25
48 Performance Checks 5 days Wed 10/8/25 Tue 10/14/25
49 Opinions of Probable Construction Costs 2 days Wed 10/15/25 Thu 10/16/25
50 Prepare Draft ICE Report 8 days Wed 11/12/25 Fri 11/21/25
51 Submit Draft ICE Report 0 days Fri 11/21/25 Fri 11/21/25
52 Review Period 14 days Mon 11/24/25 Thu 12/11/25
53 Comment Review Meeting 0 days Fri 12/12/25 Fri 12/12/25
54 Address City Comments 6 days Fri 12/12/25 Fri 12/19/25
55 Submit Final ICE Report 0 days Mon 12/22/25 Mon 12/22/25
56 6. Corridor Study 174 days Wed 8/6/25 Tue 4/7/26
57 Corridor Study NTP 0 days Wed 8/6/25 Wed 8/6/25
58 Develop Alternative 45 days Wed 8/6/25 Tue 10/7/25
59 Conceptual Analysis 20 days Wed 10/8/25 Tue 11/4/25
60 Prepare Draft Conceptual Design Report 30 days Wed 11/5/25 Tue 12/16/25
61 Submit Draft Conceptual Design Report 0 days Tue 1/6/26 Tue 1/6/26
62 Stakeholder Meeting 0 days Tue 1/13/26 Tue 1/13/26
63 Review Period 30 days Tue 1/13/26 Mon 2/23/26
64 Comment Review Meeting 0 days Mon 2/23/26 Mon 2/23/26
65 Address City / Stakeholder Comments 20 days Tue 2/24/26 Mon 3/23/26
66 Meeting with Property Owners 0 days Mon 3/23/26 Mon 3/23/26
67 Submit Final Conceptual Design Report 0 days Tue 3/24/26 Tue 3/24/26
68 Transportation Committee Presentation 0 days Tue 4/7/26 Tue 4/7/26
Project NTP 8/6
Traffic Study NTP 8/6
Submit Draft Study Results to City 10/16
Comment Review Meeting 11/5
Submit Final Study Results to City 11/14
Lighting Study NTP 8/6
Lighting Study Kickoff Meeting w/City 8/11
Submit Draft Technical Memorandum to City 9/12
Comment Review Meeting 10/6
Submit Final Technical Memorandum to City 10/15
Pavement & Sidewalk Conditions Assessment NTP 8/6
Submit Draft Technical Memos & Costing 8/25
Comment Review Meeting 9/12
Submit Final Technical Memos & Costing 9/23
Intersection Control Evaluation NTP 9/16
Submit Draft ICE Report 11/21
Comment Review Meeting 12/12
Submit Final ICE Report 12/22
Corridor Study NTP 8/6
Submit Draft Conceptual Design Report 1/6
Stakeholder Meeting 1/13
Comment Review Meeting 2/23
Meeting with Property Owners 3/23
Submit Final Conceptual Design Report 3/24
Transportation Committee Presentation 4/7
M J J A S O N D J F M A M
Half 2, 2025 Half 1, 2026
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
City of Fayetteville
Joyce Boulevard SS4A Implementation Project - Phase 1
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
Project: Joyce Blvd SS4A Phase
Date: Thu 7/10/25
ATTACHMENT B
COMPENSATION
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
Transportation Planning and Engineering Services for
Joyce Boulevard SS4A Implementation Project – Phase 1
Time and Materials with Rate Schedule
I. Compensation
A.The Consultant shall be compensated in an amount not to exceed $287,000 for personnel
time, non-labor expenses, and subcontract expenses in performing services enumerated in
Appendix A as follows:
i.Personnel Time. Personnel time shall be compensated based upon hours worked
directly in performing the project multiplied by the appropriate Labor Category Rate for
the Consultant’s team member performing the work.
Labor Category Rate as presented in the rate schedule table below is the rate for each labor
category performing the work and includes all direct salaries, overhead, and profit.
Hourly Labor Rate Schedule
Classification Rate
Analyst I $145 - $175
Analyst II $185 - $220
Professional $215 - $250
Senior Professional I $265 - $345
Senior Professional II $360 - $430
Senior Technical Support $130 - $310
Technical Support $105 - $180
Support Staff $95 - $160
** Effective through June 30, 2026
Kimley-Horn will not exceed the total maximum labor fee shown without authorization from
the Client. However, Kimley-Horn reserves the right to reallocate amounts among tasks
as necessary.
ii.Non-Labor Expenses. Non-labor expenses shall be reimbursed as Direct Expenses at
invoice or internal office cost.
(1)Direct Expenses (non-labor) include, but are not limited to, mileage, travel and
lodging expenses, mail, supplies, printing and reproduction services, other direct
expenses associated with delivery of the work; plus applicable sales, use, value
added, business transfer, gross receipts, or other similar taxes.
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
iii.Subcontract Expenses. Subcontract expenses and outside services shall be
reimbursed at cost to Consultant plus a markup of ten percent (10%).
iv.Budgets. Consultant will make reasonable efforts to complete the work within the budget
and will keep the Client informed of progress toward that end so that the budget or work
effort can be adjusted if found necessary.
Consultant is not obligated to incur costs beyond the indicated budgets, as may be
adjusted, nor is the Client obligated to pay the Consultant beyond these limits.
If the Consultant projects, in the course of providing the necessary services, that the
project cost presented in this Agreement will be exceeded, whether by change in scope
of the project, increased costs or other conditions, the Consultant shall immediately
report such fact to the Client and, if so instructed by the Client, shall suspend all work
hereunder.
When any budget has been increased, the Consultant’s excess costs expended prior to
such increase will be allowable to the same extent as if such costs had been incurred
after the approved increase.
B.The Consultant shall be paid monthly payments as described in Section II - Method of
Payment.
II. Method of Payment
A.The Consultant shall be paid by the Client based upon an invoice created on the basis of
statements prepared from the books and records of account of the Consultant, based on the
actual hours and costs expended by the Consultant in performing the work.
B.Each invoice shall be verified as to its accuracy and compliance with the terms of this
Agreement by an officer of the ENGINEER.
C.Consultant shall prepare and submit invoices in the format and including content as agreed
upon with the Client.
D.Payment of invoices will be subject to certification by the Client that such work has been
performed.
III. Progress Reports
A.The Consultant shall prepare and submit to the designated representative monthly progress
reports and schedules in the format required by the City.
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
IV. Summary of Total Project Fees
Task Number & Name Hours Labor Expenses Subtotal
1 Project Administration 105 $21,200 $ 21,200
2A Traffic Study 101 $23,300 $ 23,300
2B Traffic Count Data Collection 10 $1,800 $ 20,200Subconsultant: The Traffic Group $18,400
3 Lighting Study 122 $22,400 $200 $ 22,600
4 Pavement and Sidewalk Conditions
Assessment 140 $28,400 $300 $ 28,700
5 Intersection Control Evaluation 385 $68,000 $200 $ 68,200
6A Corridor Study
(Excluding Public Engagement)345 $60,500 $ 60,500
6B Public Engagement 197 $37,300 $ 37,300
7 SMARTS $5,000 $ 5,000
Total:$ 287,000
See following section for task / hour fee breakdown. The labor categories are as follows:
Labor Categories
P7 – Senior Professional II
P6 – Senior Professional I
P5 – Senior Professional I (Senior Engineer)
P4 – Professional (Project Engineer)
P3 – Professional (Design Engineer)
P2 – Analyst (EIT II)
P1 – Analyst (EIT I)
N5 – Support Staff
B3 – Support Staff
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
V. Task / Hour Fee Breakdown
A.Task 1 – Project Management
Task Description P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 N5 Subtotal
1.1 RFI and Data Sourcing 1 5 2 8 16
1.2 Team Management (4 hours/month for 8 months)32 32
1.3 Communications and Reporting
Invoicing / Progress Reports 5 10 10 25
Project Schedule and Monthly Updates 4 8 12
1.4 Status Meetings
(16 bi-weekly meetings total)20 20
Subtotal:1 66 2 18 8 10 105
Task 1 Labor Subtotal: $ 21,200
Task 1 Expense Subtotal:$ 0
Task 1 Fee Total:$ 21,200
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
B. Task 2 – Traffic Study
Task Description P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 N5 Subtotal
Task 2A – Traffic Study
2A.1 Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment 8 8
2A.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis 8 8
2A.3 Thoroughfare Capacity Analysis 8 8
2A.4 Turn Lane Assessment 8 8
2A.5 Sight Distance Analysis 8 8
Field Evaluation 4 4 8
2A.6 Traffic Mitigation 4 4
2A.7 Review Traffic Signal Settings and Coordination 16 16
2A.8 Prepare Draft Study Results 14 14
Internal QC / QA 5 5
2A.9 Comment Review Meeting with City 1 1 2
2A.10 Address City Comments and Submit Final Study
Results 10 10
Internal QC / QA 2 2
Task 2A Subtotal:7 89 1 4 101
Task 2B –Traffic Count Data Collection
2B.1 Traffic Count Coordination 2 4
2B.2 Crash Data / Trends / Analysis 4
Task 2B Subtotal:2 8 10
Task 2 Subtotal:7 91 1 12 111
Task 2A Labor Subtotal: $ 23,300
Task 2A Expense Subtotal $ 0
Task 2A Fee Total:$ 23,300
Task 2B Labor Subtotal: $ 1,800
Task 2B Expense Subtotal:$ 25
Task 2B Subconsultant (The Traffic Group): $ 18,375
Task 2B Fee Total:$ 20,200
Page 6
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
C. Task 3 – Lighting Study
Task Description P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 N5 Subtotal
3.1 Lighting Study Kickoff Meeting 1 1 2
3.2 Field Evaluation 10 10 20
3.3 Photometric Analysis and Modeling 40 40
3.4 Prepare Draft Technical Memorandum 15 25 40
Internal QC / QA 4 4
3.5 Comment Review Meeting with City 1 1 2
3.6 Address City Comments and Submit Final
Lighting Study 2 5 5 12
Internal QC / QA 2 2
Subtotal:6 29 42 45 122
Task 3 Labor Subtotal: $ 22,400
Task 3 Expense Subtotal:$ 200
Task 3 Fee Total:$ 22,600
Page 7
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
D. Task 4 – Pavement and Sidewalk Conditions Assessment
Task Description P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 N5 Subtotal
4.1 Prepare Aerial Exhibits 8 8
4.2 Field Evaluation 20 20 40
4.3 Prepare Draft Technical Memorandum and
Costing 8 15 30 53
Internal QC / QA 6 6
4.4 Comment Review Meeting with City 1 1 2
4.5 Address City Comments and Submit Final
Technical Memorandum and Costing 5 7 15 27
Internal QC / QA 4 4
Subtotal:24 43 65 8 140
Task 4 Labor Subtotal: $ 28,400
Task 4 Expense Subtotal:$ 300
Task 4 Fee Total:$ 28,700
Page 8
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
E.Task 5 – Intersection Control Evaluation
Task Description P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 N5 Subtotal
5.1 Data Collection 10 10 20
5.2 Field Evaluation 5 5 10
5.3 Intersection Control Evaluation 20 60 80
Cap-X 15 15
Operational Analysis 40 40
Safety Performance SPICE 15 15
Opinions of Probable Construction Costs 20 20
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 15 15
5.4 Intersection Sketching (up to three intersections)10 20 60 90
Performance Check Package 20 60 80
Subtotal:30 5 110 240 385
Task 5 Labor Subtotal:$ 68,000
Task 5 Expense Subtotal:$200
Task 5 Fee Total:$68,200
Page 9
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
F.Task 6 – Corridor Study
Task Description P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 B3 Subtotal
Task 6A – Corridor Study
6A.1 Corridor Analysis 1 8 9
Flood Plain Impacts 1 4 2 7
Right-of-Way 2 2
6A.2 Corridor Alternative Schematics
Base Files 1 4 8 24 37
Concept 1 4 8 32 44
6A.3 Concept Revisions / Preferred / Hybrid
QC/ QA and Finalize 1 4 4 9
Phasing Development Narrative 2 16 8 26
6A.4 Prepare Draft Report 25 95 35 155
Internal QC / QA 8 8
6A.5 Comment Review Meeting with City
6A.6 Address City Comments and Submit Final
Report 12 28 4 44
Internal QC / QA 4 4
Task 6A Subtotal:18 79 16 193 39 345
Task 6B – Public Engagement
6B.1 Stakeholder Design Meeting 9 22 8 40 79
6B.2 Meeting with Property Owners 6 22 8 40 76
6B.3 Transportation Committee Meeting 4 10 8 20 42
Task 6B Subtotal:19 54 24 100 197
Task 6 Subtotal:
Task 6A Labor Subtotal: $ 60,500
Task 6A Expense Subtotal $ 0
Task 6A Fee Total:$ 60,500
Task 6B Labor Subtotal: $ 37,300
Task 6B Expense Subtotal:$ 0
Task 6B Fee Total:$ 37,300
Page 10
kimley-horn.com 805 South Walton Boulevard, Suite 520, Bentonville, AR 72712 479.974.1263
G. Task 7 - SMARTS
Task Description Expense Subtotal
7.1 Joyce Boulevard –1 Site $ 2,000
7.2 Remaining Sites –4 Total $ 3,000
Subtotal:$ 5,000
Task 7 Expense Subtotal:$5,000
Task 7 Fee Total:$5,000
MEETING OF AUGUST 5TH 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Chris Brown Public Works Director
Matt Mihalevich, Active Transportation Manager
FROM: Dane Eifling, Mobility Coordinator
DATE: 25 July, 2025
SUBJECT: Grant Award for Transit Stop Improvements
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a grant agreement with the Northwest Arkansas Regional
Planning Commission and recognizing revenue in the amount of $203,317.25 for transit stop
improvements and approval of a budget adjustment.
BACKGROUND:
Earlier this year, the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission (NWARPC)
announced a 1:1 matching grant opportunity to support transit stop enhancements in the region.
In June 2025, Mayor Rawn signed a letter committing the City of Fayetteville to collaborate with
Ozark Regional Transit and Razorback Transit to provide the matching funds required to secure
the grant.
In July, NWARPC issued a grant agreement awarding the City of Fayetteville $203,317.25. To
fulfill the required 1:1 match, Ozark Regional Transit and Razorback Transit have each
committed $50,829.31, for a combined contribution of $101,658.62. The City will match the
remaining $101,658.63.
Funding Summary
NWARPC Grant $ 203,317.25
City of Fayetteville $ 101,658.63
Ozark Regional Transit $ 50,829.31
Razorback Transit $ 50,829.31
Total $ 406,634.50
2
DISCUSSION:
The grant requires that at least 17 transit stops be improved by September 30, 2026. The total
project budget of $406,634.50 is expected to be sufficient to improve approximately 30 stops.
Planned enhancements include shelters, seating, ADA-accessible loading platforms, and
connections to existing sidewalks.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
The City’s 2026 budget includes $80,000 allocated for transit stop improvements. These funds
may be supplemented with cost-share contributions to fulfill the City’s matching grant obligation
of 101,658.63.
Attachments:
NWARPC Grant Agreement
ORT Letter
Razorback Transit Letter
Mayor’s Letter
Grant Agreement Between the Northwest Arkansas Regional
Planning Commission and the City of Fayetteville for the
Purchase and Installation of Bus Stop Improvements
This Grant Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of ____________,
2025, by and between the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission (NWARPC), a
governmental entity organized under Arkansas law with its principal office located at 1311
Clayton St, Springdale, Arkansas 72762, and the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal
corporation organized under Arkansas law, with its principal office located at 113 W. Mountain
Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 (the “City”).
I. Purpose
The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions under which NWARPC
shall provide grant funding to the City in the amount of Two Hundred Three Thousand, Three
Hundred Seventeen Dollars and Twenty-Five Cents ($203,317.25) for the implementation of bus
stop improvements within the City of Fayetteville, as further defined in this Agreement and
Appendix A.
II. Grant Award and Matching Requirement
NWARPC shall reimburse the City for eligible project costs up to a maximum amount of
$203,317.25, provided the City contributes an equal amount of matching funds to the project on a
1:1 basis. The total project cost shall not be less than $406,634.50.
III. Scope of Work
The grant funds shall be used solely for bus stop improvements at the locations and in the manner
described in Appendix A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. There shall be no
less than 17 bus stops improved. Eligible improvements include:
A. Infrastructure Improvements
- Installation or replacement of bus shelters
- Installation or replacement of benches
- Installation of concrete boarding pads
- Construction of curb bump-outs
B. Accessibility and Safety Enhancements
- Installation of ADA-compliant ramps
- Installation of lighting and solar panels
- Sidewalk improvements to connect stops to immediately adjacent infrastructure (within
approximately 20 feet)
C. Passenger Amenities
- Installation of wayfinding signage
- Installation or replacement of bike racks
- Landscaping or planters to improve stop aesthetics
VII. Project Completion Deadline
All improvements funded by this grant shall be installed no later than September 30, 2026.
VIII. Reimbursement Procedure
NWARPC shall reimburse the City upon:
- Completion of the improvements as described in Appendix A, and
- Submission of documentation evidencing completion and payment of eligible expenses,
including invoices, photos of installed improvements, and a project completion report.
- Documentation of the City’s matching expenditures.
Reimbursement shall be processed within 30 days of NWARPC’s approval of the final
documentation.
IX. Reporting and Oversight
The City agrees to:
- Notify NWARPC of any substantial changes in project scope or timeline
- Maintain adequate records of all expenditures and improvements
- Allow NWARPC or its designee to inspect the project sites upon reasonable notice
X. Termination
NWARPC reserves the right to terminate this Agreement and withhold or recover funds if the
City:
- Fails to complete the improvements by the deadline
- Misuses grant funds or fails to provide the required match
- Fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement
XI. Amendments
Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties.
XII. Miscellaneous
This Agreement represents the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject
matter herein and supersedes all prior agreements or understandings. It shall be governed by the
laws of the State of Arkansas.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written
above.
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
By: ______________________________________
Name: ____________________________________
Title: _____________________________________
Date: _____________________________________
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
By: ______________________________________
Name: ____________________________________
Title: _____________________________________
Date: _____________________________________
Appendix A – Bus Stop Improvement Locations and Description of
Improvements
Need from Fayetteville
7/25/2025
City Crew Projects From To Placement Type
Length
Feet
Width
Feet
Matrix Score
(28 Max)Ward Notes
Center St. Gregg Ave. School Ave.Both Sides Rep 920 8 26.3 2 Design in
Progress
Cleveland St.Leverett Ave. Whitham Ave. North Side New 300 6 25.3 2
Design in
Progress
Lewis Ave. Deane St.Wedington Dr. West Side New 1,370 6 23.8 2
Design in
Progress
S. Garland Ave. Boone St.Cato Springs Rd. West Side New 955 6 25.5 1
Design in
Progress
Shiloh Dr. Northwood Ave. Gregg Ave. North Side New 876 8 26.3 3
Design in
Progress
15th St. College Ave. Driveway South Side New 530 6 26.3 1
Design in
Progress
Mt. Comfort Rd.Hidden Creek Dr. Rupple Rd.North Side New 925 8 22.8 4
Design in
Progress
Totals 5,876
Contracted Projects From To Placement Type
Length
Feet
Width
Feet
Matrix Score
(28 Max)Ward Notes
MLK Jr. Blvd. (Walkability) Church Ave.Wood Ave. West Side New 1,370 6 23.8 1
TAP Funded
($500k)
Stearns St. Connect South of Stearns St. Vantage Ave.Both Sides New 300 6 25.3 3
Funded
($480k)
Old Missouri Rd.North of Cinnamon Way
Connect to Zion West Side Rep 1,860 10 26.5 3 Funding
Dependent
Huntsville Rd.Blair Ave. Morningside Dr.South Side New 480 10 25.3 1
Totals 2,340
Priority Crosswalk Enhancement Projects Crosswalk Type Type Ward
Notes
1 MLK Jr. Blvd at Willow Ave.RRFB New 1 Designed
2 Mall Ave.at Old Navy RRFB New 3 Ready
3 Appleby at Bob Younkin RRFB New 3 Ready
4 Rupple Rd.at Bronco RRFB New 1 FPS Install
5 Salem at Bentgrass RRFB New 4 Ready
6 North Street at Gregg Ave.Signalized New 2 Ramp
7 Township Street at Azalea Terr. RRFB New 3 Sidewalk
8 S. College Ave. South St. RRFB New 1 Designed
9 Old Wire Rd. Strawberry / Azalea RRFB New 3 Designed
Maintenance Projects from Service Requests Represents 50% of work time or 98 work days in 2025
Address Problem Address Problem
377 N. Rupple Rd.Damaged 2679 N. Whistle Post Dr Trip Hazard
1833 W. Osage Bend Damaged by Trees 2780 N. Surrey Xing Trip Hazard
2402 N. College Ave. Trip Hazard
Address Problem N Sang Ave. Maintenance
404 E. Center St. Trip Hazard 2313 W. Holly St. Damaged
649 E. Fairlane St. Damaged 2962 N. Williamsburg Ln. Damaged
1275 N. Gregg Ave. Trip Hazard 461 E. Spring St. Trip Hazard
207 E. Adobe St. Trip Hazard E. Cicero Ln Damaged
818 N. Sang Ave. Damaged 1653 River Meadows Dr. Damaged
3733 E. Natchez Trace Trip Hazard 2848 E. Picasso Pl. Trip Hazard
4017 N. Steele Blvd.Trip Hazard 275 S. Duncan Ave. Damaged
258 W. Miller St. Trip Hazard E. Leawood Way Damaged
3047 E. Fossil Dr. Trip Hazard 211 S. Block Ave. Damaged
2313 W. Holly St. Damaged 413 W. Center St. Damaged
E. Ash St.Trip Hazard 311 W. Ila St. Damaged
659 N. Cliffside Dr. Damaged 506 N. Vandeventer Ave. Damaged
1039 E. Bonnie Ln.Damaged 1215 N. Kings Dr.Trip Hazard
E. Mountain St. Trip Hazard 1903 N. Colony Way Damaged
1852 S. Harding Pl Trip Hazard 3115 E. Cherokee Dr. Damaged
7 Ash St. Maintenance 3687 E. Township St. Damaged
205 South St. Damaged 337 N. College Ave. Trip Hazard
205 W. Rock St. Damaged 1433 N. Crestwood Dr. Trip Hazard
2231 E. Tall Oaks Dr. Damaged 1506 N. Cannondale Dr Damaged
1143 N. Vista Pl.Maintenance 2029 W. Lawson St. Trip Hazard
233 W. Louise St. Trip Hazard S. Springlake Dr. Damaged
1985 N. College Ave.Damaged 2549 N. Fennchurch Way Damaged
2400 N. Hampton CT Damaged 2853 E. Brandon Cir Damaged
520 N. Washington Ave.Damaged 1343 E. Fairlane Damaged
Completed
In Process
2663 E. Meandering Way Trip Hazard
415 E. Spring St.Damaged
426 N. Limestone Dr.Damaged
Damaged
2155 E. Victoria Ln.Damaged
8548 W. Mesa St.Trip Hazard
N. Frontage Rd.Trip Hazard
2515 E. Lancer St.
1018 N. Canterbury Rd.
100 W. Louise St.
3503 W. Providence Dr.Damaged
Maintenance
2962 Williamsburg Ln.
Damaged
2025-2026 Proposed Sidewalk Construction Projects
2413 N. Robin Rd.
Address
Damaged
Problem
2408 N. Robin Rd.
Damaged
Trip Hazard
Priority 1 Priority 3
1351 N. Carriage Way Maintenance
1971 E. Harold St.Damaged
3722 E. Leawood Way Damaged
2853 E. Brandon Cir Damaged
2531 N. Norwich Ln.Trip Hazard
Priority 3 (Continued)
Priority 2
Damaged4518 W. Divide Dr.
2417 E. Lensfield Pl Damaged
25 W. Davidson St.Damaged
2452 E. Meandering Way Damaged
Superseg Desc & On Street From Street To Street
1830 - E 7TH ST S College Ave S Wood Ave
1690 - E 13TH ST W 13th St S College Ave
18010 - W 13TH ST E 13th St West End
18080 - W 22ND ST East End S School Ave
6450 - N 51ST AVE W Wedington Dr N Sunshine Rd WC 877
6651 - N APPLEBURY DR N Tanglebriar Ln N Tanglebriar Ln
1600 - ALLEY 850 W Douglas St W Caraway St
6630 - N ANNA PL South End E Rockwood Trl
1970 - E APPLEBURY DR E Hope St West End
18360 - W ASH ST N Woosley Ave N Gregg Ave
15060 - S BARTON AVE S Walker Rd E Huntsville Rd
18630 - W BEST WAY ST DS@131W S Laguna Loop S Futrall Dr
15270 - S BUTTERFIELD TRL North End South End
15290 - S CAMRON CIR North End W Kyle Dr
18830 - W CARAWAY ST Alley 850 N Storer Ave
18840 - W CARDWELL LN N Razorback Rd N Gray Ave
19001 - W CENTER ST N Duncan Ave S Harmon Ave
2590 - E CINNAMON WAY West End N Old Missouri Rd
N College Ave E Dickson St E North St
2650 - E COLT DR N Green Acres Rd East End
2670 - E COLUMBUS BLVD N Kings Dr N Eastwood Ave
2690 - E COLUMBUS PL E Columbus Blvd South End
8020 - N COUNTY AVE S County Ave E Meadow St
15580 - S COUNTY AVE N County Ave E Mountain St
19511 - W DICKSON ST N West Ave DS@216W N West Ave
2961 - E DOGWOOD LN E Missouri Way N Assembly Dr
8320 - N DOUBLE SPRINGS RD W Wedington Dr DS@664N W Wedington Dr
8511 - N EASTWOOD DR E Hope St E Mission Blvd
3050 - E ELM ST N Austin Dr N Juneway Ter
3130 - E EVALYN CIR S Emily Dr East End
9040 - N GARVIN DR W Center St W Hotz St
9270 - N GREGG AVE W Dickson St W Lafayette St
3580 - E HEATH DR West End E Rodgers Dr
3650 - E HOPE ST N Kings Dr N Lunsford Ave
20440 - W ILA ST N Park Ave N Vandeventer Ave
25290 - W ILA ST N Vandeventer Ave N Wilson Ave
10000 - N KENSINGTON CT N Warwick Dr North End
4020 - E LAFAYETTE ST N Fletcher Ave N Tanglewood Ave
20710 - W LAWSON ST N Woosley Ave N Gregg Ave
10410 - N LINDELL AVE W Cleveland St W Eagle St
20850 - W LOUISE ST East End N Park Ave
20860 - W LOUISE ST N Park Ave W Wilson St
10580 - N LYNNS PL South End W Deane St
4420 - E MCCLINTON ST S Wood Ave S Morningside Dr
21530 - W MOUNT COMFORT RD W North St N Garland Ave
21750 - W NEW BRIDGE RD East End N Sunshine Rd WC 877
4690 - E NORTH ST N College Ave N Hillcrest Ave
4700 - E NORTH ST N Hillcrest Ave E Lakefront Dr
4710 - E NORTH ST E Lakefront Dr E Lakeridge Dr
4720 - E NORTH ST E Lakeridge Dr N Mission Blvd
11120 - N OAK AVE W Wedington Dr W Cedar St
16820 - S OAK RD W Rutledge Ln W Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
2025 & 2026 PAVING PLAN
11180 - N OAKLAND AVE W Mount Comfort Rd W Lawson St
11190 - N OAKLAND AVE W Lawson St W Sycamore St
14810 - PUBLIC 2401 N Gregg Ave W Township St
22470 - W REAGAN ST N Gregg Ave Alley 624
22480 - W REAGAN ST Alley 624 N Arkansas Ave
12330 - N RUPPLE RD W Wedington Dr W Starry Night Vw
12360 - N RUPPLE RD W Albatross Loop N Best Friend Ln
12370 - N RUPPLE RD N Golf Club Dr W Congressional St
12540 - N SALEM RD W Wedington Dr DS@105N W Fairfax St
12760 - N SHADY AVE W Ila St W Louise St
12960 - N SHIPLEY ALY W Meadow St W Dickson St
5480 - E SOUTH ST S East Ave S College Ave
22920 - W SOUTH ST S East Ave S Nelson Hackett Blvd
5530 - E SPRING ST N East Ave N College Ave
23000 - W SPRING ST N School Ave N West Ave
11780 - N STEPHEN CARR MEMORIAL BLVD DS@729N W Deane St N Exit 65
11790 - N STEPHEN CARR MEMORIAL BLVD N Exit 65 S Ramp 65
11800 - N STEPHEN CARR MEMORIAL BLVD S Ramp 65 N Henbest Dr
13490 - N SUSAN CAROL LN E Bishop Dr E Cydnee St
13540 - N TARTAN WAY N Katherine Ave North End
23620 - W VAN ASCHE DR W Van Asche Loop N Steele Blvd
23630 - W VAN ASCHE DR N Steele Blvd N Gregg Ave
23640 - W VAN ASCHE DR N Gregg Ave DS@523E N Gregg Ave
13850 - N VANDEVENTER AVE W Ila St W Louise St
14040 - N VISTA PL W Wedington Dr W Holly St
21270 - W MEADOW ST N West Ave S Gregg Aly
24620 - E WILKINS PL West End N Old Missouri Rd
6260 - E WOODLAWN DR N Mission Blvd E Woodlawn Dr
14650 - N WOODLAWN DR E Rockwood Trl N Woodlawn Dr
14670 - N WOOLSEY AVE W Cleburn St W North St
Underway
Complete
11.75 MILES TOTAL $2,549,416.19
Rehab Text Length Area Unit Cost Total Cost
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 1327.3 3302.87 $14.75 $48,717.33
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 553.8 2261.36 $10.75 $24,309.62
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 528.9 1633.09 $10.75 $17,555.72
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 966.0 1352.40 $14.75 $19,947.90
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 657.7 1918.29 $10.75 $20,621.62
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 1066.8 2862.43 $10.75 $30,771.12
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 409.7 764.78 $14.75 $11,280.51
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 339.9 812.88 $10.75 $8,738.46
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 294.1 936.63 $14.75 $13,815.29
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 576.5 1821.89 $14.75 $26,872.88
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 522.7 858.61 $14.75 $12,664.50
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 488.7 1710.44 $14.75 $25,228.99
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 1083.8 2063.93 $10.75 $22,187.25
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 164.6 762.41 $14.75 $11,245.55
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 172.5 462.87 $10.75 $4,975.85
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 780.8 1380.92 $10.75 $14,844.89
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 348.5 1301.06 $14.75 $19,190.64
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 1030.8 3395.37 $14.75 $50,081.71
Newly added
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 314.0 1355.44 $10.75 $14,570.98
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 677.9 1846.94 $14.75 $27,242.37
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 420.1 1215.53 $14.75 $17,929.07
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 215.3 531.68 $14.75 $7,842.28
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 250.5 496.83 $14.75 $7,328.24
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 215.7 931.01 $10.75 $10,008.36
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 165.9 329.04 $14.75 $4,853.34
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 664.4 1937.84 $14.75 $28,583.14
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 691.2 2096.65 $14.75 $30,925.59
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 447.7 1358.02 $14.75 $20,030.80
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 203.4 927.85 $14.75 $13,685.79
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 641.0 1944.37 $14.75 $28,679.46
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 722.5 1854.10 $10.75 $19,931.58
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 290.5 1203.16 $14.75 $17,746.61
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 2118.3 6569.59 $14.75 $96,901.45
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 1045.2 3152.74 $10.75 $33,891.96
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 476.7 1445.99 $10.75 $15,544.39
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 218.8 765.80 $14.75 $11,295.55
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 745.6 1612.66 $14.75 $23,786.74
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 1318.7 2225.07 $10.75 $23,919.50
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 350.9 941.58 $10.75 $10,121.99
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 404.8 944.53 $14.75 $13,931.82
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 1256.1 4222.79 $14.75 $62,286.15
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 291.0 1127.53 $14.75 $16,631.07
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 1327.3 2830.68 $10.75 $30,429.81
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 955.9 3362.07 $14.75 $49,590.53
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 4606.6 14418.20 $10.75 $154,995.65
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 1035.1 3120.04 $14.75 $46,020.59
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 750.1 2242.21 $14.75 $33,072.60
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 511.5 1596.28 $14.75 $23,545.13
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 263.0 1073.91 $14.75 $15,840.17
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 489.9 1428.87 $14.75 $21,075.83
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 501.1 1286.16 $14.75 $18,970.86
2025 & 2026 PAVING PLAN
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 1492.1 3638.04 $14.75 $53,661.09
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 1069.8 2591.01 $14.75 $38,217.40
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 1405.0 4308.72 $14.75 $63,553.62
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 202.6 661.82 $14.75 $9,761.85
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 286.9 937.21 $14.75 $13,823.85
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 3674.3 17244.53 $14.75 $254,356.82
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 548.6 1216.06 $14.75 $17,936.89
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 1619.2 3588.97 $14.75 $52,937.31
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 3525.3 12514.09 $10.75 $134,526.47
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 643.7 1952.55 $10.75 $20,989.91
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 971.2 1812.91 $14.75 $26,740.42
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 518.6 1936.10 $14.75 $28,557.48
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 455.0 1433.25 $14.75 $21,140.44
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 513.8 1427.37 $14.75 $21,053.71
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 365.6 1343.73 $14.75 $19,820.02
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 214.2 774.26 $14.75 $11,420.34
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 853.6 4381.82 $14.75 $64,631.85
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 254.9 1605.64 $14.75 $23,683.19
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 512.2 1732.95 $14.75 $25,561.01
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 403.5 1365.18 $14.75 $20,136.41
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 708.3 2036.06 $10.75 $21,887.65
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 1958.1 8293.90 $10.75 $89,159.43
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 535.3 1686.20 $10.75 $18,126.65
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 328.0 880.14 $10.75 $9,461.51
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 677.6 2292.55 $14.75 $33,815.11
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 363.2 867.47 $14.75 $12,795.18
PCC Localized Rehab + SP 492.5 2258.14 $19.75 $44,598.27
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 470.9 1977.79 $10.75 $21,261.24
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 461.4 1399.58 $10.75 $15,045.49
EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 629.7 1796.37 $14.75 $26,496.46
11.75 MILES TOTAL $2,549,416.19
City of Fayetteville Maple Street
Improvements
Progress Photos
Transportation Committee
22 July 2025
2
Maple Street
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Leverett Ave.
11
12
13
Gregg Ave.
14
Funding Overview
Total cost: $10,943,640.00 million
Federal Funds: $7.5 million
Local Match: $8.5 million (25%)
City of Fayetteville $1.25 million
University of Arkansas $2.25 million
Thank you!
Public Works Department Engineering Division , CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE